This article was downloaded by: [Seton Hall University]On: 26 September 2014, At: 05:50Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

Theory & Research in SocialEducationPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/utrs20

How Secondary HistoryTeachers Use and Think AboutMuseums: Current Practicesand Untapped Promisefor Promoting HistoricalUnderstandingAlan S. Marcus a , Thomas H. Levine a & Robin S.Grenier aa University of ConnecticutPublished online: 12 Mar 2012.

To cite this article: Alan S. Marcus , Thomas H. Levine & Robin S. Grenier (2012)How Secondary History Teachers Use and Think About Museums: Current Practicesand Untapped Promise for Promoting Historical Understanding, Theory & Research inSocial Education, 40:1, 66-97, DOI: 10.1080/00933104.2012.649466

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2012.649466

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with

primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Seto

n H

all U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

50 2

6 Se

ptem

ber

2014

Theory & Research in Social Education, 40: 66–97, 2012Copyright © College and University Faculty Assembly of

National Council for the Social StudiesISSN 0093-3104 print / 2163-1654 onlineDOI: 10.1080/00933104.2012.649466

How Secondary History Teachers Use and ThinkAbout Museums: Current Practices and UntappedPromise for Promoting Historical Understanding

Alan S. Marcus, Thomas H. Levine, and Robin S. GrenierUniversity of Connecticut

Abstract: Museums have great potential to help secondary students develop a deepunderstanding of the past; however, we know little about what history teachers actuallydo or want to accomplish when they utilize museums. In this study, the authors draw onquestionnaire and interview data from 94 secondary history teachers in Connecticut inan effort to understand teachers’ objectives, practices, and dilemmas in using museums.The results indicate that while teachers value museums for their potential to promotehistorical understanding, a number of factors limit the quantity and quality of museumtrips, including cost, logistics, and teachers’ level of knowledge and skill related tomuseums. Many teachers view museums as authoritative and do not ask students toevaluate the way museums present the past, thus neglecting the potential of museumsto promote historical thinking. In addition, teachers implement practices to prepare stu-dents for museum visits; few, however, use follow-up activities or tap museums’ virtualand human resources to promote history learning in the classroom. Better professionalpreparation and ongoing professional development could position teachers to realize thepromise of museums to promote deep—and lifelong—learning of history.

Keywords: museum education, history education, field trips, historical thinking,teacher museum collaboration

Scholars and reformers hope that secondary students’ history courses willhelp them acquire a deep understanding of the past and habits of mind usefulin the present and future. The study of history can develop students’ abilityto empathize with those living in very different times and cultures, promote

Correspondence should be sent to Alan S. Marcus, Neag School of Education,University of Connecticut, 249 Glenbrook Road U-2033, Storrs, CT 06269-2033.Email: alan.marcus@uconn.edu

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Seto

n H

all U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

50 2

6 Se

ptem

ber

2014

History Teachers and Museums 67

the skill and inclination to critically interrogate individual sources, and buildstudents’ capacity to seek out and synthesize alternate viewpoints. Significantresearch in the past 20 years explains how students develop such aspects ofhistorical thinking in the classroom through a variety of mediums and methods(e.g., Barton & Levstik, 2004; Seixas, 2006; VanSledright & Brophy, 1997;Wineburg, 2001). There is a gap, however, in our understanding of how muse-ums can contribute to such development. This is unfortunate because museumsare ideally situated to provide physical, human, and virtual resources thatcould help teachers and students develop critical perspectives on, and deepunderstanding of, the past.

Each year, teachers around the United States take thousands of students tovisit history museums.1 However, we know surprisingly little about teachers’objectives for these visits, or their pedagogical practices before, during, andafter the visits (Noel & Colopy, 2006). For example, when teachers bring stu-dents to museums, what are their goals, and what activities do they use before,during, and after visits to achieve these goals? How, and how often, do teach-ers use museums’ artifacts, displays, physical space, and virtual resources, andhow do they collaborate with museum’s professional staff? How do teachersthink about their work with museum staff, websites, and curricula? What moredo teachers want from museums that they do not currently receive? This articleaddresses these questions, reporting data from a larger study of history teach-ers’ and history museum educators’ practices and beliefs relevant to helpingstudents learn from museums. We report here on Connecticut secondary his-tory teachers’ practices and beliefs regarding the uses of museum resources toteach history.

Our findings suggest that secondary history teachers strongly support theincorporation of field trips to history museums into their curriculum, but theyare often unable to overcome the hurdles to actually take many—or any—trips.Teachers in our sample already engage in some practices for preparing studentsto take trips to museums and helping them learn during museum visits; follow-up activities are less common, and most teachers make limited or no use ofopportunities to bring museum educators into their school classrooms. Manyteachers view museums as authoritative and do not ask students to evaluate theway museums present the past, thus neglecting the potential of museums topromote historical thinking.

In this article, we first develop these findings in ways that add contextfor past and future research and can inform practitioners in museums andschools. We then use our data to consider how museums have untapped promisefor doing even more to promote historical understanding. We offer implica-tions for preservice and in-service professional development, and propose thatincreased and more effective collaboration between teachers and museum staffcan promote deeper learning while students are in traditional classrooms, eitherwith or without physical visits to museums. We conclude by arguing that thecontent of preservice teacher preparation, in-service professional development,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Seto

n H

all U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

50 2

6 Se

ptem

ber

2014

68 Marcus et al.

and collaboration with museum staff should help teachers and students todevelop habits of inquiry and critical thinking while considering the deci-sions, tensions, and dilemmas inherent in history museums’ depictions of thepast.

MUSEUMS AND HISTORY EDUCATION

Museum visits offer secondary teachers and their students uniqueresources and perspectives that complement classroom activities. Such visitsalso prepare students for a lifetime of meaningful museum going and his-tory learning. Museum visits can expand students’ content knowledge, offera more sensory learning experience, and develop their historical thinking skills(Marcus, 2007).

We posit that museums offer three kinds of resources that could supportstudents’ historical understanding: museum-based resources, museum staff,and virtual resources. Specifically, these resources promote what we see asdesirable outcomes of history education, including the development of histor-ical empathy, the ability to critically analyze sources, and the capacity to askquestions and seek out alternative points of view.

Museum-Based Physical Resources

Museums have resources that are only available at the site of the museum.History museums’ artifacts, exhibitions, living history interpreters, recreatedhistorical settings, and other materials can create experiences for teachers andstudents that complement the school curriculum (Lenoir & Laforest, 1986)and make history come alive. Leaving the school to visit a museum or his-toric site allows students the opportunity to engage with a combination ofartifacts, ambience, narratives, and other re-creations of the past; this combi-nation is difficult to recreate in the classroom. Experiencing this combinationof resources through all of the senses during a visit to a museum may be par-ticularly powerful for developing historical empathy in that the past may lookless like an incomprehensible “foreign country” (Lowenthal, 1999) when oneis surrounded by a recreation of it or elements of it. Students may also be moreinspired to engage in critical thinking about primary sources or larger inter-pretations of history when they are confronted by both in museums. Finally,museums create the potential to interrogate historical interpretations by look-ing critically at how individual museums choose to present and interpret thepast. However, the potential contribution of museums to the history educationof students is largely dependent on the practices of teachers and museum staff.Understanding teachers’ practices and beliefs may make it possible to improvestudent learning from museums.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Seto

n H

all U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

50 2

6 Se

ptem

ber

2014

History Teachers and Museums 69

Museum Staff

Beyond the site-based physical resources of a museum, and the interpreterswho only interact with teachers and students during a visit, museums hireprofessional staff with deep expertise in a specific area. These professionalsfrequently collaborate with teachers to plan museum visits, improve curric-ula, conduct professional development for teachers on or off site, and leador co-teach lessons in schools; they can also support teachers’ understandingof history and of museums as interpretive enterprises. An important charac-teristic of effective museum education is collaboration between schools andmuseums (Marcus, 2008). Although there are a number of good models ofcollaboration,2 the boundaries that exist between museum staff and classroomteachers “need to be crossed from both sides” (Griffin, 2004, p. S65). Thecollaboration between the professionals working at these two important enti-ties can extend beyond their work during the one-day museum visit. Museumeducators can work with teachers at museums or in schools to provide profes-sional development, to help plan or revise curricula, and to teach or co-teachin classrooms, ultimately improving students’ learning experiences (Griffin,2004).

Virtual Resources

In addition to museum-based resources and professional staff, many muse-ums provide online resources such as primary and secondary documents, lessonplans, field trip planning information, and virtual field trips. Museum websitesprovide opportunities to “visit” the museum or integrate museum resourcesinto classroom lessons when a field trip is not financially feasible, allowed byadministrators, or geographically convenient. Online resources are a relativelynew development in museum education, but they offer a potentially importantconnection between history classrooms and museums (Sheppard, 2007).

In sum, most museums offer location-based, human, and virtual resourcesthat can support students’ acquisition of deeper historical understanding andhabits of historical thinking. Yet questions remain. How often and in whatways are teachers accessing these kinds of resources? What do teachers wantor need to more effectively use museums to teach history? To address thesequestions, we first review existing research on the functions of museums,learning at museums, and related scholarship, and clarify how our study con-tributes to this broader scholarship. After describing our methods, we presentdescriptive findings regarding history teachers’ practices and beliefs relevantto museums. We then draw on these findings to present implications for howwe might help history teachers and students gain more from their museumexperiences.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Seto

n H

all U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

50 2

6 Se

ptem

ber

2014

70 Marcus et al.

LITERATURE REVIEW

There is a vast body of literature that explores museum education and,to a lesser degree, history museums. However, there is practically no scholar-ship that focuses exclusively and comprehensively on K–12 teacher practiceswith history museums or on K–12 student learning at history museums. Theliterature review that follows provides a summary of key scholarship related tomuseum education, including the purposes and functions of museums, theoriesof learning at museums, practices with K–12 students at museums, collabo-ration between teachers and museum staff, and teacher education related tomuseums.

The Purposes and Functions of Museums

Historically, museums have played an important role in preserving localand national narratives and in educating the masses. The underlying goals ofthe public museum in the Western world were also, however, to maintain cul-tural reproduction and social order as nations industrialized and diversified inpopulation and economy (Hooper-Greenhill, 2000). Museums were a way ofhelping the nation to prosper and modernize while also maintaining the sta-tus quo and helping new immigrants assimilate. Museums contribute to theretelling of the country’s past through the preservation and interpretation ofartifacts. These contributions are important to our heritage, but also presentnumerous challenges.

Over the past few decades, the purposes of museums have evolved. First,the narratives museums told were dominated by the contributions of Whitemales and were nationalistic in tone. More recently, the stories of previ-ously marginalized groups have been incorporated into museums (e.g., PlimothPlantation) or told in their own museums (e.g., Smithsonian’s American IndianMuseum and African American History and Culture Museum). Second, thepurpose of museums has shifted from one of inward growth and a focus onthe study of one’s own collections, to one of outward growth and public edu-cation (Weil, 1999). However, this transition in museums’ purpose comes asthey continue to face the challenge of reexamining “some of the most fun-damental assumptions they hold about what they do and how they do it”(Skramstad, 1999, p. 109). One challenge faced by museum directors and staffin considering the purposes of museums is in shifting from a “protector of euro-centric heritage to its current role as a broker of identity” (Trofanenko, 2006,p. 49).

It is a widely held belief that modern museums are centers of cultural,educational, and civic community that act as gathering places with a commonrole as educational institutions (Pittman, 1999). Museums are public spacesthat present and promote ideas that educate and rouse visitors to think and to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Seto

n H

all U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

50 2

6 Se

ptem

ber

2014

History Teachers and Museums 71

take action (Gurian, 1999), and thus have the potential to assume a role as aninfluential institution that can reform American education (Skramstad, 1999).

In sum, museums are public spaces presenting historical narratives that areshaped by society while also influencing society. The purposes of museums,like the purposes of history, can be contested, or can reflect conflicting goalslike buttressing national pride and national identity versus exploring darkerepisodes and multiple perspectives. Thus, it seems reasonable to view muse-ums as one more place where history students might develop ideas, beliefs,and attitudes about public spaces (Nespor, 2000), about the multiple agendasor purposes that can influence how citizens think about their world, and abouttheir own right and ability to enter into civic engagement. Rather than look-ing at museums from the point of view of those who run museums, we offerthe complimentary perspective of K–12 teachers, and seek to understand theirpurposes for bringing history students to museums.

Theories of Learning at Museums

Over the last century, education has become a more important focus forU.S. museums (Allmon, 1994; American Association of Museums, 1992), witha significant emphasis placed on the learning needs and interests of schoolchil-dren. This study builds on and contributes to portions of this work whileseeking to inform social studies research and practice.

Factors affecting learning in museums. Some researchers have exploredlearning in museums without a focus on history, without an emphasis onK–12 students, and without pedagogical examples (e.g., Falk & Dierking,2000; Hooper-Greenhill, 2007; Leinhardt, Crowley, & Knutson 2002). Thesestudies emphasize that visitors’ learning is strongly influenced by how oftenthey visit, whether museums reinforce prior knowledge (Falk, 1999), interac-tions at the museum within their social group, the degree of control and choicea visitor has, museum guides and cultural affinity (Falk, 2004), and the physicalsetting (Maxwell & Evans, 2002), among other factors.

Factors affecting K–12 student learning in museums. When scholarshipfocuses on museum education for K–12 students, the authors usually discussscience museums and write primarily for museum educators rather than teach-ers (e.g., McRainey & Russick, 2010). Findings from these studies, however,have implications for teacher practices to promote student learning at historymuseums.

Pre-visit planning and activities. Griffin (2004) found that student learn-ing at museums is influenced by students’ prior knowledge, the preparationby the classroom teacher prior to the visit, and the orientation received at the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Seto

n H

all U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

50 2

6 Se

ptem

ber

2014

72 Marcus et al.

museum. Griffin and Symington (1997) found that student learning is oftenlimited by teachers’ poorly defined goals and lack of pre-visit activities; lessthan half of the teachers surveyed connected a museum trip to their classroomcurriculum. Similarly, Tuckey (1992) found that most teachers did little to nopreparation with students prior to a museum visit, and Kisiel (2006) found thatteachers had undefined plans for a museum visit, “. . . having only thoughtabout their plan of action during the bus ride or upon entry to the museum thatmorning’’ (p. 12). Yet multiple studies suggest that preparation for a museumvisit and follow-up activities provide optimal learning experiences for students(Bitgood, 1994; Falk & Dierking, 1992; Orion & Hofstein, 1994). And, Kisiel’s(2006) study determined that student learning at museums is positively influ-enced by teachers who have a specific purpose for a museum visit, are familiarwith the museum, connect the visit to classroom content, and are involved inthe museum visit activities. In sum, what students bring to a museum in termsof prior experience, understanding, and learning strongly determines what theydo, talk about, and take away from their visit (D. Anderson, Piscitelli, Weier,Everett, & Tayler, 2002; Falk, 2006; Falk, Moussouri, & Coulson, 1998; Packer& Ballantyne, 2002).

During-visit activities. Research also sheds light on the kinds of activi-ties that may promote K–12 student learning while visiting museums. Somechoice by students about what to see and do while at the museum can sup-port meaningful learning objectives (Falk, 2004). However, Bamberger and Tal(2006) found that while some choice may be beneficial, a blended strategythat allows students to move around on their own (limited choice), but witha specific guided activity, results in more meaningful learning. Stavrova andUrhahne (2010) report that students show higher levels of interest and moti-vation on a museum visit when they are actively involved with group workand other participatory activities. Finally, Kisiel (2003) observed that visits tomuseums are more effective when there is a specific purpose, when there isan explicit connection to the classroom curriculum, and when the teacher isinvolved.

On the other hand, when teachers or museum educators impose teachingstrategies that mirror those from a formal learning setting like the classroom ina more informal learning environment like a museum, it can dampen learning(Griffin, 2004; Olson, 1999). In addition, traditional classroom worksheets canlower student motivation to learn (Griffin, 2004).

Post-visit activities. Similar to pre-visit activities, research demonstratesthat post-visit activities are necessary in order to maximize learning experi-ences for students (Bitgood, 1994; Falk & Dierking, 1992; Orion & Hofstein,1994).

In sum, research that focuses on learning in museums suggests the impor-tance of teacher practices for maximizing learning from museums, and points

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Seto

n H

all U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

50 2

6 Se

ptem

ber

2014

History Teachers and Museums 73

more specifically to the importance of setting purposes and planning pre-, dur-ing, and post-activities that integrate museum learning with school learning.Research also indicates the importance of using museums for their uniqueresources and opportunities rather than trying to recreate the kinds of formalpedagogies of the school in a museum visit. Our study seeks to build on theseinsights, shedding more light on teachers’ wisdom of practice, their practicalinsights and beliefs about effective practices, and the degree to which they planpre-, during, and post-visit activities.

Collaboration Between Museum Educators and Teachers

Research has also pointed to the importance of the relationships betweenteachers and museum staff for successful school visits, and suggests thatsuch collaboration is often underdeveloped (Marcus, 2008). Traditionally,museums were viewed as the “teachers” and the visitors were the learners(Skramstad, 1999). However, both school teachers and museum staff areimportant stakeholders who can learn from each other and support eachother’s work. Despite a number of successful and exemplary school-museumcollaborations, most teachers, and thus their students, are only informallyconnected to museums, missing out on the potential benefits to schools andmuseums. Efforts to improve museum education for K–12 students requireboth teachers and museum staff to bridge their communication and collabora-tion gap (Griffin, 2004). Lynn Uyen Tran (2006) reports that there is a need forclarity of teacher and museum staff roles and responsibilities during museumvisits. Collaboration between these two groups can directly address roles andresponsibilities so each knows what to expect from the other. Connectednessinvolving a continuous dialogue between museums and their audience, inthis case teachers, is important for a museum’s success. There must not onlybe the traditional outreach of museums into the education community, but areinvigorated and sustained “inreach” (the education community reaching outto the museum community; Skramstad, 1999, p. 115). Meaningful museum-school collaboration can provide opportunities to make students’ learning“more meaningful, more connected and therefore more permanent” (McLeod& Kilpatrick, 2001, p. 62).

Teacher Education and Museums

Another key issue is the lack of preservice and in-service training forteachers. Most teachers have expansive content knowledge in their spe-cialty and an expertise in formal pedagogy; many teachers have a morelimited knowledge of a museum’s specific content focus and may have min-imal training or expertise about how to successfully support and incorporate

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Seto

n H

all U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

50 2

6 Se

ptem

ber

2014

74 Marcus et al.

museum visits into their instruction. James Kisiel (2003) suggests that teach-ers’ approaches to museum field trips are comparable to inexperienced teachersin the classroom, and thus we should consider teachers in museums as “wellintentioned novices” who often base their activities with students on their ownexperiences as students. This apprenticeship of observation (Lortie, 1975) canonly be overcome with effective professional development. Preservice train-ing of teachers for museum visits may be particularly effective (Kisiel, 2003).There is some evidence to suggest that training has a positive impact onpreservice teachers’ practices with students as well as their attitudes towardmuseum visits. Wunder (2002) found that preservice elementary teachers whoworked with students in a history museum began to realize that student learn-ing is directly connected to how activities during museum visits are structured,as well as the importance of follow-up activities in the classroom. Cox andBarrow (2000) report that elementary preservice teachers who worked at achildren’s museum gained confidence in working with museum artifacts andwere more likely to develop sustained relationships with museum staff. Theybelieve preservice teachers can safely experiment with new ideas and practicesmore easily than in-service teachers. In-service as well as preservice teachersbenefit from explicit training. Smith, McLaughlin, and Tunnicliffe (1998) com-pared trained and untrained teachers who accompanied their students on a zoofield trip and found that students with trained teachers learned more from theexperience.

Summary

In sum, based on existing research, we suggest that teacher’s practicesand beliefs—shaped by their teacher education and collaboration with museumstaff—will impact students’ opportunities to learn from museums. The datafrom this study provide a starting point for assessing and improving current pat-terns of teacher practice related to using museums and working with museumstaff. Although there has been considerable effort to analyze and evaluate howmuseums present and represent the past, there is very little scholarship aboutthe beliefs and practices of secondary history teachers focused on history muse-ums and the potential impact of teachers’ beliefs and practices on studentlearning. We seek to build on the literature by identifying promising contribu-tors to student learning in museums while adding data from the subject area ofhistory and from teachers’ point of view. We describe secondary history teach-ers’ patterns of practice and belief related to using museums to promote historylearning, and thus address an understudied area in research on museum learn-ing. Finally, we use these descriptive findings to make recommendations forsocial studies scholars and teacher educators interested in preparing preserviceand in-service teachers to capitalize on museums’ potential to promote historylearning.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Seto

n H

all U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

50 2

6 Se

ptem

ber

2014

History Teachers and Museums 75

METHODS

Data from this study are drawn from a larger study exploring secondaryhistory teachers’ and museum educators’ practices and beliefs relevant to his-tory learning in museums. We conducted an online survey of secondary historyteachers and museum professionals followed by interviews with a small num-ber of participants from each group. For the purposes of this article, we drawfrom the data collected from teachers in 2008.

Participants

Teacher participants included 94 secondary history teachers (grades7–12) from public schools in Connecticut; the location of participants’ schoolswas roughly representative of the distribution of the state’s population (i.e.,more schools were represented in the more populated areas, and fewer in theless populated areas). The participants ranged in teaching experience from1–37 years, with a mean of 7.7 years (see Table 1 for further demographicdata).

We contacted teachers through two means. First, we asked the Board ofDirectors for the state social studies organization (affiliate of the NationalCouncil for the Social Studies, 25 practicing teachers from all over the state)to send the survey request to their colleagues, thereby reaching 125 teachers.Second, we contacted the directors of three Teaching American History Grantsfrom three different parts of the state, asking them to send the questionnaireto their teachers, thus reaching another 120 teachers. We purposefully selectedthese groups because we felt they would have access to teachers more likely tohave engaged with museums, either virtually or through field trips.

By the very nature of the groups we contacted, the teachers in our sam-ple are likely to be more engaged in professional activities and perhaps morewilling to move beyond traditional classroom activities. Because our primary

Table 1. Teacher Participant Demographics (Questionnaire)a

N %

Grade Level Currently Teaching:7–8 14 159–12 80 85

School Location:Urban 37 39Suburban 43 46Rural 14 15

Has previously taken students to a museum 82 87

aN = 94.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Seto

n H

all U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

50 2

6 Se

ptem

ber

2014

76 Marcus et al.

purpose was to find out how teachers use museums and not whether they usethem, our sample matched our purpose. Our response rate was 38%, some-what lower than what we would have preferred, but given that the study isexploratory in nature, we opted not to contact non-respondents a second time.

The questionnaire included an item asking teachers if they were willing tobe interviewed. Fifty teachers consented. From those original participants whoconsented, 12 teachers were purposefully selected (Patton, 2002) to participatein interviews. Our selection of interviewees was designed to achieve diversityin geographic location, school setting (urban, suburban, rural), and teachers’years of experience.

Data Collection

The questionnaire included items designed to assess teachers’ attitudesand beliefs about museums as representations of the past and about museumsas places of learning for students. In addition, items on the questionnaire askedabout teachers’ attitudes and beliefs about classroom-based history instructionand about their knowledge of how museums function. Finally, the question-naire included items about collaboration with museum staff, about museumvisits with students (where, when, how often), about what resources they useto support museum visits, and about the pre-, during, and post-visit activitiesand lessons they do with students.

Approximately one-hour long interviews using a semi-structured proto-col were conducted with 12 teachers who completed the questionnaire inorder to gain an in-depth understanding of how participants perceive thevalue of museums in the support of students’ learning and how teachers andmuseum educators collaborate in order to support student learning (see theAppendix for the interview protocol).3 All interviews were digitally recordedand transcribed.

Both the questionnaire and interview were piloted with teachers andmuseum professionals from neighboring states. Minor adjustments were madebased on feedback from the participants as well as an examination of the datacollected.

Data Analysis

Questionnaire data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, primarilymeans and frequencies. Comparisons were drawn between the practices andbeliefs of teachers. Data for teachers who have never taken students on a fieldtrip (n = 12) are not included for questions that ask about practices on fieldtrips.

We employed an inductive approach to analyzing the responses to theopen-ended questionnaire items and the interview data. This approach allowed

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Seto

n H

all U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

50 2

6 Se

ptem

ber

2014

History Teachers and Museums 77

us to note recurring patterns and themes (Ruona, 2005; Strauss & Corbin,1998; Thomas, 2006). Salient themes and patterns were identified (Glesne,1999; Patton, 2002) through the use of constant comparative analysis (Glaser& Strauss, 1967). Specifically, we read through the interviews and the open-ended questionnaire responses and coded the data independently and then metto reach agreement on codes. As part of this process we invited a social studieseducation colleague to review our coding of the data. His feedback confirmedthe validity of the codes. We returned to the data to develop categories (e.g.,attitudes about museums, collaboration with museum staff, activities with stu-dents on museum visits) and subcategories (e.g., collaboration with museumstaff about logistics, collaboration with museum staff to plan activities) inde-pendently before meeting again to compare our coding of data. We thenorganized categories into themes related to teachers’ beliefs and teachers’ prac-tices. To increase reliability and dependability, triangulation of data collectionmethods (questionnaire and interview) was used to cross-validate the data,improve accuracy, and comment on the plausibility of the findings (Denzin,1978). After analysis began, we went back to look within interviews for datato confirm or refute our emerging findings and then compare responses acrossall interviews. In doing so, viewpoints and experiences of individuals couldbe examined and checked against others, resulting in a richer picture of theteachers’ responses based on the contributions of a range of participant data(Shenton, 2004). The use of mixed methods also provided us the opportunityto examine our questionnaire data in light of the qualitative interviews; to addrich, thick description to the response items; and to determine if quantitativefindings conflicted with emerging qualitative findings.

TEACHERS’ USE OF MUSEUM-BASED RESOURCES

This section presents descriptive findings regarding how teachers usemuseums; later, the discussion section draws on these findings to describe whatmore teachers could do to develop students’ historical understanding throughmuseum visits. Teachers in our study held very positive attitudes about visitingmuseums, but reported several factors that prevent them from visiting muse-ums often or at all. Teachers reported that they do more to prepare students fora museum visit than they do after a visit, and that museum staff are primarilyresponsible for activities at the museum. Finally, teachers revealed that theyrarely ask students to critically evaluate how the past is presented at museums.

Teachers Value Museum Visits for Developing Historical Understanding

Secondary history teachers in Connecticut reported very positive atti-tudes about the potential value of history museums to contribute to students’

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Seto

n H

all U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

50 2

6 Se

ptem

ber

2014

78 Marcus et al.

understanding of the past, and they value museums as a means of promotingaspects of historical thinking even more highly than as a means of teachingspecific content. As indicated in Table 2, teachers believe that museum visitsshould be part of the secondary curriculum.

Teachers reported very positive attitudes toward the potential value ofhistory museums to contribute to students’ understanding of the past.

Data from the questionnaires suggest that developing aspects of students’historical thinking is an even more important goal for most teachers’ museumvisits than is teaching specific content (see Table 3).

In interviews, teachers elaborated on why they took students to museums.They emphasized how museums can offer distinctive, evocative experiencesthat bring the past alive, linking events and objects of the past with classroomcontent. All 12 teachers interviewed expressed this belief. For example, eachteacher made some reference to the experiential learning that happens “whenyou’re actually there” and students “can live it and breathe it.” One teachercommented that “there’s something to being there, physically looking at a

Table 2. Teacher Attitudes Toward Museums

Statementa Mb SD

Museums should be used to increase students’ understandingof the past.

5.49 .52

Museums visits should be part of the history curriculum inmiddle/high school.

5.29 .86

Students learn about history when we go on field trips tomuseums.

5.24 .66

a1 = Strongly disagree to 6 = strongly agree. bN = 94.

Table 3. Teacher Beliefs About Museums

Statementa Mb SD

I take my students to museums to help bring the past alivefor them.

5.33 .71

I take my students to museums to develop their historicalempathy.

5.18 .85

I take my students to museums to help them connect the pastand the present.

5.14 .83

I take my students to museums so they can interpret evidenceabout the past.

5.13 .75

I take my students to museums to expose them to multipleperspectives about the past.

4.90 1.00

I take my students to museums to learn specific content. 4.67 .89

a1 = Strongly disagree to 6 = strongly agree. bN = 82.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Seto

n H

all U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

50 2

6 Se

ptem

ber

2014

History Teachers and Museums 79

painting, or being at a reenactment site.” Another agreed, stating, “I think thegreatest value [of museums] is for kids to see that it’s real. To see artifacts,to see the material . . . once they’ve seen material it hits them in a way that apicture doesn’t. It’s a different kind of connection they make to the object.”

Costs, Logistics, and Other Factors Limit Trips to Museums

Teachers reported taking a limited number of field trips to history muse-ums. On the questionnaire, teachers slightly disagreed with the followingstatement: “The number of field trips I take with students each year is ade-quate for meeting my learning goals with students.” As shown in Table 4, 60%of the teachers took students on a field trip the previous year, though few enactmultiple visits. There were no statistically significant differences in the numberof trips taken or planned between teachers with different years of experienceor by the type of school where teachers work. Participants from urban districtstook trips at similar rates as their colleagues in suburban and rural districts.Newer teachers (0–5 years of experience) with less experience planning tripactivities and dealing with field trip paperwork took trips at similar rates astheir more experienced colleagues.

Cost and logistical hurdles. The primary barriers that prevent teachersfrom taking more trips to museums are money and logistics. Eighty-four teach-ers offered open-ended responses to the questionnaire item “How do you makedecisions regarding which field trips to take and which places to visit?” Thirty-eight said money was a key factor in how they made decisions. Another 23 ofthe 84 teachers reported that non-monetary issues, particularly district supportor lack of support, are important in their decision making about museum trips.

Table 4. Number of Trips Taken to or Planned for History Museums

Number of tripstaken five yearsago

% ofteachersa

Number oftrips takenduring the2007–2008school year

% ofteachersb

Number of tripsplanned for2008–2009

% ofteachersc

0 21 0 40 0 261 26 1 32 1 222 29 2 13 2 283 14 3 11 3 124 6 4 2 4 55+ 4 5+ 2 5+ 8

an = 55. bn = 94. cn = 94.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Seto

n H

all U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

50 2

6 Se

ptem

ber

2014

80 Marcus et al.

Teacher’s current level of knowledge and skill in using museums. Anotherfactor that may contribute to the disconnect between a belief in the value ofmuseums and the number of trips actually taken is teachers’ prior training.Teachers only slightly agreed that they were satisfied with their ability to planeffective activities for field trips to museums (4.17/6, 1 = strongly disagree to6 = strongly agree). In some cases, teachers were unfamiliar with the museums,or more specifically, with what those museums offer and how those offeringstie into social studies curricula. Teachers also reported they were not neces-sarily well prepared through preservice training to support field trip visits.They slightly disagreed with the statement: “I learned strategies for effectivefield trips in my teacher preparation program” (3.08/6, 1 = strongly disagreeto 6 = strongly agree).

Teachers Use a Variety of Activities During Field Trips, Often IncludePre-Trip Activities, and Less Often Design Post-Trip Activities

Pre-field trip activities reported by teachers. As indicated in Table 5, themost common form of preparation used by teachers for a field trip to a his-tory museum was to hold a class discussion. Teachers reported “rarely” usingmuseum-created lesson plans as preparation and almost never had museumstaff visit their classroom in preparation for a field trip.

Teachers’ pre-field trip practices appear to be classroom practices onemight expect to find—or at least hope to find—in a social studies classroom(i.e., discussion, readings, and looking at primary sources). There is no pre-tripactivity that emerges as dominant, and teachers seem more likely to keep theirpreparation in-house rather than rely on museum materials and staff. Moreover,

Table 5. Pre-Visit Activities With Field Trips

Question: “How often do . . .”a Mb SD

You hold a class discussion as preparation for a field trip? 3.90 1.38Students complete reading assignments as preparation for a

field trip?3.60 1.22

Students review primary source documents as preparationfor a field trip?

3.42 1.23

Students view a film as preparation for a field trip? 2.88 1.16Students conduct research in preparation for a field trip? 2.83 1.16Students visit a museum’s website as preparation for a field

trip?2.68 1.29

You prepare for a field trip using lessons developed by thatmuseum?

2.26 1.06

Museum staff visit your classroom prior to a field trip? 1.20 .59

a1 = Never to 5 = always. bN = 82.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Seto

n H

all U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

50 2

6 Se

ptem

ber

2014

History Teachers and Museums 81

as 6 of the 12 teachers interviewed described, class preparation for a museumvisit focuses less on the content and more on proper behavior and etiquetteexpected of students. One teacher stated,

I definitely talk to the kids about how I want them to behave in public.You know, I tell them they’re representatives of our school, and it’s areflection of me, and I mean I would be really embarrassed if they didsomething stupid.

Despite some teachers focusing exclusively on behavior as preparation fora museum visit without an academic component, it does appear that manyteachers who participated in our study are very thoughtful in their academicpre-visit preparation of students. One teacher, for example, had students readdiary accounts of those on the Mayflower before visiting Plimoth Plantation.After interviewing re-enactors at Plimoth Plantation, students then had a classdiscussion and had to write their own journal entry as if they had made thevoyage. The teacher felt the pre-visit activity provided students with necessarybackground knowledge and helped them develop historical empathy, both ofwhich could be enhanced during the field trip visit.

During-field trip activities reported by teachers. With respect to their timespent engaged at the museum site, no specific type of museum visit activitystands out as dominating these trips (see Table 6). Some teachers asked stu-dents to complete specific activities and some teachers enlisted museum staffto provide tours. Even when accounting for type of museum—living-historymuseums, more traditional artifact displays, historic sites/homes, art museums,and local historical societies—activities vary, and include students interviewing

Table 6. During-Visit Activities With Field Trips

Question: “How often do . . .”a Mb SD

You participate in activities with your students? 3.89 1.30Students complete specific activities or tasks during a

museum visit?3.64 1.32

Museum staff provide a guided tour during a museum fieldtrip?

3.24 1.19

You serve as a guide during your students’ museum visit? 3.16 1.30Students explore a museum without a guided tour? 2.80 1.00Students watch a film or video during a field trip to a

museum?2.65 1.14

a1 = Never to 5 = always. bN = 82.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Seto

n H

all U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

50 2

6 Se

ptem

ber

2014

82 Marcus et al.

role-playing staff at Plimoth Plantation, collecting data to answer a broad ques-tion or to fill out a teacher-generated worksheet, doing a scavenger hunt, andtaking a docent-guided tour of exhibits. The one common theme among mostduring-visit activities was asking students to do something that they cannot doin class. In other words, teachers seek to take advantage of what the museumcan offer that is not available in school. This echoes responses in the inter-views where teachers report a primary purpose of museum visits, and strengthof museums, is their ability to offer students something more “hands-on” andreal that provides students with a way to “experience” history. As one teachernoted: “. . . listening to me talk doesn’t have the same impact as actually seeingand touching and asking questions and getting a good feel for whatever you tryto study.”

Post-field trip activities reported by teachers. Classroom discussions arethe most common activity following a museum field trip (see Table 7). Post-field trip activities are less common than pre-trip activities. Teachers may feelpressure to move on in the curriculum after a trip, may not see the value ina post-visit activity, or may not feel comfortable designing a post-visit activ-ity. Whatever the reason, this finding indicates that teachers could do more toassess student learning on a trip and build upon field trip activities. On a posi-tive note, several teachers discussed well-developed post-trip activities, such ascompleting a Plimoth settler journal entry as described earlier, which explicitlyconnected pre-, during, and post-trip activities. However, in open-ended ques-tionnaire responses and in interviews, many teachers reported simply havingan “informal” discussion or no post-trip activity at all.

Table 7. Post-Visit Activities With Field Trips

Question: “How often do . . .”a Mb SD

You hold a class discussion as follow-up to a field trip? 3.95 1.35Students complete reading assignments as follow-up to a

field trip?2.80 1.12

Students review primary source documents as follow-up to afield trip?

2.76 1.12

Students conduct research as follow-up to a field trip? 2.42 1.00Students view a film as follow-up to a field trip? 2.07 .99You use lessons developed by a museum as follow-up to a

field trip to that museum?2.05 .95

Students visit a museum’s website as follow-up to a fieldtrip?

1.99 .91

Museum staff visit your classroom as follow-up to a fieldtrip?

1.10 .37

a1 = Never to 5 = always. bN = 82.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Seto

n H

all U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

50 2

6 Se

ptem

ber

2014

History Teachers and Museums 83

Teachers Do Not Usually Ask Students to Evaluate the Way MuseumsPresent the Past

Students are asked to participate in a variety of activities on field trips;however, they are rarely asked to challenge the trustworthiness of museums asa way of knowing about the past or to problematize museums as a source ofinformation as they might be asked to evaluate primary sources.

Teachers usually do not ask students to evaluate or analyze the way amuseum presents the past. In other words, students are not asked to considerthe ideology of the museum, the potential political influence on the museum,the narratives presented, and the perspectives included and left out by themuseum. When asked, “How often do students evaluate or analyze the waya museum presents the past (e.g., ideology of the museum, potential politicalinfluences on the museum, perspectives included and/or left out, etc.)?” themean response was between “rarely” and “sometimes” (2.56/5, 1 = never to5 = always). None of the interviewees described activities that positioned stu-dents to critically examine museums and their depiction of the past during pre-,during, and post-trip activities. Perhaps this is not surprising since in responseto the statement “Museums’ presentation of content is historically accurate,”the teachers’ mean response was 5.32/6 (1 = strongly disagree to 6 = stronglyagree).

Teacher Perceptions of and Work With Museum Staff

In this section, we describe how teachers use and view museum staff.Teachers report positive experiences with museum staff, but also believe thereis significant room for improvement. Teachers collaborate with museum staffto a limited degree, and they are willing to attend professional developmentoffered by museum staff. In our Discussion section, we draw on these findingsto also consider how museum staff might contribute even more to developingstudents’ historical understanding.

Teachers often collaborate with museum staff regarding logistics andspecific activities for museum visits; other kinds of collaboration are rare.Teachers report often collaborating with museum staff both to handle logis-tical issues and to plan specific activities. However, this collaboration appearsto be mostly limited to field trip preparation. Within their own domains—theclassroom and museum—teachers and museum staff limit collaboration.

The findings about teacher-museum staff collaboration suggest that thereis the potential for more effective collaboration but there is also significantroom for improvement of the collaboration already happening. Teachers report“often” collaborating with museum staff both to handle logistical issues andto plan specific activities. They less often collaborate to plan specific field

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Seto

n H

all U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

50 2

6 Se

ptem

ber

2014

84 Marcus et al.

Table 8. Teacher Responses About Collaboration

Question: “How often do . . .”a Mb SD

You email or call museum staff to plan logistics for a field trip? 4.00 1.35You collaborate with museum staff to plan specific activities for

a field trip?3.67 1.33

Museum staff visit your classroom without a field trip? 1.23 .54Museum staff visit your classroom prior to a field trip? 1.20 .59Museum staff visit your classroom as follow-up to a field trip? 1.10 .37

a1 = Never to 5 = always. bN = 82.

trips (see Table 8). Museum staff reported a similar frequency of joint workwith teachers to plan activities. One interviewee noted that it was critical formuseum staff to “know what it is we’re looking for when we get there insteadof showing us stuff that’s not relevant to our study.”

Collaboration appears to be mostly limited to field trip preparation. Withintheir own domains, teachers and museum staff limit collaboration. For exam-ple, teachers report almost never having museum staff visit their class prior toor after a field trip or having museum staff visit without a field trip. Museumstaff report rarely having classroom teachers serve as a guide during a museumvisit. In other words, in school, the teacher plans and executes lessons, and atthe museum, museum staff dominate activities.

Teachers wish museum staff could be more focused on, and responsive to,secondary students’ needs. The teachers in our study agreed that they weresatisfied with museum staffs’ ability to help plan a field trip (4.9/6, 1 = strongdisagree, 6 = strongly agree) and slightly agreed that museum staff understandstudents’ learning needs (4.23/6). However, teachers provided a fairly criticalassessment of museum programs for students, as well as museum staff’s per-formance during field trips. When asked on the questionnaire to provide “anyadditional thoughts or comments about history museums,” 53 teachers chose torespond. Of those responses, the most common theme after complaints aboutlogistics and money were remarks about museum staff and programs. Fourteenof the teachers suggested that museum staff and programs are critical to thesuccess of a field trip, and that in many cases they were disappointed withtheir students’ experience. Teachers reported disparate reasons for their dissat-isfaction with museum staff performance, including programs developed foryounger students (not secondary students) and an inability of docents/staffto relate to students. For example, one teacher said that “more sophisticatedprograms for older students in local museums would increase my interest intaking my classes to museums.” In an interview, another teacher commented:“Museums are geared more towards middle school and elementary school.” Hewent on to explain that he would like it

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Seto

n H

all U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

50 2

6 Se

ptem

ber

2014

History Teachers and Museums 85

if there’s something of value at the [Mystic] Seaport, if it’s Amistad orwhat have you, how can they use that with high schoolers, or could theystart to incorporate those kind of educational programs [with high schoolstudents] versus just elementary.

Other teachers complained about the inability of docents or other staff torelate to students, staff pushing their own agenda despite a teacher’s alternategoals, and programs that were too dry and academic for students. One teacherremarked,

My biggest complaint about history museums is that they have no ideahow to talk to a high school aged student. Many of the existing programsare geared toward younger kids and the docents speak to 17-year-olds asthey would to 7-year-olds, OR, the displays are overly scholarly, usingwords that the majority of my students don’t understand.

Another teacher described his experience this way:

I find museum staff to be well-informed and well-intentioned, but oftenmisguided. Their tours can limit student interest, because the guides wantto stick to their own interests and schedules. I have found them to beinflexible to student reaction.

Although not all teachers criticized museums for these issues and therewas no dominant complaint, there were no teachers in the survey who toutedmuseum staff or programs as models of excellence, and only did so when askeddirectly in the interviews about positive museum experiences (all of the teach-ers interviewed found something positive to say about museum staff, but onlywhen asked a direct question about positive experiences). These findings stressthe need for more open dialogue between teachers and museum staff.

Many teachers attend museum-initiated professional development.Another point of contact between teachers and museum staff is the profes-sional development opportunities offered by museums. The teachers reporteda general willingness to attend museum professional development, and almosthalf (48%) of them had attended a workshop within the past five years.4

Teachers noted that overall they were generally willing to attend profes-sional development offered by museums. They “agree” (4.95/6, 1 = stronglydisagree to 6 = strongly agree) that they would attend professional develop-ment for teachers offered during the summer by museums where they take theirstudents. They were slightly less likely to attend the same sessions if offeredduring the school year (4.47/6). This was also evident in the interviews, when

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Seto

n H

all U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

50 2

6 Se

ptem

ber

2014

86 Marcus et al.

all the participants either described their prior museum-initiated professionaldevelopment or interest in attending such programming. One teacher statedthat it would be helpful to attend professional development that focuses onhow to make the most of a museum field trip: “I would be interested in howto plan a field trip at [a particular site].” Another teacher explained her interestin museum-initiated professional development this way: “I like to do stuff thatis going to directly affect my classroom teaching. So if it was going to be runby a museum then [I could ask] how do you make this museum work for yourclassroom teaching?”

These findings about teachers’ perceptions of museum staff, combinedwith the findings about teachers’ practices with students on museum trips, andteachers’ knowledge and skills, provide a starting point for a more in-depthand meaningful discussion about how to develop museum visits for studentsthat enhance their understanding of the past and take advantage of all museumshave to offer.

DISCUSSION

Museums have great potential to contribute to students’ history educa-tion with their physical, human, and virtual resources. We have presented aseries of descriptive findings addressing significant gaps in our understandingof teachers’ utilization of museums. Some of our findings are not unexpected:Time, money, and logistics prevent teachers from taking more trips to his-tory museums, and collaboration between teachers and museum educators islimited. In addition, we found that teachers are least likely to provide robustfollow-up activities after a museum trip and that many teachers view muse-ums as authoritative and do not ask students to evaluate the way museumspresent the past, thus neglecting the potential of museums to promote historicalthinking. In this section, rather than recapitulate findings about what teachersalready do and how they view museums, we consider what additional—and untapped—potential museums may have for promoting historicalunderstanding.

Museums as Opportunities to See How—and Why—We Make Sense ofthe Past

Promoting perspective-taking and developing interpretive skills are twovalued outcomes held by a number of scholars of history education (e.g.,Barton & Levstik, 2004; Seixas, 2006; VanSledright & Brophy, 1997;Wineburg, 2001) and K–12 social studies educators (C. Anderson, Avery,Pederson, Smith, & Sullivan, 1997). Teachers in our study clearly value muse-ums as an opportunity to develop some of these aspects of historical thinking,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Seto

n H

all U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

50 2

6 Se

ptem

ber

2014

History Teachers and Museums 87

telling us that they value the interpretation of evidence, historical empathy, andexposure to multiple perspectives over using museums to teach specific con-tent. Our teachers did not typically ask students to evaluate or analyze howmuseums present the past, however, and thus missed an opportunity to havestudents learn more directly about the nature of history or practice habits ofcritically evaluating claims and evidence.

Most teachers in our study believe that museums present content that ishistorically accurate, suggesting that it is not just students who need to learn toview museums more critically. We can imagine two methods of helping teach-ers capitalize on this missed opportunity for student learning while adopting amore critical stance themselves.

Preservice teacher education programs can provide explicit training ondesirable goals and practices for promoting learning from museums. Teachereducation might be able to tap on-campus or nearby museums to help pre-service teachers experience the potential and added engagement created byviewing museums as dynamic, interpretive enterprises rather than static rep-resentations of truth. Middle and high school social studies departments couldalso focus some of their work on understanding best practices for museum useand the interpretive nature of museums.

Whether preservice teacher educators or leaders of in-service work initiatesuch development, teachers should learn to think about museums as not justthe location of objects, but also as incubators of ideas (Boyd, 1999). Studentscan be asked to examine artifacts in museums and think about how one’s ideasabout these artifacts change over time as knowledge, values, and beliefs changeand as new research is conducted (Boyd, 1999). Students can also explore howknowledge, values, and beliefs—and thus interpretations in museums—areinfluenced by political, economic, and social conditions. In addition, studentscan consider how museums reinforce or refute our national story and thenarratives of groups with varying degrees of agency. An important compo-nent to learning in museums includes “. . . an education about the museum,about how the world is re-presented, named, displayed, owned, and protected”(Trofanenko, 2006, p. 61). Museums serve as the history “classroom” for stu-dents throughout their adult lives. Helping teachers to prepare students to bemore critical in how they learn from museums will enhance a lifetime of historylearning.

Promoting Generative Collaboration Between Teachers and MuseumStaff

Our research suggests that at present, collaboration between teachers andmuseum staff tends to focus on logistical rather than substantive concerns.We recommend deepening collaboration on two levels.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Seto

n H

all U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

50 2

6 Se

ptem

ber

2014

88 Marcus et al.

First, in their collaborations with teachers, museum educators should offera more critical window into their own work. Museum educators are probably asclose as most teachers and students get to interacting with working historians;thus, it is a great shame that this collaboration does not seem to focus on thenature of how history is presented. Given the chance, museums and their staffcould illuminate the financial, social, and political questions and pressures thataffect how we make sense of the past, choose which larger aspects and smallerfacts to include in our accounts, and find methods of conveying interpretationsto a wider public. Museums and their staff could also reveal the uncertaintiesand struggles of finding and understanding relevant evidence. We wonder ifthere might not be potential for museum educators offering chances for sum-mertime or yearlong collaboration with schools’ social studies departmentsin conducting the kind of primary and secondary source research needed fornew exhibitions. We also see potential in simply having teachers understandkey cases of the decision-making and interpretive work that museum staffexperience while doing their work.

In our opening literature review, we described some of the tensions in themission of museums. They have traditionally been protectors and presenters ofnational narratives and the perspectives of those in power. Increasingly, how-ever, museums are taking on missions that also promote public education andmultiple perspectives. Those museums or staff more aligned with the traditionalview of museums as bastions of civilization and protectors of culture may resistengaging in work that could help the public see museums as reflecting some-thing other than “reality” or the “correct history.” We know many museumstaff will not resist such opportunities. For museums unsure of whether to openup their enterprise to such scrutiny, we hope that such programs or outreachwith teachers will reap financial rewards and enhanced realization of their mis-sions, including history learning and reaching broader audiences, includingsecondary teachers and students. We report elsewhere that the vast major-ity of Connecticut history museums’ K–12 visitors were elementary children(Marcus, Grenier, & Levine, 2009). Secondary social studies teachers are likelyto value and respond to —and use museums to show—the nature of historicalinterpretation and presentation.

Second, in addition to focusing on the nature of history and history learn-ing at museums, we see a need for collaboration to focus on history learning inthe history classroom. The broader research reviewed at the beginning of thisarticle suggests the importance of having clearer goals and rich connectionsbetween the school curriculum and museum experiences; teachers and museumstaff could do more to build these links and sharpen the goals for physical visitsto museums and use of museum staff or resources in classrooms.

We see missed opportunities in the fact that teachers primarily rely ontheir own materials in the classroom. It may be that they find it “safer” touse and develop their own materials designed specifically for their studentsrather than rely on museum staff. The teachers may also not know about

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Seto

n H

all U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

50 2

6 Se

ptem

ber

2014

History Teachers and Museums 89

some museum-created lessons and professional staff development programs.Consistent with our findings, D. Anderson and Zhang (2003) found that thereare uncertainties as to whether teachers or museum staff are responsible forproviding at-venue or post-visit experiences.

We value teachers who are actively involved in crafting materials andfitting museums into their own curricular objectives; still, by not utilizingmuseum resources, teachers miss opportunities to take advantage of museumstaff expertise, to obtain “insider” information about the museum, and to tapthe kinds of artifacts and materials that thoughtful museum educators canoffer. Ideally, there would be both balance and synergy in the roles playedby teachers and museum educators working together to prepare, implement,and debrief museum experiences. Teachers should play an important role increating museum experiences for students and, consequently, should also takefull advantage of museum resources and expertise (Kisiel, 2005).

Professional development that provides opportunities for museum staffand teachers to learn from each other may be the most effective vehiclefor promoting collaboration. Both teachers and museum staff strongly indi-cated they are willing, and even anxious, to attend professional developmentabout museum education and in conjunction with each other (Marcus, Grenier,& Levine, 2009). Collaboration between museum and school professionalscan improve K–12 students’ experiences (Marcus, 2008). Both groups areimportant stakeholders and we must seek to help museum staff and class-room teachers cross the boundaries that separate them. Although these twoconstituencies agree about the importance of museum visits for students andabout the value of museums, improved collaboration and professional develop-ment should address how museum visits can create opportunities to evaluatehow the past is presented, how museum staff can better meet the needs ofK–12 students, how teachers can better communicate with museum staff, andhow museum staff can be more available for outreach.

Developing Richer Pre-, During-, and Post-Visit Activities

Our teachers already have ideas about how to help students learn frommuseums. The limited quantity and range of post-visit activities with students,and the potential for more teachers to use richer ways of preparing students,suggest that teachers could do more to help students develop other aspects ofhistorical thinking from museums even if they do not ask students to learnfrom how museums depict the past. Simply bringing students to a museum andrelying on a prepackaged set of experiences does not guarantee that studentswill develop historical empathy or the ability to analyze historical evidence.Prior research indicates that teachers often lack explicit goals for museumvisits and are unable to connect the experience to the classroom curriculum(Griffin & Symington, 1997; Ramey-Gassert, Walberg III, & Walberg, 1994;

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Seto

n H

all U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

50 2

6 Se

ptem

ber

2014

90 Marcus et al.

Tuckey, 1992). If preservice or in-service teacher education helped teachersgain clarity about the possible and desirable outcomes of museum visits forpromoting historical understanding, and provided methods for promoting theseoutcomes through the visits, more teachers would have the vision and prac-tices necessary to help students reap more of the benefits offered by museumvisits. We also suspect that more teachers would have the confidence, moti-vation, and compelling rationale to take more trips. Given how finance andschool policy limit trips, teachers will need persuasive arguments about theeducational benefits of trips to secure approval, seek out funding, and workthrough the paperwork that often limits the number of trips. In sum, better pre-pared teachers might increase the quantity as well as quality of learning frommuseums.

In the field of science education, Smith et al. (1998) compared trainedand untrained teachers and found that trained teachers learned more from theexperience. It would be helpful if further research in social studies educationcould illuminate even more of the pedagogical content knowledge for learn-ing from museums. What are the typical challenges or misconceptions thathinder students’ success in learning to think historically while participating inmuseum visits? What practices have proven most successful—and under whatconditions—to promote the kinds of understanding, thinking, and dispositionsinvolved in understanding the past? We believe that additional professionaldevelopment and research can help to promote “literacy” for history museumvisits that explores what is unique about learning about the past at museumsand problematize museum visits.

CONCLUSION

In this article, we have presented data to describe how history teachers useand think about museums. While participants value museums for their poten-tial to promote historical understanding, a number of factors undercut teachers’ability to use museums to promote such understanding. Cost and logistics limitthe number of visits teachers make with students. Teachers’ own view of muse-ums as authoritative and the rarity of asking students to analyze how museumspresent the past prevents students from fully capitalizing on museums’ poten-tial to promote historical thinking. Expanding teachers’ practices, especially forpost-visit activities, and sharpening their goals also emerge as promising meansto improve history learning from museums. Better professional preparation,ongoing professional development, and enhanced collaboration with museumstaff could position teachers to realize the promise of museums to promotedeep—and lifelong—learning of history.

More research is needed to expand what is known about teacher beliefsand practices as well as museum staff perspectives. In addition, we needresearch that examines student learning to draw stronger conclusions about

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Seto

n H

all U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

50 2

6 Se

ptem

ber

2014

History Teachers and Museums 91

the effectiveness of teachers’ pre-, during-, and post-visit strategies. Futureresearch should explore the effectiveness of different activities for various out-comes, such as students’ learning of content, their development of historicalempathy, and their ability to take critical perspectives on the presentation ofhistory. Future research could also explore whether certain types of museums(e.g., living-history museum) better support certain historical thinking skills.Finally, research might explore connections between teachers’ learning goalsfor student visits, museum staff learning goals for student visits, and historyeducation scholarship.

Secondary history teachers and museum staff are professionals who areinterested in what is best for student learning. However, these professionals areoften deprived of time, money, resources, and in some cases, the necessaryknowledge and skills. With more training, professional development, com-munication, and development of mutual understanding, teachers and museumeducators may realize the potential of museums’ physical, human, and virtualresources to promote a deep and lifelong learning of history.

NOTES

This study was conducted in collaboration with the ConnecticutHumanities Council (CHC). We thank the CHC for their intellectual, logis-tical, and monetary support. A special thanks to Scott Wands at the CHC forhis work on this project. The findings and conclusions presented here, how-ever, are entirely our own. This study was also partially funded by two facultygrants from The University of Connecticut. A final debt of gratitude goes to allof the teachers and museum professionals who graciously donated their time toparticipate.

1For the purposes of this article, the term museum refers to traditionalmuseums, living history museums, historic sites, and other heritage sites.

2See, for example, Hirzy (1996), Power and Robinson (2005), Skramstad(1999), and Wunder (2002).

3The authors are happy to send a copy of the teacher questionnaire uponan email request but due to length did not include it with this article.

4Some of our participants had attended one or more of the numerousfederally funded Teaching American History grant workshops in Connecticut,many of which worked closely with local history museums to provide programsto teachers. This likely accounts in part for the relatively high percentage ofteachers reporting they had “attended a workshop or institute run/hosted by amuseum within the past five years.” However, we did not track specifically howmany participants were part of a TAH program.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Seto

n H

all U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

50 2

6 Se

ptem

ber

2014

92 Marcus et al.

REFERENCES

Allmon, W. (1994). The value of natural history collections. Curator: TheMuseum Journal, 37(2), 83–89.

American Association of Museums. (1992) Excellence and equity: Educationand the public dimension of museums. Washington, DC: Author.

Anderson, C., Avery, P. G., Pederson, P. V., Smith, E. S., & Sullivan, J. L.(1997). Divergent perspectives on citizenship education: A Q-Method studyand survey of social studies teachers. American Educational ResearchJournal, 34, 333–364.

Anderson, D., Piscitelli, B., Weier, K., Everett, M., & Tayler, C. (2002).Children’s museum experiences: Identifying powerful mediators of learning.Curator: The Museum Journal, 45, 213–231.

Anderson, D., & Zhang, Z. (2003). Teacher perceptions of field-trip planningand implementation. Visitor Studies Today, 6(3), 6–11.

Bamberger, Y., & Tal, T. (2006). Learning in a personal context: Levels ofchoice in a free choice learning environment in science and natural historymuseums. Science Education, 91(1), 75–95.

Barton, K. C., & Levstik, L. S. (2004). Teaching history for the common good.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Bitgood, S. (1994). What do we know about school field trips? In R. J.Hannapel (Ed.), What research says about learning in science museums:Vol. 2 (pp. 12–16). Washington, DC: Association of Science-TechnologyCenters.

Boyd, W. L. (1999). Museums as centers of controversy. Daedalus, 128(3),185–228.

Cox, L. H., & Barrow, J. H. (2000). On display: Preservice teachers in themuseum. Social Education, 64, 364–367.

Denzin, N. K. (1978). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociolog-ical methods (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Falk, J. H. (1999). Museums as institutions for personal learning. Daedalus,128, 259–265.

Falk, J. H. (2004). The director’s cut: Toward an improved understanding oflearning from museums. Science Education, 88(S1), S83–S96.

Falk, J. H. (2006). An identity-centered approach to understanding museumlearning. Curator: The Museum Journal, 49, 151–166.

Falk, J. H., & Dierking, L. D. (1992). The museum experience. Washington,DC: Whalesback.

Falk, J. H., & Dierking, L. D. (2000). Learning from museums: Visitorexperiences and the making of meaning. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira.

Falk, J. H., Moussouri, T., & Coulson, D. (1998). The effect of visitors’ agendason museum learning. Curator: The Museum Journal, 41, 107–120.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory:Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Seto

n H

all U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

50 2

6 Se

ptem

ber

2014

History Teachers and Museums 93

Glesne, C. (1999). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (2nded.). New York, NY: Longman.

Griffin, J. (2004). Research on students and museums: Looking more closelyat the students in school groups. Science Education, 88(S1), S59–S70.

Griffin, J., & Symington, D. (1997). Moving from task-oriented to learning-oriented strategies on school excursions to museums. Science Education, 81,763–779.

Gurian, E. H. (1999). What is the object of this exercise? A meanderingexploration of the many meanings of objects in museums. Daedalus, 128,163–172.

Hirzy, E. C. (1996). Museums and schools: Transforming education.Washington, DC: Institute of Museum Services.

Hooper-Greenhill, E. (2000). Museums and the interpretation of visual culture.New York, NY: Routledge.

Hooper-Greenhill, E. (2007). Museums and education: Purpose, pedagogy,performance (Museum Meanings). London, England: Routledge.

Kisiel, J. F. (2003). Teachers, museums, and worksheets: A closer look at alearning experience. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 14(19), 3–21.

Kisiel, J. F. (2005). Understanding elementary teacher motivations for sciencefieldtrips. Science Education, 89, 936–955.

Kisiel, J. F. (2006). An examination of fieldtrip strategies and their implemen-tation within a natural history museum. Science Education, 90, 434–452.

Leinhardt, G., Crowley, K., & Knuston, K. (Eds.) (2002). Learning conversa-tions in museums. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Lenoir, Y., & Laforest, M. (1986). Le muse, un apport didactique au milieuscolaire . . . s’il facilite les apprentissages prescrits! [The museum, an educa-tional contribution to the school . . . if it facilitates the learning required!]. InG. Racette (Ed.), Musee et education: modeles didactiques d’utilsation desmusees (pp. 20–23). Montreal, Canada: SocietE des musees quebecois.

Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher. Chicago, IL: The University of ChicagoPress.

Lowenthal, D. (1999). The past is a foreign country. Cambridge, England:Cambridge University Press.

Marcus, A. S. (2007). Representing the past, reflecting the present: Museums,memorials, and the secondary history classroom. The Social Studies, 98,105–110.

Marcus, A. S. (2008). Rethinking museums’ adult education for K–12 teachers.Journal of Museum Education, 33(1), 55–78.

Marcus, A. S., Grenier, R., & Levine, T. (2009, November). How secondaryhistory teachers use and think about museums: Current practices anduntapped promise for promoting historical understanding. Paper presentedat the Annual Conference of the College and Faculty Assembly, NationalCouncil for the Social Studies, Atlanta, GA.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Seto

n H

all U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

50 2

6 Se

ptem

ber

2014

94 Marcus et al.

Maxwell, L. E., & Evans, G. W. (2002). Museums as learning settings: Theimportance of the physical environment. Journal of Museum Education,27(1), 3–7.

McLeod, J., & Kilpatrick, K. M. (2001, April). Exploring science at themuseum. Educational Leadership, 58, 59–63.

McRainey, D. L., & Russick, J. (2010). Learning from kids: Connectingthe exhibition process to the audience. Curator: The Museum Journal, 52,183–192.

Nespor, J. (2000). School field trips and the curriculum of public spaces.Journal of Curriculum Studies, 32(1), 25–43.

Noel, A. M., & Colopy, M. A. (2006). Making history field trips meaningful:Teachers’ and site educators’ perspectives on teaching materials. Theory &Research in Social Education, 34, 553–568.

Olson, J. K. (1999, April). A qualitative analysis of the field trip experi-ence: A formal trip in an informal setting. Paper presented at the NationalAssociation for Research in Science Teaching Annual Meeting, Boston.

Orion, N., & Hofstein, A. (1994). Factors that influence learning during a sci-entific field trip in a natural environment. Journal of Research in ScienceTeaching, 31, 1097–1119.

Packer, J., & Ballantyne, R. (2002). Motivational factors and the visitor expe-rience: A comparison of three sites. Curator: The Museum Journal, 45,183–198.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Pittman, B. (1999). Muses, museums, and memories. Daedalus, 128(3), 1–8.Power, L., & Robinson, J. P. (2005). Exhibit development with schools in mind.

The Journal of Museum Education, 30, 19–23.Ramey-Gassert, L., Walberg III, H. J., & Walberg, H. J. (1994). Reexamining

connections: Museums as science learning environments. Science Education,78, 345–363.

Ruona, W. E. A. (2005). Analyzing qualitative data. In R. A. Swanson, &E. F. Holton (Eds.), Research in organizations: Foundations and methodsof inquiry (pp. 232–264). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Seixas, P. (2006). Conceptualizing the growth of historical understanding.In D. Olson & N. Torrance (Eds.), Handbook of education and humandevelopment (pp. 765–783). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitativeresearch projects. Education for Information, 22, 63–75.

Sheppard, B. (2007). Meaningful collaboration. In J. H. Falk, L. Dierking, &S. Foutz (Eds.), In principle, in practice: Museums as learning institutions(pp. 181–196). New York, NY: AltaMira.

Skramstad, H. (1999). An agenda for American museums in the twenty-firstcentury. Daedalus, 128, 109–128.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Seto

n H

all U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

50 2

6 Se

ptem

ber

2014

History Teachers and Museums 95

Smith, W. S., McLaughlin, E., & Tunnicliffe, S. D. (1998). Effect on primarylevel students of inservice teacher education in an informal science setting.Journal of Science Teacher Education, 9, 123–142.

Stavrova, O., & Urhahne, D. (2010). Modification of a school programme inthe Deutsches Museum to enhance students’ attitudes and understanding.International Journal of Science Education, 32, 2291–2310.

Strauss, J., & Corbin, A. (1998). Basics of qualitative research. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

Thomas, D. R. (2006). A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitativeevaluation data. American Journal of Evaluation, 27, 237–246.

Tran, L. U. (2006). Teaching science in museums: The pedagogy and goals ofmuseum educators. Science Education, 91, 278–297.

Trofanenko, B. (2006). Interrupting the gaze: On reconsidering authority in themuseum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 38(1), 49–65.

Tuckey, C. (1992). Schoolchildren’s reactions to an interactive science center.Curator: The Museum Journal, 35, 28–38.

VanSledright, B. A., & Brophy, J. E. (1997). Teaching and learning history inelementary school. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Weil, S. (1999). From being about something to being for somebody: Theongoing transformation of the American museum (what is emerging is amore entrepreneurial institution). Daedalus, 128, 229–242.

Wineburg, S. (2001). Historical thinking and other unnatural acts.Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

Wunder, S. (2002). Learning to teach for historical understanding: Preserviceteachers at a hands-on museum. The Social Studies, 93, 159–163.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

ALAN S. MARCUS is an Associate Professor in the Department ofCurriculum & Instruction, Neag School of Education, at University ofConnecticut, Storrs, CT 06269-2033. He can be contacted at: alan.marcus@uconn.edu.

THOMAS H. LEVINE is an Associate Professor in the Department ofCurriculum & Instruction, Neag School of Education, at University ofConnecticut, Storrs, CT 06269-2033. He can be contacted at: thomas.levine@uconn.edu.

ROBIN S. GRENIER is an Associate Professor in the Department ofEducational Leadership, Neag School of Education, at University ofConnecticut, Storrs, CT 06269-2033. She can be contacted at: robin.grenier@uconn.edu.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Seto

n H

all U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

50 2

6 Se

ptem

ber

2014

96 Marcus et al.

APPENDIX

Teacher Interview Protocol

Date and Time of Interview:Location of Interview:Name of participant:

Educational/Teaching Background

1. What are your primary goals or objectives for student learning in your U.S.history courses?

2. What types of activities do you do to meet your goals?

Museum Visit Activities

3. Which museums have you regularly taken students to over the past4–5 years? Why these sites? (if they do not take visits now ask about pre-vious years and why they do not take visits). What limits the types of fieldtrips you take?

4. What changes have you made in where you take students during yourteaching career and why?

5. What are your general goals for your students when visiting museums?What about specific goals for specific museums? Ask follow-up fromsurvey here.

6. When you take students on field trips, what kinds of preparation do you doon your own? With your students?

7. Do you do anything as follow-up to museum visits? What specific activitiesdo you do for various sites?

8. For the sites named above (question #3) describe what students are askedto do (by you and/or museum staff) and any specific activities during thevisit.

9. Describe one of your most successful field trips to a museum and whatmade it successful.

10. Describe one of your least successful field trips to a museum and whatmade it unsuccessful.

11. Have you changed the types of activities you have students do? How? Why?12. How do you get information about a museum prior to visiting with

students?13. Do you ever use lessons provided by museums with your students? If not,

why not? If yes which ones?14. If logistics and money were not an issue, where would you take students

for history field trips? Why these sites? What would be your goals?15. What influences your decision to take one type of field trip over another?

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Seto

n H

all U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

50 2

6 Se

ptem

ber

2014

History Teachers and Museums 97

16. Walk me through how you would plan for a new field trip—choose a siteyou might like to take students to—how would you go about planning? Askabout in-class and out-of-class tasks/activities for teacher and student.

Attitudes and Beliefs About History and Museums

17. What types of museums do you believe best promote student learning ofhistory?

18. What would you like to know or do in order to feel even better preparedto take students on field trips? (How well prepared do you feel to plan andrun effective field trips to museums?)

19. How, if at all do you collaborate with museum staff, if so who, when, how,why (e.g., coordinate logistics, plan activities, etc.)?

20. Describe any professional development training you have attended atmuseums or with museum staff.

Closure

21. Is there anything you wanted me to ask about in relation to field trips tohistory museums or history museums in general?

22. Any other thoughts about the purpose/value of museums and field trips?

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Seto

n H

all U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

50 2

6 Se

ptem

ber

2014