My preferred learning style involves a mixture of elements. I enjoy artifacts/text, interactive/experimental, and personal interaction/participation components. I work closely with an informal science educator and have learned that there are many ways of communicating ideas, some of which will work for one person better than another. My point was mainly that digital formats can offer content that is often difficult or nearly impossible to present any other way, so they certainly have a place within museums. But if a museum known primarily for their artifacts/objects were to eclipse those with on-screen content, many visitors may find that to be a disappointment.
For an anecdotal example, the museum where I live is very famous for their dinosaur fossils. A number of years ago, they installed a "media center" filled with digital content into their dinosaur halls. It remains the least-utilized portion of the paleontology exhibits, as the visitors tend to spend the bulk of their time focused on the actual fossils/casts on display. I think that by amassing all of the technology in one space, visitors are made to feel like they must choose between spending their time with dinosaurs or with screens, and they choose the former, especially when docent-facilitated activities are available. If the on-screen content were dispersed throughout the dinosaur exhibits, (supplementing those exhibits) perhaps it might be more effective.
Original Message:
Sent: 08-31-2015 11:55 AM
From: John Jacobsen
Subject: Sorry, ahead of time but I'm about to be a bit negative: After looking at Edwards Technologies I am sad for the exhibit and museum future if most of what we experience is on-screen. What is the point of such a passive, spoon-fed learning? Sorry, but I want to see photos and artifacts, not cartoon-like generated graphics. I understand signage going digital but not the whole experience of going to a museum which is what this appears to suggest.
This relates to learning styles, intentional purposes and guiding principles. The museum field and our audiences and supporters have a rich diversity of all of these.
Michael's preferred style of learning is from "photos and artifacts," and Michael has been clear about what he wants to see in a museum. Others have different learning styles, and prefer to learn from interactivity, participation, narrative, group interactions, or immersion, to name but a few (see Howard Gardner's Multiple Intelligence). Further, learning and visitor research indicates that a mixture of learning styles is more effective that just one in a museum; different neural pathways re-enforce comprehension; a variety of visitor experiences increases satisfaction; and different learning styles complement each other (a case of pinned Monarch butterflies and a map of their migration provides self-guided learning, while the giant screen (GS) film Flight of the Butterflies tells the emotional, human story that develops empathy for declining habitats).
How do you define museum? It can be defined by its methodology (eg. photos and artifacts) or it can be defined by its purposes. Most museums define their purposes, and then select methodologies appropriate to their purposes. If a children museum's prime purpose is child development, then objects and photos may not be their best method. Check out the 2007 ICOM definition.
Some museums, such as nature centers, historic houses, science centers and aquariums, pursue their mission using experiential learning. A GS theater can play a significant role in experiential learning. A museum's pedagogical philosophy is part of its guiding principles that determine the "how" of the museum, as well as its character and brand identity. Again, we enjoy a wide diversity of pedagogical philosophies from the object-encrusted Museum of Jurassic Technology (LA) to the media-saturated Newseum (DC).
In short, any one museum and any one individual can state what they prefer, but no one can say what all museums must be like. Having said all this, I personally agree that some cartoony GS films are pretty horrid.
Cheers, John
------------------------------
John Jacobsen
CEO
White Oak Associates, Inc. Museum Planners
Marblehead MA
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 08-29-2015 11:56 AM
From: Michael Holland
Subject: Sorry, ahead of time but I'm about to be a bit negative: After looking at Edwards Technologies I am sad for the exhibit and museum future if most of what we experience is on-screen. What is the point of such a passive, spoon-fed learning? Sorry, but I want to see photos and artifacts, not cartoon-like generated graphics. I understand signage going digital but not the whole experience of going to a museum which is what this appears to suggest.
I think that that there is a risk of creating the "screens for the sake of screens" phenomenon. But digital formats can offer capabilities that static displays cannot. When used correctly, on-screen content can be an efficient and engaging supplement to exhibit features. I probably wouldn't enjoy an exhibit that existed entirely on-screen unless it was a digital art exhibition, but with the right balance between digital and "live" (i.e. actual objects) content, visitors can be reached effectively.
Michael
------------------------------
Michael Holland
Principal/Owner
Michael Holland Productions
Bozeman MT
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 08-28-2015 11:51 AM
From: Justin Deister
Subject: Sorry, ahead of time but I'm about to be a bit negative: After looking at Edwards Technologies I am sad for the exhibit and museum future if most of what we experience is on-screen. What is the point of such a passive, spoon-fed learning? Sorry, but I want to see photos and artifacts, not cartoon-like generated graphics. I understand signage going digital but not the whole experience of going to a museum which is what this appears to suggest.
------------------------------
Justin Deister
Louisville CO
------------------------------