National Art Education Association

Museum Education and School Art: Different Ends and Different Means
Author(s): Terry Zeller
Source: Art Education, Vol. 38, No. 3 (May, 1985), pp. 6-10
Published by: National Art Education Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3192885 .
Accessed: 07/09/2013 00:44
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

National Art Education Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Art
Education.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 163.152.3.39 on Sat, 7 Sep 2013 00:44:57 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

SCHOOL AND MUSEUMEDUCATION

Museum
Education and
Art:
Different Ends
School
and
Different
Means
Terry Zeller

oFr
v-

....

7!
I

M-AfArt, Carnegie Institute, ARTexpress School/Museum

Art Education

May 1985

This content downloaded from 163.152.3.39 on Sat, 7 Sep 2013 00:44:57 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

I
Projects. Photo by Claire Stone.

n the summerof 1984, after two

yearsof researchand publichearings, the American Association
of Museums' Commission on
Museumsfor a New Centuryissuedits
report.The findingsand recommendations have sparkedwide-spreaddiscussion in museums about the nature of
museum learning and the educational
role of museums. It is the purposeof
this essay to explore differences between art education in schools and
learningsin art museums,with an eye
to implicationsof these differencesfor
museum-schoolpartnershipin light of
the Commission'sReport.
The most obvious difference between art museum education and
school art instructionis the settingand
time frame in which each takes place.
School art instruction spans several
months within the context of a selfcontained class or art room. It is a
familiar and comfortable setting for
childrenbecausetherethey know what
is expectedof them. Museumlearning,
however,takes place in publicgalleries
in which desks and art materialsare
replaced by sculpture, paintings, and
decorativearts in unfamiliarsurroundings. Understandably,teachersoften
transfer their pedagogical expectations, models of studentbehavior,and
instructionalmethods from the classroom to the museum and attempt to
imposethese on an unfamiliarlearning
environment. By trying to make the
museumexperiencean extensionof the
classroom or, at the other extreme,
mere exposure, the agenda of the
school overshadowsthe unique learning opportunitiesof the museum.
This approach not only treats the
museum merely as a collection of
teaching aids designed to augment
classroom learning, but more insidiously, signals students that
museums are places to which no one
would ever go voluntarily (Floud,
1952). Gurian (1982) says that using
traditional school tours "makes the
museuminto a school ratherthan emphasizingthe characteristicsthat make
it a different and unique learningenvironment" (pp. 18-19). To many
teachers and museum educators, a
school tour of the museum means
relatinginformationto a topic currently being studied by the class. Frank
Oppenheimer,founderand directorof
San Francisco's Exploratorium,however, believes museums are parallel
educational systems, not mere exten-

sions or supplements to schools

(Newson and Siler, 1978). Wolins
(1981) stresses the uniqueness of art
museums as learning resources and
calls for developmentof programsand
approachesto learningfrom withinthe
museumratherthan havingthe agenda
dictated from outside. Museumsfor a
New Century (1984) emphasizesthat
"wheremuseumprogramsare used to
enrichthe curriculum,they are shaped
by the needs of the schools, not the
strengthsof the museum.The museum
experience seems auxiliary, and
museum educatorsfeel constrictedby
the limits they feel the schools
establish" (p. 67). There is a growing
body of opinion and researchclaiming
that museumlearningis very different
from learningin other situations,particularlyin schools. Recent studies of
museum visitors must be taken into
account in designingmuseumlearning
experiences.

Screven (1976) has observed that

"the educationalgoal of museums is
not to import facts, but also broad
overviews,concepts, stimulationof interest, values, and new ways of thinking about the world" (p. 271). These
sentimentsare echoed in Museumsfor
a New Century (1984) which claims
that learningin a museum "means to
develop the ability to synthesizeideas
and form opinions, and shape an
aesthetic and cultural sensibility"
(p. 58). Studiesof why people visit or
stay away from museumshave important implicationsfor museumlearning
and for the way educators structure
school field trips. A 1972 survey in
New York State found that only 3% of
frequent museum visitors said school
field trips were stimulatinginterestin
museums(Newson, 1977, p. 14). Nonattendanceis influencedby prior conditioning and by the belief that
museumsare not placesto go for social
relaxation,two majorfactorsinfluencing people's choice of leisure time
activity(Nash, 1975;Hood, 1983).In a
1973 Metropolitan Museum of Art
survey,51%7perceivedthat the purpose
of museumswas to educatethe public;
in 1975, however, it was found that
most visitorsdo not come to museums
primarily to learn (Linn, 1976). In
Toledo's Museum of Art, only frequent visitors said they came to the
Museum to learn (Hood, 1983). The
National Endowment for the Arts
found that more than 80% of those
who visit museums have attended

college, and a study of visitationto a

travellingexhibition of Japanese art,
conducted in Boston, Chicago, and
Seattle, reportedthat "it is clear that
visitorswereas a whole an exceptionally well educated group" (Bigman,
1956, p. 10). These studies, and inhouse demographicsurveysand observations of visitor behavior conducted
by many museums,make it clear that
museumattendanceis high;the majority of Americans either do not visit
museumsor do so infrequently;only a
minoritydo so specificallyto learn. In
light of this, it seems strange that
museumscontinue basing their school
tour program on the agenda of the
schools.
Williams(1981) is correctin saying
that learningfrom objects is the core
curriculumof the museum visit, and
that the primary commitment of
museum educators should be the interestsof the museum,not those of the
school. Museum educators cannot be
expected to fit museum learning into
whicheverpedagogicalapproach,curriculum model, textbook series, or
learning theory is current in the
schools, or to base their programson
other models and theories designed
primarilyfor learningin schools. It is
clear that designingmuseum visits in
accordancewith the needs of schools
may satisfy administratorsor teachers
but does little to give students the
knowledge, skills, and attitudes they
need for lifelong enjoyment of, and
informal learningin, museums.
If children are to see museums as
somethingotherthan a continuationof
classroom exercises, then fun, purposeful play, challengingnew experiences, beingwith friends,self-directed
explorationand discovery, and spontaneitymustbe majorpartsof museum
learning (Andrews and Asia, 1979;
Gottfried, 1980). Bettleheim (1980)
believesthat the way to get childrento
enjoy and value museums is to
stimulateimagination,arouse curiosity, and give them a chance to
experienceawe and wonder.
Learningin museumsis a random,
spontaneous, individualized, and informalprocessthat cannotbe imposed
on the visitor (Museumsfor a New
Century, 1984; Screven, 1976). Other
museum professionals have observed
that "social interactionwithin visitor
groups takes up a large percentageof
the total time at a science center,
museum,or zoo; [these]are not places

Art Education

May 1985

This content downloaded from 163.152.3.39 on Sat, 7 Sep 2013 00:44:57 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

for giving extensive information characteristicof sequentiallearningin

schools" (Laetsch,et al., 1980, p. 17).
Newson and Silver (1978) insist that
"learningin art museumsis not quantifiable" (p. 271). Bettleheim(1984),
rememberinghis own earlyexperiences
in that place of "wonder" and
"miracles," the art museum, thinks
people seek interestingand enjoyable
entertainmentratherthan knowledge,
in museums. For Margaret Mead
(1970), a museumoffers opportunities
for individualityand freedomthat are
rare.
Anyone who has spent even a short
time observing museum visitors will
recognize that they usually come in
pairs or small intimate groups for a
relaxing, pleasanthour or so, but are
also widely different in interests and
backgrounds, limited in time, frequentlyoverwhelmedand confusedby
too much sensory input, and random
in their approach to the collections.
How different these observationsare
from traditional school field trips
structuredto correlatewith a specific
curriculum unit. Recognizing the
realitiesof museumsas informallearning environments,museum educators
need to set goals for school field trips
that will helpyoungpeopletake advantage of a museum's rich cultural
resources.
The Commissionon Museumsfor a
New Centuryconcludedthat "museums
are agents of visual, scientific, and
historicalliteracy"wherepeople learn
to "synthesize ideas and form opinions, and shape an aesthetic and
cultural sensibility" (1984, p. 58). In
TheArt Museumas Educator,Newson
and Silver(1978)studiedfifteen school
visit programsand summarizedwhat
museumeducatorssaid were their objectives:
Helpingyoung people feel at home in an
art museum and understandits value.
Introducingthem to visual experiences
that will sharpen their perceptions.
Giving children richer opportunities to
make art important for itself and for
understanding,and enjoying the art of
others. (p. 260)

Othermuseumeducatorssay they seek

to promoteconversationswith visitors,
share understandingthrough personal
interactions,promote fun and playful

activity rather than a catalogue of

facts, help visitorsbecomeresponsible
for their own learning, and stimulate
creativity and opportunitiesto learn
through play (Weinlandand Bennett,
1984; Gottfried, 1980; Wolins, 1981;
Fache, 1982). Similar goals were expressedby respondantsto a questionnairethe authordistributedto museum
educators attending the 1984 NAEA
Convention.Promotingvisual perception/literacy, creatingpositive feelings
about art and art museums,and teaching about art appreciationand cultural
context were the most frequentlycited
goals. Asked which methods/techniquesweremost effectivefor teaching
art appreciationand artisticheritagein
museumsat the primary,intermediate,
and secondary levels, the consensus
was for a variety of interactivetechniques such as gallery games, improvisation, inquiry/discovery, and
discussion/dialogue.Thoughthere are
similaritiesbetween the goals of art
museum educators and the NAEA's
Purposes, Principles, and Standards
for School Art Programs, more than
one writerhas observedthat school art
instructionis very much a matter of
hands-onactivitieswith a reluctanceto
include art history, criticism, or the
broaderculturalcontextsof art (Chapman, 1982;Lanier,1983;Hastie, 1984;
Zimmerman,1984).
If art instructionis to becomea part
of the educationalmainstreamand prepare students for lifelong learning,
there is an urgentneed for fundamental reformsin the way art teachersare
trained. Chapman (1982), who has
called such reformthe most important
ingredient in improving art in the
schools, observes that "the skills
requiredto teach the lay public and
youth about art are not the inevitable
result of deep engagementwith studio
activities.The role of the teacheris not
that of a creatorof art, but that of a
translator, interpreter, and lifelong
student of art" (p. 95). Chapman's
notion of the role of the artteacherhas
more in common with what art
museum educators are doing than it
does with current practices in art
roomsin America'sschools. The Commission on Museumsfor a New Century also recognizes the need for
reform of teacher education in its
recommendationthat "learningbased
on objectsis such a criticalpart of the
educational process that no teacher
should be permitted to overlook its

potential" (1984, p. 68). The Commission believes that trainingteachersto

use museum resources should be an
integralpart of teachereducation.
Whileit is incumbentupon museums
to maketheirresourcesavailableto the
broadest possible public, it is equally
incumbent upon schools to see that
young people are preparedto utilize
such resources.It is vital that museum
educators understandlearning theory
and becomefamiliarwith currentpractices in schools that use museum services. Their responsibility,however,is
to students,not the instructionalobjectives of teachers. Museum educators
are responsiblefor helpingyoung people recognizethe excitingpotential of
museums for purposeful leisure time

II

Art Education

May 1985

This content downloaded from 163.152.3.39 on Sat, 7 Sep 2013 00:44:57 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

activity. While working with school

groups, museum educators should be
laying foundations for lifelong learning rather than providing enrichment
to classroom learning. Teachers should
recognize that museums, though
publically financed, do not exist
primarily for school field trips; it
behooves them to become familiar with
how people learn in museums as well as
how children learn in classrooms.
Many art education programs are not
providing art teachers with the course
work and practical experience they
need to give young people the knowledge, skills, and attitudes to enjoy and
value what is available in museums.
The NAEA should take the lead,
reforming art education by changing

its Standards for Art Teacher Preparation Programs that recommends a

nine-hour minimum in art history,
aesthetics, and/or criticism while
proposing 21 hours of studio work as
an absolute minimum. This emphasis
on studio and crafts courses in art
education curricula of most colleges
and universities reduces course work
about art history and criticism to
simple surveys that do not treat the
ideas
complex and challenging
available in the history and philosophy
of art. Responsibility also rests with
university art education departments
that perpetuate the artist-educator
model by hiring faculty whose training
is primarily in studio arts. Vacancy
listings in The Chronicle of Higher

Education, NAEA News, and the

College Art Association placement
service call for "demonstrated
background in creative production" or
"studio, experience," "competency in
studio art" or "ability to teach jewelry
and two-dimensional design" rather
than expertise in art history or museum
experience. Art education departments
would do well to look at methods of art
museum education and the work of the
Getty Institute for Education in the
Arts (Duke, 1983; Greer and Rush,
1985) for initiating reform of teacher
training programs. The disciplinebased approach taken by the Getty
Institute incorporates many of the
goals of museum education. This
approach, however, could be strengthPhoto credit: Museum of Art, Carnegie Institute, ARTexpress

Art Education

May 1985

This content downloaded from 163.152.3.39 on Sat, 7 Sep 2013 00:44:57 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ened were it to include greater attention to the broader social, intellectual,

performing, and popular arts contexts
of the visual arts. Teachers trained in a
discipline-based approch to art instruction would be better able to contribute
to a strong museum-school partnership.
A museum-school partnership, with
school field trips, museum outreach
programs, teacher workshops, and
museum-designed pre- and post-visit
materials geared to the needs and
interests of the schools, would undergo
fundamental changes if museum educators reassess their roles within the
museum and come to grips with the
realities of a shrinking school-age
population and increasing median age
of the population. Museums for a New
Century (1984) recommends that
greater attention be paid to adult
programs. While it calls for a national
colloquium of participants from
government, business, the academic
community, and schools and museums
to discuss the mutually enriching relationship museums and schools should
have, its recommendations for strucchanges in
tural/organizational
museums hold important implications
for museum-school partnership. The
museum profession already recognizes
that people learn in museums in different ways than in other educational
institutions; as research documents
how this type of learning takes place,
museum education will change to maximize such learning. No one should
doubt that such changes will influence
the program and services museums
provide.
As they approach the twenty-first
century, museum professionals are
reassessing the educational function of
museums and the nature of museum
learning. With educational functions
more fully integrated into broader
realms of interpretation, and more
attention being paid to adults' needs,
the time, staff, and money for school
programs may well be diminished, particularly if school field trips decline as
a result of school budget cuts. Art programs in many communities are suffering from low enrollments or experiencing cuts in funding while art museums
continue to provide leisure learning
classes and recreational opportunities
for millions of Americans; it behooves
both art teachers and those who train
them to reevaluate their priorities for,
and approach to, art education
i

Dr. Terry Zeller is Chairperson,

Department of Education, Rochester
and Science
Museum
Center,
Rochester, New York.

Museums and Education. ICOM/CECA,

17-20.

Hastie, W.R. (1984). A search for excellence.Art Education,37 (4), 10-11.

Hood, M.C. (1983). Stayingaway:Why
people choose not to visit museums.
Museum News, 64 (4), 50-57.

Laetsch,W.M., Diamond,J., Gottfried,

J.L., and Rosenfeld, S. (1980). Children
and family groups in science centers.
Andrews, K. and Asia, C. (1979). Scienceand Children,17 (6), 14-17.
Lanier, V. (1983). Beyond aesthetic
Teenagers' attitudes about art museums.
education.Art Education,36(6), 31-32,34,
Curator, 22 (3), 224-232.
References

Bettleheim, B. (1984). Children, curiosity

and museums. In S. Nichols (Ed.). Museum
Education Anthology. Washington, D.C.:
Museum Education Roundtable, 16-19.
Bigman, S.K. (1956, June) (1956,
September). Art exhibit audiences. The

Museologist,59, 6-16; 60, 2-6.

36.
Linn, M.C. (1976). Exhibit evaluation informed decision making, Curator, 19 (4),
291-302.
Mead, M. (1970). Museums in a mediasaturated world. Museum News, 49 (1),
23-25.

Museums for a new century. (1984).

Chapman, L.H. (1982). Instant art,
instant culture. New York: Teachers Washington, D.C.: American Association
of Museums.
CollegePress.
Newsom, B.Y. (1977). The art museum
Duke, L.L. (1983).The Gettycenterfor
education in the arts. Art Education, 36 (5),
4-8.

and the school. American Education, 13

(10), 12-16.
Newson, B.Y., and Silver, A.Z. (1978).
Fache, C. (1982). Educationalgames.
Copenhagen, Denmark: Museums and The art museum as educator. Berkeley:
Education.ICOM/CECA,57-60.
Universityof CaliforniaPress.
Floud, P. (1952). Teaching problems in
working with children. Paris, France:

Screven, C.G. (1976). Exhibit evaluation:

A goal-referenced approach. Curator, 19
Museums and Young People. ICOM, (4), 271-290.
22-34.
Williams, P. (1981). Relations between
Greer, W.D. (1984). A discipline-based consenting institutions. In S. Lehman and
view of art education. Studies in Art K. Igoe (Eds.). Museum-School PartnerEducation, 25 (4), 212-218.
ships. Washington, D.C.: American
Greer, W.D., and Rush, J.C. (1985). A Association of Museums, 16-20.
grand experiment: The Getty institute for
Wolins, I. (1981). A catalyst for
educators on the visual arts. Art Education, museums: Examining the role of art
museum education. The Museologist, 155,
37 (1), 24, 33-35.
Gottfried, J. (1980). Do children learn on 17-20.
school field trips? Curator, 22 (3), 165-174.
Zimmerman, E. (1984). What art
Gurian, E.H. (1982). Museums' relation- teachers are not teaching, art students are
ship to education. Copenhagen, Denmark: not learning. Art Education, 37 (4), 12-15.
aum Education Department, Omaha, Nebraska. Photo by Roxanne Gryder

_i- -

10

This content downloaded from 163.152.3.39 on Sat, 7 Sep 2013 00:44:57 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions