paradigms either of museums or of
e-learning. It is certainly not sensible to
think that the future of learning with digital
technologies in museums and galleries
lies merely with some hybrid synthesis of
the educational expertise of the classroom
teacher with the functionality of any extant
museum website.
Museums may be educational innovators,
but virtual museums have evolved
primarily as replications of the physical
structure of museums rather than being
based on their underlying and originating
principles (Goldman and Kaplan 2002).
Indeed, “many museums are failing
themselves and their users by creating a
digital pastiche of the physical museum,
rather than seizing the opportunity to
extend and enhance the museum learning
experience offered by effective use of ICT”
(Prosser and Eddisford 2004). Mitchell
(2002) suggests treating time and space as
the key variables (Table 5.2): are the visitor
and the interpreter in the same place at
the same time? This analysis has
interesting implications, for the key
difference between a real exhibition and a
virtual exhibition is the location of the
visitor, as the interpreter is not present
simultaneously in either case. This
approach also has the advantage of
removing the real or virtual dilemma.
| |
local |
remote |
synchr
-onous |
live tour/
personal
interaction |
marginal
encouraged
alternative |
asynchr
-onous |
physical exhibit,
with interpretation
in ‘stored’medium |
online
exhibit |
Table 5.2 Exhibits, interpretation, media
(after Mitchell 2002)
It helps us to recognise that 21st century
technologies enable digital materials to
supplement and enhance 3D objects.
For the future the need is for an entirely
fresh approach. Current mutations may
give rise to the rapid evolution of totally
new species that incorporate radically new
ways of thinking – about museums, about
learning and about digital technologies:
• individual exhibits (or components)
rather than exhibitions
• learner input in development
• pathways rather than packages
• signposts rather than tracks
• new concepts of temporality and
permanence.
The integration of real and virtual will
provide further powerful learning
opportunities. Jones (2002) develops some
of the feedback features of mobile
interpretative methods into the notion of
the self-learning hypermuseum. Here, the
tracking of visitors and the analysis of their
behaviour patterns is used not only
generically in helping to evaluate both
exhibits and interpretative materials, but
also to develop a differentiated and
individualised approach. The combination
of both real and virtual objects with artificial
intelligence systems enables the museum
itself to learn, to adapt to new visitors,
based on the patterns, preferences and
predilections of previous visitors.
Knell (2003) argues that the object will
inevitably remain the ultimate repository
of knowledge, even if technologies do
provide possibilities for sophisticated
interpretation. |
|
Museums may wish to
present their audiences with challenges,
but they will still want control of the thrust of the interpretation. Yet, as Freedman
(2003) asserts, individual objects have
shifting and ambiguous meanings; their
significance is open to multiple
interpretations and highly dependent upon
context. Key to an individual learner’s
understanding is the opportunity to
construct a large number of meaningful
conceptual connections. In a physical
exhibition this possibility is restricted to
the selection of the curator/designer; with
an online exhibit learners are able to
construct their own personalised narratives.
Personalisation is the way forward. Not
the kind of personalisation represented
by the supermarket loyalty card or the
website cookie. But personalisation of
interpretation, of technology and of
learning. Personalisation of interpretation
could significantly enhance social and
intellectual inclusion. Personalisation of
technology could free both museums and
learners from many of the current
constraints. Personalisation of learning
could finally facilitate an escape from the
deficit models so prevalent in educational
institutions and release untold potential.
“Let’s do the interesting bits first, then we
might not have time for the boring bits!”
Said by a child to the adults accompanying
her on entering a major national museum,
this highlights the need for personalisation.
Just as no two museums are identical, not
even two exhibitions within a museum, so
all museum visitors, all learners, are
different. Prior to the introduction of digital
technologies it was possible to distinguish
only between museums that presented a
single curatorial view and those – with the
visitor in mind – that assumed all visitors
to be well-educated good readers of
English. Trying to layer content on text
panels, using different fonts or point sizes,
had serious implications for learning and
for design integrity.
Imagine a family group of two adults, with
different subject interests and preferred
learning styles, and two or three children,
of various ages, abilities and attention
spans. With personalised applications of
digital technologies, they can all share the
same experience – look at the same
artefact, engage with the same activity –
but each can fine tune it in ways of his/her
own choosing. This might mean a different
language, presentation style, degree of
complexity, technical vocabulary etc. It
might mean a choice of very different
approaches to the same material:
information or inquiry, instruction or
investigation. Every exhibit has numerous
logical links to other exhibits, which may
be physically separated or only available
digitally. Whether on-site or online (or
both) these links can be made real for
each individual. The group has a shared
experience, enhanced by their own
choices, which can then in turn be shared
with each other.
The story of digital technologies in
educational contexts has often been one
of a solution in search of a problem. The
provision of learning opportunities in
museums has frequently been driven by
the agendas of expert curators or of the
formal education sector. Drawing on the
example provided by Inspiring Learning for
All (MLA 2004) it is time for educators to
take the lead and to make demands of
both museums and technologists. For,
after all, learning in museums with digital
technologies is principally about learning.
... next page |
|
|
|
it is time for
educators to take
the lead and to
make demands
of both
museums and
technologists |
