I finished my journal article a bit ahead of the buzzer this time and did some great work I think toward the end. The article was flailing for some time without the local connection which I finally made by meeting with Jill Levine at Normal Park Elementary. This gave my paper a very grounded, practical feel I think and her insight was valuble.
Thanks to Jim for pointing out potential for plagiarism, though I think a few of his notes on my paper pointed to my synthesis of other's ideas. I feel like if I've quoted and cited others work properly, then I go on to synthesize that into my own understanding of the topic in my own words with my new ideas--that would not be plagiarism. However, as Dean Hicks says, better safe than sorry since if I get into trouble I'll have to go see him. So I played it safe and shall continue to do so.
Also, when I get around to submitting this, I think I will remove some of the learning theory regurgitation, since I really just put that in there to adequately cover the assignment. As for an article for educators on curriculum design, I think readers will not need a refresher course in cognitivist and constructionist frameworks. I won't cut them out entirely, but I do plan to reduce those sections.
Click below to read The curriculum of museum magnet schools
and how it can be adapted to traditional classrooms.
Introduction
The information age has brought changes in all aspects of society--particularly public education. Many of the concepts our public educational system is built upon are remnants of the industrial age and gaps can be seen in what teachers and administrators are expected to achieve with students in these outdated systems (King, 1998). School systems have been attempting a wide variety of education reforms that employ various learning strategies. One of these strategies is the creation of magnet schools whose curriculums are focused on a particular theme or learning theory. An effective use of this practice has been the creation of museum magnet schools. In these schools the curriculum is tied in closely to local museums and the focus of learning is in the investigation and creation of exhibits. With this, curriculum school systems have been able to create a learning environment where students are able to participate in hands-on, object-based learning. This paper will demonstrate how the museum magnet school curriculum provides such a hands-on learning environment. Additionally, aspects of this curriculum will be discussed that can be adapted to be used in traditional school settings.
History of magnet schools
Museum schools have evolved in part from the recognition that in many cases schools must re-design themselves in order to adapt to society’s changing needs (King, 1998). Museum schools are often connected with or categorized as a magnet school. Magnet school programs have had a relatively short history in the United States, often occurring as a response to calls for voluntary desegregation in racially-divided school systems (Foster, 1976). One goal for the creation of magnet schools was to develop a curriculum and educational environment so desirable that parents from diverse background would want to enroll their children there regardless of racial stereotypes (Foster, 1976).
Magnet schools have been successful as measured by academic achievement tests and in comparison to their district’s averages. In a study on magnet schools performed in 1984 and repeated in 1989, it was found that of the sample population 80% or more had average reading and math scores that were higher than district averages (Blank, 1992). Other research has claimed that the educational quality in magnets schools does vary, but no more so than that in non-magnets (Foster, 1976). As will be shown, the academic achievement scores in certain schools adopting the museum magnet school curriculum have shown great improvements since that adoption and as compared to their school district’s averages.
Whether started to improve racial integration or to help with low-achievement on standardized tests, magnet schools “provide additional options to children whose current schools are in need of improvement, and… serve as laboratories of successful educational practice” (Creating Successful Magnet School Programs).
History of museum magnets
Magnets schools with a museum curriculum are the result of museums and school districts joining forces to create new and innovative educational institutions (King, 1998). A museum school can be defined as a partnership between at least one museum and at least one school in which curriculum is created that embeds state and federal mandates into experiential, hands-on learning (King, 1998). The benefits of such a partnership extend to the museum as well. A museum is able to more easily fulfill its educational role in the community with direct access to students in the school system. Through the partnership, they can increase community involvement in the museum, obtain greater resources for the collections, and build a more diverse audience as family members of the students also become more involved with the museum (King, 1998).
The history of museum magnet schools is relatively short. Kira King (1996), who has done a significant amount of research on the topic, believes the first school that fits the above definition opened around 1990. Out of several thousand magnet schools and magnet programs across the United States, there are still relatively few schools that fit the definition of a museum school. The implementation of the museum magnet school curriculum represents a complete re-design of a school and its entire curriculum, rather than applying superficial modifications to the existing structures (King, 1996). The result of this new school design is typically a collaboration of stakeholders and museum and school representatives that is uniquely capable of responding to the needs of the community.
Basic concepts of the curriculum
Three distinct terms arise in the discussion of museum magnet schools: museum learning, the museum process, and a museum school (King, 1998). Museum learning occurs when these schools use the creation and examination of exhibits to enable “project-enhanced learning” (Takahisa & Chalusian, 1995). One such form is to encourage students to take on research apprenticeships. In this scenario, students work closely with museum curators to investigate and create exhibits. The museum staff is able to mentor students as they model the lifelong learning that occurs in their workplace.
The museum school curriculum is founded firmly on the concept that teachers do not hold the body of knowledge and distribute it to students in bits and chunks. In museum learning, students are empowered to choose what learning paths they wish to pursue and in turn are responsible for management of the information they acquire (King, 1998). The role of the teacher is thereby transformed into more of a facilitator than a content matter expert. Application from the museum learning experience is made in different subject areas in order to comply with state and federal mandates and to insure better performance on achievement tests.
An instructional strategy that works very well within this curriculum is object-based learning. The underlying assumption of this strategy is that there is “an interconnection between an object and the ideas that it communicates” (Object-based Learning). As students observe and research objects in a museum, they have unique learning experiences—each with their own thoughts, feelings, and emotions. This can be an effective starting point for incorporation of new knowledge by a teacher who facilitates learning rather than trying to dictate it.
Measurement of learning in the museum school environment is achieved by combining measurements of attention paid to museum exhibits and non-traditional measures of classroom learning. Frequently used measures in museums are “attracting power and holding power” (Donald, 1991, p. 371), essentially measures of an exhibit’s appeal to the museum visitor. These can be applied to the exhibits created by students in the museum school learning environment. Other scholastic measures can be applied to the student’s approach to and accomplishment of projects. These are the amount of time spent on task, measuring the knowledge gained, development of thinking and problem-solving skills, and “motivation or attitudes, and creativity” (Donald, 1991, p.371). A common problem of this type of learning is the subjective nature of works, thus rubrics for evaluation each project must be carefully followed when assigning a grade.
Many scholars in learning and formal education have recognized the need for students to be embedded in experiential learning environments. Museums offer learning experiences that realize many of the goals set forth by many of the education scholars of the last century. In 1938, Dewey’s (as cited in Neill, 2005) Experience in Education was a call for recognition of practical, hands-on learning experiences for students in formal education. He proposed that learning should have “continuity of experience” (Dillon, 2001)—every learning experience should build upon existing knowledge and should influence future experiences. This occurs when teachers prepare students for a museum visit, then the students explore the museum, and finally, reports and follow-up discussions take place. Another concept Dewey advocates is interaction—learning takes place by interacting with the physical world (as cited in Neill, 2005). Interaction is often more likely to occur in a museum than in a classroom.
Piaget’s cognitive development theory places emphasis on the cyclical interactions between the learner and the environment that occur in each of four major stages during a child’s development (Ormrod, 154), a principle which builds on Dewey’s principle of interaction. These stages are from birth to two, from two to six, from seven to eleven, and from twelve to fifteen years of age (Dillon, 2001). Vygotsky included a social dimension to this type of learning when he asserted that much of it is “culturally mediated” (Ormrod, 1999, p. 161). His argument proposed that advanced concepts appear first in social interactions and then are slowly absorbed by the individual.
George Hein espouses the constructivist learning theory which emphasizes active participation in learning, using both “their hands and their minds” (Dillon, 2001). A modification of this theory, situated constructionism is even more focused on the idea of “learning-by-making” which appeals to many different learning styles (Papert & Harel, 1991). Students should be given the freedom and challenge to produce work that reflects their own interests and personal growth. Therefore, conclusions reached by each learner should not be compared to external standards because “people make their own meaning out of experience” (Hein, 1994, p. 34).
Museums offer an environment that caters particularly well to experiential and constructivist models of learning. Terry Russell points out how adept museums are able to effectively engage visitors by connecting old and new ideas, by providing hands-on experiences, and creating forums for social interaction (Russell, 1994). Mihalyi Csikszentmihalyi suggests that intrinsic motivation for learning can be sparked by supportive environments where learners are curious to find out more about each new topic (Csikszentmihalyi, as cited in Dillon, 2001). Exhibits in museums can provide this scenario and more museums are now including even more diverse ways of interacting with the content—a concept which supports Howard Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences theory. Gardner (1993) points out that many schools are striving to recreate the learner-centered environments that exist in museums.
An over-arching framework used in the development of the curriculum of the museum magnet school, one that encompasses many of the concepts listed above, is called Understanding by Design—an idea developed by Grant Wiggins and Jay McTighe (Brown, 2004, p.13). The focus of their framework is to enhance student understanding, rather than focusing on rote recall or covering textbook material (Wiggins & McTighe, 1998). Their book, Understanding by Design, promotes facets of student understanding that should be at the forefront of any curriculum design. They present a backward design process calls for educators to ask essential questions, such as, “What should students know?” or What is worthy of understanding?” (Wiggins & McTighe, 1998, p. 8). By incorporating curriculum standards into the creation of learning modules, teachers can insure that classroom time is useful and meaningful for the students (Brown, 2004). Further, Understanding by Design recommends that students have a “photo album” of student performance rather than a “snapshot” as their learning is being assessed(Brown, 2004, p. 15). Clearly, this framework calls for a completely new approach to curriculum design and implementation.
During the exploration and creation of interactive, interdisciplinary exhibits, students in museum magnet schools are engaged in topics and information in a very different way than in a traditional classroom with a textbook. Experiential learning calls for active involvement and hands-on exploration (Sternberg and Zhang, 2000). This differs greatly from the traditional classroom model of teaching to the test. Museum experiences that are designed to stimulate a person’s intrinsic motivations to investigate, explore, and synthesize, can lead to the building of salient learning constructs to which further knowledge can be added. Intrinsic motivation in students has a multitude of advantages over extrinsic motivators, including: not needing to constantly compel student to perform tasks, the students are generally more engaged in the topics of study, and they learn new information in a more meaningful, connected fashion (Ormrod, 1999, p. 409). For these reasons, museum education is a particularly useful model of education that has been used by some as the basis of a new kind of curriculum for K-12 schools.
An added benefit of museum magnet schools is that they do not typically cost additional money or require new resources to enable. Because of the symbiotic relationship between the museum and the schools, resources can be shared for a mutually beneficial partnership. This partnership--where the school is incorporated into its surrounding environment, can be described as an integrated learning community (Glencoe Online, 2005). Their non-traditional approach to learning provides new ways to “bridge economic, generational, and institutional gaps” that may be present in the existing school system (Glencoe Online, 2005). Also, such partnerships can often be used as the basis for requests for grant funding, a resource almost all public schools require and often are in competition for.
An example of an integrated, learning community is the partnership between the two schools in Washington, D.C. and the Smithsonian Institution (King, 1999). Of course, a partnership with a museum holding one of the largest and most diverse collections in the world has a tremendous impact on each of the schools involved. In these schools students are encouraged to explore and research existing exhibitions, then work collaboratively to create exhibits. Museum education specialists are available to the students during each step of the process. Finally, the exhibits are put on display and the public is able to view their work, thus finalizing the real-world experience and fulfilling a “real sense of accomplishment” (Glencoe Online, 2005).
Many other school systems have applied the magnet museum school curriculum as successfully. One such school is the Normal Park Museum Magnet in Chattanooga, Tennessee which has partnered with no less than seven local museums (Headley, 2006). Students there engage in “hands-on, minds-on” learning with an emphasis on literacy (Normal Park Museum Magnet School). Once a predominantly black school with low achievement, Normal Park now serves students a very diverse population. Now only about 30% of the students in the school are minority and 70% are non-minority and the achievement gap between the two groups has been reduced by over 40 points (Levine, 2006). Gaps between students from varying economic backgrounds have been reduced significantly as well (Levine, 2006). Jill Levine, the principal at Normal Park, reports that test scores have improved in almost every area (J. Levine, personal interview, March 30, 2006).
In creating the curriculum for the school which re-opened as a museum magnet in 2002, Levine hand chose teachers from the county school system that were willing to think progressively about creating a new kind of educational experience for the students (Battles, 2004). State curriculums were unpacked (Brown, 2004), or taken apart and placed into a more concrete learning context as parts of 9-week modules that focus on specific topics (Battles, 2004). Fort instance, a 5th-grade student spends a 9 week block focused on the civil war. During this time that student will prepare for and then visit the Chattanooga Regional History Museum, report back on that experience, and then apply knowledge gained to the creation of an exhibit on the civil war. That exhibit will then be displayed in the school building and presented on one of four exhibit nights. On that night the student acts as a docent, explaining his or her work and demonstrating an understanding of its sociocultural context (Levine, personal interview, March, 30, 2006).
“Student work is put on a pedestal,” is the phrase Levine uses to describe the unique approach to teaching and learning taken at Normal Park (Levine, personal interview, March 30, 2006). Student projects are on display in every inch of the school building and even on the grounds. Every piece of work is unique and a student’s background cannot be determined by the exhibits they’ve created. This proves that the curriculum can work with students from any background (Creating Successful Magnet School Programs). Levine believes that homework can be an equity issue. When asked about parental involvement with the creation of the exhibits, she explained that the exhibits displayed in the schools are created entirely in the classroom. When parents volunteer they are encouraged to help their student’s entire class, not just their own child (Levine, personal interview, March 30, 2006). Parents at the Normal Park Museum Magnet must volunteer a minimum of 18 hours at the school each year (Normal Park Museum Magnet School). This provides teachers with much of the additional support needed to work in such a demanding teaching role, and it saves thousands of dollars each year for the school’s budget.
Administrators of museum magnets may be presented with more challenges than administrators of traditional schools. Continued funding must constantly be sought for the added costs related to development of the curriculum such as: busing costs for the trips to the museums, materials and supplies needed to create museum quality products, and funding for additional staff such as a museum coordinator (J. Stepanske, personal communication, March 28, 2004). Also additional time must be spent by teachers to create new and unique instructional units each year (Levine, personal interview, March 30, 2006). More teaching assistants are often needed, and this need cannot always be met by parent volunteers, however, even with all of these factors to overcome, administrators in these programs are very optimistic about the new programs they are creating (Battles, 2004).
Museum magnet schools represent one of the most effective education reforms of the last century. With its unique curriculum built upon Understanding by Design and its focus on hands-on, project-based, object-oriented learning, student achievement results at museum magnet school are very high. Normal Park’s school averages were once some of the lowest in Hamilton County, but now they bring up the average. When comparing the academic achievement of advanced students, those who typically score very highly on standardized tests, Normal Park’s students’ scores are consistently higher than advanced students throughout the county (Normal Park School Improvement Plan).
Adapting the Curriculum
The concepts used in magnet schools can be adapted to and used in more traditional school settings to achieve similar results. The Queensland, Australia Museum Magnet schools program represents an effort to embed components of the museum school curriculum into a traditional classroom setting. Students and teachers in this program are similar to those in the magnet schools described above in that they “collect objects, study them to derive knowledge and present their findings through exhibitions and publications” (Museum Magnet Schools). However, these schools have not created an entirely new design in order to adopt the curriculum. Instead they have modified their existing curriculum to incorporate similar goals and have done so quite successfully.
The partnership at the heart of this program exists between four schools under the Queensland Department of Education and the Queensland Museum as well as the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C. (Museum Magnet Schools). Students in this program create exhibits in their classrooms that are then displayed on the world wide web to be shared with other schools in the program and partner museum schools in the United States. Even though these schools do not fit the definition of a museum school as put forth by Kira King and others, these schools have been able to achieve many of the same results are possible with the museum school curriculum. Many of the adaptations have involved creative uses of technology, such as virtual field trips and presenting student work online (Museum Magnet Schools).
Jill Levine believes that components of the museum curriculum certainly be transferred to classrooms in non-museum schools. “It just takes a lot of extra work for teachers” (Levine, personal interview, March, 30, 2006). The preparation of the lessons and the museum visits, planning and arranging the projects, and finding materials and funds for purchase of materials can be exhausting, as many schoolteachers and administrators know. But the resulting learning and understanding of what is learned by the students is certainly worth the extra effort.
Teachers today in almost all subject areas are under pressure to adapt their instructional styles to incorporate situated, hands-on learning as is described by the constructivist and constructionist learning theories and to cater to multiple intelligences as described by Howard Gardner. Museums and schools are able to partner in ways that create new types of learning experiences for students of many different backgrounds and with many different learning styles. It should not be interpreted that traditional classrooms are inadequate when compared to the experiences provided by a museum but rather that, as stated by Sarah Dillon, “the learning experiences available in museums and schools can complement each other to the benefit of all learners” (2001). Partnerships between museums and schools are certain to be increasing in numbers and in complexity over coming years, and further research into the curriculum that is developing from those partnerships will be needed.
The current research, although limited, as a whole presents a very positive view of what the future holds for both museum magnet schools and even non-magnet schools. Traditional schools that are able to adapt their existing curriculum to include object-oriented learning experiences and the creation of exhibits in the classroom will likely be able to increase achievement scores and reach students with diverse learning styles. Further empirical research into achievement measures of these schools and cost/benefit analysis could benefit administrators and stakeholders as they proceed with future museum school partnerships.
References
Battles, L. (2004). A Magnet for Learning. Dimensions. 17-18.
Blank, R. K. and Archbald, D. (1992). Magnet schools and issues of education quality. The Clearing House.
Davis, J. and Gardner H. (1993). Open Windows, Open Doors. Museum News Jan/Feb. 34-37, 57-59.
Dillon, S. (2001). Learning Theories and Museum Education Practice: Food for Thought. MERT Journal 2:1.
Donald, J. (1991). The Measurement of Learning in the Museum. Canadian Journal of Education. 175:2. 179-192.
Education Queensland, (n.d.). Museum magnet schools. Retrieved Mar. 12, 2006, from Museum Magnet Schools Web site: http://mms.eq.edu.au/.
Foster, G. (1973). “Desegregating schools: A review of techniques.” Harvard Educational Review v 43 n 1.
Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice. New York: Basic Books.
George Mason University Instructional Technology Program, (n.d.). Object-based learning. Retrieved Mar. 14, 2006, from http://chd.gmu.edu/immersion/knowledgebase/strategies/constructivism/objectbased.htm.
Glencoe Online, (2005). Integrated learning communities: communities building better schools. Retrieved Mar. 1, 2006, from Education Up Close Web site: http://www.glencoe.com/sec/teachingtoday/educationupclose.phtml/34.
Hamilton County Department of Education, (n.d.). Normal park museum magnet. Retrieved Mar. 11, 2006, from Education on the Move Web site: http://www.hcde.org/magnet/npmm.htm.
Headley, A. (2006). Normal Park Museum Magnet School. CityScope. 60-64.
Hein, G. (1994). Learning in the Museum. New York: Routledge.
King, K. (1996). Alternative educational systems: A multi-case study in museum schools. Retrieved Feb. 21, 2006, from Dissertations in instructional systems technology. Web site: http://www.indiana.edu/~educr795/prop2.html.
King, K. (1998). Museum Schools: Institutional Partnerships and Museum Learning. AERA Annual Meeting. San Diego.
King, K. (1999). Transforming education: Case studies in systems thinking. Retrieved Mar. 30, 2006, from http://education.indiana.edu/~frick/aera99/transform.pdf.
Neill, J. (2005). Experiential learning. Retrieved Feb. 21, 2006, from 500 Word Summary of Dewey’s “Experience & Education” Web site: http://www.wilderdom.com/experiential/SummaryJohnDeweyExperienceEducation.html.
Ormrod, J. E. (2004). Human learning. 4th Edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Papert, S. (1991). Situating constructionism. In I. Harel & S. Papert (Eds.) Constructionism. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Russell, T. (1994) The Enquiring Visitor: Usable Learning Theory For Museum Contexts. Journal of Education in Museums. 15. 19-21.
Takahisa, S. & Chalusian, R. (1995). New initiatives for museum-school partnerships. American association of museums’s 90th annual meeting. Washington, DC: American association of museums.
US Department of Education, (n.d.). Creating successful magnet school programs. Retrieved Feb. 22, 2006, from Innovations in Education Web site: http://www.ed.gov/admins/comm/choice/magnet/report_pg8.
Sternberg, R. J. and Zhang, L. F. (2000). Perspectives on cognitive, learning, and thinking styles. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2000. html.