Considering Prior Knowledge and Experience

While investigating the three cases, the third theme I identified was the importance of considering students’ prior knowledge and experience. To be specific, constructivism insists that learning originates from inside the child, which means that students build new ideas onto their previous knowledge to construct new knowledge (Fosnot & Perry, 2005; von Glasersfeld, 2005). Specifically, Hein (1991, 1998, 2012) argued that museum learning takes place when visitors connect what they see, do, and feel about the context of the museum with what they already know and understand. Thus, he insisted educators should consider all aspects of the diverse experiences individuals bring with them, as well as how the museum’s surroundings influence visitors’

interpretations (Hein, 2012). While investigating the three cases, I witnessed that the educators considered the information about the class that they were given by the schoolteachers and tried to discover more about the group’s previous knowledge and experience that could be built into the museum learning, while also attempting to establish a relationship with the students.

Students’ information. In order to consider students’ prior knowledge and experiences in the lesson planning, including their school curriculum, interests and needs, all three museums asked schoolteachers to provide information about the students,

including what they are currently studying and goals for the field trip, upon registration for the programs. All of the nine observed educators were indeed aware of basic

information, such as the ages of the students, which allowed the educators to create age- appropriate lessons. However, in two of the nine sessions I witnessed, knowing students’ previous information was particularly helpful in engaging students in the gallery learning. For example, Lilly (gallery educator, Red Museum) included a drawing activity at her second stop, and she told her group that their schoolteacher had informed her that they'd done many observational drawings. Lilly added another drawing activity at the last stop because, as she expected, the class enjoyed the drawing activity. Knowing the

information in advance allowed Lilly to include an activity that students found interesting and also enabled her to acknowledge that she was interested in what they were learning or doing at school.

On the other hand, I witnessed some cases when the educators had limited information about the students, which in turn challenged the instructors to accommodate the students and find ways to increase their participation. For example, Cindy at the Yellow Museum said that she had received limited information about her group in advance. She described trying to learn about the students on the spot, but the class was reticent to talk to her. Cindy assumed the students were well behaved or had less exposure to art, but during the tour she discovered that they were English Language Learners (ELL). She said if she had known that the students were ELL, she would have

prepared visual aids for those who might feel uncomfortable speaking English in front of others.

However, as Lilly (gallery educator, Red Museum) mentioned during her interview, it is challenging to obtain information about students attending shot museum programs. As an alternative, educators tried to quickly learn about the students at the beginning of the tour and during the workshop in order to establish a relationship.

Establishing a relationship with students. Whether the group was

comparatively big or small, in the beginning, the brief chance to establish a relationship between the educator and students seemed to help the educators break the ice with the group and to learn about its members. As mentioned above, Hein (1998) insisted that museum learning takes place when students connect their previous knowledge with what they see, do, and feel about the context of the museum. In concert with Hein, the

educators implemented different strategies for quickly establishing relationships with the students, while also rapidly assessing their readiness for participation. They also

attempted to learn something about the children’s interests and their previous exposure to the arts, museums, and programs. At the beginning of the gallery tours, Andy and Lilly— the Red Museum gallery educators—connected individually with students while creating their nametags. While asking students’ names and distributing the tags, both educators quickly memorized students’ names and individually welcomed them. Then both educators called on the children by name while facilitating the group dialogue, often connecting different students' observations and ideas. At the Blue Museum, Agnes (gallery educator) showed a photo of the artist carving a sculpture. When students

made any art. When many nodded in agreement, Agnes shared sample art materials and asked students to volunteer their previous experience with any of the materials. This brief share allowed Agnes to learn about students' previous experience with art materials and to get to know them a little better.

Similarly, establishing a relationship with the students at the beginning of the studio portion seemed to help the studio educators learn about their groups as well as the gallery experience that needed to be built into the studio experience. To be specific, upon students’ arrival in the studios, the Red and Blue Museum’s studio educators all

facilitated an introduction with a brief gallery tour reflection. At the Blue Museum, Janine (studio educator) asked students to share their names and something about

themselves. This opportunity allowed Janine and students to break the ice and learn about each other, as well as connect to the program theme (Sense of Self and Art) and the motivating question (How might you create a paper sculpture that tells something about yourself?). In fact, positive teacher-student relationships have long been considered a primary condition of students’ positive learning experience. These connections also “help develop students’ emotional connection and sense of safety to enhance engagement in academic pursuit” (Cook, Coco, Zhang, Fiat, Duong, & Renshaw, 2018, p. 227).

Three of the nine observed school groups participated in the tour and workshop programs as part of their school partnership or a camp program. In these cases, both the educator and the students were clearly more comfortable interacting with each other. Unfortunately, I wasn’t able to learn or observe the previous sessions attended by those involved in the school partnerships or camp group, but it was evident that the students seemed more comfortable sharing thoughts, asking questions out loud, and work with art

materials or media. To be specific, Hannah’s (the Red Museum’s gallery and studio educator) camp group referenced the compound word they created while they were collectively interpreting the painting in previous lessons (more on this in the Students’ Peer Social Interaction Section below). Also, Jenny and Eva’s group was already familiar with making an animation because they had learned and tried it at their schools

beforehand.