Design learning in museum settings: towards a strategy for enhancing creative learning among design students

by Geoffrey Caban, Carol Scott and Robert Swieca

Museum curators and design educators have access to a wide range of information on learning theory that can be applied, in general ways, to learning in museum settings. Hein (1995) drew upon the work of Dewey, and upon Peppers four world views on how knowledge is constructed, to consider four learning approaches which have relevance for museums. As well as the currently fashionable constructivism and the behaviorist learning model he discussed also the more traditional models of traditional lecture and text and discovery learning. Applying these four learning approaches to museums, Hein suggested that there could be four different kinds of museums. One is the Systematic museum, based on the traditional lecture and text model, where the content of the museum is exhibited so that it reflects the true structure of the subject matter and is presented to the visitor in a manner that makes it easiest to comprehend. Other kinds of museums, according to Hein, are the Discovery museum, based on the discovery learning model, and the Orderly museum based on the behaviorist learning model. The learning features of the fourth kind, the Constructivist museum, are that the viewer constructs personal knowledge from the exhibit, and the process of gaining knowledge is itself a constructive act. The focus is on the visitor, not on the content of the museum. Though appearing to favour the constructivist approach, Hein concedes that examples of constructivist museums, featuring a lack of predetermined sequence, use of multiple learning modalities, opportunities for visitors to make connections with familiar concepts and objects, and comparisons between the unfamiliar and new, are hard to find. However, there are an increasing number of exhibitions that are designed so that multiple paths are possible through the exhibit and the learner (visitor) is provided with a range of modalities to acquire information. Among other research which informs learning theory in museum settings is HooperGreenhills work (1999) on transmission versus constructivist models of communication, and also her use of hermeneutic approaches to understand the process of meaning-making in museums. For hermeneutic philosophers, according to Hooper-Greenhill, meaning-making is shaped by the inevitability of prior knowledge, the effect of tradition, the past as it works in the present, the prejudices and biases that are part of being human, and the capacity to interrogate the past and to distinguish between productive and non-productive preconceptions. The usefulness to curators of the research on learning in museums would be enhanced by greater knowledge of visitor groups, particularly knowledge of their distinctive learning styles and particular learning needs. For museums that emphasise design, it would be useful to know more about ways in which designers make sense of the museum experience.

Design learning in museum settings: towards a strategy for enhancing creative learning among design students by Geoffrey Caban, Carol Scott and Robert Swieca Open Museum Journal Volume 2: Unsavoury histories, August 2000

Learning styles of designers While researchers into learning theory have looked at learning in some specific areas such as science, there is little or no help to curators on how they might allow for the distinctive learning styles, and the particular learning needs, of specialist visitor groups such as design students. Some evaluations have been carried out on the effectiveness of museums in enhancing science learning for school children, but little information is available on the ways in which museums can influence the development of creative thinking and other attributes which are integral to the learning of designers. Empirical studies indicate that the learning styles of designers are systematically different from those of other professional groups, and this has obvious relevance to designers ways of viewing the world and responding to different environments. A greater understanding of the ways in which designers learn should assist museum curators who are working in design related museum settings. Newland, Powell and Creed (1987) explored the learning styles, perceptions and cultural styles of designers in an attempt to define precisely how designers perceive and learn about their world. The study emanated from a concern that well established scientific, technical and social knowledge is unexploited by designers and does not, therefore, become manifest in their work. Their study drew on Kolbs work on individuals learning styles, Learys work with interpersonal communications, and Peppers four world views explaining individuals ways of reconstructing their sensory perceptions. They superimposed Learys typology of interpersonal interaction on Kolbs typology of learning preferences to produce a visual summary which can be used to explain many of the processes exhibited by designers in their handling of information and in their interaction with the people who can provide information relevant to design thinking. Testing their ideas by questionnaire survey, they deduced that designers are what Kolb has called accommodators, i.e. they have the ability to involve themselves fully, openly and without bias in new experiences, and are better suited to an intuitive, artistic approach than a systematic, scientific one. Their strengths are in doing things, carrying out plans and tasks and becoming involved in new experience. They are divergent thinkers and with imaginative abilities and an awareness of meaning and values. Previous studies (Powell, Evans and Talbot 1982) had shown that engineers, physicists, chemists and mathematicians who covered areas such as acoustics, lighting, construction, structures, materials science, and thermal energy control design belonged to a particular learning group, and that there was a relative lack of designers who fitted into this group. They found that designers habitually reject information of the normal design science category and, with a view to encouraging cross-disciplinary activity, they suggested a four-fold strategy for more effective information transfer across different learner groups. Cross (1991) has observed that although the amount of research into the ways designers think is limited, some consistent patterns in the research results can be discerned. Referring to research evidence which suggests that designers use forms or styles of reasoning that are particular to design thinking, Cross has presented the following observations:

Design learning in museum settings: towards a strategy for enhancing creative learning among design students by Geoffrey Caban, Carol Scott and Robert Swieca Open Museum Journal Volume 2: Unsavoury histories, August 2000

 designers habitually treat problems as though they are ill-defined; designers use a solution-focusing cognitive strategy for problem resolution, whereas scientists use a problem-focusing strategy; designers use a particular form of reasoning which is different from the conventionally acknowledged forms of inductive and deductive reasoning and which can be described as abductive (suggesting that something may be rather than must be or actually is ). It is useful for appropriate museums to be aware of the available knowledge on the learning preferences of designers, and to look for opportunities to address these preferences in museum experiences. It is useful also for there to be an awareness of designers learning needs which relate to the skills and competencies required for the role of designer. Design skills and competencies Caban and Trigwell (1991) surveyed a sample group of industrial designers, interior designers, visual communicators, and fashion & textiles designers, to determine the skills and attributes considered most important for design practice. The research formed part of the process of identifying issues for a re-definition of the design curriculum at the University of Technology, Sydney. An initial target group identified a range of 33 skills and attributes, and these were used as the basis of a questionnaire to a large group of design practitioners who were asked to rank them in order of importance for design practice. Three skills/attributes were considered by most respondents to be essential for design practice. These were communication skills, technical skills (which varied according to the area of design practice), and creative thinking. Research and analytical skills were ranked highly, particularly the ability to analyse briefing material. Skills in design evaluation (both as an integral part of the design process and after completion of the process) were also considered to be important, as were skills in design through teamwork. Through accompanying comments provided by those surveyed, it was clear that they saw creative thinking as integral to most of their design activities. No definition of creative thinking had been provided to the initial target group nor to those surveyed by questionnaire, but their responses indicated that they thought creative thinking was central to the generation of innovative solutions to design problems, the evaluation of design ideas and proposals, and the translation of design proposals into outcomes through drawing and the creation of models and prototypes. The view that creative thinking forms the basis of design activity is supported by other research into design learning. Cross (1990) nominated four aspects of expert design behaviour which differ from expert aspects of other disciplines, namely: the production of novel, unexpected solution concepts; the ability to tolerate uncertainty and to work with incomplete information; the use of imagination and constructive forethought; and the use of drawings and other modelling media as means of problem-solving.

Design learning in museum settings: towards a strategy for enhancing creative learning among design students by Geoffrey Caban, Carol Scott and Robert Swieca Open Museum Journal Volume 2: Unsavoury histories, August 2000

These four aspects all involve elements of creative thinking, and reinforce the case for a focus on creative thinking as a key element in design learning. However, there is continuing conjecture on how creative thinking skills are acquired, and on which creative attributes are appropriate for those working in various design fields. If museums are to have a role in enhancing creative as part of the design learning process, it is important that curators and other appropriate museum staff have an understanding of what is meant by creative learning in museum settings, strategies for developing this learning, and mechanisms for evaluating the effectiveness of the strategies. Creative learning and museums What is meant by the ability to think creatively, and is it possible to recognise this ability and to develop strategies for enhancing it? The area of creativity has been researched by numerous groups including cognitive scientists, psychologists and visual artists but, as Edwards has pointed out: we still have no generally accepted definition of creativity no general agreement on what it is, how to learn it, how to teach it, or if, indeed, it can be learned or taught. (Edwards 1995:2) Briskman (1980) argued that it is impossible to develop a general theory of creativity, pointing out that such a theory would eliminate all the mystery and miraculousness of creativity, and would eliminate creativity itself. He argued that attempts in the United States of America in the nineteen fifties to locate creativity primarily in some special psychological processes or traits had a pragmatic motivation, namely the need for the United States to increase its numbers of scientists and engineers for its space struggle with Russia. Briskman proposed a product-oriented, non-psychologistic, approach to artistic and scientific creativity, suggesting that creativity ought to be located primarily in artistic and scientific products. He argued that in order to investigate how creativity is possible, we should not be trying to look for psychological processes or traits leading to creativity, but rather for the aspects of products which lead us to evaluate them as creative (Briskman 1980: 91). Briskmans views seem to have particular application for learning about creativity in museum settings. Other researchers have attempted to investigate how creativity is possible by identifying specific qualities and physiological factors which enhance creativity. Getzels and Jackson (1962) identified a wide range of creative qualities including playfulness, humour, variety, social concern and insight, personal introspectiveness, and inventiveness. Gruber (1981) pointed to t wo seemingly opposed approaches to creative work. One emphasises sudden moments of insight, dramatic reorganisations of ideas, and the other the slow construction of ideas, treating creative thinking as a growth process.

Design learning in museum settings: towards a strategy for enhancing creative learning among design students by Geoffrey Caban, Carol Scott and Robert Swieca Open Museum Journal Volume 2: Unsavoury histories, August 2000

Edwards (1993) drew on the work of Roger Sperry on the separate functions of the brains left and right hemispheres, conducted at the California Institute of Technology, to argue that there are ways of enhancing creative thinking. Sperrys studies concluded that although both hemispheres of the brain use high-level cognitive modes which involve thinking, reasoning, and complex mental functioning, the mode of the left brain is verbal and analytical while that of the right brain is spatial and perceptual. Edwards interpreted Sperrys work as establishing that the right hemisphere mode is the intuitive, subjective, relational, holistic, time-free mode, in effect the creative mode. She argued that the emphasis of western culture and education is slanted strongly towards rewarding left-brain skills, and that right brain skills those of the dreamer, the artificer, the artist are largely untaught and unlearned. According to Edwards, there are ways of increasing right brain activity and thereby enhancing creativity. Even though the links between creativity and physiological traits may be considered by some to be inconclusive, it is possible that Edwards suggestions can by applied usefully towards the enhancement of creative thinking in museums. She argues that the key to advancing creative thinking is to gain access to the inventive, intuitive, imaginative powers that may have been largely untapped because of our verbal technological culture and educational systems. This involves producing a shift in the state of consciousness, and setting up conditions which cause a mental shift to a different mode of information processing, to a different way of seeing. In a later work, Edwards (1995) combines the work of Helmholtz, Poincare, and Getzels to suggest that there are five stages in the creative process: 1) first insight, 2) saturation, 3) incubation, 4) illumination, and 5) verification. First insight involves the grasping of the issue; saturation is the research or information gathering phase; during the incubation stage the brain deals with the research information ; illumination is the moment of inspiration, sometimes called the Eureka Experience or the Aha Experience (Gruber, 1981); and verification involves putting new ideas into a form that makes them able to be used by others. Edwards claims that first insight, incubation and illumination relate mainly to the right brain mode, and saturation and verification mainly to the left brain. Although she accepts that some (e.g. the Gestalt psychologists) contend that creativity is an unsegmented process, she defends the five stage theory and focuses on some practical suggestions for developing the creative stages associated with right brain activity, particularly the stages of first insight, incubation and illumination. While her focus on the medium of drawing to develop creativity may not be particularly appropriate for the museum setting, she provides a number of suggestions for developing new ways of seeing upon which museums could draw. Csikszentmihalyi (1995) provides a more direct link between creative thinking and the museum experience. His paper titled Intrinsic Motivation in Museums: What Makes Visitors Want to Learn refers to the flow experience, a common experiential state of mind that is spontaneous, almost automatic, like the flow of a strong current. Csikszentmihalyi contends that painters, musicians, sportsmen (and, presumably, designers) who are willing to invest psychic energy in tasks for which intrinsic rewards are absent, do so because of the quality of experience

Design learning in museum settings: towards a strategy for enhancing creative learning among design students by Geoffrey Caban, Carol Scott and Robert Swieca Open Museum Journal Volume 2: Unsavoury histories, August 2000

which ensues. General characteristics of activities that produce flow are that they have clear goals and appropriate rules, avoid conflicting goals or unclear expectations, produce immediate and unambiguous feedback and accountability, and tend to occur when the challenges of the activity match the skills of the individual. According to Csikszentmihalyi, the challenge for museums is to produce this experience so that initial curiosity and interest will grow into a more extensive learning interaction, resulting in personal growth and considerable skill enhancement. Among his suggested guidelines for facilitating the experience are: encouraging mindfulness: a state of mind that results from drawing novel distinctions, examining information from new perspectives, being sensitive to context. An open, creative, probabilistic state of mind in which the individual might be led to finding differences among things thought different (Csikszentmihalyi 1995: 36); providing opportunities for deep absorption engaged through sensory, intellectual, and emotional faculties. This guideline arises from a need to feel emotionally connected to subject area; satisfying the need for clear goals and appropriate rules, for an awareness of what is to be accomplished; providing information by which visitors can compare their responses to some other standard. Successful displays tend to be those which ask visitors to make guesses, to evaluate, and to respond. Among those to have an obvious role in enhancing design learning are the curators and evaluation staff from the museum, and educators from design schools. Valuable input can come also from the exhibition designers who are members of the permanent staff of museums or who are contracted to consult on individual exhibits. These designers can provide valuable expertise on ways of developing meaningful creative thinking and design learning experiences. They can be instrumental in ensuring that the design objectives of the museum as a whole, and those of individual exhibits, are articulated clearly. Michael Ettema, former Curator of the Henry Ford Museum in Michigan, has argued that designers should be given more significant roles in stimulating creative thinking in museums. According to Ettema, If you talk to educators who deal with learning styles they will tell you the most deeply effective learning, the most remembered learning, is learning that employs the senses and particularly the emotions, and thats what design does particularly well. The historian and curator can lay out the story and can communicate it using words and emotion, but what intensifies the emotional effectiveness, the sensory effectiveness, and therefore the educational value and the learning potential of the story, is the manipulation of the design elements.

Design learning in museum settings: towards a strategy for enhancing creative learning among design students by Geoffrey Caban, Carol Scott and Robert Swieca Open Museum Journal Volume 2: Unsavoury histories, August 2000

Unfortunately, museum people and designers dont know each other very well, and they need to. Museum people often dont really understand the narrative theyre working with; its unconscious to them so they cant communicate it to the designer. Museum people are great unconscious planners of the narrative. Its a given, an inherent, and they do it without thinking about it. Sometimes its very effective, but too often its not, because the narrative needs to be brought out and made more explicit. Designers can help make the narrative engaging, tangible and more explicit (Ettema 1997: 197). It is appreciated that exhibition designers working in different countries and in museums with different emphases will have differing roles and working relationships. But Ettema reinforces the point that exhibition designers should have a good understanding of what constitutes design learning, and are well placed to assist with its advancement. Towards a strategy for enhancing creative learning in museums If museums are to play a useful role in developing creative learning and thereby aiding design learning, a strategy must be developed which capitalises on the available knowledge about creative learning in the context of the needs of designers. It is necessary first to specify what is meant by creative learning in the museum setting. Do we mean learning about creativity, or learning to be more creative? As objectives, is either or are both achievable in museums? Numerous museum exhibitions have included aspects of learning about creativity by facilitating the interpretation and discussion of creative products, and it should not be difficult to find ways of increasing this focus with a view to enhancing design learning. It is more difficult to know whether museums can assist design students to be more creative, and whether effective strategies can be implemented by museums with this objective in mind. It is necessary also to specify what is meant by the museum setting, and to distinguish between the general museum environment and the content of specific exhibitions. While the emphasis should be on the content of permanent and special exhibitions, the total museum environment including museum design, exhibition layout and research infrastructure can have important learning implications, particularly for design students. A study is proposed which will determine the forms of design learning that can be fostered effectively in museum settings. The study program to be carried out jointly by the Powerhouse Museum, Sydney and the University of Technology, Sydney will have the following objectives: General objectives to determine the degree to which the Powerhouse Museum can foster design learning; to determine ways in which the museum environment can maximise its potential as a centre for creative learning. Specific Objective

Design learning in museum settings: towards a strategy for enhancing creative learning among design students by Geoffrey Caban, Carol Scott and Robert Swieca Open Museum Journal Volume 2: Unsavoury histories, August 2000

 To develop and test a methodology which can be used to evaluate design learning in museum settings. In developing and testing the methodology, the investigators will draw upon theoretical framework of general learning in museum settings, the learning needs and learning styles of designers, and theories of creative learning. Use of Falks work on personal meaning mapping and Csiksentmihalyis work on optimal learning conditions seems particularly appropriate because of its relationship to creative learning and because of some common underlying principles. These are: that learning in informal settings can be constructed to ensure optimal outcomes; that the effectiveness of the learning depends on the degree of personal engagement and meaning; that personal engagement and meaning differ from individual to individual and that intrinsic rewards can be incorporated as part of the museum experience. The methodology will be tested in a pilot study involving students from a cross section from both university and TAFE (technical and further education) industrial, architectural, fashion, and graphic design courses. Students will be organised into control groups with one group undertaking a structured museum experience and the other having a free, independent and self selected experience. The findings of the investigation will be used as the basis for developing recommendations to the Powerhouse Museum for strengthening the role of the Museum in the enhancement of design learning. Results of the study will include: a research model for assessing learning outcomes among design students as the result of a museum experience; recommendations regarding the structure of the museum experience and the materials that museums may need to develop to facilitate creative learning among design students. Conclusion: It is valuable for a museum which focuses on design and the decorative arts, and also for design educators, to know more about design learning in the museum setting and how this learning might be enhanced. It is probable that a considerable amount of informal design learning occurs already in museums; many professional designers can recall museum exhibitions and exhibits which have provided inspiration for projects and design directions. It is possible, given what we know about the learning styles and the learning needs of designers, to develop a more strategic approach to facilitate design learning in museums. This strategic approach is timely as formal learning is taking place increasingly outside the traditional educational institutions, and there is growing recognition that museums have useful and important roles as learning environments. The theoretical framework provided by this paper, and the foreshadowed research study, will assist museums to develop the strategy.
REFERENCES Briskman, Larry, 1981, Creative Product and Creative Process in Science and Art, Inquiry , vol. 23, no.1, 83-106

Design learning in museum settings: towards a strategy for enhancing creative learning among design students by Geoffrey Caban, Carol Scott and Robert Swieca Open Museum Journal Volume 2: Unsavoury histories, August 2000

Caban, Geoffrey, 1996, Interdisciplinary Design Learning, The Design Papers no.1, 83-90. Caban, Geoffrey, 1985, Initiating a New Design Curriculum, Designing Change. University of Technology, Sydney, 8-23. Cross, Nigel, 1990, The Nature and Nurture of Design Ability, Design Studies, vol. 11. Cross, Nigel, 1991, Research in Design Thinking, Design Studies, vol. 12, 3-10. Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly and Hermanson, Kim,1995, Intrinsic Motivation in Museums: What Makes Visitors Want to Learn? Museum News, May/June 1995. Edwards, Betty, 1993, Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain. London, Harper Collins. Edwards, Betty, 1995, Drawing on the artist within: a guide to innovation, invention, imagination and creativity. Harper Collins, London. Ettema, Michael, 1997, Instilling Values: Design and Responsible Cultural Institutions, in Design and Cultural Responsibility, ed. Williamson J., Cranbrook Academy of Art. Falk, John, & Dierking, Lynn 1992, The Museum Experience. Washington D.C., Whalesback Books. Getzels, Jacob, & Jackson, Philip, 1962, Creativity and Intelligence: explorations with gifted students . London, Wiley. Griffin, Janette, 1996, Finding Evidence of Learning in Museum Settings. University of Technology, Sydney. Gruber, Howard, 1981, On the Relation Between Aha Experiences and the Construction of Ideas, History of Science, vol. 19, no.43, 41-59 Hausman, Carl, 1979, Criteria of Creativity, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, vol. 40, no.2, 237-249 Hein, George, 1991, Constructivist Learning Theory. Paper presented at the ICOM CECA Conference: The Museum and the Needs of People, Jerusalem. Hein, George, 1995, Evaluating Teaching and Learning in Museums Museum, Media, Message , Hooper-Greenhill ed. London: Routledge. Hooper-Greenhill, Eilean, ed., 1995, Museum, Media, Message, London: Routledge. Hooper-Greenhill, Eilean 1999, Learning in Art Museums: strategies of interpretation, The Educational Role of the Museum. Routledge. Kolb, David, 1984, Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development.. Prentice-Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. Newland, P. (1988) Understanding Designers Knowledge Acquisition Processes: A Potential for Enhancing Information Transfer . Council for National Academic Awards, U.K. Newland, P., Powell, James, Creed, C., 1987 Understanding Architectural Designers Selective Information Handling, Design Studies, vol. 8, no.1. Powell, James, Evans, Barrie and Talbot, Reg, 1982, Changing Design. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester. Silverman, Lois, 1995, Visitor Meaning Making in Museums for a New Age, Curator , vol.38 no.3, 161-170.

Design learning in museum settings: towards a strategy for enhancing creative learning among design students by Geoffrey Caban, Carol Scott and Robert Swieca Open Museum Journal Volume 2: Unsavoury histories, August 2000

Design learning in museum settings: towards a strategy for enhancing creative learning among design students by Geoffrey Caban, Carol Scott and Robert Swieca Open Museum Journal Volume 2: Unsavoury histories, August 2000

10