See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/226956272

The learning environment of natural history museums: Multiple ways to

capture students’ views

Article  in  Learning Environments Research · July 2009

DOI: 10.1007/s10984-009-9057-8

CITATIONS READS

18 592

2 authors:

Yael Bamberger Tali Tal

EdQuest Technion - Israel Institute of Technology
14 PUBLICATIONS   581 CITATIONS    101 PUBLICATIONS   3,420 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Field trips to natural environments View project

joint Jewish-Bedouin environmental projects in Israel View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Yael Bamberger on 11 October 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Learning Environ Res (2009) 12:115–129
DOI 10.1007/s10984-009-9057-8

ORIGINAL PAPER

The learning environment of natural history museums:

Multiple ways to capture students’ views

Yael Bamberger Æ Tali Tal

Received: 18 July 2007 / Accepted: 4 October 2007 / Published online: 29 May 2009

Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Abstract This article describes an initial attempt to find out students’ perceptions of class
visits to natural history museums, with regard to the museum’s role as a place for intel-
lectual and social experience. The study followed up approximately 500 Grades 6–8 stu-
dents who visited four museums of different sizes, locations and foci. Data sources
included the Museum Constructivist Learning Environment Survey (M-CLES), which was
adapted from Constructivist Learning Environment Survey, an open-ended question and
semi-structured interviews with 50 students. The three instruments highlighted some dif-
ferences in students’ perceptions of the visit. Opportunities for concrete experiences and
cognitive and affective engagement were not covered by the M-CLES, while the nature of
science was not discussed by the students in their responses to the open-ended item and the
interviews. This suggests that each instrument has its advantages and limitations and,
therefore, the three means for data collection enabled a complementary view. Based on our
findings, we suggest further development of museum learning environment surveys to
capture students’ perceptions.

Keywords Field trips
Learning environment
Museums
Student perceptions

Introduction

Museums are popular informal learning environments that are visited by individuals,
families and school students. Studies of visitors to museums using a variety of methods
have a long history (Hein 2002; Rennie et al. 2003). These studies focused on a wide range
of aspects such as exhibit design, learning, social interactions and mediation of individuals,

Y. Bamberger (&)
School of Education, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA
e-mail: yaelbamb@umich.edu

T. Tal
The Department of Education in Technology and Science, Technion, 32000 Haifa, Israel
e-mail: rtal@technion.ac.il

123
116 Learning Environ Res (2009) 12:115–129

families and school groups. Although Hein (2002) indicated that ‘‘we are interested in
finding out what visitors think and how they feel about their visits’’ (p. 100), the majority
of studies of school field trips focused on learning at the museum and on the ways in which
the museum visit is connected to school science learning (Falk and Dierking 2000; Hein
2002). The ways in which students perceive guided visits to museums, which are highly
important in understanding the visit and its outcomes, are not studied enough.
In this study, we sought understanding students’ views of the learning environment.
Following recommendations to use multiple methods in order to deeply understand the
museum experience (Hein 2002; Rennie et al. 2003), we employed three methods for
data collection in the hope of gaining consistency between the different sources of data.
The instruments were a learning environment survey, an open-ended response item and
a semi-structured interview. As we describe later, each had its advantages and
limitations.
After the initial data collection and at a later stage of the study, we examined differences
between the data obtained with each instrument in order to highlight advantages and
weaknesses in reflecting the students’ voices. We sum up by suggesting a broader
framework for looking at students’ perceptions of the visit to the museum.
As in other cases in which pros and cons of quantitative vs. qualitative frameworks
and methods in educational research are considered, we assumed that in-depth inter-
views provide the deepest interpretation suggested by the subjects, while surveys allow
involvement of a larger population, thus enhancing greater external validity and
allowing generalisation (Fraser 1998a; Hein 2002). By using several methods for col-
lecting data on students’ views, which are not widely studied, we followed Rennie and
colleagues (2003) who claimed that pre-constructed instruments offer little opportunity
to look for or measure unexpected or additional learning outcomes of the museum visit,
so that research findings can have limited generalisability. Therefore, we began with a
pre-constructed instrument, but added an open-ended response item to the questionnaire
and also interviewed students.

The museum learning environment

The majority of the museum surveys that we found involved requesting the visitor’s
input regarding exhibitions, signs and explanations (Hein 2002; Livingstone et al. 2001;
McLean 2003; Pedretti and Soren 2003). However, we were interested in students’
views of the organised educational activity. Therefore, we looked into the well-estab-
lished field of learning environments research (Fraser 1998a, b), hoping that the variety
of instruments in use might provide a possible means for focusing on the characteristics
of educational experience rather than on other aspects of the visit.
Previous attempts to make use of learning environments instruments to glean
information regarding an outdoor learning environment provided a validated instrument
for outdoor learning environments (Orion et al. 1997). This Science Outdoor Learning
Environment Instrument (SOLEI) was developed based on the Science Laboratory
Environment Inventory (SLEI; Fraser et al. 1993) and consisted of 45 items in seven
scales. However, SOLEI addressed mainly field trips in natural settings that are strongly
related to the school curriculum and are led by the school teacher. Furthermore, the
length and phrasing of that instrument made it more suitable for high school students,
whereas we were looking for a simpler instrument suitable for younger students.
Taking this into account, we looked for a shorter instrument that focuses more on
constructivist constituents of learning. According to sociocultural ideas, learning is a

123
Learning Environ Res (2009) 12:115–129 117

process in which individuals make sense of the world in relation to their previous expe-
riences and the knowledge which they already have constructed. This sense-making pro-
cess involves active negotiation and consensus building within a community (Rogoff
1990). According to the social constructivist epistemology, teachers are reconstructing
their roles as mediators of students’ experiences with their social and physical worlds and
as facilitators of students’ interpretations and reconceptualisations.
The Constructivist Learning Environment Survey (CLES; Taylor et al. 1997) was
translated to Hebrew and adapted for use in museum settings. The original version of
CLES was based on a theory of constructivism that emphasised the key role of reflective
processes and interpersonal negotiation that create meaning (Taylor et al. 1997). Each scale
of CLES was designed to obtain measures of students’ perceptions of the frequency of
occurrence of five key dimensions of a critical constructivist learning environment: Per-
sonal Relevance, Uncertainty of Science, Critical Voice, Shared Control, and Student
Negotiation. The different versions of CLES contain 20–36 items arranged in five scales
(Fraser 1998b; Johnson and McClure 2004; Taylor et al. 1997). The frequency response
alternatives for each item are Almost Always, Often, Sometimes, Seldom and Almost
Never.
The Personal Relevance scale focuses on the connectedness of school science to stu-
dents’ out-of-school experiences, and with making use of students’ everyday experiences
as a meaningful context. The Uncertainty of Science scale assesses the extent to which
opportunities are provided for students to experience scientific knowledge as theory-
dependent and involving human experience and values. The Critical Voice scale examines
the extent to which a social climate has been established in which students feel that it is
legitimate and beneficial to question the teacher’s plans and methods, and to express
concerns about any obstacle to their learning. The Shared Control scale is concerned with
students being invited to share with the teacher control of the learning environment. And
the Student Negotiation scale assesses the extent to which opportunities exist for students
to explain and justify to other students their newly developing ideas, to listen attentively
and reflect on the viability of other students’ ideas and, subsequently, to reflect self-
critically on the viability of their own ideas (Taylor et al. 1997). Overall, the CLES
addresses many issues of interest to museum educators and might be a suitable instrument
in museum settings as well.
The contextual model of learning, proposed by Falk and Dierking (2000), addressed the
range of learning that occurs in museums, which allows individuals to construct personal
understanding and to learn in idiosyncratic ways. Falk and Dierking claimed that learning
is always a highly personal process that is strongly dependent upon prior knowledge and
experiences, choice opportunities, and self control of learning. Learning occurs within a
situated socio-cultural context through opportunities for interactions (Falk and Dierking
2000) and the acquisition of a coherent critical view of the scientific endeavour (Pedretti
2002). Therefore, the issues with which the CLES deals—such as connection between the
content and previous personal experiences of the students, opportunities for negotiation,
choice and self control of learning and critical voice—are highly important in museum
settings.
Taking into account Hein’s (2002) claim that, although it is very tempting to use an
existing questionnaire, researchers have to be aware that such questionnaires can give good
examples but cannot reflect the unique situation of a particular study and settings, we
considered also using other instruments that could contribute to the further development of
the CLES for use in museums.

123
118 Learning Environ Res (2009) 12:115–129

Methods

The museums

We studied four museums: small and medium size; and urban and rural institutions. All of
them provide educational programs, conducted by museum educational staffs, which
encompass the vast majority of museum visits in Israel. The four museums are visited by
thousands of students per year. Although the four institutions included natural history
centres and zoological and botanical gardens, following Falk and Dierking (2000, p. xi),
they are referred to here as museums. A description of the four institutes follows.

Museum 1 (NC)

This zoological garden is located within a university that was designed as a research
facility. In addition, it provides educational activities for schools, which are held within the
garden and in the university classrooms and laboratories. The activities are designed
mainly for secondary schools, and the guides were graduate students in the Department of
Zoology who undertook the work as part of their teaching assistantship and did not have
formal educational background. All the visits began with an introductory slide show, and
continued with a tour in the garden. The students were led as a whole-class group while the
guide explained about the animals in the cages and the open areas according to the subject
of the visit. The topics included reproduction, adaptation, and biodiversity, and the labels
and signs included only the names of the organisms.

Museum 2 (ML)

This natural history museum, which is located in a city park, was built for educational
purposes. The museum consists of a few halls that are arranged according to topics and
educational activities. The target population is elementary school students and therefore
the visits focused on topics in the elementary school curriculum, such as skeleton and
motion, feeding and reproduction. The activities usually encompassed two parts, an
introductory talk and an active learning, in which the students were asked to explore the
museum and find answers to questions, fill in worksheets and play games. Typically, the
guides used demonstration aids, such as wings, bones and jaws, which the students were
invited to touch and examine. The guides at that museum were professionals, and most of
them hold a teaching diploma and BA degree in biology.

Museum 3 (ME)

This institute provides educational programs for elementary and lower secondary school
students. In addition to the science content, this museum deals with aspects of art, drama
and dance that are related to the science topics. The major themes that we observed were
the human body, light, sound, water, the heart and colours and shapes. The students began
the activity at the exhibit with an introductory activity for which the guides used various
models and demonstrations. Then, students were directed by worksheets to explore the
exhibit that encompassed everyday-relevant topics such as nutrition, smoking and body
postures, which are either healthy or cause damage to our skeleton. Most of the exhibit
was interactive and there were many hands-on activities that the students experienced. The

123
Learning Environ Res (2009) 12:115–129 119

science activities were followed by drama activities, carried out in large classrooms outside
the exhibition wing. The guides at the exhibit had science backgrounds, while the guides
who carried out the art and drama activities usually specialised in theatre.

Museum 4 (BO)

This small museum is located in rural upper Galilee. It was established in order to preserve
and exhibit rare specimens of the region, and provides a short 1–2 hour visit for many
groups that visit the area during a longer trip lasting for a few days. The museum consists
of two separate halls: one that presents the archaeology of the region; and the other is
focused on the wildlife. A wide range of school groups from all age groups visit the
museum. Visitors were invited to watch a movie about the uniqueness of the region, attend
an introductory talk and visit the exhibit. The talk usually emphasised the unique nature of
the region, the history of draining the swamps that affected the ecological system, and the
preservation efforts which the museum shared. After this talk, students were invited to play
a competitive small-group game in the wildlife wing of the museum, in which they
explored the various objects at the exhibit in order to find out about ‘who is the possible
predator’. For that purpose, they had to look at the size, colours, furs, feathers and various
body parts of the objects in the dioramas. The students, who played in small groups, were
asked to search for evidence. The guides at that museum are National Service women
(aged 18–21 years) and a few experienced professional nature guides.
Although the first three institutions were in the Tel Aviv metropolitan area, the
geographical distribution of the visiting schools covered the whole country.

Development of instruments

Museum Constructivist Learning Environment Survey

In order to adapt the CLES to the Israeli museum context, we began with checking the
relevance of each CLES scale to the museum visit context. A new scale that measures the
extent to which the museum content is related to the school curriculum was added. Such a
scale was part of SOLEI as well (Orion et al. 1997). Then, the Shared Control scale that is
very specific to learning in school context was removed. A few minor changes were
introduced to the other scales at a more advanced stage as we describe later. Following the
procedure suggested by Aldridge and Fraser (2000), the English version was translated to
Hebrew, and then retranslated to English to ensure the validity of the translation. Minor
changes were introduced to the Hebrew version as a result of this procedure. The final
version of the Museum Constructivist Learning Environment Survey (M-CLES; see
Appendix), after omitting irrelevant items from the original survey and adding the new
scale, consisted of 25 items in the scales of Curriculum Relevance (4 items), Personal
Relevance (6 items), Uncertainty of Science (5 items), Critical Voice (4 items) and Student
Negotiation (student–student interaction; student–guide interaction; 6 items). Instead of
using frequency of occurrence, which is unsuitable in the case of a single visit to the
museum, we used an agreement scale (i.e. Strongly Agree, Agree, Not Sure, Disagree and
Strongly Disagree).
As already indicated, questionnaires are limited when in-depth understanding is
required and when one seeks not only statements, but interpretation. Therefore, we added
an open-ended item to the questionnaire, which required a written response; this could still

123
120 Learning Environ Res (2009) 12:115–129

be administered to large samples. Additional qualitative data collected involved in-depth

interviews with a small sample of students.

Open-ended response item

As indicated above, we added an open-response item to the survey. In the initial version,
we asked the students to indicate the main things/ideas they learned at the museum.
However, as this generated mainly generic, concise responses, we split the question into
three parts that the students were requested to complete:
1. At the museum, I learned about…
2. At the museum, I learned that…
3. The most interesting things were….
This formulation yielded many more detailed responses. Unfortunately, revising the
question at a more advanced stage yielded a lower number of visitor responses at Museum
1, at which we already had administered the first version of the question.

Interviews

During the interviews, the students were asked to describe their museum experience in
general, as well as the extent to which the visit was specifically interesting, enjoyable,
disappointing or boring in particular, and to indicate new ideas or unfamiliar facts they
have learned.

Sample

All the participants were students in Grades 6–8 from regular public junior high schools.
The classes were selected randomly from those schools that already coordinated their visit
at one of the institutions and agreed to participate in the study. This study encompassed
three sources for data: the M-CLES; an open-ended response item that was added to each
survey sheet; and semi-structured interviews. The questionnaires, which included the
M-CLES and the open-ended item, were administered to more than 500 students. One of
the pitfalls of using questionnaires in museums is that people do not tend to send them back
(Hein 2002). This was not an issue in this study, where we personally collected all the
questionnaires at the end of the visit. Interviews with 50 students from six class visits to the
museums took place at school on the day following the visit. The interviewed students
were selected by their teachers who were asked to recommend good informants.
The data sources and participants are presented in Table 1, which includes the number
of questionnaires that were used for calculating internal consistency reliability (which is

Table 1 Instruments and number

Museum Number of participants
of participants
M-CLES Open-ended item Interview

1 142 32 13
2 84 101 15
3 128 99 11
4 140 140 11
Total 494 372 50

123
Learning Environ Res (2009) 12:115–129 121

slightly different from the total number). As already indicated, the rather small number of
responses to the open-ended items in Museum 1 occurred because of changing the question
in a later stage of data collection at that museum.

Results

Reliability and factorial validity of Museum Constructivist Learning Environment

Survey

Following other studies involving learning environments instruments (Aldridge and Fraser
2000; Taylor et al. 1997), the structure of the CLES was explored using factor analysis
with varimax rotation. Most items loaded strongly on their hypothesised scale. Table 2
shows that the structure of the M-CLES held up quite well, supporting that each M-CLES
scale assesses a unique constructivist aspect within the museum learning environment.
There were two exceptions, however. Item 11 (Uncertainty scale: ‘‘Students learn that
science can provide perfect answers to problems’’) had a much lower factor loading (0.27)
than did other items in that scale. Although this item reached a loading of 0.38 on the
Curriculum Relevance scale, eventually it was omitted because of its relative low loading
compared with the other items on that scale. Item 10 in the Personal Relevance scale,
which was a negatively-worded item (‘‘There is no connection between what I learned at
the museum and the real world’’) had a low factor loading (0.25) and was omitted as well.
The internal consistency reliability (Cronbach a coefficient) was obtained for each
M-CLES scale (see Table 2). All of the coefficients were high enough to be considered as
acceptable.
The generalised linear mixed model (SAS System Proc MIXED procedure; Littell et al.
1996) was used to analyse responses from the questionnaires that were administered at the
four museums. We acknowledge that clustering of students within classes that are guided by
several guides suggest hierarchical linear modelling as an effective analytical method. Stu-
dents in the same class usually tend to be more similar in their scores than students in different
classes. This dependence violates the assumptions of classical ANCOVA and regression
models, which assume independence among all observations. The ‘mixed’ procedure of SAS
(Littell et al. 1996) enables testing the significance of intra-class correlations.

Museum Constructivist Learning Environment Survey mean scores

Mean and standard deviations for M-CLES scales are presented in Table 3. Altogether 513
valid questionnaire responses were available with the following distribution among
museums: Museum 1 (NC) n = 142; Museum 2 (ML) n = 103; Museum 3 (ME) n = 128;
and Museum 4 (BO) n = 140. A questionnaire was considered valid for a specific scale if
at least half of the items were answered. The last scale of Student–Guide Interactions was
added as a second Student Negotiation scale in a late stage of the study, which explains the
lower number of responses at that category.
Overall, the mean range was between 3.24 (CR) and 3.95 (SN–SGI), representing
responses between Not Sure to Agree. As we described in the methods section, the four
museums hold different exhibition types and apply different guiding styles (for more
information, see Bamberger and Tal 2008). Therefore, we expected to find some differ-
ences among the museums. However, nonsignificant differences were found for all scales.
This means that, although the M-CLES seemed to be a suitable instrument for looking at

123
122 Learning Environ Res (2009) 12:115–129

Table 2 Factor loadings and

Items Factor loadings
internal consistency reliability for
M-CLES CR PR UN CV SN–SSI SN–SGI

1 0.72
2 0.72
3 0.72
4 0.75
5 0.80
6 0.49
7 0.53
8 0.77
9 0.84
12 0.82
13 0.59
14 0.57
15 0.73
16 0.52
17 0.50
18 0.61
19 0.80
20 0.76
Items 10 and 11 were removed 21 0.64
CR Curriculum relevance, PR 22 0.80
Personal relevance, UN
Uncertainty of science, CV 23 0.82
Critical voice, SN–SSI Student 24 0.76
negotiation: student–student 25 0.74
interactions, SN–SGI Student
26 0.67
negotiation: student–guide
interactions Cronbach a 0.69 0.71 0.73 0.62 0.73 0.81

Table 3 Mean and standard

Scale n M SD
deviation of each M-CLES scale
with the individual as the unit of
Curriculum relevance (CR) 505 3.24 0.95
analysis
Personal relevance (PR) 503 3.42 0.90
Uncertainty of science (UN) 498 3.51 0.80
Critical voice (CV) 489 3.26 0.93
Student negotiation: student–student 489 3.43 0.99
interactions (SN–SSI)
Student negotiation: student–guide 340 3.95 1.17
interactions (SN–SGI)

perceived learning environment at the museum, the information about students’ percep-
tions of the museum visit that the instrument provides could be insufficient.

Interviews and open-item response

The open-ended response and student interviews were categorised based on inductive
analysis by two trained researchers who achieved an inter-rater reliability of 0.8. All the

123
Learning Environ Res (2009) 12:115–129 123

categories were identical for the two instruments, except for the Personal Relevance and
the Social Interactions categories. The Personal Relevance category emerged only in the
analysis of the interview data, because of the ability of the interviewer to probe deeply for
reasons and ask for explanations. The Social Interactions category was not captured by the
open-ended questions, and emerged only from the interview data. The categories are:
1. Cognitive engagement
2. Emotional engagement
3. Critical voice
4. Concrete experience
5. Choice and control
6. Personal relevance (only for the interview data)
7. Social interactions (only for the interview data).
Explanations and examples of students’ responses are presented in Table 4. Each
interview was coded for the student’s number, museum initials and date. For example,
S4_ML160305 stands for student #4, Museum 3 (ML) and the date of March 16, 2005.
Each questionnaire was coded for its number, museum initials, date and grade level of the
respondents.

Perceptions derived by the open-ended item

As an additional item in a learning environment survey, the open-ended item could be

administered to a large number of respondents, and still the amount of data was still
manageable, especially when using an analysis rubric. Yet, most of the students in this
study wrote only short sentences in response to our prompts, which might imply that the
effort has limited worth.
In an attempt to improve the quality of data, get more detailed responses and
examine the administration of the instrument in different conditions, we chose one
school visit to Museum 4, which comprised three 6th classes from the same school.
The school that received a subsidised visit at the museum agreed to participate in the
experiment which is described here. Class 1 took the questionnaires at the end of the
visit as did all of the other participants in the study. Class 2 took the questionnaires at
the end of the visit, not before one of the researchers explained its importance and
asked the students for detailed responses. At all stages, the teacher and the researcher
were ready to direct the students and answer their questions. Class 3 got the ques-
tionnaires at school during the following day. A researcher explained the requirements
and, again, asked for detailed responses. The students responded to the survey and the
open-ended item in comfortable conditions, with no time limitation, and their teacher
and the researcher were ready to answer their questions.
In addition, six students (two from each class) were interviewed at school during that
day about their learning experiences at the museum. The students were asked about their
learning experience using the same questions of the open-ended item.
Eventually, no differences were found among the three groups, and the responses to the
open-ended item were short and simple. In contrast, the interviews of the students from
these classes were rich and contained detailed information. This led us to use a semi-
structured interview for studying students’ perceptions more deeply, as we describe below.
The responses to the open-ended item usually addressed only one category. If the
response included two categories, then it was categorised into both. The distribution of
responses and chi-square values are presented in Table 5.

123
 Table 4 Categorisation of students’ perceptions: Interview and open-ended items
124

Category Explanation Examples of interviews Examples of open-ended items

123
Cognitive Detailed description of newly learned The flamingos were there, so they (the I learned about rare or extinct mammals
engagement facts and ideas staff) put mirrors, so they think that and birds, about Tethys Ocean, about
there are many more so they can geological phenomena and about Mt.
breed. I did not know that they need to Hermon. (Q1395_BO220205/8)
feel they are part of a large group to
mate. (S12_NC020604)
Emotional Expressions of excitement, care, dislike I would allow more time to see this sea The (stuffed) animals that had real
engagement or disgust turtle. I like turtles a lot, they are organs made me shiver.
amazing! (S5_NC020604) (Q1486_BO230205/8)
Critical voice No interest and negative attitudes Then we went to this zoo. It was torture Nothing was interesting. I learned
‘cause I hate animals. (S2_NC020604) nothing new. (Q1453_ME020305/7)
Concrete Impressions of the exhibits, the They explained things that we could see. The stuffed animals were most
experiences demonstration means or unfamiliar I can imagine how it would help. interesting. (Q1543_BO230205/8)
items that became visual When I was there, I could actually see
how things look. (S8_BO031105)
Choice and Indicating the ability to choose, act or (In class) you sit and have to listen to the Measuring and weighing ourselves was
control control learning teacher and write in your journal. At interesting. (Q1284_ML160305/7)
the museum, it’s more fun. You check
things with yourself, you ask yourself
questions and, if you do not
understand, you ask someone.
(S8_ME010305)
Personal Connecting the visit to the student’s I liked seeing things about adolescence Not available
relevance world and experiences and puberty. This is what we go
through now, and that is why it was
interesting for me. (S4_ML160305)
Social Interactions between students about the For example, Mati, a friend of mine, Not available
interactions exhibition, the learning tasks and the asked me if I ever saw those animals.
scientific content So I told him ‘no’ if I didn’t see them
before, and I explained to him about
the animals I already knew.
Learning Environ Res (2009) 12:115–129

(S3_NC020604)
Learning Environ Res (2009) 12:115–129 125

Table 5 Students’ perceptions of their museum learning experience reflected in responses to open-ended
items
Category Museum 1 Museum 2 Museum 3 Museum 4 Total (%) Difference
(%) (n = 32) (%) (n = 101) (%) (n = 99) (%) (n = 140) (n = 372) (v2)

Cognitive 43.8 6.9 21.2 20.7 19.1 22.8*

engagement
Emotional 28.1 0 0 7.9 5.4 45.6*
engagement
Critical voice 0 6.9 11.1 15 10.5 8.2
Concrete 9.4 12.9 12.1 35.7 21.0 29.6*
experience
Choice and 0 4.0 20.2 7.9 9.4 20.7*
control
Irrelevant 25.0 18.8 9.1 32.1 21.8 18.9*
responses

* p \ 0.01

Table 5 indicates a significant difference between the four museums with regard to
categories that emerged from the data. It is clear that Museum 1, the zoological centre, had
higher scores compared with the other museums in terms of the cognitive and emotional
engagement categories. The students who visited this institution reported more about what
they learned and about their feelings with regard to the exhibit, which is composed of
living animals. On the other hand, scores for this museum were the lowest for the choice
and control category, because the whole visit is guide-centred and the students are allowed
to move only in one group (for more details, see Bamberger and Tal 2007). Museum 4 had
the highest scores for the concrete experiences that had to do mainly with mammals and
skeletons. This museum had high scores on critical voice as well. Most of the students’
critiques addressed boredom or fatigue. As we mentioned before, the visits to Museum 4
were usually part of a long field trip involving the whole region. Very often, students were
already tired when they arrived at the museum and did not see the relevance of the visit.
The students perceived the visit to Museum 3 as allowing more choice and control,
mainly because of the interactive exhibits that they could explore.
As indicated earlier, most of the students addressed only one category, with the
responses being relatively short and providing limited explanations. The high number of
irrelevant and inadequate responses was the reason for using more in-depth data obtained
by the interviews.

Perceptions derived from interviews

Interviews allow a deeper questioning pattern, because the interviewer can ask for reasons,
explanations and elaboration, and make sure the question is well understood and com-
pletely addressed. The data obtained from 50 interviews (about 12 from each museum),
each lasting about 15–20 min, provided many more detailed statements with regard to the
same categories. As a consequence, we added the Personal Relevance and Social Inter-
actions categories that clearly emerged from the data to the previous categories that we
defined based on the open-ended item analysis. The students’ perceptions obtained from
the interviews are presented in Table 6.

123
126 Learning Environ Res (2009) 12:115–129

Table 6 Students’ perceptions of their museum learning experience reflected in responses to interviews
Category Museum 1 (%) Museum 2 (%) Museum 3 (%) Museum 4 (%) Total (%)
(n = 13) (n = 15) (n = 11) (n = 11) (n = 50)

Cognitive engagement 38.5 46.7 27.3 36.4 38.0

Emotional engagement 53.8 26.7 9.1 9.1 26.0
Critical voice 15.4 40.0 9.1 63.6 32.0
Concrete experience 100 66.7 81.8 100 86.0
Choice and control 46.2 66.7 72.7 36.4 56.0
Personal relevance 46.2 80.0 45.5 45.5 56.0
Social interactions 69.2 86.7 63.6 81.8 76.0

In comparison with the open-ended responses, higher percentage of students referred to

each identified category in the interviews. This suggests that richer data were obtained
from the interviews, even though the overall number of interviewed students was much
smaller. The interview results were quite congruent with the open-ended responses.
Museum 1 was perceived to be the highest in emotional engagement, Museum 4 was
highest in concrete experiences and critical voice, and the students perceived the visit to
Museum 3 as allowing more choice and control.

Discussion

Although the M-CLES was found as a reliable instrument for assessing the perceived
museum learning environment, it did not highlight idiosyncratic aspects of the visits in the
different museums. The interviews and open-ended responses allowed differentiation
between the museums with regard to cognitive and emotional engagements, concrete
experiences, choice and control opportunities, and the students’ critical voice. Further-
more, it appears that the issues the students came up with are somewhat different from the
scales of M-CLES. We realise that, in the open-ended responses and the interviews,
students did not address important aspects of nature of science with which the learning
environment instrument dealt in the Uncertainty scale. That scale measures the extent to
which opportunities are provided for students to recognise that scientific knowledge is
evolving and culturally and socially determined. The students’ responses to the open-ended
item and the interview reflected mainly the reality in these museums where very little
attempt is being made to challenge ideas about science. Using the museum visit to chal-
lenge the public’s ideas about science is discussed in depth in the museum education
literature in recent years as well (Pedretti 2004). Hence, does the fact that the students
ignored this issue diminish its importance? Alternatively, our finding might reflect only the
importance that these museums attribute to learning about science and about the production
of scientific knowledge.
On the other hand, some of the characteristics of the visit that the students found
important were not addressed by the M-CLES. The data that were collected through an
open-ended response item and in-depth interview suggested other categories that are
unique to out-of school setting. For example, attributes such as cognitive engagement,
emotional engagement and concrete experiences are extensively discussed in the informal
education literature, in general, and in the museum literature, in particular
(Csikszentmihalyi and Hermanson 1995; Falk and Dierking 2000; Lebeau et al. 2001;

123
Learning Environ Res (2009) 12:115–129 127

Pedretti 2002; Perry 2002; Rickinson et al. 2004; Rogoff 1990). These important aspects of
the visit should be incorporated into any survey of museum learning environments.
Although we cannot triangulate the data in order to increase generalisability, we believe
that the somewhat different data gathered by the three instruments exposed the strength of
each instrument. The adaptation of CLES for museum use was successful because it
enabled use of a learning environment survey, which is easy to administer to a large visitor
audience to assess students’ perceptions of the museum visit. Our initial attempt to use a
learning environment survey in the museum settings is important. It characterises the
museums as constructivist learning environments and, as such, the museum visit could be
investigated with instruments developed according to the socio-constructivism approach.
This study began with an expectation of minimal adaptation to an existing instrument to
allow collection of a large amount of data about students’ views. We end by suggesting
using the data collected here in developing a new learning environment instrument that
better captures all aspects of students’ perceptions. We believe that such an instrument
would identify more of the patterns that emerge from small-scale studies that use ethno-
graphic-interpretative methods. This approach would have the potential to incorporate
valuable information from such studies in large-scale studies of students’ perceptions of
school visits to museums.

Acknowledgments The research reported here was supported by Israel Science Foundation (ISF—# 838/
02-32.0) and by an Israel Foundations Trustees grant. Any opinions expressed in this work are those of the
authors and do not necessarily represent those of either funding agency.

Appendix

See Table 7.

Table 7 Museum Constructivist Learning Environment Scale (M-CLES)

Category and items Strongly Disagree Not Agree Strongly
disagree sure agree

Curriculum relevance
During the museum (visit) …
I learn things that are connected to topics I learn at school. 1 2 3 4 5
I learn how science can help me in my future studies. 1 2 3 4 5
I understand better things that I learn in school. 1 2 3 4 5
There is no connection to what I learn in school. 1 2 3 4 5
Personal relevance
During the museum (visit) …
I learned about the world. 1 2 3 4 5
New learning starts with a specific phenomenon. 1 2 3 4 5
I learned how science can be part of their life. 1 2 3 4 5
I got a better understanding of the world. 1 2 3 4 5
I learned interesting things about the world. 1 2 3 4 5
There is no connection between what I learned at the 1 2 3 4 5
museum and the real world.

123
128 Learning Environ Res (2009) 12:115–129

Table 7 continued

Category and items Strongly Disagree Not Agree Strongly

disagree sure agree

Uncertainty of science
During the museum (visit) …
I learned that science has changed over time. 1 2 3 4 5
I learned that science is influenced by people’s values 1 2 3 4 5
and opinions.
I learned that different sciences are used by people in other 1 2 3 4 5
cultures.
I learned that modern science is different from science of 1 2 3 4 5
long ago.
I learned that science is about inventing theories. 1 2 3 4 5
Critical voice
During the museum (visit) …
It’s OK to ask ‘‘Why do I have to learn this?’’ 1 2 3 4 5
It’s OK to complain about activities that are confusing. 1 2 3 4 5
I myself choose the activities I do. 1 2 3 4 5
I myself choose the objects I learn from. 1 2 3 4 5
Student negotiation
During the museum (visit) …
I got the chance to talk to other students. 1 2 3 4 5
I talked with other students about the topics presented. 1 2 3 4 5
I explained ideas to other students. 1 2 3 4 5
Other students explained their ideas to me. 1 2 3 4 5
The guide addressed the questions I asked at the talk. 1 2 3 4 5
The guide addressed the questions I asked at the activity. 1 2 3 4 5

References

Aldridge, J. M., & Fraser, B. J. (2000). A cross-cultural study of classroom learning environments in
Australia and Taiwan. Learning Environments Research, 3, 101–134. doi:10.1023/A:1026599727439.
Bamberger, Y., & Tal, T. (2007). Learning in a personal context: Levels of choice in a free-choice learning
environment in science and natural history museums. Science Education, 91, 75–95. doi:10.1002/sce.
20174.
Bamberger, Y., & Tal, T. (2008). Multiple outcomes of class visits to natural history museums: The
students’ view. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17, 274–284. doi:10.1007/
s10956-008-9097-3.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Hermanson, K. (1995). Intrinsic motivation in museum: What makes visitors want
to learn. In J. H. Falk & L. D. Dierking (Eds.), Public institutions for personal learning: Establishing a
research agenda (pp. 67–77). Washington, DC: American Association of Museums.
Falk, J. H., & Dierking, L. D. (2000). Learning from museums: Visitor experiences and the making of
meaning. New York: Altamira Press.
Fraser, B. J. (1998a). Classroom environment instruments: Development, validity and application. Learning
Environments Research, 1, 7–34. doi:10.1023/A:1009932514731.
Fraser, B. J. (1998b). Science learning environments: Assessment, effects and determinants. In B. J. Fraser
& K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 527–564). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

123
Learning Environ Res (2009) 12:115–129 129

Fraser, B. J., McRobbie, C. J., & Giddings, G. J. (1993). Development and cross-national validation of a
laboratory classroom environment instrument for senior high school students. Science Education, 77,
1–24. doi:10.1002/sce.3730770102.
Hein, G. E. (2002). Learning in the museum (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
Johnson, B., & McClure, R. (2004). Validity and reliability of a shortened, revised version of the
Constructivist Learning Environment Survey (CLES). Learning Environments Research, 7, 65–80. doi:
10.1023/B:LERI.0000022279.89075.9f.
Lebeau, R. B., Gyamfi, P., Wizevich, K., & Koster, E. H. (2001). Supporting and documenting choice in
free-choice science learning environments. In J. H. Falk (Ed.), Free-choice science education, how we
learn science outside of school (pp. 133–148). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Littell, R., Milliken, G., Stroup, W., & Wofinger, R. (1996). SAS system for mixed models. Cary, NC: SAS
Institute, Inc.
Livingstone, P., Pedretti, E., & Soren, B. J. (2001). Visitors comments and the socio-cultural context of
science: Public perceptions and the exhibition A Question of Truth. Museum Management and
Curatorship, 19, 355–369. doi:10.1080/09647770100401904.
McLean, K. (2003). Visitor voices. Journal of Museum Education, 28, 13–16.
Orion, N., Hofstein, A., Tamir, P., & Giddings, G. J. (1997). Development and validation of an instrument
for assessing the learning environment of outdoor science activities. Science Education, 81, 161–171.
doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199704)81:2\161::AID-SCE3[3.0.CO;2-D.
Pedretti, E. (2002). T. Kuhn meets T. Rex: Critical conversations and new directions in science centers and
science museums. Studies in Science Education, 37, 1–42. doi:10.1080/03057260208560176.
Pedretti, E. (2004). Perspectives on learning through research on critical issues-based science center
exhibitions. Science Education, 88, S34–S47. doi:10.1002/sce.20019.
Pedretti, E., & Soren, B. J. (2003). A question of truth. Journal of Museum Education, 28, 17–20.
Perry, D. L. (2002). Profound learning: Stories from museums. Educational Technology, 42, 21–25.
Rennie, L. J., Feher, E., Dierking, L. D., & Falk, J. H. (2003). Toward an agenda for advancing research on
science learning in out-of-school settings. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 112–120. doi:
10.1002/tea.10067.
Rickinson, M., Dillon, J., Teamy, K., Morris, M., Young Choi, M., Sanders, D., et al. (2004). A review of
research on outdoor learning. Shrewsbury, UK: National Foundation for Educational Research.
Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. NewYork: Oxford
University Press.
Taylor, P. C., Fraser, B. J., & Fisher, D. L. (1997). Monitoring constructivist classroom learning environ-
ments. International Journal of Educational Research, 27, 293–302. doi:10.1016/S0883-0355
(97)90011-2.

123
View publication stats