4 FALK - The Effect of Visitors

The Effect of Visitors’Agendas
on Museum Learning
JOHNH . FALK,
THEANO
MOUSSOURI,
A N D DOUGLAS
COULSON
A B sTR AcT It has been argued that visitors’ pre-visit “agendas” directly influence visits.
This study attempted to directly test the effects of different museum visit
agendas on visitor learning. Two new tools were developed for this purpose:
(1) a tool for measuring visitor agendas; and (2) a tool for measuring visitor
learning (Personal Meaning Mapping). Visitor agenda was defined as having
two dimensions: motivations and strategies. Personal Meaning Mapping is a
constructivist approach that measures change in understanding along four
semi-independent dimensions: extent, breadth, depth, and mastery. The
study looked at 40 randomly-selected adults who were visiting the National
Museum of Natural History’s Geology, Gems and Minerals exhibition. Visitor
agendas did significantly impact how, what, and how much individuals
learned. Results are discussed in terms of the current debate about education
vs. entertainment.
INTRODUCTION
People give many reasons for visiting museums, including social and recreational
reasons, educational reasons, and reasons related to culture, awe, and reverence
(Falk, 1998; Falk & Dierking, 1992, Gore et al., 1980; Graburn, 1977; Hood, 1983;
Macdonald, 1993; McManus, 1992; Merriman, 1991 ; Miles, 1986; Moussouri, 1997;
Prentice, Davies & Beeho, 1997; Rosenfeld, 1980). It has been argued for a number
of years that visitors not only have an “agenda” for their visits but that these agendas
directly influence visits (Balling, Falk, & Aronson, 1980; Falk & Dierking, 1992;
Macdonald, 1993; Moussouri, 1997). Yet systematic investigations to determine the
impact of visitor agendas on visitor behavior and learning are virtually nonexistent.
To further understanding of this phenomenon, we attempted to test the effects of
different museum-visit agendas on visitor learning. To do this required two tools:
(1) a tool for measuring visitor agendas; and (2) a tool for measuring visitor learning.
Visitor Agendas-On the basis of a thorough review of the literature coupled with
qualitative research focused on the development of the family agenda and the inter-
face between the family’s and the museum’s agenda, Moussouri (1997) concluded
that the visitor “agenda” could be viewed as having two dimensions: ( 1 ) the rnotiva-
tions people have for visiting a museum, and (2) the strategies people utilize when
John H. Falk is director of the Iiistiticte for karnitig Iiiiiovatioii, 166 West Street, Annapolis, MD
21401. Theano Moussouri was research associate for this stitdv and Douglas Coulson is a senior
associate at P S . Iiiternational, Aiiiiapolis, MD 21403.
107
21516952, 1998, 2, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2151-6952.1998.tb00822.x by Cochrane Mexico, Wiley Online Library on [25/05/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
108 FALK E T A L . 6 THE EFFECTS OF VISITORS’ AGENDAS
visiting a museum. These two dimensions reflect the two levels at which a museum
visit is “planned.” At the first level, museum visiting is seen as fitting within a wider
socio-cultural framework-the museum visit as part of the cultural/leisure/educa-
tional fabric of society. At the second and narrower level, the visit agenda can be seen
as a product of an individual’s or a group’s specific strategies or lists of things “to do”
on any given day.
Six categories of motivation were identified; they reflect the functions a museum
is perceived to serve in the social/cultural life of visitors. These motivations were:
place, education, life-cycle, social event, entertainment, and practical issues. Typically,
a visitor would express not one, but several, of these motivations for visiting a
museum.
Place is that cluster of reasons given by individuals when they categorize museums
as leisure/recreational/culturaldestinations emblematic of a locale or region. Many
people visit museums for this reason, including individuals on holiday or day trips
or who have out-of-town guests.
Education represents a category of reasons related to the aesthetic, informational,
or cultural content of the museum. Most visitors mention that they go to museums
in order to learn; occasionally something in particular, more often just learning in
general.
Life cycle represents museum-going seen as a repeated activity that takes place at
certain phases in one’s life, usually related to childhood (e.g., “I was taken to the
museum as a child, and now I’m bringing my child to the museum”).
Social event represents a related, but separate, category; museum-going as a “day
out” for the whole family, a special social experience with a friend or relative, a
chance for individuals to enjoy themselves separately and together.
Entertainment refers to a set of leisure-related reasons for visiting a museum. Most
visitors mention that they go to museums in their free time in order to have fun and
enjoy themselves, and/or see new and interesting things in a relaxing and aestheti-
cally pleasing setting.
Practical issues also factor into people’s motivations for visiting museums. Exter-
nal factors such as weather, proximity to the museum, time availability, crowd con-
ditions, and the entrance fee contribute to many visitors’ decision-making process.
A visitor agenda also includes a specific strategy for how to experience the
museum or a specific exhibition. Three types of strategies fall along a continuum
from unfocused to focused. Visitors with an unfocused strategy are generally
unaware of museum/exhibition opportunities and are open to experiencing whatev-
er the museum has to offer. They generally say things like: “I’m here to see whatev-
er is interesting,” or “I have no particular plan, I just want to see whatever is here.”
Visitors with a moderately focused strategy are aware of museumlexhibition
specifics, they may have even planned on seeing a particular exhibition during their
visit, but a specific exhibition or aspect of the museum does not represent their sole
or even primary objective. An individual with a moderately focused strategy might
say something like: “I read about the new exhibit on X in the paper and plan on see-
ing that while I’m here.”
CURATOR 4 1 / 2 J U N E 1998 109
Finally, visitors with a focused agenda plan their visit before they go to the museum;
usually with a specific goal in mind. Typically, they have a visit routine which they
follow and often this is to the exclusion of other things the museum might have to
offer. Someone with a focused strategy would say something like: “I’ve only come to
see the X exhibit. After that, I’m leaving.”
To measure visitor agendas, we developed two measures. The first was a visitor-
motivation instrument that had visitors utilize a five-point Likert-type scale for
assessing the relative importance to them of each of the six reasons for visiting the
museum. The second was a qualitative rating that classified visitors as a function of
their words and behaviors into one of the three visit strategy categories.
Visitor Learning-To assess visitor learning in this study, a new methodology called
Personal Meaning Mapping (PMM) was utilized. A brief explanation of this approach
is in order. Research in both the cognitive and neurosciences increasingly supports
the view that learning is a relative and constructive process (Pope & Gilbert, 1983;
Roschelle, 1995; Rosenfield, 1994; Solomon, 1987; Sylwester, 1993). PMM utilizes
this Relativist-Constructivist, as opposed to a Positivist-Behaviorist, approach to
measuring learning. Specifically, this means it is assumed that each individual brings
varied prior experiences and knowledge into a learning situation and that these
shape how that individual perceives and processes what he or she experiences. The
combination of prior experience and the new experience result in learning, but the
resulting learning is unique for each individual, situated within the context in which
it was learned. Given the varied starting and ending point of each individual learn-
er, traditional methods of assessment, which rely upon everyone starting at the same
place (e.g., “no knowledge”) and ending at a similar place (e.g., “the correct answer”)
have serious flaws.
PMM does not assume that all learners enter with comparable knowledge and
experience, nor does it require that an individual produce a “right” answer in order
to demonstrate learning. Instead, PMM is designed to measure how a specified “edu-
cational” experience uniquely affects each individual’s personal conceptual, attitudi-
nal, and emotional understanding. The assessment assumes that educational
interventions generally have an effect on the underlying structure of individuals’
understandings; although exactly what may be learned may vary, the degree of
change is what is comparable among individuals and thus quantifiable. A key aspect
of PMM is that it accommodates the multi-dimensionality of learning and uses this
fact to generate four different equally valid measures of learning.
PMM is proving to be a versatile and reliable tool for assessing learning. Origi-
nally developed for use in two Canadian museums to assess public attitudes and
knowledge with regard to peoples of the First Nations, variations of this approach
have now been utilized in diverse settings and for various assessment purposes (e.g.,
art, science, history and natural history museums; front-end, formative and summa-
tive assessments). The experience gained from these studies contributed to the design
and analysis of the data in this research (Luke, Adams and Falk, 1998; Luke 1998).
110 F A L K E T AL. * T H E E F F E C T S O F V I S I T O R S ’ A G E N D A S
METHODS
Data Collection-The study was conducted at the Smithsonian Institution’s National

Museum of Natural History (NMNH), utilizing the newly installed Geology, Gems
and Minerals exhibition. The exhibition had undergone extensive front-end and for-
mative testing and has been favorably reviewed by a number of sources. Only the
gems, minerals, and mines sections of the exhibition were included in this study.
Groups of adult visitors were approached as they were entering the exhibition.
Every third group was chosen in an effort to randomize the sample. Only all-adult
groups and groups with three or fewer members were chosen. All groups were
approached by one of us and asked if they would discuss their perceptions or under-
standing of gems and minerals before they entered the exhibition. Those accepting
(87%) sat in a quiet alcove and were administered a pre-visit PMM.
They were asked to write words, ideas, images, phrases, or thoughts that came
to mind related to “gems + minerals” (which appeared in a circle at the center of the
page; see Appendix). These written words formed the basis for an open-ended inter-
view. Visitors were encouraged to explain why they wrote what they did and to
expand on their thoughts and ideas. The discussion allowed them to articulate and
negotiate their perceptions and understandings of the words “gems and minerals” in
their own words and from their own cognitive frames of reference. Their responses
were recorded on the same piece of paper. To discriminate between unprompted and
prompted responses, the interview data were recorded in ink of a different color.
Each member of the group completed a PMM and was interviewed separately.
The length of the pre-visit interview was intentionally kept to a minimum in defer-
ence to visitors’ time constraints. When most of the points were covered, we thanked
the visitor and implied that an additional discussion might occur at a later time in
the visit. Visitors were not pressured in any way to agree to participate in a post-visit
interview. We then unobtrusively tracked the group, observing their movements
throughout their visit. In particular, we noted the date and time of the day, how busy
the exhibition was, which exhibits, labels, and panels they used and the overall time
they spent in this part of the exhibition. We recorded visitors’ ages, gender, compo-
sition of the group and ethnic background (sight basis only). Sixty-five individuals
completed the initial PMM and were tracked through the exhibition.
The individuals were approached when they exited the mines section and asked
if they were willing to continue the discussion. The vast majority seemed to have for-
gotten about the earlier comment and a new arrangement had to be negotiated as
time was usually a constraint. Once visitors had agreed to be interviewed, the pro-
cedures used in the pre-visit data collection were repeated. Visitors wrote words,
ideas, thoughts, phrases, images that came to mind in relation to gems and miner-
als and were asked to expand on them. The post-visit interview also included ques-
tions on visitors’ motivation, visit plans and educational background. Visitors were
asked in an open-ended manner why they visited the NMNH and then provided with
the six categories of frequently-mentioned reasons: place, education, life cycle, social
event, entertainment, and practical issues. Each category was explained, whenever
possible utilizing the visitor’s own reasons and motivations as examples. Visitors
CURATOR 4 1 / 2 * J U N E 1 9 9 8 111
were asked to rate the six categories on a five-point scale according to how impor-
tant these reasons were to them on the day of the visit. In addition, visitors were
asked about their visit plans-including which exhibitions, museums or other sites
in Washington they had been to or planned to visit that day-and their highest level
of educational attainment. Forty individuals completed the second PMM.
A third PMM interview was conducted by telephone either six to eight weeks or
five to six months after the visit. Data collection for this part of the study is incom-
plete and will be discussed in a subsequent paper.
Data Analysis-Each individual’s pre-visit knowledge and feelings about gems and
minerals were compared with his or her post-visit knowledge and feelings. PMM
measures learning by assessing change across four semi-independent dimensions.
Dimension One looked at the change in the quantity of appropriate vocabulary
used and is an indication of the extent of someone’s knowledge and feelings. Change
scores were determined by counting the number of relevant wordstphrases written
down by a visitor on the two PMMS and comparing the difference. Inter-rater relia-
bility was 98%.
Dimension Two looked at the breadth of a visitor’s understanding, the range of
conceptual understanding. It measured the change in the quantity of appropriate
concepts utilized. The authors (JF and TM) independently classified responses into
conceptual categories; inter-rater agreement was 95%. Through discussion, termi-
nology for categories and disputed classifications were resolved. In all, a total of 34
different conceptual categories were utilized by visitors to describe their under-
standing of the topic “gems and minerals.” To assess change in breadth of under-
standing, we compared how many of these conceptual categories were utilized by a
visitor before and after the visit to the exhibition. A complete list of concepts utilized
by visitors is presented in the Appendix.
Dimension Three looked at the depth of visitors’ understanding, how detailed
and complex, within a conceptual category, descriptions were. So, for example, with-
in the conceptual category “different types of gems” did visitors only list one type of
gemstone, or did they list dozens? Were they able to explain why or how or under
what circumstances minerals were transformed into gems, or was their knowledge
superficial? Only those conceptual categories the visitor was asked to expand upon
in the interview were scored; scoring was based on a scale of 1-4 (1 = no elaboration;
4 = significant elaboration. To compensate for the realities of collecting data in a
museum where some visitors were talkative and wanted to describe several of their
categories in great detail and others were rushed and only wanted to take the time
to explain one or two, scores were totaled and averaged. As with Dimension Two, the
transcripts of responses were independently rated and differences resolved through
discussion; inter-rater agreement was 90%.
Finally, Dimension Four looked at mastery, the overall facility with which visi-
tors described their understanding. The quality of someone’s understanding ranged
from that of a novice to more like that of an expert. Expertise did not have to be lim-
ited to a single area; someone could have been knowledgeable in gems but not geol-
ogy, in the mining process but not in the process of making and judging fine jewelry.
112 FALK ET AL. * T H E E F F E C T S O F V I S I T O R S ’ A G E N D A S
Scoring utilized a holistic judgment which, much as someone might grade an essay,
qualitatively took into account the totality of the interviewee’s understanding of the
topic. Each PMM was scored on a scale of 1-4 (1 = simple, novice-like understand-
ing to 4 = highly detailed, expert-like understanding). As with the previous dimen-
sions, the transcripts of responses were independently rated and differences resolved
through discussion; inter-rater agreement was 93%.
Time spent in the exhibition was analyzed, as were such independent variables
as motivation for visiting, visit strategy, museum crowdedness, time of day, age,
social group, and gender. Analyses included analysis of variance, t-tests, chi squares
and correlations.
RESULTS
Only 40 individuals were included in this current analysis, those individuals com-
pleting both a pre- and post-visit PMM. All were over the age of 17 (42%, 18-29
years; 38%, 30-54 years; 20%, 55 years and older); 52% were female (N=21); 90%
were white; 10% were Asian-American (no other racelethnicities were present in the
sample). Twenty-three percent of the visitors in the sample were alone. Time spent
in the exhibition ranged from 10 to 70 minutes with a normal distribution; mean
time was 35 minutes. As it was a newly-installed exhibition, none of the visitors had
ever seen this particular exhibition before, although half (57%) had previously visit-
ed the NMNH.
Overall, there was evidence that visitors learned as shown by significant change
along three of the four PMM learning dimensions:
Dimension One-Change in extent of vocabulary (t=lO.289, p=.OOO).
Dimension Two-Change in number of concepts. A complete list of concepts uti-
lized by visitors is presented in the Appendix. The breadth of knowledge and feelings
as measured by change in the quantity of different conceptual categories used to
describe gems and minerals (t= 12.096, p=.OOO).
Dimension Three-There was no significant change in Dimension Three-the
depth of knowledge and feelings as measured by change in the quantity of descrip-
tors used in explaining conceptual categories (t=1.807, p=.078).
Dimension Four-Change in mastery of topic as judged by the change in the qual-
ity of the individual’s overall understanding of the topic (t=3.819, p=.OOO).
There was a relationship between learning and length of stay, which ranged
from 10 minutes to 70 minutes. Individuals who spent longer amounts of time in the
exhibition showed significantly greater concept learning, Dimension Two (F=7.931,
p=.008) and mastery learning, Dimension Four (F=12.693, p=.OOl) than did those
who spent less time in the exhibition.
Visitors’ motivations significantly affected how and what they learned from the
exhibition. Visitor importance scores for each of the six motivations were rescaled
as either a “low” or a “high” motivation (low=rating of 1-3; high=rating of 4-5). The
four outcome measures of learning were compared across the two levels (low and
high) for each of the six agenda motivations. There were four statistically significant
interactions:
C U R A T O R 4112 * J U N E 1 9 9 8 I13
1. Individuals with a high education motivation scored significantly higher than indi-
viduals with a low education motivation on Dimension Two (number of concepts)
(F=6.344, p=.016).
2. Individuals with a high entertainment motivation scored significantly higher than
those with a low entertainment motivation on Dimension One (extent of vocabulary)
(F=4.681, p=.037).
3. Individuals with a high entertainment motivation scored significantly higher
than those with a low entertainment motivation on Dimension Four (mastery)
(F=5.082, p=.0307).
4. Individuals with a low practical issues motivation scored significantly higher than
individuals with a high practical issues motivation on Dimension Two (number of
concepts) (F=5.066, p=.030).
Education and entertainment motivations interacted in an interesting way; they
emerged as highly independent dimensions. Individuals with a high education moti-
vation, regardless of their entertainment motivation, showed significant conceptual
learning (Dimension Two). Individuals with a high entertainment motivation,
regardless of their educational motivation, showed significant vocabulary develop-
ment (Dimension One) and overall mastery of the topic (Dimension Four). Individ-
uals with both a high education and entertainment motivation showed gains in all
three-vocabulary, concepts, and mastery; individuals with a low education and
entertainment motivation evidenced no gains in vocabulary, concepts, or mastery.
These relationships are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1. Learning outcomes for education and entertainment motivation categories.
Education High
Entertainment Low no vocabulary, concept, concept learning,

or mastery learning, (28%)
(20%)
Entertainment High vocabulary and vocabulary,

mastery learning, concept, and
(1 8%) mastery learning (34%)
Note: Percentages indicate the proportion of the 40 visitors represented in each cell.
By contrast, education and practical issues were highly correlated. Individuals with
a high educational motivation had a low practical motivation, and individuals with
a high practical motivation had a low education motivation. These two motivations
were essentially the inverse of each other.
The length of time visitors spent in the exhibition was compared across the rat-
ings (high vs. low) for each of the six motivations visitors gave for their visit. There
was only one statistically significant interaction: individuals with a high entertain-
ment motivation stayed significantly longer in the exhibition than did those with a
114 FALK E T AL. T H E E F F E C T S O F VISITORS’ AGENDAS
low entertainment motivation (F=8.310, p=.006).

The four dimensions of learning and length of stay in the exhibition were com-
pared to the three types of museum visit strategies (unfocused, moderately-focused,
and focused). Only Dimension Four, mastery, was found to have been significantly
affected by visit strategy (F=4.061, p=.O51). Individuals with a focused strategy
showed significantly greater gains than did individuals with either an unfocused or
moderately-focused strategy.
There was also a significant effect between visit strategies and length of visit
(F=6.632, p=.003). Individuals with an unfocused strategy spent the least amount of
x
time ( =25 minutes); individuals with either a moderately-focused (x=44 minutes)
or focused (x =41 minutes) strategy spent considerably more time in the exhibition;
the difference between time spent by those with a focused and those with a moder-
ately-focused strategy was not significant.
There were no significant correlations between visit strategies and the six visit
motivations.
There were no significant differences in visitor learning or length of stay in the
exhibition as a function of age, gender, level of education, time of day of the visit, or
crowdedness of the exhibition.
There was a significant effect of social group on learning. Individuals who went
through the exhibition by themselves showed significantly more learning along
Dimension One (extent of vocabulary) than did individuals who went through the
exhibition as part of a group (F=5.352, p=.026). There was no effect of social group
on length of stay.
DISCUSSION
This study yielded both straightforward and highly provocative results. First, the
research provided reassuring evidence that visitors to a museum exhibition learn
even in the short term. Importantly, the research highlights that visitor learning can
be viewed as occurring along several different, measurable dimensions. The majority
of the individuals visiting Geology, Gems and Minerals showed significant gains in
their ability to describe gems and minerals as evidenced by an increase in the vocab-
ulary used to describe them. The majority also showed significant gains in concep-
tual understanding of the subject as evidenced by an increase in the number of
conceptual categories they used to describe gems and minerals after their visit. And
the majority showed significant improvement in their mastery of gems and minerals
as a topic as evidenced by a qualitatively enhanced presentation of their knowledge
and understanding. Only along one dimension of learning, the depth of conceptual
frameworks, did the majority of visitors to the exhibition fail to demonstrate signif-
icant change.
This research confirmed the hypothesis that an individual’s motivation for visit-
ing a museum significantly impacts how, what, and how much heishe learns at that
museum. The motivations that yielded the greatest effect were the motivations of
education and entertainment. However, the relationship between these two different
motivations and learning did not necessarily square with preconceived notions. As
CURATOR 41/2 9 J U N E 1998 115
would be expected, individuals voicing a strong educational motivation showed sig-

nificantly greater learning than did those expressing a low educational motivation.
Less expected, a similar relationship existed amongst those individuals voicing
strong entertainment motivations. In fact, individuals with a high entertainment
motivation demonstrated greater learning along two dimensions of learning as well
as a greater commitment of time to the exhibition than did those with a low enter-
tainment motivation. These significant differences were independent of individuals’
expressed educational motivations.
Much has been debated and written lately within the museum community about
whether museums should emphasize education or entertainment, treating these two
variables as if they were mutually exclusive. This research confirms the wisdom of
many (e.g., Friedman, 1997; Lucas, 1991; Mintz, 1994) who have claimed that these
two dimensions are not mutually exclusive. Rather than education and entertain-
ment being two ends of a single continuum, the results of this study reinforce the
belief that education and entertainment represent separate continua altogether. All
visitors we interviewed seemed to believe that both of these motivations were rele-
vant and important, in fact, intrinsic ingredients of the museum experience. What
varied among individuals was the relative importance of these two motivations; for
some individuals, entertainment (or education) was relatively high and for some, rel-
atively low. As Table 1 shows, not only was there a relatively even distribution among
visitors of the four possible combinations of high and low education and high and
low entertainment motivation, with a slight bias toward “high” in both categories,
but these different combinations resulted in significantly different learning out-
comes for visitors.
High Education Motivation-Those intent on learning about gems and minerals

focused on the conceptual information provided in the exhibition. These individuals
added whole new conceptual categories to their repertoire. Visitors’ educational
motivation, high or low, did not appear to significantly influence how much time
they spent in the exhibition.
High Entertainment Motivation-Those individuals intent on an enjoyable and

entertaining experience seemed to focus more concretely on the objects. The results
of this behavior were significant gains in visitors’ ability to describe and list more dif-
ferent kinds of gems and minerals after the visit as well as a significantly improved
ability to talk about the topic of gems and minerals after the visit. Perhaps what
could be characterized as a greater enthusiasm for the experience also manifested
itself in how this group of visitors utilized the exhibition. Individuals with a high
entertainment motivation spent significantly longer in the exhibition than did indi-
viduals with a low entertainment motivation. Thus individuals who placed a high
value on the entertainment and enjoyment aspects of an exhibition spent more time
in the exhibition and demonstrated greater learning than did those who were less
concerned with entertainment. It is also possible that visitors found this exhibition
entertaining.
116 FALK ET AL. * T H E E F F E C T S O F V I S I T O R S ’ A G E N D A S
Other Motivations-There was no evidence that having or not having a social event,
life cycle, or place motivation for the visit directly affected learning. Individuals
whose visit to the museum was strongly motivated by price, convenience, or some
other practical reason tended to also have a low education motivation and evidenced
less learning than did those who came for other reasons. In other words, individuals
who came to the museum “to get out of the cold” or just because “it’s an inexpensive
way to spend the day,” seemingly were less “educationally” motivated about the exhi-
bition, and thus less likely to experience conceptual learning.
Visit Strategy-The strategy employed by visitors-unfocused, moderately focused,

focused-appeared to also have a significant impact on visitors’ learning as well as
visitor behavior. Visitors with a focused visit strategy showed significantly greater
mastery learning than did visitors with either a moderately-focused or unfocused
visit strategy. Visitors with either a focused or moderately-focused visit strategy
spent more time in the exhibition than did visitors with an unfocused strategy. At the
two ends of the continua, the results seem clear. Individuals with a focused strategy,
those individuals who single-mindedly and purposefully set out to visit the exhibi-
tion, spent more time in the exhibition and showed significantly greater mastery
learning than did other visitors. Individuals with an unfocused strategy, those indi-
viduals who more or less just wandered into the exhibition, spent less time in the
exhibition and showed less mastery learning than other visitors.
Individuals with a moderately-focused strategy who purposefully but not single-
mindedly visited the exhibition and spent as much time there as those with a focused
strategy, only learned amounts comparable to what unfocused-strategy visitors
learned. This suggests problems with only using a three-point scale along this contin-
uum. Also particularly striking was that visit-strategy and visit-motivation variables
appeared to be independent of each other. The two dimensions of agenda we defined,
sociocultural purposes and the daily visit plans of individuals, were not correlated.
Visit Agenda-It is probably worthwhile noting that 13% (10 individuals) of those
we initially approached and 39% (25 individuals) of those we approached for a sec-
ond time after their visit refused to be interviewed. In an ironic way, these data too
must be taken as evidence for the importance of visitors’ agendas and how those
agendas impact on their time and behavior in the museum. By inference, these indi-
viduals’ agenda was to see the museum, not to participate in a research study.
CONCLUSfONS
This research provides further support for the idea that museums can and do affect
visitor learning. The research also supports the hypothesis that visitors’ pre-visit
agendas directly influence their in-museum behavior and learning. These findings
also raise a number of important issues, including the need to redefinelrethink how
we use the terms education and entertaiiiment, the need to better understand the
complexities of visitors’ pre-visit agendas, and the need to rethink how, as a field, we
market the museum experience.
C U R A T O R 4112 * J U N E 1998 117
The finding that individuals expressing a high education motivation showed sig-
nificantly greater learning will no doubt find easy resonance with most museum pro-
fessionals. By contrast, the finding that individuals expressing a high entertainment
motivation showed both significantly greater learning and spent more time in the
exhibition will no doubt not resonate as well. Our feeling is that the discrepancy lies
primarily in our, not the visitors’, heads. Within academic circles, within which
museums can legitimately claim to reside, the words “education” and “entertain-
ment” are laden with a great deal of baggage. To the academic, “education” connotes
importance and quality, while “entertainment” suggests vacuousness and frivolity;
and maybe for some in the general public these meanings also hold true. However,
what most museum professionals forget is how much self-selection enters into
museum-going. Individuals who go to museums are going for a learning-oriented
experience. The museum-going public’s idea of entertainment, at least for that time
when they are at the museum, is not the same as that of the theme-park-going or
shopping-mall-going public. “We really enjoy it when we’re here ...and also learning.
So it’s educational, not just a theme-park-type-like place.” Most museum visitors see
no apparent conflict between fun and learning. This was succinctly summarized by
one visitor who said, “We expect to enjoy ourselves and learn new things.” Those
people who enjoy learning, particularly the free-choice learning afforded by a
museum, consider learning in a museum entertaining.
Just as complicated are the meanings surrounding the word. There are many in
the public, and unfortunately in the museum community as well, who still seem to
think that the word “education” is a synonym for “school.” Thus, some museum-
goers correctly assume they are going to be entertained, but erroneously assume that
they are not going to be educated. No doubt there are some with the opposite
assumptions as well. As a profession, we need to work harder to both understand
these nuances and, ideally, to help reinvent for the public more appropriate defini-
tions of these terms.
A second issue that emerges from this research is the multi-dimensionality of
the visitor agenda; what we have separately identified as “motivation” and “strategy.”
These two dimensions do appear to be independent, and influenced visitor behavior
and learning in interesting ways. Rather than seeing this study as an end point in our
understanding of the complex interactions of motivation and strategy, we see this as
a beginning. In this case, the old saying “this research suggests the need for further
research” is really true. Given the powerful and complex role that a visitor’s agenda
has on in-museum experiences, further research is indeed warranted.
Finally, the findings of this research argue for the need to better understand the
relationship of marketing and the museum experience. As marketing becomes more
central to the long-term health and vitality of museums, it is essential that those
marketing efforts be grounded in empirical research. This research confirms the
assertion made by Falk and Dierking (1992) that the visitor experience is strongly
affected by events that happen prior to the visitor’s arrival at the door of the museum.
Hence, the emphasis used in a marketing campaign, e.g., entertainment, education-
al, social, practical issues can dramatically affect how visitors utilize the museum
and what they learn. In particular, education and entertainment should not be
118 FALK ET A L . 0 T H E EFFECTS OF VISITORS’ A G E N D A S
viewed as mutually exclusive motivations for coming to a museum but rather as

complementary aspects of a complex leisure experience.
Individuals who strongly desired an educational and an entertaining experience
were the real winners in the present study. They learned more than those caught in
the either/or bind.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We would like to thank Linda Deck of the National Museum of Natural History for her help
and support throughout this project, also Robert Sullivan for his support of the research enter-
prise at NMNH. Thanks also to Marianna Adams, Courtney Abrams, David Anderson, Lynn
Dierking, Dana Holland and Jessica Luke of the Institute for Learning Innovation for their
insightful comments at different stages of this research. Finally, our thanks to the visitors who
modified their agendas so as to share their time and thoughts with us.
REFERENCES
Balling, J.D.; Falk, J.H.; and Aronson, R.A. (1980). Pre-trip Orientations: An Exploration of
Their Effects on Learning from a Single Visit Field Trip to a Zoological Park. Final Report,
National Science Foundation, Grant #SED77-18913.
Falk, J.H. (1998). “Visitors: Who Does, Who Doesn’t, and Why.” Museum News 7712: 3 8 4 3 .
, and Dierking, L.D. (1992). The Museum Experience. Washington, DC: Whalesback
Books.
Friedman, A. (1997). “Are Science Centers and Theme Parks Merging?” Informal Science
Review 2511: 4-5.
Gore, L.; Mahnken, M.; Nordstrom, J.; and Wells, D. (1980). “A profile of Visitors: The Dallas
Museum of Natural History.” Unpublished manuscript. University of Dallas, Irving, TX.
Graburn, N.H. (1977). “The Museum and the Visitor Experience.” In: The Visitor and the
Museum (pp. 5-32). Prepared for the 72nd Annual Conference of the American Associa-
tion of Museums, Seattle, WA.
Hood, M.G. (1983). “Staying Away: Why People Choose Not to Visit Museums.” Museum News
6212: 50-57.
Lucas, A.M. (1991 ). ‘Info-tainment’ and Informal Sources for Learning Science.” Internation-
“
al Journal of Science Education 13/51: 495-504.

Luke, J. (1998). “Art Around the Comer: An Assessment of the Long-Term Impact of a Multi-
Visit Program on Elementary Students.” Interpretation of Art, unpublished masters the-
sis, University of Toronto, Canada.
, Adams, M., and Falk, J. (1998). “Art Around the Corner: Longitudinal Impact Study.”
Unpublished report, Institute for Learning Innovation: Annapolis, MD,
Macdonald, S. ( I 993). Museum Visiting, Series: Representations: Places and Identities. Sociol-
ogy and Social Anthropology Working Papers, No 1 . Keele, WG: Keele University.
McManus, P. ( I 992). “Topics in Museums and Science Education.” Studies in Science Educa-
tion 20: 157-182.
Merriman, N. (1991). Beyond the Glass Case. Leicester, UK: Leicester University Press.
Miles, R. ( I 986). “Museum Audiences.” The International Jounml of Museum Management and
Curatorship : 73-80.
Mintz, A. 1994. “That’s Edutainment.” Museum News 7316: 32-35.
Moussouri, T.( 1997). “Family Agendas and Family Learning in Hands-on Museums.” Unpub-
lished Ph.D. thesis, University of Leicester, Leicester, England.
C U R A T O R 41/2 0 J U N E 1998 119
Pope, M., and Gilbert, J. (1983). “Personal Experience and the Construction of Knowledge in
Science.” Science Education 67: 193-203.
Prentice, R., Davies, A,, & Beeho, A. 1997. “Seeking Generic Motivations for Visiting and Not
Visiting Museums and Like Cultural Attractions.” Museum and Curatorship 16/1: 45-70.
Roschelle, J. (1 995). “Learning in Interactive Environments: Prior Knowledge and New Expe-
rience.” In J. Falk and L. Dierking (Eds.) Public Institutions for Personal Learning. Wash-
ington, DC: American Association of Museums.
Rosenfeld, S. (1980). “Informal Learning in Zoos: Naturalistic Studies of Family Groups.”
Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of California, Berkeley.
Rosenfield, I. (1988). The Invention of Memory: A New View of the Brain. New York. NY Basic
Books.
Solomon, J. ( I 987). “Social Influences o n the Construction of Pupils’ Understanding of Sci-
ence.” Studies in Science Education 14: 63-83.
Sylwester, R. (1995). A Celebration of Neurons: An Educator? Guide to the Human Brain. Alex-
andria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
APPEND I X
Description of conceptual categories utilized by visitors (arranged alphabetically by code):

Appreciation, e.g., descriptions of how much a visitor appreciated getting to see this collection
Caves
C1: geography of minerals
C2: concept related to studying & making gems (uses “light” in an aesthetic rather than scien-
tific sense)
C3: concept related to chemical/physical naturelstructure of gems (uses “light” in a scientific
rather than aesthetic sense)
C4: plate techtonics and other geological concepts/formation processes
C5: concepts related to structure and properties of minerals
C6: concepts related to mining processes
C-I: cultural identity (e.g., “I’m from India and I was looking for gems from India.”)
Environmental issues
GE: gems (talks about gems as a category of things)
Health (e.g., use of certain minerals in vitamins)
Hobbies
Icon (e.g., Hope Diamond)
Interest (expressions of personal interest in topic)
J: jewelry
Learning experience
Museum-related (general comments on visits, exhibitions, museum code)
MI: minerals (talks about minerals as a category of things)
MN: mining and manufacturing related
Natural resources
0: other related activities associated with gems & minerals (a miscellaneous category)
OR: ores (enumeration of different kinds)
PA: practical applications (e.g., using diamonds as drill bits)
PC: popular culture; movies, or stars were often used as a reference point
SM: subject matter (field of study, e.g., geology, astronomy, chemistry)
S/C: socio-culturaUeconomic, specific efforts to relate gems and/or minerals to cultural, politi-
cal or economic lives of people in the past or present
Social relationshipdsituations (e.g., “my aunt owned a ...”)
SS: social status (e.g., relation between gems and wealth)
T H E EFFECTS O F VISITORS’ AGENDAS
A visitor’s rough notes in response to “Write words, images, phrases, or thoughts that come to
mind related to the words ‘gems and minerals.’”
FALK E T A L .
T4: other categories of stuff, e.g., fossils

T3: types of minerals
T 1 : types of gems
T2: types of ores
T5: rocks
120

4 FALK - The Effect of Visitors

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

4 FALK - The Effect of Visitors

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

4 FALK - The Effect of Visitors

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Effect of Visitors’Agendas

Data Collection-The study was conducted at the Smithsonian Institution’s National

Table 1. Learning outcomes for education and entertainment motivation categories.

Entertainment Low no vocabulary, concept, concept learning,

Entertainment High vocabulary and vocabulary,

low entertainment motivation (F=8.310, p=.006).

would be expected, individuals voicing a strong educational motivation showed sig-

High Education Motivation-Those intent on learning about gems and minerals

High Entertainment Motivation-Those individuals intent on an enjoyable and

Visit Strategy-The strategy employed by visitors-unfocused, moderately focused,

viewed as mutually exclusive motivations for coming to a museum but rather as

al Journal of Science Education 13/51: 495-504.

Description of conceptual categories utilized by visitors (arranged alphabetically by code):

T4: other categories of stuff, e.g., fossils

You might also like