What a Summer it has been! And how little blogging has happened. Nina Simon has said to me several times that, for her, regular blogging has been a great boon and a huge albatross around her neck. Keeping to a regular schedule is both a terrible mistress and a vital time for reflection. Without that prompt, it’s all too easy to spend no time reflecting at all. And when you fall off the blog wagon, it’s hard to get back on. So, up we go…
Earlier this Summer, my colleague Gavin Andrews and I attended a workshop on the Documentation Studio at Wheelock College—a project/venue that spun out of Harvard’s Making Learning Visible work around using Reggio Emilia-inspired documentation (a variety of media) to support learning and collaboration among educators in schools and informal settings. The goal was to look at Reggio-inspired educational practices, particularly documentation, and see how they might be applied beyond the traditional Reggio target audience of preliterate (0-5) learners.
I’ve long been interested in the Reggio Emilia model. There’s something that rings very true to me about the value of learners documenting their own learning as a way of demonstrating and crystalling that learning. My lovely and talented wife worked for many years with the folks at Project Zero at Harvard to test Reggio-inspired methods at the high school level, and in the projects she and her students undertook I could see parallels to what we were trying to do with museum audiences.
Another interesting reflection of Reggio ideas in museum thinking can be seen in Lori Phillips’ construction of open authority, particularly in the spectrum of open authority, where museums and their audiences co-create participatory interpretations. Rather than having us doing all the creating and them doing the learning, we do it together and both do both. I like the sound of that!
In addition to being the most superbly-facilitated professional development event I’ve ever experienced, it was *full* of brain food. Some of the notes from my notebook give a flavor of the event:
“Documentation is not a practice so much as a mindset – Documentation ≠ what happened. It’s your point of view of what happened.”
“Documentation is more about communication than expression.”
“How could visitors leave their own document/descripiton of their process, plus a protocol for documentation? Can it extend beyond their visit? How can they take it home/school?”
“What is the role of the curator in this kind of interaction space?”
“How do you make documentation help w collaborative practice beyond the visit?”
Heady, tough stuff… At the end of a very fruitful half day of dicsussion and sharing with school teachers and museum educators who work with children, I asked the question I’d been aching to ask all day, “How does all this apply when your audience is not just children, but everyone?” Of course, there was no easy answer, but as I thought more about it, it occured to me that I defined childhod in my mind as a temporary state, and one that, once passed, was inaccessible thereafter. You either were a child or were not, and therefore things geared for children were somehow distinct from things designed for the rest of us. Something about this bugged me, since I knew that everyone in the room had once been a child. And it spawned a question in my mind.
What if you looked at childhood as a state of mind?
One thing that separates adults from children is that children have a hard time imagining what it must be like to be an adult, whereas adults can remember what it was like when they were children. Childhood is, to some extent, available to us all. I’m sure all us former children can recall bits of what it was like when the world was newer and more mysterious, and we constantly encountered new things. So, my question to you, dear friends and colleagues is this: Could we as designers of learning experiences figure out ways to bring that state of being to the forefront and turn all our audience into children-learners? What might that look like? Any examples of people doing it already?
Indeed. Wonder and play are powerful things children do out of the box (and for creativity not forgetting subversion!)
But children do not exist. They are people who are just younger. Our physiology and thinking change faster when we’re young of course 🙂
This is very much what I aim for in my work with adults in the museum. To me, it’s about remembering how much I enjoyed being impressed and awed by things as a child in a way that gets harder as an adult. Then it’s about creating museum experiences that make adults feel that same kind of enjoyment. I’ve done tasting/smelling/touching Sensory Tours that have captured that. I’ve done workshops about playfulness as a learning style and asked people to come up with their own creative responses to artworks with no (well… very few) parameters. I try to sneak that childlike mentality in wherever I can, especially when I’m NOT working with kids.
Exactly! Recapturing that sense of wonder is we veterans of childhood have such a harder time connecting with than the current crop of children do!
The folks involved with an IMLS-funded project focused on building capacity to serve family audiences at the Crocker Art Museum talked about this during their session at NAEA this year. The panel contrasted “psychographic” vs. demographic programming as a way to reconsider learning design. That is, they urged us to consider the *type* of experience on offer rather than the age of the visitors served. (People of all ages like to boogie–not just kids!) They published an amazing booklet full of hot tips for “family”–read intergenerational–programming available here: https://crockerartmuseum.org/about/resources/booklets.
Ah, links! And examples! Thanks, Zoe!
Comments are closed.