-->
I feel
tremendously lucky that I need to spend time on my professional reading regularly and frequently. While
finding the time for it is a challenge, being able to settle in and enjoy
the thinking and perspectives of museum colleagues working to inhabit their
professional practice feels like a privilege.
I am also
challenged to fully inhale, retain, and internalize the news, ideas, study
results, and perspectives as much as I would really like. Yet, even when I’m fuzzy on
the details and sometimes on the big ideas of an article, I often remember very
vividly reading
an article: where I was and what I was doing. I recall the sensation of
tracking ideas as they link up with a click or taking in a slow, easy breath as
something I thought I knew now feels more secure.
Sharing
what I read–a snippet, a quote, an article–is also a treat. Seeing a study
inform a museum’s work is as rewarding as is sending off a “just-in-time”
reference for a proposal deadline.
It’s hard
to pick a favorite among so many good journals from my reading list, all of
which I recommend: American Journal of Play, Curator, ASTC Dimensions, Journal of Museum Education, Hand To Hand,
Museum, Stanford Social Innovation Review, The Informal Learning Review, and Visitor Studies.
Recently
I have been referring to, mentioning, rereading, and thinking about three
articles in particular. One is on the play-literacy-environment connection,
another on parent engagement, and a third on children’s nature play. Besides
exploring relevant aspects of museum’s strategic and learning interests, each
does so in a way that broadens current thinking to inform, and possibly shift,
museum practices.
Play-Literacy-Environment
In The Play-Literacy Nexus and the Importance of Evidence-Based Techniques in the Classroom (American Journal of Play, Vol. 4,
No. 2), Kathleen
Roskos and James Christie take on two difficult-to-define concepts, play and
early literacy, and look at them together with the physical environment.
Admittedly, I am biased about this nexus with long-standing interests in
children’s play,
early literacy development,
and children’s environments.
To their credit, the authors manage to both support and temper my excitement
about the physical environment’s potential to support play and enhance literacy
development. Even as the article identifies areas in which specifics of a
literacy-rich environment remain unclear and must be addressed, it also opens
up an understanding of the play-literacy-environment relationship to explore and push on.
The authors review theoretical frameworks that support
their play-literacy hypothesis and follow with scholarly research indicating
that a literacy-rich play environment promotes literacy behaviors in children
during the developmental ages of three to five. They identify three fundamental
principles present in a literacy-enrich play environment.
- The infrastructure principle relates to the basic arrangement, display, and storage of furniture, equipment, and materials that is intentional in informing and organizing experiences as well as attractive and full of images, text, words, and visual arts.
- The authenticity principle calls for play areas, indoors and out, with materials and tools that afford opportunities for a variety of everyday literacy experiences of drawing, writing, decoding, and reading.
- The complexity principle values varied and complex material resources with multiple parts, multiple sensory modes, and multiple uses that hold children’s attention, challenge their thinking, extend communication, and encourage expression.
While the
research comes from the early childhood classroom, its focus on play and play
environments is relevant to museum settings planned with young children in
mind. These three principles are often present in museum settings for young
children. Moreover, museums have expertise developing and designing
environments and experiences. They shape spaces, create experiences, and engage
young learners and their more literate companions. The
play-literacy-environment nexus identified by Roskos and Christie appears to be
an opportunity for museums to work deliberately, find, and test their contribution to
this area.
Parent Engagement
When I
wrote about parent engagement last year,
I was both inspired by the importance of engaging parents in museums and
frustrated with the challenges of doing so well. Both sensations have persisted,
aggravated by a lack of frameworks for parent engagement relevant to museums.
Whether the frameworks I have come across and others have recommended are for
early childhood or school age children, they focus on parent involvement with
schools. Parent engagement in their children’s education is critically
important; but these models overlook the valuable out-of-school time and role museums and
other informal learning settings might play.
In Breaking
Down Barriers: Museums as Broker of Home/School Collaboration, Jessica Luke and Dale McCreedy
(Visitor Studies, 15(1) 2012) look at how to expand thinking about parent
engagement and role that museum programs might play. They describe results from
two complementary studies of a parent involvement program designed and
implemented by a museum. Luke and McCreedy draw on a conceptual framework (Ecologies of Parental Engagement) that has
emerged from studies of parent engagement with urban schools and that uses the
concept of capital
that can be activated: parents’ strengths, experiences, and resources.
Listening
to parents talk about the features they attributed to their involvement
revealed for Luke and McCreedy how the museum program afforded parents opportunities to
think about and support their child’s learning science. The museum program played a
role in giving parents resources for participating in their child’s schooling.
Through informal, casual interactions often around shared activities with other
parents and teachers, parents accessed different types of information about their child;
they increased their comfort with and found entry points to more formal school
structures. Activities and connections built a feeling of being part of a
larger group. Opportunities and situations created by the museum program also helped parents
learn about their children, their interest in science, and how they learn
science. Drawing on enhanced personal resources, parents were able to find ways
to have a presence in their child’s schooling, shift the role they played, and
participate as a family in activities outside of school including a museum
visit.
Museums are building their own capital in listening to visitors, developing relationships,
building on strengths, and grounding engagement in activities. These two
studies take a valuable a step in rethinking parent engagement and where
museums can help parents navigate and engage around their child’s learning.
Recognizing Children’s Nature Play Tendencies
For a venture outside my regular set of journals, I recently found my way to Orion magazine (July/August
2012).
David
Sobel combines a developmental perspective with a wonderful ability to
recognize children’s nature play tendencies to push on a shift in environmental
education in Look, Don’t Touch: The Problem With Environmental Education.
Where others see an opportunity for an environmental education lesson, Sobel
notices and describes children’s joyful encounters with the natural world on
their own terms. These moments, he notes, are being lost for a range of reasons
including urbanization, changing social structure of the family, and stranger danger.
He also
notes and is bold and articulate in describing a troublesome disconnect. While
adults lament children’s loss of contact and freedom in nature and promote
protection of the natural world, they nevertheless structure activities for
children around knowledge about nature that they, adults, want them to have. “Much of
environmental education today has taken on a museum mentality,” Sobel writes,
“where nature is a composed exhibit on the other side of the glass.” (Ouch!)
What
Sobel understands from a grounding in both nature education and children’s
development is that for children to connect with nature, they must have
experiences in
nature. The character of these experiences varies with children’s development,
but shared opportunities for children to connect with nature, even if (or perhaps,
especially if) it’s messy, unstructured, a little risky, and tromps a few
plants along the way.
An
emergent body of research is starting to clarify the relationship between
childhood experience and adult stewardship behavior. A child’s first-hand, on
her-own-terms exploring wild or semi-wild places over many hours
correlates with adult environmental values and behavior. This is a remarkable
and valued combination: beliefs and action. While the research Sobel is
reporting is not granular enough to differentiate between particular types of
environmental education experiences, it’s hard to overlook a basic message.
Children’s wild nature play, following their joy, and leaving the trail is
valuable.
- What are your recent and recommended readings?
No comments:
Post a Comment