The document discusses how constructivist learning theory can inform museum practices to better cultivate visitors' identities as learners. It argues that understanding visitors' prior knowledge and experiences through front-end evaluations is crucial for designing exhibits that facilitate meaningful learning. Recognizing individual learning identities allows museums to act as facilitators rather than teachers. Post-visit evaluations are also important to assess the long-term impacts of exhibits on visitor learning and identity development. Implementing constructivist approaches requires effort but can make museums more valuable institutions that satisfy important identity needs for a diverse audience.

1. The Relationship Between
Learning and Identity:
How the Museum Can
Cultivate People’s
Identities as Learners

2. Introduction
Why do visitors to the same exhibit have different learning experiences? The museum
experience is highly individualistic, influenced by the identity of the person within that
space. To cultivate learning, museums are required to inform themselves on who their
visitors are. We shall discover how a learner’s identity constructs his or her learning and
how the museum experience in turn reconstructs a learner’s identity.
Museums are increasingly caring about the identities of their visitors: a result of the shift
within the sector from the former content-focused to visitor-focused ideology (Kreps 2003;
Falk 2009). This changing ideology has produced a learning theory that counters the
didactic exhibits characteristic of nineteenth century museums (Hein 1994). Previously,
once they entered the museum, visitors structured their visitor identity in relation to the
museum’s superior role as the giver of knowledge; new ways of structuring museums
replaces top-down traditions with more collaborative practices recognize the identity of
the visitor (Kreps 2003).
This essay introduces the elements of constructivism and provides recommendations for
and examples of their implementation in the museum. The first section provides the
theoretical framework of constructivist learning and learning identity, which the second
section will then use to explore how a museum can cultivate learning through
understanding this identity. The concluding section will demonstrate how this application
could positively impact the museum in other areas as well.
Learning Identity within Museums: The Constructivist Theory
Visitor Learning Identity
The term ‘learning identity’ could be defined by any number of criteria; Falk (2009)
structured visitor identity around motivation, one of the necessary elements in
constructivism. Here we shall explore visitor identity as defined by the sum of an
individual’s prior knowledge and experience. Though individuals embody a multitude of
identity constructions simultaneously, other identity structures will not be addressed here
for the purpose of space. Here, we are concerned with what the visitor brings to the
museum and how that is used in conjunction with what is presented during their visit (and
after) to ‘make meaning’.

3. Constructivist Learning Theory
Constructivism challenges the notion that all knowledge is external. In contrast to the
traditional didactic approach, the learner constructs knowledge continuously, with his or
her prior knowledge and experiences serving as the basis. “It is not only difficult but
almost impossible to learn something without making an association with familiar
categories” (Hein 1998:156). Associations provide the learner with the structure to
cognitively reconcile the new information with the old.
Prior knowledge is disregarded within the transmission-absorption model because it can
contradict and misinterpret what is to be learned (Roschelle 1995), but ignoring its
existence within the learner actually hinders learning. As Hooper-Greenhill (1994) has
asserted, “Subjective interpretation cannot be avoided, it is part of what knowing is about.”
Once we accept that knowledge is not objective, the individuality of the learner plays a
central role in the learning experience.
When faced with new information, learners attempt to mentally fit this into their existing
knowledge structure, often through associations (Hein 1998; Falk & Dierking 2000). How
closely the new information aligns with the learner’s previous understanding will
determine how that knowledge is re-shaped:
Most commonly, learners assimilate additional experience to their current theories
and practices. Somewhat less frequently, an experience causes a small cognitive
shock that leads the learner to put ideas together differently. Much more rarely,
learners undertake major transformations of thought that affect everything from
fundamental assumptions to their ways of seeing, conceiving, and talking about
their experience (Roschelle 1995).
If the knowledge differs to the point of contradiction, a learning block can occur where the
learner rejects the new information entirely.
Although I highlight the individual’s identity as a learner, it should be noted how the social
setting influences learning identity. Individuals of a group enhance their learning by
combining their individual knowledge bases (Leinhardt & Knutson 2004). Through social
engagement, knowledge can not only be individually constructed, but also co-constructed
among learners.

4. If individuals construct their own meaning, then what is the role of the museum? The
museum does not lose its educational power: it simply shifts from teacher, to facilitator. By
allowing visitors to physically handle objects and discuss their experiences, the museum
provides the space and the tools for learners to harmonize new information with what
they already knew (Hooper-Greenhill 1994:).
Constructing aConstructivist Museum:Practices ofDetermining Visitor
Prior Knowledge and Learning
Implementing a constructivist learning approach to museums requires time and energy
spent focusing on understanding their visitors rather than merely transmitting content to
them. If we want to cultivate learning within museums, we must acknowledge where those
visitors are coming from.
Prior knowledge is not an immeasurable variable; once compared relative to the specific
exhibitions, this information becomes most useful to the museum (Simon 2010). Simply
becoming familiarized with what their visitors already know does not automatically equate
to successful exhibits. These findings constitute a feed-back loop the museum can use to
continuously monitor their own success and adopt alterations as necessary.
Regardless of its accuracy, prior knowledge should be viewed as a valid part of the
learner’s identity. The execution of the exhibit must work within these identities instead of
challenging them or “attempt to replace learners’ understanding with their own”
(Roschelle 1995). Successful constructivist exhibits recognize and work within the
confines of a visitor’s learning identity and do not risk visitor learning by suppressing it.
Recognition of visitor identity begins with an understanding of what a visitor knew before
coming to the museum, leading to an educated prediction of what connections could be
made between previous and new experiences within the exhibit, and followed by the
admission that subsequent experiences outside the museum also impact visitor learning
(Falk 1999:261).
Understanding Visitors: Front-End Evaluations
Individuals hold internally their own unique motivations and prior experiences. How can a
museum possibly address the learning needs of an immensely diverse audience?
Conducting front-end visitor studies allows visitors the opportunity to express their own
knowledge and interests, in turn providing the museums with valuable information to

5. design more meaningful exhibits. Front-end evaluations are conceptually simple, yet
immensely beneficial in understanding an audience that in general, does not express their
learning identity unless specifically asked.
Regardless of content, museums can develop failed exhibits if they ignore or are
misinformed on the public’s level of knowledge on a subject. Without an understanding of
the visitor, the exhibit might be dense in unfamiliar material, leaving the visitor unable to
make any connections with his or her own life. Or on the other hand, neglecting to facilitate
appropriate associations can lead to the visitor learning things the curators did not intend
(Roschelle 1995:37). Museums should not make assumptions about what the visitor does
or does not know, because it very likely is misguided without verification (Hein 1998:164).
If empirical data is collected before installation, museums are more likely to produce
exhibits better suited to a museum’s audience.
Before the Carnegie Museum of Natural History installed Africa: One Continent, Many
Worlds exhibit, they installed kiosks where visitors answered questions. When interviewed
by Leinhardt and Knutson (2004:35), curator Deborah Mack expressed they “wanted to
find out where people were coming from so they could design an exhibition that would
address the most common misconceptions about Africa.” Even though this exhibit had
previously been installed at the Field Museum in Chicago, the Carnegie Museum of Natural
History desired to cater the exhibit to their Pittsburgh audience.
By implementing front-end evaluations, communication between the museum and the
visitor becomes multi-directional. Individuals begin to become self-aware and confident in
their learning identity. Shifting the power relationship opens up a more natural dialogue
between the museum and the visitor, one where the visitor feels important and validated.
By participating in front-end evaluations, the visitor becomes an active contributor to their
own learning, and the learning of others.
Cultivating Learning Associations: The Next Step
For geographical and other practical purposes, not every visitor will have participated in a
front-end study. To accommodate for the needs of these visitors, steps can be taken within
the exhibition space to facilitate relevant cognitive associations for all. If an appropriate
environment is presented, it can both facilitate learning and ‘reinforce identity’ through
features the visitor can connect with (Wortham 2006:5). Constructivist museums are

6. consciously aware of the connections visitors make in regards to the space and concepts
provided (Hein 1998:157).
While in an exhibit, staff or volunteers can act as flexible facilitators – adapting to the
precise needs of the visitor they engage with. They are not to be used as human
encyclopedias, didactically lecturing on the content of the exhibit. They are there to
structure the material with respect to individual visitors (Hein 1995).
If a museum does not have the resources to man every exhibit, facilitation can be
imbedded into the space through text.
The content of some exhibits can be off-putting to individuals who are less familiar with
the content. To prevent visitors from mentally rejecting concepts or avoiding the exhibit
entirely, visitors need to be able to familiarize themselves early on. Not all museums have
the resources to man every exhibit, leaving the visitor without a human presence to
motivate them inside. The introductory text of Medicine Now at the Wellcome Collection in
London instilled confidence in the learner before entering: it validated the knowledge and
experiences of all visitors whether they stemmed from a “patient, doctor, or researcher”
vantage point. Multiple identity connections were presented and those connections led to
not only wider, but possibly also deeper learning experiences.
Understanding Learning Experience: Post-Visit Evaluations
The experiences a visitor has before and during the exhibit are not comprehensive in
understanding the impact a museum visit has on learning. Through a constructivist lens,
learning is not added to, but a continuous process, and like the constructivist exhibit, has
no fixed starting and end point (Hein, 1994). Each museum visit becomes prior experience
for a future visit and will constitute a visitors prior knowledge that can be restructured in a
future situation.
Potentially, what a visitor learns within the museum could be re-shaped when confronted
with new, future contexts. New conceptual information is not only found in museums or
schools, but also in the everyday lives of individuals. Therefore, learning is immeasurable
immediately following a visit; instead, museums must continue their evaluations after
considerable time has passed for more accurate data (Hein 1994; Falk & Dierking 2000).
Falk (1999) discovered this when studying post-visit evaluations of the What About AIDS?
exhibit co-created by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and several American science
museums. Some participants revealed they continued to reflect on the exhibit; the personal

7. impact of some of the particularly frightening concepts was intensified even weeks after
their visit (Falk 1999:263).
This finding demonstrates that while the use of front-end evaluations is important, they
should not take the place of these follow-up evaluations that account for the visitor’s
subsequent experiences and reflections.
Conclusions
At the present, no true constructivist museum exists and the argument could be made that
no museum should conform to constructivist principles or any one learning theory
entirely. Due to the benefits however, elements of constructivism are being implemented
in museum exhibits to accommodate for a more active audience. The individuality of the
visitor is central to learning and the museum must work to accommodate for and validate
this. Creating an exhibit centered on the visitor and not the content requires museums to
compile research on their visitors instead of their objects.
Constructing a more constructivist museum would certainly require considerable time and
money – resources the museum might currently be using to simply remain open in a
recessed economy. However, museums have the potential to offer an indispensible
function for society if they satisfy visitors’ “deepest and most important identity-related
needs” (Falk 2009: 244). If their visitors are offered an integral role in determining what
and how their museum practices exhibit design, they become more aware of the value of
their contribution and evolve into learners confident in their identities. The added effort
translates into more valuable experiences and in turn, a more valuable institution.
Discovering how best to regularly communicate with individual visitors to concurrently
design exhibits and analyze the learning of the visitor could translate into metrics used to
determine the success. The true success of a museum stems both from its high education
standards and financial stability. If these changes lead to increased visitor numbers and
repeat visitors, the museum is opened up to additional funding opportunities, an increase
in memberships, and ultimately, a more sustainable future in a period of uncertainty.

8. Bibliography
Falk, J.H. (2009) Identity and the Museum Visitor Experience. Walnut Creek, Left Coast Press
Inc.
Falk, J.H. (1999) Museums as Institutions for Personal Learning. Daedalus, 128 (3), 259-
275.
Falk, J.H., & Dierking, L.D. (2000) Learning from museums: Visitor experiences and the
making of meaning. Walnut Creek, CA: AtlaMira.
Hein, G. (1998) Learning in the Museum.
Hein, G. (1994) The constructivist museum. In: Hooper-Greenhill, E. (ed.) The Educational
Role of the Museum. London, Routledge, 73-79.
Hooper-Greenhill, E. (1994) Museum learners as active postmodernists: contextualizing
constructivism. In: Hooper-Greenhill, E. (ed.) The Educational Role of the Museum. London,
Routledge, 67-72.
Kreps, C.F. (2003) Liberating Culture: Cross-cultural perspectives on museums, curation and
heritage preservation. Oxon, Routledge.
Leinhardt, G. & Knutson, K. (2004) Listening in on museum conversations. Walnut Creek,
Altamira Press.
Medicine Now. The Wellcome Collection. 183 Euston Rd, London, United Kingdom NW1
2BE. 5 November, 2015.
Simon, N. (2010) The Participatory Museum, http://www.participatorymuseum.org/read/
Rocshelle, J. (1995) Learning in Interactive Environments: Prior Knowledge and New
Experience. In: Falk, J.H. & Dierking, L.D. (ed.) Public Institutions for Personal Learning.
Washington, DC, American Association of Museums, 37-52.
Wortham, S. (2006) Learning Identity: The Joint Emergence of Social Identification and
Academic Learning. New York, Cambridge University Press.