Dr. Mary Kalantzis and Dr. Bill Cope have conducted extensive research on transformative and reflexive learning to help justify their vision of New Learning. While elements of New Learning can be used in the traditional k-12 classroom setting, fully embracing New Learning is better done by acknowledging and embracing the proven research and lessons from what they describe as the realities of the “knowledge economy” and the “global world.” Kalantzis and Cope believe that technology has changed the way individuals find meaning and experience “knowing.” Emerging technology is making the possibilities of New Learning more applicable, relevant and important. As part of this vision, the ability to “learn anytime, anywhere” places ubiquitous learning at the forefront of educational programs that produce critical thinkers, collaborators, and creators for better retention and application. Informal learning environments like museums could provide excellent forums to test ubiquitous learning by allowing visitors to become curators of their own experiences. Using their personal mobile devices, collaboration, and emerging technologies, game-based learning provides a resource that can condense emerging learning elements and further ubiquitously learning by combining attributes that help individuals subtly develop the skills, knowledge, confidence, and motivations to make plenty of ubiquitous tools of learning more effective.

Modern Video Gaming has been around since the 1970's and has progressed significantly to make it a leading economic segment of the United States with an estimated revenue of $78 billion in 2024. (Statista, n.d.). While China is the leading export of video games, the United States remains the creative and innovative hub responsible for the design and marketing of games. To remain competitive, designers of video games have adapted an approach that combines carefully curated Hollywood like storylines and themes with higher-level thinking, collaboration, and motivational learning skills. Studies argue that video games produce learning outcomes that surpass formal learning, however, educational gaming hasn't been fully implemented as a primary learning intervention in schools, museums, and other educational based institutes. As schools continue to navigate state mandates and guidelines that provide little evidence of the realities of the knowledge and global economy, gaming for learning remains an organic resource only the bold, risk taking, even rebellious educators are willing to explore in the hidden concaves of their classrooms.

A major decision for progressive educators is to decide which should come first, emerging technology or emerging new learning concepts. While either could result in the other, educational institutions lean towards more constructivist and didactive pedagogy that fail to compliment game- based learning.

Figure 3:  (Jennifer, 2013).  Comic on using tests for assesment. The point is that every individual is created differently so assessing based on thier individual skills is vital while taking the same test for all is invaldi because test taking is a skill and doesn't fully demonstrate learning

Most museums have a video game component that shares the technological framework with other facilities but customize the aesthetics and theming to parallel the particular museum's topics. These games tend to generalize experiences that enable participants to be exposed to a museum topic through theming hoping that the participant will be curious enough to dig into more of the content at or away from the museum. In addition, these video games are often designed by the same company with little consideration of contemporary data proven learning strategies. One way to think about it is to imagine the game Pacman, but designers modify the background, characters, and prize settings to resemble the museum theme (civil war, the rain forest, Egypt, Monet’s water paintings).

I work for the National Museum of the U.S. Army (NMUSA). President, George Washington issued a statement that the United States will have a great Army Museum. However, Army artifacts and documents were soon absorbed into the Smithsonian system during the mid-19th Century because the Smithsonian was the most qualified to conserve artifacts. As museums gained popularity among the general population around 2000, the Army Historical Foundation (AHF) began to negotiate an agreement with the U.S. Army to finally achieve George Washington’s vision. As such, the Army’s National Museum Project Office (NMPO) was formed to plan the design, development, and manage the fabrication of the museum while the foundation paid for the building. Congress set fundraising milestones to release funds for infrastructure necessary for groundbreaking. Unfortunately, the 2007 recession paused project planning and slowed fundraising. The economy would recover, but fundraising forever changed. Corporations wanted to invest in STEM education and donations came with conditions to educate using data-proven learning strategies and addressing minority demographics.

The NMPO hired me in 2006 to link Standards of Learning to exhibit content. My responsibilities increased as the Army reduced contracted staff. I was soon working on exhibits, outdoor galleries and experiences, an advanced theater, and special designs. In addition, I designed and managed the website development and collections management. I was also tasked to use all my “teaching knowledge” to design and develop an 8,000 sq ft space called the Experiential Learning Center (ELC). After meeting with major corporations, working with the Innovative Learning Institute (ILI) headed by Dr. John Falk, and even meeting with the Disney Imagineers, I made the decision to bypass the typical experiential museum space full of various tactile games, and designed a one-hour GSTEM (I added G for Geography) experience called Operation Safe Passage (OSP). OSP was developed to use emerging learning concepts for collaborative groups so they can experience being a Soldier specializing in GSTEM. The three segments include:

Assembly Area: Introduction to activity, grouping, and setting up the mission storyline by asking visitors to imagine they are Soldiers performing daily training on their GSTEM skills.

Training Center: Using five simulators for each GSTEM category, participants apply Blooms Taxonomy and scaffolding to work through learning concepts using video games and applying their learning at simulators: This includes: build a bridge, drop a load of rescue equipment off a helicopter using math, use a cartography to identify regions of an island, help an injured Soldier in a medical tent, and fly a drone using tools to identify various levels of radiology for rescue missions on the ground.

Learning Lab/HQ: An alarm goes off in the training center warning participants that there has been a hurricane and earthquake on an island where the Army has a base. The island is in bad shape and the teams need to use their GSTEM and collaborative skills to help Soldiers at the island assist the civilians in rescue operations. An After-Action Report (AAR) is used to provide feedback on team performance.

OSP is a one-hour experience for groups. When OSP is not used, the training center becomes “open swim” for casual visitors to use the games. I also designed Fort Discover for children that uses simple custom-made video games with GSTEM missions (along with an awesome jungle gym and other GSTEM experiences).

This designs and developments were vital to secure fundraising commitments by the 2016 deadline Congress set for infrastructure. The (now) National Museum of the US Army has been opened since 2020. The ELC, OSP, and Fort Discover have overwhelmingly been the most popular experiences for visitors. Exit tickets and follow-ups have also proved that participants have retained and applied knowledge and skills learned from the experience a month after participating.

Ironically, only one museum has “benchmarked” OSP and the NMUSA is in the museum capital Washington D.C. I don’t believe a (video) game-based learning activity that combines data-proven learning concepts using collaboration and advanced gaming technology with simulations exists in any other museums or public facility. The Army has recently asked me to design a video-game experience for Army civilians and Soldiers. This game will be based on the Army’s 2020 revised workplace guidance on leadership and collaboration, which resembles Kalantzis and Cope’s New Learning vision.

I have never played a video game in my life except OSP, but I had a lot of help from the Army Gaming Studio and a former founder of Activision who wanted to honor his father who was a Veteran of the Korean War. I learned a lot from them about video game making and they learned about learning and behavior from me. As a struggling student enduring didactic and pseudo-authentic learning in school (1980’s), I majored in education drawing on my own experiences knowing something wasn’t right about the way students were educated. Traditional learning didn’t make sense to me. Why was a performance grade based on the student's ability to use short memory to ace a test and then forget about it? I rebelled against education and became a straight C student in my high school core classes. I process knowledge slowly making lifeworld connections, so I retain it. Teachers would tell my parents, “He’s not fulfilling his potential” because they based my potential on an invalid assessment system. My parents would respond, “but is he learning?” The teachers would always say, “yeah, definitely knows it, but his test grades don’t show that.”

Frustrated with all the teacher’s complaining, my mom and I made a deal during my senior year. If I got all A’s and B’s, she would quit smoking for good. I fulfilled my promise with the exception of a C in math during the 4th quarter. So, the nicest woman in the world scheduled a showdown with my math teacher who provided the usual feedback. My mom then asked him if he had copies of a few quizzes I failed at the beginning of the quarter. He did so she had me “redo” the quizzes on the spot. I received an100% on one and an 86% on the other. “He is processing it his own way so he will remember it and clearly, he did. I think he should at least get a B,” my mom negotiated. The teacher told me he thinks I’d like college but refused to change the grade. My mom quit smoking for good that day.

As a teacher, I was always looking for a better way to reach students who learned like I did and methods to reach all students. In fact, the most difficult students and parents for me were the “grade chasers’ who wanted summative testing because they mastered short term memory and could “beat the test.” When I became a museum educator, I discovered that there was a great opportunity to provide better learning experiences for all individual visitors, not just the eight types of visitors grouped into eight categories that Dr. Falk wrote about in his book Identity and the Visitor Experience (2016). With time being a factor, I knew I would likely have one hour to try to condense all the, at the time, unorthodox but proven learning elements school and museums were reluctant to pursue. At the time, a collaborative video game was the only tool that could achieve this effectively.

Technology has advanced at fast speeds since. Emerging technologies that make ubiquitous learning impactful allows the NMUSA to once again create an experience unfathomed by other informal education facilities. The new Adult Leadership Game will be (video) game-based, but also use augmented reality, individualized research (cell phones), customized individual specialty roles with avatars, AI, and advanced analytics to provide feedback to collaborative teams. Most importantly, it will strive for the learning elements represented in this course.

Figure 3:  (Lane, 2017) Dr. H Chad Lane's lesson on Interactivity in Gaming Designs and Museums.  The AI Twins located at the Bostom Science Museum starts at 3:16. 

Game-Based Learning: can use technology or not use technology if it is a game students can play to learn.

Gamification: Also, it can be technology based or not. Used to motivate learners to participate in a learning task. A training tool that attempts to create game like activities that resemble a task to be used.

Serious Gaming: Games designed for a specific purpose and not for entertainment. Technology can be used, but it is not necessary.

For this paper, Game-Based Learning will be used.

Dr. H Chad Lane (2018) from the University of Illinois presented several web videos on the benefits of learning through gaming. His lectures tied in with how museums are using ubiquitous experiences for visitors to participate in learning activities. He uses the example of the AI twins designed and developed around the millennial at the University of Southern California and other universities within the California state system. The development of the Twins received support from the U.S. Army, and I was sent to report on the development in 2008. The Twins are now used at the Boston Museum of Science. While Dr. H Chad Lane’s study on museum gaming is important, the researcher fails to mention that his research centers around Science Museums. Science and children’s museums are the “outliers” in the museum world. Essentially, science museums have the advantage of creating activities based on “hypothesis” making visitor interpretation more likely and accountability for “truth” secondary to “wonder.” In addition, science museums have by far the best financial resources to pursue gaming as the leading fundraiser subject of museums. More concerning, Dr. H Chad Lane failed to make it clear that Science Museums are the exception. His videos led to classmates writing about “other” types of museums and application to his examples. Unfortunately, although his videos were integrated for exposure, classmates connected to museums at-large. The researcher failed to properly represent all museums and their struggles in general. An example would be a Professor conducting a study on gaming at a Cyber Interactive High School and then generalizing that all High Schools are similar. In the previous testing comic, imagine giving each animal a museum subject but be sure to make the monkey a science museum. In a roundabout way, the researchers efforts to be more ubiquitous are irrelevant for museums in general because his focus museum (science) has a clear advantage.

Museums are interesting places. Finding consensus agreements, within the museum world, on how to define particular elements on education and visitor experiences is difficult. Museums have a range of content, purposes, and support structures. Ultimately, the core purpose of a museum is to house and protect artifacts. This noble purpose often collides with the newer idea that museums are learning fun destinations. By becoming learning facilities, museums blur the lines of ethics that once regulated the academic calling of museums. While ethics is optimal, the survival of museums often leads to ethical bending to ensure positive fundraising results. When most people think of museums, they think of Art Museums worldwide and the Smithsonian. When University Professors and education researchers study museums, they often focus on science museums. Science museums, children’s museums, and Smithsonian museums are the exception. Science museums' visitation numbers double all the other types of museums combined. The Smithsonian is a DC tradition and globally famous. Children’s museums are valued for their emphasis on learning through play and are a great place to take your cooped up children on rainy days. All three get plenty of financing and support to continue expanding, be more adventurous, and take risks. In many ways this checks to Malaro’s ethics box “to represent the minority.” However, ethics for a hypothetical science simulation is a lot different than dealing with artifacts and donations that other museums do more frequently. For the sake of my research, I will exclude science, children’s, and Smithsonian museums because they are outliers and have advantages the majority of museums don’t. I will also caution the reader not to visualize the more popular museums like the Smithsonian or Mt. Vernon.

Kalantzis and Cope

I remember daydreaming in English class when I was in 8th grade. We had desks that would store supplies. I would spend class time re-designing the school to make it fun. Ironically, a classmate of mine just bought the school and is turning it into an event space - something he would re-design from his desk sitting next to me in 8th grade.

Figure 6: (Friend, 2024). The before and after pictures of the Ogema Elementary School where my friend andI would redesign the old school using paper clips in our desks. in 2021 my friend purchased the old school and is fullfilling his dream of re-designing the school into a communitty and events space. 

My school design still involved school, but there was freedom of movement and walls were knocked down. I spent my 5th grade in an “open complex” pod where students were free to move around to visit teachers of different subjects. I didn’t feel trapped, and it worked for me. I applied my open pod concept to my re-design as Mr. Bruner lectured. There were opportunities to take more time learning math (my weakest subject) and less in Social Studies (my strongest). Teachers would also integrate subjects. Science became science and PE or Science and Art which would capture my interest. In many ways this was similar to New Learning. I was creating my own way of retrieving knowledge and had a team of experts there to help and guide me...but I would still be able to shoot free-throws in the gym as my reward for mastering one level of something or to just clear my head. It would mean so much more to me than lectures and textbook worksheets and it would motivate me to dream of possibilities and connect more of what I was learning to what I would love to do. My thirst for knowledge would be quenched on my own time.

Kalantzis and Cope's transformative, reflexive and New Learning concepts make me wish I could've had a different kind of education and wonder what I can do to help my children's learning to make it part of their journey. Unfortunately, the days of pods I was a learner in, and the days of integrated classes I taught in are long gone due to standardized testing. The following theories analyze the use of game-based learning in museums and how learning through games can be impactful. The focus of my project will center around Kalantzis and Cope’s reflexive pedagogy (New Learning) found in Chapter 11 of New learning: elements of a science of education (updated 2020). All theories and applications will be tested against Kalantzis and Cope’s research on New Learning.

Figure 7: (Kalantzis and Cope, 2016) Video on pedagogies with in-depth explanation of reflexive pedagogy.

In chapter 11, the authors present three reflexive dimensions revolving around 1) Student’s learning with technologies, 2) Teacher’s working with technology, and 3) Assessing learning with technology. These three elements connect to three different pedagogies: didactic, constructivism, reflexive. The objective is to focus on the reflexive pedagogy.

The perception of museums being informal, open minded, and creative make them the ideal setting to test reflexive pedagogy. However, few museums have implemented emerging technology, especially gaming, into their exhibitory and programs. As a result, research on gaming in museums is scant and unreliable as most of the studies and energy revolve around science museums. The museums industry considers science museums unique in that they tend to fall under a different ethical standard and revenue generation than other types of museums.

While the endgame for implementing reflexive pedagogy is in schools, the authors make clear that ubiquitous learning can take place outside a school, museum, or building. This both hinders and helps the argument for gaming in museums. While many theorists have many reasons schools are unwilling to implement emerging technology, museum reluctance has more to do with resources and the ethical duty and the primary purpose of protecting and caring for artifacts. Learning experiences for visitors become a priority for museums struggling to obtain enough revenue, either through admission fees or education-based grants and donations, to care for the object.

A museum can be defined as "a public or private nonprofit agency or institution organized on a permanent based for essentially educational or aesthetic purposes which, utilizing a professional staff, owns or utilizes objects, cares for them, and exhibits them to the public on a regular basis." (Malaro,1998, pg. 3).

Malaro wrote the museum guide for all museum careers. Although she acknowledged the importance of all departments, "managing museum collections" is the primary focus for being a credible museum institution. People who major in education rarely prefer working at a museum over teaching. The AI generated reasons, taken primarily through the American Association of Museums (2018, 2024), lists the following reasons:

1. Pay, benefits, and Job Security

2. Impact

3. Curriculum Development

The same findings pointed to what type of person chooses museum education work.

1. Passionate about a subject

2. Interest in the creative process of Exhibit Development

There are no studies that empirically determine what this means. As a 25-year career teacher and museum educator, my interpretation is that people who have an in-depth understanding of learning prioritize teaching youth. People who want to dive into a subject and create their own way of communicating that subject choose museum education. Although the later values learning, they fail to understand new learning concepts and often develop programs and exhibits based on their own passions instead of data and theory proven information on learning. Going back to the animal comic, people who work at museums tend to lean towards being a monkey who can easily climb a tree. However, most individuals are other animals gifted with their own survival skills not related to climbing a tree. This is why ubiquitous learning, AI, and gaming can be profound in museums where visitors choose to learn. The technology can be designed for individualized visitor agency, and it can also integrate data on learning and apply analytics to show effectiveness.

Although inconclusive, museum career employees often define cutting edge and progressive learning activities to represent what they did with a subject they are passionate about and that their artistic creativity will be appreciated. Learning, at least data-proven learning theories, are often ignored and replaced with learning theories that can illuminate the designers subject interest, own perspective, and passion.

Kalantzis and Cope’s reflexive pedagogy affordances counter instructor agency. The Affordances of New Learning can be used to benchmark other theories on game-based learning and gaming in museums. These affordances included: Ubiquitous Learning, Recursive Feedback, Multimodal Learning, Active-Knowledge Making, Collaborative Intelligence, Metacognition, Differentiated Learning.

Figure 8: (Sadki, 2016). Affordances of New Learning: An agenda for new learning and assessment. Kalantzis and Cope 2011.

Kalantzis and Cope's (2012) New Learning concepts talk about the importance of knowledge repertoires:

In New Learning, schools are not obsolete, but classrooms become workspaces using technology and tools to induce student-created knowledge. Structure (time, place, grades, standards, and tests) are replaced by collaborative teams working together on real-world problems. Projects about a specific social problem within the curriculum make dissecting or solving issues communal. Schools provide resources that enable exploration and the output of student-created knowledge. Peer, self-assessments, and reflection are more important than grades and standardized tests because they parallel today’s world and prepare youth to be contributors. Teachers use the curriculum to create a roadmap with socio-cultural objectives that are functional to everyday life and can be extended by learning lessons in the lifeworld. Educators develop pedagogy that facilitates learning, overseas student-led clinics on applying soft skills and perform inquiry and teach how to find conclusions. Students are coached on how they can reach deeper and find their potential.

There are many facets of New Learning that are important. What makes it “different” revolves around the relationship between learners and knowing. More specifically, knowledge repertoires:

"Knowledge repertoires – the idea that you can do a variety of things to know or use a variety of knowledge processes. Some mixes of different knowledge processes may be more appropriate for some areas of knowledge or sites of learning than others. The more knowledge processes you use in a particular task of knowing or learning, the more reliable and trustworthy the knowledge is likely to be.”

Knowledge repertoires are important because it doesn’t put limits on and doesn’t attempt to categorize the learner. For example, someone in the past invented the word “tree” to describe wood growing upright with leaves. As a result, the word tree is knowledge. If we had a time machine that took us back to the exact moment that person called it a tree, we would be able to ask them “why?” Using this process, the learner is the owner of their own unique knowing and learning theory - not a theorist. Delpit (20008) discussed how difficult it is for students at socio-economic disadvantages and cultural upbringing to navigate the world of progressive education which has been engrained in other students at home. Students with stable lives can be more attentive to definitions and purposes (for example, the word biology), while the disadvantages may get stuck on the prefix “bi.” Biology doesn’t appear to be a division of two elements of nature so it may be difficult for students to figure out why everything in nature is labeled with “bi.”

Throwing in theories with rules makes meaning more difficult. One of the theories, constructivism, would say that the person who first described the object as a tree had to be defined by their age level and that the word is too complicated or too easy for certain ages. Delpit might argue that the tree looks totally different to another person with other experiences. How can it be defined by age development when cultural development unique processing plays such a key role? The word tree could’ve come from the sound of a squirrel running and scratching on a tree and a toddler, who was watching, repeating the sound. We don't know and that is a key point to New Learning. To another person at a different age level, the tree could be described as a slow dance moving side to side in the wind with the "tree" sound being used to represent steps. In this case, the originator of the object word might call it “dance.” The New Learning theories emphasis on student agency supports the case for “things” have a different meaning for different people. If the originator took time to examine the “tree” and invited others to study what a tree resembles, they could come to a consensus on the meaning and the word to describe it.

Nina Simons Participatory Theory

While constructivist John Falk (see critiques below) is the untouchable guru whose name is referred to in every session of museum conferences and workshops, Nina Simon’s (2010) theories on Participation and Relevance serve as the disruptor that brings museum learning closer to New Learning. The embattled Simons calls out the Fine Arts for their elitism, egocentric motivation, and protectionism challenging them to think from the “outside (focus on the visitor) In.” While it may seem that Simons is on mission to take down Fine Arts purists, she admits that she is also a “purist,” but realized most visitors to museums are not.

Figure 9: (Sefrou, 2021).  From Nina Simon's book The Participatory Museum. The Participatory Museum Theory changes the agency from Traditional Institution to Participatory Institution providing greater agency on the participant learners.

Simon’s thoughts on a Participatory Museum align more with the Transformative, Reflexive, and New Learning research by Kalantzis & Cope, (2012). In addition, Simon’s primary focus is on building up communities through collaboration. Visitors who feel a sense of ownership in the community's museum will turn around and advocate for the museum for other improvements and improvements outside the museum.

Although many reasonings for New Learning have been thoroughly researched, the movement is a response to cultural changes either happening or foreseen. This responsive starts with the question, what can educators do to ensure learning retention and application? While the majority of education in both formal and informal learning lean on worksheets, reading, lectures and tests, these methods produce less retention than other methods that require the learner to own their knowledge and own how they demonstrate and apply their knowledge.

Figure 10: (Loveless, 2024). The Learning Pyramid was first developed by Edgar Dale in the 1940’s. The National Training Laboratory (NTL) continued developing what Dale describes as “the learning cone” making it the Learning Pyramid that has been referred to by Educators that last 60 years. The NTL is the first to admit that the now 10 learning methods should be considered, but not necessarily definitive, the majority of research since has found the learning pyramid reliable.

The main idea behind the learning pyramid resembles the thoughts of Kalantzis, Cope, and Simons. Learning happens when the learner has control of the knowing and is able to teacher other’s the knowing. Teachers don’t need a learning pyramid to understand this. They are constantly learning new things and figuring out ways to teach students these knew things. As a result, teachers remember new knowledge and build on it as they learn more.

Figure 11: (Simons, 2017). The Art of Relevance with Nina Simon, TEDxPaloAlto, Simons talks about how participation in the learning activity encourages different perspectives from people with different experiences. This perspective and the persons ways of knowing is more successful when dialog and collaboration presents other views. The participant uses ubiquitous means of discovery to gather more knowledge because they are voluntarily participating and have a desire to share what they learn. The objective is to allow the individual to own their own baseline to make them more knowledgeable and critical (positive) to other’s perspective.

Simon’s theory or relevance can be easily misinterpreted without an in-depth look at her explanation. This resembles Kalantzis and Copes (2020) efforts to redefine grammar and meaning.  Grammar and meaning are cultivated in the individual mind of the learner which can result in more ambiguous “making sense” that involves their personal life experiences. Relevance, as Simon explains, does not belong to the ideas and views of the creator of the lesson, but belongs to the learner to find relevance in the lesson.

 

Rather than delivering the same content to everyone, a participatory institution collects and shares diverse, personalized, and changing content co-produced with visitors. It invites visitors to respond and add to cultural artifacts, scientific evidence, and historical records on display. It showcases the diverse creations and opinions of non-experts. 

Simon’s states that “Like all design techniques, participation is a strategy that addresses specific problems. There are five commonly expressed forms of public dissatisfaction in public institutions that participatory techniques address”:

1. Cultural institutions are irrelevant to my life. By actively soliciting and responding to visitors’ ideas, stories, and creative work, cultural institutions can help audiences become personally invested in both the content and the health of the organization.

2. The institution never changes – I’ve visited once, and I have no reason to return. By developing platforms in which visitors can share ideas, find knowledge, and connect with each other in real-time, cultural institutions can offer changing experiences without incurring heavy ongoing content production costs.

3. The authoritative voice of the institution doesn’t include my view or give me context for understanding what’s presented. By presenting a variety of stories and voices, cultural institutions can help audiences prioritize and understand their own view in the context of diverse perspectives.

4. The institution is not a creative place where I can express myself and contribute to history, science, and art. By inviting visitors to participate, institutions can support the interests of those who prefer to make and do rather than just watch.

5. The institution is not a comfortable social place for me to talk about ideas with friends and strangers. By designing explicit opportunities for interpersonal dialogue, cultural institutions can distinguish themselves as desirable real-world venues for discussion about important issues related to the content presented.

Simon graduated with a Bachelor of Engineering. As a child, she was one of those kids who would take all the stuff laying around the garage and yard and turn it into a Rube Goldberg machine. As a result, Simon’s puts a high emphasis on the individual as the creator of their own knowledge. By looking at Simon’s arguments about public dissatisfaction above, The Participatory theory mirrors several of the same arguments from Kalantzis and Cope’s New Learning Theory.

Figure 12: (Brickl, 2023). Comparison Table of Simon’s Participatory Theory in Museums with Cope and Kalantzis New Learning.

Simon was able to experiment with her ideas at the Santa Cruz Museum of History and Art. As the Director, she led the museum from a facility generating annual debt just to conserve the collection, to consistently gaining the financial and community support that has made the museum one of the most respected in the country. While Simon’s led with her Participatory framework, she explains that it is the community members who co-curated programs and themes as the ones who deserve the credit.

Imagine the community giving credit to the collective student body for learning success and not the teachers, administrators, school board, or state. While Simon’s adult participants had an interest and motivation to change how they learn at museums, motivating students with restrictions in the classroom is more difficult. One proven method is to use (video) game-based learning.

Williamson Shaffer et al. (2005) working paper on the potential of video games for future learning reveals the collaborative and cognitive benefits of integrating video games in all learning environments. One of the authors, James P. Gee is referred to in our course and is considered an important early learning technology figure in promoting emerging technologies, especially gaming, in schools. The authors don’t provide a specific pedagogy, but their collaborative emphasis and focus on student agency aligns with Kalantzis and Cope’s reflexive pedagogy.

Figure 13: (Gee, 2012). James Paul Gee’s early thoughts on why video games are excellent tools for learning.

* Can't seem to delete the second Nina Simons video below.  Please ignore. 

Museums

Museums have the perception of being progressive learning environments where visitors can access information and gain knowledge that is specific and not common outside the museum. Museums are designed to be welcoming environments that are aesthetically pleasing. With a mission to care for artifacts and “represent the minority” (Malaro, 2006, from Lecture Notes at George Washington University), museums fill the gaps of textbooks and school curriculum using objects to dig deeper into the stories behind the events, occurrences, applications, and figures that are building blocks in K-12 schools. Museums are the cornerstone of the informal learning movement allowing the field to take more risks without the burdens of public education accountability, standards, and regulations. In his book titled Interpretation: Making a Difference on Purpose, Ham (2013, Chapter 1, pg 1) states:

“Interpretation attempts to communicate in a thought-provoking way to an audience that’s completely free to ignore it.” Ham’s focus is on heritage interpretation which is a subsection of informal learning that mostly focuses on outdoor environmental and historical education.”

A good example of this is a Park Ranger at the National Parks. Ham’s vision is that interpretation can “provoke visitors and inspire them to continue advocacy back in their communities.” While many of Ham’s ideas link to Kalantzis and Cope’s New Learning theories, Ham focuses more on an Interpreter’s storytelling to provoke learning. As a result, Ham’s outcome is similar to New Learning, but his sole method relies on Interpreter agency to give the perspective through the interpreters meaning. Not only does this method not induce ubiquitous learning, but it prohibits learner participation.

Note: Park Rangers are classified in two areas: 1) Security/Protection/Policing, 2) Educating/Visitor Services.

AAM performs accreditation and guidance for museums in the United States. The Mission Statement clearly emphasizes the importance of educating.

The American Alliance of Museums’ mission is to champion equitable and impactful museums by connecting people, fostering learning and community, and nurturing museum excellence. https://www.aam-us.org/programs/about-aam/

Museum mission statements are effective at communicating humanistic visions, roadmaps, and ethics. Each museum also has an intrinsic responsibility to be unique using varied themes, content, and interventions. Ultimately, however, a museum's primary responsibility is to care for artifacts and the collections. This presents a binary dilemma that often creates an element of attrition which conflicts with the idea that museums are educationally progressive and provoking.

First, museum employees tend to be well educated and influential in establishing policy and direction. This often creates a “fault line” between the creative (poor term, but will use anyway) educators, visitor services, and marketing departments who abide by AAM’s mission statement above vs. exhibits, collections, and curators who emphasize the underlying, and rightfully assumed, purpose of museums to care for and display objects from an empirical perspective. While evidence of this dynamic is not research proven, differences of theories happen throughout all workplace departments with different theories. One example of this is the University of Illinois Graduate Education departments. While the LDL program believes and applies New Learning concepts including interpretive research, the Diversity and Equity Department takes a less progressive and more classic approach to research and application of learning.

Secondly, unlike formal education, Ham’s reference to the audience being “completely free to ignore it” provides insight to both the opportunities and challenges museums face to identify what motivates people to both visit and learn at museums. This is why Dr. Falk’s theories of grouping visitors by interest resonated with museums. Unfortunately, Ham’s well-respected ideas of provoking people completely free to ignore learning led to the need to figure out what motivates visitors. As a result, Dr. Falk developed “visitor groups” based on motivation. Although New Learning acknowledges motivation, the process has to be intrinsic and promote individuality. Kalantzis and Cope’s research counters Falk’s constructivist approach which uses a less-than-optimal way of learning that Ham advocates. (More on Faulk later).

Although research on museums and gaming is scant, Paliokas and Sylaiou (2016) empirical study on the use of Serious Gaming (SGs) in museums provides some insight. This study distinguishes Serious Gaming (SG) and gamification (more focused on fun). SGs are not necessarily against “fun,” but the design features focus more on “complementing, enhancing, and augmenting” the museum experience. The author’s focus on publications distributed from 2009 to 2015 on SG in museums. Percentage wise there has been an increase in publication, the total number of publications went from 2 to 16. This growth is minimal compared to SGs in other learning environments. While museums are interested in exploring SGs, this study showed that the minimal number of publications combined with low expected outcomes that museums are not likely embracing SGs.

Paliokas and Sylaiou’s study also provides insights into what distinguishes the terms gamification from serious games (SGs). To gain buy in and creditability, museums are more likely to focus on SG’s but would be more than likely successful with game-based learning. In general, museums practice the least relevant form of gaming, gamification, when they simplify an existing game with the museums theme and object. While the use of SG is emerging, studies on visitor motivation and cognitive effects in a museum provide a baseline for defining the unique theories of learning environments that provide experiences for all ages, which SG’s struggle to do. The authors identify that while museums have interest in SGs as the preferred choice if they initiate a more robust gaming learning method and have explored diverse and unique SGs to reflect their content, the outcomes of the studies are based on an extremely low number of museums who haven’t considered time and emerging learning concepts. In summary, the author’s research demonstrates a lack of interest in gaming among museums.

Falk--

Similar to Lane’s discussion on museum gaming above, Falk’s research revolves around Science Museums. Again, Science and Children’s museums naturally gravitate towards Free Choice Learning. Falk has made it clear that his perspective is exclusive to science related learning, although applicable at all museums. Based on how my classmates responded to Lane and how the museum world resoundingly responded to Falk, this presents an ethical dilemma because science museums have a natural advantage when it comes to progressive learning theories like New Learning and Free Choice learning. In summary, Falk’s Free Choice learning encourages the design of experiential activities and games, often tactile, that visitors can use to learn more about the subject. For example, the old ketchup, baking soda, volcano explosion is a big hit because its fun, but it is also scientifically educational. Other museum subjects like Art and History, have few examples of doing something that is as fun, messy, and successful as the volcano and many other science experiments.

The volcano activity is somewhat transformative in that participants will remember the lessons and apply them in real life. However, it lacks the reflexive element Kalantzis and Cope feel is valuable. In addition, Falk is a constructivist, so his guidance is often based on developmental stages and the grouping of distinct individuals into categories.

Free Choice Learning was developed through the research of Dr. John Falk and to some extent, Dr. Lynn Dierkling. Falk’s background is in environmental science where he served as a subject-matter expert for the Smithsonian Natural Science Museum. It was there that Falk observed the potential for learning at museums and developed his theories of Free Choice learning along with the Contextual Model of Learning, Museum Experience Cycle, and Visitor Identity/Motivation. While at the Smithsonian, Falk had the opportunity to leaern from constructivist Howard Gardner who conducting research on his Multiple Intelligence Theory.

Figure 14: (Falk & Dierkling, 2013). Museum experience model based on physical, personal, and social context of visitors. The Museum Experience Model demonstrates alignment with New Learning elements such as visitor choice and control, collaboration, and advance organizers to facilitate the “knowing” process. While Faulk and Dierkling extensive study on this model is valuable, it is often ignored at museums who tend to focus on their earlier and later constructivist approach to categorizing visitors.

Falks vision for Free Choice Learning, and his theories about education and learning in general, closely resemble Kalantzis and Cope New Learning (2012) concepts with a few key and important differences. In theory, Falk’s ideas meet Kalantzis and Cope’s (Designs for social futures, n.d.) design for social futures through his emphasis on inquiry-based learning as more authentic. Although Falk’s pedagogical intentions check several of the transformative boxes, his ideas more closely resemble synthesis and his emphasis on labeling and then designing for the visitor based on their category and age contradicts New Learning. His museum experience model looks like New Learning social cognitivism, but Falk still intends to control how the knowledge is brought to the learner, and he categorizes these learners into groups with specific motivations encouraging museum experience designers to develop both static and active experience that still have an intention to show knowledge. Falk bypasses ubiquitous learning methods for visitors to gain knowledge on their own and puts more emphasis on the activity designer and facilitation. Finally, Falk offers little advice for reflexive learning assuming exposure to the activity suffices. This is quite different than New Learning where the learner isn’t categorized but can be a contributor who at any given moment can form knowledge (which can be physical, personal and social) without manipulatives because information is everywhere.

Figure 15: Falk’s (2016) visitor categories.

While Falk’s theory on the Contextual Model of Learning, the Museum Experience Cycle, and Visitor Identity/Motivation involve a social constructivist approach to learning and have been embraced throughout the museum world and museum departments, his Free Choice learning concept is often touted, but rarely applied in the museum world. Falk’s primary focus is to build up communities through Free Choice Learning with the hope, like Tilden and Ham, of creating stewards of environmental sustainability.

Figure 16: (Falk, 2013). Motivation and Learning Styles with John Falk, Statens Kunsfund

CONSTRUCTIVISM

Many constructivists have studied or worked at museums. Howard Gardner closely studied museums to prove his multiple intelligence theory which is used by many educators I have worked with in my 20 years of teaching. The problem lies in when and what Gardner studied in museums. Gardner’s research in museums, under Harvard’s Project Zero, took place from 1972 -1997, a period when museums were more about showing artifact preservation than developing visitor-centered experiences. It was Gardner’s Multiple Intelligence, along with John Falk’s 1992 book The Museum Experience, that brought about the advent of the modern day Museum Educator. In addition, Gardner’s studies focused on static museum exhibits – textbooks in large print, and how to display and curate artifacts to meet different visitor learning styles. Some speculate that Gardner’s theory was heavily influenced by Falk’s theories on visitor Identities and Motivation.

Constructivism, in a more formal sense, which includes Gardner and Piaget, points to arguments about brain development, assimilation, and accommodation. Kalantzis and Cope (Brain developmentalism and constructivism: More recent times, n.d.) state that only being able to acquire knowledge at certain stages of life “limit learning and focus on the individual.” In addition, they argue that they have “difficulties with Constructionism’s limits on linguistic and cultural diversity.”

Figure 17: (Peterson, 2017). The Theory or Multiple Intelligence is Rubish. 

Kalantzis and Cope (2012) state:

“…a social-cognitivist approach to the question of learning attempts to balance social and cultural factors with the potentialities of the brain. To counterbalance this (constructivist) emphasis, we also need to take social and cultural factors into account. Human intelligence is social. It is not just the stuff we can hold in our head, but our capacity to look things up, to ask others when we need to know something we know they know, and to rely on other people’s expertise. We can’t personally know everything that we need to know to live our lives. A lot of our smartness, and a lot of our social effectiveness, is not in our heads but the social world upon which we rely, and which supports us in our everyday lives.

Enright (2022) makes the argument that categorizing visitors using Falks visitor types is counter-productive and within each category there are sub-categories that a museum can't possibly reach. A casual visitor, for example, is not just a casual visitor - but has so many other elements that make that visitor unique. Maybe they are casual visitors who are also there for the social element. Defining visitors by "types" is similar to Piaget's theory defining learning experiences by age. This is why Kalantzis and Cope's theories are more flexible and relevant. In fact, under New Learning, museum educators can focus on learning from what the visitor can create, rather than what the museum educator creates.

Thematic Interpretation: Back to Sam Ham

Ham is considered the modern-day expert of Interpretation. His studies focused on presenting Tilden’s information in a clear and more applicable way. While Tilden’s book focused on how the Interpreter developed their art, Ham reveals that Tilden still intended for the interpretation to be owned by the visitor.

“Tilden’s definition was not saying that it’s the interpreter who does the revealing of meaning and relationships. On the contrary, he was making the case that the interpreter role is one of facilitating or stimulating visitors to make these connections for themselves. In this view, the meaning and relationships are self-revealed in the visitor’s minds as result of the thinking that good interpretation can provoke.” …(Ham, 2011).”

Ham uses Tilden’s definition of interpretation combined with the National Association of Interpreters (NAI) to come up with his own definition on page 8. Interpretation is a mission-based approach to communication aimed at provoking audiences the discovery of personal meaning and the forging of personal connections with things, places, people, and concepts.

Ham compares Interpretation versus Formal Instruction dropping the other terms (informal, nonformal, etc.) that are often used. Ham states on page 9, “In the classroom, the teacher’s goal sometimes is to communicate facts alone, a process necessary in the long-term education of students. In interpretation, however, the facts are a means to an end, rather than the end itself.”

In his book Interpretation: Making a Difference on Purpose, Ham (Ham, 2011) will go on to discuss how to reach captive and non-captive audiences. His studies will lead him to develop an interpretive approach called the T.O.R.E. method:

Figure 18: (Ham, 2011). Interpretation: Making a Difference on Purpose.  While Ham's theory inches close to New Learning, his application of that theory using the T.O.R.E. method contradicts his themes of "learning on purpose" and "learning with meaning" and provocation. 

Ham’s focus on a central theme to revolve all planning around makes him one of the leading Thematic Interpreters which is a common method used to interpret sustainability and environmental stewardship. Ham’s focus on the visitor developing their own meaning and relationships is like Kalantzis and Cope's (2012) New Learning. However, Ham’s contradicts himself by focusing on the interpreter creating meaning for the visitor and controlling learning through his T.O.R.E. method to planning (Thematic, Organized, Relevant, and Enjoyable). Ham’s comments about Teacher’s goals to teach “facts alone,” reveals that he may not have fully done his research on formal education and learning theories. Ham also failed to provide an example of the T.O.R.E. method being done in real-time. My observations of interpreters trained under the Ham T.O.R.E. method show a theatrical interpreter telling a story with a clear motivation to egotistically better their story assuming that will be better for the visitor. This makes Ham’s theories confusing. Unlike Falk who admits to having constructivist leanings, Ham is more deceptive in that his theory is progressive and resembles New Learning, but his methods of applying his theory, despite storytelling being an effective tool in the toolbox of ubiquitous learners, is traditional.

I remember talking to a colleague who was put in charge of “Cart Programs” and interpretation. His background was in outreach, and he had no idea what interpretation was. What he did know was that the other educators in his office were often critical of the way the volunteers ran the cart program - as if there was some magical way to interpret. His colleagues referred him to Ham, Tilden, and the National Park Service, and some historical sites where they learned how to interpret. The colleague went to these sites and found scripted interpretation, far different than the interpretation Tilden wrote about. Tilden wanted interpreters to bleed their passion for the message, not showcase their extensive knowledge of the message.

My colleague went to the National Parks and found storytellers who spewed out a lot of facts. It was a confusing form of education in which, perhaps, there shouldn’t be any correct way to tell a story except making it compelling – which is quite powerful. Unfortunately, my colleague found little ownership over the subject. While connections were made, they were also soon forgotten because my colleague didn’t have an intrinsic investment in the subject.

Although Ham’s comments about teacher’s was inappropriate, my main question is what happened to the “making a difference on purpose” he mentioned in the title of his book? Unfortunately, Ham’s data to support his method “making a difference” was limited and unreliable mostly made up of visitors filling in circles on a Likert Scale. I really like how he defines it but wanted examples. He doesn’t talk about it in the rest of his book, but it is very important. The “on purpose” reveals a plan much like “learning by design.” With all the different definitions and theorists questioning the terms “informal and nonformal” education, the use of “on purpose” would help the field gain the legitimacy it wants by showing that informal education studies theories and plans education just like formal education does. Ham fails to provide a reliable example.

Figure 19: (Ham,2018) Horizontal Nature Tours Guiding with Purpose, Sam Ham .  While Ham's guidance is genuine and insightful, there is no reliable data that proves his method works. 

Kaimara et.al, (2021) study on digital-game based learning in the classroom identified potential barriers in implementing learning games. The authors describe a pedagogical approach to using digital game-based learning (DGBL) to enhance students’ self-esteem and satisfaction. The study uses mixed methods data to identify barriers of DGBL prior to teachers and students participating in the program. Many of the barriers include apprehensions about school leadership’s ability to support the program, student apathy, subject fit, classroom dynamics, and teacher schedules.

Barata et. al, (2015) describes the enthusiasm and perception around gamifications ability to “promote content delivery in education.” Although many results are promising, the authors are concerned with how it helps the diverse and individualized learning styles and processing of each student. The authors identify four distinct student types common during its two-year study: achievers, disheartened, underachievers, and late awakeners. The researchers use their results to advise on how to apply strategies for each group when using gamification for learning. The study was performed on college aged engineering students. In the future, I would like to see Barata’s constructivist study implement New Learning theories to test the distinct learning types, but I believe there would be too many different learner types to categorize.