Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 191 ( 2015 ) 152 – 162

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

1877-0428 © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license

(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committee of WCES 2014

doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.162

ScienceDirect

WCES 2014

Adult Visitors In Museum Learning Environments

Free De Backera *, Jeltsen Peeters

a,b, Ankelien Kindekens

a, Dorien Brosens

a, Willem

Eliasa, Koen Lombaerts

a

aVrije Universiteit Brussel, Department of Educational Sciences, Pleinlaan 2, Brussels 1050, Belgium bResearch Foundation Flanders, Egmontstraat 5, Brussels 1000, Belgium

Abstract

Although contemporary arts are considered an excellent way for museumgoers to practise the process of meaning-making, these

processes are often hampered by visitors’ difficulties with equivocal interpretations and the heterogeneity of the museum public.

In order to design and provide qualitative educational tools, more insights are needed to tackle these barriers. This paper reports

on two related studies examining the development and use of educational tools from both the visitor and the museum educator

perspective. Besides considering eight variables of influence and different degrees of difficulty and profundity in their

educational tools, art museums must reckon with the perceptibility of educational tools to target new audiences or sustain

audience loyalty.

© 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committee of WCES 2014.

Keywords: Arts education; contemporary art; audience engagement.

1. Introduction

Constructivist learning approaches are prevalent in contemporary museum learning research (Hein, 1998).

Museum learning has become an active process in which visitors construct their personal meanings (Hooper-

Greenhill, 1999; Silverman, 1995). Contemporary arts in particularly are considered an excellent way for visitors to

practise the process of meaning-making. Since the middle of the nineteenth-century, artists started expressing their

own messages in their unique styles and art was no longer considered a reflection of one particular community

(Bernasconi, 1987; Elias, 2005). An artwork has become a sign without any fixed meaning. Through this open-

* Free De Backer. Tel.: +32-2-629-12-40.

E-mail address: free.de.backer@vub.ac.be

© 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committee of WCES 2014

153 Free De Backer et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 191 ( 2015 ) 152 – 162

ended character viewers complete an artwork by interpreting it. Rather than the meaning in itself, the process to

come to meaning has become important (Eco, 1989). Considering the growing attention to the complex process of

meaning-making, several researchers (e.g., Aguirre, 2004; Efland, 1990) emphasized the importance to support

visitors in the construction of their meanings. Nevertheless, two hindrances to facilitate such processes are prevalent

in the museological context. A first barrier is the difficulty with equivocal interpretations from the perspective of the

visitor. Because the artwork’s content and appearance often differ from what museumgoers are familiar with,

beholding contemporary art became both alienating and incomprehensible to some viewers (Lankford & Scheffer,

2004; Mathewson, 2006; Rice, 1997). Although museum visitors often expect to be able to readily understand

everything in the art museum without any prior know-how (Rice, 1997), they may experience difficulties in dealing

with multiple or oppositional meanings as a result of the open-ended character of contemporary art (Eco, 1989). The

non-hierarchical interpretive strategies underline scholarly disagreement, ambiguity, or ambivalence of meaning,

which often result in confusion, resistance, and sometimes frustration. These negative experiences often decrease the

odds of visiting museums again in the future (Burnham & Kai-Kee, 2011; Elias, 2005; Hooper-Greenhill, 1994;

Rice, 1997). A second barrier, on the level of the museum educator, is the heterogeneity of the museum public

which often results in a focus on the already informed audience (Csikszentmihalyi & Hermanson, 1995; Deeth,

2012; Screven, 2004). Learning processes, including museum learning, occur in different ways at learners’ own pace

and direction (Wright, 2006). Understanding the public’s interests and concerns, likes and dislikes, needs and

desires, is of critical importance in supplying supportive facilities, differential approaches and ultimately developing

effective museums (Ambrose & Paine, 2006). However, resistance against meeting visitors’ needs and interests still

exists, particularly among those primarily emphasizing the scholarship and collections of museums (McLean, 2004).

In addition, it is argued that there is a lack of theoretical base to guide practice regarding adult education in

museums and to conduct museum audience research to identify visitors’ needs (AAM, 1984; Kelly, 2004; Monk,

2013). Compared to non-art museums, considerably less research (e.g., about visitors or innovative approaches) has

been conducted inside art museums (McLean, 2004) resulting in very little hard evidence that might lead to changes

in curatorial behaviour in favour of the audience. Moreover, art museum management does not prioritize research

output, because they neither have been trained to value it, nor are committed to take the appropriate actions (Wright,

2006).

2. The rise of the visitor

From a historical perspective, efforts to support audiences in art meaning-making have been ancillary to the

collection itself for ages (Brown & Ratzkin, 2011). At the turn of the twentieth century, art museums were still new

and bewildering to the ordinary visitor wandering aimlessly through the museum halls, looking at art without

knowing how to study it (Kai-Kee, 2011, p. 19). It was principally assumed that visitors would automatically value

and benefit from the exhibitions (Anderson, 1994). Although interpretive devices (e.g., labels, brochures, and

lectures) became common practice in museum rooms, their content was initially based on dates, places and facts

only (Roberts, 2004). However, for the first time museum staff members started to be charged to provide

information to visitors and gallery teaching quickly became successful (Kai-Kee, 2011). Gradually attention for

museum visitors increased via visitor studies like Benjamin Ives Gilman’s pioneering audience research about

museum fatigue (1916). In the course of the twentieth century audience research improved in number and quality,

and shifted its focus in parallel to many drastic changes in educational theory (Anderson, 2004; De Backer et al.,

2013; Hein, 1998; Screven, 2004). Despite this expansion of research, the main priority remained on collections and

scholarly research with a focus on knowledgeable rather than inexperienced audiences (Screven, 2004).

Consequently, after almost a century of rather remote links between the art museum and their visitors, the biggest

challenge at present is building closer and more qualitative relationships with (potential) visitors to enhance multiple

long-term benefits (Ambrose & Paine, 2006; Doering, 1999; Hein & Alexander, 1998; Hooper-Greenhill, 2001).

Simon (2010) points to the front line as most effective place to start this process because of their publicly

accessibility and immediate understanding of visitors’ needs. Fuelled by social media, museumgoers nowadays tend

to expect involvement and more (inter)active, interconnected, participatory experiences in their interaction with

museums (Ambrose & Paine, 2006; Brown & Ratzkin, 2011). Museum evaluations are no more solely focused on

cognitive results, but also pay attention to affective-emotional output. Research showed that museums succeed in

154 Free De Backer et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 191 ( 2015 ) 152 – 162

changing perceptions and attitudes and stimulate the social dimension of museum visiting (Hooper-Greenhill, 1994).

Policy makers took up this visitor turn eagerly. In times of evidence-based policy, museum institutions need to

legitimize themselves through public figures and economic return. Although cultural policy makers stimulate taking

the visitor seriously, museums should be cautious with the rising focus on performance measurement and program

evaluation. Such an approach may result in an emphasis on contents that only have a verifiable or demonstrable

outcome (Kelly, 2004; Weil, 1999). However, if visitor studies are designed and interpreted properly, the results can

play a useful role to encourage museums to adjust exhibits design to stimulate learning encounters. As a result, some

museums already reported strong improvements in augmented attention and self-directed learning of children and

adults (Screven, 2004).

3. Tackle barriers with (designing) tools

As mentioned above, two barriers hamper the process of meaning-making in contemporary art museums, i.e.

visitors’ difficulties with equivocal interpretations and the heterogeneity of the museum public. Each of them can be

tackled in a variety of ways depending on the museum setting.

3.1. Educational tools for the audience

To tackle viewers’ discomfort with contemporary art, museums can prioritize the development of educational

tools to empower visitors in deriving their own meaning from the art (Carter-Birken, 2008) and to offer alternative

pathways through the galleries (Deeth, 2012). Research has shown that providing diverse educational tools during a

contemporary art exhibition has a tremendous value, in particular for visitors that were less familiar with the artist

(RK&A, 2006). Also Wang and Yoon (2013) revealed that several types of labels (e.g. question and instructional

labels) in an exhibit might increase visitor learning. However, exhibitions do not need to be overloaded with more

information than necessary (Carter-Birken, 2008). Providing educational tools or facilitating engagement with a

work of art is not an end in itself, but should support and broaden visitors’ personal meaning-making and enable

them to have deep and distinctive artworks experiences (Burnham & Kai-Kee, 2011). The range and quality of the

facilities and services provided for visitors will in large part determine museum’s success. Museumgoers should feel

welcome, comfortable, and encouraged throughout their visit to return again and again and become ambassadors for

the museum (Ambrose & Paine, 2006). Educational tools as medium to enhance visitors’ art experiences can be

divided into two categories. First, museums offer explicit guidance to the visitors with the classical guided tour as

the most common tool in this format. Other formats are for example workshops, birthday parties, 10-minute talks,

and lectures. In addition to the education staff, also the artist, attendant or curator sometimes acts as a bridge to

engagement. Secondly, there are educational tools that do not require explicit guidance. These tools can differ

widely, ranging from hands-on activities to written and technological tools (e.g., labels, text panels, audio-guides,

videos). Some are available during the whole exhibition (e.g., audio-guides, textual material like brochures, text

panels, catalogues), other only at intervals (e.g., lecture), on demand (e.g., guided tours, birthday parties) or for a

specific audience (e.g., guided tour for visually impaired people) (Ambrose & Paine, 2006; Van Eeckhaut, 2013). If

provided in an attractive and non-condescending way, many adults are skilled to use these educational tools. In

order to allow adults to get interested and educate themselves, these tools need to be made available, deciphered in

brief, concentrated messages, and in an interdisciplinary and contextualised way (Wright, 2006). Hennes (2002)

suggested the importance to focus on the visitor’s experience instead of shaping exhibits and educational tools by

pre-defined content. Additionally, viewers in art museums can be informed about the open-ended character of an

artwork purporting the idea that not the artist but the viewer is the maker of an artwork (Eco, 1989). If this basic

assumption of postmodern art philosophy is applied as starting point for art mediation, the installation of a

designated education space in the museum could be a logical consequence. Future education environments of art

museums may expose museumgoers to the experiential learning principles of Dewey (1934), Barrett (2003), Elkins

(2001), and others. Hence, visitors would get acquaint with the idea that people make their own meaning when

viewing art, and that this interpretation process inevitably includes complexity (Burnham & Kai-Kee, 2011; Carter-

Birken, 2008). Ambrose and Paine (2006) introduced the ‘Orientation Gallery’ in which museums tell the visitor

155 Free De Backer et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 191 ( 2015 ) 152 – 162

what will be observed, and suggest how it could be approached, e.g. where to look at and what questions to ask.

Given the disparate backgrounds adults bring to the museum, providing a range of educational tools, that are

personally meaningful to each visitor, is one way to respond to the demand for a greater diversity of experiences due

to the heterogeneity of the public (Brown & Ratzkin, 2011; McCarthy, 1990).

3.2. Frameworks for the facilitator

To become more adept at providing enjoyable and worthwhile experiences as a museum, every staff member

should get involved in the process of achieving the most powerful learning encounter (Gunther, 1999; Spierts,

2001). Education staff, as well as curators and attendants, play a crucial role as facilitators in the process of

meaning-making. For example, staff members need to be encouraged to spend time working in the frontline to

understand visitors’ needs, e.g. asking questions about exhibitions or being outdoor greeters (Simon, 2010).

Possibly, the historically cultivated imbalance between the collection and the visitor can then be turned. Instead of

the omniscience of the curator who transmits the knowledge to the visitor, the museum could also start from the

public and search for art the public wants to learn about. In this approach, education staff takes charge over the

curators and are supported by researchers; or the curator should at least share control with those responsible for

education (Hooper-Greenhill, 2001; Wright, 2006). Nowadays audience programs are often designed and

implemented without fitting into a larger strategic framework due to a lack of time for reflection and preparation by

museum educators (Brown & Ratzkin, 2011; Burnham & Kai-Kee, 2011). Many educational practices within an art

museum setting lack frameworks to implement educational tools (De Backer et al., 2013) or a theoretical base is

missing to conduct museum audience research (Kelly, 2004). A clear framework is however indispensable as

demonstrated by the recently on-going practice in UK museums. UK museums have been measuring their successes

and failures through so called generic learning outcomes (GLOs), a conceptual and interpretive framework, which

can be aligned to the core principles of informal adult learning. This framework helps museums to capture and

evidence the impact of their activities by identifying GLOs for individuals. The generic social outcomes (GSOs) are

used to measure the wider benefits of museums’ work in communities (Hooper-Greenhill, 2007; MLA, n.d.).

Another example is provided by the movement of Discipline-Based Arts Education (DBAE), pushed forward in the

eighties as a result of the cognitive revolution in reaction to the traditionally overarching creative self-expression

emphasis in arts education. The DBAE framework covers four disciplines related to four different ways of viewing

to understand art: art history, art criticism, aesthetics, and art practice. Although mainly applied in American

educational practice, it was also expanded to museums with the difference that museums focus on deriving meaning

from artworks instead of teaching disciplines’ skills (Clark, Day, & Greer, 1991; Kai-Kee, 2011). Elias (1995)

added arts education as a fifth discipline. The adult educator as a bridge between the viewer and the artwork using

the potential of art for other goals than understanding art for art’s sake, but instead stimulating and ensuring that

visitors gain pleasure from experiencing art. However, to respond actively to visitors’ needs the DBAE approach

proved to be too inflexible for museum education staff (Kai-Kee, 2011). As a final example, Whitehead (2012)

examined educational tools and presentations in museums and identified related prevailing interpretive frames, the

lenses through which museums look at artworks. Providing information based on one interpretative frame can occur

in various ways in order to support each visitor sufficiently in the process of meaning-making. The latter implies a

crucial role of education staff members. Museums should provide different interpretive devices (from written text to

image) on a multi-stage level to enable continual engagement outside museum walls. Both individuals and groups

must find a tool to suit their taste, paying attention to different senses, interacting processes (perception, thoughts,

feelings and actions), and learning styles (Kolb, 1984; Van Eeckhaut, 2013; Van Moer, De Mette, & Elias, 2008).

Similar to the interpretive frames, not every work of art needs additional aids to support visitors in their meaning-

making processes.

3.3. Exhibition evaluation

In addition to conditions for successful educational tools and inspiring frameworks for meaningful museum

learning, attention should be paid to the quality of tools and frameworks. To assess this quality, museum staff should

apply mechanisms to gauge audience reception and the effectiveness of the learning encounter, and to monitor more

156 Free De Backer et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 191 ( 2015 ) 152 – 162

accurately the match between their educational tools and visitors’ needs and interests (Ambrose & Paine, 2006;

Kelly, 2004; Lankford & Scheffer, 2004; Screven, 1990). One possible monitoring mechanism is exhibition

evaluation. All three major stages of the exhibit development process should be included in order to contribute

significantly to the effectiveness of the exhibit developers’ intended messages and interpretive approaches (Bitgood

& Loomis, 1993; Kelly, 2004). During the planning stage a ‘front-end evaluation’ or preliminary assessment is

carried out before the exhibit design process begins to test ideas and proposals. ‘Formative evaluations’ during the

design stage gauge the effectiveness of ideas in order to make changes before the exhibition opening, even if they

are short, informal and ad hoc. Front-end and formative evaluations enable the museum to alter exhibitions in time

and increase the probability to contribute to the effectiveness of the exhibition (Hein, 1998; Hooper-Greenhill, 1994;

Kelly, 2004; Screven, 1990). Immediately after an exhibit opening (i.e., post installation stage), conducting a

‘remedial evaluation’ can be valuable to assess the global approach and if necessary provide practical small-scale

suggestions for immediate improvements (Kelly, 2004). As a result, signposting, headings, texts, and graphics

appear to be adapted frequently (Screven, 2004). According to Screven (2004), a part of the exhibition budget

(commonly 10 per cent) should be set aside to adjust educational tools after an opening. During this final stage of

exhibit development, ‘summative evaluation’ can determine how successful the exhibition was or what possible

learning outcomes occurred. Incorporating a summative evaluation process during the running of the exhibition is

especially useful for future exhibitions. Various methods (e.g., interview, critical appraisal or pen and paper test) can

be used to provide feedback about the actual achievement of the intended objectives (Ambrose & Paine, 2006;

Bitgood & Loomis, 1993; Hooper-Greenhill, 1994; Kelly, 2004). However, the very short time visitors often engage

in exhibitions leads to a critical problem in the museum context. The extent to which visitors’ changes can be

directly attributed to the exhibition is negligible. An even more impeding problem in museum evaluations is the

potential ignorance of visitor’s interactions with the exhibit that bear little relationship to the exhibition aims, but

may be equally appropriate compared to the museum’s prescribed way of relating to the exhibition (Hein, 1998;

Hooper-Greenhill, 1994; Screven, 1990). Although reliable, thorough and useful evaluation studies have

considerably increased (Hooper-Greenhill, 2007), most museums still assess unstructured, insufficient, or not at all

(Ambrose & Paine, 2006; Hooper-Greenhill, 1994). Furthermore, they do not consciously and methodologically

gauge the efficiency of their educational tools. Lindauer (2005) suggested that a museum should hire an evaluator

with skills appropriate to provide answers to evaluative questions of museum stakeholders to increase the reliability

of assessment. It is a misconception, however, that evaluation tools necessarily have a high cost of money and time,

and can only be conducted by external specialists. If museums want to anticipate visitors’ (learning) needs, it is

important to evaluate the visitor’s thoughts and experiences during a visit. To assure visitors’ engagement, an

evaluation toolkit (e.g., post-it notes and voting games) that is as amusing to do as the museum session itself could

be designed. Not every evaluation tool fits well with each audience or evaluation target, or to whom the museum

must report (e.g., funder). A combination of these methods is highly recommended to get a deeper understanding of

an audience. Another option to maintain audience engagement during assessment is integrating the evaluation in

existing museum sessions (Benavides & Clifford, 2012). Staff members might benefit most from personal

involvement during the evaluation process (especially formative evaluation), because if evaluation is separated from

the activity being evaluated, staff members may only read a final report from external evaluators (Hein, 1998).

Against this background, the present study explores the development and use of educational tools in

contemporary art museums reckoning with the main barriers to encourage meaning-making. Adult museum visitors’

perspectives are illuminated through structured interviews (N=80). In addition, focus group interviews (N=7) are

conducted with museum educators to discuss the development of educational tools for adult visitors. Together, the

results will inform contemporary art museums about how to tackle these barriers to build closer relationships with

(potential) visitors so that learning can flourish.

4. Purpose and research questions

The main focus of this study was to examine the development and use of educational tools in contemporary art

museums. The study’s first objective consisted to explore adult visitors’ information needs relative to contemporary

art from the visitor as well as the museum educator perspective. The second objective involved the analysis of

157 Free De Backer et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 191 ( 2015 ) 152 – 162

museums’ current educational tools to target new audiences or sustain audience loyalty. The following research

questions were addressed:

To what extent do visitors of contemporary art museums experience a consistency between the provided

educational tools by museums and their personal needs for information? How do museums determine the nature

of information for educational tool development?

What are the main barriers influencing the use of educational tools by visitors of contemporary art museums?

5. Method

The present paper reports on two related studies. The first study involved the analysis of adult visitors’ responses

to contemporary art exhibitions, including the educational tools involved. In the second study, we investigated

museum educators’ approaches with regard to adult visitors’ information needs on contemporary art. In this section

the main characteristics of the samples, the instruments, and procedures for data analysis are described for both

studies separately.

5.1. Study 1: Analysis of educational tools – the visitor

5.1.1. Sample

The respondents were adult visitors (N = 80) attending the exhibition of Lawrence Weiner/Liam Gillick and

‘East of 4 degrees 24 minutes’ in the Antwerp Museum of Contemporary Art in Belgium (Europe). 42 of them were

women and 38 were men (M = 44.66, SD = 16.28). 32.5% of the interviewees were first-time visitors at the

participating museum. The survey was carried out in the museum at the end of the visitors’ visit. Only visits without

guides were included since respondents needed to be confronted with the other available educational tools during the

exhibitions, such as audio-interviews, labels, brochures, videos, (portable) gallery texts, and cameras. Guided tours

would expose visitors to these particular tools to a lesser extent. The interviews with visitors revealed a different

pattern of knowledge related to art movements (Table 1). Specifically, 43% of visitors were characterized as having

moderate knowledge, and 29.1% were knowledgeable about art movements. The percentage of both outside

categories (i.e., not at all and extensive) was equal to one another (13.9%).

Table 1. Knowledge about art movements.

Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Not at all 11 13.9

Moderate 34 43.0

Good

Extensive

Total

Missing

Total

23

11

79

1

80

29.1

13.9

100.0

5.1.2. Instrument

The respondents were questioned on the basis of structured interviews ranging from thirty to forty minutes. The

interview scheme was composed of a series of questions assessing two main subject areas: (1) visitors’ information

needs relative to art history, art criticism, aesthetics, and art practice, and (2) perceived barriers for the use of

educational tools.

5.1.3 Data analysis

158 Free De Backer et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 191 ( 2015 ) 152 – 162

Interviews were fully transcribed and read through repeatedly. The interview manuscripts were subjected to a

content analysis using the inductive and conceptual mapping procedure (Charmaz, 2006). With the interview

framework as starting point, reoccurring themes, common patterns and key points were identified. To guarantee

categorisation reliability, four researchers independently examined these themes for consistent patterns. Minor

adjustments in grouping or splitting up data categories were made. Afterwards, the ‘labelling method’ (Burns, 2000)

was applied on each interview manuscript, selecting information of relevance to the research questions.

5.2. Study 2: Analysis of educational tools – the museum educator

5.2.1. Sample

The data set used in this study was part of a larger research project investigating museum educators’ perceptions

of current adult educational approaches in museum settings. Organisations were selected based on their

contemporary art reputation in Flanders and Brussels (Belgium/Europe). Although the selected museums differed in

size and available resources, all were prominent organisations geographically spread-out and offer educational

programmes to adults. The sample selection procedure resulted in eight elected organisations (i.e., five museums

and three art centres). One art centre did not participate due to time constraints. Hence, seven homogeneous focus

group interviews (each between two and six participants) were conducted with different key staff members involved

in the educational processes (N = 26). Respondents were recruited through contacting the head of the educational

services unit who was asked to select colleagues active in educational planning and activities in their particular

organisation. Interviews took place in the organisation itself. In the further course of this paper, the term art museum

will be used when referring to both museums and art centres.

5.2.2 Instrument

The focus group interviews were semi-structured and lasted for two hours. The topic list assessed one main

subject area: art museum educators’ approaches with regard to adult visitors’ learning needs for contemporary art.

The semi-structured approach allowed the inclusion of additional questions if necessary.

5.2.3 Data analysis

Focus group interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and read through repeatedly. The data were

coded using codes from the topic list, as well as new codes that were identified during the analyses of the focus

group interviews (Charmaz, 2006). To increase the reliability of the findings, the coding frames and strategies were

submit to systematic review by the principal researchers and refined through a process of consensus. Minor

adjustments in grouping or splitting up data categories were made. All focus group interviews were coded and

analysed using the MAXQDA 11 software package (MAXQDA, 2013). Once the focus group interviews were

coded, we proceeded to identify how these themes were interrelated to one another for all respondents (Silverman,

2001). MAXQDA facilitated this process by providing a coding query tool to identify data correlations.

6. Findings

6.1. Study 1: Analysis of educational tools – the visitor

This study focused on visitors’ needs for information during their visit considering art history, art criticism,

aesthetics and art practice. Irrespective of the selected exhibition, more than three quarter of the respondents

highlighted a need for information about art practice during their museum visit. Especially visitors with moderate

knowledge about art movements reported the need for clarification of the meaning of the artwork and the artist’s

intention. Respondents with considerable knowledge welcomed information about the artist behind the artwork and

159 Free De Backer et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 191 ( 2015 ) 152 – 162

his way of thinking. Some respondents would like to hear the artist himself by meeting him in person or otherwise

by getting an impression of the artist as a person. Only a few were interested to learn more about the technique (e.g.,

material) and production procedures. Almost three quarters of the questioned visitors preferred to be informed about

art history, such as the historical and social context or the position in the art movements. For slightly more than half

of the visitors, aspects of art philosophy may be provided in educational tools. Quality judgements about art were

out of favour by more than half of the visitors. Some of the visitors showing considerable knowledge about art

movements did not require any additional information. In their opinion the artwork has to speak for itself. The latter

fits in with other research showing that individuals highly knowledgeable in art history want little care or feeding by

the museum (Smith & Wolf, 1996). Only afterwards visitors in question may possibly look for further information

or wish to receive information before or after their visit, preferably via the Internet (e.g., brochure). Although the

interviewed visitors are against excessive information, the potential role of educational tools is not questioned.

The research findings showed two barriers that museums should counter in their use of educational tools. First,

the respondents stressed the imperceptibility of available educational tools. This was, for instance, reported as the

main reason why visitors did not use a brochure during their visit. As a result, four participants prefer to have the

gallery texts nearby the artwork. The perceived insufficiency of information is illustrated in the following comment:

“I know there is a well established library, but it is not in the exhibition itself. I know that the library is accessible,

but it is physically disconnected from the exhibition.” Secondly, some visitors reported not to start watching or

listening to videos and audio-interviews by reason of an experienced lack of control on these particular educational

tools. This is in line with the idea that education should be offered in a controlled environment to provide the

visitors supervision over what, when, why and how they would like to learn (Csikszentmihalyi & Robinson, 1990;

Falk & Dierking, 2002). Because of the loop by which the video (making of and interviews with the artists) is

repeated constantly, the visitor arrives in the middle of an interview without the possibility to wind on, nor with an

overview of the length and starting time. Also, nine visitors who did not use the audio-interviews preferred reading

texts due to a higher level of control on the medium. Some participants would just like to see these videos at home

via Internet. One respondent expressed this in the following way in the interview: “(…) For example, you buy a

ticket with a code, so you can browse to those videos with that code at home.” Another reason for visitors to omit

audio-interviews and videos is a lack of time. Three quarters of the forty visitors did not choose to watch the video

because it would take too much time. The same finding applied to the audio-interviews: spending too much time

listening to the audio fragments was a reason for not using this tool.

6.2. Study 2: Analysis of educational tools – the museum educator

In the second study respondents were explicitly asked how their art museum determined which information is

provided within the educational tools. The mission statement, organisational structure, staff members, exhibition,

artist, artwork, educational tool or target audience, influence the extent in which information related to the different

disciplines (i.e., art criticism, art history, aesthetics and art practice) is included in educational tools. One of the art

museums, for example, includes only the art historical context if it is relevant within the context of the exhibition.

During guided tours the focus is on the subject matter, the way of working and anecdotes about the artist instead of

the artist’s biography or art historical facts, which are especially considered as additional information instead of

ultimate goal. All participating art museums are convinced that facilitation services are needed in contemporary art

exhibitions, especially because education staff members are often confronted with visitors’ prejudices against

contemporary art. Statements such as ‘I can do this too’, ‘Is this art?’, or ‘All craft is outsourced’ are often heard by

the respondents. Visitors are questioning themselves why something is considered art or about differences with the

work of amateurs. As one respondent suggested, in an attempt to put this last prejudice aside, the curator could

organise office hours to discuss visitors’ scepticism in relation to their own amateurish work. Also, receiving press

attention as art museum and providing a combination of different educational tools were considered important to

extend contemporary art understanding. According to respondents of one art museum, education staff has to seek for

a balance in offering their tools without being intrusive to the visitors. Depending on the educational tool, art

museums pointed out different degrees of difficulty and profundity. For instance, listening to a lecture of a curator

might require a higher level of understanding than listening to an audio-guide. One art museum staff member

described the importance of the searching process to put educational tools in place, so that visitors perceive which

160 Free De Backer et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 191 ( 2015 ) 152 – 162

one is more penetrating instead of giving only basic information. Although respondents stressed the need to make

information readable and accessible to visitors, they reported limited insight in their visitors’ profile. This is

illustrated in the following comment: “(…) those brochures, for me it is very difficult (…). I have an abstract idea of

‘the visitor’ and I assume that those visitors understand the same as I do. Presumably, it is not a professional way of

working and it is also not the way it should be, but at the moment, it is in fact the way in which I have to deal with

it.” Some of them referred to simplicity (e.g., clear sentences and avoiding difficult words), avoiding banality, and

having a sounding board to go through the texts as a reliable source to build on. In addition, some education staff

members have to deal with a curator and/or artist who are frightened of too much simplification caused by words.

Moreover, tailoring exhibitions (e.g., way of displaying or the pathways) to educational needs is not yet a common

practice in all the art museums. Three reasons were reported in this matter: a lack of time due to the quick

succession of exhibitions, the prioritization of the artwork at the expense of the public, and the limited willingness of

artists to disassociate themselves from their own art. Encroaching content is impossible, but sometimes museum

educators’ advice is obtained on a practical level, like the adjustment of the height of pedestals to the needs of

wheelchair users. Two respondents mentioned that curators agree to tailor the exhibition to educational needs in case

of specific projects when exhibitions are made together with visitors.

7. Conclusion and discussion

The first objective of the study was to examine the information needs of visitors in relation to currently provided

educational tools in museums of contemporary art. In general, respondents preferred a variety of educational tools

providing information about the making of, the artist’s purpose, the meaning of the artwork, the artist’ life, the

material-technical side, the historical and social contexts, and the artwork’s position in the art movements.

Especially a need for information about the art practice was stressed, although what exactly depended on the level of

knowledge about art movements. Members of art museums reported eight variables of influence to decide on which

information to provide within their educational tools. Hence, museums seek for a balance in offering educational

tools based on a degree of difficulty and profundity in understanding. The second objective of the study was to

examine the barriers related to the use of educational tools during museum visits. The largest barrier was a perceived

insufficiency of available educational tools, followed by a lack of control and time to actually use the tools for their

advantage. Our study provided further insight in how to design and offer educational tools while reckoning with the

main barriers for meaningful learning. However, we would like to point to some considerations related to our study

design when interpreting the results. The first study included interviews of limited duration due to visitors’ lack of

time and the study’s targeted large number of visitors. Secondly, the specificity of the exhibitions could trigger

certain research results that would not appear in other circumstances. As with all qualitative research, the specific

context of the study needs to be taken into account. Based on these findings, some practical recommendations can be

indicated. Increasing the perceptibility of educational tools can cause displeasure to people who would like to

consult them in an informal way. Therefore, the educational principles of the ‘Orientation Gallery’ from Ambrose &

Pain (2006) could be further elaborated as visitors have the choice to consult this place before or after their visit, or

not at all. This education space can help a visitor on an intellectual, a psychological, and a physical level. By doing

so, other barriers reported on in this research could possibly also be tackled. Orientation aids (e.g., where to find

which educational tool, the tool’s level of profundity) can be provided to encourage physical and intellectual

comfort during a visit. Books and journals related to the exhibition or a brief, attractive and non-condescending

outline of the art movements could also be displayed. Perhaps, such an orientation gallery could also provide a place

where people share their experiences to one another. According to Carter-Birken (2008), increasing the number of

education spaces in art museums could help satisfying viewers’ needs for more information in different ways.

Furthermore, visitors experienced a lack of control while watching videos and listening to audio-interviews.

Museums could experiment with these tools by shorten them but allow visitors to see or hear the long versions of

these videos and audio-interviews at home via Internet or Intranet. Such initiatives could be integrated as preview or

post-mortem of the visit. Besides shortening videos, museums could also indicate the remaining time so that visitors

can decide to continue watching or wait for the next loop.

Finally, we would like to suggest some paths for further research. Subsequent studies need to continue on

161 Free De Backer et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 191 ( 2015 ) 152 – 162

investigating how educational tools can meet the expectations of a heterogeneous audience. A qualitative

questioning of educational experts into the ways an educational tool can build on prior knowledge would also

provide additional insights on this research topic. Lastly, how educational tools can be developed and selected in

accordance to visitors’ preference for specific information disciplines (e.g., art history, art practice…) should also be

taken into consideration in further research.

Acknowledgements

The authors are greatly indebted to David Smeulders, Koen Spolspoel and M HKA for their cooperation in data

collection and all respondents who participated in the research.

References

Aguirre, I. (2004). Beyond the understanding of visual culture: A pragmatist approach to aesthetic education. International Journal of Art &

Design Education, 23(3), 256-269.

Ambrose, T., & Paine, C. (2006). Museum basics (2nd ed.). London-New York: Routledge. American Association of Museums. (1984). Museums for a new century. A report of the commission on Museums for a new century. Washington

DC: American Association of Museums.

Anderson, G. (Ed.). (2004). Reinventing the museum. Historical and contemporary perspectives on the paradigm shift. Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press.

Barrett, T. (2003). Interpreting art: Reflecting, wondering, and responding. New York: McGraw-Hill. Benavides, I., & Clifford, P. (2012, October 10). Learning effects. Symposium conducted at the conference of Museum Mediation in Transition,

Leuven, Belgium.

Bernasconi, R. (Ed.). (1987). The relevance of the beautiful and other essays. Hans-Georg Gadamer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bitgood, S., & Loomis, R. (1993). Introduction: Environmental design and evaluation in museums. Environment and Behavior, 25(6), 683-697.

Brown, A., & Ratzkin, R. (2011). Making sense of audience engagement. Volume I. A critical assessment of efforts by non-profit arts

organizations to engage audiences and visitors in deeper and more impactful arts experiences. Retrieved September 16, 2013, from

http://wolfbrown.com/images/books_reports/documents/Making_Sense_of_Audience_Engagement.pdf.

Burnham, R., & Kai-Kee, E. (2011). The art of teaching in the museum. In R. Burnham & E. Kai-Kee (Eds.), Teaching in the art museum. Interpretation as experience (pp. 7-18). Los Angeles: The J. Paul Getty Museum.

Burns, B. R. (2000). Introduction to research methods. London: Sage.

Carter-Birken, P. (2008). Interpretation and the role of the viewer in Museums of Modern and Contemporary art. Curator, 51(2), 171-178. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. London: Sage.

Clark, G. A., Day, M. D., & Greer, W. D. (1991). Discipline-based art education: Becoming students of art. In R. A. Smith & A. Simpson (Eds.),

Aesthetics and arts education (pp. 236-244). Urbana-Chicago: University of Illinois Press.

Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Hermanson, K. (1995). Intrinsic motivation in museums: Why does one want to learn? In J. H. Falk & L. D. Dierking

(Eds.), Public institutions for personal learning: Establishing a research agenda (pp. 67-77). Washington, DC: American Association of

Museums.

Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Robinson, R. E. (1990). The art of seeing: An interpretation of the aesthetic encounter. Malibu: The J. Paul Getty Trust. De Backer, F., Peeters, J., Buffel, T., Kindekens, A., Romero Reina, V., Elias, W., & Lombaerts, K. (2013). An integrative approach for visual

arts mediation in museums. Manuscript accepted for publication in Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences Journal.

Deeth, J. (2012). Engaging strangeness in the art museum: An audience development strategy. Museum and Society, 10(1), 1-14.

Dewey, J. (1934). Art as experience. New York: Perigee Books.

Doering, Z. D. (1999). Strangers, guests, or clients? Visitor experiences in museums. Curator, 42(2), 74-87.

Eco, U. (1989). The open work (A. Cancogni, Trans.). Opera aperta. Cambridge: Harvard University Press (Original work published 1962). Efland, A. (1990). A history of art education: Intellectual and social currents in teaching the visual art. New York: Teachers College Press.

Elias, W. (1995). Adult education & contemporary art: Prevailing clichés versus a proposal for a theoretical model. In W. Elias, D. Jones & G.

Normie (Eds.), Truth without facts (pp. 149-159). Brussels: VUBPress. Elias, W. (2005). Aspects of Belgian art after 1945: Part I. Ghent: Snoeck Publishers.

Elkins, J. (2001). Pictures and tears: A history of people who have cried in front of paintings. New York: Routledge.

Falk, J. H., & Dierking, L. D. (2002). Lessons without limit: How free-choice learning is transforming education. Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press. Gilman, B. I. (1916). Museum fatigue. Scientific Monthly, 2, 62-74.

Gunther, C. F. (1999). Museum-goers: life-styles and learning characteristics. In E. Hooper-Greenhill (Ed.), The educational role of the museum

(2nd ed., pp. 118-130). New York: Routledge. Hein, G. E. (1998). Learning in the museum. London: Routledge.

Hein, G. E., & Alexander, M. (1998). Museums: Places of learning. Washington, DC: American Association of Museums.

Hennes, T. (2002). Rethinking the visitor experience: Transforming obstacle into purpose. Curator, 45(2), 109-121. Hooper-Greenhill, E. (1994). Museums and their visitors. London-New York: Routledge.

Hooper-Greenhill, E. (1999). Education, communication and interpretation. In E. Hooper-Greenhill (Ed.), The educational role of the museum

(2nd ed., pp. 3-27). New York: Routledge. Hooper-Greenhill, E. (2001). The museum as a teacher: The challenge of pedagogic change. Retrieved November 22, 2012, from University of

Leicester, Department of Museum Studies Web site: http://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/museumstudies.

162 Free De Backer et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 191 ( 2015 ) 152 – 162

Hooper-Greenhill, E. (2007). Museums and education: Purpose, pedagogy and performance. London-New York: Routledge.

Kai-Kee, E. (2011). A brief history of teaching in the art museum. In R. Burnham & E. Kai-Kee (Eds.), Teaching in the art museum. Interpretation as experience (pp. 19-58). Los Angeles: The J. Paul Getty Museum.

Kelly, L. (2004). Evaluation, Research and Communities of Practice: Program Evaluation in Museums. Archival Science, 4(1), 45-69.

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning. Experience as the source of learning and development. Engkewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall. Lankford, E. L., & Scheffer, K. (2004). Museum education and controversial art: Living on a fault line. In E. W. Eisner & M. D. Day (Eds.),

Handbook of research and policy in art education (pp. 201-223). Mahwah (N.J.): Erlbaum. Lindauer, M. (2005). What to ask and how to answer: A comparative analysis of methodologies and philosophies of summative exhibit

evaluation. Museum and Society, 3(3), 137-152.

Mathewson, D. (2006). A socio-cognitive model for learning in art museums: Establishing a foundation for cultural practice in the secondary school years. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of New South Wales.

MAXQDA. (2013). Software for qualitative data analysis, 1989-2013, VERBI Software – Consult – Sozialforschung GmbH, Berlin, Germany.

[http://www.maxqda.com/download/manuals/MAX11_manual_eng.pdf]. (Computer software and manual). McCarthy, B. (1990). Using the 4MAT system to bring learning styles to schools. Educational Leadership, 48(2), 31-37.

McLean, K. (2004). Museum exhibitions and the dynamics of dialogue. In G. Anderson (Ed.), Reinventing the museum. Historical and

contemporary perspectives on the paradigm shift (pp. 193-211). Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press.

MLA. (n.d.). Inspiring learning. An improvement framework for museums, libraries and archives. Retrieved November 24, 2012, from

http://www.inspiringlearningforall.gov.uk/. Monk, D. F. (2013). John Dewey and adult learning in museums. Adult Learning, 24(2), 63-71.

Spierts, M. (2001). De ingebouwde spanning tussen kunst en vorming [The built-in tension between art and education]. In P. De Rynck & I.

Adriaenssens (Eds.), Volgt de gids? Nieuwe perspectieven voor educatie en gidsing in kunstmusea (pp. 9-27). Brussels: King Baudouin Foundation.

Rice, D. (1997). How can museums handle the tension between public expectation and expert opinion? Museum News, 76(3), 53-63.

RK&A. (2006). San Francisco Museum of Modern Art. Matthew Barney: Drawing Restraint. Interactive educational technologies & interpretation initiative evaluation. Retrieved August 20, 2013, from

http://www.sfmoma.org/assets/documents/RKA_2006_SFMOMA_Barney_distribution.pdf.

Roberts, L. C. (2004). Changing practices of interpretation. In G. Anderson (Ed.), Reinventing the museum. Historical and contemporary perspectives on the paradigm shift (pp. 212-232). Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press.

Screven, C. G. (1990). Uses of evaluation before, during and after exhibit design. ILVS Review, 1(2), 36-66.

Screven, C. G. (2004). United States: A science in the making. In G. Anderson (Ed.), Reinventing the museum. Historical and contemporary perspectives on the paradigm shift (pp. 160-166). Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press.

Silverman, D. (2001). Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for analysing talk, text and interaction. London: SAGE.

Silverman, L. H. (1995). Visitor meaning-making in museums for a new age. Curator, 38(3), 161-170. Simon, N. (2010). The participatory museum. Santa Cruz, California: Museum 2.0.

Smith, J. K., & Wolf, L. F. (1996). Museum visitor preferences and intentions in constructing aesthetic experience. Poetics, 24(2), 219-238.

Van Eeckhaut, M. (2013). Kunnen esthetische musea constructivistisch worden [Can aesthetic museums become constructivist]? Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Ghent.

Van Moer, E., De Mette, T., & Elias, W. (2008). From obstacle to growth: Dewey’s legacy of experience-based art education. International

Journal of Art & Design Education, 27(1), 43-52. Wang, J., & Yoon, S. (2013). Scaffolding visitors’ learning through labels. Journal of Museum Education, 38(3), 320-332.

Weil, S. (1999). From being about something to being for somebody: The ongoing transformation of the American museum. Daedalus, 128(3),

229-258. Whitehead, C. (2012). Interpreting art in museums and galleries. London-New York: Routledge.

Wright, P. (2006). The quality of visitors’ experiences in art museums. In P. Vergo (Ed.), The new museology (pp. 119-148). London: Reaktion

Books Ltd.