understanding children's engagement with interpretation at a cultural heritage museum

This article was downloaded by: [Princeton University]On: 29 August 2014, At: 00:52Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Heritage TourismPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjht20

Understanding children's engagementwith interpretation at a culturalheritage museumKatherine Sutcliffea & Sangkyun Kima

a Department of Tourism, School of Humanities and Creative Arts,Flinders University, GPO Box 2100, Adelaide 5001, AustraliaPublished online: 26 Jun 2014.

To cite this article: Katherine Sutcliffe & Sangkyun Kim (2014): Understanding children'sengagement with interpretation at a cultural heritage museum, Journal of Heritage Tourism, DOI:10.1080/1743873X.2014.924952

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1743873X.2014.924952

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjht20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/1743873X.2014.924952

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1743873X.2014.924952

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Understanding children’s engagement with interpretation at a culturalheritage museum

Katherine Sutcliffe∗ and Sangkyun Kim

Department of Tourism, School of Humanities and Creative Arts, Flinders University, GPO Box 2100,Adelaide 5001, Australia

(Received 3 October 2013; accepted 7 May 2014)

This study aims to investigate how, and the extent to which, different interpretationtechniques (e.g. visual, verbal and interactive) at a cultural heritage museum affectchildren’s behaviour, associated with their engagement with interpretive materials andtheir understanding of the content and its key ideas and messages presented ascultural lessons. An exploratory study with classes of primary-school-aged children,adopting a qualitative method including observation and post-visit in-depthinterviews, was carried out. The results did not indicate any discernible differencebetween the types of interpretation technique used, with regard to their interactionwith the site, or their understanding of the museum’s content. Rather, it is thecircumstances under which the interpretation techniques were used by the children.Two main variations in the way that the children interacted with their peers and theinterpretation were found to affect the level of understanding of different stories, andfemale and male children showed generalised preferences for different forms ofbehaviour. How these behavioural patterns impacted on their understanding of theinterpretation and meanings of the displayed objects at the museum is discussed.

Keywords: cultural heritage; interpretation; museum; children; school visits; behaviour;cultural lessons

Introduction

Visiting science, cultural and natural heritage tourism sites such as museums is an integralpart of most Western childhoods. It should not be, therefore, surprising that previous studieson tourism and museums recognise the importance of interpreting effectively for children(Beaumont & Sterry, 2005; Davidson & Black, 2007; Fanning, 2007; Gennaro, 1981;Kopelke, 2010; Sterry, 2007). A number of reasons for providing effective interpretationhave been identified (Benson, 2011), and some studies specifically highlight the importanceof interpreting for children in tourism contexts, not only to provide an enjoyable visitingexperience (Ham, 1995; Tilden, 2007), but also to improve the visitor experience forthose who visit with children (Davidson & Black, 2007; Fanning, 2007). Kindler andDarras (1997) speak of both the affect that positive heritage visits can have on life-longtendency to museum visitationand the need for creative positive museum experiences forchildren as part of both school and casual visits (see also Crompton, 1981; Piscitelli &

# 2014 Taylor & Francis

∗Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

Journal of Heritage Tourism, 2014http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1743873X.2014.924952

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Prin

ceto

n U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

52 2

9 A

ugus

t 201

4

mailto:[email protected]

Anderson, 2001). Others have considered interpretation for children in an educationalcontext, including examining the effectiveness of field trips (Falk & Dierking, 1997;Mortensen & Smart, 2007; Nadelson & Jordan, 2012; Orion, 1993; Price & Hein, 1991;Randler, Baumgartner, Eisele, & Kienzel, 2007), the benefits of orientating children tofield trip locations (Falk & Dierking, 1997), and the use of pre-visit support materials(Falk, Martin, & Balling, 1978; Mortensen & Smart, 2007).

However, in terms of visitor behaviour and engagement with interpretive materials moststudies have taken place in the contexts of either physical science or natural history-basedmuseums (see, for example, Holmes, 2011; Mortensen & Smart, 2007; Nadelson &Jordan, 2012; Tarlton & Ward, 2006; Turley, 2001). These types of sites deal with particulartypes of content, and often tell particular types of stories, and the interpretation techniquesused are often fit-for-purpose in relation to these stories. The use of interactive interpretation,for example, is often used in science-based museums, where visitors can turn cogs, or pressbuttons to see chemical reactions or volcanoes erupt. These types of tools work very differ-ently in cultural heritage venues, which may use live interpretation, for example, to bring his-torical characters to life or create soundscapes for battlefields or Viking villages (Robertshaw,2006; Russick, 2010). The overall messages in such cultural heritage museums can alsodiffer, as they often seek to form understandings of human narratives, which may becomplex, interwoven and subjective. Studies that examine interpretation techniques in cul-tural heritage venues are far less common, although often use family visits including childrenas part of the studies (Beaumont & Sterry, 2005; Tenenbaum, Prior, Dowling, & Frost, 2010).

Previous studies on children in museums focus strongly on children’s learning throughthe interpretation experience, rather than what children may have understood as a result oftheir visit. In his recent book, Staiff examines what he believes to be “the emphasis on learn-ing over experience (which has) already and increasingly become an issue within heritageinterpretation” (2013, p. 26). This notion of an overemphasis on learning in the context ofmuseum experience can be linked to what Milligan and Brayfield (2004) refer to contentlessons (e.g. the details, or information in a presentation or programme) and culturallessons (e.g. the overall message, theme or idea of presentation or programme). Often, par-ticularly with children, the types of research discussed carried out measures only for therecall of content lessons. Alongside this, some researchers have noted that research on chil-dren’s tourism experiences in general (Carr, 2011) and interpretation for children in particu-lar (Beaumont & Sterry, 2005; Fanning, 2007) has not been widely undertaken, given thefact that much of the research on children visitors considers them only as part of a familyunit rather than examining experiences of children specifically (Piscitelli & Anderson,2001; Smith, 2013; Wu, Holmes, & Tribe, 2010).

Having acknowledged these gaps, this study aims to investigate the extent to whichdifferent interpretation techniques influence children’s museum visits, associated withtheir engagement with interpretive materials and their understanding of key ideas and mess-ages presented at a cultural heritage museum site. This study was carried out in the SouthAustralian Maritime Museum (SAMM), in Adelaide, South Australia, with the involvementof four groups of school children aged 8–10 years. The SAMM is owned and operated bythe History Trust of South Australia, a statutory authority of the Government of South Aus-tralia, and offers a range of school field trips, targeted at different age groups, coveringdifferent topics. Each field trip is developed and delivered by the Museum’s EducationOfficer, a qualified teacher who is responsible for developing the museum’s schoolprogrammes.

This study used the ‘Life on Board’ programme, which investigated the experience ofearly British migrants to South Australia, predominantly steerage class passengers

2 K. Sutcliffe and S. Kim

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Prin

ceto

n U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

52 2

9 A

ugus

t 201

4

migrating due for economic reasons, in the 1840s. The observed field trips provided thechildren with the opportunity to engage with visual (including written material, but alsoreconstructions and dioramas), verbal (guided presentations and audio recordings) andinteractive interpretation (activities and interactive displays). This interpretation contributedto providing the children visiting the museum with information for them to be able to under-stand key messages associated with the museum visit, which were determined by theSAMM’s Education Officer as developing an understanding of the journeys experiencedby early English migrants to South Australia; people migrate for a variety of reasons; jour-neys to South Australia have changed over time; the conditions endured by steerage classpassengers in the 1840s were harsh and uncomfortable; and the voyage to South Australiain the 1840s was long and dangerous.

Children as invisible people

Fanning (2007) urges the need to engage children not only as significant members of afamily unit, but also as those who can have significant impact on visitation and spendingtrends in the tourism context. Both Fanning (2007) and Davidson and Black (2007)address a key outcome in effectively interpreting for children, that is, if the children arehaving a good time, it is much more likely that other members of the group will also beenjoying themselves. It is also suggested that activities that children participate in andenjoy, such as museum going, can influence whether or not individuals choose to continuethese activities later in their life (Kindler & Darras, 1997; Piscitelli & Anderson, 2001;Smith, 2013).

Although it is acknowledged that children contribute significantly as a market segment(Brochu, 2003; Ward & Wilkinson, 2006), they are not often considered by those undertak-ing research into interpretation design, practice or effectiveness. Some researchers havenoted that research specifically into interpretation for children has not been widely under-taken (Fanning, 2007; Smith, 2013; Wu et al., 2010), with Kopelke describing children asvisitors as ‘Invisible People’ (2010, p. 129). When examining children in the tourism litera-ture it is important to note not only how children are represented, but how they are definedin research. Just a few decades ago, much of the research that included children consideredthem only as part of a family unit, and rarely as decision-makers within that unit (Thomson,Laing, & McKee, 2007; Wu et al., 2010). Yet, it has been highlighted that children require adifferent interpretation experience than adults (Tilden, 2007), and pass through differentstages of development (Fanning, 2007), which has been much neglected in the contextof tourism studies.

An aspect of children in museum and/or heritage contexts that is lacking in theexisting literature is recognition of the fact that children behave intrinsically differentlyto adults. This may stem from the above-mentioned tendency for researchers to con-sider children as only part of, or an auxiliary to, a larger visiting group. Researchtends to examine how accompanying adults interact with children, teach childrenabout appropriate behaviour in heritage/museum venues, or types of exhibits favouredby children. These approaches assume children to be adults in the making, and rarelyapproach the child’s visit in the way that a child likely would, and that is from theaspect of play.

Much has been written about play from an anthropological, psychological, sociologicaland educational perspective, and it is not possible to summarise all aspects in a paper of thisnature. In the visitor studies, and related literature, the concept of play is closely linked tothe use of interactive interpretation (Blud, 1990; McManus, 1987), or more recently

Journal of Heritage Tourism 3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Prin

ceto

n U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

52 2

9 A

ugus

t 201

4

information technology and multimedia interpretation (Dow, MacIntyre, & Mateas, 2008),and rarely as an activity that children may wish to engage in regardless of external stimuli,with the concept of play often connected with pre-school-aged children (Dockett, Main, &Kelly, 2011). In educational literature play is often categorised along the lines of gender orgender development (Alexander & Hines, 2008). When discussing children in nature-basedvenues, Tunnicliffe (1998) refers to the “folk law” of gender preferences, with males “beinginterested in mechanical exhibitions”, while females “are particularly interested in anddrawn to animals that have an inherent emotive response to them” (pp. 795–796). Whilethese may be oversimplistic definitions (Kremer & Mullins, 1992), they are in keepingwith the way in which children’s interaction with interpretation has been conceptualised,with simple preferences for different styles of presentation, but little examination of howor why these preferences impact on understandings developed as part of the visitorexperience.

Museum visitors’ behaviour and engagement with interpretation techniques

The way in which tourists or visitors engage with interpretation at museum sites is oftenevaluated using methods such as tracking or timing studies, to measure how touristsmove around spaces, or how different exhibitions/locations draw and hold tourists’ atten-tion (Blud, 1990; Falk, 2009; Falk et al., 1978; Stronck, 1983). These studies oftenemploy a quantitative methodology and have sought to measure motivation (Falk, 2009),what types of exhibits attract tourists’ attention (Diamond, 1986; Griggs, 1983), andtheir power to hold tourists at a particular location within an exhibit (Sandifer, 2003;Wolf, Stricker, & Hagenloh, 2013). These studies have been essential in understandingresearch areas such as exhibition design at museum sites, but do not always collect datathat are useful in measuring visitors’ engagement with interpretive techniques andmaterials.

Learning is also often a unit of measure, particularly in the context where children arethe focus. As with this study, this is often achieved by studying school groups, but pre-viously has often been done by comparing pre-visit and post-visit tests to see how muchthey have ‘learned’. This learning is usually defined by the ability to correctly answer ques-tions, or identify elements such as objects, series or taxonomies. However, these types oftests are not designed to measure how much visitors have understood (e.g. how wellthey are able to place the meaning of the programme – often referred to by interpretersas the ‘theme’ or ‘key message’ (Ham, 1995) – into a broader context of understanding,or how they can apply these ideas and meanings to their own lives).

The way in which tourism sites deliver both content and cultural lessons to their visitorshas been widely researched and in the general population, and with children in particular,the use of interactive exhibitions has been examined previously (Blud, 1990; Koran,Morrison, Lehman, Koran, & Gandara, 1984; Robertshaw, 2006). In general, thesestudies have shown that there are benefits from using interactive exhibitions, such asincreasing an exhibition’s ability to attract visitors (Koran et al., 1984) and to improvelearning outcomes (Blud, 1990; Nadelson & Jordan, 2012). These studies indicate thatthere may be benefits to incorporating interactive interpretation and suggest that non-inter-active spaces may have less ‘pulling-power’. In other words, it is not unreasonable tosuggest that different interpretation techniques and materials have an impact on museumvisitors’ learning and understanding, including the actual visiting experience. However,there is a paucity, in that previous studies have not sought to understand how using differentinterpretation techniques, either in isolation or in combination, have affected visitors’


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Prin

ceto

n U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

52 2

9 A

ugus

t 201

4

overall understanding of key messages and meanings presented by interpretive materialsduring their tourism experience with museum sites, with particular focus on child visitors.

Research method

Data collection and sample design

This study adopted a qualitative method that involved two-staged research data collection:observations on the research site of the SAMM and post-visit in-depth interviews with thechildren who visited the SAMM as part of an organised school field trip. The field trip orexcursion is one of the main mechanisms that museum sites use for engaging children withinterpretation (along with family visits), and this has been the subject of numerous previousstudies (Holmes, 2011; Milligan & Brayfield, 2004; Mortensen & Smart, 2007; Nadelson &Jordan, 2012; Randler et al., 2007). Nabors, Edwards, and Murray (2009, p. 661) claim that“children learn by doing. They remember what they have personally experienced”, and fieldtrips allow children to ‘do’ their learning. In this case, the use of a field trip allowed them toencounter real-world examples of education concepts, increasing sensory activities.

This study used the ‘Life on Board’ programme which investigated the experience ofearly British migrants to South Australia, predominantly in the 1840s. Two classes(classes A1 and A2) visited the SAMM and had their interviews carried out towards theend of Semester 2 (November/December 2010), whereas the other two classes (classesB1 and B2) visited the museum and had their interviews carried out mid-Semester 1(March/April 2011). Each class was accompanied and observed during a pre-arrangedvisit to the SAMM. With informed consent forms including various permissions, theseobservations were organised and approved by the SAMM, the schools involved and thechildren’s parents. Classes comprised approximately 15–25 children, with three or fouraccompanying class teachers or parents, and the results discussed here are those that areconsidered to be common behaviours in a significant proportion of all classes.

As demonstrated in Figure 1, each field trip from the selected schools followed a similarpattern, but with some differences between classes A1/A2 and B1/B2. All four field trips

Figure 1. A summary of children’s activities by class groups.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Prin

ceto

n U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

52 2

9 A

ugus

t 201

4

started with an introduction from the Education Officer in the migration gallery of theSAMM, which included content lessons related to the reasons for migration, the durationof the voyage and the various classes of berths on board the vessels. The group thenmoved to a replica 1840s cabin, which includes a diorama of a steerage class family,with a male mannequin holding a child prepared for burial at sea. Here elements of thejourney such as living conditions, food rationing, illness and death, and the general hard-ships suffered by migrants were described.

Following the guided experience classes A1 and A2 rotated between playing deckgames and exploring the remainder of the downstairs gallery, including the 1840s bunkbeds, two side galleries from the 1910s and 1950s, interpretation panels and a computerbay. The two halves of the class then joined up for free time, in which the children coulddo as they pleased within the whole museum, under the general supervision of teachersand accompanying parents. There were a number of activities in which children could par-ticipate including exploring a replica ketch (a type of small trade vessel), reading panels orusing interactive games. The second two classes (B1 and B2) rotated between five super-vised activities: examining the contents of a ration basket (which was discussed with thewhole group in the 1840s cabin for classes A1 and A2); acting out jobs passengerswould have done on board for others to guess; working in pairs to write a letter home ona board balanced on plastic tubing; playing the same deck games as the previous groups;lying in the 1840s cabin bunks and listening to recordings of passengers’ diaries describinglife on board (these recordings played during free time for classes A1 and A2, but where nota stipulated activity).

During the formal component of the tour including interactive exercises, a number ofobservations were taken: the children’s physical positions, peer group associations, bodylanguage, attentiveness, responses to questions from the Education Officer, and personalconversations. The same observations were carried out in the less formal parts of thevisit, during group and free time activities. The children were observed during their inter-actions in key points of the museum space. The observations did not involve a trackingexercise (i.e. watching as the children moved though the galleries) as this has been donepreviously (Anderson & Lucas, 1997; Griggs, 1983). Rather, observations were taken toassess which elements of the visit engaged the children, how they behaved during differentcomponents of their visit, including observations of children acting out their experienceboth alone and in groups. This included observations as to which elements of the visitcaught attention, through positive elements such as attention to conversation, response toquestions, enthusiasm, or negative element such as fidgeting, lack of visual or aural atten-tion, and off-topic conversation with peers. In both the formal and informal components,play was observed, such as role-playing or acting out elements of the guided tour or struc-tured activities, or during free time which of their peer students related to, the consistency ofthese peer relationships (i.e. staying with one friend or moving between groups), the natureof the connection (e.g. sharing versus fighting), and conversations that were both on and offtopic.

Previous studies have combined observation or tracking studies with post-visit ques-tionnaires or surveys (Blud, 1990; Randler et al., 2007; Stronck, 1983), which have thebenefits of being quick to administer and allow for the collection of a large sample thatcan be analysed quantitatively. However, this method is best suited for examiningcontent lessons rather than cultural lessons. Those researchers who have sought toexplore visitors’ understanding of site visits and/or interpretation (Beckmann, 1999), andpreferences for interpretation styles (Poria, Biran, & Reichel, 2009) or sites (Wu et al.,2010) have employed a qualitative interview. Interviews with children visitors were thus


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Prin

ceto

n U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

52 2

9 A

ugus

t 201

4

selected to complement observation data collected at the SAMM, as the purpose of this stepwas to evaluate the children’s understanding of cultural lessons rather than to assess theirability to recall content lessons. Thus, the second stage of the data collection comprisedin-depth interviews with children who participated in one of the above observed classexcursions to the SAMM. Table 1 shows 48 interviewees participated in this study fromfour classes of mainly 8–10-year-olds and all interviews were carried out onsite at the chil-dren’s schools.

Each class was visited at their school approximately one week after their museum visitby the same author who had accompanied the class during the field trip, so that the inter-viewer would be familiar to the children and could introduce themselves in the contextof the museum visit. An interview protocol guided conversations, with input from the chil-dren and their responses to questions. Each interview, which lasted approximately 15–20minutes, was supported by a selection of photographs of different key locations orobjects from the visit, to help the children with their recollections, and guide the conversa-tion in a way that it would allow for discussion of components of the visit that were con-sidered significant in relation to visitor engagement. The children were asked questions,including their recall of what they had done, what they had been told by the EducationOfficer, what they felt during/about the field trip, and what they thought their teacherhad wanted them to learn. Each child was given the opportunity to add anything theywished, or ask questions of the researchers (Kellett & Ding, 2004). All interviews wererecorded and then transcribed. Each child who had a parental consent form was offeredan interview on the day when one of the authors visited their school, and all but oneagreed to be interviewed (Table 1). The interview protocol assisted most of the interviewsto follow a loose pathway, from the introduction, to the tour, and to activities and/or freetime (Sterry & Beaumont, 2006).

Data analysis

Both observation field notes and interview transcripts were then manually coded by theauthors, using open coding to investigate patterns that relate to the research aim and toidentify themes from both data sets (Berg, 1998; Strauss & Corbin, 1990; Wolcott,1990). Observation sheets were coded taking into account how the children behavedduring formal talks, and during either the free time or structured activities. This codingallowed for an examination of how the children had engaged with various interpretationtechniques, including body language, private and public conversations and willingness toparticipate. Through this process elements such as attentiveness, loss of concentration ordistractions were identified in individual children and groups as a whole. Further codingadded to this picture by identifying when children adopted certain relationships, such asthose who chose to move through the visitor experience with one or more particular

Table 1. Interview numbers by class and gender.

Females Males Total

Class A1 6 6 12Class A2 5 3 8Class B1 9 7 16Class B2 7 4 11Total 28 20 48


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Prin

ceto

n U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

52 2

9 A

ugus

t 201

4

friends, and the types of behaviour they engaged in, and those who rotated through differentpeer groups, illustrating elements such as exploratory, social or peer activity.

Coding of interview transcripts resulted in patterns related to the children’s recollectionsof the visit (the content lessons) and their understanding of the interpretation’s meaning andkey messages (the cultural lessons). The preliminary set of coded words and phrases werethen examined more closely in context of individual transcripts, to evaluate how theyrelated to each of the interpretation techniques used, how they related to the museum’skey messages, and were referenced back to the coded observation sheets, to form an under-standing of specific stages of the visitor experience and individual children’s ability to recallcontent lessons (i.e. facts, numbers, names), or understand cultural lessons (i.e. socialcauses of migration, the hardship of the migration experience, emotions – positive andnegative – attached to life on board, including the ability to contextualise these in relation-ship to their own lives). It should be noted that due to the age of the children, their ability toexpress themselves in ways that made the distinction between content and cultural lessonexplicit was not always clear. Cultural lessons were identified at any point where the chil-dren were able to express an idea that went beyond the repetition of information or facts, orwhen they were able to make personal connections, or express emotional responses relatedto the visitor experience. This was often achieved by examining large sections of individualinterviews, rather than looking at particular coded words or phrases in isolation.

Impact of interpretation techniques on children’s engagement

Based on the identified common behaviours in a significant proportion of all classes, thefindings of both the observations and interviews suggest that it was not the interpretationtechnique itself that showed the most variation in children’s engagement at the museumbut the nature of the circumstances under which it was used.

More specifically, the observations found no evidence to indicate that children’s behav-iour, attentiveness or interest was affected on the basis of the method through whichinterpretation was delivered at any given point during their museum visit. Similarly, thefindings of the interviews suggest that there was no significant difference in the degreeto which the children were able to accurately describe content or cultural lessons thathad been presented to them using any particular interpretation technique.

However, one difference in relation to the interpretation techniques themselves relatesto the stories of death and dying on board. This component had the benefit of combining allthree techniques which are visual (the diorama), verbal (the recordings) and interactive (thebunk beds). Especially, for classes B1 and B2 who had this experience as a supervisedactivity, this contributed strongly to the overall understanding of a number of the culturallessons embedded in the interpretation. Classes A1 and A2, who were not supervisedduring this activity, commented on the content lessons often (e.g. that there was a deadchild in the diorama) but the cultural lessons in less detail (e.g. that death was a commonoccurrence, and that children of their own age would have been affected by this, and thesadness associated with it). This component of the visitor experience is the only one thatintegrated all three interpretation techniques so effectively, but does provide some prelimi-nary evidence that the combination of these interpretation techniques provides a signifi-cantly improved understanding of cultural lessons, compared to when used in isolation.Yet, the main element that has contributed to how well individual children were able toaddress the cultural lessons has related to how individuals behaved during that componentof the visitor experience rather than how the cultural lessons were presented through differ-ent interpretation techniques.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Prin

ceto

n U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

52 2

9 A

ugus

t 201

4

An example of this is the use of role-play. Role-play was incorporated into a number ofcomponents of the visitor experience, and this was often by children acting out stories oractions related to verbal interpretation, such as yanking their legs off the ground whenstories of seasickness were told or acting out scooping up spilt food that was lost inrough weather. When story was told to classes B1 and B2, one child was asked to formallyrole-play the carrying and spilling of food, but other children were independently acting outthe cleaning up process. This did not occur in classes A1 and A2 when this story of losingfood was delivered verbally only.

Children’s behaviour and types of play

Another important finding of the study is that, at various junctures in the visitor experience,children were observed to favour different types of play. In particular, a general trendemerged in different play preferences between female and male children, and how thisaffected their engagement with interpretation techniques and materials and understandingof the meanings. During unsupervised activities, the children in classes A1 and A2 wereobserved to engage in particular behaviour types. Getting into the 1840s bunks was pre-ferred by female children who would get in with one or more friend(s), and this was classi-fied as being ‘social play’. If an adult (e.g. a teacher or accompanying parent) was present,there was discussion about how it felt and what it might be like to be there with others, butpassengers’ diary recordings as an interpretation technique were not a focus and the chil-dren were observed in various types of unrelated play and conversations.

As shown in Table 2, male children were observed to have a greater focus on explora-tory behaviour in most of the downstairs gallery, particularly the 1910s and 1950s cabins.Discussions between the male children focused on comparisons between the cabins’ con-tents, without any discussion of why things may have been as they were unless supportedby an adult.

Free time after this allowed the children to do as they pleased, under general supervi-sion. The behaviour observed in the more formal component of the visit was replicatedhere. Most of the females moved into peer groups, participating in behaviours associatedwith social play. Such social play-related behaviours include using the replica jetty as acatwalk to role-play a fashion show and using part of the ketch’s hold as a slippery-dipto play with friends. In comparison, behaviour observed of the males was again consideredas exploratory play. They also played on the ketch but were more interested in, for example,exploring the results of turning the ship’s wheel, or cabins and their contents, or playing theinteractive games.

Table 2. Observed elements relating to different types of play.

Exploratory play Social play

Undertaken alone or in large or smallgroups

Two or more participants, but generally in groups of lessthan five

Participant(s) sets and tests hypotheses Participants relate play to personal experiences andparticipate in personal conversation

Participant(s) role-play unfamiliar orabstract situations

Participants role-play real-life or familiar activities

Participant(s) test boundaries ofactivities or spaces

Participants focus on group participation within boundariesof activity/task

Incorporates aspects of competition Incorporates aspects of collaboration


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Prin

ceto

n U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

52 2

9 A

ugus

t 201

4

Children in classes B1 and B2 participated in structured activities, displaying the samebehaviour as during the tour. Five groups of approximately four children had membersassigned by teaching staff, based on where they were sitting at the end of the tour.Females who were grouped with a particular friend accompanied that individual throughthe activities, while males were observed to interact with most children in their group orto operate independently. Each group was supervised by an adult who had instructionsabout the activities and their aims. Females were more task-orientated, while malesexplored the boundaries of the instructions. This is best exemplified by the activity oftrying to write a letter on a board balanced on a piece of plastic tubing simulating arocking ship. The male children’s behaviour was more adventurous, with them creatinghuge waves for their partner to ‘conquer’. When females did display this behaviour, theydid so to a lesser extent and for a shorter duration, and were focused on completing theirletter as well as they could, or creating something attractive with many drawing picturesrather than writing a letter.

Both female and male children lay in the 1840s bunks, some on their own and somewith a peer of the same gender. Children in classes A1 and A2 treated this as a play activity,and although audio recordings were playing listening to them was not a required activity,and the children were not observed to pay a serious attention to them. Although playwas observed with classes B1 and B2 it was to a lesser extent with the children kept ontask (listening to diary recordings) by a supervising parent. Regardless of being supervisedby an adult or not, this was another occasion where females and males were observed toparticipate in different types of play. Females were more likely to share a bed with apeer and to participate in behaviour indicating that the other person was a social companionin the space (e.g. sharing the pillow or close physical contact). When males shared a bed,they did so in a way to explore the boundaries of the space or to vie for the greater portion ofthe bunk, and shared for a shorter time than females.

Connections between play and children’s understanding

These results, indicating that children showed preferences for different types of play, havebeen shown to impact on how the children formed understandings about their visitor experi-ence. From the beginning of the tour, males and females tended to prefer different behav-ioural styles. Males, although less attentive than females, raised their hands more often thanfemales in response to questions. Males were quick to raise their hands often, indicating thatthey had not considered the nature of their response fully, and were eager to have theirresponses or stories recognised. Females, conversely, appeared to consider their answerbefore being willing to contribute. There are likely to be a number of causes that contributeto this in individual students, but overall, in the case of males, this may be considered asanother example of their exploratory behaviour, where they wished to examine thecontent of the presentation, whereas the female’s social behaviour preferences madethem less likely to participate unless they felt socially comfortable doing so.

This may account for the fact that although many children were able to recall contentlessons of the introduction (e.g. the duration of the voyage), only two males out of theentire sample were able to demonstrate any understanding beyond the content lesson ofthe fact that the British came to South Australia by ship and show understanding of the cul-tural lessons from the introductory session, for example, that only certain sections of Britishsociety were considered to be suitable candidates for the foundation of the state of SouthAustralia, and that this inequity was illustrated by some individuals receiving financialassistance to migrate:


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Prin

ceto

n U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

52 2

9 A

ugus

t 201

4

Yeah, well, they were talking about when, when they were having the government . . . and theywas paying only some people to go to South Australian and live, yeah people lived there.(Luke, aged 8, Class B2)

Or that because of the significant amount of construction taking place tradespeople weremore likely to be favoured for migration:

She spoke to us about how they came up . . . there was a lot of builders that came up and it builtup and up. (Samuel, aged 9, Class A2)

As noted above, it was during the formal delivery regarding reasons for migration thatmales were observed to engage in exploratory behaviour, raising their hands more oftenand testing their ideas with the Education Officer. There are a number of other elementsof the visitor experience that can replicate these results, and the differences in results areprominently between the female and the male children. One area in which females werebest able to address the cultural lessons of their museum programme during their interviewswas in stories related to death and dying on board. The story of death on board, in particularinfant mortality, is delivered using all three interpretation techniques and is a key one forsupporting the central idea that ‘the voyage to South Australia in the 1840s was longand dangerous’. Content lessons related to this, such as the number of deaths, and the dis-posal of corpses, and cultural lessons around the physical realities of steerage lifestyle, andthe emotional toll of death, disease and the loss of family were addressed most stronglyduring the bunk-bed activity. All children had the opportunity to spend time in one ofthe 1840s bunk beds, a space which had audio recordings of passengers’ diaries playingon a loop. This was an unsupervised activity for classes A1 and A2, while classes B1and B2 were supervised while listening to the recordings.

Male children certainly expressed understandings of these cultural lessons, but femaleswere able to do so more regularly, and with greater complexity. Furthermore, the femalechildren expressed an understanding that children were dying, and dying regularly, through-out the voyage, a content lesson that was only available through the audio recordings. Asbelow, females often expressed concern about the regularity with which the death of chil-dren was mentioned and had strong reactions to these stories:

. . . and it was so sad when we were in there, because one of the men was saying ‘first day, childdied, second day, child died’, and that. (Judy, aged 9, Class B1)

. . . we listened to the tape . . . well, it said something about my two sons went on (the boat),and they died on the boat. It made me sad. (Ruby, aged 8, class B2)

. . . lots of people would get sick and they would wrap the people up and throw them overboardwhen they died. I knew it was a fake baby (in the diorama), I didn’t want to feel what it wouldfeel like if it was a real baby. (Alison, aged 8, Class B2)

As such, a point of differentiation between these responses of females and those of males,who were unlikely to show an emotional response to these stories, and focus more on themechanics of disposing of the dead, to the bunk-bed activity is the way in which it mirrorselements of either social or exploratory play. When discussing the bunks, females gaveresponses such as those listed below, relating to the personal space or comfort of thejourney:

I don’t want to imagine it (my family sharing a bed), they’re tiny. I also felt the blanket and Ididn’t really like them. (Alison, aged 8, Class B2)


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Prin

ceto

n U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

52 2

9 A

ugus

t 201

4

The babies would have been really squished and it would be tricky to look after them and thatone family had two beds. (Violet, aged 9, Class B2)

This relates to aspects of social play that were observed, where females used the sharedbunk as a social space, and accommodated their companion in the bunk. In comparison,males were observed in exploratory play during this activity, where they were testing theboundaries of the bunk and seeking to dominate the space over their companion. Whenlooking at the response from Glen, below, it illustrates a general trend regarding males’response to being in the bunks, and that is one more closely aligned with the contentlessons, such as the mathematics of distribution, rather than the public, or personal, conse-quences of them:

She was talking about how crowded it was ... apparently there were 43 people or something andonly 27 beds. (Glen, aged 10, class B1)

One area where males were able to make a better cultural and person connection withelements of migration related to the sleeping quarters is in the rocking of the ship. Theselessons have links to components of the tour when exploratory play was observed, suchas the spilling of food or the letter writing activity on a simulated rocking ship. Thismay be connected with how some males, such as the one below, were relating thecomfort of the bunk space to the movement of the ship:

It would be terrible to lay on the bed when the sea was rocking. (David, aged 8, class B2)

As such, the trends that have emerged relating to the children’s understanding of culturallessons are connected with the way they interacted with the interpretation, regardless ofthe technique used. Rather, these understandings are connected to the types of behaviourthey were able to engage in, during the delivery of different content and cultural lessons.

Conclusions and discussions

The initial purpose of this study was to investigate how different interpretation tech-niques, at a cultural heritage museum, engaged children during a school visit, and howthis affected their understanding. This was empirically tested using a series of site obser-vations and post-visit in-depth interviews with children visitors to the SAMMs, an Aus-tralian cultural heritage museum in Adelaide. The key findings of the study can besummarised in two ways.

Previous studies have explored what types of experiences engage visitors, and althoughthe focus is rarely specifically on interpretation, often the emphasis is on interactiveelements of museum design enhancing engagement with museum audiences (Sandifer,2003). Similarly, when examining the experiences of children interactive experienceshave been a focus (Blud, 1990; McManus, 1987), and the expansion of the use of interac-tive interpretation in cultural heritage venues has also been encouraged (Robertshaw, 2006;Russick, 2010). At the outset of this study, it was expected that different types of interpret-ation techniques would have different levels of engagement with the children involved. Asone of the purposes of this study was to look at different interpretation techniques, theassumption from the outset was that there would be a discernible difference, and eventhat for many children ‘doing’ (i.e. interactive interpretation) would have a stronger influ-ence than listening to or looking at interpretation.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Prin

ceto

n U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

52 2

9 A

ugus

t 201

4

It should be noted that reading was not an activity that was observed during any of theschool visits, or reported during any of the interviews; however, most of the writteninterpretation could be considered to have been written for an adult audience. This issueaside, findings suggest that there was no noticeable difference between the types ofinterpretation techniques used at the museum and children’s engagement and understandingof the museum’s content and key ideas and messages. Children were regularly observed toengage with all three techniques and refer to them during their interviews.

Rather, it is the circumstances under which the interpretation techniques were used bythe children (i.e. how children behaved around different interpretation techniques). It is alsoconfirmed that scenarios where the children attained the best understanding of the SAMM’scultural lessons are related to the ways in which they engage with each other, rather than theexhibits themselves. This is consistent with the findings of Blud (1990) and Mortensen andSmart (2007), who state that interaction between visitors themselves is as important as inter-action between visitors and the exhibition. Interaction between visiting groups has beenaddressed previously, but the focus of the research has been on adults groups (Falk,2009), the adults’ perspective of the child’s visit (Smith, 2013), or how adults lead or influ-ence a family visit (Blud, 1990).

However, it is rare that it has been a sample made entirely of children, from the child’sperspective that visitor students have been approached (Jensen, 1994; Kopelke, 2010). Assuch, this insight into how children’s engagement with each other and the different ways inwhich children engage with each other and a museum exhibit offers a different way of con-ceptualising the child’s experience. These results indicate that the concept of play has astrong influence on the way that children engage with museum settings, and the elementof play is missing from the museum and tourism literature generally, and with older (i.e.school-aged) children in particular (Docket et al., 2011).

Not only has this study found a strong correlation between the children’s engage-ment and play, it has also illustrated that the children involved were best able torelate cultural lessons connected to scenarios where they had been able to engage inthe form of play that was most aligned to their preferred behaviour. This finding pro-vides evidence that consideration should be given behavioural elements when examin-ing children’s visiting experiences in the context of cultural heritage tourism, as it is thisfactor, rather than the interpretation technique used alone, that resulted in the most sig-nificant impact.

Gender is a unit of analysis in many visitor studies, and the notion that preferences fordifferent types of interpretation, based on gender, is something that has been purported andexplored previously (Tunnicliffe, 1998; vom Lehn, Heath, & Hindmarsh, 2001). Thesestudies are united by the way in which gender is considered, and this is in relation toobjects or exhibits, and is often delineated by elements such as static versus interactive,solo versus group visits, or father versus mother guided. Similarly, it was expected fromthis study that there would be gender differences in relation to the type of interpretationtechniques used (visual, verbal or interactive). As such, it is interesting to note that thesecond significant finding of this study is the difference between female and male childrenin terms of their engagement with interpretation and understanding of cultural lessons. Thisis exemplified by the children showing a preference for either social or exploratory play,with females often preferring social play and activities with particular friend(s), andmales engaging in exploratory, sometimes competitive, behaviour. As it has been shownthat children are missing from the tourism literature generally, it is not surprising thatthis level of examination of children’s behaviour in heritage museums has not been pre-viously examined.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Prin

ceto

n U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

52 2

9 A

ugus

t 201

4

Furthermore, the key contribution of this study lies in fulfilling the identified researchgap, that is, a lack of research on cultural heritage content of children’s interpretation. Visit-ing museums of this nature have been shown to be an important activity for those visitingwith children, both to provide social activities (Fanning, 2007) and to connect them withtheir own heritage (Beaumont & Sterry, 2005; Logan, 2013; Smith, 2013). As cultural heri-tage museums, such as the SAMM, deal significantly with a human narrative, and in par-ticular one of migration and hardship in this study, it tells stories that require differentinterpretation techniques than those used in the many of the science- and nature-basedvenues used in previous studies (Tenenbaum et al., 2010). The activities developed bythe SAMM’s Education Officer allowed the children to participate in several types ofplays that are directly linked to the nature of the narratives being told on site. As anexample, the bunk-bed activity where children lay in the 1840s bunks provided opportu-nities for the children to behave naturally as they wished in this space (i.e. their behaviourwas not dictated by a formal activity, or adult instruction), but also allowed them to explorebehaviours that would have replicated those of the original migrants, and linked to thecultural lessons of their visit.

Those who participated in social play were able to develop understandings about thediscomfort of the migrant experience through recognising the cramped quarters and thedangers of disease in those conditions resulting in high mortality rates. Those who partici-pated in exploratory play, however, developed understandings of how environmental issues(e.g. rough weather) would have contributed to the danger of the voyage as well as how thecramped quarters would have led to difficult social conditions on board. Other activitiessuch as the letter writing activity were more suited to exploratory play, which likewisemay have contributed to the understanding of the dangers of the passage related to roughweather – such as falling overboard – which was not so well developed in females whopreferred social play. From a practical standpoint, this would indicate that opportunitiesfor both social and exploratory play should be incorporated into the design in order todevelop effective interpretative programmes which will successfully allow children visitorsto understand the key ideas and messages embedded in the exhibition.

Limitations and recommendations for future research

The above findings from this study also have several recommendations for future research.First of all, it allows for the possibility of exploring these interpretation techniques andelements of play for children visitors in a range of other contexts, with two main foci.Firstly, although the findings have been obtained in and are considered to be particularlypertinent to a cultural heritage context, elements explored here such as children’s behaviourand play – in the manner it has been conceptualised here – has not been widely consideredin previous studies in natural and science-based venues. As this has not previously beenexplored, it is not clear how the findings here might compare to those at sites with a differentfocus. As mentioned above, interactive elements in particular are used very differentlydepending on the content of the site. This may suggest that the ways in which different be-havioural elements are accommodated in interactive interpretation may differ between thesesites, and this, in particular, warrants further investigation.

Another consideration that needs to be examined more closely is that of the nature of thevisit that the children in this study participated in. One of the main limitations of this studyis the fact that school groups were used. As these children visited as part of a school excur-sion, they were participating in a semi-formal and structured visit. Previous studies, fromoutside of the tourism literature, indicate that the ways in which children self-segregate,


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Prin

ceto

n U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

52 2

9 A

ugus

t 201

4

and behave, can be affected by the formality of the situation, with females and males morelikely to play in mixed-gender groups in social situations (Thorne, 1993). Family visits tomuseums and heritage sites have been shown to be valued by both adults and children whovisit (Smith, 2013; Wu et al., 2010), and exploring children’s play in this way for casualvisits has not been undertaken. To structure a casual visit that encourages a range ofvisitor behaviour among young visitors may be difficult, and potentially costly, but it isyet uncertain as to whether this is required. Ascertaining whether the two types of behaviourobserved in this study affect children in casual visitor groups is the next step. This also leadsto the need to examine children across a range of ages. It would be reasonable to suggestthat a broad range of tourism literature fails to consider children from a variety of ages,from pre-schoolers to teenagers (Carr, 2011; Fanning, 2007), and examining elements ofbehaviour in children from a range of age groups would also be appropriate.

Although there is still a work to be done to fully understand how the findings of thisstudy apply to the full spectrum of visitor groups that include children related to thisstudy, it has provided evidence that there is another way in which children need to be con-sidered when examining visitor behaviour and interpretation engagement, and this is linkedto their natural tendency to play. Although opportunities for children to play can often beseen at tourism venues, on many occasions these are purely recreational, rather than partof the mechanism for delivering cultural lessons. This study has shown that not just play,but a range of play behaviours are effective tools in ensuring that interpretation is able toengage a broad range of children at cultural heritage sites.

AcknowledgementsWe would like to extend our thanks to the children involved in this study and their teachers. Thenames cited in this paper have been altered to preserve individuals’ anonymity.

Notes on conributorsKatherine Sutcliffe is an associate lecturer in the Department of Tourism, Flinders University, SouthAustralia. Katherine has a background in tourism and archaeology. Her research interests includeinterpretation, cultural heritage and food tourism.

Sangkyun Kim is a senior lecturer in the Department of Tourism, Flinders University, South Australia.His main research interests include tourism and (popular) media, film tourism, food tourism, touristexperience, and cultural heritage, identity and tourism.

ReferencesAlexander, G. M., & Hines, M. (2008). Gender labels and play styles: Their relative contribution to

children’s selection of playmates. Child Development, 65(3), 869–879.Anderson, A., & Lucas, K. B. (1997). The effectiveness of orientating students to the physical features

of a science museum prior to visitation. Research in Science Education, 27(4), 485–495.Beaumont, E., & Sterry, P. (2005). A study of grandparents and grandchildren as visitors to museums

and art galleries in the UK. Museum and Society, 3(3), 167–180.Beckmann, E. (1999). Evaluating visitor’s reactions to interpretation in Australian national parks.

Journal of Interpretation Research, 4(1), 5–19.Benson, G. (2011). Multiple goal conveyance in a state park interpretive boat cruise. Journal of

Interpretation Research, 16(2), 7–22.Berg, B. (1998). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn &

Bacon.Blud, L. (1990). Social interaction and learning among family groups visiting a museum. Museum

Management and Curatorship, 9, 43–51.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Prin

ceto

n U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

52 2

9 A

ugus

t 201

4

Brochu, L. (2003). Interpretive planning. The 5-M model for successful planning projects. Singapore:InterpPress.

Carr, N. (2011). Children’s and family holiday experiences. Oxford: Routledge.Crompton, J. (1981). Dimensions of the social group role in pleasure vacations. Annals of Tourism

Research, 8(4), 550–568.Davidson, P., & Black, R. (2007). Voices from the profession: Principals of successful guided cave

interpretation. Journal of Interpretation Research, 12(2), 25–45.Diamond, J. (1986). The behaviour of family groups in science museums. Curator, 29(2), 139–154.Dockett, S., Main, S., & Kelly, L. (2011). Consulting young children: Experiences from a museum.

Visitor Studies, 14(1), 13–33.Dow, S., MacIntyre, B., & Mateas, M. (2008). Styles of play in immersive and interactive story: Case

studies from a gallery installation of AR Facade. Proceedings of the 2008 International confer-ence on advances in computer entertainment technology, New York.

Falk, J. H. (2009). Identity and the museum visitor experience. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.Falk, J. H., & Dierking, L. D. (1997). School field trips: Assessing their long term impact. Curator,

40(3), 211–218.Falk, J. H., Martin, W. W., & Balling, J. D. (1978). The novel field-trip phenomenon: Adjustment to

novel settings interferes with task learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 15(2),127–134.

Fanning, C. (2007). Children in interpretation – have we forgotten anyone? Proceedings ofInterpretation Association Australia conference, Sydney.

Gennaro, E. (1981). The effectiveness of using pre-visit instructional materials on learning for amuseum field trip experience. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 18(3), 275–279.

Griggs, S. (1983). Orientating visitors within a thematic display. The International Journal of MuseumManagement and Curatorship, 2, 119–134.

Ham, S. (1995). Environmental interpretation. A practical guide for people with big ideas and smallbudgets. Golden, CO: North America Press.

Holmes, J. (2011). Informal learning: Student achievement and motivation in science throughmuseum-based learning. Learning Environments Research, 14(3), 263–277.

Jensen, N., (1994). Children’s perceptions of their museum experiences: A contextual perspective.Children’s Environments, 11(4), 55–90.

Kellett, M., & Ding, S. (2004). Middle childhood. In S. Fraser, V. Lewis, S. Ding, M. Kellett, &C. Robinson (Eds.), Doing research with children and young people (pp. 161–174). London:Sage.

Kindler, A. M., & Darras, B. (1997). Young children and museums: The role of cultural context inearly development of attitudes, beliefs, and behaviours. Visual Arts Research, 23(1), 125–141.

Kopelke, D. (2010). Children are visitors too: Listening to children to improve the effectiveness ofinterpretive programs. Proceedings of the National Association for Interpretation Internationalconference,Townsville, Australia.

Koran, J., Morrison, L., Lehman, J., Koran, M., & Gandara, L. (1984). Attention and curiosity inmuseums. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 21(4), 357–363.

Kremer, K., & Mullins, G. W. (1992). Children’s gender behavior at science museum exhibits.Curator: The Museum Journal, 35(1), 39–48.

Logan, W. (2013). Patrimonito leads the way: UNESCO cultural heritage, children and youth. InK. Darian-Smith & C. Pascoe (Eds.), Children, childhood and cultural heritage (pp. 21–39).Oxford: Routledge.

McManus, P. (1987). It’s the company you keep . . . the social determination of learning-related beha-viours in a science museum. The International Journal of Museum Management and Curatorship,6, 263–270.

Milligan, M. J., & Brayfield, A. (2004). Museums and childhood: Negotiating organizational lessons.Childhood, 11(3), 275–301.

Mortensen, M. F., & Smart, K. (2007). Free-choice worksheets increase students’ exposure to curri-culum during museum visits. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(9), 1389–1414.

Nabors, M., Edwards, L., & Murray, R. (2009). Making the case for field trips: What research tells usand what site coordinators have to say. Education, 29(4), 661–667.

Nadelson, L. S., & Jordan, J. R. (2012). Student attitudes toward and recall of outside day: Anenvironmental science field trip. The Journal of Education Research, 105, 220–231.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Prin

ceto

n U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

52 2

9 A

ugus

t 201

4

Orion, N. (1993). A model for the development and implementation of field trips as an integral part ofthe science curriculum. School Science and Mathematics, 93(6), 325–331.

Piscitelli, B., & Anderson, D. (2001). Young children’s perspectives of museum settings and experi-ences. Museum Management and Curatorship, 19(3), 269–282.

Poria, Y., Biran, A., & Reichel, A. (2009). Visitor preferences of interpretation at heritage sites.Journal of Travel Research, 48(1), 92–105.

Price, S., & Hein, G. E. (1991). More than a field trip: Science programmes for elementary schoolgroups at museums. International Journal of Science Education, 13(5), 505–519.

Randler, C., Baumgartner, S., Eisele, J., & Kienzel, W. (2007). Learning at workstations in the zoo: Acontrolled evaluation of cognitive and affective outcomes. Visitor Studies, 10(2), 205–216.

Robertshaw, A. (2006). Live interpretation. In A. Hems & M. Blockley (Eds.), Heritage interpretation(pp. 41–54). Oxford: Routledge.

Russick, J. (2010). Making history interactive. In L. McRainey & J. Russick (Eds.), Connecting kidsto history with museum exhibitions (pp. 219–241). Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.

Sandifer, C. (2003). Technological novelty and open-endedness: Two characteristics of interactiveexhibits that contribute to the holding of visitor attention in a science museum. Journal ofResearch in Science Teaching, 40(2), 121–137.

Smith, L. (2013). Taking the children. Children, childhood and heritage making. In K. Darian-Smith& C. Pascoe (Eds.), Children, childhood and cultural heritage (pp. 107–125). Oxford:Routledge.

Staiff, R. (2013). Re-imagining heritage interpretation. Enchanting the past-future. Farnham:Ashgate.

Sterry, P. (2007) Designing interpretation for family visitors at cultural heritage destinations: Issuesand solutions. Proceedings of the National Association for Interpretation International confer-ence, Vancouver, BC, Canada.

Sterry, P., & Beaumont, E. (2006). Methods for studying family visitors in art museums: A cross-dis-ciplinary review of current research. Museum Management and Curatorship, 21(3), 222–239.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures andtechniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Stronck, D. R. (1983). The comparative effects of different museum tours on children’s attitudes andlearning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20(4), 283–290.

Tarlton, J., & Ward, C. (2006). The effect of thematic interpretation on a child’s knowledge of an inter-pretative program. Journal of Interpretation Research, 11(1), 7–33.

Tenenbaum, H. R., Prior, J., Dowling, C. L., & Frost, R. E. (2010). Supporting parent-child conversa-tion is a history museum. British Journal of Education Psychology, 80, 241–254.

Thomson, E. S., Laing, A. W., & McKee, L. (2007). Family purchase decision making: Exploringchild influence behaviour. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 6, 182–202.

Thorne, B. (1993). Gender play: Girls and boys in school. Buckingham: Open University Press.Tilden, F. (2007). Interpreting our heritage (3rd ed.). Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Tunnicliffe, S. D. (1998). Boy talk/girl talk: Is it the same at animal exhibits? International Journal of

Science Education, 20(7), 795–811.Turley, S. (2001). Children and the demand for recreational experiences: The case of zoos. Leisure

Studies, 20, 1–18.vom Lehn, D., Heath, C., & Hindmarsh, J. (2001). Exhibiting interaction: Conduct and collaboration

in museums and galleries. Symbolic Interaction, 24(2), 189–216.Ward, C. W., & Wilkinson, E. E. (2006). Conducting meaningful interpretation: A field guide for

success. Golden, CO: Fulcrum.Wolcott, H. F. (1990). Writing up qualitative research: Qualitative research methods. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.Wolf, I. D., Stricker, H. K., & Hagenloh, G. (2013). Interpretive media that attract park visitors and

enhance their experiences: A comparison of modern and traditional tools using GPS tracking andGIS technology. Tourism Management Perspectives, 7, 59–72.

Wu, K.-L., Holmes, K., & Tribe, J. (2010). Where do you want to go today? An analysis of familygroup decisions to visit museums. Journal of Marketing Management, 26(7–8), 706–726.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Prin

ceto

n U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

52 2

9 A

ugus

t 201

4

understanding children's engagement with interpretation at a cultural heritage museum

Documents