Healonor wrote:

> Actually the exegesis of the idea that education can only work if it is
> entertaining goes back at least as far as the Elizabethan poet/militarist,
> Sir Phillip Sydney, and was the basis of Thomas More's method of teach his
> daughters Greek.  It probably goes back much further - most pre-literate
> cultures use dance, music, poetry, puppetry and other basic entertainment
> techniques to transmit knowledge and culture.  Why do we have to try and
> make learning so dull?  Thomas Aquinas thought that the mind engaged in
the
> process of reasoning was one of the truly great turn-ons.  Pity we've
become
> such puritans that we can't have fun with it, and take our knowledge like
a
> dose of castor oil

Martin Taureg wrote:

> I'd rather think that 'education', properly done, can be very exciting as
of itself,
> and not at all boring.

_______________

I agree with both.  The key phrase to me is "properly done."  And that's
the whole point of interactive and participatory exhibits, and of those
that use objects in thoughtful ways (which can be just as entertaining).

The point, I think, is that educational exhibits ought to be founded in
educational theory.  Constructivist theory (for example) says that you
cannot _give_ people knowledge through the types of didactic exhibits that
were once common, but that people must _construct_ their own understanding
through meaningful interaction with the environment.  This means that
responsibility for learning is shared: the museum visitor must take
responsibility for creating understanding by reflecting on their experience
with an object or activity; the museum is responsible for creating
opportunities for the visitor to engage in this meaningful (and, so,
enjoyable) learning.

To get stuck on the "entertainment" part seems silly.  Is great theater,
literature, or music entertaining?  Of course -- but  it also feeds the
mind and soul.  I think great exhibits do the same.

Chris Landry
Historic Deerfield
Deerfield, MA
[log in to unmask]