Pedagogy

Educational issues incorporated in exhibit design
The Getty Family Room is symbolic of the effort of museums to create access to art and realize its potential for art education and socialization. This requires the accommodation of different learning styles and modalities. Creating a learning environment that allows children to personally experience exhibits through sensory experience, interactivity and other activities reinforces the art education and learning objectives. These perspectives developed from extensive research and experience managers and designers of the exhibit realized a hands-on approach which will not only support the development of the exhibits but also to validate research and the effectiveness of current strategies. The design teams also had to consider the role that parents have in childrens response and participation in exhibits so that they can help in the reinforcement of exhibit objectives and facilitate their childrens activities in the museum. The design of the Family Room considered a number of perspectives and theories including Vygotskys Zone of Proximal Development theory, research developed by Falk and Dierking as well as internal or institution research developed at the Getty Museum in other exhibits. Led by a multi-disciplinary team exhibition team made up of Centers curators, family education specialist, designers, and facilities, a strategy was developed from insights and reflections on how children and their parents conduct their museum experience, as documented in the interviews and observations from study participants.

The current exhibit design is an indication that the museum administrators have recognized the need to develop exhibits that can engage visitors and help create within their social and familial context the concept of museums as an interactive experience. At the same time, they also recognized that successful completing such an objective will in turn improve educational objectives of the museum. The 756 square foot exhibit are of the FR has been designed to engage both adult and young visitors to participate in the exhibit activities. Also providing a wide range of learning experiences makes it even more accessible to a varied population and modes of interaction, particularly for families. There are a number of educational issues that the exhibit designed had to consider, the most critical of which are what concepts are to be transferred, learning interactions of children and families, principles of learning through play and prevailing perspectives in museum education studies. Findings from research and experience have been incorporated in the design which was executed and constructed by the architectural firm Predock_Frane.

Conceptual tools to be transferred from Family Room to Getty galleries
As indicated by Foggleman, the former education director at the Getty, the current Family Room was designed to meet the goal of teaching young children basic artistic elements and to provide them with conceptual tools with which to access art. I decided that the job of the family room was to engage visitors with basic concepts of art, elemental concepts of art, that they can then apply to artworks in the gallery. In other words, it is hoped that after the visit at the Family Room, visitors should be able to transfer the artistic concepts that they learned at the Family Room to other artworks that they encounter at the Centers Gallery.  Using the Puryear sculpture, That Profile as an example, it shows artistic concepts such as positive space, negative space, and line in silhouette which are all important concepts in sculpture. After playing and learning in an immersive environment designed based on That Profile, visitors should be able to apply the concepts such as positive space, negative space, and lines in silhouette to other sculptures that they encounter later at the Centers sculpture galleries.

Learning through play learning through experience  
In the planning documents and in interviews of constituents of the Getty Family Room design team, the emphasis on hands-on experiences and learning through play is evident. In planning document such as the Guiding Principles and Call for Proposals,  Getty education department stated explicitly that children learn best through hands-on experiences and through multiple senses. The Call for Proposals further states that it is critical to provide children with the opportunity to learn through various modes of play. Therefore, the design should address childrens diverse learning styles and incorporate different learning modalities. Learning modalities such as learning through touch, close looking, small-motor play, physical interaction, strategy play, and self-directed art-making were listed as high or medium priority that the design should incorporate. In the Guiding Principal, the education department specified that the hands-on experiences should engage visitors in different forms of play so that visitors understanding of art may be facilitated. In conclusion, it emphasized the concept that play can support childrens social, emotional, physical, and intellectual development.

In interviews, various constituents of the design team also commented on the importance of facilitating play and hands-on experiences for children. Bremer-David indicated that she recognized that it is critical to address hands-on approach in the Family Room because it would create a powerful learning experience for young visitors. Getty Family Specialist made an even stronger comment  They (Family) are not here because they want an injection of education. They are here because they just want to spend time with their family and do something fun. And maybe learn a little bit, too.

Learning within the Family
The design team considered the role that parents might play in the Family Room. Instead of having an educator available at the space to facilitate childrens learning, parents are expected to play the role of a facilitator. The design team considered Vygotskys Zone of Proximal Development theory and hoped that parents can be the scaffolder of childrens learning in the Family Room. In addition to the Zone of Proximal Development theory, the design team also considered museum scholars, Falk and Dierkings writing on museum as a space that encourages social learning experience within family. They advocated that museums should design exhibitions in which adults and children can work collaboratively and learn from each other. The design team also endorsed current museum scholars view on learning in museums the experiences that visitors bring with them would impact the learning and the interaction that they have with the exhibition.  Therefore, learning should not be narrowly defined in museum settings. Learning should be open-ended in museums and that what visitors learn depends on what they bring to it. In the case of the Family Room, it is whatever parents interested in or know about the exhibition would influence the kind of conversation that they have with their children.  

Experience of exhibit designers on how families use the museum indicate that they consider it as a venue for education. Therefore, programming educational components to exhibits can easily gain support from parents. According to Allen (2004) this highlights the natural congruence between the objective of families museum visits and public education. From the observations and interviews made from study participants, this perspective is clearly reflected and is often mentioned as a primary consideration of parents for the success of museum visits. Dilek (2009) also pointed out that family visitors tend to use childrens level of participation or interaction with exhibits as a measure of success. Thus, there is a need to increase the capacity of exhibits to elicit and prolong participation and interactivity. Some parents would even extend the exhibit activity to childrens home play activities. This is an indication not only of their recognition of the value of the educational value of exhibits but also their potential to enrich childrens learning and play activities.

During interviews, comments of the design team constituents reflected their understanding of current research on how family visitors use museums. Below are the issues related to family learning that were frequently mentioned 1) Children and family should be encouraged to explore the activities in their own speed and at their own ways (Hein, 2002). 2) Each activity should enable personal connections between the work of art and the visitors. In addition to applying current museum research on the design, the education department also conducted research on how family visitors use the Center. Informed by their internal research, the design team also considered this Room as a place where families can take a break from touring the art galleries.

Critical issues considered in the design process
The development of the exhibition made endeavored to be sensitive and responsive to critical issues that could affect the design process by emphasizing the importance of cooperation within a multi-disciplinary framework. The emphasis on teamwork is to recognize the individual expertise and experience in museum exhibit design. This is also seen as means of the Getty administrators to ensure that the Family Room can accommodate a variety of learning strategies and support collaborative partnerships that can effectively address critical design issues. The major issues that were considered included how design teams can be effective and efficient, how accurate interpretation of exhibits can be supported, how educational aids can be developed to support learning objectives and how to create a positive or pleasant visit experience to reinforce participation and interaction as well as prompt return visits. In addressing these critical issues, the Family Room exhibits will then be able to cater to a larger population of visitors and realize its social and educational objectives in addition to its institutional agenda.

Exhibition design as a team effort
The exhibition team was a multi-disciplinary team. It consisted of members such as the Centers curators, family education specialist, designers, and facilities. It also involved external consultants such as early childhood education specialist, and architects. In order to determine the content and various aspects of the Family Room, members of the team had to communicate frequently and form a workable consensus that will meet not only the standard of the Centers various departments but also the educational objectives of the Room.

Each member in the team had specific expertise to contribute to the Family Room design. For instance, Bremer-David, the curator of the decorative arts helped determined the selection of the object to be featured in the Room. She also helped to make sure that the design teams interpretation of the object, the Bed, was accurate. Edwards, the family specialist, advocated the importance to create a learning environment that facilitated collaborate learning between family members. In the designing process, she also informed other members of the design team the most current education and museum education theories. Reaching a consensus among team members, especially about what types of learning environments can effectively support children and familys learning, was critical in the designing process.

Accurate interpretation of the work featured
One of the most critical issue in the designing process was whether the design teams interpretation of the object stayed true and meaningful to the object. For instance, at the sculpture cove, Predock_Franes original proposal was to engage children in an excavation activity that was designed to interpret an ancient Greek sculpture, Male Harp Player. The architects proposed to provide children with a three-dimensional puzzle with an image of this ancient Geek sculpture. Children could take the puzzle pieces apart and combine the pieces. When other team members reviewed the proposal, they pointed out Predock_Franes interpretation of how this antique sculpture was made and excavated was inaccurate though it is true that creating a marble sculpture also involves the removal of pieces of marbles. However, the activity proposed suggested to children that the sculpture making process involved removing pre-cut blocks. In addition, the activity titled, excavation, proposed misleading concept of excavation.

As asserted by Edwards, when art museums design an interactive learning environment for children, the designers are proposing interpretations of the featured object to children. Sometimes the interpretation is more concrete, such as the selection of the fabric of the Bed had to stay approximated to the original fabric so that visually people can identify it. Other times, the interpretation is more abstract such as the concept proposed on how ancient marble sculpture was made. Exhibition designers had to make sure that they do not present false interpretation of related artistic concepts or art-making process of featured object.

Labels designed to encourage personal and social construction of knowledge
The team also wanted to make an effort to work against the traditional education paradigm in art museums text as a way of communicating and as a mechanism of exploration. In other words, instead of replying on text written by museum professionals, the design team wanted to foster children and familys learning at the Room through collaborative exploration, discussion, and play. Also stated in the Call for Proposals that the Family Room should be an environment where parents feel competent in guiding their childrens experience. Therefore, instead of using text to guide children and familys visit at the Room, the design team decided to leave the information provided in the exhibition label limited. In each label, visitors can only find the artists name, the title of the artwork, the year it was made, and the material used. A photograph of the original work was also included in the label for visitors to see.

Provide Pleasant Visiting Experience that encourages further exploration and future visits 
As curator Bremer-David commented, her first expectation of the outcome of the Family Room is to create a pleasurable and inviting experience for its visitors. She considered the Family Room as an introduction to museum environment to hopefully a life-long museum-goer.  Edwards comment on one of the most critical objectives of the Family Room is also aligned with Bremer-Davids. Edwards asserted that the Family Room should not be the destination of family visitors. The exhibition designers see visits to the Family Room as an inspiration that would evoke visitors to go to the Centers galleries, to log-on to Gettys Kiosk, or to join other family programs to learn more about the objects featured in the Family Room. Instead of learning about the specific work featured, the design team wanted to create an engaging and inviting visiting experience for which would inspire young visitors and their family to learn about the Centers collection or to come back to the Center to learn about art and museum in the future.

Childrens and Families Learning Experience

Playing teacher
In the interviews of the Natasha, it is shown that she engaged in dramatic play, pretending that she was a teacher. Her play consisted of writing letters and numbers and then asking her sister to copy what she did. Natashas activities reflect her current developmental stage highlights writing and communication development. In addition, her taking on the persona of a teacher suggests that she has a positive view of teachers or learning.

Parent and child collaboration in art-making, in hands-on activities
Sarahs play was focused at the Manuscript Cove where she drew images using the markers provided. Sarahs activities are consistent with her home activities which according to her mother also consisted of doing art work. Sarah and her mother also participated in the treasure hunt and in the sculpture cove for which she had expressed a very positive reflection. Sarahs response shows that she was affected by the activity on a personal level which can further enhance its educational or artistic impact of the exhibit with her.

Play with strategies
Richards play was most significantly focused on the Martin Puryear exhibit in the sculpture cove. He said that he enjoyed the exhibit because of the possibilities it provided him in the use of the material and the space provided in the exhibit. His father also got involved in Richards activity and gave suggestions on how he can better replicate the Puryear sculpture. This shows that the exhibit was not only able to engage children in the context of the activity but extends childrens interest beyond the exhibits context.

All three of the children show how play can be integral or at the very least, support learning objectives. In the case of the FR, play is an essential component in visitors engagement because it allows the opportunity of platform for capturing childrens attention to sufficiently educate or communicate the value of exhibits and art as a whole. Each of the coves utilizes a variety of play activities or can provide a platform for children to create their own play activities. Whether the exhibits can be considered as practical, dramatic, constructional or rule play, they all have an objective to involve children with the exhibits (Avery, 2009).

In each of the children interviewed, though their play activities showed an element of dramatic play in that they engaged in creating scenarios where they had roles to play though this may be more apparent in the case of Natasha and Richard. Richards case in particular, imagining that he could be burned if he touched the corners, is particularly interesting since it shows that he is adding elements to the exhibit and thus enriching it beyond the original design of the exhibit or even that of the artists. Richards response to the sculpture is actually consistent with the motivation of sculptors who view their art as something that has to be physically interacted with (Tran, 2007). Ultimately, the interviews and observations of the study subjects show that children use the gallery interactives to practice or engage in the activities that they already expressed interest in such as Natashas learning to write letters and numbers, Sarahs drawing and Richards interest in physical materials and electronics.

The activities of the respective parents of the children also provide insights on how families interact in museums and consequently, what features these must have not only to engage visitors but also to assure them that the space is a safe environment for their children. For Natashas parents, these include having a space where they can stay while their daughters were in the coves that interested them and at the same time being able to check on the children freely. In the case of Sarah and Richard, both their parents were able to be with them during the activities they chose to engage in. Sarahs mother and Richards father both helped their children in doing their activities with the latter providing additional strategic information related to the activity. Richards father also showed independent interest in the exhibits, exploring the area when his son was resting. These all indicate that parents the tendency to allow their children to independently explore and the interaction that they had can be considered in general minimal particularly in consideration of more general mores of interaction observed in the RF.

Though they were not extremely involved in most of their childrens activities, the parents were sufficiently impacted by the RF to have their own opinion on what were the most interesting parts of the exhibition or give opinion on how they can be further improved. Natashas mother and Richards father both viewed the tube activity as imaginative, interesting and creative. Sarahs mother in turn believed that the space can be improved by incorporating music Natashas mother suggested further enlarging the area and creating more exhibits or interactives. Moreover, Dan, Richards father was motivated to pursue exploring further the museum for himself, an indication that parents interest can become engaged by the positive response of their children in the RF. Subsequently, this can also enhance their relationship with their children Sarahs mother indicate that the experience has reinforced to her Sarahs interest in art and how they vary across settings and Richards father saw how his son created connections between art and science as shown by how created correlations between sculpture and physics. Though Natashas mother had did not have a similar response, the suggestion is that the interactive gallery provided parents a space to observe their children in settings different from their home which can enhance on how their childrens development can be better supported and enhanced.

This provides an opportunity not only to practice the skills that they are developing but also developing an appreciation of art.  However, the testaments of the latter are not apparent from the interviews of the children but manifest them in the skills that they believe they developed in the course of their activities in the RF. Natasha statement was that in the course of the activity, she was able to learn how to trace a butterfly while Richard attested to the value of having skills to accomplish tasks. In conclusion, the RF has shown significant success in engaging children and parents to interact with exhibits but has less success in realizing art appreciation. This is not to imply that the efforts have not been effective in communicating the value and social value of art as well as the museum, the respondents response indicates that in general, their interest were limited to only their current participation in the exhibits and did not extend significantly to other exhibits or the artistic provenance of the exhibits in the coves that they worked in.

To be able to support positive learning interactions of children and families, the FR has been constructed and designed to encourage family interaction. Aside from featuring exhibits that can engage family visitors, the designers of the FR is designed to meet social and physical needs of families. Interviews with some of the young museum visitors who were visiting the gallery with their families reveal that the availability of family support encouraged them to explore and utilize new strategies to access the exhibits. In a similar fashion, parents interviewed indicated that it allowed them to develop new insights in how to engage their children in learning. They also pointed out that because the exhibits were specifically designed for visitors to interact with their children, they are also able to educate parents themselves and create significant interest in having the museum as a prime recreational destination for their family.

Subsequent interviews and observations in the gallery evidence that these efforts were able to yield positively results in terms of how much children were able to engage children to enjoy as much as they were learning through the museum exhibits. Interview of a the ten-year old boy Richard who viewed the David Hockney photography cove and the neighboring sculpture. Though he was not impressed with the former exhibit, he had a better response to the sculpture exhibit and devoted significant time in the Puryear sculpture, manipulating the exhibits tubes to create a replica of the art. The boy said that his choice of what activities or exhibit to engage in were the ones that he viewed as interesting. Upon further interview he says were good experiences because it was challenging and allowed him to be creativity in accomplishing the exhibit task. Another child, seven year-old Sarah showed that creativity in the literary and design coves but also expressed the tubes featured in the sculpture cove was the ones she enjoyed the most. This was echoed in the interview of other children which can be considered as an indication that children respond best to activities that allow them to be physically engaged.

At the same time, the case of the sisters Natasha and Annie shows that children did not have a positive response from direct interaction with the exhibits. Another source of appeal for the children is because it allows them to play with other children through role play or working collaboratively on exhibits. This can also be extended to the parents experience as attested to by Sarahs mother Victoria in reflection of the treasure activity she and her daughter participated in. Taking this into consideration together with interviews with other parents of the children interviewed show that childrens experience can be enhanced by directions or participation of their parents. However, there is indication that parents ability to do so may be limited to the parents in the Getty Museum since observations of the parents in Childrens Museum in Taipei indicated otherwise. Though this may be due to cultural and social variances, this also highlights the need to include the rest of the family into the museum experience to ensure that children are able to be really involved in the exhibits and in turn, maximize learning, development and socialization through the exhibits. This does not constitute the inaccuracy or falsify the strategies adopted by the designers but rather highlight that museum engagement strategies have to responsive and evolve together with the changes in the communities they serve.

However, because the museum is designed for three to ten year olds, a wide demographic selection in terms of social and cognitive development, marginal age groups may either view the exhibits too challenging or too immature. Thus, there may be a need for museum exhibits to incorporate optional activities or versions of activities designed for these marginal groups to extend their relevance or appeal. Another option that can be taken is to redirecting to other exhibits that can be more engaging or interesting to them. In this sense, the Family Room becomes a transitional platform for more mainstream museum exhibits at the Getty which in turn reinforces the value of museum experience across demographic groups. There should also be a realization that regardless of how inclusive the exhibits that can be designed to be, there will be peripheral populations that will not be able to accommodate.

Lord (2007) and Montgomery (2008) both show that museums are perceived by the public as highly intellectualized institutions. There should be a realization that though this can facilitate the participation of the public in museums educational initiatives, this indicates that there are high expectations for the king of educational exhibits, instruments and methodologies that they would develop. Institute of Museum and Library Services (2008) believes that this is also a core reason why museums should be commit long-term resources and its professionals to developing educational exhibits for children because they cannot be effectively developed by ad hoc efforts. The key realization is that for the Family Room to be continually relevant and effective in its objectives, the Getty has to be able to sustain its current efforts and further enhance its ability to communicate effectively and develop collaborative partnerships with its visitors and other stakeholders.