Experiential Learning for Teacher Professional Development at Historic Sites

Abstract

Historic sites provide a variety of professional development (PD) programs for classroom teachers. Little is known, however, about the pedagogical approaches used by historic site professionals in educating their teacher audiences. Using data from PD websites and questionnaires completed by historic site professionals, two studies examine the types of pedagogical approaches institutions state they use for teacher PD, the alignment of historic site PD with characteristics of experiential learning, and issues relevant to researching experiential learning approaches used in these programs. Results indicate that institutions’ pedagogical approaches for PD programs largely align with experiential learning characteristics but that research is needed to determine the pedagogical benefits of experiential learning for historic site PD and related learner outcomes.

Keywords

professional development historic sites teachers

Historic sites provide opportunities for learning about the past often not possible in other ways. The National Park Service (NPS) reported over 38 million visits to national historic sites and historical parks in 2013 (U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 2014). State and local sites add millions more to this number. Many of these visitors are school students, whose teachers use historic sites to deepen children’s understandings and appreciation of the past, connect them with historical objects and places, and help them practice historical inquiry (Baron & Dobbs, 2015). In addition to providing programs for students, many historic sites offer professional development (PD) opportunities for educators to support engagement with historic resources and increase teachers’ content knowledge. As participants in PD programs, teachers often tour historic sites, participate in structured learning activities, and receive resources to support their classroom work. The goals of this type of PD include nurturing institutions’ collaborative relationships with classroom educators and encouraging educators to incorporate what they have learned into their teaching (Marcus, 2008). Although many educators who participate in such programs teach social studies or history, teachers of language arts, fine arts, science, and other disciplines come to historic sites for PD as well.

Despite the variety of PD programs available and the interest in them, little is found in the literature about the pedagogical approaches used by historic site professionals in educating their teacher audiences. Pedagogy has been defined as the “essential dialogue” between the activities of teaching and learning and “how we think and talk about, plan and structure those activities . . . Pedagogy, then, involves ways of knowing as well as ways of doing” (Beetham & Sharpe, 2013, p. 2), and pedagogical approaches are methods used to orient, plan, and implement instruction, developed by interpreting and applying cognition and learning theory. Pedagogical approaches range in appropriateness and effectiveness for particular learning goals and environments. Museum education literature, however, has tended to focus on approaches used in science and art institutions (e.g., Burnham & Kai-Kee, 2011; DeWitt & Osborne, 2007), and research on pedagogical approaches used specifically at historic sites is limited. Literature specific to PD in museums (McRainey & Moisan, 2009) is scant and does not address the appropriateness of particular approaches to PD in historic environments. This lack of research makes it difficult to determine the effectiveness of pedagogical approaches used by PD facilitators at historic sites in producing successful learning outcomes for teacher participants. Identifying and evaluating pedagogical approaches used at historic sites, therefore, are an essential part of assessing the ways historic site professionals teach teachers about using historic site resources.

Institutional publications and statements, including websites, provide evidence of the orientations toward or philosophies of education advocated by those institutions. In a study of 67 websites of American Alliance of Museums–accredited historic sites (Blair, 2011), the author found the most common terms used to describe education included learn, explore, hands-on, experience, discover, research, think critically, and observe. Examining these words together suggested the pedagogical approach used in these institutions was learner-centered, active, and focused on direct experience and personal engagement. Together, these characteristics fit an experiential learning pedagogical approach, with emphases on participation of learners in both the construction of experiences and activities (Boud, Cohen, & Walker, 1993; Kolb, 1984), learner autonomy and empowerment (Griffin, 1992; Moon, 2004), and direct relevance of experiences to learners (Wurdinger & Carlson, 2010). These websites make it appear that historic site professionals are using (or aspire to use) pedagogical approaches consistent with experiential learning with their general audiences.

If it is suspected or agreed that experiential learning is a pedagogical approach used by or potentially usable by historic sites for PD (as described above), then research studies on the approach in this context must occur to justify this use. Analyses of pedagogical approaches being used in historic sites are necessary for two purposes: (a) generally, to assess current practice in the field, and (b) specifically, to refine practice based on educational needs and to test outcomes. In addition, if experiential learning is used in teacher PD at historic sites, there exists a rich body of experiential learning literature that may be applied to the pedagogical practices of historic site professionals. This article examines the alignment of pedagogical approaches used in historic site PD programs with experiential learning characteristics through the following questions:

Research Question 1: What types of pedagogical approaches do historic site professionals state they use for teacher PD?

Research Question 2: How do the pedagogical approaches historic sites professionals state they use for teacher PD align with characteristics of experiential learning?

Research Question 3: What issues are relevant to researching pedagogical approaches for teacher PD at historic sites?

To address these questions, two studies were conducted. The results are intended to increase understandings of the educational experiences of teachers at historic sites and to improve practice.

Review of the Literature

Elements of experiential learning, characteristics of experiential learning for adults, and concerns related to enacting this pedagogical approach in PD are detailed in this section. Connections are made to the use of experiential learning in historic sites.

Elements of Experiential Learning

With roots in the work of Dewey, Piaget, and Vygotsky, experiential learning focuses on pedagogical approaches grounded in cognitive and social constructivist learning theory. Experiential learning often is defined as a method for actively engaging students in learning processes (Fenwick, 2000). Learning begins with experiences that stimulate and form the foundation for learning (Boud et al., 1993). Through conscious or unconscious internalization of experiences, learners reflect, think, and act (Beard & Wilson, 2002).

In practice, experiential learning approaches differ from teaching methods common in many classrooms, because learner participation is central. Identification and understandings of content arise through learner experiences. Experiential approaches take a variety of forms, including place-based education, project-based learning, problem- and inquiry-based learning, and service learning (Wurdinger & Carlson, 2010). For example, at a historic site, educators using an experiential learning pedagogical approach for PD might develop a series of place-based site explorations, during which learners encounter learning stations featuring problem-based activities designed to help them learn to use site resources to answer historical questions.

Andresen, Boud, and Cohen (2000) developed a summary of elements common to enacting experiential learning approaches, including the defining factors and essential criteria (Table 1). This summary distills the qualities of experiential learning from the literature in particularly comprehensive yet concise way, especially the emphasis on engaging the whole person in active learning, learner participation and direction in learning, and continued reflection throughout the process. The summary provides a framework useful for developing or evaluating an experiential learning pedagogical approach.

Table 1.

A Summary of Andresen, Boud, and Cohen’s (2000) Experience-Based Learning Elements.

Defining factors (Factors 1-3 from Kolb, 1984)	1. Involvement of the whole person (intellect, feelings, senses)
	2. Recognition and active use of all learners’ prior experience
	3. Continued reflection on experiences to create deeper understanding
	(Practice-Variant Factors: Appropriateness to instruction depends on situation)
	4. Intentionality of design: Deliberately designed learning events or structured activities (e.g., simulations, focus groups)
	5. Facilitation: Experiences managed by facilitators (teachers, leaders, coaches), often in an equal relationship with learner
	6. Assessment of learning outcomes: Evaluations appropriate to learning goals and congruent with experience-based learning
Essential criteria	1. Learner finds personal significance or meaning
	2. Personal learner engagement with phenomena
	3. Debriefing and reflective process included
	4. Acknowledgment of what whole person brings to process
	5. Recognition of learner’s prior experience
	6. Ethical concern/respect for learner

Experiential Learning for Adults

Although experiential learning processes may be similar for learners of all ages, awareness of adult learners’ characteristics (e.g., reasons for learning, preferred ways of engaging and thinking, perceived consequences for learning, and social dimensions, including the roles of learning context and interactions with others) is central to using this approach with adults (Malinen, 2000). Because of its ability to engage learners with these characteristics, experiential learning has been advocated in adult education since the 1970s (Fenwick, 2000; Marsick, Watkins, Callahan, & Volpe, 2009; Shuttenberg & Poppenhagen, 1980). A variety of disciplines have used experiential learning, such as management (Reynolds & Vince, 2007), medicine (Fowler, 2007), social work (Cheung & Delavega, 2014), and teaching (Burke, 2013; Klein & Riordan, 2011).

One of the primary emphases for adult learners is relevance, as discussed above, including immersion in real-world experiences and work contexts related to the content being learned (Chisolm, Harris, Northwood, & Johrendt, 2009; Harden, Allen, Chau, Parks, & Zanko, 2012). Experiential learning provides these opportunities. In addition, valuing adult learners’ professionalism and experience is an important element (Fowler, 2007): not only respecting these things but also incorporating learners’ experience into the teaching process as it happens (Burke, 2013), essentially allowing facilitators to “teach from these experiences” (Hewson et al., 2006, p. 11). Practically, this looks different from more traditional pedagogical approaches, which may have a more linear path as directed by a teacher, or teaching children, who may not bring the same types of expertise to the learning process. Successful experiential learning in PD programs incorporates these characteristics (Klein & Riordan, 2011).

Enacting Experiential Learning in PD

The ways experiential learning approaches are enacted in learning environments are crucial. Simply inserting experiential activities into teaching without providing a consistent experiential learning pedagogical framework diminishes success for learners. Often in such attempts, as Roberts (2012) observed, “the experience is tightly bound (in both time and space) and efficiently controlled. Experience becomes not organic, interactive, and continuous but rather a scripted, timed, and located ‘activity’” (p. 5). For example, a historic site might conduct a largely nonexperiential PD program (e.g., primarily providing instruction through lecture) but add on a few hands-on activities for participants. Contrast this with an institution beginning with an experiential framework and designing participant experiences that support the framework’s goals, especially emphasis on creating a learner-focused program (as in Andresen et al.’s, 2000, essential criteria). The latter may provide a more consistent approach to learning for the PD participants and a very different programmatic and educational result.

In addition, concerns about the practicality of experiential learning as a pedagogical approach have been highlighted in the literature. Foremost is the facilitation time necessary for learners to have positive experiential learning outcomes, including time for design, implementation, and follow-up (Thiagarajan, 2007). Although it is true that many experiential learning activities are more time-intensive than traditional activities, as a museum-based pedagogical approach, experiential learning for PD is much more in line with the flexibility available in historic site environments as compared with classrooms. Furthermore, this investment of time is necessary if PD programs are designed to acknowledge the learner as part of (critiqued) complex contexts and systems, thereby offering opportunities for learners to engage in the kind of learning Fenwick (2003) defined as “the continuous improvisation of alternate actions and responses to new possibilities and changing circumstances that emerge, undertaken by the system’s parts” (p. 133). These types of adaptive and evolving learning experiences are what historic site professionals can create for the benefit of their teacher PD participants, through design and evaluation of pedagogical practice.

Method and Results

Two studies were conducted to address questions asked above about pedagogical approaches used in historic site PD programs. The first was an analysis of publicly accessible historic site PD webpages, to explore the language of the program descriptions, including specific statements about pedagogical approaches and consistency with definitions of experiential learning. A second study was conducted with historic site professionals to provide additional information and to hear participants’ own perspectives about the approaches they state they use.

Study 1: PD Webpage Survey

Sample

The sample for this study was the informational webpages of 22 NPS Teacher Workshop partners offering PD programs for classroom educators in January 2014 (http://www.nps.gov/teachers/index.htm). The sites included were national historic sites, battlefields, parks, and preserves offering historic resources and content related to history or social studies instruction. Each institution had one main informational webpage linked from the NPS workshops site. Institutions were responsible for entering information on their page. Supplemental materials that individual historic sites made available on their websites were not included in this analysis, because not all institutions provided these materials. Webpage text length ranged from 35 to 754 words (M = 288 words).

Data collection and analysis

Content analysis was conducted (a) to identify words or phrases that described the pedagogical approaches used by the program facilitators, and (b) to assess alignment of stated program characteristics with Andresen et al.’s (2000) experiential learning summary, which was used as a coding scheme. For example, the Ellis Island (part of Statue of Liberty National Monument) webpage described activities that involved PD participants listening to live music, which was coded as Defining Factor 1: “involvement of the whole person (intellect, feelings, senses).” This coding process with an assistant resulted in an intercoder agreement level of Kappa = 0.71 (p < .000), 95% confidence interval (CI). Frequencies and percentages of coded items in particular categories were calculated. Words or phrases that fit more than one category were counted in each appropriate category. Note that just because coded elements were not specifically mentioned on the webpages does not mean that these elements are not part of the PD programs offered by these institutions, but rather that the elements were not included in the language used on their NPS webpages.

Results

Twelve of the 22 historic site webpages (54.5%) included explicit statements about the pedagogical teaching methods used in the PD programs. For example, Appalachian National Scenic Trail described their program as a “place-based service learning professional development workshop series.” The websites included descriptions of eight different pedagogical approaches with “didactic” (50%) and “place-based” approaches described most frequently, followed by “participatory (hands-on)” and “inquiry-based” approaches (Figure 1). Although only one website used the term “experiential learning,” 11 of these 12 sites (91.7%) included at least one specific reference to experiential pedagogies.

Figure 1.

Percentage of webpages and professionals mentioning particular pedagogical approaches.

To varying degrees, the webpages included language that reflected the “Defining Factors” and “Essential Criteria” of experiential learning as outlined by Andresen et al. (2000). The “defining factors” category illustrates what a learning process based on the active involvement of the learner looks like. The most often observed factor on the webpages was “involvement of the whole person” (59.1% of institutions; Figure 2). One example of whole-person involvement is the Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve program, in which teachers “tour the site with a Ranger, participate in the hands-on lessons, and discuss ways to use and adapt Project Archaeology to meet their classroom goals.” The factors “recognition and active use of all learner’s prior experience” and “continued reflection on experiences to create deeper understanding” were mentioned infrequently.

Figure 2.

Percentage of webpages and professionals including descriptions of “Defining Factors” (including practice-variant factors differing in appropriateness according to context).

At least one of the practice-variant factors (factors that may be appropriate depending on instructional circumstances) was described on 14 of the webpages (63.6%). Of these, about 45% described “intentionality of design: deliberately designed learning events or structured activities.” For example, the Hopewell Culture National Historical Park webpage stated, “During our annual Archeology Workshop for Teachers, you will learn about archeology and ways to apply hands on techniques with your students.” Facilitation of experiential learning-type activities was mentioned on half of the webpages, such as on the President’s Park (White House) page: “Participants will take a guided bus tour with a local historian . . . Once participants have a deeper knowledge of the War of 1812, they will be introduced to a comprehensive lesson plan including multiple media sources.” Descriptions of learning outcomes assessment appropriate to experiential learning during the PD experience rarely were included on the pages, but one example was found on the Weir Farm National Historic Site, in whose program teachers have “activities, presentations, tours, brainstorming sessions, and time to work together on ideas for lesson plans and projects.” Assessments, such as presentations and preparing lesson plans and projects, align with the learning goals as outlined on the Weir Farm PD webpage. In all, 86.4% (19 of the 22 webpages) included language reflecting at least one of the defining factors on their webpages.

Essential criteria include both learner outcomes and actions taken toward the learner by the educator (Figure 3). Language reflecting “personal learner engagement with phenomena” was observed on most (86.4%) of the pages. For instance, at Fort Scott National Historic Site, teachers participate in project-based learning to examine the history of Civil War–era African American soldiers. Fewer than 20% of webpages described the other essential criteria. Most noticeably absent were statements acknowledging what the learner contributes to the learning process. In many cases, acknowledgment was implied but not explicitly stated, such as describing teachers working on lesson plans for which they would use prior experience. Also, few institutions stated what they expected to learn from teachers during PD programs.

Figure 3.

Percentage of webpages and professionals including descriptions of “Essential Criteria.”

Study 2: Historic Site Professionals Survey

Sample

To learn more about the pedagogical approaches used at historic sites, education and programming specialists from the 22 institutions included in the PD Webpage Survey were invited to describe their teacher PD program practice. The researcher recruited the professionals via telephone, and 10 agreed to participate (45.5%). Participants received a follow-up email including the survey materials.

Data collection and analysis

Participants completed a self-administered online questionnaire. The item (open-ended) asked participants to express in one to three sentences about their institution’s pedagogical approach for the teacher PD workshops listed on their NPS “Teacher Workshops” webpage. Then, given a checklist of the 12 experiential learning elements from Andresen et al. (2000), participants indicated whether these elements were intentionally designed into their teacher PD workshops (response choices were “yes,” “no,” and “not sure”). Content analysis of the open-ended item was conducted using the same coding categories identified in the first study. Frequencies and percentages of experiential learning elements included in workshop designs were calculated.

Results

The open-ended item allowed the participants to self-report in their own words what they believed to be characteristics of their institution’s pedagogical approach for their listed PD program (Figure 1). All of the historic site professionals described some type of experiential approach. When compared with the webpage survey, many similarities were observed. As on the webpages, place-based learning was most commonly described, but at a higher rate by the professionals, followed by participatory (hands-on) and inquiry-based approaches. Interestingly, didactic approaches were described on half of the historic site webpages but mentioned by only one of the professionals in the open-ended item. Some participants talked about a blended pedagogical approach, as one professional stated, “Our workshops generally combine learning by listening with participatory activities that create the opportunity for learning by doing and discovering.” Another participant similarly stressed a balanced approach, saying, “We try to get teachers thinking about using place, a variety of primary sources and different methods for exploring them, and developing a synergy between all three of these as part of what makes a great delivery.”

Some of the historic site professionals showcased the range of learning methods they advocate for teaching teachers in a very detailed way. For example, one professional stated,

Our approach to professional development is to engage teachers of all grades and subjects, train them and provide them resources so they can incorporate park resources and other community resources into a place-based educational curricula, empower teachers to incorporate their own ideas into place-based and service learning lessons, and reach out to partners in the community to help support teachers. The park provides teachers with the tools they need and the motivation to develop their own unique lessons and use the park as a classroom. PD workshops are designed to be interactive, informative, and encouraging, with teachers walking away prepared to incorporate park resources into their lessons and with confidence that they can lead lessons at the park that fit into their curricular goals (including standards). (Participant 6)

In this description, the goal for involving teachers in place-based, inquiry-based, and participatory learning experiences while on site is clear. A look at the participant’s NPS park information pages (separate from the NPS PD webpage) provided examples of the teacher workshop activities the participant described, such as site tours, self-explorations using materials that provide inquiry prompts and invitations to look closely at historic materials, and participation in hands-on activities related to the site’s content areas. The idea seems to be that supporting teacher efficacy for teaching using park resources is most important, by engaging teachers in participatory experiences that they can model for students. This professional’s historic site becomes a place for exploration where learning goals may be met in a variety of ways.

The experiential learning checklist was intended to assess the PD programs’ alignment with the Andresen et al. (2000) elements. In the “defining factors” category, the participants all stated that “whole-person involvement” was built into their PD programs (Figure 2), compared with fewer than 60% of the historic site webpages. Similarly, most professionals indicated that “continued reflection on experiences” and “recognizing and using prior experience” also were intentionally included, but a low percentage of the webpages indicated the same. The professionals highlighted more of the practice-variant factors as well. In comparison with the webpage study, the professionals indicated the practice-variant factors almost universally.

The “essential criteria” category, however, highlighted the greatest differences between the webpages and the professionals’ responses. On the webpages, five of the six criteria were rarely mentioned, but as reported by the professionals, the criteria were all intentionally designed into the PD programs (Figure 3). The “personal significance” of the PD experience, a “debriefing process,” and “ethical concern/respect for the learner” were central to all or most of the programs (90%-100%). Only the “personal engagement” category had a similar presence on the webpages (86.4%) and questionnaire responses (80%).

Discussion and Recommendations

The purpose of this article was to examine the pedagogical approaches used by PD facilitators at historic sites and to determine alignment of PD programs with characteristics of experiential learning, with the aim of recommending areas of research about experiential learning in historic site PD. Based on the webpage and historic site professional survey analyses above, there is evidence that historic site professionals intend, to varying degrees, to engage PD teacher participants through experiential learning, but how consistent were the pedagogical approach and program descriptions with experiential learning, and what gaps existed?

Before discussing the results, a few limitations of the studies are acknowledged. The main limitation of the webpage survey was the text genre; the pages were designed to quickly communicate information to potential participants, resulting in brief overviews designed for program promotion. Also, it is acknowledged that different pedagogical frameworks exist into which the pedagogical approach elements discussed above might fit. The experiential learning literature, however, offers opportunities for a comprehensive, organizing framework that corresponds not only with the pedagogical elements characteristic of these institutions’ PD programs but also with the philosophies of experiential learning as set forth in the literature. In addition, data from the websites and historic professionals were self-reported, but as such, the results do provide a basis for analyses of what professionals say about their own practice.

The first research question concerned the types of pedagogical approaches historic site professionals state they use for teacher PD. In the webpage study, just over half of the institutions provided explicit descriptions on their webpages, which included eight different pedagogical approaches. All of the approaches but one are experiential learning approaches (Wurdinger & Carlson, 2010), showing a definite orientation toward experiential learning pedagogy by these institutions. These results suggest two things. First, the use of approaches consistent with experiential learning supports the hypothesis that experiential learning already is a guiding approach in these institutions. Descriptions from the webpages and the professionals demonstrate the centrality of the learner experience and engagement in the PD programs, which are experiential learning goals shown to improve learner outcomes (Beard & Wilson, 2002; Boud et al., 1993; Moon, 2004). Together, the two surveys indicate that institutions’ pedagogical approaches for PD programs include a blend of largely experiential approaches. More didactic methods, such as lecture, are not negative things, but experiential approaches are well suited to engaging learners in historic sites with their range of primary resources and out-of-classroom learning environments. A blend of approaches, as reflected in the webpage data and reinforced by what some of the professionals stated on the questionnaires, may be the reality in many historic site PD programs and should be explored. Two areas recommended for further investigation are the degree to which the ways institutions say they want teachers to learn in PD (participatory, inquiry-based, etc.) align with what sites actually are doing and the appropriateness of pedagogical choices.

Second, the studies point to the value of including statements about pedagogical approaches in PD information for teachers. Almost half of the PD webpages did not supply specific statements about the pedagogical approaches used in the programs. When historic site professionals were asked directly to provide this information, the responses created a much clearer picture of the educational approaches and goals of these institutions. Providing such statements has multiple benefits for PD facilitators and participants. For facilitators, articulating one’s pedagogical approach is a useful exercise for shaping and evaluating practice. It also may help institutions present a more detailed picture of the PD experience they are offering teachers, which is important for both educational and marketing purposes. For participants, it is a means to help them make decisions about their PD program expectations and their potential outcomes as learners at the historic sites.

The next research question asked how the pedagogical approaches historic site professionals state they use for teacher PD at historic sites align with characteristics of experiential learning. Andresen et al.’s (2000) summary of experiential learning elements provided a way to determine whether the PD programs included these characteristics. Their “Defining Factors” elements describe learning based on the active learner involvement and incorporation of learner experiences, two key elements of both experiential learning (Fenwick, 2000) and adult learning (Malinen, 2000). At least one defining factor was described on almost all the PD webpages, but mentioning two or more factors occurred on less than one third of webpages. As discussed above, a low number of mentions on the webpages does not mean these elements are not part of the institutions’ PD programs, but rather that the descriptions do not highlight them. Still, when assessing alignment based solely on the publicly available PD descriptions as the first study did, apart from the pedagogical approach statements included on the webpages, the results make it appear that some of the historic site PD programs should not be defined as experiential. In contrast, the historic site professionals, who were given a list of the factors, largely agreed that the factors were part of their PD programs. Taken together, these results from the two studies indicate that the historic site PD programs likely are more experiential in character than is expressed on the webpages.

Descriptions of the “Essential Criteria” were largely absent from the webpages, as opposed to the historic site professionals study. For example, although “personal learner engagement” was mentioned on most of the pages, statements acknowledging what learners bring to the learning process were not. In many cases, acknowledgment was implied but not explicitly stated, such as discussing teachers working on lesson plans using their prior experience. Furthermore, considered together with the emphasis on whole-person involvement of the webpages, personal significance certainly must be a concern for these institutions. The historic site professionals survey confirmed this assertion, especially in the area of personal learner-centered criteria. One of the main affordances of experiential learning is the personal experience of learning (Moon, 2004), often linked to the immediate problem solving or inquiry-based needs of the learner, which these institutions’ PD programs appear to provide. Also, since PD programs offer chances for historic site professionals to learn from teachers during the facilitation process, it is important to make sure the essential criteria are part of the overall PD pedagogical approach. This will provide reciprocal learning opportunities, such as can occur while acknowledging and incorporating the contributions of learners into a learning experience (Burke, 2013; Hewson et al., 2006). From the two studies, it appears that the PD programs align in many ways with characteristics of experiential learning.

The final question for this project asked about issues relevant to researching approaches used in teacher PD at historic sites. Descriptive studies to examine current practice in the field and experimental studies for determining educational needs and testing outcomes are required. Furthermore, specifically assessing adult learning in historic site environments through program study and evaluation is indicated, given the demand for programs by teachers and the effort being put into programs by site professionals. Making sure the experiences offered are well suited to the characteristics of adult learners is the key (Malinen, 2000). “Informal learning” as a framework is too broad to sufficiently address the complexities of adult learning in PD programs at historic sites. Instead, examining this learning with an experiential learning framework may provide a more coherent way for both encouraging greater participatory work with teachers in PD and opportunities for designing appropriate learning assessments and exploring influences on adult learners’ professional practice. In sum, historic sites need to determine the pedagogical benefits of experiential learning for historic site PD and related learner outcomes.

Finally, an unintended outcome of these studies shows the clear need for understanding how historic site professionals articulate information about their pedagogical approaches. Researching how and why professionals write statements for webpages and other institutional publications would be instructive, as this has the potential to illustrate the process of translating philosophical, theoretical, and practical ideas into the informational formats needed to guide practice (e.g., program development) and to communicate with learners and others. Understanding more about this process and the related outcomes would provide useful to both practitioners and scholars.

In conclusion, although an experiential learning pedagogical approach is not the only way to do teacher PD at historic sites, it offers these affordances: It fits with the teaching many institutions already are doing, it aligns with best practices for adult learning, and it offers opportunities for active and engaged learning. Ultimately, historic site professionals must decide their orientation(s) toward experiential learning as a pedagogical approach. Research on theory and practice will aid this process. Experiential learning does appear to fit well with modes of historic site education, and it offers exciting opportunities to provide invaluable learning experiences in these historic environments for teachers.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Much of the paper’s content was developed in my role as an invited participant in a research symposium sponsored by the American Educational Research Association (“What Are History Teachers Learning at Historic Sites?”) at Boston University (Boston, Massachusetts, USA) in March 2014. My expenses for participating in this event were paid by AERA.

Author Biography

Denice J. Blair has worked in museums since 2004. She directs museum-based research projects, develops educational resources for exhibits and public programs, and teaches Teacher Education courses. Her recent research work has focused on issues of access in the museum environment.

References

Andresen

Boud

Cohen

(2000). Experience-based learning. In Foley

(Ed.), Understanding adult education and training (2nd ed., pp. 225-239). St Leonards, Australia: Allen & Unwin.

Baron

Dobbs

(2015). Expanding the notion of historical text through historic building analysis. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 58, 462-471.

Beard

Wilson

J. P.

(2002). The power of experiential learning: A handbook for trainers and educators. London, England: Kogan Page.

Beetham

Sharpe

(2013). An introduction to rethinking pedagogy. In Beetham

Sharpe

(Eds.), Rethinking pedagogy for a digital age (2nd ed., pp. 1-12). New York, NY: Routledge.

Blair

L. D.

(2011, April). Historic site websites: Engaging and educating online visitors. Round table session presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

Boud

Cohen

Walker

(1993). Introduction: Understanding learning from experience. In Boud

Cohen

Walker

(Eds.), Using experience for learning (pp. 8-17). London, England: Open University Press.

Burke

B. M.

(2013). Experiential professional development: A model for meaningful and long-lasting change in classrooms. Journal of Experiential Education, 36(3), 247-263.

Burnham

Kai-Kee

(2011). Teaching art in the museum: Interpretation as experience. Los Angeles, CA: J. Paul Getty Museum.

Cheung

Delavega

(2014). Five-way experiential learning model for social work education. Social Work Education: The International Journal, 33, 1070-1087.

10.

Chisolm

C. U.

Harris

M. S. G.

Northwood

D. O.

Johrendt

J. L.

(2009). The characterisation of work-based learning by consideration of the theories of experiential learning. European Journal of Education, 44, 319-337.

11.

DeWitt

Osborne

(2007). Supporting teachers on science focused school trips: Towards an integrated framework of theory and practice. International Journal of Science Education, 29, 685-710.

12.

Fenwick

T. J.

(2000). Expanding conceptions of experiential learning: A review of the five contemporary perspectives on cognition. Adult Education Quarterly, 50, 243-272.

13.

Fenwick

T. J.

(2003). Reclaiming and re-embodying experiential learning through complexity science. Studies in the Education of Adults, 35(2), 123-141.

14.

Fowler

(2007). Experiential learning and its facilitation. Nurse Education Today, 28, 427-433.

15.

Griffin

(1992). Absorbing experiential learning. In Mulligan

Griffin

(Eds.), Empowerment through experiential learning (pp. 31-36). London, England: Kogan Page.

16.

Harden

S. M.

Allen

K. C.

Chau

C. N.

Parks

S. L.

Zanko

A. L.

(2012). Experiential learning in graduate education: Development, delivery, and analysis of an evidence-based intervention. Creative Education, 3, 649-657.

17.

Hewson

M. G.

Copeland

H. L.

Mascha

Arrigain

Topol

Fox

J. E. B.

(2006). Integrative medicine: Implementation and evaluation of a professional development program using experiential learning and conceptual change teaching approaches. Patient Education and Counseling, 62, 5-12.

18.

Klein

E. J.

Riordan

(2011). Wearing the “student hat”: Experiential professional development in expeditionary learning schools. Journal of Experiential Education, 34(1), 35-54.

19.

Kolb

D. A.

(1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

20.

Malinen

(2000). Towards the essence of adult experiential learning: A reading of the theories of Knowles, Kolb, Mezirow, Revan, and Schön. Jyväskylä, Finland: SoPhi.

21.

Marcus

A. S.

(2008). Rethinking museums’ adult education for K-12 teachers. Journal of Museum Education, 33, 55-78.

22.

Marsick

Watkins

Callahan

Volpe

(2009). Informal and incidental learning in the workplace. In Smith

M. C.

DeFrates-Densch

(Eds.), Handbook of research on adult learning and development (pp. 570-600). New York, NY: Routledge.

23.

McRainey

L. D.

Moisan

(2009). Artifacts as inspiration: Building connections between museum educators and classroom teachers. In Ragland

Woestman

(Eds.), The Teaching American History Project: Lessons for History Educators and Historians (pp. 240-264). New York, NY: Routledge.

24.

Moon

J. A.

(2004). A handbook of reflective and experiential learning: Theory and practice. New York, NY: RoutledgeFalmer.

25.

Reynolds

Vince

(Eds.). (2007). The handbook of experiential learning and management education. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

26.

Roberts

J. W.

(2012). Beyond learning by doing: Theoretical currents in experiential education. New York, NY: Routledge.

27.

Shuttenberg

E. M.

Poppenhagen

B. W.

(1980). Current theory and research in experiential learning for adults. Journal of Experiential Education, 3(1), 27-31.

28.

Thiagarajan

(2007). Experiential learning and technical training. In Silberman

(Ed.), The handbook of experiential learning (pp. 241-255). San Francisco, CA: John Wiley.

29.

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. (2014). Annual recreation visitation by park or region for: 2013 by park type. Retrieved from https://irma.nps.gov/Stats/SSRSReports/National%20Reports/Annual%20Recreation%20Visitation%20Report%20by%20Park%20Type%20or%20Region%20(1979%20-%20Last%20Calendar%20Year)

30.

Wurdinger

S. D.

Carlson

J. A.

(2010). Teaching for experiential learning: Five approaches that work. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.