See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/284222526

Long-term impacts of museum experiences

Article · January 2006

CITATIONS READS
53 1,815

3 authors, including:

David Anderson Martin Storksdieck

University of British Columbia - Vancouver Oregon State University
59 PUBLICATIONS 2,411 CITATIONS 68 PUBLICATIONS 2,035 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

interPLAY View project

National Research Council Climate Change Education Roundtable View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Martin Storksdieck on 25 August 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Long-Term Impacts of Museum Experiences

David Anderson1, Martin Storksdieck2 and Michael Spock3

1 Department of Curriculum Studies, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
2 Institute for Learning Innovation, Annapolis, MD, USA.
3 University of Chicago, Chapin Hall, Center for Children, Chicago, IL, USA.

The value and importance of understanding the long-term impact of museums on visitors’ should
not be underestimated. Such information enables museums to understand how to improve visitor
experiences in museums, as well as the subsequent impact of those experiences, in a multiplicity
of dimensions. These dimensions may include the enjoyment visitors’ feel, the kind of things
they learn or the degree to which they develop understandings or appreciations of the messages
museums communicate. Understanding how these dimensions of impact sustain, emerge, change
and diminish over time provides value information about how to improve museums experiences
for visitors. The nature and quality of learning and enjoyment derived from a museum visit may
shift significantly over time and the true impact from the museum visit may not actually occur
during the visit, but afterwards, through subsequent experiences. If these experiences were
caused or motivated by a museum visit, the true learning outcomes would only be fairly assessed
if that follow-up by the museum visitor is taken into account. The long-term impact of museums
should not only be considered at the level of the visitor but also at the level of the communities
museums serve. Thus, understanding the long-term impact of museum enables a better
understanding of how to serve and enrich communities, of which museums are a part.

This chapter will explore what is already known about museums and their long-term impact on
visitors, the complexities and challenges inherent in trying to study and understand long-term
impacts, and future research and methodological approaches which we can use to effectively
assess the long-term impacts of museum experiences.

The concept of impact

Museums are visited for a multitude of reasons: for leisure and enjoyment, to spend quality time
with family/children/friends, to experience something unusual, to take part in a culturally
enriching activity, to “learn new things,” and many more reasons, most of which can be

1
summarized under “self-fulfillment”1. Consequently, the impacts of museum visits, be they long-
or short term, reflect the visitors’ agenda and span a broad range of experiences, from a life-
altering experience to feeling slightly amused for a limited period of time. In addition, museums
and similar out-of-school learning environments are used extensively for a variety of purposes by
teachers who bring their students on field trips (Anderson, Kisiel & Storksdieck, 2006; Griffin,
2004) and there is increasing pressure to demonstrate the short- and long-term benefits of these
experiences.

Research in the visitor studies field has often focused on “learning” as an important outcome of a
museum visit. “Learning” has very often been conceptualized as a cognitive process of
reaffirming what is known, activating latent knowledge, or creating new knowledge at various
levels of complexity. In addition, knowledge can be gained at different levels of complexity,
from the simple awareness of things to declarative knowledge to highly complex conceptual
understanding. Most museum scholars would contend that learning in and from a museum
involves visitors who construct their own meaning and understanding; meaning and
understanding that varies greatly depending upon the background, experience and knowledge a
visitor brings to the experience, the visitor’s social group, and the socio-cultural and physical
context of the institution itself (e.g., Falk & Dierking, 2000; Hein, 1998). In this perspective,
learning is best conceptualized from the visitors’ perspective and if measured as long-term
impact, needs to be based on and tied to the visitors’ overall museum experiences. When
learning from and in museums is broadly defined, and based on the visitors’ agendas, the subject
of learning quickly expands well beyond the museum exhibits and programs, to include, among
others, learning about museums as places for lifelong leaning, or as places to learn about oneself
and the people that accompany the visitor. Additionally, much of the research on impact and
learning has considered the individual (visitor) as the unit of analysis, yet, changes that result
from museum experiences can be examined on different (larger) scales. For example, several
studies have investigated the impact of museum experiences on family groups (Borun, Chambers
& Cleghorn, 1996; Briseno, 2005; Ellenbogen, 2002), or even an entire community (Falk,
Storksdieck & Dierking, in press; Jones & Stein, 2004).

1
c.f. Ballantyne & Packer, 2005; Borun, Chambers & Cleghorn, 1996; Dierking, Luke, Foat & Adelman, 2000;
Doering & Pekarik, 1996; Falk, 2006; Hood, 1983; Moussouri, 1997; Paris & Mercer, 2002; Pekarik, Doering &
Karns, 1999; Prentice, Davies & Beeho, 1997; Rounds, 2004.

2
Aside from “learning”, other outcomes that are relevant to museum visits are increased interest
in a topic or subject, and subsequent higher motivation to learn about it, with resulting increase
in attentiveness and exposure to subsequent reinforcing experiences. Given this complex set of
potential museum visit outcomes, long-term impacts have to be conceptualized from the visitors’
as well as from the museums’ perspective and need to be understood as broadly as the roles
museums play in today’s lifelong learning societies.

What we already know

There are but a handful of studies that have investigated long-term impact arising from
experience in museum and museum-like settings, and most consider the longitudinal impact only
over relatively short time frames – weeks and months after the visitor experience (cf. Anderson,
1999; Anderson, Lucas, Ginns & Dierking, 2000; Adelman, Falk & James, 2000; Storksdieck &
Falk, 2003; Storksdieck, Ellenbogen & Heimlich, 2005; Storksdieck, 2006). These studies
generally find that cognitive and affective changes that can be measured directly after a visit tend
not to be sustained even over a period of a few months unless the museum experience itself is
followed up by subsequent reinforcing experiences or assumes a personal relevance in the
biography of the visitor. Still, most learning indicators, while declining from the immediate post
visit measurement to one conducted weeks or months later, tend to remain higher than prior to
the visit. In addition, there are several studies that shed light on the impact of visitors’ memories
of experience in such leisure time settings (Anderson, 2003; Anderson & Piscitelli, 2002;
Anderson, Piscitelli, Weier, Everett & Tayler, 2002; Anderson & Shimizu, 2006; Bogner, 1998;
Dettmann-Easler & Pease, 1999; Ellenbogen, Kessler & Gillmartin, 2003; Falk & Dierking,
1990, 1992, 1997; Fivush, 1983; Hudson, 1983; McManus, 1993; Medved & Oatley, 2000;
Medved, Cupchik & Oatley, 2004; Stevenson, 1991; Wolins, Jensen and Ulzheimer, 1992).
The various studies described above, and some others, indicate important aspects of long-term
impacts from museum visits. These were summarized recently by a group of museum
professionals as part of the In Principle, In Practice Conference (Anderson, et al., 2006). The
following presents an expanded list of this summary:
• Museums and other free-choice learning institutions are clearly capable of fostering
memorable and even transformative experiences (e.g., Falk & Dierking, 1997; Spock,
2000a, 2000b). These experiences determine the value assigned by visitors to their visit
and, in the aggregate, determine the value of museums for the communities they serve.

3
• Factors such as prior knowledge and interest, visitor agenda, the socio-cultural identity of
the visitor, or prior experiences affect how visitors engage with the museum environment,
learn from the museum visit, and encode memory (e.g., Anderson, 2003; Ellenbogen,
2002; Falk, 2006.)
• Various aspects of the museum environment, including the quality of exhibits and the
opportunity to make personal connections play a strong role in attracting and engaging
visitors and making the memory more salient, memorable, inspiring, and personally
satisfying for visitors (e.g., Falk & Storksdieck, 2005; McManus, 1993; Stevenson,
1991). What visitors remember after more than a year is mostly contextual (Falk &
Dierking, 1997). Apparently, visitors forget the details of the content, but remember
almost everything else unless details were tied to their biographies or personal agendas
for the visit.
• Memories of visits to museums, like all memories, are not stable - they change over time.
Long-term memories from a museum experience are not only shaped by the nature of the
visit itself, but also by the visitor’s subsequent memories and experiences (e.g.,
Anderson, 1999; Adelman, Falk & James, 2000; Bielick & Karns, 1998; Ellenbogen,
2002; 2003; Falk, Scott, Dierking, Rennie, & Cohen Jones, 2004; Medved, 1998).
• Memory is influenced by visitors’ satisfaction, interest, and motivation, much as these
factors are shaped by visit memories themselves. Affect and memory seem to feed each
other (e.g., Anderson, 2003; Falk & Dierking, 1997; Spock, 2000b; Medved & Oatley,
2000).
• People have varying abilities to recall and reflect on experiences. While museum visitors
may report on what is important to them at the time, they may expand on their
recollections and reflections much later (e.g., Ellenbogen, 2003; Falk, et al., 2004;
McManus, 1993; Spock, in press).
• Salient aspects of an experience often remain latent until a later time (e.g., Falk, 1988;
McManus, 1993; Wolins, et al., 1992).
• There is evidence to suggest that identity is a key factor in how museum experiences are
processed, encoded into memory, and recalled (e.g., Anderson, 2003; Ellenbogen, 2002;
2003; Falk, 2006; Medved, Cupchik and Oatley, 2004).
• Attitude is generally not influenced by brief museum visits and museum like experiences
(Storksdieck, 2006). Even if short-term attitude measures indicate change, without

4
 subsequent reinforcing experiences and follow-up engagement, attitude scores tend to fall
back to baseline (Adelman, Falk & James, 2000; Ellenbogen, Kessler & Gillmartin,
2003). However, attitude change can be sustained if the original experience lasted for at
least a day, if not longer (Bogner, 1998; Dettmann-Easler & Pease, 1999).
• Long-term learning from museums may depend on the measure used and prior
knowledge and interest of visitors (Falk & Storksdieck, 2003; Storksdieck & Falk, 2006).
For some visitors, true learning might start only after the visit, while other may satisfy
their quest for knowledge during the visit. Long-term learning seems to depend on initial
learning, the type of learner, and the type of learning itself: Shallow versus deep,
conceptual versus declarative and long-term learning, at least for some visitors, might be
connected to the ability to “digest” memories (McManus, 1993).
• Episodic memory is the explicit memory of certain events, such as the time, place, or
emotions associated with the events (which affect how we memorize the event). Episodic
memory is linked to semantic memory, the memory of facts and concepts. It seems that
visitors create episodic memories with ease, recalling what they did and how they felt
during a museum visit (Stevenson, 1991); semantic memories, on the other hand, needed
subsequent reinforcing experiences or a strong personal connection to the topic or content
to manifest themselves (Stevenson, 1991; Storksdieck & Falk, 2006; Falk, 2006). What
people remember easily seems to depend to a large degree on the initial agenda of and
enacted identity during their visit: Family-oriented visitors remember more strongly who
they were with while visitors with an interest in the objects may better remember the
specific event (Falk & Dierking, 1990).
• Sharing experiences with others through conversations (Stevenson, 1991) or by
expressing emotions of the visits such as enjoyment, curiosity, frustration, and anger
(Medved & Oatley, 2000) helps shape and enforce memories and therefore the subjective
impact of a museum visit. Visitors tend to rehearse memories of their museum
experiences when they discuss and relive their visits with others. Visits that spurn
conversations are thus more likely to create sustained memories.
• Affective school field trip memories have a strong influence on future visitation
(Anderson & Piscitelli, 2002; Falk & Dierking, 1990). Positive memories of museum
school field trip visits are linked to mild novelty and unusual experiences (Hudson, 1983;
Wolins, Jensen & Ulzheimer, 1992), connections to a child’s socio-cultural and personal

5
 life (Anderson et al, 2003), and even classroom connections (Gilbert & Priest, 1997;
Jensen, 1994; Wolins et al., 1992), an indication that embeddedness and connectedness –
whether into the personal or some other sphere – is most important for children.
• Very long-term memories sustained over years or decades seem to focus on the social
context of a visit (Anderson, 2003; Falk & Dierking, 1990). The socio-cultural identity of
a visitor seems largely to determine what visitors perceive during an experience, and
what they ultimately recall afterwards (Anderson, 2003). Overall, four factors seem
important in shaping vivid long-term episodic and autobiographical memories of visitor
experiences, namely, rehearsal of the memories, emotional affect associated with the
source experience, the degree to which visitor had intentionalized their plans to do or see
something, and the degree to which their planned agendas were fulfillment or frustrated
(Anderson & Shimizu, 2006).

Assessing and interpreting long-term impact

As the discussion of long-term impact studies illustrated, researchers have employed a
variety of methodological approaches to assess and interpret long-term impact of museum
experiences. Common to most studies of impact was the use of salient memories which were
either recorded through face-to-face or telephone interviews. While some researchers used
prompts like souvenirs as symbolic representations of meaning and impact, or photographs of the
museum, many employed sequenced questionnaires to trigger memories. Fewer researchers
measured long-term impacts psychometrically, either as “learning” or as attitude, interest and
behaviour change. While measuring the long-term outcomes of museum experiences certainly
poses methodological challenges, there is no broad agreement in the field as to the most
important, comprehensive, appropriate or acceptable outcome measures that should be used and
that – ultimately – would guide the use of methods and methodologies (Dierking, et al., 2002).As
it is with all social science research, the research questions (or objectives) dictated the research
design of the study and the methods (tools) employed (Gay & Aireasian, 2006).

6
The challenges and issues surrounding assessment and interpreting long-term
impact

The challenges in assessing the impact of visitors’ experiences from museums are numerous.
The challenges are also a function of the complex nature of human experience, the tremendous
variability in museum experience visitor experience, and also inherent to the chosen research
methodologies employed to gain understanding of the impact. The question remains: How can
we assess the rich, complex and highly personal nature of museum experiences, and specifically
learning from and in museums in valid and reliable ways? Dierking et al. (2002) concluded that
the honest response to this question is “with great difficulty!” There are a plethora of factors
which are threats to our understanding of impact, some which are obvious and other perhaps not
so obvious. Some important limitations and realizations to consider in the understanding of
long-term impact are discussed as follows.

1) The museum experience reconstructs with subsequent life experience

As described above, museum experiences are reconstructed with subsequent life experience
following the visit. It is important to realise that impact from any experience over time is not
static and that memories change: they can fade into oblivion, they can be rehearsed and thus
sustained, or they can be redirected and changed (Falk, et al., 2004). The impact of a museum
experience can develop further, change or diminish as a function of subsequent life experience.
Both aspects, the dynamic memory and the change in the degree of impact over time, present an
interesting dilemma – what aspects of impact can and should be attributed to the immediate
experience, and when is the ideal time to measure impact? Visitors construct subsequent to a
visit are a result of the museum experience and what are attributable to the subsequent life
experiences? This dilemma is compounded by the fact that subsequent reinforcing experiences
can count as museum visit outcomes, as follow-up experiences, increased interest and
attentiveness, or information seeking behavior (Storksdieck, 2006). It is equally true that certain
kinds of subsequent life experiences will enhance the impact of museum visits (Storksdieck &
Falk, 2003) - but to generalize about impact is complex given the vast diversity of life experience
that visitors encounter following their visits, and moreover, the set of subsequent life experiences
that will be meaningful to the visitors and result in connections back to the museum experience.
Thus, probing impact is never only a measure of the source experience alone, but rather a

7
function of the impact of the source experience dynamically constructed and reconstructed with
many other prior and subsequent life experiences since that experience (Falk & Dierking, 2000;
2002).

2) Visitor reality vs. objective reality

It is well established that memories of personally relevant experiences construct and reconstruct
longitudinally, and what visitors report may not be an entirely accurate account of how the
experience that produced the memories actually occurred (Bruner, 1994; Freeman, 1993; Neisser
& Fivush, 1994). However, it is important to realize that self-reported long-term memory ought
to be considered the visitors’ current reality of the recalled events, which may or may not be
entirely representative of the original reality (Anderson & Shimizu, 2006; Schacter, 2001).
Recent trends in memory research focusing on memory failure or distortion, such as false
memory (e.g. Schacter, 2001), further justify the need to investigate visitors’ long-term
memories of experience at events like museums.

3) Visitors’ abilities to reflect on experience vary

Visitors’ varying abilities to articulate their experiences poses a challenge in assessing long-term
impact. Some visitors are highly reflective, while others, such as children, may not be able to
reflect their experiences, or may have difficulties verbalizing or expressing them. Thus, great
care must be taken to ensure that the research methods that record memories or self-reported
long-term impact do not create undue bias and that they are sensitive to the nature of the visitor.
Large quantitative studies may avoid some of the biases by averaging effects over a sizable
sample. However, qualitative studies with small sample sizes need to critically assess
respondents’ reflective abilities.

4) Who are visitors when they enter the museum experience?

The notion that new knowledge (as one measure of impact) develops out of prior knowledge
(past experience) is a fundamental tenet of constructivist theory, and has been demonstrated in
both formal and informal learning environments (e.g., Anderson, 1999; Falk & Storksdieck,
2005). Applied to the broader range of outcomes for museum visits, visitors’ prior interests,
values, attitudes, knowledge, and motivations need to be factored into the museum visit

8
outcomes – all key factors that may influence how visitors derive meaning and enjoyment in a
museum setting. Yet, it is almost impossible to measure in any acceptable timeframe validly and
reliably all the various psychographic factors that could influence the museum visit outcome,
though first attempts are being made to develop short, closed-ended instruments that capture
many of these factors (see Heimlich, et al., 2005).

5) Instantaneous measures only tell part of the story of impact

It is important to realize that the impact of visitors’ experiences throughout and at the conclusion
of a museum visit are not static, but rather that visitors continue to construct and reconstruct their
assessment and their memories as those get intertwined with subsequent experience in the days,
weeks, months, even years following the visit (Falk et al. 2004, 2006). What visitors value, and
are hence able to articulate at a given instant, is contextual, and time is an important contextual
variable. Thus, instantaneous measures of impact tell part of the impact story, but not the whole
story. On the other hand, any time period studied later will also only tell part of an evolving
story. This makes it impossible to declare an ideal timeframe for conducting longitudinal impact
studies. [However, for the sake of comparability, it would be desirable if the research and
evaluation community were to recommend particular time periods after the visit as sample
periods for measuring long-term impact.]

Assessing the impact of museum experiences should ideally include multiple “snapshots” of the
impact over time – from initial experience to point(s) in time proceeding from the experience.
Capturing longitudinal data is in itself challenging given the problems associated with contacting
visitors after their visits and the resulting mortality (the loss of research participants in a study)
that can be associated with certain kinds of long-term assessments. Post-hoc design studies such
as Anderson (2003) are a useful way around these challenges given cavities visitor reality vs.
objective reality discussed earlier.

6) Assessment interventions have an impact themselves

The very act of probing visitors about their experiences has the potential to change their
experiences and the overall impact of these experiences (Palys, 1997). This is an age-old
problem in the social sciences – if one wishes to truly understand the impact of a museum
experience on visitors, one cannot entirely discount the impact of the assessment procedures

9
which visitors participate in on their overall museum experiences. The fact that we ask opinions
or get visitors to reflect on their experiences actually changes their experiences in ways that
would have ordinarily not occurred if we had not asked them. Typically, evaluators attempt to
make the assessment interventions as naturalistic as possible. If the assessment methods have
the characteristics of being casual, non-compulsory, engaging, rewarding and not overly taxing
for the visitor, then one might rightly argue that the experience was a natural harmonious part of
the museum experience. Some even argue that visitors, ultimately, follow their own agenda, and
since interactions with museum evaluators are not part of these agendas, they ought to have no to
very limited impact on the museum experience.

7) Issues of validity and reliability – Probes and interpretations

Face-to-face assessment methods, such as interviews, can be complicated by a plethora of factors
which can influence visitors’ responses about the impact of their experiences. Reactivity as
social desirability or simple pleasing of the interviewer creates a need to interpret positive data
carefully and to insert mechanisms that minimize reactivity in general. Perceived power
inequality between interviewer and visitor can also impact visitor responses. For example,
young visitors may not feel entirely at ease in expressing their opinions to interviewers who are
mostly older than them. It stands to reason that if visitor have needs or desires that do not include
participation in assessments and evaluations, the usefulness and reliability of data about their
experience will be compromised. While a variety of methods and procedures exist to minimize
reactivity (listed in any good textbook on social science or education research), even experienced
data collectors with well designed and validated instruments will need to assess reactivity in the
data analysis and interpretation phase of their research.

8) Sensitivity of tools
The sensitivity of assessment tools and probes are critical for the quality of data that are
generated, particularly in longitudinal studies. As previously discussed, there is a wide range of
tools (instruments and protocols), methods (procedures), and methodologies (designs of research
and evaluation studies) for gaining understandings of impact of visitors’ museum experiences.
Sensitivity of tools, methods, and methodologies refers to the degree to which one can gain
information, appreciate, discern, and hence understand the impact of the experience on the visit.
Certain types of questions aimed at probing impact are more revealing than others. For example,

10
asking did you enjoy your visit to the gallery; yes/no? certainly provides information, but the
leading nature of the question and the limited choices, and thus the overall lack of sensitivity will
severely limit the validity of the results. Asking questions such as what was it about your visit to
the gallery that you enjoyed most/least?, provides a deeper level of sensitivity, and hence more
appreciation about the nature of the impact, and asking enjoyment on a rating scale or semantic
differential provides the choices that allow visitors to more appropriately express their
perspectives.

The challenges we discuss here are but some of many that confront researchers who are
concerned with understanding long-term impact. The challenges are not insurmountable, but it is
necessary to acknowledge and address them in the development of research studies and research
approaches that address long-term impact. Ultimately, all good research designs (both
qualitative and quantitative, short-term or long-term) aim to minimise the threats to validity and
reliability– flagging these issues serves as a useful reminder to guide the development of
methodologically sound studies.

Future Research and Methodological Approaches

Finding valid and reliable ways to assess the impact of museum experiences beyond the
actual visit is a challenge: There are few studies that have investigated long-term impact of
museum or other leisure experiences and hence the literature on the topic is thin; the
methodological difficulties and potential threats to validity and reliability are real; and the
community of interest at this time is relatively small. Despite these challenges, we feel that
increasing our understanding of the impact of museum experiences and of museums themselves
over longer time frames would add significant value and are thus worth the effort.

Invitational gatherings
We see that task as a collaborative one that draws together researchers, practitioners, and others
in order to
• reasonably agree with broadly encompassing working definitions of “impact” as applied
to a long-term assessment horizon [see section on concept of impact],
• build a list of interesting, researchable questions to tackle from the current body of
literature,

11
 • assess further the methodological barriers [see section on challenges and issues], target
issues that might be more readily overcome and yield useful results,
• brainstorm and discuss methodological strategies that might be developed, or adopted
from other settings, to overcome those barriers [see section on assessment and
interpretation], and
• circulate an agenda to the field that might stimulate further research and methodological
innovation in this area.

Following are some of the definitions, range of interests, time frames, influences, methodological
challenges, theoretical frameworks that the invitational gatherings might work on.

Broader definitions
A broad, multi-dimensional definition of impact may help counter the inherent tradeoffs in
setting goals and attempting to assess the impact of museum experiences. Whether consciously
acknowledged or not, exhibitors, programmers, and researchers roughly make choices between
1) documenting clearly defined outcomes immediately or soon after the visitors’ experiences,
and on the other hand 2) documenting sustained or persistent, and sometimes evolving open or
non-defined outcomes in several weeks or months after an experience, or even much later in the
visitors’ lives. Each of these contrasting approaches are suited to different needs. For example,
near- or short-term assessment make utilitarian sense for both down-and-dirty formative and
more carefully constructed summative evaluations. On the other hand, intermediate- or long-term
assessments are better suited to questions of how memorable the experience and how profound
the learning was, and how it was embedded into the visitors’ biography. How we address these
two approaches (or even mix them in our evaluation and research studies) have implications for
our choices of learning and research goals and strategies, and even for the scope of the
underlying ambitions of our programs and organizations.

Shared definitions enable better understanding within a community of practice. In order to

communicate and agree on goals and research strategies, we needs to address definitional
questions such as: What are the functional meanings of “long-term impact” (categories?) vs.
“long-term outcomes” (individuals?)? Are “long-term impact,” “long-term memories”, “long-
term learning” and “long-term meaning-making” functionally equivalent, and if not, how are

12
they different? Would it be useful to adopt an expanded three-level nomenclature of “near-term
assessments” (during visit), “intermediate-term assessments” (weeks or months later), and “long-
term assessments” (years later)?

Larger units of Analysis

Is there utility in expanding the unit of analysis beyond individuals, to include families, school
classes, and communities? Assessing impact on these larger units of analysis, collected at some
distance from the museum experience, is complicated, but can add important information and
alleviate some of the data bias that occurs through selective remembrance. Based as they are
primarily on discrete memories of individuals, how can these individualized and dispersed
recollections be aggregated for meaningful analysis (other than, of course, by interviewing
groups)? Some interesting conclusions have been drawn from reports of widely shared iconic
memories (i.e. visits to world fairs), but other research strategies may have to be developed to
make sense of the long-term impact of the plain vanilla group museum visit. For example, does
the typical school group visit share enough common and memorable elements that interesting
questions of long-range impact can be studied? Do the recollections of family vacation trips to
historic sites and national parks hold promise for useful analysis? Do visits to museums plant
enough common, long-term memories that can be analyzed to get a handle on the broader impact
of museums in the community beyond evidence of individual outcomes?

Longer timeframes
Studies that utilized near-term assessments (timeframes of several weeks or months), for
practical reasons, make up the majority of the slender body of long-term impact research. Most
of the information that can be recovered weeks or months after the event is different from the
memories of experiences that are so vivid, and transformative that they can be recalled in
substantial detail years after the event. Longer time frames are likely to act as powerful filters,
leaving in memory the most important aspects of an experience in ways that add value to the
field by uncovering significant positive or negative remembered experiences that may yield other
and possibly profound evidences of the impact of museums.

13
Methodological clarity
If we aspire to study and make sense of memories as a way of confirming the impact of museum
experiences over longer periods of time we will need to develop and become comfortable with a
wider arsenal of longitudinal research tools. For example, it will be much more difficult to
collect and compare memories of the visit months or years after the actual visit for. Particularly
intriguing are the possibilities of exploring the years-later, open-ended interviews, recorded
narratives, and written essays that compare those memories to verifiable archival material
(photographs, catalogs, drawings, planning documents, press coverage) that might establishes
how closely the objective evidence paralleled those memories, and particularly how the
substance of what was learned was reflected in the goals of the original exhibit or program
developer. Future studies ought to provide stronger rational for the choice of research design and
methods, and ought to link to the breadth of existing studies to allow for better compatibility of
findings.

Influence of memory and subsequent reinforcing experiences on immediate experiences

Distant memories and their influence on immediate experience, and the role of subsequent
reinforcing experiences on affective and cognitive learning need to be better integrated in
biographical approaches to museum assessment. There are intriguing reports that memories of
earlier museum experiences, sometimes long buried, when triggered by later events, jell or are
reorganized and given new or deeper meanings in the recovery process. These “a-ha’s!” (when
latent knowledge is finally embedded into a conceptual framework through one additional
learning experience) mark new learning based on very strong but not fully realized impressions.,
and are often the most powerful “learning experiences” of visitors. They are also an important
aspect of free-choice learning. Among the avenues for assessing long-term impacts of museum
experiences these may be the most productive directions for further study. Examples of these
delayed insights were offered more than a few times when museum professionals were asked to
tell stories of “significant, memorable, pivotal museum learning experiences” they observed or
participated in. (Museum visits are not isolated events, and researchers ought to distinguish
between three very different effects of museum visits: museum experiences can reinforce prior
experiences, they can provide new experiences, and they may spark new experiences. All three
aspects are intertwined as individuals meander through their own biographies.

14
Theoretical frameworks
Many early studies that examined learning and long-term impact have been conducted a-
theoretically, that is, without a grounded linkage to the theories of learning, psychology, or
memories. Nowadays, there are many sound theoretical platforms backed by hundreds of studies
upon which the outcomes of long-term impact studies can be interpreted. For example,
constructivist learning theories (of which there are various kinds) permit interpretation of
learning both in informal and formal contexts (c.f. Anderson, Lucas & Ginns, 2003); schema
theories of memory can be employed to understand how visitors recall events and how they
‘encode’ memories; and recent research about links between affect and long-term memory can
help in determining factors that manifest memories in visitors (Anderson & Shimizu, 2006).
Finally, the Integrated Experience Model (Storksdieck, 2006) and the Contextual Model of
Learning (Falk & Dierking, 2000) provide frameworks that specifically embedded museum visit
into previous experiences and follow-up and subsequent reinforcing experiences.

Conclusions and Implications

The investigation of the long-term impact of museum experiences is a wide, largely
under-researched field in which there is ample opportunity and scope for new investigations to
contribute significantly to the understanding of visitor experience. Long-term impact studies
may not only provide the field with a more complete understanding of the benefits visitors derive
from museum experiences, they may also help the museum field better understand the true value
of museums for the communities they serve. What is currently needed is a broad, comprehensive
longitudinal impact study that follows visitors of diverse museum types (science, art, history,
identity, etc) over a long period of time, using a variety of measures to document impact; a study
akin to similar ones conducted in the medical field. Thus deepening our understanding of the
long-term meaning of museum experiences could have huge implications for the museum and
leisure study field in general. This understanding could help museum professionals in developing
institutional mission and goals, designing exhibitions and programming, and assessing visitor
experience and learning.

There are a range of implications for museum practice, evaluation, and research, some of which
we briefly summarize as a starting point for future conversations:

15
a) Implications for practice
• Align missions and goals with biographical perspectives of visitors
Museum visits are part of a large free-choice and leisure infrastructure, and visitors may
not perceive them as unique and individual events in their lives. Museums ought to
acknowledge their role within this broad tapestry of experiences.
• Design with past and future experiences in mind
Linking to previous experiences and providing opportunities for follow-up are already
part of good museum practice.
• Create partnerships to link museum visit to other experiences
Linkages are best achieved when cultural institutions cooperate. Competition is healthy,
but museums ought to reach out to other institutions who operate within their
“educational” or “experience” infrastructure to enrich their visitors lives and to provide
more opportunities for subsequent reinforcing experiences and follow-up.
• Encourage repeat visits
Part of any subsequent reinforcing experiences and follow-up are return visits. Those my
be more likely if visitors are being provided with individualized experiences that fit into
their biographies.
• Provide opportunities to remember
Visitors will remember, and museums ought to strategize what it is that they want their
visitors to most remember, then encourage visitors to experience those. Naturally, key
memorable experiences will differ for different visitor types, and will range from object
memories to social memories.
• Be aware that visitors remember the visit selectively
One strong incentive for “managing” visitor memories is the fact that visitors might
otherwise recall the unexpected: something negative that stood out from the expected.
Hence, museums need to avoid negative associations at all cost. They will otherwise
color visitors’ perspectives; or – as suggested above – balance them with easily
obtainable positive memories.

16
b) Implications for evaluation
• Include long-term in logic model
This should happen as a matter of principle. Only of long-term goals are part of the
design phase for visitor experiences will they become default aspects of evaluation.
• Define outcomes over time
Currently outcomes tend to be defined as if they occurred or become evident at one
moment. It would be helpful to distribute outcomes along a timeline that acknowledges
more openly the difference between immediate, intermediate and long-term outcomes of
museum visits.
• Ensure realistic timelines for including longitudinal component s in evaluation and link
those to a theoretical framework
Most projects do not allow for longitudinal research because evaluation studies need to
be completed shortly after programs or exhibitions are made available to the target
groups. The funding community ought to decouple project funding from evaluation
funding to allow for independent timelines.
• Use multiple methods and ensure that methods don’t create a bias
No matter what the timeframe of an evaluation, laser-like studies on predefined outcomes
will always benefit from additional open-ended questions, and opened-ended research
will often benefit from using comparable indicators.

c) Implication for research

• More research is needed to link memory and impact, and we need a refined model of
learning and memory over time that is applicable to free-choice settings.
• We need to assign meaning to certain timeframes and create consensus in the research
community on what these timeframes represent. What does it mean when we ask visitors
three months, a year, or 30 years after a museum experience? What questions are best
asked within what timeframe? Is there an “optimal” time delay for sampling “long-term”
experiences?
• We need to include more biographical research to make stronger links between prior
experiences, museum visits, and subsequent experiences.

17
 • We need to expand the research methods currently in use to include ethnographic studies
of communities around museums, or conduct more quantitative, multi-institutional
studies of long-term learning over specified time frames.
• We need to better understand the links between short-term and long-term impacts.

References
Adelman, L.M., Falk, J.H., & James, S. (2000). Assessing the National Aquarium in Baltimore’s
impact on visitor’s conservation knowledge, attitudes and behaviors. Curator, 43(1), 33-
62.
Anderson, D. (1999). The development of science concepts emergent from science museum and
post-visit activity experiences: Students' construction of knowledge. Unpublished
Doctorial Dissertation. Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.
Anderson, D. (2003). Visitor’s long-term memories of World Expositions. Curator, 46(4), 400-
420.
Anderson, D., Kisel, J. & Storksdieck, M. (2006). Understanding teachers’ perspectives on field
trips: Discovering common ground in three countries. Curator, 49(3), 365-386.
Anderson, D., Lucas, K.B., Ginns, I.S. & Dierking, L.D. (2000). Development of knowledge
about electricity and magnetism during a visit to a science museum and related post-visit
activities. Science Education, 84(5), 658-679.
Anderson, D., Lucas, K.B., & Ginns, I.S. (2003). Theoretical perspectives on learning in an
informal setting. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(2), 177-199.
Anderson, D., Piscitelli, B., Weier, K., Everett, M. & Tayler, C. (2002). Children’s museum
experiences: Identifying powerful mediators of learning, Curator, 45(3), 213-231.
Anderson, D. & Piscitelli, B., (2002). Parental recollections of childhood museum visits.
Museum National, 10(4): 26-27.
Anderson, D & Shimizu, H. (2006). Factors shaping vividness of memory episodes: Visitor’s
long-term memories of 1970 Japan World Exposition. Technical Report: University of
British Columbia. Grant #L06-0029.
Anderson, D., Bibas, D., Brickhouse, N., Brown, J., Dierking, L., Ellenbogen, K., Falk, J., Klotz,
S., Rounds, J. Semmel, M., Serrell, B., Spock, M, & Stein, J. (2006). Long-Term Impacts.
In Stein, J., Dierking, L, Falk, J., & Ellenbogen, K. (Eds). Insights: A Museum Learning
Resource. Annapolis, MD: Institute for Learning Innovation.
Http://www.ilinet.org/ipip/In_Principle_In_Practice_Insights -
Museum_Learning_Resource.pdf
Ansbacher, T. (2002). What are We Learning? Outcomes of the Museum Experience”. Informal
Learning Review 53, March-April, 2002.
Ballantyne, R. & Packer, J. (2005). Promoting environmentally sustainable attitudes and
behaviour through free-choice learning experiences: what is the state of the game?
Environmental Education Research, 11(3), 281-296.
Bielick, S. & Karns, D. (1998). Still thinking about thinking: A 1997 telephone follow-up study of
visitors to the Think Tank exhibition at the National Zoological Park. Washington, DC:
Smithsonian Institution, Institutional Studies Office.

18
Bogner, F. X. (1998). The influence of short-term outdoor ecology education on long-term
variables of environmental perspectives. The Journal of Environmental Education, 29(4),
17-29.
Borun, M.; Chambers, M., & Cleghorn, A. (1996). Families are learning in science museums.
Curator, 39(2), 124-138.
Briseno, A., (2005). Adult learning experiences from an aquarium visit: the on-site and
longitudinal role of personal agendas and social interactions in family groups.
Unpublished Master of Education Thesis. University of British Columbia, Canada.
Bruner, J.S. (1994). The “remembered” self. In U Neisser (Ed.), The remembering self:
Construction and accuracy in self-narratives (pp. 41-54). New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Dettmann-Easler, D., and Pease, J. L. (1999). Evaluating the effectiveness of residential
environmental education programs in fostering positive attitudes toward wildlife. The
Journal of Environmental Education, 31(1), 33-39.
Dierking, L.D. & Falk, J.H. (2003). Optimizing out-of-school time: The role of free-choice
learning. New Directions for Youth Development. 97: 75-89.
Dierking, L.D. Luke, J., Foat, K. & Adelman, L. (2000). Families and free-choice learning.
Museum News, 80(6), 38-43, 67.
Dierking, L.D.; Cohen Jones, M.; Wadman, M.; Falk, J.H.; Storksdieck, M. & Ellenbogen, K.
(2002): Broadening our notions of the impact of free-choice learning experiences. Informal
Learning Review 55, July-August 2002, pp.1, 4-7.
Doering, Z.D. & Pekarik, A.J. (1996). Questioning the entrance narrative. Journal of Museum
Education, 21(3), 20-22.
Ellenbogen, K.M. (2002). Museums in family life: an ethnographic case study. In G. Leinhardt,
K. Crowley & K. Knutson (Eds.), Learning conversations in museums. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Pp 81-101.
Ellenbogen, K.M. (2003). From dioramas to the dinner table: An ethnographic case study of the
role of science museums in family life. Dissertation Abstracts International, 64(03), 846A.
(University Microfilms No. AAT30-85758).
Ellenbogen, K., Kessler, C. & Gillmartin, J. (2003). Biodiversity 911: Saving life on earth, A
World Wildlife Fund travelling exhibition. Summative Evaluation Report. Annapolis, MD:
Institute for Learning Innovation.
Falk, J. H. (2006). The impact of visit motivation on learning: Using identity as a construct to
understand the visitor experience. Curator, 49(2), 151-166.
Falk, J.H. (1988) Museum Recollections. In: Bitgood, S. et al. (Eds.). Proceedings of First
Annual Visitor Studies Meeting (pp. 60-65). Jacksonville, AL: Jacksonville State University.
Falk, J.H. & Dierking, L.D. (1990). The relation between visitation frequency and long-term
recollection. In S. Bitgood, A. Benefield, & D. Patterson (Eds.), Visitor studies: Theory,
research and practice. Proceedings of 1990 Annual Visitor Studies Conference,
Jacksonville, AL: Center for Social Design.
Falk, J.H. & Dierking, L.D. (1992). The museum experience. Washington, DC: Whalesback
Books.
Falk, J.H. & Dierking, L.D. (2000). Learning from museums. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
Falk, J.H. & Dierking, L.D. (2002) Lessons without limit: How free-choice learning is
transforming education. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
Falk, J.H. & Storksdieck, M. (2005). Using the Contextual Model of Learning to understand
visitor learning from a science center exhibition. Science Education 89: 744-778.

19
Falk, J.H. & Storksdieck, M. & Dierking, L.D. (2006, in press). An investigation into the nature
of public science understanding. Public Understanding of Science 15.
Falk, J.H., & L.D. Dierking, L.D. (1997). School field trips: Assessing their long-term impact.
Curator, 40(3), 211-218.
Falk, J.H., Dierking, L.D., Rennie, L.J., Scott, C. & Cohen Jones, M. (2006). Investigating the
long-term impact of interactives on visitor learning: An exploratory study. Proceedings of
the 2006 National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST) Conference,
San Francisco, CA.
Falk, J.H., Scott, C., Dierking, L.D., Rennie, L.J. & Cohen Jones, M. (2004). Interactives and
visitor learning. Curator, 47(2), 171-198.
Fivush, R. (1983). Children’s long-term memory for a novel event: An exploratory study.
Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 30(3), 303-316.
Freeman, M. (1993). Rewriting the self: History, memory, narrative. London: Routledge.
Gay L. R. & Airasian, P. (2006). Educational Research: Competencies for analysis and
applications, 8th edition. Upper Saddle River; NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Gilbert, J., & Priest, M. (1997). Models and discourse: A primary school science class visit to a
museum. Science Education, 81(6), 749-762.
Griffin, J. (2004). Research on students and museums: Looking more closely at the students in
school groups. Science Education, 88(S1), S59-70.
Heimlich, J., Bronnenkant, K., Barlage, J. and Falk, J.H. (2005). Measuring the learning
outcomes of adult visitors to zoos and aquariums: Phase I study. Unpublished technical
report. Bethesda, MD: American Association of Zoos and Aquariums.
Hein, G. E. (1998). Learning in the museum. London: Routledge.
Hood, M. (1983). Staying away: Why people choose not to visit museums. Museum News, 61(4)
50-57.
Hudson, J.W. (1983). Scripts, episodes and autobiographical memories. In K. Nelson (Chair),
Memory and the real world. Symposium conducted at the meetings of the Society for
Research in Child Development, Detroit, MI.
Jensen, N. (1994). Children’s perceptions of their museum experiences: A contextual
perspective. Children’s Environments, 11, 300-324.
Jones, D. & Stein, J.K. (2005). The Flandrau Science Center front-end evaluation. Unpublished
technical report. Annapolis, MD: Institute for Learning Innovation.
McManus, P.M. (1993). Memories as indicators of the impact of museum visits. Museum
Management and Curatorship, 12, 367-380.
Medved, M.I. (1998). Remembering exhibits at museums of art, science and sport. Unpublished
doctoral thesis. University of Toronto.
Medvel, M., & Oatley, K. (2000). Memories and scientific literacy: Remembering exhibits from
a science centre. International Journal of Science Education. 22(10), 1117-1132.
Medvel, M., Cupchik, G. & Oatley, K., (2004). Interpretive memories of artworks. Memory,
12(1), 119-128.
Merriman, N. (1991). Beyond the glass case. Leicester, UK: Leicester University Press.
Moussouri, T., (1997). Family agendas and family learning in hands-on museums. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of Leicester, Leicester, England.
Neisser, U. & Fivush, R. (1994). The remembering self: Construction and accuracy in self-
narratives. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Palys, T. (1997). Research decisions: Quantitative and qualitative perspectives. 2nd ed. Toronto:
Harcourt Canada.

20
 Paris, S.G. & Mercer, M. (2002). Finding self in objects: Identity exploration in museums. In
Leinhardt, G., Crowley, K. & Knutson, K. (Eds.). Learning conversations in museums, pp.
401-423. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum & Associates.
Pekarik, A.J., Doering, Z.D., and Karns, D.A. (1999). Exploring satisfying experiences in
museums. Curator, 42(2), 152-173.
Prentice, R., Davies, A., and Beeho, A. (1997). Seeking generic motivations for visiting and not
visiting museums and like cultural attractions. Museum Management and Curatorship, 6,
45-70.
Rounds, J. (2004). Strategies for the curiosity-driven museum visitor. Curator, 47(4), 389-412.
Schacter, D. L. (2001). The seven sins of memory: How the mind forgets and remembers. New
York: Houghton Mifflin.
Spock, M. (in press). Tradeoffs between near- & long-term assessments of learning outcomes.
Submitted to The Journal of Interpretive Research.
Spock, M. (1999). The stories we tell about meaning making. Exhibitionist, 18(2) 30-34
Spock, M. (2000a). When I grow up I want to work in a place like this. Curator, 41(1), 19-30.
Spock, M. (2000b). A study guide to Philadelphia stories: A collection of pivotal museum
memories. Washington, D.C.: American Association of Museums.
Stevenson, J. (1991). The long-term impact of interactive exhibits. International Journal of
Science Education, 13(5): 521-531.
Storksdieck, M. & Falk, J.H. (2003). After 18 Months: What determines self-perceived and
measured long-term impact of a visit to a science exhibition? Paper presented at Visitor
Studies Conference, Columbus, OH, July 15 - 19, 2003.
Storksdieck, M. (2006, in press). Field trips in environmental education. Berlin, Germany:
Berliner Wissenschafts-Verlag.
Storksdieck, M.; Falk, J. H. & Witgert, N. (2006). Why they came and how they benefited:
Results of 52 in-depth interviews conducted 18 months after a science center visit. NARST
2006 Annual Meeting, San Francisco, CA, April 3-6, 2006.
Storksdieck, M., Ellenbogen, K. & Heimlich, J.E. (2005). Changing Minds? Factors that
influence free-choice learning about environmental conservation. Environmental
Education Research, 11(3), 353-369.
Wolins, I.S., Jensen, N., and Ulzheimer, R. (1992). Children’s memories of museum field trips:
A qualitative study. Journal of Museum Education, 17(2), 17-27.

21

View publication stats