並列摘要
Museums offer a non-academic environment for learning and study, and the great majority of museum visitors are there on their own initiative. In other words, visitors are free to view exhibits and information as they please and to skip anything they feel may not interest them. This means they may often misunderstand or even completely overlook the explanations and information that accompany the exhibits. This is in stark contrast to what happens in the class setting. The former director of the Exploratorium in San Francisco, Frank Oppenheimer, noted in a 1981 interview that the summative evaluation model used in schools is not suitable for museums. In addition, many museums emphasize that they do not have the human or financial resources to carry out such systematic evaluations (Danilov, 1982). On the one hand, educational institutions are not equipped to work with museums in evaluation work because they do not fully understand the working models for museums; on the other had, museums have neither the manpower nor the budgets to carry out evaluation work on their own. These two factors mean that museums have been extremely slow in implementing evaluations of their operations. 1. Types of evaluations Danilov (1982) uses two main types of evaluation in his research of museums: visitor research and experiment evaluation. Visitor research is also called visitor surveys, a common tool for gathering descriptive data in museums. This may be classified as visitor profiles and visitor feedback. Graf (1994) brings together his experience with museums in Germany to identify three types of evaluations: surveys of visitor numbers, visitor surveys and visitor behavior research. Experimental evaluation is a much more formal and scientific approach than visitor research. Screven (1976) follows the classification introduced in Screven (1967) with two types of evaluation, formative evaluation and summative evaluation; these are also used in evaluating the displays in a museum. Belcher (1991) mentions yet another type of evaluation, which he terms concept research or front-end evaluation. This calls for an examination of the ideas behind an exhibition before it goes on official exhibits, largely to eliminate any minor errors that may be present. In 1990 Screven reformulated his classifications with four types, adding what he called remedial evaluation. Although the method is basically the same as summative evaluation, it is carried out only after an exhibition has concluded and there for has different aims from summative evaluation. Remedial evaluation is intended to improve the effectiveness of exhibitions while summative evaluation addresses the overall effort to determine whether the exhibition was successful or not. 2. Techniques used in evaluation work Danilov (1982) notes that the most widely-used tool, whether in visitor research or experimental evaluation, is the survey questionnaire. Other methods include observations, pressure-sensitive mats and interactive devices. Belcher (1991) and Hem (1998) make similar comments, noting that these types of tools produce rather scientific data and figures that can be used for research and analysis. (1) Questionnaires This is the most frequently-used tool in visitor surveys. Questions can provide personal data on visitors, check levels of satisfaction with exhibits or events or service in the museum. At least three kinds of questionnaires are used in experimental evaluations: success tests, open questionnaires and comprehensive tests. (2) Interviews Interview may be carried out face-to-face or over the telephone. Their main advantage is that they give the research a chance to ask further questions any time an unusual or unexpected answer is given. This means that only qualified survey personnel should be used to conduct interviews, and this approach generally takes much more time than other methods. (Danilov, 1982). (3) Observation Tracking and timing are the two most common techniques in evaluative research. These involve observing how visitors move around within exhibition rooms and how they interact with what is on exhibition. One important part of this method is timing the visitors to see how long they linger in front of a particular exhibit. (4) Pressure-sensitive mats Visitors tend to act unnaturally if they know that they are being observed, thus museums have adopted the use of mats with concealed pressure sensors that can record the frequency and length of passing visitors' stays in an area. This is recorded automatically to save expenses and facilitate analysis. (5) Interactive devices Interactive devices are a key part of participatory exhibitions and were first introduce by C.G. Screven. Screven placed an electronic typewriter next to a exhibit to record visitors' answers to a list of questions and to analyze how much they had picked up from viewing the exhibition. 3. Evaluative approaches Evaluative approaches include the methods, concepts and models used to gather data. Looking at the approaches identified by Wolf and Tymits (1979), Belcher (1991), Harper-Greenhill (1994), Kelman (1995) and Hem (1998), we find that these five works all come up with two distinct categories. The first category is the formal approach, which includes objective and quantitative evaluation as well as a more strenuous evaluative method which Kelman calls the objectives model. This type of research can only be used to survey and analyze items which are observable, measurable and quantifiable, and cannot be used to gain information on feelings, attitudes and other intangibles. Other authors have listed informal, naturalistic, qualitative and other less rigid methods of evaluations which are gaining wider attention in the academic world, as well as the naturalistic model and the responsive model. The naturalistic model is more concerned about how something is described and not about analysis per se. It seeks understanding rather than explanation and emphasized physical descriptions by visitors. For example, visitors’ statements are directly recorded rather than lumped into pre-determined categories. The naturalistic method of evaluation tends to be flexible and adaptable. It does not follow a prepared research plan but is rather developed and revised by the researcher based on interaction with the subject. 4. Objects of evaluation Analysis of available literature shows three main types of subjects for evaluation: the general public, family groups and students. (1) The general public Most routine evaluation work is carried out on the general population of visitors excluding families and students. This involves generally simple enquiries such as personal data and some more complex questions regarding various types of learning behavior. 1. Visitor characteristics Museums are naturally interested in knowing who comes to their facilities and why, as well as who tends not to come; thus they occasionally carry out surveys to determine such information. Falk (1998) breaks down the questions in such surveys into four categories: demographic; psychographic; personal and cultural history; and environmental. Some academics go a step further with questions directed at particular age groups or by sex. 2. Evaluating learning Education is one of the most important functions of the contemporary museum. People always wonder what they can learn by visiting a certain museum. And what can be learned in a museum can be measured and evaluated just as in a school. Donald (1991) offers five criteria that can be used to evaluate learning in a museum: time, knowledge gain, resolving decisions and problems, motivation and creativity/stimulation of knowledge. (2) Family visitors Families have always been an important segment of the visitor population for museums. Thus there is a wealth of literature on research of family visitors. Dierking and Falk (1994) show that such research falls into two areas. The first takes the average family’s actions as the focus for its model. Surveys center on their interaction with exhibits; how they allocate their time; and how they develop their agenda. The second concentrates on how family members learn in the museum environment, with some studies focusing on interaction between family visitors while they are visiting the museum. (3) Students Educators are paying closer attention these days to research on students who supplement their classwork by learning in non-school environments. Museums, zoos, aquariums and other similar institutions provide excellent opportunities for young students to learn, and these places consider students the primary aim of their educational activities. Looking back at evaluative research on students who visit museums outside of class time, we see that the most common topics of discussion are the degree of familiarity with the learning environment as well as the relationship between learning and their actions during museum visits. Stronck (1983) has also done extensive research on students who frequent museums. Much of his work seeks to find differences in how students learn under a museum guide in comparison with how they learn when led by one of their own teachers. Another topic of interest is how much is retained by the youngest students when they visit a museum. Some answers to this question can be found in Falk and Dierking (1997). 5. Concluding and discussion points The findings above can be summarized in several points as follows. (1) The relationship between museum evaluations and visitor surveys Museum evaluations are carried out with specific subjects in mind in order to determine the results and value of certain duties and functions of the museum. The results of these evaluations often the basis for developing later strategies for the museum. Literature on the topic shows that in the past such evaluations covered exhibits and educational activities for the most part. These evaluations also included some research on museum visitors. Whatever the aim may be, however, museum evaluations all take visitors as the subjects for their surveys and experiments. Even if it is the effectiveness of displays that is being evaluated, questionnaires are widely used to gather visitors opinions, along with some observations of behavior gained by training visitors through exhibitions. This it should be proper to classify museum evaluations as visitor research. Generally speaking, visitor research serves as a base for museum evaluations, but museum evaluations are not strictly limited to visitor research alone. (2) Methods used in museum evaluation Museums and schools have different approaches, thus the evaluations methods used in schools do not always translate to studies of museums. Literature on the subject shows that museum education evaluations both in Taiwan and other areas may borrow from and adapt from evaluations used in school programs to develop categories, approaches and techniques for museum evaluation. These are still lacking in overall methodology, however, since evaluation strategies and methods are a critical part of evaluation results. In other words, museums have no choice but to develop their own methods for evaluations. (3) Museum evaluation results and applications Unfortunately a review of the literature yields few examples of applying the results of museum evaluations to strategy and planning. It is not hard to find cases in which the results were tidied up and used to help analyze the next step in strategy or to obtain the results of the research; they represent little value in fully developing the potential of the museum. Strategy, execution and evaluation are all vitals parts in the cycle of museum operations and development. The process requires constant evaluation and revision until all the need for education have been met or until certain goals have been achieved. Thus it is essential to have full planning, execution and discussion of museum evaluations. Otherwise museums will not be able to deal with the complex and competitive society around us and develop their own potential to the fullest.