Photographs provide valuable descriptive data when used as a research tool. Studies in informal settings have used photographs taken by researchers and visitors to (a) document physical behavior and movement within the setting; (b) learn more about the setting visit and what was learned or remembered from the visit; (c) determine visitor satisfaction, interest, and exhibition impact; and (d) determine exhibition preferences of diverse groups. This article reviews how photographs have been used in informal settings, describes a study at the Florida Museum of Natural History in Gainesville that used photographs to examine student attention in exhibitions, and discusses the advantages of utilizing Visitor Employed Photography (VEP) as a research tool.
American Association of Museums. (1992). Excellence and equity: Education and the public dimension of museums.A report from the American Association of Museums. Washington, DC: American Association of Museums.
2.
American Association of Museums Standing Professional Committee on Education. (1990, January/February). Standards: A hallmark in the evolution of museum education.Museum News, 78–80.
3.
AndersonJ. R., GreenoJ. G., RederL. M., & SimonH.A. (2000). Perspectives on learning, thinking, and activity.Educational Researcher, 29 (4), 11–13.
4.
AndersonP., & RoeB. C. (1993). The museum impact and evaluation study: Roles of affect in the museum visit and ways of assessing them, Vol. 2: Composite research report.Chicago: Museum of Science and Industry.
5.
BereiterC. (1994). Constructivism, socioculturalism, and Popper's World 3.Educational Researcher, 23 (7), 21–23.
6.
BitgoodS., SerrellB., & ThompsonD. (1994). The impact of informal education on visitors to museums. In CraneV. (Ed.), Informal science learning: What the research says about television, science museums, and community-based projects (pp. 61–106). Dedham, MA: Research Communications Ltd.
7.
BogdanR. C., & BiklenS. K. (1982). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods.Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.
8.
BraaksmaJ. P. (1992). Time stamping: A method for keeping track of your visitors. In BenefieldA., BitgoodS., & ShettelH. (Eds.), Visitor studies: Theory, research, and practice, Vol. 4 (pp. 208–229). Jacksonville, AL: Center for Social Design.
9.
CheremG. J., & DriverB. L. (1983). Visitor Employed Photography: A technique to measure common perceptions of natural environments.Journal of Leisure Research, 15 (1), 65–83.
10.
CraneV. (1988). Challenges in audience research for informal learning. In DrugerM. (Ed.), Science for the fun of it: A guide to informal science education (pp. 32–36). Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association.
11.
DamicoS. B. (1985). The two worlds of school: Differences in the photographs of black and white adolescents.The Urban Review, 17 (3), 210–222.
12.
FalkJ. H. (1999). Museums as institutions for personal learning.America's Museums in Daedalus, Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 128 (3), 259–275.
13.
FalkJ. H., & DierkingL. D. (1992). The museum experience.Washington, DC: Whalesback Books.
14.
FalkJ. H., & DierkingL. D. (1995). Introduction. In FalkJ. H., & DierkingL. D. (Eds.), Public institutions for personal learning: Establishing a research agenda (pp. 9–14). Washington, DC: American Association of Museums, Technical Information Service.
15.
FalkJ. H., & DierkingL. D. (2000). Learning from museums: Visitor experiences and the making of meaning.Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
16.
FivushR., HudsonJ., & NelsonK. (1984). Children's long-term memory for a novel event: An exploratory study.Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 30 (3), 303–316.
17.
GilmanB. I. (1916, January–June). Museum fatigue.The Scientific Monthly, II, 62–74.
18.
GreenoJ. (1998). The situativity of knowing, learning, and research.American Psychologist, 53 (1), 5–26.
19.
HammittW. E. (1978). A visual preference approach to measuring interpretive effectiveness.Journal of Interpretation, 3, 33–37.
20.
HerrmannD., & PludeD. (1995). Museum memory. In FalkJ. H., & DierkingL. D. (Eds.), Public institutions for personal learning: Establishing a research agenda (pp. 53–66). Washington, DC: American Association of Museums, Technical Information Service.
21.
HoodM. G. (1986). Getting started in audience research.Museum News, 64 (3), 24–31.
22.
JacobsonS. K., AranaJ. J., & McDuffM. D. (1997). Environmental interpretation for a diverse public: Nature center planning for minority populations.Journal of Interpretation Research, 2 (1), 27–46.
23.
KellyL. (1997). Indigenous issues in evaluation and visitor research.Visitor Behavior, 12(3/4), 24–25.
24.
KingJ., & MarshallK. (1977). Process notes on a field study of a museum visitor. In DraperL. (Ed.), The visitor and the museum (pp. 27–30). Washington, DC: American Association of Museums, Education Committee.
25.
KleinH.J. (1993). Tracking visitor circulation in museum settings.Environment and Behavior, 25 (6), 782–800.
26.
KoranJ. J.Jr., & KoranM. L. (1986). A proposed framework for exploring museum education.Journal of Museum Education: Roundtable Reports, 11 (1), 12–16.
27.
KoranJ. J.Jr., & ShaferL. D. (1982). Learning science in informal settings outside the classroom. In RoweM. B. (Ed.), Education in the 80's: Science (pp. 52–62). Washington, DC: National Education Association.
28.
KoranM. L., PulidoP., & HargisJ. E. (1999, May). Situated cognition: Implications for museum studies. Paper presented at the Association of Youth Museums Annual Conference, New York.
29.
LakotaR. A. (1975). The National Museum of Natural History as a behavioral environment: Part I, An environmental analysis of behavioral performance.Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution, Office of Museum Programs.
30.
MeltonA. W. (1935). Problems of installation in museums of art.New Series, No. 14. Washington, DC: American Association of Museums.
31.
NielsenL. C. (1946). A technique for studying the behavior of museum visitors.The Journal of Educational Psychology, 37 (2), 103–110.
32.
OgbuJ. U. (1995). The influence of culture on learning and behavior. In FalkJ. H., & DierkingL. D. (Eds.), Public institutions for personal learning: Establishing a research agenda (pp. 79–95). Washington, DC: American Association of Museums, Technical Information Service.
33.
PankowskiK. (1991). Interpreting the unfamiliar: Object-based front-end evaluation. In BitgoodS., BenefieldA., & PattersonD. (Eds.), Visitor studies: Theory, research, and practice, Vol. 3 (pp. 214–220). Jacksonville, AL: Center for Social Design.
34.
PhillipsD. C. (1995). The good, the bad, and the ugly: The many faces of constructivism.Educational Researcher, 24 (7), 5–12.
35.
Pitman–GellesB. (1985). Museums and schools: A meaningful partnership. In FantiniM. D., & SinclairR. L. (Eds.), Education in school and nonschool settings: Eighty-fourth yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part I (pp. 114–139). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
36.
RosenfeldS., & TerkelA. (1982). A naturalistic study of visitors at an interactive mini-zoo.Curator, 25 (3), 187–212.
37.
SchulhofR. (1990). Visitor response to a native plant habitat exhibit.Visitor Behavior, 5 (4), 11–12.
38.
StaiseyN., & NeedhamH. (1993). Evaluating the Children's Museum of the Canadian Museum of Civilization. In ThompsonD., BitgoodS., BenefieldA., ShettelH., & WilliamsR. (Eds.), Visitor studies: Theory, research, and practice, Vol. 6 (pp. 149–162). Jacksonville, AL: Visitor Studies Association.
39.
StevensonJ. (1991). The long-term impact of interactive exhibits.International Journal of Science Education, 13 (5), 521–531.
40.
TaylorJ. G., SextonN. R., & CzarnowskiK.J. (1995, Winter). Visitor Employed Photography at Rocky Mountain National Park: A valuation technique.Park Science, 10–12.
41.
ThompsonD. (1992). Educational background and perception of exhibits.Visitor Behavior, 7 (3), 4–6.
42.
WolfR. L., & TymitzB. L. (1978). Whatever happened to the giant wombat: An investigation of the impact of the Ice Age Mammals and Emergence of Man exhibit, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution.Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.
43.
WurtakG., & BremnerL. K. (1992). Taking it to the streets: A Manitoban process for gallery development. In BenefieldA., BitgoodS., & ShettelH. (Eds.), Visitor studies: Theory, research, and practice, Vol.4 (pp. 84–91). Jacksonville, AL: Center for Social Design.
