Trips: voyages of confirmation rather than discovery

My mum is a primary school teacher and, as a child, this made me incredibly lucky. I spent every holiday visiting museums, galleries and other important exhibits across Britain. I didn’t especially look forward to soggy sandwiches and passing round a single plastic cup of own brand cola while we all sat on a bench in our cagoules. Nonetheless, I have fond memories of these trips. As an adult, I’ve continued this tradition, dragging anyone who shows even the slightest interest to museums of any size and almost any topic on "Miss Sayers' Magical Mystery History Tour". As an adult, I also feel that I come away from museums with much more than I did as a child (though I, of course, still buy the obligatory pencil).

After having a brief look at promotional material for many of these museums and historical sites, the purpose of them appears to be clear: children should go to museums to “put their detective skills to the test”, to “discover lost time periods” or to be “explorers”. These sites are presented as the perfect opportunity for pupils to explore subjects at their own pace and in their own way, avoiding the restrictions of the classroom and ensuring meaningful learning.

As appealing as this advertising is, I would argue that it is ultimately misleading. I have fond memories of my time in museums as a child, but I also remember thinking that objects or exhibits were “pretty” or “cool” without much further thought; Apparently I've visited Alnwick Castle, though I remember it as "the place with the cannon". At museums, I found my dad’s excitement over different objects odd and, at times, even embarrassing.

Now I proudly embody my father. I drag whoever’s with me over to different display cases to tell them about Native American coup sticks or the significance of the Winchester repeating rifle. However, this is not information that I have discovered on site, but rather information I already have which I can use to understand what is in the museum. My childlike glee derives from my ability to apply what I already know and, if I’m honest, to show off a bit.

In Daniel Willingham’s excellent “Why don’t students like school?”, he speaks about the danger of putting “hooks” at the beginning of lessons; pupils will remember the hook and not much else. Willingham advocates teaching content and then showing children the “hook”, allowing them to apply their knowledge rather than getting them to work backwards. Educational trips and visits appear to be the ultimate application of this theory.

The time I have spent on Edu-Twitter over the last academic year has shown me that I am apparently a “neo-trad” when it comes to education: I believe in the importance of knowledge, building every child’s “cultural capital” and I love a well-written knowledge organiser. I am also a firm advocate of educational trips and visits. However, if children are to get true benefit and satisfaction from these trips, they must have strong contextual knowledge to support them before they go. Rather than being voyages of discovery, trips should be viewed as opportunities for pupils to apply and confirm what they already know in a real world setting, allowing them to meaningfully build on their existing (and substantial) subject knowledge. Without such knowledge, a trip may well be a fun day out and a fond memory, but may lack significant academic merit.