Rethinking Visitor Experience

Visitor experience—a term so prevalent it’s almost a cliché in heritage and museum circles—deserves a deeper dive. Over the years, I’ve asked myself and others, “What does visitor experience actually mean?” The most common response: “It’s about creating something that moves people.” While emotionally resonant, such definitions are often frustratingly vague, leaving those of us working in interpretation and exhibition planning grappling with how to transform this concept into actionable strategies.

Reflecting on my own journey, both as a heritage planner and an avid museum visitor, I believe we can bring clarity to this elusive concept. Let’s explore its origins, its place in contemporary discourse, and how we might approach it with a fresh perspective rooted in meaning-making.

Where It All Began: Shifting Paradigms in Museums

The late 20th century witnessed a pivotal shift in the museum world. Gone were the days when museums existed solely to transfer historical or cultural knowledge to passive visitors. Instead, the focus turned toward active engagement, enabling visitors to derive personal meaning from their experiences. Scholars like Rounds (1999) and Hennes (2010) emphasized the role of museums as platforms where individual backgrounds, beliefs, and needs intersect with curated content.

Visitor experience, then, has two key components: the “essence,” created in the visitor’s mind, and the “offering,” meticulously planned and presented by curators and designers. The magic happens at the intersection of these elements, where personal and social contexts meet physical design—a concept explored in Falk and Dierking’s (2000) contextual model of museum learning.

As I’ve navigated various projects, one question persists: How do we design exhibitions that not only inform but also resonate, sparking meaningful connections?

Lessons from Learning Theories: Designing for Meaning-Making

To answer this, I’ve often turned to John Dewey (1938) and David Kolb (1984). Dewey’s concept of experiential learning highlights exploration as the natural path to understanding. Whether it’s a child discovering textures through touch or a teenager pondering abstract ideas, learning thrives when it’s rooted in experience.

Kolb’s model expands on this by identifying four stages of learning—concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualization, and active experimentation. Each stage aligns with specific learning styles:

• Active-Concrete: Learning through doing and feeling.

• Active-Abstract: Thinking and engaging in dialogue.

• Reflective-Concrete: Observing and connecting emotionally.

• Reflective-Abstract: Contemplating and listening.

By adapting Kolb’s model to museum settings, I’ve found it invaluable in designing interpretive tools that cater to diverse visitor preferences.

A Framework for Visitor Engagement

Consider the axes of Kolb’s model: processing (active vs. reflective) and perception (concrete vs. abstract). These dimensions help us map interpretive tools into four quadrants:

1. Tangible-Reflective: Videos that evoke emotion while allowing quiet contemplation.

2. Tangible-Active: Hands-on exhibits that engage visitors physically and intellectually.

3. Abstract-Active: Discussion forums or live demonstrations sparking abstract thought through action.

4. Abstract-Reflective: Text panels or audio guides that encourage introspective analysis.

Take videos, for example. They’re highly tangible, vividly telling stories. But they’re inherently reflective—perfect for evoking emotions but limited in fostering dialogue. Conversely, interactive exhibits captivate through active, tangible engagement but may lack depth for critical thinking. The challenge lies in offering a balanced mix that addresses varied learning styles.

Bridging Theory and Practice

Drawing on my experiences designing exhibitions, I’ve seen how Kolb’s framework can also address age-specific preferences. Children often gravitate toward active-concrete experiences, such as interactive displays. Teenagers, with their growing capacity for abstract thinking, thrive in environments that blend action with intellectual stimulation. Adults, meanwhile, frequently favor reflective encounters, whether concrete or abstract.

This model isn’t a rigid formula but a guide. One that evolves with ongoing research and visitor feedback. By observing and engaging with diverse audiences, we can refine our offerings, ensuring they resonate across cultural and generational divides.

A Call to Action: Redefining Visitor Experience Together

As heritage professionals, we have the privilege and responsibility to create spaces that inspire, challenge, and connect. The next time you plan an exhibition or interpretive program, consider this: Are we designing for a single, generic “visitor”? Or are we embracing the diversity of experiences and perspectives that make our work truly impactful?

I invite you to join this conversation. Let’s share insights, experiment with new approaches, and, above all, keep the visitor at the heart of what we do. Together, we can ensure that “visitor experience” is more than a buzzword—it’s a meaningful journey for everyone who steps through our doors.

Interpretation tools in Kolb’s model

References

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Collier Books.

Falk, J.H., & Dierking, L.D. (2000). Learning from museums: visitor experience and the making of meaning. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.

Hennes, T. (2010). Exhibitions: From a perspective of encounter. Curator: The Museum Journal, 53(1), 21-33.

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development (Vol. 1). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Rounds, J. (1999, Fall). Meaning-making: A new paradigm for museum exhibits? Exhibitionist, 5-8.