Free-Choice Family Learning: A Literature Review for the National Park Service

Grand Valley State University Learning in national parks often occurs in the context of family groups. Understanding the motivations, needs, and outcomes of family groups is critical to engaging a substantial portion of the National Park Service (NPS) audience. This literature review was prompted by an NPS initiative to improve lifelong learning. It explores research about the nature of family learning, factors that influence it, and recommendations for enhancing it. This review uses Falk and Dierking's (2000) Contextual Model of Learning as a framework for understanding personal, sociocultural, and physical factors that contribute to family learning outcomes in free-choice settings. Recommendations for improving family learning include: tapping into the motivations of family visits, helping families converse to construct meaning, and creating physical spaces for visitors of many ages to interact. The NPS can enhance visitors’ connections to parks if park programs, exhibits, and interpretive media are effectively and deliberately designed to engage families. National parks and similar sites need to thoughtfully design education programs and exhibits to engage learners of all ages in meaningful, relevant, and memorable ways.

. According to the Park Service's own reviews, summaries of NPS evaluations are not easily accessible beyond the particular units of origin, and any use of these studies outside of the units is not known. (NEC, 2006b) The NPS Education Advisory Board's Life-long Learning subcommittee was asked to provide guidance about enhancing learning opportunities in parks. It was from this broader scope that the subcommittee narrowed its approach to focus on using research literature to inform family free-choice learning experiences in the parks. A few peerreviewed articles on learning in national park were found (e.g., Benton, 2008;Novey & Hall, 2007), but none directly addressed family learning. For example, Benton (2008) explored connections between indoor and outdoor exhibits and how visitors constructed meaning from a museum visit at the Grand Canyon while Novey and Hall (2007) studied the effectiveness of audio tours on visitor knowledge and behavior at Carlsbad Caverns National Park.
A parallel body of analogous literature that examines family learning in free-choice settings was used to fill the research gap, as "much of the existing informal education literature is considered to be applicable to park environments" (Brody & Tomkiewicz, 2002, p. 1122. Gross and Zimmerman (2002) directly linked parks and museum settings as comparable venues due to their common audiences, methods of communication, and roles in protecting culturally valuable items. The free-choice learning research field is not explicitly connected to research in the interpretation field. Therefore this paper serves to bridge the gap between the fields and communicate some relevant findings that will contribute to more successful interpretive practices.
Free-choice family learning research has often taken place in the context of science museums. While science is an important component of many national park experiences, it is not the central focus in many parks. Thus, pertinent findings were included from research conducted in science museum settings and also findings from natural history, children's museums, and history museums in order to better match the diversity of NPS units. Dierking and Falk (1994) recognized that much of the free-choice learning research involved middle class Caucasian families and that more research on underrepresented populations and their use of free-choice settings was needed to ensure generalizability. A search for literature on underrepresented families' use of free-choice settings yielded only a few articles (e.g., Gaskins, 2008;Honey, Augare, & Sachatello-Sawyer, 2010;Melber, 2006;Stein, Garibay, & Wilson, 2008). These studies explored cultural differences in museum behavior and strategies that worked to connect community members to one another in their learning. They also looked at ways to engage Latino families in a museum-based science literacy program and questions museums should consider when working with immigrant audiences. Nearly two decades after Dierking and Falk (1994) noted the lack of research, literature on the dynamics underrepresented visitors in family groups still remains scarce.
The NPS has prioritized reaching a more diverse audience in A Call to Action (2012) and through other initiatives. One of these initiatives was a literature review on underserved audiences published in 2011. While Parks and Under-served Audiences: An Annotated Literature Review (Pease, 2011) is a comprehensive work, it is not readily available through traditional searches. Within this work, insight into under-served families' use of parks was limited, so relevant recommendations have been included in this paper.
Four previous literature reviews on family learning in free-choice settings provided background, context, and common themes (Adams, Luke, & Ancelet, 2010;Borun, Cleghorn, & Garfield, 1995;Dierking & Falk, 1994;Ellenbogen, Luke, & Dierking, 2004). This paper builds on those previous reviews by synthesizing the most recent peer-reviewed articles on the topic, including 26 articles published after 2007 or not included in related literature reviews as well as relevant information from edited books, non-peer-reviewed articles and reports. Of the sources used, 82% came from peer-reviewed journals or essays from edited books. The remaining 18% included relevant non-peer reviewed articles and reports. The latter provided relevant foundations, findings, and recommendations. Government and educational organization reports (e.g., NPS, 2012;Forist, 2003) provided demographic information and insight regarding education in the NPS.
Rather than having two authors as the only readers and reviewers of the literature, an innovative approach to "crowd-sourcing" reviews of the literature was used. NPS employees and partners were invited to participate in the review by reading, summarizing, and responding to the 26 core articles that were chosen with the help of two experts in the field of free-choice learning. The NPS employees' responses, which summarized key concepts and highlighted relevant NPS connections, helped to shape this literature review. They also will contribute to a separate paper that identifies connections between the research literature and NPS practices.

Free-Choice Family Learning Research
Our understanding of family learning has expanded in the last 30 years as more research has been conducted. In the mid-1990s, Borun and her colleagues embarked upon an extensive research project on family learning in museums. The Family Learning Project was conducted in the four museums of the Philadelphia-Camden Informal Science Education Collaborative (PISEC) and aimed to use research to enhance family learning by improving exhibit design (Borun et al., 1998). PISEC researchers decided to find out whether families that appeared to be learning were actually doing so. Cognitive tests were deemed insufficient since they do not take into account the nuances of family learning. Instead learning was measured qualitatively through interviews. Families in the study did learn from exhibits and there was a relationship between learning levels (depth of learning) and observable behaviors. They also concluded that individual learning is enhanced by input from other family members (Borun, Chambers, & Cleghorn, 1996).
Using prior research and the results of their interviews, PISEC researchers created a list of seven characteristics of family-friendly exhibits to incorporate into their museums and test further. According to Borun and Dritsas (1997, p.180)  Subsequent research using these characteristics to enhance exhibits demonstrated that they did increase active family learning (Borun, Chambers, Dritsas, & Johnson, 1997). These seven characteristics are still being implemented in museums (Borun, 2008). A decade after PISEC, Ellenbogen and colleagues (2004) examined literature on family learning in and from museums and related settings written between the mid-1990s and 2004. They noticed three trends. First, converging theoretical perspectives led to shared understandings of what constituted family learning. Second, more rigorous and standardized methodologies were emerging. Finally, they noted that researchers were increasingly regarding families as learning institutions in their own right (Ellenbogen et al., 2004). These three elements revealed that an increasingly cohesive body of research was developing.
In the 1980s, family learning research was based on behaviorist learning models that assumed visitors would learn the right material if they were provided with a well-designed exhibit (Falk, 2007). This perspective was institution-centered and did not take into account the visitor's background. These behaviorist ideas persist today but most researchers now agree that a complex suite of factors contribute to free-choice learning (Falk, 2007). Current research is primarily influenced by sociocultural and constructivist theories that advocate a holistic view of learning (Ellenbogen et al., 2004;Falk, 2007;Phipps, 2010). These theories require researchers to examine "the ways in which the family group is situated within the larger social and cultural context" (Ellenbogen et al., 2004, p. S50).
Using a new approach to looking at families as learning institutions, Ellenbogen et al. (2004) found that families use free-choice settings as tools or resources to build family identity, and Dierking (2010) highlighted the importance of putting the family at the center of the researcher's focus.
The very first learning group a person belongs to is her family and this group is so important that anthropologists, sociologists, and social psychologists refer to the family as an educational institution, similar to a museum or school but without the bricks and mortar. (para. 1) Family members visiting free-choice settings bring with them identity-related motivations (e.g., the reasons why they chose to visit or what is driving them at a personal level to learn about or do something), expectations, and visit plans. These plans are negotiated among family group members before and during the visit on both a personal level and collectively as a family unit (Moussouri, 2003). In addition, families use shared, memorable experiences to create a common history and narrative. Family learning builds on this history; first-hand experiences in free-choice settings can meaningfully serve as building blocks upon which family members can construct further learning.

The Contextual Model of Learning
Models have been created to illustrate the multiple contexts that influence free-choice learning. Falk and Dierking developed an initial framework of contexts that visitors experience before, during, and after their visits to free-choice settings. Their Contextual Model of Learning illustrated how personal, sociocultural, and physical contexts overlap and influence visitor learning through time (Falk & Dierking, 2000). This model has evolved with further research, to include 12 more specific factors that influence learning within the three contexts summarized in Table 1. Falk and Storksdieck (2005) explained that "the relative importance of any one of these factors may vary between particular visitors and venues" (p. 747).
Portions of this model will be used in the following sections to examine recent literature on family learning in museums. It is important to keep in mind that even though the factors within each context may be examined separately, they are inseparable and the interaction of the factors is unique for each family and to a certain extent, for each family member.
The Personal Context. The importance of visitors' prior knowledge and experiences has been emphasized in the free-choice learning literature (e.g., Briseño-Garzón, Anderson, & Anderson, 2007b;Falk & Dierking, 2000;Moussouri, 2003). Family members often share similar beliefs and prior leisure experiences. Briseño-Garzón and colleagues' (2007b) study revealed that "participants' interests and what they looked forward to obtaining from the aquarium experience were shaped by particular and personally relevant prior events and knowledge" (p. 87). These events can form a common foundation upon which family learning develops. Moussouri (2003) found that adult subjects in her study had child-centered motivations. However, Briseño-Garzón et al.'s (2007b) work found adults visiting in family groups had more complex motivations and that "overall, the adults of the participating families entered the venue with a three-fold recreation-learning-social motivated agenda" (p. 81). Briseño- Garzón et al. (2007b) and Falk, Moussouri, and Coulson (1998) believe visitors see a connection between fun and learning throughout their free-choice experiences. While this may be true for many visitors, there are some who arrive at a freechoice setting with the goal of learning about a subject that is important to them. In other words, the reason for their visit involves a particular learning outcome. Other visitors find out during their experience that learning is fun (Packer, 2006). While formal education tends to emphasize the learning end of the learning-fun continuum, free-choice learning may have more freedom to offer experiences on the fun end of that continuum. Packer and Ballantyne (2004) argued, "Education and entertainment are not only compatible, but synergistic, in the context of educational leisure settings" (p. 54).
Understanding visitors' prior experiences could help practitioners to better meet visitor needs. For example, parents who do not have prior experience in free-choice settings may not feel comfortable leading their family through the visit. Melber (2006) interviewed Latina mothers at two California natural history exhibit halls. The mothers who had never visited a local museum discussed "a fear of not being welcome, not knowing the answers to questions their children may ask, and not feeling that they were knowledgeable enough to appreciate the museum as a learning environment" (p. 37). This research points to underrepresented visitors' need for museums to do more to support parents of any background who are unfamiliar with free-choice learning environments. Overall, more research is needed to discover how the prior knowledge, interests, and beliefs of underrepresented families may be influencing their visitation patterns.
An emerging area of research has centered on the concept of a museum-goer "identity." Falk and colleagues (2008) described five museum-goer identity categories. Identities are a combination of a person's motivations, expectations, needs, interests, and desired roles for a particular visit. This concept of a museum-goer identity is one Falk and his colleagues began using to better understand and simplify complex visitor agendas (e.g., Falk, 2009;Falk, Heimlich, & Bronnenkant, 2008;Falk & Storksdieck, 2010). Falk et al. (2008) grouped adult visitors' descriptions of themselves, their experiences, expectations, and reasons for visiting into five categories: (a) Explorers, (b) Facilitators, (c) Professional Hobbyists, (d) Experience Seekers, and (e) Spiritual Pilgrims/Rechargers. They found that visitors may enter a museum with one or more of these identities and identities may change between visits and venues (Falk, 2009). Falk concluded, through extensive interviews and studies, that knowing adult identities can generate basic, predictable clues for how the visit will generally progress. Ultimately, visitor identities within the personal context, along with the sociocultural, and physical contexts of the visit strongly influence a visitor's choices during his or her visit.
The adults that Falk et al. (2008) interviewed were all members of visiting family groups that included children, allowing researchers to gather information about how identities influence family group dynamics. Although many visitors may "display continuous concern" for their children, Falk (2009) also found that in many family groups, adult behaviors are not centered on their children's experience. It is clear from this study that adult identities do influence family group dynamics. Briseño-Garzón et al. (2007a) were surprised to find that the parents they interviewed did not consider their experience at the aquarium to have been a personal learning experience. These results were surprising for a few reasons. First, some adults had mentioned in pre-visit interviews that they were at the aquarium to learn. Second, adults were observed to exhibit learning behaviors during their visit. Finally, researchers found evidence of cognitive, social, and affective aspects associated to learning in their study. Nevertheless, in the post-visit interviews those same visitors "did not see themselves as learners, but rather as caregivers whose main task was to provide educational and entertaining experiences" for their children (p. 307).
Wu, Holmes, and Tribe's (2010) study in Taiwan illuminated the role children play in visits to free-choice settings. Children were consciously included in the 37 family interviews in this study, as "potential active participants in museum-visit decision making" (p. 711). These children indicated they wanted to visit museums after hearing about them at school or due to positive previous experiences. The authors found that the more children knew about a museum and the older they were, the more active they were in the decision-making process.
Children have also been observed making choices about which exhibits the rest of the family visited. Moussouri (2003) interviewed children from 29 family groups about their museum visit expectations. She found that children were interested in specific exhibits, particularly in the hands-on and active elements of the visit. Szechter and Carey's (2009) study of 20 parent-child dyads in an informal science education center showed that children were the ones who chose exhibits for their families and used handson elements more than parents did. Wood and Wolf (2010) also found that parents at children's museums preferred to let children older than toddlers initiate the activity across a variety of exhibition types. These observations ultimately point to interesting relationships among family members with regards to choice and control in free-choice settings. Children should not be overlooked as potential leaders during museum visits.
Ultimately many complex factors contribute to the personal context of family visits to free-choice settings and these factors influence the ways families learn and experience their visit. For example, different family groups have different needs and motivations and the family dynamics will vary according to the individual member's identities. Research also shows that the agendas and expectations of the facilitators and of the institutions themselves (museums, parks, etc.) influence the visitor experience.
The Sociocultural Context. Falk and Dierking's (2000) Contextual Model of Learning calls for researchers and practitioners to recognize the social and cultural contexts that visitors bring with them to free-choice settings. The social context is extremely important to families because family members interact with each other frequently throughout their visit, often taking turns teaching and learning. Staff and volunteers at free-choice venues may also mediate the experience for family visitors by answering questions and leading programs. All visitors experience free-choice learning through lenses informed by their cultural backgrounds. Free-choice venues present content and experiences through cultural perspectives that are sometimes intentional, but most often not. These factors and their influence on family learning are considered in this section.
McManus (1992) researched family learning behavior and compared museumvisiting families to hunter-gatherer groups searching for knowledge. Ash (2003) and Falk and Dierking (2000) observed families that split into dyads and triads during their visit and regrouped to share what they learned. Other families stayed together throughout their whole visit. These studies highlight the differences in family dynamics while visiting free-choice settings.
Research from two decades ago (e.g., Blud, 1990) and more recent work (e.g., Packer & Ballantyne, 2005) emphasized the importance of family interaction in family learning. Blud (1990) went so far as to say, "Interaction between visitors may be as important as interaction between the visitor and the exhibit" (p. 43). Often, learning can be enhanced by other family members' insights and input (Borun et al., 1998). Families themselves often tell researchers they value the collaborative aspects of learning in museums (Allen & Gutwill, 2009;Briseño-Garzón et al., 2007a).
Astor-Jack and colleagues (2007) argued that in order to understand the nature of learning in museums, one must understand the social processes of learning. As a result, researchers have put substantial focus on studying conversations as a way to better understand family learning. For families, time spent at free-choice settings is typically dominated by conversation, which includes asking questions (usually about specific objects) and sharing knowledge (Falk & Dierking, 2000). Researchers have studied family conversations as a way to gain insight into how and what families are learning, including how frequently families talk throughout their visit. Borun et al. (1996) found that the most consistent indicators of learning were in conversations that included analysis, synthesis, and explanation. References to or discussions about previous experiences often come up in family conversations and are used as ways for families to connect what they are learning to their shared past (Falk & Dierking, 2000;Ellenbogen et al., 2004). The new learning experience then becomes a shared family memory that can be referred to in the future. One reason that it might be particularly easy for people to access memories of museum visits is that they are often novel experiences. Crowley and Jacobs (2002) proposed that learning conversations in museums may be powerful foundations upon which future learning can be built because of this novelty.
In addition to conversations, parents use a variety of approaches when they mediate their children's experiences in free-choice settings. They may take on the role of teacher, navigator, questioner, helper, or interpreter. Children's museums in particular, are often used to research parent-child interactions. Gaskins (2008) observed that as parents approached children's museum exhibits they quickly assessed their child's interest and ability as well as the exhibit's potential for engaging them, to see if there was a match and whether or not they should participate. If the exhibit appears easy to engage in, parents, "tend to let children act on their own" and if the exhibit is more complicated, parents "interact with their children to bridge the gap between what the children can do on their own and the exhibition's activities" (p. 12). According to Gaskins (2008), in order for parents to best support children, adults must quickly understand the exhibit's message and goals and the exhibit should be constructed so it is big enough for adults to use.
Recent research studies have focused on parent-child interactions (Astor-Jack et al., 2007). In these, parents have been observed exhibiting what Moussouri (2003) called spontaneous "teaching" behavior. Parents, especially those of young children, assisted them by posing questions and providing clues and explanations (Moussouri, 2003). Parents and caregivers also use a variety of interaction styles. For example, Szechter and Carey (2009) found that parents described evidence, gave directions, provided explanations, made connections, and elicited predictions.
There are times when some parents do not intervene in the children's activities at children's museum exhibits unless their child needs help (Downey, Krantz, & Skidmore, 2010;Wood & Wolf, 2010). Parents overwhelmingly revealed in post-visit interviews that they stood back because they enjoyed letting their children independently discover new ideas (Wood & Wolf, 2010). Parents have also reported that they value observing their children's learning because it helps them identify their children's strengths and learning styles (Briseño-Garzón et al., 2007a;Moussouri, 2003;Wood & Wolf, 2010). Parents do not always lead or mediate experiences in free-choice settings. According to Briseño-Garzón et al. (2007b), roles are often shared among family group members. Examples of these include a child taking on the role of exhibit selection, a parent taking on the storyteller role, or a grandparent acting as a questioner at a living history museum.
Improving adult-child interactions is an active area of recent research. The Indianapolis Children's Museum chose to change its mission from "serving children" to "serving families" (Borun, 2008;Wood & Wolf, 2010) after taking into account sociocultural learning research that emphasized the importance of adult-child interaction and literature that "identifies the benefits to children's learning when parents act as play facilitators" (Downey et al., 2010, p. 15). The change in this mission can also be seen as a change in the museum's agenda with the incorporation of research-based practices.
In a study conducted four years after the mission statement and programs were modified, Wood and Wolf (2010) found that parents continued to stand back at both interactive and non-interactive exhibits. These observations revealed stark differences between the museum and the parent's agendas. In a similar study, Downey et al. (2010) found discrepancies between parents' and museum professionals' beliefs about play.
Parents may see museums as places where their children can safely make choices, experiment, and learn without their help. They may not be aware of the museum's agenda or research that supports it. A museum that uses play as a learning mechanism for children needs to do more to help parents understand the benefits of play. This support could mean more enriching experiences for families (Downey et al., 2010). Schauble et al. (2002) warned that, "unless careful attention is paid to helping the helpers [parents], the energy and resources devoted to deepening museum learning may be wasted, or at best, underexploited" (p. 449). This matches Astor-Jack et al. 's (2007) findings that adults must feel comfortable with the museum setting and subject matter in order to mediate their children's experiences Researchers are studying how pre-exhibit instructions might help. Benjamin, Haden, and Wilkerson (2010) found that even brief instructions can improve parent mediation skills. Some caregivers in their study were given suggestions of possible conversational styles and questions. When the prompts were used, there were increased interactions between in children and caregivers as compared to those who did not receive such prompts (Benjamin et al., 2010). In addition, Rowe and Kisiel (2012) found that families that debriefed an aquarium touch-tank experience using questions likely had richer family engagement in learning.
Gutwill and Allen (2010) ultimately found that "offering parents a structured, co-investigative role in exploring phenomena may significantly enhance families' inquiry" (p. 738). This role helped parents avoid didactic teaching methods or a tendency to delegate simple tasks to children while taking on more difficult tasks themselves (Gutwill & Allen, 2010). The aforementioned parent behaviors usually fail to significantly challenge children in a way that enhances their learning.
Many grandparents bring their grandchildren to free-choice settings, playing important roles as caregivers. Studying grandparent-grandchild groups in free-choice settings is becoming more important as the American population ages (Bengston, 2001) and family structures change. Much like other research on specific types of family groups, there were a limited number of studies on grandparent-grandchild interactions (Leinhardt & Knutson, 2006). The research available has revealed that grandparents, more than parents, are inclined to focus on their grandchildren's enjoyment and the social and emotional aspects of their time together (Moussouri, 2003;Sanford, Knutson, & Crowley, 2007). Sanford et al. (2007) studied 31 grandparent-grandchild pairs visiting the Franklin Institute in Philadelphia, where 70% of them engaged in collaborative learning.
A form of mediation by others is exemplified by families' interactions with freechoice learning staff and volunteers. Falk and Dierking (2000) suggested that skilled staff and volunteers can positively influence and facilitate visitors' experiences. In living history museum settings, where docents dress as historical characters, conversation is the primary means of learning. Rosenthal and Blankman-Hetrick (2002) found that staff interpreters who engaged in the right balance of dialogue involving all family members, inspired family conversations in these settings. However, if the interpreter provided too much monologue or too little conversation, there was little indication that visitors were learning. Astor-Jack et al. (2007) made an anecdotal claim that, "most interactions between museum staff and the public remain didactic" (p. 226) and advised museum staff to create more participatory experiences for families.
Although Astor-Jack et al. (2007) noted a lack of research on potential cultural differences within families' social interactions in museums, a few recent studies were found. Melber (2006) and Stein et al. (2008) cautioned that some family cultures may not encourage children to take on the role of teachers or leaders. Shouse, Lewenstein, Feder, and Bell (2010) and Stein et al. (2008) also pointed out that museum agendas encouraging children to lead, teach, or challenge their elders' ideas may conflict with families that value didactic approaches or ones where adults are seen as knowledge holders. Gaskins (2008) reminded practitioners to avoid the assumption that cultures share the same theoretical perspectives of how children learn best. Gaskins (2008) studied 12 African-American families' interaction tendencies in a children's museum and found that adults from these visiting groups spent 60% less time at child-directed exhibits than at non-collaborative exhibits. She also found, Hispanic American families embraced the opportunity for engaging in a joint activity, but…the focus for them was not on the children's learning experience, but in accomplishing the goal of building something and that adults, particularly male caregivers, maintained control of the event. (p.17) While U.S. children's museums are often dominated by the theoretical perspective that play leads to learning and that it is appropriate for adults to play alongside their children, play carries different meanings in different cultures (Gaskins, 2008). It is important that free-choice settings provide accommodations for these potential differences. This is relevant for the NPS to consider because of their desire to welcome and include diverse groups in park experiences (NPS, 2012).
The Physical Context. The physical context of a free-choice setting has a strong influence on family visitor experiences. This context encompasses elements such as the venue's location, its architectural layout, seating availability, exhibit order, and information displays. It also takes into account electronic media, websites, and ways visitors might engage in post-visit experiences.
Since exhibits often serve as the starting point for family conversations, their design is important. Some exhibits facilitate conversation more than others. In the past few decades, thanks to recommendations from Borun et al. (1998) and others (e.g., Falk & Dierking, 2000), free-choice settings have moved from primarily static exhibits to those that incorporate more interactive, hands-on and minds-on features.
Astor-Jack et al. (2007) noted that progress has been made "particularly in exhibition and program development where there has been some effort to embed socially mediated notions of learning into the design process" (p. 225), which better meets families' needs. Active Prolonged Engagement (APE) exhibits have been shown to increase time spent and learning talk for parent-child dyads in science museums (Szechter & Carey, 2009). Non-science museums also have been creating opportunities for visitors to ask questions and investigate the museum's collection in an inquiry-based way (Allen & Gutwill, 2009). However, it must be noted that 12 years after the PISEC Family Learning Project, there is still room for growth in exhibit design to better meet families' needs (Borun, 2008).
Although Moussouri (2003) found that families' perceptions of exhibits were heavily influenced by their own personal and social agendas, physical elements that orient and guide visitors can also influence a family's experience. Museum brochures, special exhibit guides, and websites are examples of what Falk and Dierking (2000) call advance organizers, which can be helpful orientation tools.
Use of electronic technology can also enhance or detract from families' interactions at exhibits. Lyons, Becker, and Roberts (2010) predicted that as technology infiltrates informal learning environments, museums will be able to use it to support both individual and collaborative learning. Hatala et al. (2009) developed a technology-based game to enhance social interaction at exhibits. They researched 18 families' use of this technology in a history museum and their preliminary results were promising, in that the technology was found to facilitate rather than inhibit social interaction because the game was designed for family use.
Electronic technology is not the only useful family learning tool. Supplemental exhibit materials can also be made available. Tenenbaum, Prior, Dowling, and Frost (2010) studied 58 families' visits to a United Kingdom cultural and history museum. They found that family learning could be assisted with the support of booklets or activities that involved checking out a backpack designed to guide families through exhibits, even ones that featured family-friendly design elements. Families in their study "spent more time at the exhibits when assigned to the booklet and backpack conditions compared to the control conditions" (p. 248) and "children engaged in more historical talk when using the booklets" (p. 241). These findings point to ways in which free-choice settings may supplement existing exhibits without completely redesigning them. Allen and Gutwill's (2009) research exemplified how games can add structure to inquiry-based, hands-on science exhibits. Gutwill and Allen (2010) compared inquiry games with control conditions for 200 families and found that their "inquiry games increased the quantity and quality of families' scientific inquiry" (p. 722). In particular, a "juicy questions" game was deemed successful at increasing families' inquiry behaviors and encouraged total family participation and collaboration (Gutwill & Allen, 2010).
Family learning does not end when visitors leave free-choice venues. Learning conversations often continue during the journey home or around the dinner table and through time when they have similar experiences to which they can apply situated knowledge. Allen and Gutwill (2009) reconnected with families who used their inquiry games during their museum visit and found that 15% of them continued to use the skills. The authors recommended adding website components that would allow families to join citizen science communities to continue their post-museum experiences.
Adults from six of the 13 family groups interviewed by Briseño-Garzón et al. (2007b) indicated that they intended to engage in future activities related to their aquarium visit. Although researchers were not able to verify these activities occurred, they concluded, "The learning impact of an informal experience not only resides in the experience itself, but also in the days and weeks following the visit" (p. 87).

Free-Choice Learning Research and the National Park Service
Even though the field is still developing and refining ways to document impacts, we do know that family learning in free-choice settings can be measured using a variety of approaches that must go beyond cognitive tests to encompass social and affective elements, also considering that ultimately, learning is contextual and happens over time (Rennie & Johnston, 2004). Indeed, studies have consistently revealed that families learn through their social interactions. Given these understandings, there are a number of implications, considerations, and recommendations the NPS should examine in order to improve family experiences at NPS units.
A Call to Action (NPS, 2012) aims to implement practices that will reach the themes of Connecting People to Parks and Advancing the NPS Education Mission. However, families are not directly addressed in the document. The NPS reaches some young people through school partnerships, but more youth could be reached through promoting effective multi-generational family programs. Considering the diversity of park visitors, it is important to emphasize that exhibits and programs that encourage social interaction and allow for multiple users to engage in activity will facilitate learning not just for families but also school and other adult groups (Borun, 2008;Kiihne, 2008).
Some parks and museums approach engaging under-served audiences by creating outreach programs to engage learners off-site. Outreach often involves bringing personnel, resources, activities, and artifacts to a location outside the park or museum site. Populations that may be unfamiliar with or have difficulty getting to the park are often targets for outreach programs. In Learning Science in Informal Environments: People, Places, and Pursuits (NRC, 2009) a problem with an outreach approach was discussed; it not a true collaboration and the institution may be seen as out-of reach. Shouse et al. (2010) agreed and noted that the term "outreach" does not imply partnering or reciprocity that has been shown to be effective and valuable in the process of involving underrepresented populations (Honey, et al., 2010;Stein et al., 2008). Thus, NPS exhibit and program designers must also "explore diversity as a positive resource" that adds richness to visitor understandings and perspectives (Shouse et al.,p. 145). Since changes to educational programs that are made to improve learning experiences for families may not have the intended effect, careful evaluation of changes will be important. Falk and Dierking's (2000) Contextual Model of Learning is used to frame and organize recommendations. However, such recommendations are not mutually exclusive and some fall under multiple contexts. In addition to these recommendations, it is critically important that the NPS conduct research studies on family learning at NPS sites and facilitate ways for interpreters and exhibit designers to share research-based best practices for family learning in the parks.

The Personal Context
To fulfill family learning needs the NPS and other organizations are encouraged to consider the following recommendations taking into account the motivations, expectations, knowledge, experiences, interests, and beliefs of visiting families.
• Visitor Agendas: Seek to further understand families' individual and collective agendas, motivations, and expectations. Special group agendas (e.g., multigenerational and underrepresented populations) should be addressed.
• Prior-Knowledge: Help families relate everyday experiences and prior knowledge to what they see and do in museums and allow them to investigate issues that interest them (Moussouri, 2003).
• Adult Learners: Reach adults who visit as part of family groups as "learners in their own right," (Sanford et al., 2007, p. 148), not just facilitators of their children's experiences (Briseño-Garzón et al., 2007a).

The Sociocultural Context
Families learn in free-choice contexts by conversing with each other and helping one another. NPS staff and volunteers also serve as mediators of programs and park experiences. The following recommendations will enhance those processes.
• Social Connections: Develop ways to reward and foster connections and interactions among family members since family groups value such social elements during their visits (e.g., Moussouri, 2003;Sanford et al., 2007).
Help parents facilitate learning.
• Optional Help: Create opportunities for "parents to self-select interpretive support, but not assume that such support will or should be utilized" (Falk, 2009, p. 222).
• Technology: Enhance parent-child interactions through well-designed electronic mobile technology (Lyons et al., 2010). Use technology to provide memory cues and prompts to help families with sharing experiences and to assist in question-posing strategies (Lyons et al., 2010).
Help NPS staff and volunteers facilitate family learning.
• Collaborate: Create opportunities for novice staff to work collaboratively with knowledgeable mentors (experienced staff/volunteers/experts) (Falk & Dierking, 2000). Additional collaboration between novice and expert NPS staff, free-choice learning experts, and researchers will ensure high-quality exhibits and programs and create opportunities for rich dialogue and more meaningful improvements to park experiences.
Cultivate culturally relevant partnerships.
• Model after Successful Programs: Engage youth and their families in ongoing informal science education programs by valuing reciprocity (mutual benefits for all parties), and involving multiple generations (Honey et al., 2010).
• Go Beyond an Invitation: Attract new audiences by collaboratively developing settings in which "a multitude of cultures feel both welcome and valued and see personal relevance" (Melber, 2006, p. 36) (Stein et al., 2008).
• Family Rates and Incentives: Encourage first-time visitors by offering family rates or incentives (Roberts, 2007).
• Translate and Interpret: Create a welcoming atmosphere by providing translated materials, bilingual labels, and interpretation services for non-native English speakers (Melber, 2006;Shouse et al., 2010;Stein et al., 2008).

The Physical Context
A Call to Action's (2012) action item #19, "Out with the Old," addresses some changes that should be made in NPS physical contexts. What follows are research-based recommendations for preparing families for visits, extending the visit's benefits, and improving the physical structure of NPS venues.
• Pre-Visit: Create a "for families" section on NPS websites. Help parents to understand how to take advantage of the free-choice setting's offerings (Falk, 2009).
• Post-Visit: Develop opportunities that help families to extend their visit conversations and skills (Falk & Dierking, 2000). Link them to other projects beyond the specific venue.
• Supplemental Materials: Supplement existing exhibits with materials such as booklets and/or backpacks that scaffold family learning and promote interaction (Tenenbaum et al., 2010).
• Seating: Provide seating and other accommodations for visitors with limited mobility, including grandparents (Beaumont & Sterry, 2005;Moussouri, 2003). Since physical comfort is an important factor in ensuring learning can occur, seating can allow families to linger at exhibits longer and have a space to rest or gather.

Conclusions
Instead of approaching the above recommendations as add-ons, the NPS must rethink all exhibits, programs, and other interpretive media and experiences from a family perspective (Moussouri, 2003). Parks have welcomed families for over 100 years and the NPS can take steps to prioritize relevant, engaging, and fun educational opportunities for families as a major component of many visitors' experiences. Packer (2006) concluded that "learning for fun is a unique and distinctive offering of educational leisure experiences" (p. 329). She added, "Perhaps one of the most important contributions that museums and other educational leisure settings can make to society is in enabling their visitors to rediscover the joy of learning" (p. 341). In addition to the recommendations above, it will be critical for the NPS to engage in research on all types of learning, including family learning. The fact that we found no NPS research literature on families to draw from for this review indicates the extreme need. The NPS does not need to start from scratch, however; research should be built on the quarter century of work done in museum-like settings. The NPS must create both national and site-specific educational objectives to ensure that changes and successes can be measured. Involving families in exhibit and program planning, design, and evaluation will be critically important (Bachman & Dierking, 2010;Moussouri, 2003;Sanford et al., 2007). Clear education and interpretation objectives and specified "takehome" messages for families should be evaluated regularly so that progress made in family learning in the NPS can be tracked over time. An initial direction could be for researchers to look for ways in which opportunities for and approaches to learning in NPS settings differ from other free-choice settings.
While budgets and logistics may be hurdles to overcome, now is the time to consider bolstering the NPS's approach to family visitors as the nation looks to NPS's second century. Free-choice learning has far-reaching beneficial effects on families and these benefits must be shared and promoted. The NPS must find ways to promote its activities, conduct further research, and communicate research findings to engage more Americans and secure funding. Taking these actions will increase public and policymaker awareness that the NPS provides exceptional places for lifelong learning and fulfills an important role in society.
To lead, the NPS must continue to build structures through which NPS staff can collaborate with each other and with other educational and community organizations. Overall, creating family-centered opportunities and seeking to engage families in deeper levels of learning and collaboration will enable the NPS to reach its A Call to Action (2012) goals and will make our national parks and historic monuments exemplary places for family learning.