JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN SCIENCE TEACHING VOL. 34, NO. 8, PP.

805–818 (1997)

Model of Affective Learning for Nonformal Science Education Facilities

Joyce E. Meredith,1 Rosanne W. Fortner,2 Gary W. Mullins2

1
West Virginia University, 611 Knapp Hall, P.O. Box 6031, Morgantown,
West Virginia 26506-6031
2The Ohio State University, 210 Kottman Hall, 2021 Coffey Road, Columbus, Ohio 43210

Received 22 May 1996; revised 6 May 1997; accepted 29 May 1997

Abstract: Objective setting and evaluation for learning in the affective domain are often neglected in
educational programs, largely because affective learning is a poorly understood phenomenon. This is par-
ticularly problematic in nonformal science education facilities, which are uniquely suited to facilitate af-
fective learning. To address this problem, a heuristic model of affective learning in nonformal education-
al facilities was developed. The model, referred to as the Meredith Model, displays a sequence of events
occurring in the affective responses of learners in nonformal educational experiences and identifies factors
which may influence individual events within this sequence. The model is proposed as a conceptual frame-
work for gaining an increased understanding of affective learning and for making recommendations for
practice of nonformal science education and for further research. J Res Sci Teach 34: 805–818, 1997.

Introduction
Science centers, zoos, nature centers, parks, and other nonformal science education facili-
ties offer excellent opportunities for science learning outside the formal classroom. However,
nonformal science education facilities are inherently different from the formal science class-
room, and hence must be addressed differently with respect to objective setting, teaching
methodology, evaluation strategies, and research to inform practice. The literature on nonformal
education documents many such differences. Visitors to nonformal science education facilities
are often elective learners engaged in a blend of leisure and learning. They may be intergener-
ational family groups, other social groups, or groups of schoolchildren of all ages. They may
live within the same region as the nonformal science education facility, or they may hail from
a diversity of geographic locations. As Busque (1991) and Falk, Koran, and Dierking (1986)
noted, these learners display considerably more heterogeneity with respect to age, social group-
ing, and background than do learners in formal educational settings. Bitgood (1988) enumer-
ated other differences between formal and nonformal learning. He noted that formal education
features a sustained exposure to learning material, while exposures in nonformal education are
usually short in duration. Nonformal learners may visit the learning setting for no more than an

Correspondence to: J.E. Meredith

© 1997 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. CCC 0022-4308/97/080805-14

806 MEREDITH, FORTNER, AND MULLINS

hour or two, while formal learners are likely to revisit the same classroom for a semester or
school year. Bitgood also noted that learning in nonformal settings is usually free choice so that
what is learned is prescribed by the learner rather than the educator. Another difference noted
by Bitgood is the structured, unchanging environment of the formal classroom versus the vari-
able, novel setting of the nonformal educational setting. Indeed, even same-age school students
who visit such facilities as part of their formal, prescribed educational program (field trips, etc.)
will likely respond to the educational stimuli in these novel and highly sensory settings quite
differently from the way they do stimuli in the formal classroom (Flexner & Borun, 1984). Falk
and Balling (1978), in their study of the novel field trip phenomenon, demonstrated that “nov-
elty, and the very powerful needs for exploration it generates, is an extremely important educa-
tional variable” (p. 133).
The task of determining and meeting the learning needs of the diverse population served
by nonformal science education facilities presents an enormous challenge for nonformal educa-
tors. Nonformal education is a professional field still in its youth, and has suffered since its be-
ginnings from a lack of effective evaluation strategies and clearly defined goals (Mullins, 1984).
A good example of this lack of knowledge was revealed when curators at the Children’s Muse-
um of Indianapolis, Indiana, learned that many of their visitors experienced the museum as more
entertaining than educational (Ault, 1987). To begin to address the problem of setting clear ob-
jectives in nonformal education, all domains of learning which occur in nonformal educational
settings must be addressed.
Krathwohl, Bloom, and Masia (1964) found that most educational objectives can be placed
into three major learning domains: cognitive, affective, and psychomotor. Learning in nonfor-
mal science education facilities may potentially span all three learning domains. However, there
is both professional opinion and empirical research which suggest that the major advantages of
learning activities in nonformal educational settings over those in formal settings may lie in the
affective domain. For example, Miles and Tout (1979) speculated, “the affective aspects of the
learning process . . . perhaps carry slightly more weight in the museum than in formal educa-
tion” (p. 212). Koran and Baker (1979), in a review of the literature, reported “that field trips
usually do not exceed classroom learning on measures of knowledge gained or content learned
. . . but that the major justification for field trips should be unique outcomes that arise from the
field trip setting (for example, interest, motivation, psychological rejuvenation for teachers and
students, and so forth)” (p. 56). Flexner and Borun (1984) found that the fifth and sixth graders
they studied did not demonstrate more cognitive learning at a participatory science museum ex-
hibit, but did describe the experience as more enjoyable and interesting than the related class-
room lesson.
Affect was broadly defined by English and English (1958) as “a class name for feeling,
emotion, mood, temperament” (p. 15). Krathwohl et al. (1964) described affective learning ob-
jectives as those which “emphasize a feeling tone, an emotion, or a degree of acceptance or re-
jection” (p. 7). Ellis and Fouts (1996) defined the affective domain as “the area of education that
focuses on the attitudinal/emotional development of students” (p. 9). While some obvious over-
lap exists between these definitions, affect has historically been notoriously difficult to define,
and equally difficult to measure. Roberts (1990) wrote, “The role of affective modes of know-
ing in learning processes remains an elusive, fragmented area of study. Not only does research
cross many disciplinary boundaries, but language about affect changes from one individual to
the next” (p. 19). The situation has improved little since Krathwohl et al. (1964) noted the dearth
of evaluative tools and research-based evidence on affect which motivated them to construct the
Taxonomy of educational objectives for the affective domain.
 A MODEL OF AFFECTIVE LEARNING 807

If a strength of nonformal science education is to facilitate affective learning, what affec-

tive goals should nonformal educators target, how can they best attain these goals, and how will
the attainment of these goals benefit the learner? To answer these questions, a better under-
standing of affect as it relates to learning in nonformal science education facilities is clearly
needed.
The problem investigated in this study was as follows: Affective learning by learners in
nonformal science education facilities is a highly important yet poorly understood construct.
Thus, the purpose of the study was to develop a heuristic model of affect as it occurs with learn-
ers in nonformal science education facilities to provide for enhanced understanding of affect
within the profession of nonformal science education. The results model is proposed as a frame-
work to guide educational objective setting, evaluation, research, and data collection in nonfor-
mal science education.

Review of Literature
The complex and often difficult to define concept of affect has been approached from a va-
riety of theoretical perspectives by researchers and scholars in a variety of fields. One of the
most comprehensive treatments of affect in the education literature is that of Krathwohl et al.
(1964), who produced a Taxonomy of educational objectives for the affective domain as a se-
quel to that for the cognitive domain (Bloom, 1956) after the usefulness of the latter became
widely apparent. The taxonomy consists of a five-category hierarchical scale: receiving, re-
sponding, valuing, organization, and characterization by a value complex. While this treatment
of affect is indeed thorough, it was formulated as a framework for formal education and does
not address the unique attributes of the nonformal educational setting. It also does little to elu-
cidate the mechanism(s) or sequence of events by which affect may be stimulated.
In the psychological literature, Bull (1951) (cited by Izard, Wehmer, Livsey, & Jennings,
1965) presented a sequence of events for the affective response which emphasized motor and
neurophysiological processes. In Bull’s view, the first response to a stimulus is a neural predis-
position which leads to a physical readiness to take action. The affect which follows is an aware-
ness of this readiness to act. Action then completes the sequence.
Emotion is a term that is consistently associated with the construct of “affect” (English &
English, 1958; Krathwohl et al., 1964; Ellis & Fouts, 1996). Beginning with a historical review
and evaluation of existing theories of emotion, Arnold (1960) integrated a phenomenological
analysis of the human experience of emotion with empirical evidence from numerous re-
searchers to form a well-developed psychological theory of emotion. In Arnold’s theory, the af-
fective response begins with a perception of the stimulus, followed by a cognitive appraisal.
The emotion which follows is a felt tendency toward or away from the stimulus, depending on
the appraisal that was made. Action, such as approach or withdrawal, completes the sequence.
Central to Arnold’s theory is the idea that emotion is a motivational force.
Much like Arnold (1960), Plutchik (1980) saw the first event upon encountering a stimulus
to be a cognitive appraisal of the stimulus. This is followed by the experience of the emotion,
and then a behavioral reaction such as withdrawal or approach. Although the terminology is dif-
ferent, this sequence appears virtually identical to that of Arnold. The difference is that Plutchik
added function as the end of the sequence. This is in keeping with his theory that emotions serve
an adaptive function (i.e., protection or reproduction) for the organism.
Buck’s (1984) model of emotion suggests a sequence of events which departs from those
of Arnold (1960) and Plutchik (1980). Buck asserted that affective stimuli act directly on an af-
808 MEREDITH, FORTNER, AND MULLINS

fective system that is associated with neurochemical systems of the body. Thus, Buck did not
accept that a cognitive appraisal precedes the experience of emotion. Emotion was seen by Buck
as consisting of adaptive and homeostatic mechanisms which produce physiological responses,
expressive tendencies which lead to facial expression, body postures, and so forth, and the sub-
jective experience of emotion. In referring to the affective system as a primary motivational/
emotional system, Buck also asserted the motivational aspect of emotion.
In addition to the overarching theories of affect described above, many psychological con-
structs can be conceptualized under the category of affect. In the free-choice, stimulus-rich en-
vironment of the nonformal science education facility, certain constructs have particular rele-
vance to the affective experience. Examples of such constructs include, but are not limited to,
attention, curiosity and exploration, and interest. Research literature exists to support the rele-
vance of each of these constructs to learning in nonformal educational settings. A more detailed
explication of these constructs follows.
Shettel (1976) proposed a model of museum exhibit effectiveness which says that an ef-
fective exhibit must have attracting power, holding power, and teaching power. In other words,
the exhibit must attract the attention of the visitor and hold attention long enough to commu-
nicate its intended message. Attracting power and holding power are determinants of selective
attention, “the processes that determine which elements of the stimulus field will exert a dom-
inating influence over behavior” (Berlyne, 1960, p. 45). Arnold (1960) called attention the first
movement in the desire to know, or a form of wanting that focuses and initiates perception or
action. Thus, before any response, affective or otherwise, can be made to a stimulus, that stim-
ulus must command the learner’s selective attention. Berlyne (1960) asserted that variables re-
lated to a stimulus such as novelty, complexity, surprisingness, and uncertainty contribute to se-
lective attention. Such variables do seem to contribute to attracting power and/or holding power
in nonformal education settings. In a study involving zoo visitors, Foster, Koran, Koran, Stark,
Blackwood, and Landers (1988) observed that one exhibit attracted the attention of significant-
ly more visitors than the nine others studied. This exhibit had more animal species than the oth-
er exhibits and had a high degree of environmental complexity and a high degree of animal ac-
tivity. In a review of literature, Patterson and Bitgood (1988) found that novelty has been shown
to increase exhibit viewing time.
Berlyne (1960) also sited indicating stimuli, or stimuli which visually or verbally direct at-
tention (i.e., arrows, verbal instructions, etc.), as being capable of focusing selective attention
on a particular stimulus. Similarly, Koran, Koran, Foster, and Dierking (1988) showed empiri-
cally that modeling, or the demonstration of a desired behavior by a peer, can be effective in in-
creasing participation in museum exhibits, thus influencing the selective attention of visitors,
particularly adults. Visitors have also been found to spend more time at manipulatable exhibits
than at static ones (Koran, Koran, & Longino, 1986). In a study at the Ontario Science Centre,
Gillies and Wilson (1982) found that children spent more time at fully participatory exhibits
than at partially participatory ones. These studies suggest that the potential for participation in
an exhibit contributes to its attracting and/or holding power and thus influences visitors’ selec-
tive attention to the exhibit.
Some of the variables which influence selective attention are related to the learner rather
than the stimulus. One such variable is motivational state (Berlyne, 1960). For example, Koran,
Foster, and Koran (1989) found that attention, measured as the amount of time a visitor spent
at a particular exhibit, was correlated with the visitor’s interest in the exhibit, measured with
a Likert-type scale. Another relevant motivational state is felt involvement, a term used by
Celsi and Olson (1988) to describe a subjective experience or feeling of personal relevance.
The authors reported an experiment in which felt involvement was found to influence attention
 A MODEL OF AFFECTIVE LEARNING 809

in the reading of tennis product advertisements. Other factors such as object satiation and
museum fatigue can also detract from exhibit viewing time (Patterson & Bitgood, 1988) and
thus could be said to influence selective attention among learners in nonformal educational
settings.
Much of what is known about curiosity and exploration in animals and humans comes from
the work of psychologist D.E. Berlyne (1960). Day (1982) succinctly summarized Berlyne’s the-
ory by stating, “any environmental condition that contains a moderately high level of uncer-
tainty induces a state of tension (arousal) in an organism which drives it to explore its environ-
ment in order to reduce the tension” (p. 19). Berlyne maintained that in addition to influencing
selective attention, qualities such as novelty, complexity, surprisingness, and uncertainty stimu-
late curiosity and exploration. Other theorists explain curiosity and exploratory behavior with a
human need for variation (Fiske and Maddi, 1961; Maddi, 1961) or competence (White, 1959).
These theories have implications for nonformal science education: Koran, Morrison, Lehman,
Koran, and Gandura (1984) and Koran et al. (1986) found that children, and to a lesser degree,
adults, prefer manipulatable exhibits as opposed to comparable exhibit materials at which they
can only look. Their interpretation is that the manipulatable materials are preferred because they
permit the use of more sensory channels with which to satisfy the arousal of curiosity. On the
other hand, Falk, Martin, and Balling (1978) found that the novelty of a field-trip environment
inhibited the gain of cognitive knowledge in schoolchildren. This is consistent with Day’s (1982)
explanation that too much arousal causes a diminishment in performance.
Thorndike (1935) explained that interest acts in a forward direction to dispose an individ-
ual to behaviors associated with the interest, and backward to confirm positive experiences so
that the repetition of these behaviors will be favored. English and English (1958) gave a num-
ber of definitions of interest, one of which is “the tendency to give selective attention to some-
thing” (p. 271). Arnold (1960) defined interest as an impulse to know which becomes organized
around one object. It seems, then, that interest may be viewed as a short-term disposition to-
ward an object (much like curiosity), or a more long-term and persistent disposition. Studies
dealing with interest tend to measure it in terms of a subjective interest that is self-reported by
the subjects (Berlyne, 1970; Koran et al. 1989; Washburne and Wagar, 1972). For instance, a
study by Day (1967) indicated that the level of subjective interestingness reported by subjects
tended to increase with the complexity of the figures they were viewing. Busque (1991), on the
other hand, constructed a Likert-type instrument to measure the interestingness of museum ex-
hibits. Interest was operationalized as the ability to (a) arouse enthusiasm, (b) bring about par-
ticipation, (c) favor apprenticeship, and (d) display aesthetic quality.
Interest and curiosity seem to be highly related constructs. For example, Harty and Samuel
(1986) found interest and curiosity in science among a group of 228 sixth graders to be highly
correlated.

Methodology
The research was conducted as a developmental study aimed at developing and refining a
heuristic model of affective learning in nonformal science education facilities. The model de-
veloped should serve as a framework, a sort of comprehensive hypothesis, for discussion and
research on affective learning in nonformal science education. Therefore, the focus of the re-
search was hypothesis generating rather than hypothesis testing. Such an objective called for
gathering open-ended information about the population and phenomena of interest from a vari-
ety of sources, and using this information to synthesize the hypothetical model. Thus, natural-
istic, also known as qualitative, methodology was deemed the most appropriate means to
810 MEREDITH, FORTNER, AND MULLINS

achieve the research objectives of this study. The methodology was naturalistic in that variables
were not manipulated, hypotheses were not tested, and generalized conclusions from the re-
search to the population of interest were not made. The primary researcher for this study had
experience both as a classroom science teacher and as a nonformal science educator, as well as
research training and experience in the biological and social sciences.
A method of hypothesis formulation known as analytic induction (Robinson, 1951/1969)
was employed to carry out the research. Analytic induction consists of:

1. formulating a rough definition of the phenomenon to be explained,

2. formulating a hypothetical explanation of the phenomenon,
3. studying case(s) of the phenomenon to determine if the hypothesis fits the facts of the
case(s),
4. if the hypothesis does not fit the facts, reformulating the hypothesis or redefining the
phenomenon, and
5. repeating Steps 3 and 4 until practical certainty is reached.

In the context of this study, the hypothesis to be refined by the method of analytic induc-
tion is the model explaining the phenomenon of affect in nonformal science education facilities.
Specifically, the research was carried out in stages, as follows:

1. A rough definition of the phenomenon of affect was formulated through an extensive

literature review from disciplines such as psychology, education, interpretation, muse-
um studies, visitor behavior, leisure studies, and related areas. Literature reviewed in
this stage of the research included the theoretical literature related to affect, empirical
evidence from behavioral psychology, and applied research in nonformal education. A
representative sampling is included in the literature review above.
2. Drawing from the reviewed literature, a hypothetical explanation, a conceptual model,
of affective response specifically applicable to nonformal educational settings (Model
1) was synthesized. Model 1 incorporated the theories of Krathwohl et al. (1964), Bull
(1951), Arnold (1960), Plutchik (1980), and Buck (1984); scholarly information on
psychological constructs related to affect; and empirical knowledge from applied re-
search on learning in nonformal educational settings. The model depicted a sequence
of events resulting in affective responses among nonformal science learners.
3. Field research featuring collection of qualitative data was conducted to determine if
cases in the real world fit the hypothesis, Model 1. This field research consisted of so-
licitation of review comments from a panel of expert researchers, in-depth interviews
with practitioners of nonformal education, and unobtrusive observations of learners
in nonformal educational settings. A variety of professionals work in the field of non-
formal science education. Researchers in the field include psychologists, educators,
and visitor behavior and museum studies experts. Practitioners in nonformal educa-
tion include designers of exhibits and educational materials, and museum educators
and natural history interpreters who plan and/or carry out nonformal science educa-
tion programs. Professionals from these different areas have knowledge about learn-
ers in nonformal educational settings which stems from their own professional per-
spective. The field research component of this study sought to gather information from
a sample of these professionals as a source of knowledge about the population of in-
terest.
The sampling strategy for selecting participants in the field research component
of the study was stratified chain sampling (Patton, 1990). Chain sampling begins with
asking knowledgeable individuals for recommendations of possible participants. As
 A MODEL OF AFFECTIVE LEARNING 811

recommended participants are contacted, they in turn make recommendations for ad-
ditional participants. The sample included two strata: researchers with expertise in non-
formal education or related fields (n 5 6) and practitioners of nonformal education (n
5 8). A document was developed to describe the synthesis of Model 1 and present
Model 1 to the researcher stratum of the participant panel. Included in the document
were background information on the research study, directions to the participant, a de-
scription of the development of the model with accompanying figures, figures depict-
ing the model, and a glossary of terms related to the model. The participant was
directed to review the document and make comments on the appropriateness, com-
pleteness, and accuracy of the theoretical aspects of the model, as well as any other
comments deemed applicable or important by the participant. A standardized open-end-
ed interview schedule (Patton, 1990) was developed for the purpose of conducting face-
to-face interviews with members of the practitioner stratum of the participant panel.
The purpose of the interviews was to gain insight into the practitioner’s experience with
the affective responses of learners in nonformal educational settings. Model 1 was used
as a framework for question construction in that the questions focused on constructs in
the same sequence as they appeared in the flow of Model 1. The interview schedule
also included questions about the professional and educational background of the re-
spondent.
The sampling strategy for observations in the field was a selection of typical cases
(Patton, 1990) that were accessible to the researcher. For the purpose of this study, typ-
ical cases refer to nonformal educational facilities judged to be reasonably typical in
the broad realm of nonformal educational facilities. Judgment as to what constituted
typical cases was made by the researcher in consultation with members of an adviso-
ry committee who have expert knowledge of regionally located nonformal education-
al facilities. Labeling the facilities sampled as typical does not imply that they are nec-
essarily representative of all nonformal educational facilities. It does imply that care
was taken to avoid unusual or atypical settings for data collection. The sample includ-
ed 13 typical nonformal educational facilities (zoos, nature centers, natural history mu-
seums, science museums, and so on). The observation strategy was to conduct open-
ended, unobtrusive observations pertaining to learners’ affective responses in
nonformal educational facilities. The observations were open-ended in that no check-
list of behaviors or responses to be looked for during the observational periods was es-
tablished beforehand. Rather, the objective was for the observer to remain open to any
behaviors or responses that might arise in the natural setting of the nonformal educa-
tional facility. Accordingly, only broad guidelines for what was to be observed were es-
tablished before beginning the observations. These guidelines were to observe learn-
ers’ interactions with exhibits, staff, or other learners, including quotes of things said
and description of physical behaviors whenever possible. Also to be noted when pos-
sible were tone and level of voice in learners’ verbal responses and interactions, facial
expressions, gestures, and subjective judgments about learners’ affective states. A de-
scription of the learning setting sufficiently detailed to provide a clear context for the
observations was also be included.
4. Model 1 was revised in light of the data collected during the field research (Stage 3),
resulting in Model 2. The purpose of the field research component of the study was to
examine real world cases by gathering information about the population of interest, to
refine Model 1. In addition to providing more information about the population of in-
terest, the field research served to focus the thinking of the researcher on the real-world
nonformal educational setting, as opposed to the hypothetical setting of Model 1. This
focusing process is consistent with the emergent designs characteristic of naturalistic
inquiry (Guba, 1981).
812 MEREDITH, FORTNER, AND MULLINS

5. Model 2 was subjected to review by the same expert researchers and practitioners who
participated in the field research. This stage of the research constituted a form of mem-
ber checks (Guba, 1981) in which patterns emerging from the data are checked against
the perceptions of the participants in the study. Participants were provided figures of
Model 2 and summaries of findings from the field research component (Stage 3) of the
study. They were asked to make any comments they felt were appropriate on any of
the materials provided, and to particularly comment on whether the field research find-
ings and the concepts represented in Model 2 matched their own professional experi-
ence of learners in nonformal educational settings.
6. Model 2 was further revised using feedback obtained in Stage 5, resulting in the final
model.
7. Based on the final model (hereafter referred to as the Meredith Model), a description
of affective processes relating to learning in nonformal educational settings was for-
mulated.

Results and Discussions

The Meredith Model illustrates a sequence of events occurring in a learner’s affective re-
sponse to educational stimuli in nonformal science education facilities, and identifies factors
which may influence individual elements within this sequence. The model is proposed as a con-
ceptual framework for describing the affective response in nonformal science education, for
making limited recommendations for practice in nonformal education, and for making recom-
mendations for further research.
According to the Meredith Model (Figure 1), a learner enters the nonformal educational set-
ting with preheld motivations, affective dispositions, personal characteristics, and so forth. The
setting is composed of a stimulus field of myriad stimuli impinging on the learner’s sensory or-
gans. Perception occurs as the learner is attracted to a specific part of the stimulus field (an ex-
hibit, lecturer, sign, animal, etc.) according to certain internal and external attraction factors
(Figure 2). Examples of some of these factors are shown in Table 1. Once selective attention is
focused on a particular stimulus, the learner forms an individualized percept of the stimulus.
This percept is shaped by internal and external percept factors and may be different for every
leaner. Examples of some percept factors are shown in Table 1.
Once the percept is formed, a decision to act or behave can be made (Figure 1). This deci-
sion will depend on the short-term affect aroused by the percept, a cognitive evaluation or ap-
praisal of it, or, most likely, an interaction between the two. Internal and external decision
factors, such as preheld knowledge, experience, and motivations, will influence this interaction,
and thus the action decision. Examples of decision factors are shown in Table 1. The decisions
the learner is most likely to make are (a) sensory scanning of the stimulus field for alterna-
tive stimuli, (b) changing to a completely new stimulus field, or (c) engaging in behaviors
such as observing, reading, listening, manipulating, interacting, and so on, with the educational
stimulus.
The possibilities for short-term affective responses (Figure 3) are essentially infinite, al-
though some may be more prevalent in the nonformal educational setting than others. Depend-
ing on the decision factors present and the learner’s cognitions at the time, various forms of mo-
tivation may be aroused. Examples are curiosity, desire to touch or manipulate objects, aesthetic
motivations, and so on. Generally, the satisfaction of these motivations, or of the preexisting
motivations the learner held upon entering the experience, will lead to positive affect. Conversely,
 A MODEL OF AFFECTIVE LEARNING 813

Figure 1. The Meredith Model of affective learning for nonformal science education fa-
cilities.

the frustration of these motivations will lead to negative affect. Whether the learner experiences
positive or negative affect will play an important part in the action decision.
As an outgrowth of the model, it is hypothesized that the short-term affect experienced in
nonformal science learning may serve to influence cognitive learning and may initiate or rein-
force long-term affective dispositions such as sentiments, attitudes, interests, values, and com-
mitment. Since affect is held by theorists to be a motivational force (Arnold, 1960; Plutchik,
1980; Buck, 1984); these forms of long-term affect could persist beyond the short-term educa-
814 MEREDITH, FORTNER, AND MULLINS

Figure 2. Detailed view of the perception process and the factors which influence it in
the Meredith Model

tional experience and serve as the motivation for extended patterns of behavior, such as volun-
tarily engaging in further science learning experiences.

Recommendations
The primary value of the Meredith Model is to help practitioners and researchers achieve
an enhanced understanding of affect. As such, the model provides a framework for observations
and interpretations of affective learning. Such a framework can help define parameters to focus
objective setting and evaluation, research questions, and data collection in nonformal science
education, which may in turn lead to modification and verification of the Meredith Model. Be-
Table 1
Some attraction, percept, and decision factors in the Meredith Model

Factor Examples

Experience, knowledge, and intellect • Hobbies

• Intellectual capacities
• Level of education
• Occupation
• Past experience
• Place of residence (rural, suburban, or urban)
• Prior knowledge
• Social and cultural background
• Socioeconomic status
• Stage of family life-cycle, etc.
Long-term affective dispositions • Attitudes (toward concepts associated with the stimulus, the
sponsoring organization, learning and leisure in general, etc.)
• Enduring motivational dispositions such as motivation to
achieve, etc.
• Interests
• Sentiments
• Values and commitments, etc.
Motivational state • Aesthetic motivations
• Anticipation or readiness to learn
• Curiosity
• Desire for social interactions
• Physical motivations like hunger and thirst, etc.
Reward value of stimulus • Degree to which the stimulus can be expected to satisfy
motivations, whether intrinsic (curiosity, manipulation,
aesthetic, social, need for stimulation/relief of boredom,
etc.) or extrinsic (recognition of achievement by peers,
satisfaction of others’ expectations, etc.)

Figure 3. Detailed view of the Meredith Model short-term affective response in nonfor-
mal science learning.
816 MEREDITH, FORTNER, AND MULLINS

cause of the heuristic nature of the model, applied recommendations for the practice of nonfor-
mal science education must be considered somewhat tentative. Some limited recommendations
that seem to have merit follow:

1. Educators should remember that each learner forms and responds to an individualized
percept of the educational program. Factors such as differences in sensory capabilities,
preferences for certain sensory modes, fatigue, motivational state, and social and cul-
tural factors will affect the formation of this percept.
2. The model suggests that motivational state is crucial to every stage of the affective re-
sponse, and the satisfaction or frustration of the learner’s motivation(s) is a main de-
terminant of the quality of that affective experience. Thus, developing visitor profiles
which identify the motivations of visitors, in addition to more traditional demograph-
ic data, could help educators structure programs that would be more satisfying to larg-
er numbers of visitors.
3. A dominant pattern emerging from the field research component of this study was that
social interactions seem to be crucial to the nonformal educational experience. Non-
formal educators should consider structuring programs to provide learning experiences
that maximize social interactions within groups in a meaningful way.

This study also points out the need for further research:

1. Both the literature and the field research component of the study indicated an ambigu-
ity of terminology associated with affective constructs. For example, practitioners in-
terviewed made little apparent discrimination between the phenomena of interest, cu-
riosity, attention, and enjoyment until probe questions were pursued. Indeed, as the
literature reflects, there are no standard definitions in existence for most affective con-
structs. Thus, research is needed to pool the collective knowledge and wisdom of pro-
fessionals in the field to arrive at a standardized terminology related to affective con-
structs so that future studies can be conducted without the hindrance of ambiguity of
terms.
2. The model enumerates attraction, percept, and decision factors which are hypothesized
to influence the outcome of various events within the affective response, namely at-
traction to stimuli, formation of percepts, and action decisions. More research is need-
ed to support and expand upon existing evidence for the influence of these factors. Re-
search should also be pursued to determine if some factors are more influential than
others.
3. Research is needed to clarify how the affective experiences of learners in nonformal
educational settings might be enhanced. In other words, how might these experiences
be made consistently positive and/or more intensely positive?
4. Research is needed to identify the long-term effects of affective learning in nonformal
educational settings. Several theories hold that affect is a motivational force (Arnold,
1960; Plutchik, 1980; Buck, 1984). The Meredith Model proposes that the short-term
affect experienced in the nonformal science learning experience may reinforce or lead
to long-term affective dispositions that could persist indefinitely and motivate and in-
fluence extended patterns of behavior. Examples of such behaviors could include pur-
suing more science learning experiences, adopting hobbies in the sciences, choosing
careers in science, and so on. While these are undoubtedly the types of behaviors many
nonformal science educators hope to encourage, more research is needed to confirm
the role of affective learning in influencing such behaviors.
 A MODEL OF AFFECTIVE LEARNING 817

References

Arnold, M.B. (1960). Emotion and personality, Vol. 1. Psychological aspects. New York:
Columbia University Press.
Ault, C.R., Jr. (1987). The museum as science teacher. Science and Children, 25, 8–11.
Berlyne, D.E. (1960). Conflict, arousal, and curiosity. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Berlyne, D.E. (1970). Novelty, complexity, and hedonic value. Perception and Psy-
chophysics, 8, 179–286.
Bloom, B.S. (Ed.). (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. Handbook I: Cognitive do-
main. New York: Longmans, Green.
Buck, R. (1984). The communication of emotion. New York: Guilford Press.
Busque, L. (1991). Potential interaction and potential investigation of science center ex-
hibits and visitors’ interest. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 411–421.
Celsi, R.L., & Olson, J.C. (1988). The role of involvement in attention and comprehension
processes. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 210–224.
Day, H. (1967). Evaluations of subjective complexity, pleasingness and interestingness
for a series of random polygons varying in complexity. Perception and Psychophysics, 2,
281–286.
Day, H.I. (1982). Curiosity and the interested explorer. Performance and Instruction, 21,
19–22.
Ellis, A.K., & Fouts, J.T. (1996). Handbook of educational terms and applications. Prince-
ton: Eye on Education.
English, H.B., & English, A.C. (1958). A comprehensive dictionary of psychological and
psychoanalytical terms. New York: Longmans, Green.
Falk, J.H., Koran, J.J., Jr., & Dierking, L.D. (1986). The things of science: assessing the
learning potential of science museums. Science Education, 70, 503–508.
Falk, J.H., Martin, W.W., & Balling, J.D. (1978). The novel field-trip phenomenon: Ad-
justment to novel settings interferes with task learning. Journal of Research in Science Teach-
ing, 15, 127–134.
Fiske, D.W., & Maddi, S.R. (1961). A conceptual framework. In D.W. Fiske & S.R. Mad-
di (Eds.), functions of varied experience (pp. 11–56). Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press.
Flexner, B.K., & Borun, M. (1984). The impact of a class visit to a participatory science
museum exhibit and a classroom science lesson. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 21,
863–873.
Foster, J.S., Koran, J.J., Jr., Koran, M.L., Stark, S., Blackwood, A., & Landers, H. (1988).
The effect of multispecies exhibits on visitor attention at the Jacksonville Zoological Park. In
S. Bitgood & A. Benefield (Eds.), Visitor studies—1988: Theory, research, and practice. Pro-
ceedings of the First Annual Visitor Studies Conference (pp. 113–119). Jacksonville, AL: Cen-
ter for Social Design.
Guba, E.G. (1981). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries. Edu-
cational Communication and Technology Journal, 29, 75–91.
Harty, H., & Samuel, K.V. (1986). Exploring relationships among four science teaching-
learning affective attributes of sixth grade students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
23, 51–60.
Izard, C.E., Wehmer, G.M., Livsey, W.J., & Jennings, J.R. (1965). Affect, awareness, and
performance. In S.S. Tomkins & C.E. Izard (Eds.), Affect, cognition, and personality. New York:
Springer.
818 MEREDITH, FORTNER, AND MULLINS

Koran, J.J., Jr., & Baker, S.D. (1979). Evaluating the effectiveness of field experiences. In
Rowe, M.B. (Ed.), What research says to the science teacher. Washington, DC: National Sci-
ence Teachers Association.
Koran, J.J., Jr., Foster, J.S., & Koran, M.L. (1989). The relationship among interest, atten-
tion and learning in a natural history museum. In Visitor studies: Theory, research, and prac-
tice (Vol. 2) (pp. 239–244). Jacksonville, AL: Center for Social Design.
Koran, J.J., Koran, M.L., Foster, J.S., & Dierking, L.D. (1988). Using modeling to direct
attention. Curator, 31, 26–42.
Koran, J.J., Jr., Koran, M.L., & Longino, S.J. (1986). The relationship of age, sex, atten-
tion, and holding power with two types of science exhibits. Curator, 29, 227–235.
Koran, J.J., Jr., Morrison, L., Lehman, J.R., Koran, M.L., & Gandara, L. (1984). Attention
and curiosity in museums. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 21, 357–363.
Krathwohl, D.R., Bloom, B.S., & Masia, B.B. (1964). Taxonomy of educational objectives.
The classification of educational goals. Handbook II: Affective domain. New York: David McKay.
Maddi, S.R. (1961), Exploratory behavior and variation-seeking in man. In D.W. Fiske &
S.R. Maddi (Eds.), Functions of varied experience (pp. 253–277). Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press.
Miles, R.S., & Tout, A.F. (1979). Outline of a technology for effective science exhibits. Spe-
cial Papers in Paleontology, 22, 209–224.
Mullins, G.W. (1984). The changing role of the interpreter. Journal of Environmental Ed-
ucation, 15, 1–5.
Patterson, D., & Bitgood, S. (1988). Some evolving principles of visitor behavior. In S. Bit-
good & A. Benefield (Eds.), Visitor studies—1988: Theory, research, and practice. Proceedings
of the First Annual Visitor Studies Conference (pp. 40–50). Jacksonville, AL: Center for Social
Design.
Patton, M.Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park:
Sage.
Plutchik, R. (1980). Emotion: A psychoevoltionary synthesis. New York: Harper & Row.
Roberts, L. (1990). The elusive qualities of “affect.” In What research ways about learning
in science museums. Washington, DC: Association of Science-Technology Centers.
Robinson, W.S. (1969). The logical structure of analytic induction. In G.J. McGall & J.L.
Simmons (Eds.), Issues in participant observation: A text and reader (pp. 196–205). Reading,
MA: Addison-Wesley. (Reprinted from American Sociological Review, 1951, 16, 812–818).
Shettel, H.H. (1976). An evaluation of visitor response to man in his environment—final re-
port. Chicago: Field Museum of National History.
Thorndike, E.L. (1935). Adult interests. New York: Macmillan.
Washburne, R.R., & Wager, A.J. (1972). Evaluating visitor response to exhibit content. Cu-
rator, 15, 248–254.
White, R.W. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence. Psychological
Review, 66, 297–333.