Art Museum/School Collaborations || A Focus on Art Museum/School Collaborations

National Art Education Association

A Focus on Art Museum/School CollaborationsAuthor(s): Nancy W. BerrySource: Art Education, Vol. 51, No. 2, Art Museum/School Collaborations (Mar., 1998), pp. 8-14Published by: National Art Education AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3193736 .

Accessed: 16/06/2014 01:17

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

National Art Education Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to ArtEducation.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 62.122.72.154 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 01:17:07 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=naea

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3193736?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


S t E G r l A aL a ,< S .. r ::

:n

0 'D\f A A Focus U X l ]/

f wSt- X X

voorlgons x x thy is it important for

v ^ / school children to w w learn from works of T T art in the museum

environment? What approaches to learning

from works of art in museums and schools are being explored and with what results?

How can art museum and school educators collaborate most effectively to ensure an optimal learning experience? What role does each institution play in the partnership?

What programs exist as successful examples of art museum/school collaborations?

This issue of ArtEducation explores the nature of art museum/school collaborations and sheds some light on these questions. Findingsfromnational focus group and sunzey research con-

ducted by the National Center for Art Museum/School Collaborations (NCAMSC), including ideas and recom- mendations for establishing successful collaborative programs, are presented in this article. In articles that follow, readers will find theoretical bases for

bringing the two institutions together, and museum/school programs that offer examples of approaches to identi- fying personal meanings and curricular connections based on works of art.

ART MUSEUMS AND SCHOOLS American art museums and schools

have a longstanding relationship. Zeller

(1989) desenbes early examples of education efforts for school audiences, and adds that education was and is used by American art museums in seeking pri- vate and public support. In 1984 the American Association of Museums

(AAM) published Museumsfora New Century, a reportby a special commission of museum leaders that provides strong incentive for museums to empha- size, strengthen, and define their educa- tive function. The reporthighlights the museum-school partnership and recom- mends conversations about mutual objectives between national and state leaders in schools and museums.

As an outgrowth of the emphasis on education and collaboration in Museums for a New Century, AAM organized a Task Force on Museum Education. Its reportExcellence and Equity (1991) rec- ommends that museums take action to place education, broadly defined, at the center of their public service role. It urges museums to collaborate with a wide range of organizations, and specifi- cally to form broad-based partnerships with school systems and the pnvate sec- tor to address educational issues and

-

_] A R T E D U C A T I O N / M A R C H 1 9 9 8



BY NANCY BERRY

Photo credit: Nancy Walkup, Program Coordinator, North Texas Institute for Educators on the Visual Arts, P.O. Box 305100, Denton, TX 76203.

improve public education. Hicks (1986) points outhowmuseum

and classroom learning differ and how the two setfings are complementary. She states that in schools, facts and concepts are usually presented sequentially, through verbal communication, and in a structured way. In museum learning, objects form the basis of the lesastruc- tured process, which engages the learn- er's own interests, ideas, and experiences. Strong collaborative programs combine the advantages of both,

Ellson adds, saying it is essential that "educators, regardless of the institutions they work in, recognize that each aspect of education. . .contributes to the entire context of a student's experience" (1997, p. 24). Mayer's arficle in this issue looks at the historical range of philosophical approaches to art museum education and suggests that museum stafEs trained in new art history methodologies will shift their interpretive approaches from object-centered ones to people-centered ones, empowering school audiences as "active, equal, thinking members of an expanding community of inquiry."

DEFINING COjLLABORATION VVllson (1997) states thatthe most

successful museum/school partnership projects are collaborative rather than cooperative in nature, leading to shared ownership in the educational programs that result. Hord (1986) distinguishes between the two, saying that cooperation occurs when two or more individuals or organi7wtions agree to work together on a project with no expectations of further benefits. She identified these character- istics as necessary for collaboration:

MARCH 1998 / ART EDUCATION l_



!

* shared needs and interests, * commitnent oftime to the

process, * energetic individuals imbued

with the collaborative spirit, * on-going communication, * adequate resources including

staf ing and funding, * relinquishment of personal con-

trol resulfing in increased nsk, * condnual checking ofthe per-

ceptions of those involved in the collaboration,

* positive leaders, and * personal traits of patience, per-

sistence, and willingness to share. Collaborative programs between

museums and schools involve a com- mitment to planning and working together on an equal footing toward shared goals and results. Sheppard (1993) emphasizes the synergistic relationship between school and museum professionals, pointing out that school educators know their students' capabili- ties better, while museum educators are more knowledgeable aboutworks of art in their museums. To inspire collaboration between schools and museums, Hazelroth and Moore oXer a Slexible model for the process in their photo essay in this issue.

THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR ART MUSEUM/SCHOOL COLLABORATIONS

The first step toward establishing collaboration between museum and school educators is to foster better understanding and communication between the two. W1th this in mind, NCAMSC was established as a specialty program of the North Texas Institute for Educators on the VisualArts (NTIE- VA) to build on the successful museum- school partnerships established during 5 years of teacher training institutes. Funded by ffie Getty EducaXon

Institute for the Arts from 1995 through 1997, it served as a cleannghouse for information about successful museum/school programs and practices by conducting research, maintaining a database of informations and making its information accessible ffirough pnnt and electonic networks.

explorations of ideas, concepts, at6- tudes, and beliefs about museum- school parlnerships. Responses helped guide NCAMSC in defining its stuc- ture and services (Syndics Research, 1995).

FOCUS GROUPS In 1995, NCAMSC conducted a

senes of focus groups to target user needs. Focus groups are interviews between tained moderators and small groups of parficipants who are encour-

; WHAT MUSEUMS CAN DO Pardcipants were queried about

the importance of including muse um visits and resources as a part of comprehensive art education. School groups spoke highly of their visits to museums, saying that they

were "extensions of the classroom," providing "a sacred place" for children to see realworks of art Theyadded that to be effective extensions of the school classroom, museums should become familiar with school curricula and provide instnlction for children that simultaneously facilitates the leam- ing process and validates their art instnlction at school. Exchanges

aged to express their candid opinions on a targeted subject (Braverman, 1988) . NCAMSC convened art musb um and school educators and adminia tators at three sites: Dallas, Washington, DC, and Portland, Maine, where they responded to questions from professional facilitators. Discussions consisted of open-ended

ART EDUCATION / MARCH 1998



brought out differences between school and museum learning environments, and the need for each to understand the offieSsuniquequalities. Suggestions for museum services for teachers included workshops, reading lists relat- ed to museum collections, reduced-rate memberships, and social events. EveIy group expressed the need for help with tansportation costs to bring their students to the museum and requested advocacy materials and services to help validate art education and museum via

print reproductions of permanent collection objectswould be. IEey explained that they rarely have access to slide prb jectors (often in poor repair), and that slide images cannot be left on display for a prolonged unit ofstudy. Teachers added that transparencies were preferable to slides since almost evety classroom is equipped with an overhead projector. In 1995, only afewfocus group participants had access to multi- media computers or videodisc players, and, while their interactive possibilities were intriguing, teachers in all three groups expressed their concern that video and computer screens are too small to serve the large groups of students in their classes. Posters, they added, could be displayed in classrooms and referred to frequendy by both teachers and students. Postcards could be used in grouping and sorting exercises, art criticism activities, and in other suS jects such as language arts. Still, as shown by the program descriptions in the articles that follow, most museums continue to supply slides for school use because they are the most affordable means of producing reproductions, and images from temporary exhibidons are more common than permanent collec- fon slides because their funding can be built into grant proposals.

Generally, school educators were surprised to discover the willingness of museum educators to customize their offerings for schools. X1th advance notice, most education deparAnents can meet school learning objectives in ways that range from adapting existing programs in a cooperative arrangement to a true collaborative effort in which school and museum educators plan together to fulfill the goals of both institutions. Program descriptions in this issue are good examples of programs designed collaboratively to meet local

school district needs. Because these needs are pervasive (relafing present- day art to present-day living, and accom- modating specific audiences such as ESL students and secondary students in the art museum environment), the solu- tions devised in Los Angeles, Philadelphia, and Houston are widely adaptable.

WHAT SCHOOLS CAN DO What role should schools play in col-

laborations? The focus groups stated teachers should become involved with their area art museums. Ongoing communication with museum colleagues and active participation in museum prb grams ensures familiarity with permanent collections and regular program offerings, making it easier to integrate art museum experiences into teaching. Museum educators requested frequent curriculum updates to help them keep up with educational trends and reforms. Art specialists can plan museum visits and teaching resources that include interdisciplinary connections to meet school-wide learning objectives, net- working with other teachers so that all become familiar with museum programs and resources. Groups stressed the importance of administrafive support, idenWing administrators as ideal persons to initiate collaborations between schools and art museums. Giving teachers a professional day to work with museum educators was cited as a good example of adrninistrative support

ESTABLISHING COLLABORATIONS

How are art museum/school collaborations initiated? Itwas agreed thatin museums, education staff members are the primary contacts. Schools are a dif- ferent matter, with possible collaborators idenffied as art coordinators, art

its for administrators and parents. When asked what art museums

could do for them, school participants (68% art specialists) emphasized the need for images to use in teaching art whether in books, visual aids, posters, or preparatory packets. They reminded museum colleagues that they usually received slides of objects Fom temporary effiibitions, not nearly so useful as

MARCH 1998 / ART EDUCATION



Table 1:

Who initiated program

E Museum staff E School personnel * Museum & school 0E1 Other

E Did not respond/unknown

62%

22%

; *, r ' ';

specialists, principals, and generalists. One focus group suggested that museum educators create personal networks by contacting friends in targeted sites to help identify the best contacts in each school. Participants named PTAand FIO groups as other organizations to bring into collaborations, and encouraged involvement of students them- selves in planning efforts.

It is important to make each partner's goals for programs clear from the beginning so that each knows what out- comes the other hopes to achieve and where goals overlap. Common goals form the ideal starting point, and where differences occur, each partner should agree to honor the other's concerns. In the focus groups, an example of differ- ing perceptions dealt with integrated learning. School educators tended to view works of art as examples of an idea or theme, whereas art museum educators saw works of art at the core of a curriculum unit, with other disciplines serving to make connections to get at their meanings. The integrity of the experience with original works of art is primary to museum educators, thus, working with their school counterparts to plan units of instruction built around that experience is important. The brief

duration of a focus group, about an hour and a half, revealed how school and museum perceptions might differ, even when the desired resultwas the same. Obstacles to successful collaboration may include lack of understarlding by museum educators of the demands and constraints of school teachers' jobs, dif- fering pedagogical starldards in schools and museums, and a lack of museum lit- eracy training in teacher preparation (Walsh-Piper, 1989).

Once a program is in place, collaborators must work to maintain their original enthusiasm for the project, listening to each other's points of view and keeping in mind their joint ownership. When one parMer takes control, the collaborative process breaks down. The process is time- and energy-consuming, requir- ing constant communication and consid- erable persistence and patience. In response to a question about ideal net- working formats, several participants felt that focus groups, where small groups of like-minded individuals bom diflering institutional stmetures come together for informal discourse, were preferable to a large conference format.

NATIONAL SURVEY OF ART MUSEUM/SCHOOL COLLABORATIONS

In 1996, NCAMSC conducted a sur-

Chart Design:

Cullen Clark Lutz, Curator of Education, Art Museum of

Southeast Texas, Beaumont, Texas.

vey of 600 art museum educators, ask- ing them to discuss their most successful collaborative school programs with reference to these aspects: conception and management, collaborators, audiences, formats and locations, market- ing, evaluation, and program content. Open-ended questions at the end of the survey encouraged respondents to explain in whatways their programs were successful and what problems they faced. Responses came from over 100 museums in 38 states and Canada, describing 172 programs. Resultswere shared through a published report, pre- sentations at professional conferences, and through the NTIEVAWeb site ttp://www.art.unt.edu/ntieva/). A follow-up survey circulated in 1997 queried school partners identified as collaborators. Findings from the second survey are not complete at this writing, but will be reported during fall 1997. Hearing from both partners is essential to gain a complete understanding of the state of art museum/school collaborations and to identify their proW

ART EDUCATION / MARCH 1998



Table 3:

Collaborators Table 4:

Sequence/method used

Table 6: Assessment methods

E Teacher X Principal

ES Curator E Other

Table 5:

Audience

66%

45% _

°M o 1 5% _6/o

_

o University/College g Elementary * Secondary

g Day care g Other

m Written evaluation sheets

E Outside evaluation with report

lems, challenges, and successes. SURVEY FINDINGS

Afull report of the first survey's findings is available (Clark,1996), butafew are summarized here, with quantitative responses expressed in percentages that indicate trends, not a scientific study. When asked who initiated the program, 62% of respondents indicated both museum and school personnel, and 63% said that program content was determined jointly, both trends pointing to a high incidence of collaboration (see Tables 1 and 2). Teachers were named as principal collaborators by 83% of respondents, with principals next at 33%

(seeTable 3) . The most common sequences or

methods employed for programs were multiple-visits (68%), with teacher-in- services (39°/0), and single-visits (33°/0) following (see Table 4) . Many respondents combined several sequences/methods per program, for example, multi-visits to museum, single- visit to school, etc. Audiences were mostly public school students (67%), with 66% of programs targeting elemen- tarz7 school children and 45% serving secondaly students (seeTable 5).

Evaluation took place in 83% of the programs, with observation (66%), written evaluation sheets (60%) and group discussion (49%) listed as the most prevalentmethods. Onlyl3%used outside evaluation with a report (see Table 6). The 10% of responses that did not include an assessment component listed the following reasons: (a) a program in early stages, (b) lack offunding, (c) lack of time, and (d) a preference for gaining feedback directly from teachers.

An open-ended question asked, 'What specific academic instructional objectives and/or museum education

* MuRi-v sit * SingWv sit * Teacher in-servioe

E Student art exhibit * Pecr baching E Other

* University Professor

E Observation

E Group discussion

E Other

MARCH 1998 / ART EDUCATION



their mutual goal of ennching the art experience of America's school students by making ie best use of both learning environments.

Nancy W. Berwy zsAssociate Professor of ArtEducation andArtHzstotyandArea Co o rdin a to rf o r A rt Edu ca tio n/Vis u a l Arts Studies, University of North Texas.

REFERENCES Braverman, B. E. (1988) . Empowering visi-

tors: Focus group interviews for art muse ums. In E. Hooper-Greenhill (Ed.), The educational role of the museum (pp.21S 222). London: Routledge.

Clark, C. (1996). A report: Survey on art museum/schoolcollaborations. Denton,lX: University of North Texas, National Center for Art Museum/School Collaborations.

Commission on Museums for a New Century. (1984) . Museums for a new century. Washington, DC: AmericanAssociation of Museums.

Hicks, E. C. (1986, September). Museums and schools as partners. ERICDigest. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 278 380)

Hord, S. (1986) . A synthesis of research on organizational collaboration. Educational Leadership, 43(5), 22-26.

Sheppard, B. (Ed.). (1993). Building museum and school partnerships. Harrisburg, PA Pennsylvania Federation of Museums and Historical Organizations.

SyndicsResearchCorporation. (1995, October). A qualitative analysis offocus groupsfor the National CenterforArt Museum School Collaborations. Dallas, TX: D. L. Cooper.

Task Force on Museum Education. (1991). Excellence and equity. Washington, DC: American Association of Museums.

Walsh-Piper, K (1989). Teachers and resource centers. In N. Berry & S. Mayer (Eds.), Museum education: History, theory, andpractice (pp. 196203). Reston,VA: National Art Education Association.

Wilson, B. (1997). The quiet evolution: Changing the face of arts education. Los Angeles: Getty Institute for Education in the Arts.

Zeller, T. (1989). The historical and philosophical foundations of art museum education in America. In N. Berry & S. Mayer (Eds.), Museum education: History, theory, and practice (pp. 1(}89). Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.

goals or needs are being met?" Responses offered powerful support for art museum/school collaborations, with examples such as "learning to see art as a language of expression of people, times, and cultures." Many answers pertained to curriculum-relat- ed learning, with examples of integrat- ing art into school studies. One school-initiated program takes place at the art museum, with school educators teaching about the museum's collection through subject areas other than art. Another collaboration "filled a need for arts education in area distncts, and met the museum's education goals by establishing it as a center for art and cultural education." Some responses identified skill-building in such areas as observation, writing, and English language skills for ESL students.

Another question asked for specific successes that came from the programs. Some responses noted a rise in achieve ment scores of schools, along with a lengthy retention of the museum experience by students. One attributed the success of its program to the stimulation of curiosity in students "when art touched an area of their everyday life experiences." The word "community" appeared frequently when respondents cited enhanced relationships between students and teachers, students and artists, art teachers and generalists, and the museum and its nontraditional audiences such as rural families, ethnic groups, and various at-risk student populations. Gains from those improved relationships included an increased sense of ownership of the museum by students, teachers, and parents; improved behav- ior and attendance by students involved in programs; and greater understanding of cultural diversity.

The survey inquired about specific

problems and challenges encountered by collaborators. Responses fell into two main categories: unfamiliaritywith each other's environments and logisti- cal problems such as lack of adequate time and resources uman and finan- cial) . One respondentfelt the program's primary challenge was a lack of understanding between school/museum/university collaborators as to their institutional values or "cultures." Another noted that when collaborators met, sessions often strayed to the discussion of problematic issues beyond the scope of either partner. Some museum educators lamented a resistance to change in some school bureaucracies, faculties, and curricula. Changing demographics of audiences concerned museum educators, who cited language barriers, inadequate facilities and staffs to accommodate disabled visitors, and instabilities in student populations.

Most problems centered on time and money. Shortages of time for planning and communication between parters as well as for overseeing and assessing programs were cited bequently. Money woes included losses in grant funding and shrinking school budgets, resulting in inadequate funds for trans- portation, production of teaching resources, documentation, and assessment of programs. Responses to the second survey should complete the pic- ture of this representative group of art museum/school collaborations.

IMPROVING ART MUSEUM/SCHOOL COLLABORATIONS

These findings bom NCAMSC research and the articles that follow are meant to spark ideas for forming new parterships and to of ler guidance and suggestions for improving existing ones. Planning and working together, art museums and schools can reach

A R T E D U C A T I O N / M A R C H 1 9 9 8



Documents

Art Museum/School Collaborations || A Focus on Art Museum/School Collaborations