Cycle One Report

Introduction
Museums and schools are natural partners for creating innovative learning experiences. At least they should be. Both institutions share many common educational goals. Museums can provide rich and varied content while schools provide students and learners. Many museums create innovative exhibitions, that are rich in content and visually compelling.  Schools that do not have the resources to create this content do posses an organic user base- the students. The introduction of technology into these environments should be the key component in the creation of vital educational collaborations and partnerships. Yet despite this seemingly natural environment, successful museum-school partnerships are still very difficult to create and maintain.
 
Framing Questions

1. Is it possible for an individual to facilitate collaboration between multiple institutions to share technological resources for education and for building an online community?
2. How can schools find ways to allocate time and share limited resources to promote online communities that facilitate learning about the real communities through the use of technology and the Internet?
3. What is necessary to identify schools, museums and other educational institutions that are open to creating an innovative program that will build and online community by sharing technology resources?

Actions and Process
As an experienced museum professional, it seemed to me that the nature of the problem was pretty straightforward and that the solution would be found in developing a compelling, content driven project that would engage users and promote sharing and collaboration. I had no shortage of ideas for potential projects, but soon found myself in a quagmire regarding possible partners and technologies to use. The more that I researched, contemplated and discussed the idea, the more that I realized that problem was larger than I had originally planned for and that I needed to narrow my research topic.

Another challenge that I became aware of is that I am a free-lance consultant and am not associated with any one institution. I realized that without an institutional framework, there was a need to develop a more creative approach to building a structure for my Action Research Project. Early on in the process, I identified one opportunity for my research by working with a new organization that possessed educational, museum and technology components.  Unfortunately, the organization fell apart because the principals could not agree on any of primary goals for the organization.

I felt lost again and was unsure how to progress. I did not where to place my to focus:  developing a project; identifying institutions for collaborative partnerships; or identifying technologies to use. Revisiting my original research topic helped me to clarify this dilemma.  “Using technology to create collaboration between schools and museums”, suggested that the project should be driven by technology. But I was unsure of what technology. Computers seemed too obvious and inconsistent (there are no cross- institutional standards for computers in classrooms or in museums).

Answers to this path began to present themselves from other classes. An assignment in Technology and Learning was to identify and research a ubiquitous technology that could be used in a learning environment. My choice was more instinctive than rational- mobile phones. I had no specific idea or approach but thought that they could be interesting. Gary Stegner’s style of assignments (“Learning Adventures”) helped me to clarify an approach to how to use mobile phones. He challenged us to take a new technology, learn it and then apply it to our own style of teaching, learning and subject matter, sometimes in unconventional ways. Learning Adventures promote a freedom to interpret as well as challenge the imaginations of both educators and learners.  Musing about this approach led me begin so see other uses for mobile phone aside from receiving and delivering simple voice or text messages. Unfortunately at the time, these musings did not lead to any concrete idea that sparked my imagination.

This changed after hearing Hall Davidson speak at the NACOL conference in October.   Davidson demonstrated the use of a mobile and the www.Gcast in creating blogs podcasts that can be posted directly to the web. This was an “aha” moment for me that began to get me fired up. Simply inspecting my own phone, I began top realize that with its’ capabilities for capturing images, video and audio, it could be used as a multi-media production device for individuals.

Concurrent with my search for a technology was my quest for institutional partners- teachers, principals or directors who would be open to participating in a graduate research project. Not being associated with an institution had it’s own series of problems, but I also had no clear definition of the project- only that it would involve cell phones, schools and museums. One idea did present itself to me, something related to research and projects that I have done in the past. I have had a long-standing interest in building communities and found the web a powerful tool for related activities. I began to form a research project based upon students visiting a museum, taking photos and recording audio that are posted directly to the web. The students could then visit each other’s postings to make comments, ask questions and share impressions. I decided to personally try out this process to test the ease viability of this project. Leaving my camera at home, I traveled to the Hollywood Forever Cemetery for the annual Dia de los muertos celebration, carrying only my cell phone, iPod and TuneTalk microphone (for the ipod). I wandered around the cemetery, looking at, photographing and posting images of the alters of different artists. I recorded my own commentary and interviewed artists, posting comments directly to the web (http://www.flickr.com/photos/dagreen/281714062/in/set-72157594349031575/). I also tested recording to bipod and then downloading to the computer for later posting.  I found the process straightforward and easy, but not being the target audience, I needed to test the process with students.

At this point in time, I began to focus in earnest on identifying partner institutions.  Already aware of the need to keep the scope of my ARP to a manageable size, I concentrated on smaller institutions and pursued several leads. One promising one was with the Leo Politi School in downtown LA. My contact was a friend who is a teacher there and offered to provide me with an introduction to the principle. He was unfortunately unable to follow through with the offer. Speaking later, my friend told me that he had misunderstood my proposal and dropped the ball because he did not feel that the project met the school’s curriculum- he had not realized that this is a research project outside of the state or city curriculum.

I met with the director of my daughter’s school- a small, well-endowed private school with a reputation for some innovation. I discovered that despite the new computer lab there was a profound lack of commitment to using technology. She graciously turned down both my project and my offer to volunteer for the technology committee.

My break came with a chance encounter with the director of my son’s school. He loved the idea and offered to present it to the principles and department leads. They soon communicated with me that they felt that the proposal was intriguing and they wanted to meet to discuss it. I was also referred to the director of a small Jewish children’s museum in Los Angeles that has a very dynamic outreach program.

These connections led me to a phase of intense organization and coordination with the different potential partners. There seemed to be no shortage of religious holidays, national holidays, internal school meetings and training days that hindered our schedules. Perseverance, enthusiasm and emails prevailed and I was able to meet with all parties.

My first meeting was with J.L., the VP of the Pressman Academy (the school that my son attends). We spoke about the possibility of an immediate implementation for the project. Pressman was in the midst of a visit of students from their “twin” school in Israel. Although the visit would have been a perfect example to test building communities, the students (and teachers) days were already too full to introduce a new project. J.L. and I instead decided to pursue the project in February. Although we had no clear program, we decided to enlist students from the 6th grade class because they had the most flexible schedules and were developmentally able to do the kind of work and reflection associated with this project. 

My next visit was with E.N., executive director of the Zimmer museum. She loved the idea, saying that it related directly to some of the outreach work to public schools in lower socioeconomic areas of the city. We developed a three-step program for the students. In visit 1, students would receive instruction about the process of using the phones, receive a short tour in the museum and then wander about taking photos and making audio blogs. Visit 2 would include additional instruction on narrative and family histories to enable them to interview family members about their recollections inspired by viewing the objects in the museum. Additionally instruction would include the process of making annotations and comments to web sites. The final visit would be for presentations and public viewing of each other’s sites.  E.L. then introduced me to E.S. the director of operations for the museum, who would act as my contact person.

After the Pressman students returned from winter break in mid-January and about 6 weeks before our first scheduled museum visit, I went to the school to do a presentation about my ARP. I spoke to about 30 sixth grade students about the project, mobile phones, what would be expected of them and what they would receive (a visit to the museum, pizza and a certificate). There appeared to be an interest level split about 50-50 along gender lines (with the boys more interested than the girls) but received no actual commitment to participation.

As Wednesday, February 28, the day of the visit approached, I still had not received any news about student participants. My emails and calls were unanswered. Finally, on the Friday before the visit, I went to the school to see if I could gain some information. I bumped into J.L. who apologized profusely about the lack of communication- she was like many other professional teachers, overwhelmed by her responsibilities. But she also had other bad news. It seemed that when we originally chose the dates, she did not notice that Feb. 28 was teacher-parent conference day and that the students would not be at school that day. We then decided to modify the project to two visits instead of three and that we would begin on Wednesday, March 7. By Monday, March 5, I still had not received a list of participants. J.L and I decided to give it one more try as a one visit program, but by the following Monday when I had still not received a list, I understood that this project was not going to happen, at least according to this schedule.

At first I was a disappointed and a bit distressed that this project seemed that it might fail. But I did feel that there was something to be learned, although I was unsure of what. After speaking with an educator friend and Margaret, I began to acquire some insight about how to approach the project, the people involved and the future of the project. My goal shifted from actually doing the project to understanding the reasons that prevented it from happening at this time and what steps are necessary to help it succeed in the future.

After the realization of what could and could not happen and after these conversations, I approached J.L. with a different attitude. Rather than express my previous enthusiasm that was associated with my desire to succeed in actualizing the project, I expressed an appreciation of her willingness to accommodate me and my project, an understanding of the work pressures that may have prevented her for moving ahead, and a desire to listen and learn about her experience and what steps are needed to move ahead. J.L. appreciated this approach and expressed a willingness to talk, and also offered several suggestions of her own for implementing the project for next year into a more general curriculum that will include all teachers, the twin school in Israel and the Zimmer museum in Los Angeles.

Reflections and Answers
Much of my learning style involves experiential learning. This means that as much as I enjoy and respond to reading and research, my natural approach to project-based learning is to roll up my sleeves, get to work and address one problem at a time. Although I possess an ability to see both big-picture issues as well as details, I often let my enthusiasm for a project drive me and do not take the time to reflect and evaluate the individual components of a specific project until it is complete.  Additionally, I usually employ a bottom-up method of design, incorporating an extensive period of discovery to fully understand the needs and goals of a client.  These methods have worked successfully many times in the past, usually because the projects are solo, or involve a small core of similar-minded people within unique institution.  Reflecting on this project after it closed (temporarily) it down I began to understand the nature of developing collaborations across multiple institutions. Ownership and commitment, clear communication and realistic schedules are all important components for successful projects in any format or medium- academic to corporate, research to production. An individual working solo possesses a certain amount of flexibility to these four areas of concern. One area of strength can compensate for other areas of weakness. This is not the case in collaborations and partnerships- each component is an integral part of a projects foundation. One area of weakness can impact the success completion of the original project. This was the case here. My enthusiasm was not enough to carry the project through to completion. There was a lack of ownership among the partners, communication was weak and the timing was off. This outcome reflects my decision to use a top-down approach rather than my usual bottom-up design. I came to my partners with a project that I strongly felt would be an appropriate match for their institution, rather then conduct interviews to ascertain their actual needs and goals.

But my top-down process may not have been completely misguided. In the May 1996 issue of Executive Excellence, Michael and Timothy Mescon write: 

“Often frustrated by the status quo, the visionary becomes a "rational" zealot, as contrasted to Eric Hoffer's fanatical true believer, who is often more of an iconoclast than builder. While dismantling is often necessary, building something better--more effective and efficient structures—is the hallmark of leadership in an enterprise where, in the words of the late Robert Woodruff of Coca Cola, "Everyone gets well." 

Reflecting on the Mescon brothers definition of "Rational Zealot" has helped me to better understand the balanced and nuanced approach needed to build educational partnerships between museums and schools. This idea has also helped me to better understand my own Action Research project- it is not so much about building the actual project as it is about understanding the process, relationships and steps needed to make the project happen.

Even though I believe in the importance of bottom-up design, innovative projects often require the vision of an individual for guidance, coordination and promotion. Yet this individual cannot work in a vacuum and needs to provide an environment that supports open and clear communication, which will lead to commitment ownership and action to successfully achieve a project’s goal.

Bibliography
Mescon, Michael H, Mescon, Timothy S. Managing with a Mission. Executive Excellence. Provo: May 1996.Vol. 13, Issue 5. P. 11. Retrieved 04/09/2007 from http://proquest.umi.com.lib.pepperdine.edu/pqdweb?did=9652732&sid=2&Fmt=3&clientId=1686&RQT=309&VName=PQD