| |
Final
Report
Museums and School
Collaborations:
Integrating Technology to Enhance
Learning and to Build Communities (click
for PDF version)
The Problem
Who
does not have fond childhood memories of field trips
to a museum, seeing dinosaur bones or some great artwork
in real life, instead of small photographs inside of
a book? And who has not seen groups of excited schoolchildren
still running around museums today? These school
field trips to museums illustrate that the two types
of institutions are natural partners for creating rich,
compelling and dynamic learning experiences that are
as diverse as museums themselves- science, art, history
and culture.
Both
types of institutions share many common
organizational and educational goals. Although schools,
public and private, have active, large and organic
user bases (students), they do not possess the physical
resources that museums have. Museum exhibitions
provide content in dynamic, immersive environments
that enrich curriculum by engaging many,
if not all, of a visitor’s senses. Audio,
visual, olfactory and the dynamic movement of visitors
walking through and interacting with the space,
exhibit and other visitors stimulate tactile awareness.
Engaging multiple senses promotes users
to interpret the content in a personal and meaningful
way. These qualities promote the museum content
in a way that makes it come alive to the user and
that encourages their learning. Successful collaborations
between schools and museums can be defined as multiple
institutions sharing resources, tangible (personnel
and funds) and intangible (time and talent) to develop
dynamic learning experiences that are useful and
meaningful to all partner institutions involved
as well as to the larger community. Despite the
natural environment that is ripe for meaningful
collaboration, successful museum-school partnerships
are difficult to create and maintain.
One
of the key components that enables creation
of successful museum-school collaborations is the
integration of popular and accessible technologies
into the learning process to help facilitate resource
sharing and community building.
To
understand how to develop these types of
collaborative learning experiences, this paper will
identify three major issues: 1) the reasons and problems
that deter collaboration; 2) a viable and accessible
technology than will facilitate the collaborative process;
3) the skill sets and strategies needed
for a successful collaboration.
Literature Review
Existing Problems in Museum-School Collaborations
Many
museums and schools continue to use old models for
collaboration. These programs primarily use print-based
content for pre-visit packages, museum activities
and follow up packages. Some museums do incorporate
one form or another of technology in their exhibitions
but they are usually one-way presentations (such
as kiosk-based virtual exhibitions or video presentations),
and are not interactive and do not include any user-generated
content. Although most schools do have computers,
they are often not connected to museums, either
by a physical network or by content. This
leads to loss of many unique and valuable educational
opportunities, such as preparing students before
the visit, capturing their reflections during the
visit, and ongoing post-visit communication to continue
to share ideas and experiences.
Another
difficult problem in developing museum-school collaborations
is a general lack of enthusiasm for teacher’s
professional development. Many teachers feel that “keeping
abreast of information technology stressful, rating
information technology above research/publishing
demands, teaching load, and tenure/promotion as
a significant stressor” (Bower, 2001, paragraph
2). Although Bower’s research focuses on higher
education, my informal research among teachers at
three K-12 schools show that these perceptions are
shared. It does not seem to matter if a school is
located in an economically advantaged or disadvantaged
neighborhood: teachers all lament
the lack of time for preparation and training.
This
suggests that one of the primary issues
hindering the creation of museum-school collaborations
is that the entry point to access the digital divide
is still too high for many institutions.
Most people realize and accept that computers are amazing
tools that offer infinite possibilities to enhance
learning and build communities. But physical and psychological
barriers still prevent them from being
fully integrated into all learning environments.
From
my past professional experience in the
museum community, I was aware of some of the existing
problems and the plethora of museum and school educators,
technologists and information scientists who research
the process of collaboration, especially between schools
and museums. Results of formal and heuristic studies
illustrate that across institutional lines
there are several consistent issues that hinder museum-school
collaborations, especially when associated
with technology. Several problems that have been identified
are: a lack of uniform standards of technology
in classrooms and museums; problems associated with
lack of imagination, innovation and ingenuity
in incorporating technology into learning environments;
no initiative to use technology; no institutional
commitment to technology; no budgets for
purchasing new computers, upgrades and maintenance;
limited access to computers for students and teachers
(in institutions and homes); lack of time to prepare
programs and train teachers; teachers overwhelmed
by current work and can adopt to new technology.
Each
of these issues alone could be considered
large enough to impede multi-institution collaborations.
When multiple issues are combined, the
problem often seems exponential.
Any
discussion relating to technology and education
must also include the digital divide. Although the
gap between those who have and those who do not
have access to computers and/or Internet access
is shrinking, a vast disparity still remains. Low
levels of education, community awareness and especially
socio-economic issues cause these discrepancies.
The gap in the digital divide “…may
also involve rejection or lack of interest in new
technologies” because of “…pressing
issues such as day care” (Rice & Katz, 2003,
page 600).
Identifying a Technology to Facilitate Collaboration
As
formidable as these obstacles may seem, there are
easier and more ubiquitous technologies that can
be used to share content and build museum-school
collaborations. In the initial stages of research,
I recognized the value of one specific device: the
mobile phone. I heard many anecdotal stories
about people using cell phone to receive information
such as messages to aid in guided tours
of parks and museums or text message announcements
about classes or content. But as a learner
whose preferred method of learning is primarily
experiential, I contemplated how a mobile
phone could be used in a learning environment
as a production tool and not just as a
receiver of data. I thought of endless
possible ways that mobile phones can be
used to create content that facilitates
museum-school collaboration.
“When
the term Digital Divide is used
in the US, it almost exclusively refers
to the use to computers (Rice & Katz, 2003, p. 601). This interpretation
contrasts in an interesting way to the rest of the
world, where this term does not have such a narrow
meaning. Instead “mobile communication plays
on integral part in considerations of a digital
divide in most countries save the US” (Rice & Katz,
2003, p. 601). Studies by Rice
and Katz as well as Mark Prensky (What can you learn
from a Cell Phone? Almost Anything! 2005) show
that the highest rate of penetration of
any technology in global society is
the mobile phone, and it continues to
grow at a higher rate than the computer.
In 2004, there were 1.5 billion mobile
phones in use in the world with a ½ billion
more being sold every year In the United
States, penetration in the schools is
estimated to be 40% in junior high schools,
75% in many high schools and over 90%
in colleges. Additionally there are
countries in the word such as the U.K.,
Italy and Sweden where market penetration
is greater than 100%, meaning that many
people have more than one mobile phone.
As of 2006, 80% of world's population
has mobile phone coverage. There are many
several reasons for this level of accessibility,
such as their small size and relative
low cost. Additionally, many countries
have made decisions to invest in wireless
communication rather then upgrade the
antiquated wire services.
Mobile
phones are easy to use and are located everywhere
on the planet, urban, rural and remote, making them
accessible at any time by just about every person
on this planet. We can infer from this that
mobile phones fill a very important function in
the human condition: the very basic human
need for communication. It is interesting to note
that in a US survey about the desire to use the
Internet, “communication with others” rates
above “accessing information, having fun and
shopping” (Rice & Katz, 2005,
p. 600).
Many
educators would benefit by observing their
students and learning how to be more open
to innovative uses of mobile phones. Besides
normal phone calls, students use their
phones for communicating via text messaging,
sending and receiving images and video,
and recording and listening to music. Unlike
the integration of other types of accessible
media tools,such as video cameras, educators
have been unable or late to catch the wave. “Students learn from other
students. Emphasis on student-to-student interaction
through group tasks and cooperative activities has
increased as we move from a teaching to learning
paradigm” (Bower, 2001, para.17).
Capturing
images, audio and video with a cell
phone are only one of a larger project. Making
a learning adventure truly an adventure requires
the student to be able to communicate and provide
input about their learning experience. Web
2.0 sites such as
Flickr, Gcast, Gabcast, Clicky and del.icio.us
can all be used by students to publish,
organize and share their images, audio
reflections and comments on the web.
Other students can be invited to visit
these sites to add their own comments and
reflections, making this a very dynamic
and interactive learning experience.
An added bonus is that students do not
have to be in close geographical proximity
to each other. Partnerships can be created
between students in different institutions
across district, city, and state, national
or even global boundaries.
When
thinking about how to introduce mobile phones into
a learning environment, it is also relevant to consider
that “learning is an active process in which
people construct new understandings of the world
around them through active exploration, experimentation,
discussion and reflection. In short: people don’t
get ideas; they make them” (Resnick,
2002, p. 33). In less than 30 years mobile
phones have been transformed from shoebox
size telecommunications devices to palm-sized
units that also incorporate still and video
cameras, music and audio players and recorders,
and text transmission devices. Additionally,
some phones can access the Internet and
be used as a GPS locater. What has not
developed are innovative ways that these
tools can be used in a learning environment.
This
is not to say that there is no development
at all. Some museums have been integrating mobile phones
into pre-existing education programs that
generally focus on the mobile phone as a receiver of
data and not as a production tool. For
example, the Petersen
Automotive Museum in Los
Angeles provides visitors with an 800
number to enable them to call and listen
to audio
guides of extended commentaries
on specific in the museum.
At
the 2007 Museums and the Web Conference, I
spoke with Chris Tellis, director of Antenna
Audio, a world leader in the development and
production of audio museum tours. The Antenna
Audio learning model is currently based on
only using proprietary audio-player devices
to disseminate information. Tellis told me
that they are now developing a new model in
which discreet audio tours will be available
to museum visitors through their personal
mobile. He also mentioned that there currently
are no plans for making these tours truly
interactive experiences by providing visitors
with an option in which they add their own
observations and reflections.
The Importance of Narrative and Stories
in Learning
In “Narrative
and Intelligence” Robert Schank writes: "We
have difficulty remembering such abstractions, but
we can more easily remember a good story. Stories give
life to past experience" (p.10). Using
and understanding these life events to
construct personal narratives and stories
will assist an individual to learn, understand
and attach their lives.
The
creation of personal narratives that promote individual
styles of learning is one of the most powerful byproducts
of using technology based museum-school collaborations.
The use of a personal device such as a mobile phone
does provide individuals with the capability to record
and post real time reflections to lessons, exhibitions
or other learning experiences. Using a mobile phone
camera or calling in to post a pod cast directly to
the web produces a rich personal narrative that both
encourages the individual user to discover their own
vision and method of communicating, as well as the
opponent to share that vision with others. Schank (1990)
describes the following:
| Intelligence, in the popular mind, refers
to the capacity to solve complex problems, but another
way of looking at the issues might be to say that
intelligence is really about understanding what
has happened well enough to be able to predict when
it might happen again. .... Explaining the world
(at least to yourself) is a critical aspect of intelligence.
Comprehending events around you depends on having
a memory of prior events available for helping in
the interpretation of new events. |
In
describing the theory of multiple intelligences,
Howard Gardner describes nine separate human
faculties that “process information that
can be activated in a cultural setting to solve
problems create products that are of value in
a culture” (Gardner, 1999, pp.13-4) and
continues to explain that “[p]eople have
a wide range of capacities. Person’s strength
in one area of performance simply does not predict
any comparable strengths in other areas.” (p.
31). In essence, Gardner is arguing that different
individuals have different strengths and methods
of understanding events and the world that surrounds
them as well as possessing different modalities
for communicating this understanding. Another
way of expressing this is to say that some people “get” math,
some “get” art, some “get” music
and so on. Their understandings come from the
individual narratives that they construct to
develop their intelligence. Those who speak art
will create visual narratives that are art related;
those who speak chemistry will construct narratives
that are chemistry related.
Accepting
Gardner’s assumptions, it is relatively safe
to assume that within any group, there will be differences
in how information is processed, how problems are
solved and how products are created. One of the
most important experiences that an art, science,
historical or cultural museums can provide is a
space that allows and encourages visitors to create
their own personal narratives that best reflect
their own individual learning styles and intelligences.
The importance of this cannot be underestimated.
Many times people cannot not remember straight data,
but will remember the same data if there is a story
involved. Making their own stories increases the
ability for individuals to recollect information
and then interpret and apply meaning to new lessons.
Mobile phones promote personal narrative by empowering
users to reflect and add to their personal narratives
as events happen using multiple forms of media (audio,
visual, text). These forms directly relate to the
students interested and learning style. Their illustrated
and annotated stories are then archived on the web
for future reflection.
Action Research Approach
As
an experienced museum professional, it seemed to me
that the nature of the problem was 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 I realized
that the problem was larger than originally planned
and that I needed to narrow my research topic. Fortunately,
one aspect of Action Research is defined as “a
recognized form of experimental research that focuses
on the effects of the researcher's direct actions of
practice within a participatory community with the
goal of improving the performance quality of the community
or an area of concern” (Dick, 2002) This definition
provided an excellent structure for my project because
of its allowance for flexibility and change.
An
additional challenge faced me because as a free-lance
consultant, I am not associated with any one institution.
This meant that I needed to develop a very creative
approach to defining the goals and building the
structure for my Action Research Project.
Identifying a Technology and Collaboration
Partners
Reflecting on
my original research topic, “Using technology to
create collaboration between schools and museum”,
helped me to clarify that I needed to begin my project
by identifying a technology to use. I was not interested
in using computers because they seemed an obvious choice.
Also, I was aware of potential problems of accessibility
for students in classrooms. Two concurrent courses
in the program enabled me to identify an appropriate
technology. One of Professor Gary Stegner’s Learning
Adventures challenged me to identify an unfamiliar
technology, learn it, and then apply it to my own style
of teaching, learning and subject matter. The second
came from an assignment in another course, Educating
Today’s Learner, in which I needed to identify
a ubiquitous technology that could be integrated in
to a learning environment. As a challenge to myself,
and without much real thought or reflection, I selected
mobile phones. They seemed to be an interesting device
that can challenge the imaginations of educators and learners.
Identifying
a unique way to use a mobile phone was
the next part of my project. Inspiration arrived
when I attended the 2006 NACOL (North
American Council for Online Education) conference
and had the opportunity to hear Hall Davidson of
Discovery Online speak. Davidson demonstrated how
to use a mobile phone to create audio blogs that
are posted directly to the web. This was an “aha” moment
for me. As I inspected my own phone, I began
to realize is not just for phone calls. Basic mobile
phones can capture and send images, video, audio
and even text. I realized that it really is a personal
multi-media production device.
After
identifying a technology I needed to find institutional
partners open and willing to participate in my graduate
research project. Although not being associated
with an institution (school or museum) was a problem,
it was not insurmountable. I did have seeds for
an idea as well as a long-standing interest in using
the web to facilitate building communities of learners.
For example, 1n 1999 while working at the Skirball
Cultural Center in Los Angeles, I developed
a collaborative project with colleagues at the Japanese
American National Museum that used
the web to highlight community connections through
sharing family
stories.
I used this premise as a conceptual starting point
and began to form an action research project that
would be based upon students visiting a museum,
taking photos and recording audio files that are
posted directly to the web. The students could then
visit each other’s
postings to make comments, ask questions and share
impressions.
Deciding
to personally try out the viability of this process
I went to Hollywood
Forever Cemetery to look at
artist’s altars at the annual Dia
de los Muertos
celebration. I brought my mobile phone and
wandered around the cemetery, interviewing and recording
artists and photographing them with the altars that
they made. I immediately posted each image and audio
clip to web 2.0 websites on which I had already
registered. It was easy, fun and I felt that the
processes could be successfully applied to a museum-school
program.
With
a technology and project idea chosen, my next challenge
was to identify partner institutions. I pursued
leads to several institutions and found a small
private school as well as a museum that were willing
to collaborate with me. I was also pleased to learn
that both institutions have reputations for innovative
programs. The school developed a successful immersive
second language program and does interesting programming
with their partner school in Tel Aviv, Israel. The
museum has developed an acknowledged outreach enrichment
program for schools located in the lower socio-economic
neighborhoods of Los Angeles.
Designing and Actualizing the Collaborative
Project
Organizing
and coordinating communication with the partner
organizations created a unique set of challenges.
There seemed to be no shortage of religious holidays,
national holidays, internal school meetings and
training days that hindered scheduling programs.
Perseverance, enthusiasm and emails prevailed and
I was able to meet and plan dates and activities
with all of the participants.
In
January the school director and I spoke about the
possibility of an immediate project that could be
done. The schoolhad visiting students students from
their “twin” school in
Israel. Although the visit would have been a perfect
example to test online community building with students
in geographically distant locations, the students
(and teachers) complained that their days were already
too full to introduce a new project. We decided
instead to begin the project in February. We also
decided to use the 6th grade students because they
had the most flexible schedules and were most developmentally
able for this type of project because of their ability
to more fully interact with their environment and
make personal reflections.
Meanwhile,
my conversations with the executive director of
the museum were also progressing. With input from
the school, we chose three dates for school visits
to the museum and designed activities for the students.
The first visit planned for February 28 would bring
students to the museum where they would instruction
about the process of using the phones, and then allow
them wander about taking photos and making audio
blogs. During the second visit on March 7, additional
instruction would introduce ideas about narrative
and how to gather family histories. The goal was
to enable students to interview and record the stories
of family members and about their recollections
inspired by museum exhibitions. Additional instruction
on that visit would include the process of making
annotations and comments to web sites. The final
visit was scheduled for March 14 and would be for
presentations and public viewing of each other’s
sites. It was also at this planning meeting that
I was introduced to the museum director of operations,
who was to act as my contact and museum liaison.
In
mid-January, about 6 weeks before our first scheduled
museum visit, I went to the school to make a presentation
to about thirty 6th grade students. We discussed
the project and I told the students what they could
expect and what we would expect from them. I noticed
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.
In
mid-February I distributed a release form to the
students. This form had an added function in that
when returned, we would have a list of participating
students. As February 28 approached, I still had
not received any news about participating students.
My emails and calls to the school requesting information
went unanswered, so I drove to the school to investigate.
I met the director who apologized profusely about
her lack of communication. She, like many other
teachers, was overwhelmed by her responsibilities
of day-to-day school administration. She also told
me that we wound have to cancel the first visit
to the museum and told me that she had been unaware
that February 28 was teacher-parent conference day
and that the students would not be available. We
then decided to modify the project to just two visits,
March 7 and 14.
By
Monday, March 5, I still had not received a list
of participants. The school director said that she
would look into the problem, but because of time
limitations, we decided to cancel the March 7 visit
as well. At that point, we discussed our options
and decided to try the project with just one museum
visit, on March 14. But by Monday, March 12 I had
still not received a list of students and I understood
that this project was not going to happen.
At
first I was a disappointed and distressed by this
turn of events, but I did feel that there was something
to be learned, although I was unsure of what it
was at that point. I gained insights into other
potential learning outcomes after having conversations
with my instructor Margaret Reil, several of my
peers and a friend who is a professional educator.
I decided to I shift my goal from trying to actualize
a project to understanding the necessary skills,
talents and tasks needed for successful museum-school
collaborations. This shift required two new sets
of data. I would need to interview the school and
museum director to understand their perceptions
about the process and lack of success. And I decided
to also interview museum professionals who have
successfully developed museum-school collaborations
so that I would gain and understanding what goes
into making collaborations.
Cycle Questions
I
began my quest for understanding by first approaching
the school director. When I met with the director,
I expressed my appreciation of her willingness to accommodate
me and my project, my understanding of the work
pressures that may have prevented her from progressing
with the project along with my desire to listen
and learn from her about her experience and what
steps she feels are needed to progress. Unfortunately,
she remains overwhelmed with schoolwork and has
been unable to meet to talk about this more in depth.
But she has expressed a willingness to talk about
how to implement this program into next year’s
program. We will be meeting to talk after the school
year ends.
My
museum contact was quite frank about her experiences
relating to other collaborative projects with which
she was involved. She said that in general, she found
it very difficult to collaborate with schools because
of scheduling problems with teachers and administrators.
She also said that she found many teachers to be so
overworked and under-assisted that they cannot commit
to collaborations, and specifically to innovative
projects. She also described that her experience with
technology in the city schools is that digital divide
is still very pronounced, making it virtually impossible
to use digital technology. I found one comment that
she made to be particularly curious. She spoke to me
at length about the importance of institutional commitment
and identifying the right partners for any collaboration.
She told me that in reality, her department was not
specifically suited for the type of innovative technology-based
collaboration that I had proposed, and perhaps the
museum itself was not suited. I found this very
interesting since the executive director of the
museum originally steered me to this specific department
director. From this observation I learned the importance
of due-diligence to insure that the appropriate
personnel are involved in planning and decision-making.
One
of the most enjoyable components of my project was
the gathering data about the tools and actions necessary
for museum-school collaboration. For several years
I have attended the annual Museums
on the Web conference,
which took place this year in mid-April. As a whole,
attendees of this conference are personable,
techno-friendly and open and interested in collaborations
and innovation. In informal conversations with colleagues
I learned that two of the main concerns of museum
professionals, the perennial lack of funding and
a shortage of personnel are similar to the comments
of school educators. As insightful as this
was, I decided to create a short survey of eight
questions about the collaborative process to help
me identify key issues:
- Have you had experience in working with museums/school
partnerships and collaborations?
- If yes, on may projects have you worked on?
- What was your role in these projects?
- What is the average amount of time (days, weeks,
months) that you have devoted to developing a
collaborative project (from inception to launch)?
- On a scale of 1-5 (one being the least, 5 being
the most), have these experiences been successful
and have they met their goals?
- What are the 5 primary skill sets required in
the creation of these collaborations?
- What are the 5 main milestones designated in
the process?
- Who initiated the collaborative projects?
Were they internally driven or did they come
from the partner (or other) institution?
The survey was
sent via email to 18 individuals with whom I
had earlier conversations about collaborations. I
received 7 replies. Although not enough to be called
a “comprehensive” survey, I did gain
an understanding of several of the important attributes
needed to develop a successful collaborative project.
The respondents are all professionally active in
museum education. Three are actual museum
educators, one is a professor of museum studies,
one is a new media designer who specializes in the
design of educational exhibitions, one is a researcher
in education specializing in museums and one is
doctoral student in the business of museums. Of
the seven, only one person has experience in the
classroom, but two have graduate degrees in education.
Six of the respondents identified their positions
as project manager/leader or designer/developer;
one role was identified as evaluator/researcher,
one as teacher/trainer to participating teachers.
The average quantity of collaborative projects that
each individual worked on was 5.5 (the range went
from 2 to 12) and the average amount of time spent
was 5 months (the range went from 21 days to 1.5
years).
The
responses that I received to questions about needed
skill sets needed and procedural tasks were varied
in nomenclature, but similar in tone. I identified
the eight most important skill sets as: project
management; organization; scheduling; flexibility;
patience; communication skills; resourcefulness;
content awareness.
Additionally,
there are 5 procedural milestones and goals that
need to be clearly identified and defined. A
successful project (where goals are met integrated
into a collaborative project) requires: information
needs assessment (discovery); development of shared
vision and goals; identifying key stakeholders for
project commitment and buy-in; obtain funding; iterative
design process with time scheduled for multiple
assessments and refinements.
Six
of the seven responded to the question about who
initiated the collaborations: five said that
they were internally driven and all seven expressed
a high degree of satisfaction in working on museum-school
collaborations (4-5 on a scale of 5).
As
I reviewed the responses, I became aware of important
information that I did not obtain and of the questions
that needed to be asked, such as: What was the ratio
between the quantities of individual collaborations
done over an identified time span (for example 3
collaborations completed over a 4 year period)?
How much time was allocated to reflection was included
in the process? Did the collaborations include technology?
What is the general attitude toward technology?
What is the size of the institution? How many people
were involved?
I
think that as informative as this survey was, it
really functioned as just an introduction to the
subject of developing institutional collaborations. Most
of the responses that I received only spurred my
curiosity for other important data. Additionally,
I was overly sensitive to posing open-ended questions
so as to not influence the responders. These types
of questions provided the responders more opportunities
to express themselves and gave me options for interpreting
and inferring meaning. But it also made it more
difficult for me to code the responses for a comprehensive
understanding of the process.
I
learned from the quality and quantity of data that
I did not obtain the need to develop more sophisticated
and comprehensive surveys to be able to better understand
complex processes and concepts. To accomplish this,
I need to make the development of surveys a more
iterative process in both the development of the
survey questions and the inclusion of a wider range
of subjects (for example, this survey did not include
several potential key players such as classroom
teachers and school administrators). I can also
improve the quality of my surveys by making their
development a more collaborative process.
By integrating input from peers, colleagues and
test subjects, I can develop surveys that will provide
me with a more detailed data set and will not leave
me wondering about the questions not asked.
Survey Reflections
I
was not particularly surprised with the responses
that I received. Although not a comprehensive survey,
the responses did deflect much of what I have heard
and learned as a museum professional. Additionally,
the responses reinforced many restraining forces
that I identified in my Force
Field Analysis.
Resources management (money, time and personnel)
and institutional commitment continue to be serious
issues that hinder, if not prevent institutional
partnerships and collaborations. Yet, even though
these problems exist, they are not insurmountable.
I would venture to say that 90% of the people that
I spoke with regarding my specific project and collaboration
in general were interested in developing a practical
application of the idea. I continue to believe
in the viability of this project, but I have learned
that success depended not only on my enthusiasm
and knowledge, but on my ability to: 1) clearly
identify serious partners who will be able to commit
necessary resources; 2) to adapt to the
time frames and schedules of partner institutions
and 3) to continue to search for creative and flexible
solutions to issues as they arise. These three elements
will help museums and schools continue to learn
about sharing resources in order to successfully
develop collaborative, innovative and creative learning
experiences.
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. But for this
project I chose to adopt a top-down approach with
the hope that my enthusiasm would actualize the
project. I learned that there is more involved in
creating a multi-institutional collaboration than
just enthusiasm and desire.
My
top-down process may not have been completely misguided
though. The Mescon brothers (2006) 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 importance of a balanced and nuanced approach
that is 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.
My
methods have worked successfully many times in the
past, usually because the projects are individual,
or involve a small core of similar-minded people
within unique institution. Reflecting on this
project after it closed down (temporarily), 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 institutional 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 in my action research
project. 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 conducting interviews to ascertain their actual
needs and goals.
When
learning about ethical issues, we read about the
importance of transparency and honesty in our actions.
It is very important to identify constituents willing
to commit to a project and most projects cannot
be developed by enthusiasm alone but need the input
of others. It is up to the project leader to learn
how to gently push the program along. The cell phone
is not a panacea to bridge the digital divide, but
it can be viewed as an easily accessible access
point. One way to successfully integrate technology
into any learning environment, in this case museum-school
collaborations, is through an incremental process.
Practically illustrating how technology can be used
in easy, innovative, interesting and fun ways can
inspire students and teachers to explore how it
can be used to enhance learning and ultimately build
and expand communities of learners.
In
the end, I came to realize that my Action Research
Project addressed two separate but related ideas:
1) integrating the ubiquitous cell phone into learning
environments; and 2) identifying the necessary skill
sets, talents and processes that need to be in place
to successfully share missions and create collaborations
and shared between separate, distinct yet related
institutions, each with its own strengths,
limitations including budget. Enthusiasm is important
in developing collaborative projects, as are budget
and personnel. But a project is doomed if patience,
communication, flexibility, good humor and an understanding
of institutional timing are not well integrated
into the process.
Reflections on Action Research
As
my studies and project progressed throughout the year,
I became increasingly aware of how much my own learning
style relates to experiential learning. As much as
I enjoy and respond to reading and research, my natural
approach to learning is through rolling up my proverbial
sleeves and getting virtually dirty. I learn well through
action and reflection. There are several theorists
whose ideas have helped facilitate this understanding
as well as influence the development of my own learning
theory. Reading about Howard Gardner’s ideas
about multiple intelligences, Seymour Papert’s
community of learners, and Roger Schank’s discussion
of narrative and intelligence truly resonates in me.
Their ideas give words to things that I have observed
and have only touched upon in my intellectual journey.
Their ideas have helped to shape my thoughts and actions
through this project, as well as guide me in the development
of my own learning theory.
Every
individual possesses strengths and weaknesses. Some
people’s talents are extraordinary, such as Mozart,
Picasso, Einstein, Emma Goldman, and the Curies. Each
of these people exhibited greatness in their particular
area of creativity and thought. None of these individuals
excelled in all things. One of the greatest challenges
to educators and learners is for an individual to discover
at what they are good, at what they may excel and what
they truly enjoy. It is exceptionally difficult for
an individual to do this alone, from within a vacuum.
An enlightened community of learners provides an individual
with the opportunity to find their particular voice
and intelligence. The community provides a safe environment
and structure for individuals to explore, attempt,
fail, and ultimately (and hopefully) succeed in their
endeavors and journey. Finally, individuals learn by
being exposed the narratives of the other members of
their community of learners and by creating their own
narratives. Knowledge of past experiments, failures
and successes are passed on from those experienced
to novices beginning their individual journeys. Masons
and lawyers, painters and accountants, carpenters and
teachers all benefit from past experiences and narratives,
each different story told in a voice that resonates
to each individual learner.
Mobile
phones promote communities of learners by encouraging
individuals to create and share personal narratives
about their own process of problem solving. The integration
of communication technology into museum-school collaborations
can then be viewed as an excellent example facilitating
the practical application of the theories of these
three thinkers into real life.
References
Bower, B. (2001) Distance Education: Facing
the Faculty Challenge. Online Journal
of Distance Learning Administration,
Vol. IV, Num. II. Retrieved November
14, 2006 from http://168.144.129.112/Articles/Facing%20the%20Faculty%20Challenge.rtf
Dick, B. (2002). "Action research:
Action and research" Retrieved February
3, 2007 from http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/arp/aandr.html
Gardner, H. (1999) Intelligence Reframed. New
York: Basic Books
Greenfield, D. (2000) Contextual Links
and Non-linear Narrative: A Virtual Rashomon. Archives & Museum
Informatics, 2000 Museums on the Web Conference
Online Journal. Retrieved June 2,
2007 from http://www.archimuse.com/mw2000/papers/greenfield/greenfield.html
Mescon, M.H., T.S. Managing with a Mission. Executive
Excellence. Provo: May 1996.Vol. 13,
Issue 5. P. 11. Retrieved April 9, 2007
from http://proquest.umi.com.lib.pepperdine.edu/pqdweb?did=9652732&sid=2&Fmt=3&clientId=1686&RQT=309&VName=PQD
Papert, S. (1993) The Children’s
Machine. New York: Basic Books
Prensky, M. (2005) What Can You Learn for
a Cell Phone? Almost Anything! Innovate,
Journal of Online Education. Volume
1, Issue 5 Retrieved on October 26, 2006
from http://www.innovateonline.info/index.php?view=issue&id=5
Resnick, M., (2002) Rethinking Learning
in the Digital Age. The Global Information
Technology Report: Readiness for the Networked
World, Chap. 3. Retrieved October
26, 2006 from Lifelong Kindergarten MIT
MediaLab http://llk.media.mit.edu/papers/mres-wef.pdf
Rice, R.E., Katz, J.E. (2003) Comparing
Internet and Mobile Phone Usage: Digital
Divides of Usage, Adoption, and Dropouts. Telecommunications
Policy 27 pp. 597- 623 Retrieved November
14, 2006 from http://www.3c.hanyang.ac.kr/information/upload/Class_1.pdf
Schank, R.C. (1990) Tell Me a Story:
Narrative and Intelligence. Evanston,
IL: Northwestern University Press
Tellis, Chris (personal communication,
April 13, 2007)
Wikipedia, Mobile Phones, Retrieved
October 26, 2006 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_Phone
Appendix
Clicky- http://www.clicky.com/
Dia de los muertos at Hollywood Forever
project demo- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dagreen/281714062/in/set-72157594349031575/
Flickr- www.flickr.com/
Gcast-http://www.gcast.com/
Gabcast- http://www.gabcast.com
Virtual Kitchen Stories- a collaboration
between the Skirball Cultureal Center and
the Japanese-American National Museum- http://www.golemgrafica.com/virtualKitchen/vk/)
|
|