Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

An exploratory, descriptive study of art museum educators' attitudes in regard to art museum-elementary… Liu, Wan-Chen 1999

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata


831-ubc_1999-389316.pdf [ 18.19MB ]
JSON: 831-1.0054893.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0054893-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0054893-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0054893-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0054893-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0054893-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0054893-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

AN EXPLORATORY, DESCRIPTIVE STUDY OF ART MUSEUM EDUCATORS' ATTITUDES IN REGARD TO ART MUSEUM-ELEMENTARY SCHOOL COLLABORATION By Wan-Chen Liu B.A. National Cheng-chi University, Taiwan, R.O.C., 1987 M.A., National Taiwan Normal University, R.O.C., 1992 A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of The Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in The Faculty of Graduate Studies Department of Curriculum Studies We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA January 1999 © Wan-Chen Liu, 1999 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of (^ >>/^ A(^ n J>'JauIu^ The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada Date DE-6 (2/88) A B S T R A C T In North America, art museums have rendered services to elementary schools since the early 1900s. Although the scope and number of these services have expanded in the past several decades, the nature of the art museum-elementary school collaborative relationship can be problematic, and even counterproductive to the enhancement of quality of art education. There are some crucial issues related to the nature of and factors underlying collaboration among elementary schools and art museums, that need to be carefully considered in order for these efforts to be successful and fruitful. Since the relationship between attitudes and behavior is reciprocal, the attitudes of art museum educators in regard to art museum-elementary school collaboration are crucial to the quality and effectiveness of any collaborative endeavors and directly impact art museums' contribution to elementary art education. Therefore, this study explores art museum educators' attitudes in regard to art museum-elementary school collaboration. The present investigation is the only study of its kind in Canada to date. From the fall of 1997 to the spring of 1998,1 conducted a survey of art museum educators in the province of British Columbia, Canada as well as interviews involving nine informants working in two art museums. Moreover, in order to meaningfully interpret the interview data, I observed the informants' daily routines in these galleries and collected documents related to the two study sites. This mixed method design was used to study B C art museum educators' attitudes in regard to art museum-elementary school collaboration relative to six specific issues: 1) models of art museum/gallery-school collaboration; 2) pedagogy and methods of art museum/gallery programs for elementary schools; 3) art museum/gallery programs and resources for elementary school teachers; 4) elementary school teacher participation in school-oriented art museum education; 5) content of art museum/gallery programs for elementary schools; and 6) linkage of art museum/gallery school programs and elementary school curricula. The results of this study suggest important implications to the future of collaborative endeavors bringing together elementary schools and art museums by highlighting issues related to the dynamics of the art museum educator - elementary school teacher relationships, professional knowledge and expertise, and curriculum links that strongly impact on such partnerships. They also provide guidance for future related research. TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE ABSTRACT ii TABLE OF CONTENTS iii LIST OF TABLES xiv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS xvii CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY Introduction 1 Rationale — 1 Research Questions 4 The Concept of Attitude 6 Method of Study - 13 Terminology 14 Significance of This Study 15 Organization of The Dissertation 16 CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW Introduction 18 A Brief History of Art Museum-School Relationships 18 The American Context 19 The Canadian Context — 23 Canada and The United States Compared 24 Important Issues in Art Museum-Elementary School Collaboration 25 Rendering Services versus Collaborating: Monologue or Dialogue? 26 School-orientation or Museum-orientation Design Approach 30 Art for Art's Sake or Art as an Instrument 33 Teaching "Know-what" versus "Know-how" 38 The Role of Teacher 41 Programs for Teachers 45 The Characteristics of Art Museum-Education 49 The Milieu 50 Status of Education in Art Museums 50 Communication Media in Art Museums 52 Open and Free Learning Atmosphere of Art Museums 54 Learners 55 Teachers 56 Subject Matter 57 Related Research in Canada 59 Research on Art Museum Educators' Attitudes 63 Attitudes Regarding the Development of Educational Materials 65 Uncertain Profession: Art Museum Education 66 Art Museum Educators' Attitudes toward Museum-School Collaboration ~ 68 National Center for Art Museum/School Collaboration 68 Museum-School Cooperation 69 Summary 71 CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH DESIGN Introduction 72 A Mixed-method Design 72 Delimitation and Limitation 76 Survey 79 Subjects 79 Definition of Subjects 79 Snow Ball Sampling 81 Instrument Development 82 Stage One: Designing the First-draft Questionnaire 83 Stage Two: Colleague Counseling 83 Stage Three: Research Committee Counseling 84 V Stage Four: Pilot Survey 84 Stage Five: Panel Discussion 85 Questionnaire Construction 86 Reducing Non-responses ~ 89 Questionnaire Package 89 Follow-up Reminders — 90 Data Analysis 91 Case Study Approach 92 A Qualitative Tradition of Inquiry: Case Study Approach 92 Selection of Study Sites and Participants 93 Study Sites 93 Study Informants 95 Data Collection 96 Participant Observation 97 In Northville Community Gallery 97 In Westcoast Metro Gallery 100 My Role in Field Work 103 Interview 104 Document Collection 106 Data Analysis 107 Trustworthiness — 110 Credibility 111 Transferability 113 Dependability 115 Confirmability 116 Reflexivity: Where I Was Coming From and Where I Was Going? 117 Summary - 120 vi CHAPTER FOUR: SURVEY RESULTS Introduction 121 Survey Response Rate 121 Characteristics of Respondents 122 Institutional Role 122 Professional Background 125 Education 126 Institutional Setting for Education 128 Physical Setting 130 Financial Setting 131 Personnel 134 Attitudes in Regard to Art Museum-Elementary School Collaboration 135 Attitudes in Regard to Art Museum Education — 136 Attitudes Toward Methods of School Programs 137 Attitudes Toward Programs for Teachers 140 Attitudes Toward Teachers' Participation 142 Attitudes Toward Contents of School Programs 143 Attitudes Regarding School Curricula 145 Successful Aspects in The Relationship With Elementary Schools 148 Challenges in The Relationships With Elementary Schools 151 Art Museums Educators' Attitudes and Existing Relationships 154 Programs and Resources for Elementary School Students 155 Programs and Resources for Teachers 157 Teachers'Participation 159 Content of Educational Programs for Elementary Schools 161 The Linkage with School Curricula 164 Summary 165 vii CHAPTER FIVE: ATTITUDES OF INTERVIEWED EDUCATOR IN NORTHVILLE COMMUNITY GALLERY Introduction 167 Institutional Setting for Education 169 Physical Setting 169 Financial Support 171 Personnel 173 Exhibitions and Programs for The Community 176 Relationship with Elementary Schools 179 Models of Art Museum-Elementary School Collaboration 180 Pedagogical Methods of School Programs 183 Programs and Resources for Elementary School Teachers 185 Teacher Professional Development Day — 185 Teacher's Art Group 185 Educational Resources 186 Elementary School Teachers' Participation 187 Content of Programs for Elementary Schools 189 Linkage of School Programs and Curriculum 192 William 193 Role in Northville Community Gallery 194 Elementary School Experience — 196 Education 196 Professional Background 197 Attitudes Toward Art Museum-Elementary School Collaboration 198 Models of Art Museum-Elementary School Collaboration 198 Pedagogy and Methods of School Programs 200 Programs and Resources for Elementary School Teachers 202 Elementary School Teachers' Participation 204 Content of Art Museum Programs for Elementary Schools 204 viii Linkage of Art Museum School Programs and Elementary School Curricula ~ 205 Commentary — 206 Melanie- 208 Role in Northville Community Gallery 209 Elementary School Experience - 211 Education 213 Professional Background 214 Attitudes Toward Art Museum-Elementary School Collaboration 215 Models of Art Museum-Elementary School Collaboration 215 Pedagogy and Methods of School Programs 216 Programs and Resources for Elementary School Teachers 217 Elementary School Teachers' Participation 218 Content of Art Museum Programs for Elementary Schools 220 Linkage of Art Museum School Programs and Elementary 220 Commentary 221 Summary 222 CHAPTER SIX: ATTITUDES OF INTERVIEWED EDUCATORS IN WESTCOAST METRO GALLERY Introduction - 229 Institutional Setting for Education 230 Forum for Contemporary Issues and Educational Experiments 230 Physical Setting 233 Financial Structure 234 Government Support — 234 Budget for School Programs 236 Personnel 237 Westcoast Metro Gallery Personnel 237 Human Resources for Education 238 ix Relationship with Elementary Schools - 239 Models of Art Museum-Elementary School Collaboration 240 Pedagogical Methods of School Programs 242 Programs and Resources for Teachers 246 Elementary School Teachers' Participation 248 Content of School Programs 250 Linkage of Programs and School Curriculum 252 Vanessa 252 Role in Westcoast Metro Gallery 253 Education 254 Professional Background 255 Experience with Elementary Schools 256 Attitudes Toward Art Museum-Elementary School Collaboration 257 Models of Art Museum-Elementary School Collaboration 257 Pedagogy and Methods of School Programs 258 Programs and Resources for Elementary School Teachers 260 Elementary School Teachers' Participation 262 Content of School Programs 262 Linkage of School Programs and Curriculum 263 Commentary 264 Nancy 265 Role in Westcoast Metro Gallery 265 Education 267 Professional Background 268 Experience with Elementary Schools 269 Attitudes Toward Art Museum-Elementary School Collaboration 269 Models of Art Museum-Elementary School Collaboration 270 Pedagogy and Methods of School Programs 270 Programs and Resources for Elementary School Teachers 272 Elementary School Teachers' Participation 274 x Content of School Programs 275 Linkage of Programs and School Curricula 276 Commentary 277 Jane 278 Role in Westcoast Metro Gallery 278 Education 279 Professional Background 279 Experience with Elementary Schools 280 Attitudes Toward Art Museum-Elementary School Collaboration 280 Models of Art Museum-Elementary School Collaboration 281 Pedagogy and Methods of School Programs 281 Programs and Resources for Elementary School Teachers 282 Elementary School Teachers' Participation 283 Content of School Programs 283 Linkage of Programs and Elementary School Curricula 284 Commentary 284 Owen 285 Role in Westcoast Metro Gallery 285 Education 285 Professional Background 287 Experience with Elementary Schools 287 Attitudes Toward Art Museum-Elementary School Collaboration 288 Models of Art Museum-Elementary School Collaboration 288 Pedagogy and Methods of School Programs 288 Programs and Resources for Elementary School Teachers 289 Elementary School Teachers' Participation 289 Content of School Programs 290 Linkage of Programs and Elementary School Curriculum 290 Commentary 291 xi Sally 291 Role in Westcoast Metro Gallery 292 Education 293 Professional Background 293 Experience with Elementary Schools 294 Attitudes Toward Art Museum-Elementary School Collaboration - 294 Models of Art Museum-Elementary School Collaboration 294 Pedagogy and Methods of School Programs 295 Programs and Resources for Elementary School Teachers 296 Elementary School Teachers' Participation 297 Content of School Programs 297 Linkage of Programs and Elementary School Curricula 297 Commentary 298 Anne 298 Role in Westcoast Metro Gallery 299 Experience with Elementary Schools 300 Education and Professional Background ~ 301 Attitudes Toward Art Museum-Elementary School Collaboration 302 Models of Art Museum-Elementary School Collaboration 302 Pedagogy and Methods of School Programs 303 Programs and Resources for Elementary School Teachers 304 Elementary School Teachers' Participation 305 Content of School Programs 306 Linkage of Programs and Elementary School Curricula 307 Commentary 307 Alexander 308 Role in Westcoast Metro Gallery 308 Education 309 Professional Background 309 xii Experience with Elementary Schools 310 Attitudes Toward Art Museum-Elementary School Collaboration 310 Models of Art Museum-Elementary School Collaboration 311 Pedagogy and Methods of School Programs 311 Programs and Resources for Elementary School Teachers 312 Elementary School Teachers' Participation 313 Content of School Programs 313 Linkage of Programs and Elementary School Curricula 314 Commentary 314 Summary 315 CHAPTER SEVEN: SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION Introduction 322 Models of Art Museum-Elementary School Collaboration 323 Importance of Elementary School-Oriented Art Museum Education 323 Stakeholders in the Collaborative Process 325 Crucial Problems 328 Pedagogy and Methods of School Programs 333 In-Gallery Tours 333 Tour Guides 334 Teaching Strategies 340 Children's Artwork Exhibition 344 Outreach Programs — 346 Computer Technology 349 Elementary School Teachers' Participation in School-oriented Art Museum Education 350 Programs and Resources for Elementary School Teachers 354 Secondary Status of Programs for Teachers 354 Format of Teacher Programs and Resources 356 Contents of School Programs 361 x i i i Linkage of Art Museum Programs and School Curricula 365 Lack of Participation in School Curriculum Design 365 "Non-school Curriculum" Approach 366 Compensating for the "Null Curriculum" 369 Art Museum Educator Professionalism 370 Knowledge and Competence 371 Circumstance 374 Commentary 376 Summary of Major Findings 378 CHAPTER EIGHT: IMPLICATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH Implications 382 Dynamics of Art Museum Educator - Elementary School Teacher Relationship 382 Professional Knowledge and Expertise 385 Curriculum Links - 390 Suggestions for Future Research 392 REFEREENCES 395 APPENDICES Appendix One: Survey 415 Appendix Two: Interview Guide for The First Interview 430 Appendix Three: Interview Guide for the Second Interview 431 xiv LIST OF TABLES Page 1. Study Informants Observed and Interviewed 96 2. Northville Community Gallery Activities Observed During Fieldwork 100 3. Westcoast Metro Gallery Observed During Fieldwork 102 4. Multiple Sources for Data Analysis 109 5. Years in Current Position 123 6. Respondents'Job Titles 124 7. Respondents' Previous Work Experience 125 8. Membership Held in Professional Organizations 126 9. Highest Degree Held by Respondents 127 10. Educational Disciplines of the BC Art Museum Educators 127 11. Emphasis of Art Museums/Galleries Education Policies 129 12. Location of the Art Museums/Galleries 130 13. Maj or Strengths of Exhibitions 131 14. Total Annual Budgets of Art Museums/Galleries 132 15. Art Museums/Galleries' Annual Expenditure on Elementary School Programs — 132 16. Sources of Finding for Elementary School Programs 133 17. Number of Staff Members and Volunteers Responsible for the Design and/or Implementation of Educational Programs/Activities. 134 18. Number of Staff Members and Volunteers Responsible for the Design and/or Implementation of Educational Programs/Activities for Elementary Schools 135 XV 19. Respondents' Attitudes Toward the Statement, "Education is the Main Purpose of an Art Museum/Art Gallery" 136 20. Respondents' Attitudes Toward the Statement, "I Like to Work For Elementary School Art Education Involving Art Museums/Galleries" 137 21. Respondents' Attitudes Toward the Statement, "Within the Limits on Resources and Energy, Art Museum/Galleries Should Not Make Major Efforts to Create Programs Specifically for Elementary Schools" 137 22. Respondents' Attitudes Toward Statements Concerning Methods of School Programs Provided by Art Museums/Galleries. 138 23. Respondents' Attitudes Toward Statements Concerning Programs for Elementary School Teachers 141 24. Respondents' Attitudes Toward Statements Concerning Elementary School Teachers' Participation in the Design and Implementation of School Program ~ 142 25. Respondents' Attitudes Toward Nine Subjects Appropriate for the Content of Art Museum/Gallery Programs for Elementary Schools 144 26. Respondents' Attitudes Toward Statements Concerning School Curricula 145 27. Respondents' Knowledge of Elementary School Art Curriculum 147 28. Successful Aspects in the Art Museum-Elementary School Relationship 150 29. Crucial Challenges in Existing Art Museum-Elementary School Relationships ~ 152 30. Programs and Resources for Elementary School Students 155 31. Computer Technology Used for Elementary School Programs 157 xvi 32. Programs and Resource for In-service and Pre-service Elementary School Teachers 158 33. The Programs and Resources for Elementary School Teachers 159 34. Teachers' Involvement in School Programs in Art Museums/Galleries 160 35. Content Emphasis of Educational Programs for Elementary Schools 162 36. Subjects Other Than Art Addressed in Elementary School Programs 164 37. Design of School Programs on the Basis of School Curricula 164 38. Summary of Public Programs in Northville Community Gallery 177 39. Basic Summarized Background Information About the Two Informants 223 40. General Summary of the Two Informants' Attitudes in Regard to Art Museum-Elementary School Collaboration 224 41. Summary of Westcoast Metro Gallery Public Programming 231 42. Basic Summarized Background Information About the Seven Informants 317 43. General Summary of the Seven Informants' Attitudes in Regard to Art Museum-Elementary School Collaboration 318 44. Summary of the Institutional Settings for Education in the two study galleries— 329 X V I I ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Four years ago, I took my first study journey overseas: I came to Canada to pursue a doctorate in art education. On the trek towards that goal, I encountered many things besides academic learning: surprise, culture shock, uncertainty, confusion, anxiety, dilemma, joy, and appreciation. Four years later, as I near the end of this journey with more assured step, I look back at this experience with appreciation foremost in my heart. In this section of this dissertation, I would like to express my appreciation to a number of individuals who helped and supported me in my pursuit of a doctorate in art education in Canada. First, I would like to thank Dr. Anna M. Kindler, my research supervisor and academic advisor since my admission to the doctoral program, for helping me to explore what I wanted to know by remaining open-minded, enthusiastic, and consistently supportive. I am grateful to Dr. Kindler for her patience over the years, her strong belief in my ability to conduct research in art museum education in Canada, and her unstinting and unfailing support and help during the final and most stressful stages of the writing of my dissertation. I would like to thank my committee members for their time and effort in helping me through the entire process of researching and writing my doctoral dissertation. Dr. Graeme Chalmers pointed out aspects that I would never have identified on my own, providing many constructive suggestions that extended and enhanced my work. Dr. Lesley Andres provided me with advice throughout the data collection and analysis of the provincial survey and helped me clarify my research approach by posing insightful questions. I am grateful to the interviewed art gallery educators for giving me access to their worlds, and for helping me understand their views and working lives. I also would like to thank all the respondents of the provincial survey. The participation of the art gallery educators and the survey respondents made this research both possible and meaningful. I would like to express my appreciation to the Getty Center for Education in the Arts for awarding me a 1998 Doctoral Fellowship. Their support of students and scholars xvm in the field of art education makes me hopeful that this area of education will continue to develop and contribute to all people's experience of art, especially that of young people. Especially, I would like to acknowledge the profound influence of Dr. Ann Cheng Shiang Kuo. Throughout my master's degree in Taiwan and professional experience afterwards, Dr. Kuo never slackened her encouragement and support of my pursuit of further education abroad. My friends have been very supportive throughout my work on this dissertation. I would like to thank Nancy and Ting for their encouragement and listening ear. A very special thank-you is extended to Sydney Allen, whose help with English editing of my work has been invaluable to me. I would also like to thank my friends Yuan and Allison, as well as my daughter's day care teachers, for allowing me the time for focused work. Least but not last, I wish to thank my family, who has proven to be an ideal cheerleading team as I struggled through my studies and research far away from them. All the good wishes, words of wisdom, gifts, and phone calls helped me enormously. Big thank-yous go to Mom, Dad, and my big brother, Hsiao-Ming. Especially, warm thanks are extended to my husband, Shu-Ching, for his many sacrifices, his steady and strong support throughout this Ph.D. journey made this dissertation possible. And last and foremost, I would like to say thanks to my lovely daughter, Shu-Hua (Hua-Hua), who just celebrated her fourth birthday, for the constant joy and company that she brings me everyday. 1 CHAPTER ONE Introduction to the Study Introduction The purpose of this study is to establish a foundation of information on art museum educators' attitudes toward art museum-elementary school collaboration. It is hoped that a better understanding of these individuals' attitudes will facilitate and enhance future development of collaboration between art museums and elementary schools. This chapter, organized into seven sections, introduces the research rationale, research questions, concept of attitude, research methods, terminology, research significance, and dissertation structure. Rationale An art museum/gallery is an unique and invaluable resource that can complement and enhance art education in elementary schools (Johnson, 1990; NAEP, 1981; Newsom & Silver, 1978; Muhlberger, 1985; Walsh-Piper, 1994; Zeller, 1983). Art museums/galleries can provide children with many important learning experiences to which they might not have access in the typical elementary school. Early and appropriate educational exposure to art in a museum or gallery setting can nurture children's aesthetic development and can promote life-long fondness of and facility in accessing the resources provided by art museums/galleries (Kindler, 1997). Since early in the twentieth century, North American art museums/galleries have rendered services to elementary schools; moreover, the scope and number of these services have expanded in the past several decades (Communications Canada, 1990; Newsom & Silver, 1978; Ramsey, 1930; Zeller, 1989). However, the nature of the art museum-elementary school relationship can be problematic—even counterproductive—to the enhancement of art education. Relationships are not always collaborative; moreover, collaboration does not necessarily rest on shared goals and responsibilities. This investigation is concerned with issues that influence the extent to which the educational outcomes of art museum-elementary school collaboration flourish and succeed: specifically, the nature of factors underlying and surrounding the collaborative context. In Canada, the need to enhance art museum-elementary school collaboration is apparent and urgent. Most Canadian elementary school teachers are responsible for teaching the entire elementary curriculum. The British Columbia Ministry of Education, for example, requires classroom teachers to implement multiple facets of art education, such as art-making, art history, aesthetics, and art criticism, although teachers may have little or no training in these areas. With a limited number of art coordinator positions in many districts and few elementary educators in BC sufficiently equipped to implement meaningful art education, the potential of art museums'/galleries' role in supporting high-quality art education in elementary schools takes on profound significance. 3 However, art museums/galleries in BC face the challenge of serving a larger and more culturally-varied audience while simultaneously coming under increasing funding pressure.1 While this demographic shift underscores the need to popularize museums, thereby gaining approval of the community and, indirectly, financial support, concurrent pressures are brought to bear for balancing the need for diversity against resource limitations. In this siege-like atmosphere, affecting Canadian cultural and artistic institutions generally, art museums/galleries are being forced to prioritize their objectives, activities, and programs based on their perceived importance and merit. In art museums/galleries, the people directly responsible for the design and implementation of educational programs are art museum educators. The central role of the educator has been identified as an important factor determining how educational initiatives are implemented. Schwab (1973) observes: "The curriculum operation will be influenced by the teachers' knowledge, attitudes, feelings, relationships with the milieus and students, as well as their willingness to learn new materials and new ways of teaching" (p. 31). Moreover, Elms (1976, p.28) compares attitude to other psychological constructs, positing that the former is more closely related to observable behavior. Although the degree of direct correlation between attitude and overt behavior has yet to be quantified, attitude still provides the researcher an important predictor, as well as a key interpretive tool, of human behavior (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1977; Rajecki, 1990). Therefore, an investigation and analysis of art museum educators' attitudes toward art museum-1 The population of B C increased from 3,282,061 in 1991 to 3,724,500 in 1996, ranking the provincial population of B C third highest in Canada (Statistics Canada, 1997); however, the total investment by local and provincial governments in arts and culture in BC is the second lowest of the Canadian provinces—only Newfoundland spends less (Munro, 1997). elementary school collaboration may yield crucial information on the quality and effectiveness of such collaborative educational initiatives; and ultimately, it is hoped, this research will contribute to the general field of elementary art education. As intimated above, there exists a compelling need to better understand art museum educators' attitudes toward art museum-elementary school collaboration. Moreover, current sentiment amongst professional organizations and scholars in the field of art education appraise this area of research as promising (e.g., Eisner & Dobbs, 1986; Berry, 1998; Getty Center for Education in the Arts, American Association of Museums, British Columbia Museums Association; Herber, 1981; Stone, 1992). To date, however, there has been little research directly addressing art museum educators' attitudes; moreover, no study specifically targets this area of research in a Canadian context. Research Questions A survey of the literature reveals that while relationships between art museums/galleries and schools are plentiful, there exists a dearth of collaborative partnerships; that monologues occur to the exclusion of dialogues; and that school-oriented museum curriculum is considered in the absence of classroom teacher input (CMNC, 1984;; Gee, 1979; Harrison & Naef, 1985; Harrison, 1988; Herbert, 1981; Julyan, 1996; National Gallery of Art, 1992; NEA, 1974; Newsom & Silver, 1978; Stone, 1992; Williams, 1996; Zeller, 1985b). Moreover, when it comes to evaluating art museum-elementary school education, there is a lack of consensus in the field of art education as to what would constitute the ideal or even minimally requisite program. For 5 example, should school-oriented art museum programs be seen as an extension of school education or as independent and parallel education, developed to meet the educational goals of a given art museum/gallery? From a curricular standpoint, should the learning experiences that children encounter in art museums/galleries be integral or peripheral to school curricula? And from a pedagogical perspective, should children be taught by art museum educators or by their classroom teachers when they come to an art museum/gallery? Would effective collaboration require classroom teachers with special training in art museum/gallery education? What should be the emphasis of educational programs for elementary schools offered by art museums/galleries? The advantage of categorizing the art museum-elementary school relationship into its constituent elements is that it allows analysis of each aspect separately; thus, this investigation makes use of the following categories to explore art museum educators' attitudes toward specific aspects of art museum-elementary school collaboration : 1) models of art museum/gallery-school collaboration; 2) pedagogy and methods of art museum/gallery programs for elementary schools; 3) art museum/gallery programs and resources for elementary school teachers; 4) elementary school teacher participation in school-oriented art museum education; 5) content of art museum/gallery programs for elementary schools; and 6) linkage of art museum/gallery school programs and elementary school curricula. The research question of this investigation can be stated as follows: 2 Nevertheless, it is understood that these issues are interrelated and their connections were considered in analysis of individual components. 3 See Chapter Two for a more detailed discussion. 6 What are the attitudes of BC art museum educators toward: 1. Models of art museum-elementary school collaboration? 2. Pedagogy and methods of art museum/gallery programs for elementary schools? 3. Art museum/gallery programs and resources for elementary school teachers? 4. Elementary school teacher participation in school-oriented art museum education? 5. Content of art museum/gallery programs for elementary schools? 6. Linkage of art museum/gallery school programs and elementary school curricula? The Concept of Attitude Art museum/gallery educators' attitudes in regard to art museum-elementary school collaboration comprise the main focus of this study. Thus, a review and discussion of attitude function, formation, and characteristics provides a conceptual framework for this study. Why Study Attitudes? The concept of attitude has played a central role in the development of social science. Psychologists, social psychologists, and sociologists have invested a great deal of effort in studying people's attitudes. Allport (1935) refers to attitude as social psychology's most indispensable concept. Thomas and Znaiecki (1918) and Watson 7 (1930) define the field of social psychology as the study of attitudes. Even during the 1960s and 1970s, a period of relative decline in attitude research and theory, Dawes and Smith (1985) still count 20,209 books and articles listed under the heading of "attitude" in the Psychological Abstracts from 1974 to 1988. Finally, Rajecki (1990) finds that more articles are published on attitude than are on any other social-psychological topic. Why is it, then, that individuals' attitudes comprise so considerable a focus in the social sciences? What is it, intrinsic to or associated with attitude, that is so significant? As noted above, Elms (1976) finds that in comparison to other psychological constructs, attitude often appears more closely related to observable behavior. Added to this predictive relationship of overt behavior is Airport's assertion that there exist some fundamental functions of attitude which help individuals manage and negotiate the complexities of their environment. Allport (1935) describes this putative mechanism as follows: Without guiding attitudes, the individual is confused and baffled. Some kind of preparation is essential before he can make a satisfactory observation, pass suitable judgment, or make any but the most primitive reflex type of response. Attitudes determine for each individual what he will see and hear, what he will think and what he will do. To borrow a phrase from William James, they "engender meaning upon the world"; they draw lines about and segregate an otherwise chaotic environment; they are our methods for finding way about in an ambiguous universe, (p. 806) The functional analyses of Smith, Brune, and White (1956), Katz (1960), and McGuire (1969) posit four basic functions of attitude: 8 1. The adaptive or utilitarian function Attitudes guide behavior toward valued goals and away from aversive events. Attitudes help the individual to adjust to a complex world, enabling him/her to do the right (rewarding) thing at the right time. 2. The knowledge or economy function Attitudes help to manage and simplify information-processing tasks. Attitudes help the individual to understand the world around him/her by more efficiently organizing the complex array of environmental stimuli. 3. The value-expressive function Attitudes allow an individual to communicate information about his/her personalities and values. This function is sometimes referred to as the "social adjustment function," whereby a person can maintain or enhance his/her social acceptability by expressing attitudes perceived to be acceptable to others. 4. The ego-defensive function Attitudes protect an individual's self-esteem from unacceptable or threatening thoughts, urges, and impulses: for instance, avoiding unpleasant truths about themselves or suppressing uncomplimentary thoughts. These four functions are not mutually exclusive, nor do they form an exhaustive set. In sum, attitudes help individuals deal with information around them and adjust themselves to their environment. Finally, research on attitude functions has shown that an attitude toward some particular object can be associated with a specific function (Shavitt, 1989) and that 9 situation demands can increase the salience of one function over that of another (Jamieson & Zanna, 1989). The functional approach derives power in its ability to explain why attitude, both intrinsically and associatively, plays such an indispensable role in people's lives. Moreover, it strengthens this study's rationale for taking a deeper look into art museum educators' attitudes in regard to art museum-elementary school collaboration. It is not far-fetched, therefore, to argue that the attitudes of art museum educators, in an era of rigorous provincial and federal funding cutbacks overburdening them with work while depleting resources available to fund it, may have significant influence over their willingness and ability to develop art museum-elementary school relationships. Components of Attitudes Understanding and elucidating attitude is not an easy task since it is hard to observe people's attitudes directly. The original meaning of attitude referred to something directly observable, derived from the Latin word "aptus," meaning "fit and ready for action" (Hogg & Vaughan, 1995, p. 109). "Attitude" apparently first moved into English around the year 1700 as a jargon term used by artists to describe body position in a painting (Fleming, 1967). However, it was not until 1862, in his book First Principles, that Herbert Spencer first employed the term "attitude" in the literature of psychology (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1972, p. 488). Attitude as a psychological concept has been recognized for little more than a century (Jahoda & Warren, 1966, p. 7). The concept of attitude is indispensable not only 10 to social psychology but to the psychology of personality, as well. However, no single definition of attitude has yet arisen acceptable to all attitude researchers. Stahlberg and Frey (1988) point out in their definition of attitude that "although there are other conceptions of attitude to be found in the literature, the uni-dimensional and three-component models have received the most attention" (p. 145). Some theorists (e.g., Thurstone, 1931; Edwards, 1957; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975; Petty & Cacioppo, 1981; Pratkanis & Greenwald, 1989) have proposed attitude conceptualizations that accentuate the affective character of attitude: these sorts of definitions are labeled unidimensional because they focus on only one component of attitude. Contrary to this unidimensional view of attitude, other theorists (e.g. Breckler, 1984; Eagly and Chaiken, 1993, 1995; Rosenberg and Hovland, 1960; Ostrom, 1968; Triandis, 1971, etc.) have favored the three-component, or ABC model, so-called in reference to the first letter of each term describing one of the three components of attitude: affective, behavioral, and cognitive. Interestingly, this model reflects the ancient philosophical conception of attitude: the trichotomy of human experience into feeling, action, and thought, viewing each attitude as a cluster of emotions, behavioral intentions, and ideas. In modem social science, this affect-behavior-cognition distinction was considered in some of the earliest social psychological writings, and the tripartite model took on a central role in major treatments of attitude theory by 1960 (Breckler, 1984). Extending the affect-behavior-cognition conception of attitude, Eagly and Chaiken (1993, 1995) argue that although an individual may have pre-dispositions to react positively or negatively toward an attitude object, he/she must first encounter the attitude object and 11 respond to it on an affective, behavioral, or cognitive basis before he/she can be said to hold an attitude. Eagly and Chaiken (1993, 1995) use the term "intra-attitudinal structure" to refer to the affect-behavior-cognition aspects of attitudinal composition. They also emphasize that the associations of the affective, cognitive, and behavioral responses differ greatly between individuals and attitude objects. This internal structure [of attitude] would typically include cognitive content consisting of the perceiver's beliefs about the characteristics of the attitude object. . . .An attitude's internal structure can also encompass affective and behavioral reactions that were elicited by the attitude object and therefore became associated with it. The affective aspect of attitude structure consists of feelings, moods, emotions, and sympathetic nervous-system activity that people have experienced in relation to an attitude object and subsequently associate with it... .Similarly, the behavioral aspect of intra-attitudinal structure encompasses a person's actions toward the attitude object. . . .The entire set of cognitive, affective, and behavioral responses that become associated with an attitude object constitutes its internal structure. (Eagly & Chaiken, 1995, p. 415) At present, the currency of the ABC model is evidenced by its inclusion in introductory social psychology textbooks. Thus, this study relies on the tripartite model due to its descriptive and analytical power in elucidating the nature of the attitude. Consequently, this research will address affective as well as cognitive and behavioral aspects of attitudes of art museum educators towards art museum-elementary school collaboration. Formation of Attitudes One of the fundamental characteristic of attitude is that it is learned (Morris & Stuckhardt, 1977; Eagly & Chaiken, 1993, 1995). Individuals' attitudes are formed 12 through mediated contacts with other individuals or social groups. "Attitudes are constructs in which a certain type of relationship exists between an individual and a specific social-cultural referent" (Morris & Stuckhardt, 1977, p. 23). In addition, Eagly and Chaiken (1993, 1995) emphasize the influence of people's related experiences on attitude formation as well as the interrelationship of attitudes. One can form an attitude in an experiential way based on direct or indirect cognitive, affective, or behavioral response to the attitude object.... Alternatively, one can form an attitude by forging linkages between the attitude object and other attitude objects. These linkages are stored, along with the target attitude itself. Often this mode of attitude formation entails an inference by which a new attitude is a generalization from a more abstract or general attitude that has already been formed, (pp. 415-416) Highly interrelated attitudes cluster together to form attitudinal sub-systems, and these sub-systems are also interrelated in a larger network which forms an individual's over-arching attitudinal system. Thus, the encounter of an individual with the attitude object triggers an association with his/her relevant prior experience, which in turn produces an evaluative tendency regarding affective, cognitive or behavioral aspect(s) of attitude. In this study, the concept of attitude, by which is meant the internal structure of associations to the attitude object and the external structure of an attitude's links to other attitudes, provides a notional framework by which to more clearly conceptualize the ways in which art museum/gallery educators' attitudes relate to art museum-elementary school collaboration. 13 Method of Study The purpose of this section is to provide an overview of the methods of this investigation. Chapter Three provides a more comprehensive treatment of the research design. This abbreviated presentation here is intended only to sketch its outline and provide an initial picture of how the study was conducted. In order to explore BC art museum educators' attitudes toward art museum-elementary school collaboration on both macro and micro levels, this study combines quantitative and qualitative research approaches through the use of mailed survey and a modified case study, respectively. While the qualitative aspects of this research have been situated within a modified case study approach, the emphasis has been placed on interviews. This investigation strives for balance in its dependence on dual methodologies in the hopes of profiting from the advantages unique to each. The survey is designed to provide systematic evidence of BC art museum educators' attitudes toward selected issues relevant to art museum-elementary school collaboration. To this end, survey questionnaires were mailed to 143 respondents working in 83 art museums/galleries in the province of British Columbia, Canada. The collected data, including a description and comparison of responses, were analyzed by the SPSS computer program. The case study-based component of this research within which the interviews were situated gathered in-depth data on the content and organization of art museum educators' attitudes in regard to art museum-elementary school collaboration; nine informants, each educator working in one of two different art museums/galleries, provided the data. Data collection employed qualitative measures and techniques commonly used by social scientists: participant observation, interview, and document analysis. However, the interaction among people and the institutional culture that might have comprised key components of other types of case studies were not the focus of this investigation. My study was centered on informants' expressed verbal opinions, feelings and behavioral intentions that I was able to infer primarily from interviews. Nonetheless, participant observations and examination of written documents guided the interviews and aided the understanding and interpretation of the interview data. Due to the need to limit the scope of this dissertation, the emphasis in reporting of this study has been placed on one specific aspect of the modified case study approach: the interviews. Other aspects of the case study method are reported here to the extent to which they help contextualize information gathered through interviews. In sum, the survey offers a broad view of many art museum educator's attitudes toward issues relevant to art museum-elementary school collaboration, while the use of qualitative method allows for a close and detailed look at attitudes expressed by art museum educators in the two art museums/galleries. Terminology The term "art museum" requires clarification. The Canadian usage of "art gallery" is synonymous with the term "art museum" more commonly used in the United States. In the literature, the terms "art museum," "art museum education," and "art museum educator" are more prevalent than the terms "art gallery," "art gallery 15 education," and "art gallery educator." In this study, the terms "art museum/gallery," "art gallery," and "art museum" are used interchangeably to represent non-profit organizations that exhibit and interpret works of art and are open to the public on a regular basis. The term "art museum educator" is used to refer to those performing the function of art education in the above-described institutions. It should be kept in mind that "art gallery" here does not refer to a commercial art gallery. Significance of This Study Although some research has been done on the topic of museum-school collaboration, museum educators themselves are not often the focus of these investigations. The past research in art museum/gallery education has focused on the design of exhibitions and programs, visitor perceptions, and the artworks themselves; in comparison, the thoughts and feelings of art museum educators regarding educational programs have been virtually ignored. Goodlad, Klein, and Tye (1979), in reference to curriculum theory, remind us that the formal curriculum might be different from what teachers perceive it to be. They emphasize the importance of understanding "what teachers perceive the extant curriculum to be and what attitudes they have toward what they view as reality" (p.62). In addition to their other multiple roles, the function of art museum educators within the art museum/gallery is that of the teacher: art museum educators are responsible for the design and the implementation of art museum/gallery education. The operation of art museum/gallery-school collaboration is influenced and mediated by art museum 16 educators' knowledge, personality, attitudes, feelings, relationship with milieus and students, as well as their willingness to learn new material and approaches to teaching, just to name a few. Clearly, the attitudes of art museum educators are among the most critical aspects affecting the success of educational initiatives—and are to be ignored at peril. If there exists little research investigating art museum educators' attitudes in general, (AAM, 1976; Eisner & Dobbs, 1986; Zeller, 1985a), the situation is worse in Canada, where no studies have been published on the topic of museum educators' attitudes. Eighteen years ago, Herbert (1981) conducted a national research project on the museum-school relationship, finding that "a frustration for anyone trying to develop an understanding of Canadian museum education is the lack of published research on the topic" (p. 12). At present, a study of museum education through written sources must still rely primarily on American or British works. The present investigation is the only study of its kind in Canada. Thus, it offers valuable information for the development of art museum-elementary school collaboration as well as for future research in the Canadian province of BC; moreover, it may serve as an impetus for similar investigations elsewhere in this country. Organization of the Dissertation In addition to the abstract and references, this dissertation is divided into eight chapters. Chapter One introduces the research problem and research questions, clarifies the concept of attitudes and terminology used in this study, and briefly presents the 17 mixed-method design and significance of this study. Chapter Two provides the justification and theoretical basis for this study by describing the characteristics of art museum/gallery education, providing a brief historical sketch of art museum-elementary school relationships, noting key issues in art museum-elementary school collaboration, and reviewing the research related to art museum educators' attitudes. Chapter Three explains the multiple-method approach used in this investigation and details the methodological considerations applicable to this study. Chapter Four presents the results of the survey of art museum educators' attitudes in regard to art museum-elementary school collaboration. Chapter Five describes the expressed attitudes of the two interviewed educators as revealed in the context of interviews at the first study site, located in a small art gallery. Chapter Six presents the expressed attitudes of the seven interviewed educators at the second study site, located in a large art museum/gallery. Chapter Seven discusses art museum educators' attitudes, summarizing the findings from survey and case studies. Finally, Chapter Eight notes the implications of the major findings of this investigation for the development of art museum-elementary school collaboration and provides suggestions for further research. 18 CHAPTER TWO Literature Review Introduction In order to provide the background information essential to the understanding of this study's research questions and design, this chapter presents a literature review covering the following five areas: a history of art museum-elementary school relationships, issues in art museum-elementary school collaboration, the characteristics of art museum education, Canadian research related to art museum-elementary school relationships, and, finally, research specifically related to art museum educators' attitudes. A Brief History of Art Museum-School Relationships Art museum education in North America spans a historical period almost as long as that of art museums themselves (Communications Canada, 1990; Newsom & Silver, 1978; Ramsey, 1938; Zeller, 1989). Moreover, the relationship between art museums and elementary schools has its origins early in the history of art museum education and has developed continuously since that time. In order to better understand the institutional contexts in which art museum educators form their attitudes, this section of the literature review presents a survey of the evolution of art museum-school relationships in the United States and Canada from the beginning of the twentieth century until the present. However, as research on the history of art museum-elementary school relationship is 19 sparse at best, this review includes a selection from the more general body of literature documenting museum-school education.1 The American Context Several American art museums have provided programs to schools since the early twentieth century. These services have increased over time, with art museum-school relationships evolving correspondingly. One of the earliest recorded educational programs for children was initiated at the Toledo Museum in 1903 (Ramsey, 1938). Soon afterwards, the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, under its first Education Director, Henry Watson Kent, began offering educational services to classroom teachers and students in 1910. Kent stated later in his career that, in retrospect, he judged the interest and involvement of local boards of education to constitute the key expedient in successful museum-school partnerships (Newsom & Silver, 1978). From the 1930s until the 1950s, the Cleveland Museum, under the guidance of its Education Curator, Thomas Munro, gained a national reputation by instituting a formal educational program for children, contrasting with the "casual glance" approach prevalent in most other art institutions of that period; Munro also led the field in pioneering outreach programs for schools, lending art materials and resources (Ott, 1985). Since the early 1960s, more than 90% of the 4,000 museums in the United States have offered educational programs, including school programs (Wittlin, 1963). Although 1 Thus, the terms "elementary school" and "art museum" are used to denote findings from the literature on elementary schools or art museums specifically, whereas "school" and "museum" refer to the broader literature on schools and museum education in general. 20 budget constraints in the public education system during the 1960s and 1970s led to a reduced emphasis on museum-school relationships in general, many American art museums responded with renewed energy and support of their educational mission regarding public schools, with nearly half of all museums establishing education divisions to support services for schools and thereby counteracting social and financial pressure on art education for school children (Cherry, 1992; CMNC, 1984; Newsom & Silver, 1978; Zeller, 1989). The late 1970s brought a new wave of developments in American art education, this time due to efforts on a nation-wide scale by the Cultural Education Collaborative; this resulted in a significant increase in American art museums' active engagement in collaborative relationships with schools. In 1975, Museums USA, a study conducted by the National Endowment for the Arts, found that nine out of ten art museums offered programs for schools and that, moreover, 70% did so on a regular basis (National Research Center for the Arts, 1974, p.38). In the 1980s, there were approximately 770 art museums among the 5,500 various types of museums in the United States (CMNC, 1984). Affected by government funding cuts to the arts and humanities, these art museums came under pressure to re-examine the role of education in their institutions. In order to secure funding at the local level, art museums became more sensitive to the needs of their communities. This emphasis on community education renewed focus on the development of art museum-school collaboration as an effective method of supporting the arts (Zeller, 1989). 21 In the early 1990s, a national survey involving 145 professionals working in art museums found that 90% of these institutions maintained relationships with local school districts (Stone, 1992a). Moreover, figures published by the American Association of Museums (AAM) revealed that more than half of American museums offered tours, visits to the classroom, and/or loan materials for schools (Excellence and Equity, AAM, 1992). Over the past decade, several national institutions have devoted intense effort to drawing art museums and schools together. Since 1982, the Smithsonian Institution's Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (SIOESE) has sponsored regional workshops with selected museums and cultural institutions throughout the United States to encourage greater communication between museum educators and classroom teachers and to help communities establish frameworks for on-going museum-school collaboration (Cuddy, 1992). The Getty Center for Education in the Arts has played a key role in the nation-wide support of the arts. Since 1987, it has sponsored six regional institutes across the United States to promote Disciplined Based Art Education (DBAE) (Berry, 1993; Getty Trust, 1990, 1998). One of these centers, the North Texas Institute for Educators on the Visual Arts (NTIEVA) at the University of North Texas has been funded by the Getty Center for Education in the Arts to establish a National Center for Art Museum/School Collaborations (NCAMSC). Its mission is to serve "as a clearinghouse for information about successful museum/school programs and practice by conducting research, maintaining a database of information, and making its information accessible through print and electronic network " (Berry, 1998, p. 10). After more than two and a half years of working with 25 museum educators from multiple museums and diverse areas of expertise, the AAM published a report entitled Excellence and Equity: Education and the Public Dimension of Museums. This report has since been disseminated, in the form of 15,000 brochures distributed nation-wide, to museums, educational and cultural institutions, and financial supporters of the arts (AAM, 1992). In proposing strategies for museums to fulfill their educational mission, this report not only recommends that museums engage in active collaboration with outside institutions but also suggests that such collaboration encompass the initial stages of planning exhibitions and activities. It is hoped that these initiatives, in turn, should lead to the final goal mentioned in the report, that of making the interpretation and core content of museum exhibitions accessible to audiences of all learning levels. The development of education in the United States relies to a significant extent on the support of national policy and federal funding. Goals 2000: Education America Act of 1994 not only recognizes the arts as a core area of study in which American children are expected to achieve competency, but goes further to promote the arts as a component of the high-quality education due every child. In order to achieve these national education goals, therefore, an on-going project called Goals 2000: Arts Education Partnership has provided financial support to promote collaboration between schools and art museums since 1994 (Goals 2000: Arts Education Partnership, 1996). 2 The charter for this project runs from 1995 through 1998. 23 The Canadian Context Canadian museums began to appear in the early 1840s and have grown in number, size, and complexity of mission since that time. Notably, even the first museums in Canada had an educational purpose (Communications Canada, 1990). In Ontario, an educational museum originated early in the 1850s and was affiliated with the Department of Education. In 1929, the Art Gallery of Ontario began to hold art-making classes for school children. By the 1930s, this Gallery, under the guidance of Arthur Lismer as educational supervisor, had taken on a leadership role in art education for school children (Saunders, 1954). Lismer, an artist as well as an educational pioneer, was a proponent of the use of art as a means to self-expression and a fuller understanding of life. From this era onward, the Art Gallery of Ontario's curricular innovations "formed the core of a movement extending throughout Ontario and across the Dominion in many major cities, including Vancouver" (Colton, 1965, p.29). The period between 1960 and 1980 saw a dramatic increase in the number of museums in Canada. Surveys document the existence of 150 museums and related institutions in 1938; 385 in 1964; and 943 in 1972 (Communications Canada, 1988). Brice (1979) finds that in the mid-1970s, 77% of Canadian art museums maintained educational programs; moreover, Gee (1979) establishes that for the year 1977, the vast majority of museum education programs were geared to the elementary school level. Herbert (1981) confirms these data, noting that by the year 1981, most programs for schools in Canadian museums were focusing on elementary students. Communications Canada (1998) reports the existence of 1,005 museums among 1,946 heritage institutions 24 in 1985. By the late 1980s, these Canadian museums were attracting approximately 22 million visitors annually; and by the year 2001, they expect 30 million annual visitors, including school children (Communications Canada, 1990). Canada and the United States Compared More than a decade ago, Gray (1984) commented, "What you find in the United States art education you also find in Canada. . . .What you cannot find in Canada are contributions of federal moneys to public school art education, large groups of specialist art teachers, or an equivalent to fifty state curriculum and instruction development agencies" (p.6). Currently, the state of art museum education in Canada mirrors earlier conditions observed and described by Gray, as resources for the development of Canadian art museum-school collaboration continue to differ in critical ways from the United States: In Canada, we do not have the benefit of a model for art education influencing a nation-wide curriculum, nor do we have an independent institution willing to provide intensive support for art education in schools. We do not have a large art museum community nor a large number of art museum educators. With the economic climate prevailing in the arts community, museum funding is threatened and greatly eroded with resultant reduction in staffing and programming. (Stephen, 1997, p.240) Thus, unlike the United States, Canada lacks powerful national institutions such as the Getty Center for Education in the Arts, the AAM, or the SIOESE that devote large amounts of money and time to the promotion of museum-school collaboration. Even worse, the unexpected cut to the Museum Assistance Plan administered by the federal 25 heritage department (the Department of Canadian Heritage) for the 1997-1998 fiscal year pushed, however inadvertently, several Canadian museums into financial crisis (Gessell, 1997). For the most part, art museums/galleries in Canada, lacking sufficient support, undertake to develop or maintain relationships with schools with extremely limited human and financial resources. This situation creates a context where attitudes of art museum educators towards collaborative endeavors with elementary schools become even more crucial in development and implementation of such initiatives. Important Issues in Art Museum-Elementary School Collaboration The term "relationship" may be defined as "a particular type of connection existing between people [or agencies] related to or having dealings with each other"; "collaboration" as "work[ing] together, especially in a joint intellectual effort;" and "partnership" as "a relationship between individuals or groups that is characterized by mutual cooperation and responsibility."3 Thus, the existence of a relationship between an art museum and elementary school does not necessarily imply that the two institutions maintain what would amount to a collaborative partnership. Applying this to the topic of art education, the literature reveals that the art museum-school relationship is one of the oldest components of art museum education. Nevertheless, research also suggests that this self-same component may present as many challenges as it offers rewards in the area of art education. What follows herein is a discussion of some of the issues requiring ^The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition copyright © 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation. Al l rights reserved. careful consideration in endeavoring to facilitate art museum-elementary school collaboration. These issues, crucial to the development of art museum-elementary school collaboration, relate directly to the aspects of art museum educators' attitudes that this study seeks to understand and explore. Rendering Services versus Collaborating: Monologue or Dialogue? As noted above, the scope and number of school education programs offered by art museums, as well as the number of students and teachers served by art museums in North America, have expanded in recent decades. However, just as quantity does not always accompany quality, likewise, the variety of school programs offered by art museums combined with the substantial number of students and teachers served by art museums do not necessarily indicate that significant teaching and learning is underway. It is not possible, therefore, to assume that successful collaborative relationships between art museums and elementary schools commonly do exist. One area where the literature questions the nature of the relationship between art museums and elementary schools looks at specific aspects of these relationships in an effort to determine the extent to which art museums and schools realize successful collaborative partnerships. The Art Museum as Educator (Newsom & Silver, 1978), presenting the results of a series of case-studies conducted nation-wide in 1971 in the United States, examines cooperative efforts between art museums and elementary schools, revealing the minimal extent to which these ventures were collaborative. Having studied and described in fine detail 15 programs in art museums as well as five outreach programs, both designed for 27 elementary students, the researchers found that 46%4 were based on cooperative planning between art museum staff and school personnel; however, only 13%5 actually involved classroom teachers in program development. Of the five outreach (school-based) programs, 20%6 invited teachers to participate in program development. Moreover, the researchers note the lack of databases in art museums regarding schools needs and perspectives. The results of a national mailed survey, Museums USA (NEA, 1974), show similar evidence of the lack of school participation in the planning and development of school-related museum education programs. Taken together, this research points out a significant trend during this period: first, the needs of elementary schools seem not to have been taken into consideration, in any systematic manner, by art museums; second, classroom teachers, the ultimate implementers of much of the school curriculum, had no system of communication to voice their needs to one of the important sources of art education, art museum educators. In sum, the 1970s saw many art museums in the United States unilaterally planning school programs. This trend continued during the 1980s. A significant report, Museums for a New Century, found that very few museum-school relationships were based on joint efforts, with many teachers and museum educators regarding these links in an "us and them" dynamic (CMNC, 1984). The report also identified the need for communication between museum educators and teachers regarding mutual goals. Deeks' study of museum-school collaborations observed a similar tendency: "Only 9 of 23 programs examined were truly 4 Seven out of the 15 in-house programs. 5 Two out of the 15 in-house programs. 6 One out of the five outreach programs. 28 joint efforts; the rest were initiated by museums" (CMNC, 1984, p. 67-68). Zeller's survey (1987) demonstrated the lack of school participation in the development of school-related programs in art museums: 60% of art museum education material for schools had been developed in-house; moreover, only 34% of art museum educators shared the responsibility of developing educational materials with teachers and university specialists. Along similar lines, Harrison and Naef (1985) argue that a lack of communication between museums and schools resulted in poor learning outcomes in students after museum tours. Examining the effects of educational programs in the Tel Aviv Museum on the artistic perceptions of elementary school children, Harrison's quasi-experimental research (1988) reveals that elementary school children's increased exposure to art in museums neither enhanced artistic perception nor broadened preferences for art forms. The poor relationship between the art museum and teachers is posited as one of the casual factors. Research undertaken in the 1990s shows what may be the onset of a marked transformation in the field of art museum education; however, it is still too early to tell, given the mixed results of research available to date. Data obtained through informal interviews and a written survey of art teachers state-wide in a south-eastern state of the United States (Henry, 1995/1996) shows overall dissatisfaction on the part of teachers, citing lack of communication between docents and teachers, as well as incompatibility of museum and school curricula. Results of a survey conducted by Williams in 1993 (1996) involving 23 major art museums in the United States indicate that these institutions seem aware of the importance of museum-school partnerships and take active measures to 29 provide teachers a variety of programs and means of participation. Nevertheless, Williams concludes that currently, the model of the classroom teacher in active and equal partnership with the art museum educator in program design and implementation is more prototype than archetype (1996). In contrast, the results of a survey involving 145 art museum educators from 107 art museums conducted by the National Center for Art Museum/School Collaborations (NCAMSC) in 1996 (NCAMSC, 1996) show what their researchers identify as a significant change in the way art museums currently cooperate with schools. The data, based on American art museum educators' responses, reflect the following trends: 62% indicated that both museum staff and school personnel initiated collaborative programs; 63% reported that museum staff and school personnel cooperatively determined the educational content of the collaborative program; and 83% claimed to collaborate with teachers on a regular basis. In Canada, Gee's survey (1979) revealed the same trend seen above in data drawn from the United States context, that of most museum educators planning school programs unilaterally, in the absence of classroom teacher input. Research from 1981 shows Canadian museum educators lacking regular contact with schools (Herbert, 1981). Moreover, museums failed to maintain close constructive working relationships with the public education system: only 12% of the museums surveyed indicated that their museum education advisory committees included teachers, principals, and/or curriculum consultants (Herbert, 1981b). Finally, approximately 40% of the museums surveyed reported having no formal communication links with their local schools (Herbert, 1981). 3 0 Current data on art museum-school relationships in Canada is lacking; therefore, this review is unable to report on the extent to which Canadian trends in the 1990s reflect those documented in the United States. School-orientation or Museum-orientation Design Approach As argued above, the literature reveals that many art museums design programs for schools without their participation; interestingly enough, however, research also documents how art museums, despite their unilateral approach to program design, tend to tailor their school-related programs to fit school curricula and perceived school needs. Ramsey (1938) observes that the role of the American art museum educator involved supporting pre-visit activities in classrooms and designing tours which related to students' classroom learning. Newsom (1978) finds that the intention of most school-related programs offered by American art museums was to supplement the school curriculum. Stone's survey study based on the responses of art museum professionals shows fifty-nine percent reporting that their art museum-school programs were linked to various aspects of local school art education instruction. Moreover, when planning school-oriented art museum programs, these art museum educators said they took into account school district art curriculum guidelines (37%), individual art specialist instruction (29%), general conceptual connections (41%), thematic connections (38%), and elements and principles of design (33%) (Stone, 1992a). In a survey conducted in 1992 in North America, 85% of art museums indicated that they offered teachers 31 educational materials and resources closely related to classroom learning (National Gallery of Art, 1992). In Canada, Gee's survey (1979) indicates that most school-oriented museum education programs were planned to connect as much as possible with school curricula. Herbert's research conducted in 1981 also shows that many large Canadian museums considered the integration with school curricula the most important aspect in the development of school-related programs (Herbert, 1981). A 1996 provincial survey of BC school-oriented museum programming conducted by the British Columbia Museums Association (BCMA) concludes that while many small museums rarely or never consult with teachers when designing school programs, these museums still envision their collections as supportive of various school curricular areas (Julyan, 1996). The Society of Educational Resource Groups (SERG) in Calgary in the Canadian province of Alberta has published a catalogue of school programs offered by their member museums, ensuring that all of these programs are school curriculum-based: "Teachers select the school programs [provided by museums] they want their class to have, and they know that whatever program they choose for a school field trip," it will relate to the school curriculum" (Julyan, 1996, p. 20). In a truly collaborative relationship, benefits should accrue to both partners. In concert with improving art education in schools, therefore, it is not unreasonable to expect the development of art museum-school cooperative relationships to contribute to the quality of education available in art museums. As commonsensical as this proposition may sound, such a win-win approach is sometimes hard to achieve, as the following research illustrates. Some scholars criticize the school-orientated nature of museum educational programming, fearing that it emphasizes quality for schools at the expense of art museum programs and goals. Frank Oppenheimer, director of the 1971 Exploratorium, suggests that museums should offer parallel systems of education which are "neither extensions of schools nor supplements to them" (Newsom, 1978, p. 261). Oppenheimer claims that what museums do best is to "provide real experiences, a quite separate kind of education" (p.261). Museum for a New Century (CMNC, 1984) underscores the crucial need for mutually beneficial museum-school partnerships. Describing the disinclination to consider museums' needs in the development of museum-school relationships, this report submits that the school-related programs offered by museums "are shaped by the needs of the schools, not the strengths of the museum" (CMNC, 1984, p.67). Muhlberger (1985) criticizes art museums for neglecting their own needs and the mission of teaching art itself in their school-related programs, observing: "Art museums make the most of the situations when they present lessons that are keyed to a classroom teacher's educational objectives rather than to the objectives of the museum. The rub is that art as a subject of value in and unto itself has been weakened" (p. 102). Zeller (1987) proposes that school-related art museum education should be central to any art program in schools, and should not be treated as an enrichment, supplement, or mere resource for the classroom-based art program. Lon Dubinsky (1996), a consultant with the Canadian Museum Association in Ottawa, concurs, arguing that museum education should "be more than an extension of traditional schooling" (p.27), and concludes: "It is necessary to place the museum and its contents at the center of experience" (p.27). In sum, although some research shows that teachers regularly request art museums to relate their school programs to their school curriculum (Berry, 1998; Henry, 1995/1996), it is equally true that art museums have their own strengths and potentialities for providing quality programs that go beyond school curricula. Clearly, the goals of school-related programs offered by art museums need to be considered carefully in the development of collaboration between art museums and schools so that each institution benefits and grows. As the report Excellence and Equity: Education and the Public Dimension of Museums describes the ideal partnership: "Collaboration enhances the ability of each participant and provides a unified, focused mechanism for achieving individual goals" (AAM, 1992, p. 20). Art museum educators' attitudes regarding the desired orientation of programs for elementary schools are instrumental in shaping partnership initiatives. This research constitutes a step forward in understanding their attitudes. Art for Art's Sake or Art as an Instrument; Art-centered or People-centered Approach The content of art education comprises another issue crucial to the development of art museum-school collaboration. The role that art should ideally play in art education is still under debate (as it has been for many centuries prior to this one). One of the key questions in this debate can be formulated as follows: should art support other subjects considered primary in the curriculum, or should art comprise a subject unto its own, 34 important for its own sake? While awaiting an answer to the above dilemma, another presents itself: which approaches to instruction prove the most effective, taking into account learners' needs as well as the strengths and limitations of teachers and facilities for art education? These and other related issues are discussed in the ensuing section. As relationships form between art museum educators and classroom teachers, new connections arise between art and content areas such as social studies, mathematics, and language arts. Art is now regularly used in art education collaborations to introduce or illustrate certain concepts in these areas and has thus become integral to myriad school subjects. Some initiatives applying this approach provide successful models for art museum education programs. One such paragon is the Teachers' Resource Center in the St. Louis Art Museum. This center is designed to provide equipment, slides, workshops, and information to generalist classroom teachers, helping them gain knowledge and increase their comfort level with art and the art museum context. However, the majority of teachers and programs associated with this center implement art in education as a supplement to other subject matter, with virtually no emphasis on art for its own sake (Newsom & Silver, 1978). Another example is provided by the Philadelphia Museum of Art Institute (PMAI) to support elementary and secondary teacher use of the museum collection. Funded by the Pennsylvania Department of Education, this state-wide program represents a model that successfully helps generalist teachers develop knowledge about art and ways to apply 35 this knowledge to children's learning of other subjects.7 Impressed by the success of this model, the Joslyn Art Museum in Omaha, Nebraska, the Ringling Museum of Art in Sarasota, Florida, and the Museum of New Mexico have founded similar programs for generalist teachers in order to integrate the visual arts into the basic school disciplines (Katz, 1984). An element of the school reform movement shows itself in the overwhelmingly popular reception of Discipline Based Art Education (DBAE) over the past decade in the United States; with it, the status of art in school-oriented art museum education has risen correspondingly. The implementation of DBAE in American elementary schools has not only enhanced the recognition of art education in schools but also created a common basis on which to design school-oriented art museum programs. Promoted by the Getty Center for Education in the Arts, DBAE has expanded the content of art education from its previous dual emphases on school-based studio art and art museum-based art history to include a content-centered approach based on the four disciplines of art: art history, art criticism, studio art, and aesthetics. The North Texas Institute for Educators on the Visual Arts provides a good example demonstrating the DBAE-initiated evolution of school-oriented art museum education. The project, encompassing five metropolitan art museums and six school districts across northern Texas, provides extensive training in the theory and 7 This program ran for two weeks during two consecutive summers with a field program during the intervening school year for the years 1982 through 1983. 8 The five art museums participating in the institute project are the Amon Carter Museum, the Dallas Museum of Art, the Kimbell Art Museum, the Meadows Museum of Art, and the Modern Art Museum of Fort Worth. 36 implementation of DB AE for school district teams, each comprised of art specialists, art supervisors, classroom teachers, principals, superintendents, and school board members, as well as museum educators and docents. With the support of the Texas Education Agency and participating art museums, the project successfully creates opportunities for both classroom teachers and school children to systematically learn about art production, art history, art criticism, and aesthetics through artwork housed in the art museums (Berry, 1998; Fletcher, 1995). In addition, adaptations of DBAE theory and practice have begun to integrate art into other subject areas to enhance the learning of mathematics, social studies, cultural issues, and language arts. For example, the Getty-sponsored Florida Institute for Art Education (FIAE) has recently promoted an interdisciplinary curriculum approach called CHAT (Comprehensive Holistic Assessment Task). The FIAE encourages teachers to select a single work of art and design units comprised of related multi-session lessons organized around that work of art. A CHAT unit thus helps students acquire knowledge and skills not only in art history, art criticism, art production, and aesthetics, but also in other subjects beyond the visual arts (Delacruz & Dunn, 1996). Through its metamorphosis in the last decade, contemporary versions of DBAE in American elementary schools are comprehensive, interdisciplinary, multifaceted, multicultural, content-centered, child-centered, issue-centered, and authentic in all of their manifestations (Delacruz & Dunn, 1995, 1996). The advantage of the DBAE framework is that it encourages a balanced approach to the instruction of art; moreover, even in its altered incarnations, as the example of CHAT shows, DBAE spin-offs are able to retain 37 more of a balance of art-for-art's-sake with the utilitarian applications. Small wonder, then, that more and more art museum-school partnerships apply DBAE theory with an interdisciplinary/humanities approach rather than relying on the formerly emphasized aesthetic/art appreciation format. Finally, the role and value of art education have informed an on-going discourse since the earliest practices of art education in the United States in the 1870s (Lovano-Kerr, 1985). At present, the place of art in education remains the focus of polemical debate in schools and even in art museums. Four philosophical schools of thought have vied for domination in American art museum education during the twentieth century: aesthetics emphasizes the aesthetic merit of art and the visitors' contemplation of works displayed in art museums; art history promotes the understanding of artworks in the context of their original society and culture as well as in relation to the artist; interdisciplinary/humanities advocates "the utilization of collections to teach about subjects other than art" (Zeller, 1989, P. 58) as well as about cultural history; and, social education "intends to make a direct and practical difference by improving the quality of everyday life" (Zeller, 1989, p. 66). As Zeller (1989) concludes: "While the aesthetics/art appreciation and art-historical philosophy, and to a lesser extent the interdisciplinary/humanities philosophy, are art-centered, the social education philosophy is people-centered" (p. 66). Contributing a postmodern perspective, Mayer (1998) adds that a new art history philosophy, resembling the activism of the social education philosophy and interdisciplinary philosophy, is becoming a dominant force influencing the development of art museum-school relationships. To date, there is no consensus on the place of art in school-oriented art museum education. Should art be taught as art-for-art's sake, based on the art-centered education philosophies, or as an instrument for improving the quality of life, based on the people-centered education philosophy? What will the effects of postmodernism on this debate eventually yield? All that is clear is that these issues will continue to demand reflection and consideration in future discussions of collaborative initiatives in art museum-school education. Teaching "Know-what" versus "Know-how" There is an obvious and direct connection between "being free" to make a choice and "being able" to make it. Unless we are able to act, the right to act loses its value. The relationship between liberty and resources is exact. The greater the resources possessed, the greater the freedom enjoyed. . . . Roy Hattersley, 1988 (Wright, 1989, 119) Situated in a modern democracy, the art museum's educational mission consists not simply in giving the public access to art but, as well, in helping the public access art. As modern art museums take on the task of providing a unique context in which children encounter authentic works of art and gain knowledge related to these objects, the importance of teaching art museum literacy is brought into prominence. Art museum literacy is a comprehensive construct, including visual literacy as well as the ability to manipulate art museum resources. Stapp (1984) defines museum literacy as the "competence in drawing upon the museum's holdings and services 39 purposefully and independently" (p. 3). Such definitions are not merely academic, as they imply strategic teaching approaches: the goal of art museum literacy necessitates, therefore, an emphasis on teaching children how to learn from museums rather than stressing the content of displayed objects or object-related knowledge. Herbert (1981) has argued that the crucial mission of education in Canadian museums should be to empower the public as museum users as opposed to treating them as mere museum visitors. The Research Group on Education and Museums (GREM) in Canada has developed their first educational model for schools and collaborating museums, which encourages teachers to help their students in "learning how to learn" from museums (Allard, 1992). It involves four steps: 1) development of questions, 2) data gathering, 3) analysis, and 4) synthesis in pre-visit, museum-based, and follow-up activities. This model is designed to help students learn how to use museum resources, including art museum resources, to find answers to their questions. In terms of visual literacy, Pitman-Gelles (1981) argues that museum programs for students should help them learn the skills necessary to access and use exhibits for self-study. Osbom (1985) and Goodman (1985) also assert that art museums should help the public attain the skills needed for viewing works of art. As Rice (1988) observes, teaching visual literacy is an important task in the museum-school partnership. In Rice's view, helping children achieve visual literacy in museums means assisting them in "making sense of art and being able to apply to daily life the learning and experiences derived from original objects in the museum setting" (p. 13). Davis and Gardner (1993), working with Howard Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences, offer an audience-centered learning model for school-oriented art museum education based on five distinct inquiry approaches. The metaphor of "five windows" used in this model relates to the five entry points for helping children learn in art museums. This model uses art museums to facilitate the development of young students' multiple intelligences and to help them gain visual literacy. The five inquiry approaches are as follows. 1. The narration window: a story approach to learning, encouraging viewers to describe a story by looking at the artwork. 2. The quantitative window: a quantitative approach to learning, asking viewers to discover the numerical information in the exhibition, such as monetary values of the artwork, the number of works created by the same artist, the year of the work's creation, etc. 3. The functional window: an inquiry approach comprised of basic questions regarding the importance of a work and its relationship to other artwork. 4. The aesthetic window: an aesthetic approach to learning involving questions that focus the viewer on their emotional responses to the artwork and/or help the viewer access the quality of the artwork. 5. The experiential window: a hands-on approach to learning, encouraging observers to create their own art based on their observation or manipulation of authentic works in art museums. In 1996, based on the above model, the Harvard Graduate School of Education initiated the development of the Harvard Project MUSE (Museums Uniting with Schools in Education). The Harvard Project MUSE, a research group supported by the Bauman 41 Foundation, has designed a set of learning tools with which to support and extend students' experience of art through questions for understanding, exploring, seeing, and thinking at art museums. Training manuals for MUSE workshops and accompanying literature have been distributed to selected art museums in the United States and Canada since 1996 to encourage art museums to apply this model to their programs for schools (Davis, Simon, O'Neil & Haas, 1996). This project is endeavoring to link the theory and practice of teaching visual literacy to school-oriented art museum education. Full access to the art world in art museums cannot be realized unless people have the ability and freedom to be independent learners. Brookfield (1980) and Knowles (1980) maintain that to be an independent learner, the individual must be able to study independently and be willing to use this ability. Art museums are declared free and open learning environments for people; however, this wonderful world of art will remain closed to visitors if they are not given the means to engage with the content of art museums. Thus, the essential question remains: given a plethora of theory, what teaching practices are most effective in helping children become truly independent learners, and to what extent is this goal recognized and implemented in the development of art museum-school collaborative programs? Clearly, understanding of art museum educators' attitudes in regard to their roles and prerogatives is crucial in answering these questions. The Role of the Teacher Collaboration with schools can comprise a powerful strategy for art museums to fulfill their education missions (AAM, 1992; CMNC, 1984; Eisner & Dobbs, 1986; 42 Newsom & Silver, 1978). Related to this issue is the role of the elementary school teacher, in concert with the art museum educator, in developing a collaborative relationship between their respective institutions. However, in spite of the vast potential for collaborative educational initiatives to benefit from teacher expertise, barriers remain to the full participation of the classroom teacher in art education. One major impediment seems related to historical tradition.9 As noted above, the majority of art museum resources and materials for school programs have traditionally been designed by art museum educators without teacher participation. In fact, Herbert (1981) found that the policies of a number of museums in Canada still consider the only responsibility of the teacher on a docent-led museum tour as being to maintain class discipline. Stone's survey (1992) shows minor proportions of the 282 American art museums to include teachers in advisory, policy, or planning agencies within their institutions: 27% have teachers participating on their advisory boards; 23% have teachers on their planning boards; 20% hold regular staff meetings with teachers; and 6% include district teachers on art museum staff. While the passive role of teachers in the development of art museum-school collaboration seems typical and ubiquitous, it has also been the subject of continuous debate throughout the development of art museum education. As early as 1932, the museum educator Roberta M. Fansler argued that classroom teachers, not docents, should guide their classes during museum visits (Newsom & Silver, 1978). Hicks (1986) finds that museum-school relationships have begun to shift from a giver-recipient model to one 9 Whether or not this relation is actually causal awaits clarification by future research. 43 of shared responsibility: "Museums are no longer the providers and teachers the recipients; instead they share the responsibility for finding ways to use museums as curriculum resources" (p.2). The National Museums Corporation in Canada acknowledges that to museum educators, the public education system can prove an invaluable source of educational theory and research (Herbert, 1981). Pitman-Gelles (1981) sees the active involvement of teachers as a key component in ensuring a successful museum-school partnership. Sebolt (1980) and Fredette (1982) contend that the use of needs assessments and the involvement of teachers in the planning, evaluation, and revision of school programs are essential to successful museum-school cooperation. Hicks (1986) encourages teachers to take on active roles in the museum-school collaboration by making national and local connections and by seeking partnerships with museums. Moreover, Garoian (1992) presents an ideal art museum-school partnership model in which the classroom teacher plays a leadership role. Garoian's model envisions K-12 teachers using both institutional and human resources to design a series of activities related to art museums, including pre-visit, museum-based, and post-visit activities, to enrich students' learning. Thus, even during the visit, the teacher plays an active role, working in cooperation with the docent of the art museum to facilitate students' learning. Gradually, it seems, the commonality between the interests and responsibilities of art museum educators and teachers is gaining recognition. In practice, exemplars are springing up wherein teachers are sharing teaching responsibilities with art museum educators as well as playing key roles in the development of school-related art museum education. For example, the Dulwich Picture 44 Gallery in England makes the involvement of the classroom teacher in planning the museum visit a requirement. This gallery maintains a firm policy of not offering pre-planned lessons or tours for groups: no museum visit is arranged without careful consultation with the classroom teacher. Instead, gallery educators plan, research, and prepare each talk and art activity in collaboration with teachers (Durant, 1996). Another case in point is provided by the New York City Museum School, opened in September 1994 with 85 sixth- and seventh-graders. This school is designed to take advantage of the wealth of resources housed in the museums of New York City; its partners include the American Museum of Natural History, Brooklyn Museum, Jewish Museum, Children's Museum of Manhattan, and New York Historical Society. Working with four full-time teachers certified in their subject specialization and five professionally trained museum educators, the students of this museum school study at participating museums and at the home base, following a rigorous interdisciplinary curriculum that encompasses required curricular material while allowing for independent research, project development, and exploration. In fact, the school provides students an interdisciplinary program exceeding requirements of the New York State and New York City curricula. (O'DonneU, 1995; Takahisa, 1995). It is evident that in this museum school, museum education is not an extension but rather the core of the school curriculum and that its teachers play a key role in its partnerships with museums. As Clandinin and Connelly (1992) argued, "The teacher is an integral part of the curriculum constructed and enacted in classrooms" (p. 363). The teacher, as translator of the theoretical curriculum into teaching practice, can be viewed as a major determinant in 45 the quality of students' learning experiences; consequently, the teacher's potential in contributing to art museum education should be harnessed, not wasted. However, to play an active role in the collaborative relationship with art museums, teachers need not only willingness but also ability and knowledge. The following literature represents some efforts to help teachers attain the specialized ability and knowledge to become effective art museum users and partners rather than passive visitors. Programs for Teachers As popular awareness of classroom teachers' potential in art museum education rises, programs increasing teachers' efficacy have been identified as one way to foster art museum-school cooperation and improve the quality of student learning. This idea is not, by any means, novel: as early as the 1930s, Ramsey (1938) and Coleman (1939) deemed museum training of teachers the foremost means of maximizing students' experience in museums. From the 1930s to the 1950s, Thomas Munro, Education Curator at the Cleveland Museum and professor at Case Western Reserve University, made the Cleveland Museum one of the first in the United States to employ certified art teachers as museum educators, establishing a successful teacher training program based on museum-school collaboration (Ott, 1985). Munro hired certified art teachers and trained them as art museum educators to guide tours in galleries because he believed that students needed formal education in art rather than casual exposure (Ott, 1985). Although many of these specially trained art teachers eventually moved on to better salary offers in other schools, 46 Munro (Ott, 1985) considered the program at the Cleveland Museum as a training ground to maximize school art teachers' access to art museum resources. In art museum education, Thoman Munro was ahead of his time. In fact, a paucity of successful training programs helping teachers to utilize museum resources still hampered art museum education in North America until well into the 1970s (Newsom, 1978). However, during the last two decades, the need to train teachers in accessing art museum resources has gained currency. Lacey and Agar (1980a, 1980b) recommend cooperation between art museums and universities through offering accredited courses for teachers in museum utilization. Museums for a New Century (CMNC, 1984) links the importance of pre-service and in-service teacher training in museum education to the ultimate success of museum-school collaborations. Zeller (1985b) maintains that "teachers trained in a discipline-based approach to art instruction would be better able to contribute to a strong museum-school partnership" (p. 10). Finally, Excellence and Equity (AAM, 1992) emphasizes the crucial need for both pre-service and in-service training for teachers. In Canada, an accredited course for teachers on how to make the most of resources provided by museums and other cultural facilities was offered at a university in British Columbia until the late 1970s (Gee, 1979). Herbert's research (1981) records a collaboration between the Royal Ontario Museum and the University of Toronto and Lakehead University for teacher education: "Practicing teachers are regularly seconded to the ROM's Education staff for two-year periods and all fourteen full-time members of that staff are licensed teachers" (pp. 74-75). Herbert's 1981 research also reveals that 26 47 of the 59 Canadian museums report offering some kind of training program for teachers; however, few offer pre-service training for student teachers (Herbert, 1981). Finally, Stephen (1983) mentions that "student teachers at the Faculty of Education at Queen's University in Kingston have had the option to do a part of their teaching practice at the Art Gallery of Ontario" (p. 18). The results of a survey distributed to art museum members of the American Association of Museums (AAM) and the National Art Education Association reveal a growing interest in teacher education programs in art museums (National Gallery of Art, 1992). According to this survey, 35% of the 285 respondents indicate that their art museums have offered teacher education programs for more than five years, 85% currently offer teacher education programs, and 7% plan to offer teacher training courses in the near future. In addition, 65% of these teacher education programs run one day or less, and half of these short-term programs offer some type of university or school credit. Although only 35% of the teacher education programs last three weeks to a month, 78% of these longer programs offer credit to participating teachers. Linderman's (1995) study, based on the analysis of the two-year documentation of teacher programs run by the Cleveland Museum of Art, Saint Louis Art Museum, Milwaukee Art Museum, Minneapolis Institute of Arts, Metropolitan Museum of Art, and Detroit Institute of Arts, identifies two models for implementing teacher programs within the art museum context. The first model befits art museums with limited staff and facilities for educational programs. The key components of this model are: 1. Make contact with local schools. 48 2. Form a teacher advisory board. 3. Start a teacher resource room. 4. Publicize the teacher resource room. 5. Host open-house events for teachers. 6. Encourage teachers to bring their students. 7. Provide as many additional services or materials as feasible. The second model is applicable to major art museums with large staff and collections, multiple resources, and active school programs. The following are the key steps of this model: 1. Form a teacher advisory board. 2. Publish a newsletter for teachers. 3. Provide a separate or special area for a resource center. 4. Provide a variety of workshops and in-service programs. 5. Provide longer, more intensive programs for students or teachers interested in an in-depth experience. 6. Provide assistance to teachers in tailoring instructional materials for special needs. 7. Diversify museum education staff to meet the demands of a multicultural and diverse audience. Art museum education departments can no longer rely solely on art historical expertise. Both models include the establishment of a teacher resource facility. Pitman-Gelles (1981) categorizes two types of teacher resource centers in museums: one is similar to a library, lending educational materials to teachers; the other type not only 49 lends teachers materials but also serves as a center for training and facilitator of communication between teachers and museum experts. Although there is no consensus as to which form a teacher resource center should take, the need for such resources to advance the exchange of ideas between teachers and art museum staff is widely recognized (Brigman, 1993; Walsh-Piper, 1989). To conclude, although some art museums do not address the problem of poor communication between art museums and teachers, other art museums devote a great deal of time and energy to establishing communication channels, opportunities for participation, teacher resource centers, and training programs for teachers. However, with limited human and financial resources, it is a challenge for art museums to provide sufficient programs for both students and teachers. Needless to say, attitudes of those in charge of implementing school-oriented programs bear significance in terms of priorities accorded to these two initiatives. The Characteristics of Art Museum Education As noted above, art museums have rendered services to the public since their establishment in North America in the 1870s (Newsom & Silver, 1978; Zeller, 1989). The commitment of museums to education has been both general and obvious; however, the lack of clear identification of the art museum as a unique learning environment, distinct from schools and other kinds of museums, hampers the harnessing of the full potential of art museums in collaboration with elementary schools. In order to clarify this ambiguity, this section explores the special nature of art education in the context of art 50 museums. It is expected that the elucidation of the environment in which art museum education takes place will lend significance and help us better understand art museum educators' attitudes in regard to art museum-elementary school collaboration. Schwab's (1962, 1973) analysis of school curriculum highlights its four basic components: milieu, learners, teachers, and subject matter, providing a useful framework to compare schools and art museums as educational institutions. The following discussion postulates the ways in which the various characteristics of art museums comprise unique and indispensable learning environments. 1. The milieu The milieu, in Schwab's framework, refers to the context in which learning and teaching occur (Schwab, 1973, p. 503) and is useful in conceptualizing important differences between art museums and schools. In this study, I identify three aspects distinguishing the milieu of the art museum as unique amongst educational institutions: (1). Status of education in art museums. In contrast to schools, whose only mission is to educate, museums—including art museums—are established to fulfill multiple missions. As Harrison (1967) describes: Museums are strange, marginal places: concerned with education, yet they are not schools; concerned with research, yet they are not universities; concerned with scarcity and value, yet they are not shops or banks; concerned with therapy, yet they are not hospitals; concerned with leisure and enjoyment, yet they are not playgrounds. They can, if they try, be most things to most men (sic), (p. ix) 51 In fact, tensions surround the issue of art museums' primary mission, resulting from the different perspectives on the relationship between the many responsibilities charged to art museums, such as the exhibition, collection, and preservation of artwork, the education of various groups, and the support of research. The basic and key question boils down to the following: "Is the primary mission of the American art museum to serve people or works of art?" This controversy has fueled debate amongst directors, curators, and museum educators throughout the 20th century (Mayer, 1998). Hein and Doering (1992) concur: "There has been a history of tension between those who want to popularize museums and those who regard museums essentially as centers for the advancement of scholarly research" (p.875). Thus, the position of education in art museums comprises but one of the many debates and practical dilemmas within the art museum world. Fourteen years ago, the landmark report, Museums for a New Century (CMNC, 1984) identified education as one of the top missions of museums. The text of the report provides a good metaphor for describing the balance of education with other missions in museums: "If collections are the heart of museums, what we have come to call education. . .is the spirit" (p.55). Many would agree that, ideally, museums require both: without "spirit," the art museum is meaningless; likewise, the possibility of its existence without "heart" is also doubtful. However, how best to take care of the "heart" and "spirit" simultaneously is a challenge continually debated in art museums, especially during times of fiscal stricture. In comparison, schools do not need to deal with this dilemma since education constitutes the "heart" as well as the "spirit" of schools. In museums, it is 52 often the attitude of those in charge of museum programming that is instrumental in defining the educational mission of the institution and deciding about its priority. (2). Communication media in art museums. Another obvious difference between the educational milieus of museums and schools is the education materials supporting the processes of learning and teaching. As Caston (1980) observes: "The object is the most obvious aspect of the museum's uniqueness and indeed provides an unlimited resource for learning" (p.22). Notwithstanding recent changes in curriculum and its implementation, words often remain the main means of teaching in schools. The museum experience, however, typically revolves around objects and exhibits (Bloom & Mintz, 1990; Gurian, 1981; Grinder & McCoy, 1985; Harris, 1990; Pitman-Gelles, 1981). Screven (1986a) contrasts schools' predominant media with those of museums: verbal media (e.g., words, books, and lectures) versus visual media (e.g., exhibits and objects), respectively. Wendling (1991) argues that school classrooms tend to depend on "linear modes of communication"; alternatively, museums "utilize visual and tonal forms of communication that are mostly non-linear and which require visitors to interpret the meaning of visual images by themselves" (p. 18). As in other types of museums, objects comprise the main medium of communication with visitors in art museums. Barbeau and Swain (1982) state that "art galleries must never forget that the object~the work of art—is their primary stimulus. Without this, the institution has no validity" (p.97). A forum of leading art museum 53 educators10 emphasized the centrality of the art object in art museum education, noting: "Art museums function as educational institutions by presenting original works of art and by making these primary resources accessible to broad audiences" (Pittman-Gelles, 1988, p.21). An interesting outgrowth to this philosophy (i.e., the primacy of artwork in art museum education) is the virtual phobia displayed by many art museum educators, curators, and designers of exhibits in art museums regarding the presence of any other technology, medium, or stimulus which might in any way interfere with the visitor's direct encounter with the art object. Peter Floud of the Victoria and Albert Museum justifies this position: "The value of the objects in art museums, by contrast with those in all other museums, lies primarily in their own intrinsic merit and beauty, and only secondarily in their function as illustration and evidence" (Newsom & Silver, 1978, p.270). In a meeting on art museum education at the Toledo Museum of Art, several art museum professionals asserted that artwork in art museums differs from objects in history or science museums, in that the implication of art objects is ultimately inexpressible through any other medium, other than their original artistic forms (Toledo Museum of Art, 1985). Serrell, with over three decades of experience helping museums design exhibitions, speaks to this topic: Art museums are more concerned with aesthetics and have conflicts about presenting interpretations that might impose on visitors' own impressions and experiences. Art museum practitioners worry about visitors spending 1 0 The following institutions were represented: the museum division of the National Art Education Association; the American Association of Museums' Education Committee and Education Association. This meeting convened in Denver, Colorado in 1987 at the Conference for the Creation of a Definition of Art Museum Education. too much time reading; all other museums worry that visitors do not read enough" (Serrell, 1996, p. xiii). In current practice, artwork remains the main focus in art museums; however, as the ways in which educational material is implemented and supported evolve, change may sometimes be the source of arguments and tension within the art education community. Computerized and technological systems, considered breakthrough improvements when incorporated into special exhibitions in science and history museums, remain experimental— even dubious, in the minds of some —additions to art museums. Likewise, audio-visual and interactive educational devices are welcomed by some art museum educators, whereas others feel these devices interrupt the quiet, contemplative setting of galleries and interfere with viewers' direct learning from artwork. Thus, the comparison with most schools' positive reception to technological improvements and their incorporation into classrooms as soon as budgets permit is striking. However, only limited information has been gathered to date to systematically examine this phenomenon. (3). Open and free learning atmosphere of art museums. Many museum scholars point out that the learning environment in museums is different from that found in schools, the latter typically regulated according to a set schedule (CMNC, 1984; Harrison & Naef; Pitman-Gelles, 1981, 1985; Zeller, 1985b). As Museums for a New Century (1984) describes, museums are places "where objects and ideas are interwoven in an open process of communication" for study and 55 exploration, seeing, thinking, and sometimes touching (p.59). Both Screven (1969) and Grurian (1981) mention freedom of choice as one of the great strengths of the museum setting, asserting that such an environment encourages self-directed learning as opposed to the other-directed learning so often characterizing the school setting. Therefore, in contemplating the provision of school-related activities in museums, many scholars urge program design to take advantage of museums' unique environment for learning rather than following a school-orientated approach (CMNC, 1984; Dubinsky, 1996; Zeller, 1985b, 1987). Ideally, this museum design would emphasize an interactive environment facilitating less rigid learning experiences than typically found in schools (Falk and Dierking, 1992; Grinder & McCoy, 1985; Suina, 1990). Thus, the challenge in the development of art museum-school collaboration centers around how to maintain the characteristics of the art museum as a learning environment with its freedom, openness, and entertainment, while still ensuring fulfillment of its educational mission. 2. Learners Schwab's framework (1973, p.502) defines learners as the beneficiaries of the curricular operation. In the context of art museums, the beneficiaries of art museum curricula include teachers, students, casual visitors, and target audiences. Compared to schools, which are usually responsible for the learning of children of similar ages and learning needs, art museums must cater to an audience of all ages, backgrounds, and reasons for visiting—including motives other than learning. 56 Also unlike schools, where teachers have had the chance to develop long-term relationships and intimate knowledge of their students, the art museum setting necessitates teaching of a different kind: art museum educators often interact with audiences with whom they have little familiarity. Finally, Serrell (1996) finds that "children instinctively investigate things with their hands, but adults may need to be invited to touch and participate. Where adults seek structure or directions, children charge ahead without them" (p.39). This provides but one example of the challenge facing art museum educators, that of meeting the needs of diverse audiences, including novice visitors, expert visitors, children, and adults. 3. Teachers According to Schwab's (1973) framework, another element to be considered in curriculum design is the teachers who will communicate the curricular materials to learners. The case of art museum school programming presents special challenges. First, the curriculum implementer can be any one of the following: art museum educator, volunteer, docent, classroom teacher, or art teacher (Newsom & Silver, 1978). Jones's survey (1977) shows that 90% of the tours in European art museums are conducted by classroom teachers. Ott and Jones (1984) mention that one of the big differences between European art museums and those in the United States is that European art museums have paid professional guides or trained classroom teachers to supplement the museum educational staff, while most American art museums rely on volunteers. Second, most art 57 museum educators are operating with little or no familiarity with their students. An implication of this proposition is that the educator has had no chance, therefore, to implement pre-teaching activities with their students; neither can he/she follow up with post teaching activities, all of which makes a unit approach to teaching, so often the organizing principle in schools, unlikely in the context of art museums. 4. Subject matter The last of the four elements to be considered in curriculum design is subject matter. Subject matter, as described by Schwab (1973), implies a body of knowledge, competence, attitudes, propensities, and values (p.510). There are three aspects of subject matter unique to the learning environment of art museums: the status of art, art museum literacy, and compensating for the "null curriculum." The first two aspects are discussed above. The last aspect comprises the topic of the following section. Almost two decades ago, Eisner (1979) first used the term "null curriculum" to denote something which students should learn but is not offered by schools. The null curriculum in schools, according to Eisner, includes two aspects: intellectual processes and content. Applying the concept of null curriculum to art museum curricula, researchers point to the fact that the arts have traditionally been viewed as less important than other areas of learning: hence, the ease with which inadequate learning and teaching of art in schools is to be found and tolerated (NAEP, 1981; Newsom & Silver, 1978). In fact, ample evidence substantiates the fact that much content and many intellectual processes related to art education are not addressed by school curricula. Screven (1986a) illustrates how museum settings give visitors an opportunity to increase their knowledge and change their attitudes or beliefs about a variety of objects, topics, and ideas, noting that this opportunity may not be available in any other setting. In fact, Screven (1969) found that schools were less likely to promote the visitor's curiosity and desire for knowledge as effectively as do museums. Rice (1988) identifies a key difference between museums and school classrooms: "In the museum setting, the emphasis is on deriving meaning, and this is a holistic process rather than one easily sub-divisible into specific discipline areas" (p. 17). Art museums are one of the few types of institutions with the potential to compensate for insufficient art education (Johnson, 1990; Muhlberger, 1985; Walsh-piper, 1994; Zeller, 1983). A 1971 survey in New York State showed that the crucial role of teaching students art fell to art museums because of the inadequate condition of art education in schools (American Council for the Arts in Education, 1973). Yenawine (1988) notes that part of art museum educators' task is to supplement the inadequate and overly simplified art education students receive in schools. Although art education in schools has improved due to DBAE-initiated reforms during the last decade, the art museum is still seen as the only possible partner in enhancing students' visual arts learning experiences. Brigham (1986) states that educators in schools are becoming increasingly concerned with teaching content in aesthetics, art criticism, and art history to create a balanced curriculum; thus, the art museum is just the place to provide the kinds of experiences these teachers require. Similar opinions are expressed by Muhlberger (1985) and Zeller (1985b). 59 Finally, based on research in educational psychology and Howard Gardner's theory (1993), some scholars assert that schools succeed in developing only several of what Gardener terms the "multiple intelligences" in students—typically linguistic intelligence, logical-mathematical intelligence, and interpersonal intelligence. In contrast, museums tend to take a more balanced approach, facilitating all of the seven types of intelligences, including spatial intelligence, musical intelligence, interpersonal intelligence, and bodily/kinesthetic intelligence (Davis & Gardner, 1993; Falk & Dierking, 1992; Gardner, 1993). Maxim (1987) describes three modes of learning experiences in elementary school students, finding that although children learn best in the iconic and enactive modes, schools typically over-emphasize the symbolic mode while neglecting the two modes with the most potential for effective instruction.11 Suina (1990) asserts that museums can compensate for insufficient instruction in schools by providing students learning experiences in the iconic mode. One of the questions that this study explores is directly related to art museum educators' attitudes in regard to what should be the focus of museum-based art education and how it should relate to what students learn in schools. Related Research in Canada Canada has its particular cultural, geographical, and educational conditions deserving consideration in assessment of art museum-school collaboration. As noted 1 1 The iconic mode involves the replication of imagery through visual means; the enactive mode provides direct experience with primary objects, events, and people; and the symbolic mode operates by representing reality in symbols, such as printed material (books), oral language-based experiences, and mathematical representations. 60 above, however, the researcher in this area is faced with the dilemma of trying to draw educated conclusions in a virtual vacuum of published research or reliable data (Herbert, 1981, p.12). Even in the 1990s, the understanding of theory and practice related to museum education through researched materials must still rely predominantly on American works. Currently, an exhaustive search of all English-language research reveals only three survey studies focusing on museum-school relationships in the Canadian context: two national surveys conducted more than a decade ago (Gee, 1979; Herbert, 1981), and one more recent survey conducted in the province of British Columbia (Julyan, 1996). Although these studies are limited to depicting the broad picture, they are included in the section below as background information contributing to our understanding of the general situation of museum-school relationships in Canada. In 1977, Gee conducted a national survey of Canada to assess the state of museum education for children (Gee, 1979). In 1981, in order to examine the quality of school-oriented museum education, Herbert conducted a nation-wide survey consisting of a questionnaire sent to 97 museums of various types across Canada. Herbert also conducted informal interviews and direct observations of related programs in 24 Canadian museums (Herbert, 1981). Both studies reveal that student programs most frequently take the form of museum exhibit tours. These tours can encompass all or part of the exhibit and are typically combined with a related activity; museum outreach programs, including traveling exhibits, school kits, and museum educators' school visits, comprise a major concern of many Canadian museums because of the small and widely-1 2 Survey methodology is relied upon in this section to elucidate general trends for the national and provincial (BC) levels. 61 dispersed population of Canada. In addition, the results of Herbert's research reveal some particularly Canadian characteristics of museum-school relationships. These are as follows: 1. Meeting the needs of new immigrants is a challenge for British Columbia museums in the development of education programs. 2. Most Canadian museum educators are unsure of the possibilities and limitations of museum-school relationships. Most museums need to re-examine their relationships with schools. 3. Museums in Canada seem to care more about the number of visitors than the quality of each visit; moreover, these institutions are loathe to take any kind of decision or action which would decrease the number of visitors. 4. Small museums and community museums can offer valuable insight and practical advice to educators in large museums. 5. One museum educator characterizes the attitude of British Columbia's Ministry of Education toward school-related museum education as indifferent. 6. Art museums are concerned not only with better communication with teachers but with local governments as well. Since education comes under provincial rather than federal control, getting provincial government support for school-oriented museum education is a priority for museums. 9. The content of most school-oriented programs in museums is Canadian. Museums provide educational resources and services within a Canadian context. 62 In the report, Herbert specifies the need for research focusing on the "expectations, attitudes, interests, feelings, perceptions, and insights of the museum educators" in designing school-related museum education (p. 5). In 1996, the British Columbia Museum Association conducted the "BCMA Survey on Schools Programming in Museums" by mailing a one-page survey form to 450 museums, galleries, parks, and heritage sites, 269 of which responded; 36 of the respondents represented art museums (Julyan, 1996). Excerpts from this survey's findings are listed below to give the reader some sense of the status of museum-school relationships in the Canadian province of British Columbia. 1. Most school programs are geared for the elementary level, while fewer resources are devoted to school programming for the secondary level. 2. In general, many of the small institutions utilize little or no consultation with teachers in the design of school programs. In contrast, many large institutions make use of various types of consultation with teachers. 3. Many small museums have little or no school program budget. Comparatively, larger museums have more access to funding for school programs although responses from these museums reflect a wide range of budgetary priorities, constraints, and overall funding levels. 4. Few institutions use computer technology in their school programs. 5. Several institutions expressed interest in finding out how to network with other museums in regard to school programs. 63 6. Hands-on activities and interactive instruction for school programs were stressed by some institutions. At the end of the survey report, the BCMA, following its own agenda, focused on the importance of school curriculum-based programming, interactive computer-based education systems, and training programs for teachers on the use of resources offered by museums. These three survey studies reveal invaluable information on the general state of museum-school relationships in Canada. Their research focus includes all types of museums, with art museums contributing to only a small portion of the data. None of them provides a detailed focus on attitudes held by museum educators, although each comments to some extent on educators' attitudes regarding museum-school collaboration. Research on Art Museum Educators' Attitudes In the field of education, the concept of attitude has received considerable attention, particularly as it relates to the areas of pedagogy and teacher education (Richardson, 1996). Considered a determinant of educational outcomes, teacher attitude has long been a subject of continuing study and interest (Powell & Beard, 1986). In the field of art education, however, attitude issues seem not to have attracted much attention. A review of art education literature confirms that neither student nor teacher attitude has comprised the focus of research to date (Davis, 1967, 1977; Hamblen, 1987; Hoffa, 1987; LaChapelle, 1988; McFee, 1984; Strange, 1940). The results of a recent computer search of data-bases such as ERIC, Psychological Abstracts. Canadian 64 Education Index, and Dissertation Abstracts Ondisc yield only a very small amount of research published in art education on teacher attitudes. Finally, Teacher attitudes: An annotated bibliography and guide to research (Powell & Beard, 1986), which reviews teacher attitude studies in a number of fields for the period 1965 through 1984, lists only four studies related to art education. Other sources for data pertaining to attitude in art museum education may exist in unpublished action research undertaken by individual art museums for in-house purposes. At present, a lack of academic dissertations related to museum education, especially on the topics of art museum education and attitude, prevails: the paucity of student research in these areas underscores many scholars' concern about the general lack of research in art museum education (Dobbs & Eisner, 1986; Duke & Gardner, 1992; Zeller, 1989). Duke and Gardner (1992), for example, found only 31 dissertations pertaining to museum education cited in Dissertation Abstracts International for the period 1962-1992, representing a total of 27 institutions. The following section undertakes a discussion of four research projects on art museum educators' attitudes in regard to school-oriented art museum education. As with much museum research cited in this survey, the following studies draw on the United States context; to date, this kind of research does not appear to have been performed in Canada. While the first two studies are not directly related to art museum-school collaboration, they still shed light on American art museum educators' attitudes regarding the development of educational materials and their relationships with classroom teachers. The last two studies are closely related to art museum-school collaboration and provide 65 valuable information about what American art museum educators think about art museum-school collaboration. Attitudes Regarding the Development of Educational Materials In contrast to the high interest generated in most fields of education by the study of teacher attributes, this area is given scant attention by researchers in museum education. Zeller's (1985a) research provides a valuable exception to this overall trend. In order to determine characteristics common amongst art museum educators, Zeller (1985a) sent 298 questionnaires to the heads of the education divisions of 127 major art museums throughout the United States. Copies were to be distributed to full-time paid staff members of each institution's education division who, in discharging their professional duties, dealt with at least one of the following areas: teacher training, tours, adult leisure learning or credit programs, young people's programs, and development and circulation of educational materials. One hundred eighty one art museum educators from 112 art museums responded to Zeller's questionnaire. The research design of Zeller's survey aimed to provide data on American art museum educators' demographics, educational background, professional experience, professional involvement, professional attitudes and values, and specific attitudes towards the development of educational materials. The results of this survey reveal interesting aspects of art museum educators' attitudes regarding the development of educational materials for art museum-school collaboration. Sixty percent of the respondents revealed that in their institutions, the 66 primary responsibility for the preparation of such educational materials rested solely on the museum education staff, while only 34% described it as a joint effort involving museum educators with other professionals, including school teachers and university consultants. Subjects were also asked to rank five factors that they might take into account in the preparation of educational materials for school use. "The development of basic visual literacy skill and art appreciation concepts" was ranked first in importance by 49% of the respondents and second by 23%; "The appropriateness of the material to the age and grade level of the users" was ranked first by 20% and second by 39%; "The relation of the museum's materials to the school curriculum" was ranked first by 28%. "The art historical content of the curriculum materials" was ranked low in importance for the respondents: "32 percent placed it next to last and another 22 percent put it at the every bottom of the list" (Zeller, 1985a, p. 58). Uncertain Profession: Art Museum Education Eisner and Dobbs's (1986) study also sheds light on art museum educators' attitudes. The purpose of this study was to initiate change in museum education policy and practice through an examination of insights, attitudes, and criticisms derived from leading museum educators and museum directors. The conclusions of the report are based on an analysis of responses to interview questions administered to 38 participants 13 representing 20 medium- to large-scale American art museums in 11 states. The report addresses the following six areas: 1) mission of museum education, 2) status and role of 1 3 The content of the interview questions is not included within the text of the research report. 67 museum educators, 3) professional preparation for museum education, 4) program resources for museum education, 5) research and evaluation in museum education, and 6) museum education in relation to the community. This study reflects a lack of consensus amongst art museum professionals regarding the basic aims of museum education; moreover, the perception of museum educators' function and role within the professional museum staff is ambiguous, as reflected by the widely differing attitudes of directors of individual institutions. This study represents art museum education as an uncertain profession. Eisner and Dobbs suggest that the museum education profession needs "at least a decade of support to establish itself as a field with its own professional theory, professional preparation, and professional practice (1986, p.80). In terms of art museum-school collaboration, Eisner and Dobbs (1986) conclude: "The relationship between museum education and other educational services and institutions in the community has been inadequately conceptualized" (p.64). They observe that the alienation between the interviewed art museum educators and classroom teachers presents a barrier to museum-school collaboration which, they posit, has prevented the improvement of art museum education for schools. Moreover, they point out that the lack of cooperative ties between art museum educators and teachers ultimately jeopardizes students' educational experience: lacking integration with classroom curriculum, museum tours "are likely to be perceived as special excursions rather than as integrated components of an educational program which utilizes the museum as one of several primary resources" (p. 65). 68 Art Museum Educators' Attitudes toward Museum-School Collaboration Two studies focus specifically on art museum educators' attitudes toward museum-school cooperation. National Center for Art Museum/School Collaboration The findings from focus group research conducted recently by the National Center for Art Museum/School Collaborations (NCAMSC) elucidate American art museum educators' attitudes toward art museum-school collaboration, and give voice, as well, to teachers' and school administrators' opinions. Conducted in 1995 by the NCAMSC, this project convened art museum educators, teachers, and school administrators at three sites: Dallas, Texas, Washington, DC, and Portland, Maine. Each 90-minute focus group meeting "consisted of open-ended explorations of ideas, concepts, attitudes, and beliefs about museum school partnerships" (Berry, 1998, p. 10). A summary of the content generated by these focus groups suggests that teachers should become involved with their area art museums; moreover, the importance of administrative support is emphasized, "identifying administrators as ideal persons to initiate collaboration between schools and art museums" (p. 11). These sessions also highlight differences in perspective between museum educators and school groups. Berry writes: "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" (1998, p. 12). 6 9 Museum-School Cooperation The Museum-School Cooperation: A Summary of School Projects (Breun & Sebolt, 1976) looks directly at art museum educators' attitudes toward museum-school collaboration. This study was conducted by the AAM (American Association of Museums) more than twenty years ago in response to a preceding study looking at museum curricula, Current Issues, Problems and Concerns in Curriculum Development (1974), which had found, disturbingly, the museum curricula to be virtually non-existent. Accordingly, the Curriculum Development Task Force was organized by the AAM in 1976 to articulate, based on the input of 17 museum educators from various art museums in the United States, a synopsis of school projects in these museums as well as the perspectives of art museum educators involved in art museum-school collaboration.14 In addition to providing summaries of 47 school projects in 11 states in the United States,15 the task force report details participants' concerns and views about art museum-school cooperation in the following three areas: 1. The "Ideal" or Preferred Collaborative Relationship (1) . Down-to-earth, inter-institutional communication between museums and schools is needed. (2) . Museum and school staff need to learn more about each other's institutions in order to collaborate effectively. Some recommended interventions include: pre-professional educators should take shared methods courses in which the particular 1 4 The project report does not detail its data collection methods; thus, it is impossible to ascertain whether participants' comments and views were collected by interviews or focus groups. ' 5 The levels of school children for whom these projects were geared ranged from kindergarten through grade twelve. requirements of both teaching environments would be emphasized and shared; professional educators should be given the chance to work in collaborative and/or exchange settings in order to cross, and even erase, institutional boundaries; moreover, this experience should emphasize relating curricula to real school and museum situations; teacher certification standards need to be re-worked to require a modicum of museum expertise; and finally, professionals from both institutions should offer workshops to share specialized knowledge and expertise. (3). Developing educational materials closely related to museum collections can provide useful support to teachers in schools; moreover, there is a need to establish collegial relationships between school and museum educators. 2. Current Problems (1) . All metropolitan museums expressed a need for sustained funding for school programs because of the high number of school districts for which these museums must provide programming. (2) . Museums need program coordinators to facilitate museum-school collaborations. (3) . One participant mentioned the problem of apathy, having found it a challenge to maintain and retain energetic, imaginative school and museum staff having the will and commitment to improve educational relationships within the community. 3. Questions to be Resolved Participants of this project also brought up dilemmas for future research: funding of school programs, evaluation of school programs, and training of museum and school educators. 71 Summary In this chapter, the discussion of several issues crucial to art museum-elementary school collaboration has been offered to provide the basis for this study's research questions. This chapter addressed the literature reviewing the history of art museum-elementary school relationships and characteristics of art museum education. Furthermore, it highlighted related research in Canada, and emphasized research on the attitudes of art museum educators to provide a theoretical framework for this study. This chapter was organized into five sections, each discussing one of the following areas: A Brief History of Art Museum-School Relationships, which traced the evolution of art museum-school relationships in the United States and Canada during the past century; Important Issues in Art Museum-Elementary School Collaboration illustrating the existing contradictions and issues which deserve consideration when endeavoring to improve the art museum-school collaborative relationship. Here, successful partnerships between art museums and elementary schools were also introduced. The Characteristics of Art Museum Education explored the nature of art museum education, highlighting the areas in which it differs from that of other educational institutions. Related Research in Canada introduced three English-language research reports on museum-school relationships in the Canadian context: two national surveys and one survey conducted in BC. Finally, the section on Research on the Attitudes of Art Museum Educators examines the existing research on the attitudes of art museum educators. 72 CHAPTER THREE Research Design Introduction This chapter describes how I used survey and case study methods to understand British Columbia art museum educators' attitudes in regard to art museum-elementary school collaboration at the macro and micro levels. This chapter is organized into four principal sections. The first section provides an description of the mixed-method design of this study: survey methodology was used to give a broad overview of art museum educators' attitudes, while qualitative modified case study methodology examined these attitudes in depth. The second section sets out delimitations as well as limitations of this study. The third section introduces the method and procedure of the mailed survey in British Columbia (BC) under the headings of Subjects, Instrument Development, Questionnaire Construction, Reducing Non-response, and Data Analysis. The fourth section describes how the modified case study approach was used in this study, detailing the selection of study sites and participants, data collection and analysis, trustworthiness, and my reflexivity. Finally, the chapter closes with a summary of the methods employed in this study. A Mixed-method Design Methodological decisions dramatically influence research results. As Babbie (1990), observes, "You cannot make correct or incorrect measurements but can only 73 determine how well the measurements contribute to your understanding of the empirical data at hand and to the development of theories of social behavior" (p. 21). Since attitudes are complex, personal, enduring, and interrelated, understanding people's attitudes is never an easy task. In order to procure the most valid findings possible, researchers use a variety of approaches in conducting attitude studies. Many researchers rely on the survey due to its economy of design, rapid turnaround in data collection, and ability to identify population attributes from a small group of individuals (Babbie, 1990; Fink & Kosecoff, 1985; Fowler, 1993; Sudman & Bradbum, 1986).1 Despite its strengths, there remain certain limitations inherent in survey methodology: the nature of information collected yields broad rather than rich descriptions; there is no provision for further clarification of the respondents' answers; moreover, researchers are totally reliant on the honesty and accuracy of participants' responses when drawing conclusions based on survey data. These methodological pitfalls are most marked when survey methodology is used to the exclusion of other investigative methods. Thus, researchers resort to multiple measures not only to overcome the intrinsic weaknesses of a single measurement instrument but also to provide more evidence for constructing meaningful propositions about the social world (Mathison, 1988). As early as 1959, Campbell and Fiske introduced the idea of using multiple methods to improve the validity of research. Jaeger (1988) and Marshall (1994) also recommend combining interview and behavioral observations with information obtained from a mailed survey in order to collect sufficient data. 1 Research on teacher attitude in the field of art education relies predominantly on survey methodology. 74 The case study is most often the 'method-of-choice' employed by researchers attempting to complement survey methodology. The case study's strength, as Yin (1994) observes, "allows an investigation to retain the holistic and meaningful characteristics of real-life events" (p. 3); most significantly, continues Yin, the case study "explain[s] the causal links in real-life interventions that are too complex for the survey or experimental strategies" (p. 15). The strength of the survey lies in its ability to obtain a limited amount of consistent information from a large number of subjects; in contrast, the case study is powerful in providing a more detailed, in-depth, and multi-faceted picture of an individual case. Thus, this study relied on both survey and case study methods in order to 1) elucidate, at the macro and micro levels, art museum educators' attitudes in regard to art museum-elementary school collaboration and 2) explore, at the micro level, the relationship of those attitudes to their educational and professional experience. Specifically, this investigation was comprised of two elements: 1) a province-wide mailed survey comprehensive of all art museum educators in the Canadian province of British Columbia (BC) and 2) two case studies, highlighting the interview component, each conducted at a BC art museum. The survey was meant to capture trends based on numerous art museum educators' attitudes towards specific issues crucial to art museum-elementary school collaboration, whereas the modified case study approach was employed to reveal a close and detailed view of the specific attitudinal components. While the survey subjects responded to pre-formulated questions, the interviewed art 2 This study emphasized one aspect of case study method in particular; this will be clarified later in this chapter. 75 museum educators expressed their attitudes in an open-ended interview; additionally, the interviews were augmented with data from the researcher's direct observations of the nine interviewed educators' working lives at their respective institutions. All investigative procedures, including survey administration as well as interviews and observations, were carried out exclusively by the researcher. The mixed-method design of this research project employed triangulation, complementarity, initiation, and expansion. Writing on the conceptual framework underpinning such research design, Greene, Caracelli, and Graham (1989) note its purposes: 1. Triangulation: to seek convergence, corroboration, and correspondence of results from different methods. 2. Complementarity: to elaborate, enhance, illustrate, and clarify one method's results through those of another. 3. Initiation: to discover paradox and contradiction, achieve new perspectives on frameworks, and recast questions or results from one method through those of another. 4. Expansion: to extend the breadth and range of inquiry by employing various methods for different inquiry components. The process of designing a research proposal and collecting and analyzing data is a valuable learning experience that involves struggle and negotiation. The following sections explain the delimitation and limitations of this study and provide a detailed view of the process of using mixed methods in pursuit of the goals of this investigation. 76 Delimitations and Limitations This section intends to illustrate the delimitations of this investigation within which this study intended to examine certain select phenomena and beyond which it did not intend to go. Delimitations This study was designed to elucidate BC art museum educators' attitudes in regard to art museum-elementary school collaboration. The purview of this study covered the following three aspects: literature review, survey method, and modified case study approach. 1. Literature review Because of the lack of published research and articles on the topic in Canada, the literature review in this study was based mainly on American rather than Canadian works. Furthermore, because I am not fluent in French, I did not refer to any French-language Canadian work which might have lent important meaning to this research, with the exception of one article that has been translated for me by my research supervisor. 2. Survey In art museum-elementary school collaboration, art museum educators as well as elementary school teachers, are the key stakeholders. In the early stages of this research plan, I intended to design two surveys: one investigating art museum educators' attitudes in regard to art museum-elementary school collaboration and the other looking at 3 French is one of the two official languages in Canada. 77 attitudes of elementary school teachers. However, in 1997, when I was ready to begin my data collection, the Vancouver School Board declared that they would not accept any research conducted in Vancouver for the next two years. Since Vancouver is the biggest city in BC, this made any survey involving BC elementary school teachers impossible. Thus, I decided to focus only on BC art museum educators' attitudes in regard to art museum-elementary school collaboration, and explore them in more depth. 3. Modified Case Study Approach Using a case study approach, including participant observations, interviews, and document analysis, I conducted 80 hours of fieldwork at a small community gallery and 240 hours of fieldwork at a large urban gallery in order to understand and explore art museum educators' attitudes in regard to art museum-elementary school collaboration within the institutional context. However, the interaction among people and the institutional culture that might have comprised key components of other types of case studies were not the focus of my study. The data collected from participant observation and documents gave me a holistic sense of the two study sites, guided the design of the interview outline conducted with each informant, and aided the understanding and interpretation of the interview data. Although some obvious behaviors of the informants regarding the design and implementation of elementary school programs were described in this study to illustrate their attitudes, the main focus in this part of my research were informants' expressed verbal opinions, feelings, and behavioral intentions regarding art museum-elementary school collaboration. 78 Limitations This investigation studied art museum educators' attitudes through a provincial survey and application of the modified case study method at the macro and micro levels; however, there were still limitations in application of research methodology, as discussed below. 1. Survey In the questionnaire designed to elucidate the BC art museum educators' attitudes in regard to different aspects of art museum-elementary school collaboration, I asked respondents to report the most successful aspects and crucial problems in building relationships with elementary schools. However, I might have gained more information had I included another open-ended question asking the BC art museum educators to describe their perceived ideal art museum-elementary school relationship. In addition, although I used different strategies to ensure the appropriateness of the questionnaire, (e.g., colleague counseling, pilot survey, panel discussion, etc.), the attitude statements in the survey instrument were designed mainly on the basis of a literature review, observations in art museums in BC, and my own art museum work experience. It was not possible to base my investigation on any research on BC art museum-elementary school collaboration because there existed none at the time this study was done. Thus, the designed questionnaire might have attended to only limited areas of art museum educators' attitudes, and important issues existing in BC art museum education may not have been captured by this investigation's survey. 79 2. Modified Case Study approach The purposed selection of sites where observations and interviews were conducted decreased the generalizability of this investigation's findings. Clearly, the resulting findings are not generalizable to all art museums/galleries in BC. In addition, since the approach I chose employed case study methodology with a specific focus on interviews rather than ethnographic, long-term, participant observations capturing individuals' behaviors and environmental culture, this investigation's case studies are limited to the exploration of art museum educators' attitudes in regard to art museum-elementary school collaboration without the benefit of rich description that would further allow to contextualize them. This decision has been made due to the need to set realistic boundaries to the scope of this dissertation, relying on mixed method design. Survey The mailed survey method was employed to yield a macro-level view of the attitudes of art museum educators in BC in regard to collaboration with elementary schools. The data presented in this dissertation were the result of more than a year's work, from instrument design to data analysis.4 Subjects Definition of Subjects Traditionally, a public art museum/gallery is defined as a non-profit organization 4 The research for this investigation was undertaken in July 1997. Data collection for the survey lasted from February 1998 to June 1998. 80 open to the public on a regular basis that collects, preserves, exhibits, and interprets works of art. This definition has recently been extended by the Association of Art Museum Directors to include "institutions that do not have collections but whose mission is nonetheless primarily dedicated to exhibitions and related programs" (AAD, 1992, p. 5). This study adhered to the current definition; thus, informants were chosen solely on the criterion that they be educators working in a public art museum/gallery in BC. Consequently, the subjects of this survey varied from educators working in art museums/galleries maintaining their own collections to educators working at public art galleries and visual art exhibition centers providing invited art exhibitions and related programs to the public on a regular basis. Art museums/galleries commonly use volunteers to aid in the implementation of educational programs. However, since it is difficult to generalize the level of education and specialization in art, professional background, and commitment to their institution for such volunteers, this study questioned the appropriateness of including volunteers under the definition of "art museum educator." Without diminution of the role played by volunteers, not only in art education but in numerous other respects key to the survival of art institutions in BC, this survey did not include volunteers under the definition of art museum educators. This survey thus defined art museum educators as follows: paid staff members responsible for the design and/or implementation of educational programs at various non-profit art museums/galleries and art exhibition centers in BC. 5 5 The exception to this definition comprised those volunteers working in educational programs at art galleries that have no paid staff responsible for education, and, as a result, those individuals are real figures in design and implementation of educational programs. 81 Snow Ball Sampling The number of art museum educators in BC is not large, at least not by survey standards; hence, it was decided to include the entire art museum educator population in this survey. The following directories list 88 non-profit art museums, art galleries, and art exhibition centers as existing in BC: 1998-1999 Directory of Museums. Galleries and Related Organizations in BC (BCMA, 1997); 1997-1998 Official Directory of Canadian Museums and Related Institutions (CMA, 1997); and 1997-1998 Vancouver Arts Directory (CACV, 1997). Based on the above listings, this study initially estimated the population of permanent and temporary art museum educators working in BC art museums/ galleries at approximately 200 subjects. The final list of subjects' names came from multiple sources. The British Columbia Museums Association (BCMA), as well as two special interests groups, the Canadian Art Museum/Art Gallery Educators (CAGE) and the Lower Mainland Museum Educators (LMME), provided an incomplete data base. Since listings in this data base typically included only one name per institution, the "snow ball" sampling technique was applied. In an effort to include in this survey as many art museum educators as possible, the last page of the questionnaire asked the respondent to suggest names of any colleagues working in a similar capacity who could be sent additional copies of the questionnaire. For those art museums/galleries not listed in the data base of the BCMA, CAGE, and LMME, information on art museum educators under their employ came from telephone contact. In the case of many of the institutions contacted, the role/position of art museum educator was not applicable. 82 By February 1998, the final list included 120 names of potential subjects from 85 art museums/galleries; 115 of these individuals were sent questionnaires as part of the survey data pool.6 By the end of April 1998, the list had been augmented with additional names provided by several respondents on the original list. Thus, based on the original respondents' referrals, 23 additional questionnaires were sent out between March and April 1998. Bearing in mind the difficulty in obtaining a comprehensive list of names of art museum educators comprising the entire BC art museum educator population, especially with information available on temporary part-time educators, the final number of questionnaires mailed to subjects in BC totaled 143. Instrument Development The basic method for the mailed survey is "the transmission of a questionnaire accompanied by a letter of explanation and a return envelope" (Babbie, 1990, p. 177). Since this survey relied on one instrument solely, the questionnaire, its validity and reliability were of prime importance. Thus, the final form of the questionnaire was developed through a series of drafts, reviews, and improvements, the stages of which are described below: 6 Five of these educators would serve as the key informants of the case studies; in their case, therefore, they were not given access to the questionnaire until the end of the case study interviewing process in order to avoid cross-study influence. 7 Some doubt surfaced amongst the original list of educators when queried as to the appropriateness of including temporary part-time educators in the survey, as the latter were perceived to work only casually and by contract; however, this researcher erred on the side of inclusion. 83 Stage One: Designing the First-draft Questionnaire Guided by the research questions and conceptual framework of this investigation, I developed the first draft of the survey questionnaire. In addition, its construction took into consideration the basic principles of questionnaire formulation set forth by major theorists in this area: Schuman and Presser (1981); Strack and Martin (1987); Mueller (1988); Tourangeau and Rasinski (1988); Himmelfarb (1993); Krosnick and Berent (1993); Krosnick and Fabrigar (1996). Finally, the content of the questionnaire was based on current literature related to elementary school-oriented art museum education as well as my experience in that field.8 Stage Two: Colleague Counseling Three colleagues (one professor and two doctoral students in art education from universities in British Columbia and Alberta) with significant practical experience in art museum education in western Canada were invited to review the survey's first-draft questionnaire. Feedback was provided through mail and face-to-face discussion, and suggestions regarding wording, technical terminology, and question organization were incorporated into the revised second-draft questionnaire. Art museums have been important places to me since I was young child. From 1991 to 1994,1 worked at an art museum in Taiwan designing and implementing educational programs. Since coming to Canada in 1995 to pursue a doctoral degree, I have been continually involved in elementary school-oriented art museum education in BC. 84 Stage Three: Research Committee Counseling My dissertation committee9 reviewed the revised second-draft questionnaire, clarifying item wording and deleting certain redundancies. The questionnaire format was also redesigned to improve legibility and attractiveness. The formal title of the survey was judged too academic to be used in the questionnaire and was changed instead to "A Study of Art Museum Educators' Views about Art Museum-Elementary School Collaboration." Stage Four: Pilot Survey "The best method of ensuring valid interrelations [among all aspects of a questionnaire] is to conduct a pilot study—a miniaturized walk-through of the entire study from sampling to reporting" (Babbie, 1990, pp. 225-226). Following this recommendation, a pilot survey was conducted in late fall of 1997 to improve the validity, feasibility, and appropriateness of the survey instrument (the questionnaire) as well as to gain feedback regarding the procedural aspects of data collection. To avoid influencing or decreasing the already limited number of respondents available for the BC survey, the pilot survey used comparable respondents from the Canadian province adjacent to BC: Alberta. A list of names of art museum educators was obtained directly from the Alberta Museums Association (ABMA) and the Canadian Art Gallery/Art Museum Educators (CAGE). 9 One professor, one associate professor, both in art education, and one assistant professor in educational studies form my committee; these scholars checked and reviewed the revised second-draft questionnaire in October 1997. 85 In November 1997, a total of 40 third-draft questionnaires was mailed to 31 art museums/galleries in Alberta for the pilot survey. In an effort to improve the response rate, non-respondents were followed-up by telephone contact and again by a faxed reminder notice. Finally, a second round of questionnaires was sent in December 1997 to 15 potential respondents. Thus, by the end of January 1998, the final response rate of the pilot study came to 37.5%, based on the total return of 15 respondents from a survey group of 40.10 Reflecting on the results of the pilot survey, a report was written in January 1997 addressing the following elements of survey methodology: subject recruitment, data collection procedures, and the survey instrument. Based on the responses of my dissertation committee to the report, the following revisions in the questionnaire were made: one superfluous item deleted; question format and wording changed and clarified, respectively; structural format edited to provide more procedural guidance to respondents.11 Finally, in an effort to augment the number of subjects, a paragraph was added at the end of the questionnaire asking the respondent to suggest names of other art museum educators. Stage Five: Panel Discussion In February 1998, the revised fourth-draft questionnaire was reviewed and 12 discussed by 13 graduate students of education in a course for survey research methods. 1 0 A mitigating factor may have been the national mail strike (November 20 to December 4, 1997). 1 1 See below, p. 87, (Questionnaire construction: Part C) for a description of how different types of subjects were expected to respond to selective items based on their knowledge and background. 1 2 "Survey Research Methods" EDST 508D in the Department of Educational Studies, U B C . 86 Having been presented an overview of the survey objectives, the students were asked to review each questionnaire item; a subsequent debriefing touched on the wording, structure, and format of the questionnaire; finally, the ensuing discussion clarified uncertainties and confusions in the questionnaire. In response to this feedback session, minor wording changes were made to several questions to yield the final form of the questionnaire. Questionnaire Construction The final questionnaire is divided into four parts, including both open- and closed-ended questions. The first three parts consisted of objective questions on institutional and personal topics, while items in the fourth part required a subjective response reflecting the respondent's attitudes (see Appendix One). 1. Part A: Institutional Information The respondent was asked to provide background information on the art 13 museums/art galleries in which he/she worked. In addition, the respondent was asked to skip the questions on human and financial resources for elementary school programs and proceed directly to Part B if the art museum/gallery where he/she worked did not provide programs, activities, and/or resources for elementary schools. 1 3 Statistics Canada budget designations were used in this section to define the size of art museum; categories of budgets for elementary school programs in art museums were based on the results of the • " B C M A Survey on Schools Programming in Museums," themselves based on data drawn from a wide variety of museums, galleries, parks, and heritage sites (Julyan, 1996). 87 2. Part B: Personal Information This part of the questionnaire was designed to obtain information related to the respondent's sex, age, education, and professional background. 3. Part C: Programs and Resources for Elementary Schools In order to explore the relationship between the respondent's attitudes a nd the existing programs provided by the art museum/art gallery where he/she worked, the content of this part was closely linked to that of Part D. Thus, in Part C, the respondent was asked to provide answers to the questions about his/her institution's elementary school programs for students and teachers, teacher participation, and whether or not these programs were school curriculum-based. However, if the subject was not involved in the design and implementation of educational programs for elementary schools at his/her art museum/gallery, he/she was asked to skip Part C and proceed directly to Part D. 1 4 4. Part D: Attitudes The objective of Part D was to understand the respondent's attitudes in regard to art museum-elementary school collaboration. Several techniques for attitude measurement have been refined and used: Thurstone's equal-appearing interval scale, Likert's scale of summated ratings, Guttman's self-rating scale, and Osgood's semantic differential (Mueller, 1986; Oppenheim, 1992). However, because these techniques of attitude measurement involve 1 4 The pilot survey indicated that subjects not actively involved in the design and implementation of educational programs for elementary schools at their art museums/galleries lacked the requisite knowledge to describe their institutions' programs for elementary school students and teachers. 88 multiple items per attitude and sometimes involve elaborate pre-testing, researchers have turned increasingly to single-item measurement approaches that they believe best reflect the subject's underlying attitudes (Himmerlfarb, 1993; Krosnick & Fabrigar, 1996; Schuman & Presser, 1981). Thus, in this survey, which assesses attitudes towards dozens of topics, a single-item measurement approach was used. Since rankings would be a great deal more time-consuming and difficult for respondents to complete, rating formats were used instead, asking respondents to report the magnitude of a construct along a continuum: that is, from "strongly agree" to "strongly disagree." Various empirical studies on attitude indicate that scales of 5 to 7 points seem both more reliable and valid than scales of more or fewer points (Krosnick & Fabrigar, 1996). Moreover, some studies suggest that the validity of attitude reporting is enhanced when a middle alternative is provided (Bishop, 1987; Krosnick & Fabrigar, 1996; Schuman & Presser, 1981). Based on these findings, this questionnaire used a five-point rating scale. Part D of the questionnaire was comprised of 24 closed-ended and two open-ended statements related to attitude. The reliance on closed-ended format for some items was designed to elicit the respondent's evaluation of multiple issues in art museum-elementary school collaboration, as described below: importance of art education for children (Item 1); art museum education (Items 2, 6); methods of school programs (Items 12-15); programs for teachers (Items 20-23); teacher participation (Items 5, 8-11); content of school programs (Items 16, 24); linkage with school curricula (Items 3, 4, 7, 17-19). The two open-ended questions allowed the respondent to express the perceived successes and obstacles affecting his/her institution's relationship with elementary schools. Following Part D, the questionnaire provided space for the respondent to express any thoughts he/she might want to add in regard to art museum-elementary school collaboration. Finally, as mentioned above, the respondent was requested to suggest names of colleagues working in the capacity of art museum educator to whom additional copies of the questionnaire could be sent. At the end of the questionnaire, the respondent was invited to enclose his/her name and address in an envelope marked "Request of Results" if interested in receiving a copy of the results of this survey. Reducing Non-response "Failure to collect data from a high percentage of those selected to be in a sample is a major source of survey error" (Fowler, 1993, p. 38). Since the human resources in most art museums/galleries in BC are typically limited, the demands on most art museum educators are quite heavy. It is therefore difficult to induce such professionals to take time away from their tight working schedules to fill out a 12-page mailed questionnaire. This survey's questionnaire package and follow-up techniques were thus strategically designed in order to achieve an optimal rate of response in the face of these challenges. Questionnaire Package As noted above, this survey relied on data collected through the instrument of a mailed questionnaire. The questionnaire was mailed to the respondents combined with 90 the University of British Columbia (UBC) logo on the envelope, to create an attractive and interesting first impression. Accompanying the questionnaire was a cover letter on UBC letterhead explaining the primary goals of the study; the package also contained a self-addressed, stamped envelope. Care had been taken in developing the questionnaire, as described above, to promote as much respondent participation as possible. Moreover, the format included features designed to counterbalance any stress respondents might experience in filling out a relatively long questionnaire. The first page was printed colorfully with an attractive survey title and two representations: one unsolved puzzle and one completed puzzle. The unsolved puzzle pattern was continuously printed in the lower right-hand comer of the consecutive pages until the last page, where the completed version appeared alone. Finally, the entire questionnaire was printed on gray paper to be easy on the eye. It was hoped that these visual stimuli would act as catalysts to counteract any visual pressure created by the text which might decrease the possibility of reviewing the next page. Follow-up Reminders "There is no question that the most important difference between good mail surveys and poor mail surveys is the extent to which researchers make repeated contact with non-respondents" (Fowler, 1993, p. 46). With this advice in mind, I repeatedly contacted non-respondents15 by various methods at 10-day intervals dating from the 1 5 An identification number on the back of the last page of each questionnaire kept track of which subjects had not responded. 91 initial mailing. A reminder letter was sent first; follow-up phone calls were made next;16 and finally two more reminder letters were sent out, the first of which contained second copies of the questionnaire for those who might have thrown away the first ones. While some non-respondents seemed to be influenced by the follow-up reminders and returned questionnaires subsequently, others persisted in ignoring both the initial survey request as well as reminders. Ultimately, the response rate increased from 40%, as measured two weeks after the initial mailing, to 62% at the end of the survey/follow-up process. Data Analysis The data from all returns were coded and entered into a computer data base for retrieval and statistical analysis using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS 7.5). To assure accuracy, the data were entered and coded twice, and detected errors were corrected. To afford sufficient opportunity for respondents to articulate the information requested of them, the questionnaire design included several open-ended questions. The answers to those open-ended questions were subsequently written-up, categorized, and coded into SPSS computer software. The results are reported by frequency and proportion and displayed in tabular and graphic form in Chapter Four. 1 6 According to Fowler (1993), "Personal contact is significantly more effective than a letter" (p. 45). 92 Case Study Approach The twentieth century has seen the conflict between two main research paradigms employed in investigating educational problems: quantitative and qualitative (Husen, 1988). Rather than asserting certain methods are appropriate for specific situations, Rossman and Wilson (1985) and Lancy (1993) argue that researchers should make the most efficient use of both quantitative and qualitative paradigms in understanding social phenomena. In this study, in addition to the mailed survey discussed above, a qualitative modified case study strategy is used to seek descriptions and explanations of art museum educators' attitudes within real-life work environments. However, due to the need to limit the scope of this dissertation, the emphasis in reporting of this study has been placed on one specific aspect of the modified case study approach: the interviews. Other aspects of the case study method are reported here to the extent to which they help illuminate and contextualize information gathered through interviews. A Qualitative Tradition of Inquiry: Case Study Approach Case studies continue to be used extensively in social science research. "Case study" does not merely refer to a data collection tactic or design feature—it denotes, rather, a comprehensive research strategy (Stoecker, 1991; Yin, 1994). In this study, rather than the approach espoused by scholars such as Goetz and LeCompte (1984) or Fetterman (1989) who view all qualitative research as ethnographic, I apply the other approach adopted by Creswell (1998), Ducharme and Ducharme (1996), Erickson (1986), Grossman (1990), and Yin (1994) who regard qualitative inquiry as embracing a number 93 of research approaches, of which case study research is an important example. This investigation is informed by Creswell's (1998) five-tradition qualitative inquiry approach and this case study's inquiry approach is seen to differ from a purely biographical, phenomenological, grounded theory, or ethnographic study. Again, in this research and its reporting, special attention was given to insights learned through interviews conducted in the two study settings. Selection of Study Sites and Participants As Shaw (1978) notes, case studies "concentrate attention on the way particular groups of people confront specific problems, taking a holistic view of the situation" (p. 2). The procedure of selecting study sites and participants for this investigation is explained below. Study Sites The decision to combine qualitative forms of inquiry with survey methodology necessitated the determination of appropriate study sites compatible with the area of the survey (the Canadian province of British Columbia) and logistically feasible for me. 1 7 While engaged in this decision process, I came across a report by the British Columbia Museums Association (BCMA), the findings of which triggered an idea for this investigation. Based on a survey conducted by the BCMA of school programming in BC museums, the subsequent report found that whereas small museums often lack the time as 1 7 Throughout the month of August 1997. 94 well as financial and human resources to consult with teachers, larger museums tend to do this on a regular basis (Julyan, 1996). Although these conclusions are general in and of themselves, they proved useful when applied to my dilemma of study site selection: specifically, they raised the question: did the size and the stature of art museums relate in some way to the quality of their school relationships? Thus, valuable information could be had by selecting one small art gallery located in a suburban district with limited human and financial resources for education as well as one large art gallery located in an urban district with more extensive human and financial resources for education. Ultimately, I hoped, the data collected at such sites would contribute towards the understanding of the influence of different institutional settings on art museum educators' attitudes in regard to art museum-elementary school collaboration. Thus, two study sites were selected, both located in the Lower Mainland and situated within a 40-minute drive from my domicile. The following pseudonyms were given to identify the two study sites: Northville Community Gallery and Westcoast Metro Gallery. A consent form was signed by the director of Northville Community Gallery in September 1997, and by the director of Westcoast Metro Gallery in October 1997, allowing me to undertake fieldwork at these study sites. Permission to conduct this research was approved by the University of British Columbia Office of Research Service 18 at the end of October 1997. Finally, William, the Programmer at Northville Community Gallery, and Vanessa,19 the Public Programs Head at Westcoast Metro Gallery, were contacted to schedule the fieldwork for this investigation. 1 8 A pseudonym. 1 9 A pseudonym. 95 20 Study Informants At Northville Community Gallery, the smaller, suburban site, there were only two people responsible for the design and implementation of educational programs: William, the gallery's full-time permanent programmer, and Melanie, the gallery's part-time temporary instructor. Thus, I asked both educators' permission to observe their working life and interview them during my fieldwork. The large, urban site, Westcoast Metro Gallery, employed a total of 60 full-time and 50 part-time staff; the Public Programs division was comprised of four programmers, one docent educator, an administrator, a group-booking coordinator, as well as 11 part-time temporary instructors. This investigation initially focused on the four programmers and one docent instructor,21 who were all willing to participate in this study; however, after a month's time, the wisdom of including several part-time educators became apparent, so two who were actively involved in public programs were added to the study. Thus, a total of seven educators became the focus of the fieldwork at Westcoast Metro Gallery. This brought the total number of study informants to nine: seven female and two male; one African-Canadian and eight Canadians of European ancestry. Written consent forms were signed by each participant. Each study informant chose his/her own pseudonym for the study. Table 1 presents the basic information on the nine study 22 informants. 2 0 A l l names of participants were pseudonyms. Participants in this study chose their own pseudonyms. 2 1 This, at the suggestion of Vanessa, the Head of Public Programming at Westcoast Metro Gallery. 2 2 The personal and professional backgrounds for each case study participant are described in Chapters Five and Six. 96 Table 1: Study informants observed and interviewed. Study Site Pseudonym Title Interview Date Northville Community Gallery William Programmer (Full-time) Nov. 28 & Dec. 12, 1997 Northville Community Gallery Melanie Instructor (Part-time) Nov. 27 & Dec. 3, 1997 Westcoast Metro Gallery Vanessa Head Programmer (Full-time) Feb. 9 & March 10, 1998 Westcoast Metro Gallery Jane Programmer (Full-time) Jan. 20 & Jan. 27, 1998 Westcoast Metro Gallery Nancy Programmer (Full-time) Feb 11 &Feb 18, 1998 Westcoast Metro Gallery Owen Programmer (Full-time) Jan. 28 & Feb. 17, 1998 Westcoast Metro Gallery Sally Docent Instructor (Part-time) Feb. 2 & Feb. 10, 1998 Westcoast Metro Gallery Anne Instructor (Part-time) Feb. 24 & Mar. 4, 1998 Westcoast Metro Gallery Alexander Instructor (Part-time) Feb. 4 & Feb. 11, 1998 Data Collection The fieldwork at Northville Community Gallery was conducted every day from morning to afternoon during a three-week period in late 1997; the fieldwork at Westcoast 97 Metro Gallerybegan in January 1998 and continued until April of that year; on average, observations took place three or four days a week. The shorter, yet more intensive, participant observations at Northville Community Gallery let me experience the gamut of educators' working lives on a daily basis, whereas the longer period of fieldwork at Westcoast Metro Gallery provided an opportunity to make sense of the variety of revolving programs for elementary schools. Although the emphasis in reporting on the study findings is placed on interviews, three techniques were used to collect data: participant observations, interviews, and document gathering. Participant Observation Halcolm suggests one way of undertaking on-site observation: "Enter into the world. Observe and wonder. Experience and reflect. To understand a world you must become part of that world while at the same time remaining separate, a part of and apart from" (cited in Patton, 1990, p. 199). Taking this as a model, I prepared to enter the worlds of the two art galleries to observe and reflect on the art museum educators' working lives and attitudes. As a participant observer, I attempted to function both as a part of and apart from the art gallery worlds under study. These observations allowed me to better understand art museum educators' attitudes expressed in interviews. 1. In Northville Community Gallery Northville Community Gallery, a small art gallery located in a community center building along with an arts center, small historical museum, and public library, employed only two persons to design and implement programs: William, the programmer and 98 Melanie, the instructor. I discussed the observation schedule and fieldwork logistics with William: he originally suggested a two-week period in November 1997. However, at the end of October 1997,1 received a letter, also addressed to the general membership of the gallery, from the president of the Northville Community Gallery Association: "The local Northville City announced some shocking news regarding funding and staffing for the gallery—both the Director's position and the Programmer's position will be eliminated as of January 15, 1998" (Northville Community Gallery, 1997). The letter went on to suggest that members should send protest letters to the City Mayor and City Councilors. I was astonished at this news. I had heard about budget cuts and diminishing governmental support of all types of public agencies and programs in Canada, but the funding crisis at Northville Community Gallery was still unexpected. In early November 1997,1 attended an informational meeting at the gallery for all the members to discuss protest activities. The Northville Community Gallery Association provided participants information related to what the gallery had historically provided the public—exhibitions and programs—as well as discussing the challenges Northville Community Gallery had been facing in recent years due to the lack of financial and human resources. As both a researcher and a member of Northville Community Gallery, I considered my role in this protest and the relationship between my participation and my study. Finally, I decided it would be impossible for me to keep silent, and I determined to express my feelings about the position cuts at Northville Community Gallery to the City Mayor and the City Councilors. In the following two weeks, I sent letters to the 99 Mayor, phoned the City Councilors, and convinced two local Chinese newspapers to report the news, encouraging the Lower Mainland Chinese population, whose community had close ties to the gallery, to join in the protest. I found that having participated in the protest afforded me a better understanding of the Northville Community Gallery's organization as well as its links to the community that it served. As the protest continued, William encouraged me to proceed with my research: "At least I am still here these two months. There might not be any educator at Northville Community Gallery after next January," he warned. At this juncture, I stopped my protest actions and started the data collection full-time in mid-November 1997. Visiting the gallery five days a week, I did not conclude the fieldwork until the first week of December 1997. The typical situation I encountered found William working independently in a quiet office just off the gallery's 5,000 square feet of exhibition space, while Melanie intermittently received groups of children whom she led on gallery tours and instructed in the gallery's art studio. As a staff member of Northville Community Gallery, whose salary was funded by the local government, William was not allowed to participate in the protest activities developed and implemented by the gallery's association. Although the future of William's job and the future of Northville Community Gallery were full of uncertainty, things had to keep going. William was responsible for programming and coordinating as a permanent full-time staff member, while Melanie, responsible for teaching, appeared at Northville Community Gallery for scheduled tours and workshops. William allowed me to observe not only his life in the office but also attend the meetings related to his work.23 Fieldwork at Northville Community Gallery was neither as complex nor busy in comparison with that at Westcoast Metro Gallery. My research role involved either following William's work schedule or observing Melanie's teaching for the booked tours and workshops. In all, I recorded approximately 80 hours of fieldwork at Northville Community Gallery. Table 2 represents the activities observed during my fieldwork. Table 2: Northville Community Gallery activities observed during fieldwork from November 17 to December 3, 1997. Site Activities Inside Northville Community Gallery • School programs • Expressive Art Group weekly workshop • Exhibition opening • Exhibition installation • Community center bi-weekly meeting • Artwork sale An art classroom at a high school Teachers' Art Group monthly meeting An interior-design class at a community college Discussion of the design of Gallery Kit for Northville Community Gallery A meeting room at another museum Lower Mainland Museum Educators bi-monthly meeting 2. In Westcoast Metro Gallery The fieldwork at Westcoast Metro Gallery was greatly supported by Vanessa, Head of Public Programs. At our first meeting regarding the procedures involved with Unlike the staff at Westcoast Metro Gallery, Northville Community Gallery's employees did not organize many formal meetings for communicating and negotiating. 101 the imminent fieldwork, she commented, "We [paid educators at Westcoast Metro Gallery] are professional. I believe that all of us will welcome your research. I believe you won't have any problem during your research." Vanessa was right. The fieldwork at Westcoast Metro Gallery was an invaluable learning journey supported by the staff of Westcoast Metro Gallery. What was originally planned as a six-week study was eventually extended to 14 weeks, so useful was this experience and diverse the offerings to be observed. The fieldwork schedule generally comprised a four-day week of daily observations conducted at the gallery, occasionally including activities on Thursday evenings and/or Sunday afternoons. Westcoast Metro Gallery offered multiple programs and meetings occurring simultaneously at different locations inside the facility and at a related facility, a local public theater. Although this might initially sound attractive to any prospective researcher, the seasoned fieldworker may relate to the feelings experienced by myself during the first two weeks of the study. I was suddenly immersed in an unfamiliar and complex situation with numerous activities to observe, many occurring simultaneously; yet I found myself more troubled over the activities I might be missing than satisfied at having identified an ideal site at which to conduct the field study. Constantly aware that key information at my disposal might be literally slipping through my fingers due to the fact that I was only one researcher—as opposed to several—hoping to record all that such a large and rich fieldwork site had to offer, the initial part of the study proved a stressful experience. However, after having gained familiarity with the site's physical setting and the rhythm of the various programs, the quick pace of the educators' working lives at Westcoast Metro Gallery yielded more opportunity for learning than stress. The six-week observation period at Westcoast Metro Gallery proved so fruitful, in fact, that by the end of this period, I decided to extend the observation another eight weeks. Thus, by the end of April 1998,1 had recorded 240 hours of fieldwork at Westcoast Metro Gallery. The activities I observed during this period are listed below in tabular form (Table 3). Table 3: Westcoast Metro Gallery activities observed during fieldwork from January 12 to April 31, 1998. Site Activities I. Programs: • Family programs • School programs for school students • Teacher programs (pre- & in-service school teachers) Inside Westcoast Metro • Programs for general visitors Gallery • Exhibition opening • Volunteer recruitment orientation • Volunteer docent training program II. Meetings: • Exhibition meetings • Public Programs division at Westcoast Metro Gallery weekly brain storm meetings • Docent weekly meetings • Program designing meetings • Volunteer recruitment meetings A Local Theater outside Westcoast Metro Gallery A symphonic concert for Grade 3 and 4 students designed by Westcoast Metro Gallery and an orchestra. 103 3. My Role in Fieldwork I am the kind of person who always remembers what people look like, the specific setting of environments, and people's movements within those environments. Like a film in my brain, the images ran through my consciousness when I wrote up scratch notes at the end of every day's fieldwork. Most of the time during my fieldwork at the two galleries, I would sit on the floor or chair without bothering those I was observing to freely and quietly observe and record field data in the form of notes or sketches. I always kept my notebook with me and tried to record as much of what I saw taking place around me. With the staffs permission, I occasionally took photographs to record activity sites. As noted above, my initial anxiety regarding field observations gradually decreased; meanwhile, staff in both galleries became accustomed to the quiet comings and goings of the Chinese woman researcher, notebook perpetually in hand. Although I approached both study sites with the conceptual framework of research in mind, I was also guided by the character of the environment. In trying to observe and experience as many activities as possible at the two study sites, my role as researcher was altered by the act of my observing; further, I sometimes became "the phenomenon" (Jorgensen, 1989) as a pure participant. At Northville Community Gallery, for example, I supported the protest as a participant, helped Melanie prepare supplies for workshops, or became a member of the volunteer group installing exhibitions; at Westcoast Metro Gallery, I brought my three-year old daughter with me one Sunday to attend the family program as a parent visitor, helped introduce a game to visitors in a 104 family program on one occasion, and generally expressed my willingness to lend a hand during my fieldwork. However, in the majority of situations at both sites, I relegated my activities to observing and taking notes, keeping some distance from the events and subjects. In sum, I established, during the period of my fieldwork at Northville Community Gallery and Westcoast Metro Gallery, some contact with the study informants, experiencing involvement in their working lives by seeing, hearing, and doing. At the end of my fieldwork at the two study sites, I gave each participant a reproduction of a Chinese painting published by the National Palace Museum in Taiwan, where I had previously worked. Through this action, I expressed my appreciation for their support and assistance. I felt that it would not be appropriate to withdraw without saying good bye. Interview "One of the most important sources of case study information is the interview" (Yin, 1994). At the two selected art galleries, most interviews were conducted interspersed throughout the fieldwork period (thus concurrent to the observations). I kept a journal recording the time, location, and identity for both audio-taped and informal informant interviews. Nine participants were involved in a total of 18 audio-taped interviews. Audio-taped interviews were conducted after a period of observation. In this way, I had some time to build rapport with each informant and develop questions based on observations 105 and collected documents. Each study informant (Table 1) was interviewed and simultaneously audio-taped twice. For each interview, I referred to the interview guides (Appendices 2 and 3) and to some specific questions or topic areas that I wanted to pursue. Each audio-taped interview was open-ended and lasted from 30 to 60 minutes. While each interview was guided by a list of questions or issues to be explored, neither the actual wording nor the order of questions was determined ahead of time. According to interviewee's responses, personality, and responsibilities, questions in the interview guides were followed by appropriate probes or altered slightly to allow a flow of a dialogue. Each audio-taped interview was transcribed afterward. "Interview data represent a secondhand account of the world versus the firsthand experience of observing. In the real world of collecting data, however, informal interviews and conversations are often interwoven with observation" (Merriam, 1990, p. 87). This was certainly the case in my study. Besides the formal audio-taped interviews, I had several opportunities to chat with the nine participants and other people working at the two study sites. I found that my role as a mother of a young child made it easier for me to engage in casual conversation with some of the educators and volunteer docents at the two art galleries because we had common parenting experiences, as well as shared interest in the education of children. My past experience and knowledge in art museum education also made it easier for me to relate to the study participants on museum education issues. Through those informal conversations, I built closer relationships with participants and gained a better understanding of the participants' backgrounds as well as the organizational cultures of the two art galleries. 106 Document Collection Collecting documentary information is important anytime a case study approach is implemented, because it is stable, unobtrusive, exact, and provides broad coverage (Yin, 1994). For this study, numerous and varied administrative documents, educational program design materials, and other related documents were collected before, during, and after the observation periods in both galleries in order to corroborate evidence from fieldwork observations and interviews. While conducting fieldwork at Westcoast Metro Gallery, I had access to all print material for the public as well as the in-house print material, including grant applications for public programs, annual reports, policy statements, program evaluation reports, agendas and announcements of meetings, and other informational material approved by Vanessa, Head of Public Programs. At Northville Community Gallery, I had similar access to reports and correspondence relating to public programs and institutional development.24 Finally, having maintained memberships at both Northville Community Gallery and Westcoast Metro Gallery since 1997 and 1996, respectively, I was able to collect 25 virtually all membership mailings covering a significant period of time. In addition, from the moment I designated Northville Community Gallery and Westcoast Metro Gallery as study sites, I began collecting, and continue to collect, print media articles related to both galleries. Again, these sources allowed me to better understand the Clearly, however, the amount available at Northville Community Gallery was relatively limited compared to the larger, more endowed and complex Westcoast Metro Gallery. 2 5 This collection, covering the period from September 1996 to April 1998 for Northville Community Gallery and from August 1997 to September 1998 included newsletters, exhibition announcements, activity promotions, and more. 107 contexts within which art museum educators' attitudes central to this study were formed and manifested. Data Analysis This investigation was designed as within a framework of a multi-site collective case study (Stake, 1995) in that the focus on each participant constituted a component case study in and of itself, the collection of which was situated under the over-arching umbrella of case studies at Northville Community Gallery and Westcoast Metro Gallery. As noted above, data arising from the individual participant observations, interviews, and document gathering for each study informant were recorded in separate observation journals, interview journals, and document folders, respectively. Observation journals included field notes written up from scratch notes and reflection notes resulting from the analysis of field notes. The field notes integrated descriptive, theoretical, methodological, and personal notes, while the reflection notes included reflection on methodology, theory, and personal feelings. The interview journals consisted of field notes for interview and interview transcriptions. Document folders contained all collected documents. The process of data analysis actually started from the beginning of my visits to the galleries and ended in the final draft of the two reports. I began the early surface analysis of data gathered at each site through the process of continued decision-making about which phenomena I should write down and which events I should follow up. In addition, each day's field notes and reflection notes helped me to conduct the next day's fieldwork 108 and, most importantly, reminded me of questions I should ask in interviews. After finishing the field work, all data were coded through continued review and analysis into various tables with code words settled on by myself for the convenience of later analysis and reference. The transcribed interview data were first generally reviewed and notes were made on margins to highlight significant issues in informants' responses, as they emerged in the data. Then, the six research questions were used as lenses to organize the obtained data into categories. Tables were constructed to fit specific respondents' responses into categories of considerations relevant to the research questions. This process involved going back and forth between the original transcripts and the pre-classified data, as well as field notes, research journal and all the gathered documents. I relied on a within-case analysis technique (Miles & Huberman, 1994) to provide a detailed description of each study informant, and cross-case analysis (Miles & 26 Huberman, 1994) to conduct a thematic analysis across the two sites. Both the within-case and cross-case analyses were divided into seven topics: institutional setting for education, the gallery's relationship with elementary schools, educator's attitudes, his or her role in the Gallery, experience with elementary schools, education and professional background. Two of those topics: art museum educators' attitudes and the nature of the 2 6 An example of within-case analysis was William's case: his was a component case study in the case study of Northville Community Gallery. I analyzed the data from William's component case study in order to elucidate the six areas of William's attitude in regard to art museum-elementary school collaboration. An example of cross-case analysis was my comparison of the entire case study of Northville Community Gallery (comprised of two component case studies) with that of Westcoast Metro Gallery (comprised of seven component case studies). The aggregate of components for the two gallery were thus compared in order to shed light on contrasts, similarities, and synthesis of information refracting the six areas of the informant's attitudes in regard to art museum-elementary school collaboration. 109 relationship between galleries and elementary schools, were further coded into six areas relating to the six original research questions: models of art museum/gallery-school collaboration; pedagogy and methods of school programs; art museum/gallery programs and resources for elementary school teachers; content of art museum/gallery programs for elementary schools; and linkage of art museum/gallery programs and elementary school curricula. The three types of data—observation data, interview data and document data-contributed to the understanding of the above-mentioned seven topics in different ways. The interview data were the major source in clarifying informants' attitudes and they are discussed in most detail in this report. The observation data were especially helpful in understanding the institutional setting for education and educators' role in the study sites. The document data complement our understanding of the existing relationship between galleries and elementary schools and the institutional setting for education. Table 4 shows the matrix of sources for data analysis: three types of data in the columns and seven main topics of analysis in the rows. Table 4: Multiple sources for data analysis Topics for Analysis Observation data Interview data Document data Institutional setting for education +++ ++ ++ Nature of current relationship between galleries and elementary schools (six areas) +++ ++ ++ Educator's attitudes (six areas) ++ +++ + Role in the gallery +++ ++ + Experience with elementary schools ++ +++ + Educator's education background + +++ + Educator's professional background + +++ + Note: ++ +represents major source, + represents minor source, and ++ represents some place on the continuum between ++ +and +. 110 Although the interview data provided the basis by which to understand the study informants' backgrounds, past experiences and attitudes in regard to art museum-elementary school collaboration, observation data and document data complemented the interview data and aided their interpretation. Each of these sources contributed to the understanding of the participants' attitudes in the context of their specific personal background and working environment, even though the interview data has been accorded most attention in this report. Trustworthiness During the data collection and analysis, I kept asking myself, "Do I have it right?" Yin (1994) observes: "With regard to prior skills, many people incorrectly believe they are sufficiently skilled to do case studies because they think the method is easy to use. In fact, case study research is among the hardest types of research to do" (p. 54). One challenge facing case study researchers is to establish what Lincoln and Guba (1985) have called "trustworthiness," by which they mean that the case study, while functioning in the realm of the qualitative, still requires verification. In the sciences, usually (though not always) dependent on quantitative methodology, studies are verified by establishing internal and external validity, reliability, and objectivity. After demonstrating how inappropriate these constructs are for naturalistic or qualitative inquiry, Lincoln and Guba (1985) call instead for the application of the "naturalist's equivalents" in establishing qualitative study trustworthiness: "credibility," "transferability," "dependability," and "confirmability" (p. 300). Lincoln and Guba's I l l (1985) criteria for study verification have been acclaimed and espoused by many scholars (Creswell, 1998; Lincoln, 1995; Marshall & Rossman, 1995). I adhered in this investigation to Lincoln and Guba's theoretical constructs as described above. However, the following challenge remains, as this caveat from Lincoln and Guba (1985) cautions: "There is still a major gulf between the theoretical definitions of the trustworthiness criteria and the means of operationalizing them" (1985, p. 329). In an effort to validate the modified case study approach used in this investigation, the following sections present the research strategies undertaken to achieve trustworthiness under each above-described criterion. Credibility The credibility of a study is related to its "truth value," a term which refers to "how one [can] establish confidence in the 'truth' of the findings of a particular inquiry for the subjects (respondents) with which and the context in which the inquiry was carried out" (Lincoln & Guba, 1985, p. 290). In this approach, three strategies ensured the credibility of the findings: 1) prolonged engagement and persistent observation; 2) triangulation; and 3) member check. 1. Prolonged engagement and persistent observation Bernard (1994) recommends participant observation as it enables the collection of various data, reduces reactivity, helps the researcher formulate sensible questions, gives the researcher confidence in the resulting data, and provides a general understanding of how the social institution or organization under study functions. The period I spent doing 112 2 7 fieldwork at the two sites provided me with the opportunity to become familiar with the organizational cultures, test the data during the fieldwork, and build trust between the staff and myself, all of which lent me confidence when presenting my findings based on the data thus collected. Moreover, prior to the fieldwork, I had already established long-term relationships at both research sites. As a regular visitor to Northville Community Gallery since 1995 and participant in multiple programs at Westcoast Metro Gallery since 1996,1 was and still am a member of both art galleries. Thus, even from the perspective of an outsider, my professional sensibility prompted me to investigate and analyze the educational situation at both study sites before I ever developed the formal study plan. Miles and Huberman (1994) state: "The beauty of qualitative field research is that there is (nearly) always a second chance" (p. 25). This certainly proved true for me as a researcher: repeated observations of the same programs or settings helped me enormously to clarify certain information, especially those data about which I felt uncertain and, consequently, allowed me to better understand informants' attitudes expressed in interviews. For example, the concept of a guided tour became clearer to me as a result of repeatedly observing and participating in guided tours at both of the study sites. 2. Triangulation "Triangulation is a process carried out with respect to data—a datum or item of information derived from one source (or by one method or by one investigator) should be checked against other sources (or by other methods or investigators)" (Lincoln & Guba, Three weeks at Northville Community Gallery and fourteen at Westcoast Metro Gallery. 113 1985, p. 315). Triangulation, that is, using multiple sources of evidence, is a strategy crucial in conducting reliable case studies due to its emphasis on the convergence of information (Stake, 1995; Yin, 1994). Towards this end, I employed three data collection methods: participant observation, interview, and document collection. Moreover, I drew data from a wide range of informants, including paid educators, volunteers, curators, teachers, to name a few. Thus, through the matrix of multiple methods and data sources, I was able to cross-check the relevant data in the process of inferring this investigation's findings. 3. Member Check Lincoln and Guba (1985) describe this process as checking with "members of those stakeholding groups from whom the data were originally collected," asserting that member checking is "the most crucial technique for establishing credibility" (p. 314). Stake (1995) also recommends employing this strategy, in addition to data triangulation, as a useful technique in case study verification. In this investigation, I conducted informal member checking throughout the fieldwork phase to make sure that my understandings and interpretations of all data collection methods were accurate. Finally, during a four-week period in the fall of 1998, a formal member check was carried out by asking each participant to examine drafts of writing which involved his/her actions or work. Transferability Transferability refers to the applicability of the research findings to another setting or group of people. From the traditional view of the natural sciences on 114 generalizability, the application of qualitative findings to other populations, settings, and treatment arrangements may be problematic. However, this concern is superseded by the trepidation voiced by many scholars of qualitative research methodology that the construct of generalization from the natural sciences could or should be applied to social scientific research (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994; Donmoyer, 1990; Eisner & Peshkin, 1990). Lincoln and Guba (1985) submit, in fact, that the establishment of transferability clearly differs from the establishment of external validity: "The only generalization (for naturalistic inquiry) is: there is no generalization" (p. 111). Therefore, contend these researchers, pure and objective transferability within the construct/framework of naturalistic inquiry is not possible. This should in no way, however, obviate the responsible researcher from his/her duty to "provide the data base that makes transferability judgments possible on the part of potential appliers" (p. 316). Thus, by their delineation of transferability, Lincoln and Guba are, in essence, arguing for research which, through data drawn responsibly from the field, informs the reader accurately enough to empower him/her in the understanding of other situations. The degree of transferability is a direct function of the similarity between the two contexts, what we call "fittingness." Fittingness is defined as the degree of congruence between sending and receiving contexts. If Context A and Context B are "sufficiently congruent, then working hypotheses from the sending originating context may be applicable in the receiving context. (Lincoln & Guba, 1985, p. 124). Going further than Lincoln and Guba on the matter of "fittingness," Donmoyer (1990) suggests connecting the reality of the case study to that of the reader; thus, the 115 matter of transferability is to be dealt with specifically, according to the unique requisites of each research (case study) context. Donmoyer's characterization of the case study has readers "seeing through the researcher's eyes" (p. 194) in a state of "decreased defensiveness" (p. 196). In this dissertation, I provided extensive background information on both the people and settings of the modified case studies (see Chapters Five and Six). The spirit and purpose however, differed from statistical generalization, being more akin to what Lincoln, Guba, and Donmoyer describe above. Thus, my findings are generalizable to inform theoretical propositions, not to populations or universes. Dependability The dependability of a study is related to its consistency; that is, "whether the process of the study is consistent, reasonably stable over time across researchers and methods" (Miles & Huberman, 1994, p. 278). I used a case study protocol and developed a case study database with strategies recommended by Yin (1994) to improve the dependability of my research employing a modified case study approach. The protocol described in detail research questions, fieldwork procedures, and general rules for each case study component (see previous sections of this chapter). The database was consistently comprised of field notes, reflection notes, case documents, tabular materials, and detailed interview transcriptions. Finally, given the fact that in qualitative research, "the researcher is the instrument" (Schumacher & McMillan, 1993), this investigation also presents the process of self-monitoring in data collection and analysis, reflecting on my changing roles in the course of the fieldwork (see below, "Reflexivity"). 116 Confirmability This concept speaks to the neutrality of findings; in other words, confirmability relates not to "the investigator's characteristics but the characteristics of the data: Are they or are they not confirmable?" (Lincoln & Guba, 1985, p. 300). Triangulation is one technique suggested by Guba (1981) to ensure confirmability (please see above, "Triangulation"). Moreover, this study attempted to double-check findings by "seeing or hearing multiple instances of [a certain phenomenon] from different sources by using different methods and by squaring the finding with others" (Miles & Huberman, 1994, p. 267). Finally, "the confirmability audit" (Guba, 1981), wherein I provided detail on application of case study methodology used and made primary data and analytic notes available to my dissertation committee, allowed other scholars to function as consultants, improving the accuracy of the research process and findings. In addition, in order to ensure that my findings and conclusions were dependent on the studied subjects and conditions (rather than on myself), I kept a reflexive journal. This journal recorded a variety of information about myself and the fieldwork: reflections on my personal assumptions, values, emotions, and the manner in which they have come into play during the case studies. As Lincoln and Guba (1985) mention, the reflexive journal has broad-ranging application to all four criteria for the trustworthiness of a study. The following section provides excerpts and analysis of my reflexive journal, elucidating the extent to which my personal characteristics may have influenced the outcomes. 117 Reflexivity: Where I was coming from and where I was going? Through a researcher's comments on past experiences, prejudices, and orientations that have likely shaped the interpretation of the case study, the reader can understand the case study researcher's position and any biases or assumptions that may impact the case (Merriam, 1988). In my case, I acknowledge that my personal background, previous experience, and characteristics shaped and affected the process of data collection and analysis. I am a Chinese doctoral student in my early thirties who came from Taiwan to study in Canada in 1995. Since this was my first time studying overseas, I was always watching people and trying to understand everything that caught my eye. In fact, observing became a part of my life in Canada. In many places and situations in Canada, nobody knew me; moreover, I often found myself in situations where many people knew who I am, but had no interaction with me. In the past three years in Canada, I became used to being an "invisible" observer. I learned much in this multicultural society by seeing and listening. I also spent almost three years trying to "fit in." In the fieldwork, I did not try to wear "new clothes"—I wore the ones I had. I knew that I was not a Canadian and that I would not able to act like a Canadian researcher in fieldwork. Interestingly sometimes, I felt my identity as an outsider did not hinder my fieldwork but actually helped me receive more information. It seemed easier for some educators interviewed in the fieldwork to tell me the truth (as they saw it) and to feel comfortable and safe in telling me their thoughts and feelings. At times, I felt that they, like a teacher leading a new student, were willing to tell me more about the BC 118 educational system and issues and problems associated with museum education after they learned that I had only three years of Canadian experience. Since both the study sites are in the Lower Mainland, B. C , my visible cultural identity did not seem to present any barrier to conducting fieldwork. New census data shows that BC has the highest proportion of visible minorities of any province in Canada, and that 85% of them live in the lower Mainland; one in three lower Mainland residents is a visible minority (Jimenez, 1998). The staff of the two art galleries were familiar with Chinese people and wanted to learn about Chinese art and culture. Both art galleries developed some Chinese art exhibitions during my fieldwork. Westcoast Metro Gallery also provided tours and workshops for elementary schools related to a Chinese painting exhibition. Having three years experience as an art museum educator in Taiwan, I was impressed with their willingness and devotion to provide local elementary school students with opportunities to experience traditional Chinese painting and calligraphy. However, at times, I felt uncomfortable with the ways they designed activities in such short time and with limited knowledge background or resources. During the fieldwork, I faced a situation similar to that described by Merriam (1998): "There is almost always another person who could be interviewed, another observation that could be conducted, another document to be reviewed" (p. 163). The on-going decisions for what I should focus on and how I should continue my fieldwork were made through the process of simultaneous data collection and analysis. Partly because I came from a different country, I felt like a child who did not understand many things and wanted to know. I kept asking myself "why this" and "why that?" Fortunately, my un-119 ending curiosity and eagerness were not seen as an invasion of privacy, but as a normal 28 characteristics of a foreigner who wants to understand a new culture. While collecting and analyzing data, my past experiences conducting research in art museum education in Taiwan as well as working at the largest art museum in 29 Taiwan always prompted me to compare the differences and similarities between Taiwan and Canada. On the other hand, I became especially perceptive of my performance in field sites and alert to everything that surprised me or seemed unusual. I always tried to figure out which event I should attend, which person I should talk to, which document I should collect, and which question I should ask. What I should do or should not do was always on my mind. The decision-making process continued before, during and after each day's fieldwork. I found that I did not only acknowledge my subjectivity, but also used it. My "culture shock" or puzzled feelings provided me more clues and opportunities to search out "the true stories". I kept reminding myself not to jump to conclusions too soon. I carefully checked out information with different sources in case I might have misunderstood something. 8 1 was not the first researcher to observe at the two art galleries. Northville Community Gallery had been observed by a high school student for one week the year before I did my research. The staff members working in the department of public programs at Westcoast Metro Gallery were used to having "strangers" around them because of their high school and university intern program of recent years. However, this was the first time they had been observed by a student researcher from a university graduate program. They sometimes expressed their wonder as to why I always wanted to participate in different activities and meetings as a quiet observer for as long as I could and what I wanted to know. 2 9 The National Palace Museum in Taipei, Taiwan owns the largest collection of traditional Chinese art in the world and employs over 500 trained staff. I worked at this institution for three years in the Public Programs. 120 Researcher reflexivity works as "an awareness of self as an instrument of observation" (Bell, 1993, p.8). This was certainly the case; I continued to expand my understanding of reflexivity as a tool for analysis through the research process. Summary In this chapter, a mixed-method design combining mailed survey, a quantitative research approach with several variables and many art museum educators, and modified case study framework, a qualitative research approach relying on a few sources and many variables, has been explained. Employing triangulation, complementarity, initiation, and expansion, the intent of the mixed-method design is to elucidate art museum educators' attitudes in regard to art museum-elementary school collaboration. Next, the section concerned with the scope and limitations of this study delineate the boundaries of this research. This chapter then sequentially illustrated the detailed procedures of both survey and modified case study method approach. For the survey, instrument development, questionnaire construction, data analysis, and strategies used to reduce non-response rate in the provincial survey were described; for the modified case study approach, the selection of study sites and participants, data collection and analysis, trustworthiness, and reflexivity were reported. 121 CHAPTER FOUR Survey Results Introduction This chapter presents the findings from the survey of art museum educators in the Canadian province of British Columbia (BC). First, this chapter reports the response rates of this survey. Second, characteristics of the respondents and their respective institutions are described. The third section of this chapter presents the art museum educators' responses to 24 closed-ended and two open-ended attitude statements regarding art museum-elementary school collaboration. Finally, this chapter discusses the relationship between the art museum educators' attitudes and characteristics of art museum-elementary school collaboration in BC. Survey Response Rate From February to May 1998, survey questionnaires were sent to a total of 143 respondents working in 83 art museums/galleries throughout BC. During the period of data collection, nine potential respondents indicated that the questionnaire was not applicable to them, reducing the number of respondents to 134 and representing 79 art museums/galleries for this survey. By the end of June 1998, a total of 83 survey questionnaires were returned out of a possible 134, yielding a response rate of 62%. Of the 83 returned responses, ten more respondents were removed.from the study. These respondents indicated that their duties and responsibilities did not include the design and implementation of educational programs, bringing the adjusted response rate to 59% (73 out of a possible 124). Thus, all survey findings in this chapter are based on the 73 returned questionnaires. Characteristics of Respondents The survey data showed that BC art museum educators were predominantly female (77% female; 22% male) and middle-aged (32% aged 31-40; 41% aged 41-50). Additional characteristics of the respondents are discussed below under the following categories: institutional role; professional background; and education. Institutional Role Of the 73 respondents, nearly 80% were permanent staff at their respective art museums/galleries (53% full-time; 26% part-time) and 20% were temporary staff (3% full-time; 17% part-time). Most respondents (80%) had held their current position at their respective art museums/galleries for a period ranging from one to ten years. Table 5 illustrates the number of years respondents had worked in their current capacity at their respective institutions. 1 Eight of these ten respondents were volunteers and two were part-time staff (an office manager and a booking clerk). The descriptions they provided of their regular duties showed that they were not responsible for the design and implementation of educational programs in their art museums/galleries. The explanation for their initial inclusion in the survey might have been due to incorrect information from the snowball sampling process. Alternatively, the questionnaire could have been passed between multiple museum staff to fill out. For example, one of the removed respondents' included a postscript on the questionnaire saying, "representing the museum to return the questionnaire." 2 Four respondents checked the "other" box and specified "work on contract basis"; however, I grouped these respondents under the category of "temporary part-time staff." 123 Table 5. Years in Current Position. Category # % Less than one year 11 15 1-2.9 years 19 26 3-4.9 years 16 22 5-9.9 years 23 32 10 and over 10 years 4 6 Total 73 100 The survey data showed that the job titles of staff responsible for educational programs in art museums/galleries in BC did not accurately reflect the character of their work. To the open-ended item requesting respondents to give their title, only two specified educator and one museum educator: the remaining 70 responses varied widely. Applying Edson's categories of museum workers, this investigation groups respondents' reported titles into four primary areas: (1) administration; (2) curation; (3) operations; and (4) education. The data showed that half of these reported titles (51%) fell into the category of education; a third (29%) administration; 6% curation; however, 15% of the respondents worked under dual titles (see Table 6). As the variety of job titles held by respondents indicated, art museum educators in BC were also responsible for a wide variety of duties in addition to education. Data from the open-ended item asking respondents to describe their regular duties corroborated the above indication, with 60% of respondents' descriptions showing that they were responsible for administrative and/or curatorial duties in addition to educational 3 "International Directory o f Museum Training" (Edson, 1995). programs. Of the other 40% charged with educational duties only, 3% reported that school programs comprised their sole responsibility. However, of the 73 respondents, 63% specified that they were directly involved in the design and implementation of educational programs for elementary schools. The data clearly indicated, therefore, that for most BC art museum educators, school-oriented art museum education comprised only one aspect of their jobs. Table 6. Respondents' Job Titles. Category Respondents' Job Titles # % Administrative director, co-director, executive director, administrator director, administrator, administrative assistant, manager, officer, treasurer, president, director of communications 21 29 Curation curator, digital collections 4 5 Operations 0 0 Education educator, museum educator, art educator, art instructor, program instructor, program facilitator, education coordinator, program coordinator, pubic events coordinator, children's librarian, heritage service coordinator, arts programmer, cultural programmer, public programmer, head of public programs, program director, curator of education, programmer, visual arts coordinator, animateur 37 51 Two titles director/curator curator/administrator treasurer/manager curator/coordinator exhibition coordinator/programmer 5 2 1 2 1 7 3 1 3 1 Total 73 100 Note: These categories are modeled after those specified in the "International Directory of Museum Training" (Edson, 1995). 125 Professional Background Two open-ended items asked respondents to describe their work experience prior to the positions they held at the time of the survey. Table 7 shows that well over half (62%) of the BC art museum educators brought experience related to teaching or museum education to their positions; another 17% of the respondents indicated that they had previously been artists. Table 7. Respondents' Previous Work Experience Category Teacher 35% Museum Educator 27% Artist 17% Valid Responses 71 Missing Responses 2 Attending professional organizations provides an avenue for professionals to gain work-related expertise as well as a channel through which to develop relationships with counterparts working at other similar institutions. In this survey, 60% of the BC art museum educators reported holding membership in at least one professional organization. Table 8 shows the nine most frequently held memberships in professional organizations by the respondents. The order may well have been influenced by locale: of the top seven organizations - all Canadian - the most frequently held membership was in BCMA; two American organizations comprised the bottom of the list. 126 Table 8. Memberships in Professional Organizations Category British Columbia Museums Association, BCMA 37% Canadian Museums Association, CMA 33% Canadian Art Gallery/Art Museum Educators, CAGE 14% British Columbia Art Teachers' Association, BCATA •12% Canadian Art Museum Directors, CAMDO 6% Lower Mainland BC Museum Educators 4% Canadian Society for Education through Art, CSEA 4% National Art Education Association, NAEA 4% American Association of Museums, AAM 3% Education Education and training in the field of museum work has taken on a much more significant role than was the case in the past. The professional committee of the AAM (American Association of Museums) has identified the ideal educational criteria for museum educator as follows: "Master's degree in an area of the museum's specialization, with coursework in learning theories, or graduation from a museum studies program with a concentration in museum education. A combination of all of the above is desirable" (Glaser & Zenetou, 1996, p. 92). The survey data revealed, regrettably, that few of the BC art museum educators held master's degrees, nor were their backgrounds related to the disciplines of either education or museum studies (see Tables 9 and 10). 127 Table 9. Highest Degree Held by Respondents Category # % High School Diploma 6 9 College Diploma 12 18 Bachelor's Degree 35 52 Master's Degree 15 22 Total 68 100 Valid Responses 68 Missing Responses 5 Table 10. Educational Disciplines of the BC Art Museum Educators. Discipline % Fine Arts or Visual Arts 44 History 18 Art History 21 Education 22 Art Education 11 Arts Administration 7 English 6 Anthropology 6 Museum Studies 4 Museum Education 1 Museology 1 Media Studies 3 Nursing 3 Other4 ; 35 Valid Responses 68 Missing Responses 5 Of the 68 respondents offering information about their educational background, less a quarter (22%) held a master's degree, over half (52%) held a Bachelor's degree, 4 The following list of disciplines consists of those items mentioned only once from all the responses: Communication Studies, Microbiology, Archaeology, Library Science, Music Education, Curriculum Studies, Computer Programming, Animal Science, Renewable Resources, Interior Design, Psychology, Sociology, Biophysics, Secretarial, Dance, French, Human Resources, Textile Arts, Journalism, Critical Theory, Psychoanalysis, Economics, Theater, Classical Studies. 128 and over a quarter (27%) held a college or high school diploma as their highest academic credential. Some respondents held two or more degrees or diplomas in different disciplines. Table 10 shows the diversity of respondents' backgrounds in terms of discipline. Only 6% of the respondents had academic backgrounds in museum studies, museology, or museum education; however, 34% of the respondents had academic backgrounds in either education or art education. An even higher percentage of the respondents had backgrounds in art-related disciplines: 44% in fine arts or visual arts; 21% in art history; and 7% in arts administration. The ideal preparation for work in the field of museum education recommended by Glaser and Zenetou (1996) includes a master's degree with dual expertise in a museum area as well as learning theory. However, in contrast to Glaser and Zenetou's conception, most of the BC art museum/gallery educators studied by this survey held a bachelor's degree in an art-related discipline; moreover, this field was not relevant to the institution where the educator worked. Finally, few had additional expertise in education. Institutional Setting for Education In order to better understand the institutional setting for education in which the BC art museum educators functioned, the survey asked the respondents for specific information related to education in their respective institutions. Sixty-two percent of respondents in this survey reported that their art museums/galleries had a policy for education. Forty-six percent of the respondents supplied a description of that education policy. Through content analysis, these policies were grouped according to emphasis into 129 the categories listed in Table 11. "Community education" was mentioned most often by the respondents (nine instances). Table 11. Emphases of Art Galleries/Museums Education Policies Hands-on Experiences 1 Art-making 1 Interaction with Artists 1 Children's Art Exhibition 1 First Nations' Art 1 Collaboration with Other Institutions 1 Promoting Visual Literacy 1 Respecting Crafts 1 Cultural Activities 1 Valid Responses 30 Missing Responses 14 Emphasis # Community Education Art Enjoyment Knowledge of Art Linkage with BC Art Curriculum Art Appreciation Aesthetics Experiencing Art Media Social Interaction Challenging Issues Educating School Students Educating Teachers 9 4 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 The survey data also illustrated the following areas regarding the institutional setting where art museum educators worked: physical setting, financial support, and personnel. 130 Physical Setting Survey data showed that the majority of art museums/galleries where the respondents worked were public institutions (95%) and located in urban districts (78%) (see Table 12). Table 12. Location of the Art Museums/Galleries Location # Valid % Urban District 55 78 Suburban District 8 11 Rural District 8 11 Total 71 100 Valid Responses 71 Missing Responses 2 Of the 73 BC art museum educators, 25% worked in art museums/galleries with no permanent collection. The description data provided by respondents who worked in art museums/galleries holding permanent collections showed that approximately half of these permanent collections specialized either in contemporary art (58%) or BC art (44%). Another question asked respondents to identify the major strengths of the exhibitions offered by their respective art museums/galleries. The respondents' descriptions of these exhibitions' emphases were analyzed for content and displayed in Table 13. 131 Table 13. Major Strengths of Exhibitions. Category # Valid % Varied 26 41 Specialized BC Artists' Works 10 16 Contemporary Art 7 11 Community Based 6 9 Controversial Issues 3 5 Cross-Cultural 2 3 Painting 2 3 Political Issues 2 3 Emerging Artists' Works 2 3 First Nations' Art 2 3 Video 1 2 Contemporary Theory 1 2 Total 64 100 Valid Responses 64 Missing Responses 9 Forty percent of the respondents indicated that the exhibitions in their art museums/galleries reflected "varied major strengths." In addition, similar to the major strengths of the permanent collections, "contemporary art" and "BC art" again formed the major strengths of the exhibitions offered by many art museums/galleries in BC where the respondents worked. Financial Support Most of the art museums/galleries where the BC art museum educators worked did not have sufficient annual budgets. Three percent of the respondents even indicated that there was no annual budget for their art museums/galleries. Over half of the respondents (52%) worked in art museums/galleries with annual budgets ranging from 132 $40,000 to $499,999. Somewhat fewer respondents worked in art museums/galleries with annual budgets under $40,000 (6%) or over $500,000 (35%) (see Table 14). Table 14. Total Annual Budgets of Art Museums/Galleries Category # % Unsure 4 6 $0 2 3 Under $40,000 4 6 $40,000-99,999 16 22 $100,000-499,999 22 30 $500,000-999,999 10 14 $1,000.000 or more 15 2J_ Total 73 100 The budgets for elementary school programs in art museums/galleries where the BC art museum educators worked were also insufficient. Table 15 shows the expenditure on elementary school programs of these art museums/galleries.5 Table 15. Art Museums/Galleries' Annual Expenditure on Elementary School Programs Category # % Unsure 14 24 $0 7 12 $1-500 4 7 $501-1,000 7 12 $1,001-2,500 4 7 $2,501-5,000 11 19 $5,001-10,000 3 5 Over $10.001 8 14 Total 58 100 Valid Responses 58 Missing Responses 2 5 Of the total 73 respondents, 82% reported that their institutions provided programs, activities, and resources for elementary schools. Table 15 is based on those 82% of BC art museum educators' responses. 133 Twelve percent of the 60 respondents whose art museums/galleries provided programs for elementary schools reported that there was no money for elementary school programs, and only 19% reported that the annual expenditure on elementary school programs in their art museums/galleries was over $5,001. Respondents who worked in art museums/galleries providing elementary school programs were also asked to describe sources of funding for elementary school programs in addition to the annual budget. These descriptions are categorized and displayed in Table 16. Table 16. Sources of Funding for Elementary School Programs Source %_ Don't know 7 No funding 22 Schools pay fees for programs 22 Corporate sponsorship or personal donations 19 School board 9 BC government 3 Federal government 3 Valid Responses 58 Missing Responses 2 Twenty-two percent of the respondents whose art museums/galleries provided programs for elementary schools replied that there was no funding for elementary school programs at all. Comparatively, program fees and donations from corporations and individuals were mentioned by the majority of the respondents as sources of funding for elementary school programs. In addition, two respondents also mentioned that funding for elementary schools was neither sufficient nor consistent. 134 Personnel The data showed that the number of paid staff responsible for education in art museums/galleries was quite small (see Table 17). Table 17. Number of Staff Members and Volunteers Responsible for the Design and/or Implementation of Educational Programs/Activities Number of Staff Type of staff 0 only 1 2-4 5 or more % % % % Permanent full-time 31 35 22 13 Permanent part-time 49 33 10 8 Temporary full-time 85 7 7 1 Temporary part-time 64 7 10 20 Volunteer 21 6 18 54 Other 86 6 4 4 Valid Responses 72 Missing Responses 1 Only 13% of the respondents reported that their art museums/galleries had more than five permanent full-time employees responsible for educational programs. Few of the art museums/galleries where the respondents worked hired temporary educators. Comparatively, the size of non-paid staff for education in art museums was much larger. Over half of the respondents (54%) indicated that their art museums/galleries had five or more volunteers responsible for the design and/or implementation of educational programs. Unsurprisingly, the staff size for elementary school programs in art museums/galleries where respondents worked was smaller than the staff size for 135 education in general. Table 18 shows that no art museum/gallery had over four full-time paid staff for elementary school programs; moreover, volunteers constituted an important human resource for school programs in art museums/galleries where the respondents worked. Of the 73 respondents, 82% reported that their institution provided programs, activities, and resources for elementary schools. Table 18 is based on the comments of this cohort. Table 18. Number of Staff Members and Volunteers Responsible for the Design and/or Implementation of Educational Pro grams/Activities for Elementary Schools Number of Staff Type of staff 0 only 1 2-4 5 or over % % % % Permanent full-time 38 45 17 0 Permanent part-time 59 31 9 2 Temporary full-time 85 12 3 0 Temporary part-time 62 10 16 12 Volunteer 43 2 12 43 Other 88 5 3 3 Valid Responses 58 Missing Responses 2 Attitudes in Regard to Art Museum-Elementary School Collaboration This section describes the BC art museum educators' attitudes as reflected by their responses to 24 close-ended and two open-ended attitude statements regarding art education and art museum-elementary school collaboration. 136 Attitudes in Regard to Art Museum Education The data showed a consensus regarding the importance of art education to children: all respondents concurred, to varying degrees, that art education is essential for elementary school children: 86% strongly agreed and 14% agreed. Moreover, the data showed that nearly four fifths (77%) of the BC art museum educators agreed or strongly agreed that education should be the main purpose of an art mu