A New Approach to Museum Field Trips

Most people, at least I myself, think of school field trips to museums as a one day event where students are led to different gallery spaces to fill out worksheets and participate in programs or activities that usually relate to some aspect of school curriculum that can be tied to the museum’s exhibits. However, in the chapter “Engaging Young Minds and Spirits: The Glenbow Museum School” by Michèle Gallant and Gillian Kydd, a unique approach to museum visits by school groups is presented. In The Museum School, teachers submit proposals to the Glenbow covering any range of topics and formats they wish to explore in partnership with the museum over the course of two weeks to a whole school year. Cost subsidization is offered by business partners to alleviate the burden on schools to provide funding for the program and allow for greater participation. The teachers introduce concepts that will be explored at the museum in the classroom as a first step in the process. Then students and their teacher spend an entire week in the museum using various learning techniques such as observation, critical thinking, and free-choice exploration to expand upon concepts presented in the classroom.

While reading this chapter I created a connection between the design of the Glenbow Museum School and the constructivist learning theory. Gallant and Kydd stressed that students were given time every afternoon to explore exhibits and artifacts of their choice and reflect critically on them by writing or drawing in personal hard cover journals. The students are given the liberty to make choices about what they focus on, and this gives them a sense of ownership in the learning experience. The structure is very much based on principles of the learner creating knowledge for themself. The success of The Museum School program is an excellent case study that outlines the benefits of a constructivist learning environment.

Looking Reality in the Eye is mainly focused on social responsibility and how museums best serve their communities. While the benefits to students are outlined above, I really see the partnership between the museums and their business associates as the way in which this program promotes collaboration in the community. Chevron Canada Resources provides funding for The Glenbow Museum School, and it is only through their support that the program is made possible. These partnerships create important networks of support that help museums to grow and remain a relevant part of the communities they serve.

One line from the chapter that I took note of was, “only by working together were the characters [museum, school, and business partner] able to gain the necessary force to reach their goal” (p. 83). This chapter is really about partnership, and this quote reveals how while individual groups may not have the resources to accomplish their goals, collaboration can be a powerful tool in overcoming obstacles. Building and utilizing community relationships is thus a key characteristic of the socially responsible museum.

The Glenbow Museum School and the Gerund-Which-Must-Not-Be-Named

In their chapter, "Engaging Young Minds and Spirits: The Glenbow Museum School," Michèle Gallant and Gillian Kydd describe their work with field trip groups in the Glenbow Museum's ChevronTexaco Open Minds School Program. In short, teachers submit proposals for long-term student projects, and those that are accepted are then given special access to the museum's material and human resources. Gallant and Kydd identify ownership and time as the two qualities that make their program distinctive; they argue that it is crucial to allow teachers to design their own programs and to allow students the chance to see museums as something other than novelty. According to program evaluation, this program teaches students to think more critically and provides a space for educators to test and develop new approaches to teaching.

For this chapter, my first two questions from my last post (To what extent does the author identify a specific catalyst for a museums' move toward increased social responsibility? What challenges does the author identify in trying to implement "socially relevant missions"?) are mainly related to issues of challenging the status quo. While Gallant and Kydd do not clearly name what prompted the foundation of their program, they strongly imply that its philosophical roots--not just the financial backing for it--are fundamentally important to their sponsors. In terms of implementation, it seems that the Open Minds Program is only limited by the imaginations of their applicants. On both counts, participants in all aspects of the program are simply expected to try something new.

My last question, as before, is which strategies in this case study would translate best to other museum contexts. While Gallant and Kydd point out (see p. 83) that over seventeen other sites have already begun using this model, they do not describe which elements of the program (if not all of them) have been maintained in other contexts. While funding opportunities, school curricula, and museum collections will inevitably vary, it seems that the key ingredients must always be collaboration with community partners and the freedom to teach what "should be part of public education" (p. 82). In Gallant and Kydd's model, these ingredients are what allow students to move beyond their roles as objects-for-engaging into new and exciting opportunities to engage with ideas for themselves.

Collaboration: A Dose of Reality at the Glenbow

Since Looking Reality in the Eye deals with a diverse set of case studies, I've tried to keep a few general questions in mind as I read each chapter:

1) To what extent does the author identify a specific catalyst for a museum's move toward increased social responsibility?

2) What challenges does the author identify in trying to implement "socially relevant missions"? (For those who are wondering, I'm quoting straight from the back of the book.)

3) Which strategies in this case study would translate best to other museum contexts?

The first reading I've chosen to blog about is "Our Story in Our Words: Diversity and Equality in the Glenbow Museum" by Gerald T. Conaty and Beth Carter.

One thing I really appreciate about this chapter is its extreme detail. In their discussion of the planning for the Glenbow's Niitsitapiisini exhibit, Conaty and Carter describe the process of community collaboration from beginning to end--including both the triumphs and the frustrations.

The authors are frank about the reasoning for their museum's changes; as with many museums across North America, the Glenbow saw public boycotts and legal action from indigenous groups themselves. (The authors point in particular to The Spirit Sings, a now-infamous exhibit that was timed to coincide with the 1988 Winter Olympics.) In response to such calls for change, museum professionals worked with First Nations communities across Canada to conceive a set of guidelines for better representations of indigenous heritage.

The challenge was, as seems fairly common, in creating true community partnerships. As Conaty and Carter attest, allowing for the equal involvement of museum staff and Blackfoot representatives meant being willing to cede control and adapt to new ways of doing business. At the beginning, they say, "We did not know how, or even if, elements of Blackfoot culture could interact with elements of our museum culture to produce an intelligible result" (p. 47). While many museum professionals have noted the need for input from the groups they aim to represent, it is far easier to consult than it is to collaborate.

Nonetheless, Conaty and Carter provide ample evidence that collaboration is both ethically necessary and intellectually fruitful. Although their particular needs (praying, building deep personal relationships before working together, etc.) are not universal, methods like including community members in planning stages, participating in important community rituals, and holding meetings in neutral spaces all seem reproducible elsewhere.

Last week, our class also read Brenda Trofanenko's discussion of the Glenbow Museum*, which deftly highlights the historical and philosophical biases in museum narrative. In her piece, Trofanenko argues that "The role of the social educator needs to be nurtured into an increased awareness of how and why to look critically at what knowledge is presented and the context in which it is defined" (p. 107). Such an awareness can only come from an honest assessment of existing gaps and preferences in knowledge. However, as Conaty and Carter (as well as Trofanenko) testify, it is no longer sufficient to stop at awareness. After one looks reality in the eye, one is forced to answer to it.

*Trofanenko, B. (2006). The public museum and identity, or: The question of belonging. In Segall, A., Heilman, E. E., and Cherryholmes, C.H.(Eds.), Social studies: The next generation: Researching in the Postmodern (pp. 95-109). New York: Peter Lang.