What a stimulating lunch break.. the mind is racing.. like to support
Peter that we should not tajke the SATs line but can have a list of
recommended policies and practices for each museum.. as we should have had
with registration. but for each museum to add its list of identifiable
audiences( actual and potential) - the museum/service has to demonstrates
through a development plan which includes activities to respond to
those groups ( from reinterpretation of collections, labelling,
translated guides etc) and to have arguements to show how money time and
staff are prioritising which group, for how long, and in which manner.
Francois Matarasso's more informal evaluation technigues should be
considered and intergrated into a more formal assessment exercise. The HLF
are putting together criteria by which they are judging applications for
the revenue grants - they are: 1) Assessment of what will be gained by the
visitor - a broad category which could include social/physical
satisfaction
aswell as cognitive and affective learning 2) Evaluation of resources
used to achieve these gains. Value for money.. John Hamer spoke aboput
these at a seminar at the GEM conference aND HE INTENDS TO PUBLISH THE
GUIDELINES in October /Novemeber.. I think he said.
I also have a hankering of doing/ participating in some longitudinal
study of intergenerational influences.. as discussed in Harland,Kinder
Hartley and Wilkin's report for the DNH 1996 on attitudes to
Participation in the Arts.. we have several museums in the UK whgich have
run education programmes consistently over the last 50 years.. some focus
group work could bring out some interesting biographies on how museum
visiting changes developes throughout life and to look at the various
points of entry..are some more likely to ensure continuing visits than
others. eg family versus school?
Thanks for the debate
Vicky
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|