Running Head: COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS
Components of Docent Training Programs in Nationally Accredited Museums in the United States and Their Correspondence to the Adult Learning Model for Faculty Development
Kerry S. Teeple
A Dissertation
Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of The University of Findlay’s College of Education in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
March 2019
Committee:
Allison Baer, Ph.D. Chair, Dissertation Committee
Mary Heather Munger, Ph.D. Committee Member
Amanda Ochsner, Ph.D. Committee Member
John C. Gillham, Ed.D Chair, Doctorate of Education Program
Julie McIntosh, Ed.D Dean, College of Education COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS
© 2019
Kerry S. Teeple
All Rights Reserved
COMPONENTS FOUND IN DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS iii
ABSTRACT
Empirical evidence of docent training practices in nationally accredited museums in the United
States is limited. Much information can be found in the literature on recommended educational theories that can serve as a basis for docent training practices as well as prescriptive advice for quality docent education; however, detailed information about the actual practices being implemented in docent training programs is sparse. Studies have shown that museum educators agree with and encourage documented educational theories in museums in terms of the exhibits and interpretive materials, however, when instructing the docents within their museums, the museum educators may not be utilizing the theories that they espouse. The evidence in teacher education as well as museum education shows that modeling of the intended strategies is the preferred method for instruction, but evidence of docent training practices gives little proof of this idea being practiced. The current study was designed to uncover the actual practices and theories being utilized in docent training programs across the United States in museums that are accredited by the American Alliance of Museums. Additionally, the Adult Learning Model for
Faculty Development (Lawler & King, 2000), a model recommended for the planning and implementation of adult education is applied as a map to guide the inquiry regarding docent training programs.
COMPONENTS FOUND IN DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS iv
DEDICATION
This paper is dedicated to my family.
For my children, Mac and Tatum, who inspire me to do more than I thought I ever could. You are my reason for doing hard things. Now it’s your turn.
For my husband, Darin, who allows me to chase my dreams without letting me fly too far away.
For my sisters, Karmen and Lindsay, who always hear me out, cheer me on, and make my heart sing. You are my best friends!
To my beautiful mom, Judy, who showed me how to be strong when it would be much easier to be weak. You are faith personified.
If only my dad could see me now...
COMPONENTS FOUND IN DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS v
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Thank you to my dissertation committee – the trifecta of strong, smart women.
My dissertation chair, Dr. Allison Baer, who knows how to ask the best questions; the kind of questions that one needs to be asked in order to transform fuzzy little thoughts into a polished purpose. Her expectations were never beyond reach, but always caused me to stretch farther than I knew I could. Dr. Mary Heather Munger and Dr. Amanda Ochsner who encouraged me with kind words, thoughtful critique, and honest feedback. Your expertise and positive energy were beacons when I was weary. I appreciate your support and guidance every step of the way.
Thank you to the University of Findlay College of Education faculty and staff. Your caring attitudes and wealth of knowledge gave me the tools I needed to persevere to the end. Dr.
John Gilham, thank you for creating a purpose-driven program. Dr. Julie McIntosh, thank you for the professionalism and strong leadership that you give to the College of Education faculty, creating a positive, supportive culture where ideas are encouraged and celebrated.
Thank you to my doctoral cohort. It has been a pleasure knowing you and learning from you. We did it!
To the Mazza Museum Docents, your love of learning is beautiful and your dedication to education was the inspiration for my dissertation.
My gratitude to the late, Dr. Jerry Mallett who taught me that children’s literature is more than just literature for children; it’s a road map for living.
Deepest thanks to Mr. Benjamin E. Sapp, the person who was willing to take a chance on me. Your trust and generous spirit have allowed me to open new doors, making it possible for me to go on this amazing journey.
COMPONENTS FOUND IN DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION ...... 1
Background of the Problem ...... 3
Rationale & Significance of the Study...... 14
Purpose of the Study ...... 18
Theoretical Framework ...... 18
Research Questions ...... 20
Definition of Terms...... 21
CHAPTER II. LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 25
History of Museum Education ...... 27
Formal and Informal Learning ...... 31
Nonformal Learning and Adult Education ...... 33
The Adult Learning Model for Faculty Development ...... 35
Pre-Planning: Docent Education ...... 38
Planning: Pedagogical Content Knowledge...... 42
Planning: Adult Learning Theories ...... 47
Planning: Content and Methods of Adult Education ...... 52
Delivery: Museum Education Standards ...... 54
Follow-Up: Evaluations ...... 57
Summary ...... 60
CHAPTER III. METHODOLOGY ...... 62
Research Questions ...... 63
COMPONENTS FOUND IN DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS vii
Research Design...... 64
Participants ...... 67
Instrumentation & Data Sources ...... 69
Data Collection Procedures ...... 71
Data Analysis ...... 72
Assumptions ...... 75
CHAPTER IV. RESULTS ...... 76
Research Question 1 ...... 79
Code 1: Pre-Planning ...... 80
Pre-Training Subcategory ...... 81
Type of Training Subcategory ...... 82
Department Involved in Training Subcategory ...... 83
Budget Subcategory ...... 84
Training Schedule Subcategory...... 85
Framework Subcategory...... 87
Code 2: Planning ...... 91
Technology ...... 92
Special Guest Speakers ...... … 93
Specific Topics...... 93
Mode of Communication ...... 94
Code 3: Delivery ...... 95
Code 4: Follow-Up ...... 96
Research Question 2 ...... 97
COMPONENTS FOUND IN DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS viii
Change, Flexibility, Appreciation ...... 98
Comparison of Docent Training Programs ...... 99
Pre-Planning ...... 100
Planning ……...... 115
Delivery ……...... ……….. 116
Follow- Up ...... 120
Research Question 3 ...... 124
Alignment with Andragogical Principles …………………………………... 129
Summary ……………………………………………………………….... 132
CHAPTER V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 134
Review of the Study ...... 135
Discussion ...... 136
Research Question 1 ...... 136
Research Question 2 ...... 142
Research Questions 3 ...... 146
Recommendations ...... 150
For the Museum Industry ...... 150
Hypothetical Improvements for the Current Study ...... 153
Future Research Opportunities ...... 154
Limitations ...... 155
Conclusion ...... 157
REFERENCES ...... 160
APPENDIX A. DOCENT TRAINING QUESTIONNAIRE ...... 173
COMPONENTS FOUND IN DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS ix
APPENDIX B. COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING IN ACCREDITED MUSEUMS IN
THE UNITED STATES ...... 175
COMPONENTS FOUND IN DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS x
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1 Principles of Best Practices for Museum Education. EdCom (2002) p. 5-9...... 11
2 Standards for Museum Professionals. EdCom (2002) p. 10 ...... 14
3 Stages, Characteristics, and Hallmarks of the Adult Learning Model for Faculty
Development ...... 38
4 Standards for Museum Professionals. EdCom (2002.) p. 10 ...... 47
5 Standards for Museum Professionals. EdCom (2002.) p. 10 ...... 57
6 Impact of reminders on response rate (McPeake, Bateson, & O’Neill, 2014) ...... 69
7 Types of Museums Represented and Number of Each ...... 77
8 Pre-Training Methods for Docent Training …………………………………………. 82
9 Type of Docent Training …………………………………………………………… 83
10 Departments Involved in Docent Training …………………………………………. 83
11 Budget Amount Allotted for Docent Training Program ……………………………. 85
12 Budget Expenses for Docent Training Program ……………………………………. 85
13 Length of Docent Training Program ………………………………………………... 86
14 Frequency of Docent Training Program …….………………………………………. 87
15 Frequency of Docent Training Sessions ...…………………………………………… 87
16 Purpose of Docent Training Program ………………………………………………... 89
17 Philosophy of Docent Training Program …………………………………………...... 90
18 Methodology of Docent Training Program …………………………………………. 91
19 Technology Used for Docent Training and Communication ………………………... 92
20 Special Guest Speakers for Docent Training ………………………………………… 93
COMPONENTS FOUND IN DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS xi
21 Specific Topics for Docent Training ………………………………………………… 93
22 Modes of Communicating Docent Training Schedules ……………………………... 95
23 Docent Training Practices …………………………………………………………… 96
24 Types of Docent Training Evaluation ……………………………………………….. 97
25 Forms of Ongoing Support …………………………………………………………… 97
26 Stages, Characteristics, and Hallmarks of the Adult Learning Model for Faculty
Development ………………………………………………………………………………….. 125
COMPONENTS FOUND IN DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS xii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1 Number of Categories Identified in Each of the Four Codes that Correlate to the Adult
Learning Model for Faculty Development (Lawler & King, 2000) ...... 80
2 Percentage of Docent Training Program Frequency ...... 103
3 Museum Budgets for Docent Training ...... 108
4 Types of New Docent Evaluation Used in Accredited Museum in the United States...122
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 1
CHAPTER 1.
Introduction
Museums are institutions created in the public interest with educational purpose
(American Alliance of Museums, 2018; Flanders, 1979; Dudzinska-Przesmitzki & Grenier,
2008; Hein, 1998; Hooper-Greenhill, 2007; Smithsonian Institution, 1985). Since their beginnings, they have been a resource for information about the past, understanding the human condition, and aesthetics for people around the world (Burnham & Kai-Kee, 2007; Ellenbogen, n.d; Gilman, 1915). Museums take their educational responsibility seriously, focusing on scholarly theories that have shaped formal learning environments as well as new, museum- specific theories of learning to enhance the unique experience of a museum visit (American
Alliance of Museums, 2018; Hein, 1998; Hooper-Greenhill, 2007; Museum Education
Roundtable, 1985; Smithsonian Institution, 1985). One issue that museums face in their educational mission is measuring learning outcomes due to the multitude of uncontrollable variables that exist among their visitors. As Fleming (2016) states, “…learning in museums is a complex phenomenon situated within layers of contexts, most of which are out of the museum’s control” (p. 25). This quandary continues to be a source of frustration for any museum whose goal it is to substantiate their educational worth. If the learning outcomes in museums are difficult to measure, could there be another way that museums could feel confident in the quality of their educational goals? This question is one that the researcher examined, coming from the perspective of a museum education professional. The researcher’s journey to understand learning in the museum began from the perspective of the learner and transitioned to the perspective of the teacher. Knowing that schools rely on quality and standardized education for their teachers to ensure quality education for students (Council of Chief State School Officers,
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 2
2013), the researcher began to contemplate how this idea could be transferred to museums. If formal education begins with the education of the teacher, could museums follow suit by focusing on the education of the individual who teaches in the museum?
Those who educate the public about the artifacts in museums are, typically, the docents
(DePrizio, 2016; Gilman, 1915; Grenier & Scheckley, 2008; Stark, 2016; Williams, 1996;
Wolins, Spires, & Siverman, 1986). Docents are a vital part of most museums’ day-to-day interaction with the public and often the first points of contact for museum guests; docents are also expected to relay the information about the collection in an understandable fashion (Bays,
1973; Burnham & Kai-Kee, 2005; Castle, 2001; DePrizio, 2016; Grenier, 2009; LaChapelle,
Keenlyside, & Douesnard, 2016). The typical docent is a volunteer who has been trained by the museum staff and holds a great deal of knowledge about the collection as well as methods of imparting that information to the guests, both general visitors and tour groups of children or adults (Bays, 1973; Burnham & Kai-Kee, 2005; DePrizio, 2016; Gilman, 1915; LaChapelle,
Keenlyside, & Douesnard, 2016). Considering the importance of museum docents, the researcher questioned the training techniques being used in museums today to prepare them for their work in museums. The researcher questioned if and/or how the information, both content- based and educationally based, is being disseminated to docents. What are the strategies and techniques that the museum education staff is using to prepare the docents for the task of teaching?
The researcher found that literature in the area of docent training practices and programming was very limited; especially empirical evidence (Dudzinska-Przesmitzki &
Grenier, 2008). The gap in the literature is most obvious in the area of data illustrating the procedures that museum educators are using in their docent training programs. As a docent
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 3
trainer in a small-town museum located a great distance from the nearest metro area and with no real network for collaborating on docent training techniques, the researcher wanted to uncover ideas and best practices of ways to create a quality educational program for docents in her institution; however, she was unable to locate much scholarly research in the actual practices of docent training. This lack of research in docent training practices led the researcher to ask what common practices are present in docent training programs in nationally accredited museums the
United States. This question guided the research and methodology for the study.
Background of the Problem
Learning that takes place in museums is difficult to measure because museum field trips and tours can have a myriad of ever-changing variables depending on the individuals and museum involved (Ebitz, 2005; Falk & Dierking, 2000; Hein, 1998). Students vary greatly from group to group in regards to their development, context, and social skills (Falk & Dierking, 2000;
Hooper-Greenhill, 1994), which makes learning outcome measurement almost impossible (Falk,
Moussouri & Coulson, 1998). According to Martell (2007), “While museum teachers plan lesson plans with particular learning goals in mind, it is often challenging to measure and assess both the quality of teaching and visitor learning related to the different contexts due to constraints such as lack of time, staff, and money” (p. 149). The experience that each tour group has varies based on how much time they have in the museum, what they already know, what their interests are, and what they are able to understand (Hooper-Greenhill, 1994). To add to the difficulty in assessment, each tour group is given their tour by different docents; creating another variable that cannot be controlled.
If measuring museum learning outcomes is difficult, how can museums ensure that their programs are educational? One way to try to account for the educational value of a museum tour
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 4
is to focus on the teaching rather than the learning. Wolins, Spires, and Silverman (1986) suggest, “Because the effective docent is, in reality a teacher, models of university education programs are useful to the museum educator. University programs are designed to integrate solid theoretical framework with practical classroom experiences” (p. 18). In the U.S., teacher preparation is considered to be a vital part of ensuring quality education in schools (Darling-
Hammond, Holtzman, Gatlin, & Heilig, 2005; National Council for Accreditation of Teacher
Education, 2008). The process of teacher education is governed by the Council for Accreditation of Educator Programs (CAEP), formerly known as National Council for Accreditation of
Teacher Education (NCATE), which has created standards for universities to adhere to in order to produce high-quality teachers (National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education,
2008).
In the museum realm, museum educators in the United States are not required to obtain
any kind of certification related to communication or pedagogical skills. And, no
empirical research to date documents the educational and professional backgrounds of
museum teachers, including the many thousands of educators who are volunteers
(Martell, p. 150).
Following the suggestion of Wolins, Spires, and Silverman (1986), museums could use university programs as a model; providing education that stems from established, educational theories to the docent. Because there is little evidence of docent training practices, it is unknown whether museums are doing this.
Museums that have been accredited by their governing body, the American Alliance of
Museums (AAM), must have an educational department, which meets their standards put in place. The standards created by AAM guide museum educators in their professional
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 5
development and practice, however, the standards do not make mention of the specific attributes of docent training. The museum education department is the office in museums that is responsible for planning and implementing the instruction of the volunteers who work with visitors in both the content and the culture of the museum (Grenier, 2008; Wolins, Spires &
Silverman, 1986). This allows each museum to choose who is sharing information about the collection to docents (museum staff or volunteers), what is being shared (content of the collection, educational theory, pedagogical methods, or communicative skills) and how the information is shared (lecture style or active learning). Although there are suggestions in the literature about each of the many options and choices available to museums to use in docent education, there is little evidence of what is actually happening in the field. Dudzinska-
Przesmitzki and Grenier (2008), in their review of literature of nonformal and informal learning in museums, state that, “Existing literature examining the preparation of docents more often presents personal impressions, not empirical data” (p. 12). This lack of evidence is surprising considering that there are over 16,000 museums in the U.S. that “engage in some level of visitor, staff, and volunteer instruction” (Dudzinska-Przesmitzki & Grenier, 2008, p. 12).
While the individuality of the collection is what makes each museum special just like the curricular subject matter in formal education varies from course to course; the method for delivering the information and the techniques used to teach the docents how to transfer that information may be similar for most museums. These specific attributes of training, such as who is planning and carrying out the training, what is being taught, how the information is being shared, and evaluation practices are details that are unavailable in the literature (Dudzinska-
Przesmitzki & Grenier, 2008). Could museums have common components in their docent education? If so, what are they and how are they being taught to the docents? According to
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 6
Grenier (2009), “Given the vital role that docents play in museums, further understanding of docent learning experiences and development of expertise is foundational to the growth of museums’ educational programming” (p. 144). This begs the question, what resources are museum educators using upon which to base their decisions for programming?
Rationale & Significance of the Study
Museums have long taken seriously their educational responsibility by adhering to scholarly evidence of best practices (Adams, 1937; Dana,1917; Dewey, 1938; Falk & Dierking,
2000; Hooper-Greenhill, 2007; Wolins, Spires, & Silverman, 1986), creating governing bodies that oversee museum discussions about the improvement of museum education (American
Alliance of Museums, 2002; American Alliance of Museums, 2008; American Alliance of
Museums, 2018; American Association of Museums, 1992), and designating educational agents within their institutions (Bays, 1973; Bronson Hartt, 1910; Burnham & Kai-Kee, 2005; Grenier,
2009). The designated agent is a person who acts as a guide, typically on a voluntary basis, in a museum, art gallery, garden, or zoo called a docent (Bays, 1973; Burnham & Kai-Kee, 2007;
DePrizio, 2016; Gilman, 1915; McCray, 2016). The word “docent” comes from the Latin,
“docere,” which literally means, to teach (Olivetti, 2003). The term was first used in reference to museum guides in the English language in 1880 at The Museum of Fine Arts, (DePrizio, 2016;
Hein, 1998). In countries outside of the U.S., the term docent refers to an associate professor at a university or college and the role of a docent at these institutions is to research and lecture in college classrooms (Merriam-Webster, 2018). In the U.S., the term is used specifically for museum guides; however, the expectations of U.S. docents are similar to their international collegiate counterparts (Burnham & Kai-Kee, 2005; Castle, 2001; Grenier & Scheckley, 2008).
Docents in museums are often researchers and educators (Fernandez-Keys, 2010; Hein, 1998) as
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 7
they learn about the objects in their institutions by researching from the resources available in books, journals, and museum libraries (Bays, 1973; Fernandez-Keys, 2010; Williams, 1996).
Docents also lecture in museums; explaining to visitors about the unique objects on display
(Burnham & Kai-Kee, 2011; Castle, 2001; Gilman, 1915; Hooper-Greenhill, 2007). In museums across the country, docents are the frontline for imparting information about collections
(DePrizio, 2016; Grenier, 2009) by offering casual tours to general museum visitors as well as formal, guided tours for groups of adults and children which serve a common purpose: for the visitor to learn about the artifacts on display (Castle, 2001; Falk & Dierking, 2007; Grenier,
2009; Hooper-Greenhill, 1994). The docents leading these tours fulfill the meaning instilled in the origin of the word docent; they teach (Burnham & Kai-Kee, 2011; Castle, 2001; Grenier,
2009; McCray, 2016; Wolins, Spires, & Silverman, 1986), which has led to many museums in the U.S. adopting the terms museum teacher, gallery teacher or gallery educator as a substitution for docent (McCray, 2016; Williams, 1996; Wolins, Spires, & Silverman, 1986). Museum docents who share information about the collection in a way that is receivable by the visitor are a vital part of museum’s educational mission, therefore, the education of the docent carrying out this mission is vital as well (Burnham & Kai-Kee, 2011, Burnham & Kai-Kee, 2016; Castle,
2001; DePrizio, 2016; Grenier, 2009; McCray, 2016). DePrizio (2016) describes the core function of the docent as, “opening of eyes” (p.3); referring to the docent’s purpose of enlightening the visitor on the collection through guided interpretation.
Docents are the agents who impart the museum education to the public (Bays, 1973;
Castle, 2001; Gilman, 1915; Grenier, 2009). The importance of education is displayed in the statistical evidence of museums as institutions of learning. The museum industry has established its educational value; museums are considered educational by 97% of Americans, across all ages,
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 8
races, and geographical locations (American Alliance of Museums & Wilkening Consulting,
2017). Another example of museums’ educational worth is the partnership that has been established with schools, whereby schools allow their students to participate in museums for field trips to receive enrichment that complements the classroom learning (Falk & Dierking,
2000). In order to connect with students, “Museums spend more than $2 billion each year on education activities and the typical museum devotes three-quarters of its education budget to K-
12 students” (American Alliance of Museums, 2009, p. 4). This effort to be a valuable resource for schools indicates the importance that museums place on their educational purpose.
Most accredited museums have a comparable organizational structure, which includes administration, collections, and education. Typically, a museum has a director, a curator, and an individual who is the head of the education department (Dexter Lord & Lord, 2009; Hooper-
Greenhill, 1994; Williams, 1996) whose title may include any one of the following: Museum
Educator, Education Coordinator, Education Director, or Deputy Director of Education (Hooper-
Greenhill, 1994; Wild & Hudson, 2008). Though the job title may vary, the position usually carries similar responsibilities from museum to museum including the planning of and the implementation of the education of volunteers to become representatives who teach the public about the museum’s collection (Dexter Lord & Lord, 2009; Grenier, 2009; Williams, 1996).
Individual aspects of docent training may vary from museum to museum depending on the content of the museum as the objects on display at each museum are different (American
Alliance of Museums, 2008; Burnham & Kai-Kee, 2005; Burnham & Kai-Kee, 2011; DePrizio,
2016; EdCom, 2002). Docents are typically required to learn specific information about the content at their museum so that they have knowledge of the collection (Burnham & Kai-Kee,
2005; Burnham & Kai-Kee, 2011; Castle, 2006; Wolins, Spires, & Silverman, 1986); primarily
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 9
because the visitors come to the museum to see and learn about these objects and relics
(DePrizio, 2016; Dexter Lord & Lord, 2009; Hooper-Greenhill, 1994). Obtaining knowledge about the collection is a vital part of docent training (Burnham & Kai-Kee, 2005; Burnham &
Kai-Kee, 2011; Fernandez-Key, 2010), but to fulfill the obligation of teaching to the public, docent training must involve another element, which is methods for sharing the content (Castle,
2001; Grenier, 2008; Grenier, 2009; Grenier & Scheckley, 2008; Wolins, Spires, & Silverman,
1986). The information about the collection is only useful if those who hold it are able to explain and impart the message to visitors; otherwise, the artifacts might as well be locked in a vault for safekeeping (Castle, 2001; Dana, 1917; Dexter Lord & Lord, 2009; Gilman, 1915;
Grenier, 2008). Museums are institutions, which are designed for public consumption and are charged with the honorable obligation of sharing their collections with society (American
Alliance of Museums, 2002; Bays, 1973; Dana, 1917; EdCom, 2002; Hooper-Greenhill, 2006).
Just displaying the art or relics does not constitute the sharing of knowledge about the objects.
Although many museums hang interpretive verbiage next to the artwork or other items on display to assist visitors with interpretation, person-to-person interaction is the preferred mode of sharing information in museums (Burnham & Kai-Kee, 2005; Wells, Butler, & Koke, 2016).
One must be able to communicate knowledge effectively in order for it to be received by the learner (Castle, 2001; Hein, 1998; Shulman, 1986; Shulman; 1987; Shulman, 2013; King, &
Glaser, 1989).
What methods are museum educators using and advocating for use in sharing the information about the collection to the public in the museums across America? In the literature, there are theoretical methods of teaching that have been proven as effective and used by universities in their teacher preparation programs. Are these proven methods being used in
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 10
docent training? One such theory is pedagogical content knowledge (Shulman, 1986).
Pedagogy has been described in many ways, including brief descriptions such as the science of teaching children, having oversight of children or the art of teaching children as well as broad ideas such as the function and/or work of a teacher, the art and science of teaching, and that which refers to instructional methods (Mortimore, 1999; Shulman, 1986; Shulman, 1987).
Pedagogical content knowledge is the skill of possessing knowledge of pedagogical methods as well as knowledge of how and when the methods are best utilized to effectively communicate information to the learner (Shulman, 1986; Shulman, 1987). Shulman created the theory of pedagogical content knowledge in 1986 and pedagogical content knowledge became and remains a vital part of teacher education (Council of Chief State School Officers, 2013; National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, 2016). Shulman’s (1986) theory posits that educators need to have extensive knowledge of the content they are teaching as well as solid knowledge of pedagogical strategies in order to teach effectively. Due to the proven success of pedagogical content knowledge, the combination of content knowledge and pedagogical knowledge is one of the primary approaches used in teacher training and mentioned as an attribute of an effective teacher (Council of Chief State School Officers, 2013; National Board for Professional Teaching
Standards, 2016; Shulman, 1986). Museum education journals have also lauded pedagogical content knowledge and the value of docents acquiring the skills to become knowledgeable in content, pedagogical methods, and the art of knowing how to best use them (Castle, 2001;
Castle, 2006; Grenier, 2009); however, there is no evidence in the literature to support that this valuable theory is actually being shared in docent trainings.
The literature suggests docent education to be carried out in museums by a member of the museum education department staff (Bays, 1973; Burnham & Kai-Kee, 2011; Castle, 2001;
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 11
Dudzinska-Przesmitzki & Grenier, 2008; Grenier, 2009; McCray, 2016). In 1989, The Journal of Museum Education published Professional Standards for Museum Educators (King, &
Glaser, 1989), which were subsequently adopted by the American Association of Museums, now the American Alliance of Museums, in 1998 and updated in 2002 (Ebitz, 2005). The new standards created by the American Alliance of Museums defined the educational principles and practices for both the education in the museum (Table 1) and educators employed by the museums (Table 2).
Table 1 Principles of Best Practices for Museum Education. EdCom (2002). pp. 5-9
Standard Description Accessibility ENGAGE THE COMMUNITY AND SERVE THE MUSEUM’S AUDIENCES. • Develop and maintain sound relationships with community organizations, schools, cultural institutions, universities, other museums, and the public. • Reflect the needs and complexities of a changing society. • Shape content and interpretation toward relevant issues and create a broad dialogue. ADDRESS AND EMPLOY A DIVERSITY OF PERSPECTIVES. • Acknowledge that a variety of interpretive perspectives—cultural, scientific, historic, and aesthetic—can promote greater understanding and engagement. • Provide multiple levels and points of entry into content, including intellectual, physical, cultural, individual, group, and intergenerational. • Engage members of diverse communities to contribute their perspectives to museum collections and interpretation. • Promote the elimination of physical, socio-economic, and cultural barriers to museums.
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 12
Accountability DEMONSTRATE EXCELLENCE IN CONTENT KNOWLEDGE. • Master the content related to the museum’s collections, exhibitions, and mission. • Collaborate with scholars and specialists. • Conduct research to advance and improve the museum profession. • Provide professional development and training for new and established staff to share current education methods, new media, developments in scholarship related to learning theory and evaluation, and best practices in the field. INCORPORATE LEARNING THEORY AND EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH INTO PRACTICE. • Base methods and design of interpretation on museum and educational learning theories. • Apply knowledge of cognitive development, educational theory, and teaching practices to the types of voluntary, personal, and lifelong learning that occur in museums. EMPLOY A VARIETY OF APPROPRIATE EDUCATIONAL TOOLS TO PROMOTE LEARNING. • Demonstrate a broad understanding of communication strategies and media. • Use techniques and technology appropriate to educational goals, content, concepts, and audience. • Involve education staff in the design and use of technology to advance learning. • Evaluate the educational tools used by the institution.
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 13
Advocacy PROMOTE EDUCATION AS CENTRAL TO THE MUSEUM’S MISSION. • Ensure that education is clearly incorporated into the mission, goals, and financial strategy of the museum. • Include educational considerations in interdepartmental discussions involving planning, development, and implementation from conception to completion. • Integrate educational expertise into exhibition design and interpretation. • Contribute museum education expertise to a broad array of institutional efforts to discover and address the needs of the community. • Share responsibility for the economic health of the institution and demonstrate management skills related to fiscal and human resources. SET GOALS AND MEASURABLE OBJECTIVES AND ADOPT STRATEGIES TO ACHIEVE AND DOCUMENT THEM. • Develop interpretation with specific educational goals supported by integrating content and learning objectives for targeted audiences. • Develop interpretation to serve the academic mandates of school, college, and university standards or mandated state education frameworks for schools. • In an ongoing and ethical manner, collect data from and about visitors to measure learning and document the impact of the museum experience. • Collect data from visitors and non-visitors to determine the best education services to meet their needs and interests. • Incorporate evaluation findings into the planning and/or revision of interpretation. • Distribute research results to the learner, the museum community, relevant academic institutions, funders, and the greater public to strengthen the field of museum education. PROMOTE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE MUSEUM COMMUNITY. • Recognize and share the value of continuous learning with colleagues. • Persistently seek opportunities to expand the knowledge of learning theory, education methods, evaluation, media, management, scholarship related to the museum’s collections, and best practices in the field. • Foster an institutional atmosphere that encourages professional development. • Disseminate current ideas through publications and other appropriate media. PROMOTE A SPIRIT OF INQUIRY AND OPENNESS TO NEW IDEAS AND APPROACHES. • Recognize and share the joys of learning with all people. • Promote the complementary nature of formal and informal learning at every stage of life. INFLUENCE PUBLIC POLICY IN SUPPORT OF MUSEUM LEARNING. • Work individually and with professional associations to influence public policy at the regional, state, and national levels.
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 14
Table 2 Standards for Museum Professionals. EdCom (2002.) p. 10
Standard Description Accessibility FOCUS ON AUDIENCES AND COMMUNITY Museum educators have knowledge of and respect for the audiences their museums serve. They promote museums’ public service role within our changing society. DIVERSITY OF PERSPECTIVES Museum educators use interpretive practices that acknowledge the variety of cultural, scientific, and aesthetic points of view that contribute to visitors’ understanding. They create opportunities that enable informed viewpoints to receive judicious consideration. Accountability EXCELLENCE IN CONTENT AND METHODOLOGY Museum educators have a solid grounding in the history, theory, and practice of the disciplines relevant to their institutions. They demonstrate knowledge of human development, educational theories, and teaching practices related to the personal and group learning that takes place in museums. Advocacy ADVOCACY FOR AUDIENCES Museum educators facilitate a spirit of teamwork and collaboration within the museum to promote the best interest of audiences. ADVOCACY OF EDUCATION Museum educators promote education as central to advancing the mission and goals of the museum. DEDICATION TO LEARNING Museum educators possess a love of learning and a commitment to nurture and develop an informed and humane citizenry.
These standards send an important message to museums about the expectations to be upheld by the museum education department and museum education professionals; each being grounded in proven educational principles, but tailored to suit the institution or the individuals
(EdCom, 2002). One common element in both sets of standards is the notion of collaboration and professional development. The EdCom (2002) Principles of Best Practice for Museum
Education specifically state:
1. Recognize and share the value of continuous learning with colleagues. 2. Persistently seek opportunities to expand the knowledge of learning theory, education methods, evaluation, media, management, scholarship related to the museum’s collections, and best practices in the field. 3. Foster an institutional atmosphere that encourages professional development.
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 15
4. Disseminate current ideas through publications and other appropriate media. (p.9)
The same sentiment of maintaining professional standards and collaboration with colleagues is reflected in the literature about museum educators, “Museum educators facilitate a spirit of teamwork and collaboration within the museum to promote the best interest of audiences” (p.
10); however, the lack of evidence of the components of docent training in museums in the literature suggests that museum educators are not disseminating information about their docent training practices (Castle, 2001; DePrizio, 2016; Dudzinska-Przesmitzki & Grenier, 2008;
Grenier, 2008; McCray, 2016). Due to the lack of empirical evidence of docent training practices being shared among the museum education community and the strong recommendation of doing so, another thought to explore is whether museum educators are actually aware of the standards.
While museums have guidance from the AAM in terms of the recommended educational standards to uphold, museums do not have guidance from the American Alliance of Museums for strategies on effectively preparing docents for their service. Wells, Butler, and Koke (2016) note that,
…in 2005, the American Association of Museums convened a National Interpretive
Planning Colloquium in Indianapolis, Indiana, the purpose of which was to entertain
discussion and deliberation about the format and practice of interpretive planning for
museums. Characteristics of an intellectual framework as well as ideas for planning
outlines and checklists were discussed; however, no official documentation or guidance
resulted from this colloquium (p. 34).
Grenier (2009) states, “institutions must prepare docents, yet often preparation is brief or insufficient for the demands of the job” (p. 142). Although the role of a museum docent is not a
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 16
paid profession, docents have the responsibility of educating both children and adults in the museum setting about the collections they hold (Bays, 1973; Castle, 2001; DePrizio, 2016; Stark,
2016). Museums are regarded as educational institutions, aiming to provide educational experiences for visitors (American Association of Museums, 2008; EdCom, 2002; Smithsonian
Institution, 1985); however, the individuals who are delivering the information to the visitors, may or may not be trained with proven methods (Burnham & Kai-Kee, 2011; Castle, 2006;
DePrizio, 2016; Dudzinska-Przesmitzki & Grenier, 2008; Grenier, 2008). Lack of guidance for programming and implementing docent training from both the American Alliance of Museums and the body of literature as well as a lack of empirical evidence to show what the programming and training are actually comprised of creates a gap in this area of museum education. Grenier
(2009) notes that “even with an increasing need for understanding how such volunteers learn their craft and gain expertise, empirical research is minimal” (p. 142).
Museums have been rooted in a theoretical framework that revolves around learning and how visitors learn for decades (American Association of Museums, 2008; Castle, 2001; Dana,
1917; DePrizio, 2016; Dewey, 1938; Dexter Lord & Lord, 2009; Dudzinska-Przesmitzki &
Grenier, 2008; Gilman, 1915; Grenier R. , 2009; Hein, 1998; Hooper-Greenhill, 2007;
Smithsonian Institution, 1985). Theorists such as Dana (1917), Vygotsky (1934), Dewey (1938),
Skinner (1938), Piaget (1957), Gardner (1983), and Csikszentmihalyi (1990) and their theories have been studied and utilized to guide museums in their quest for solid educational practices. In the literature that focuses on museum docent training, experts reflect this tradition by suggesting these theorists and their theories are the foundation of museum education (American Association of Museums, 2008; Burnham & Kai-Kee, 2005; Burnham & Kai-Kee, 2011; Castle, 2006;
EdCom, 2002; Hein, 1998; Hooper-Greenhill, 2007; Monk, 2013). However, there is a lack of
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 17
literature that can be found dealing with practical and evidence-based information about docent training—how training programs are putting this theory into action.
Discovering the actual practices of docent training in the U.S. could be beneficial information for those who plan and carry out the training, for those who write about museum education, and for the docents themselves, giving all of these stakeholders a sense of camaraderie, confidence, and expectation. As a museum education professional, the researcher has gleaned information about theory and suggested practices from the literature, however, the evidence of what other museum professionals are doing would be helpful. According to Lawson
(2004), this knowledge sharing among professionals in the same field, is a form of collaboration called, “Interprofessional Collaboration” (p. 226), which yields positive benefits. Lawson states,
“Collaboration is in evidence when interdependent, autonomous stakeholders with their respective competency domains mobilize resources, and both harmonize and synchronize their operations to solve shared problems, meet common needs, capitalize on important opportunities, and obtain prized benefits” (p. 227). EdCom (2002) specifically recommend the practice of collaboration among museum professionals as well. The lack of evidence of programming and practices in the field of docent training has been diagnosed in the literature as a problem that needs to be remedied (DePrizio, 2016; Dudzinska-Przesmitzki & Grenier, 2008; McCray, 2016).
In addition, the EdCom (2002) standards published by American Alliance of Museums suggest that this sharing of knowledge is an important part of museum education. Identification of the specific components of the practices carried out by museums in America could allow for the stakeholders, museum educators, museum scholars, and museum docents, to be involved in a collaborative effort to understand this important part of museum education.
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 18
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to identify components of docent training programs and practices in nationally accredited museums in the U.S. and to compare the components identified among the museums. Additionally, this study intended to determine how the components of docent training found among the sample correspond with a model for adult learning.
Theoretical Framework
The theoretical basis for this study is grounded in andragogy, the study of adult learning
(Dudzinska-Przesmitzki & Grenier, 2008; Knowles, 1980; Merriam, 2001). Andragogy was borne from the idea that adults learn differently than children (Knowles, 1980). The theory, developed by Knowles (1980), has its roots in constructivism; a theory in education that states that learners come to the classroom with varied experiences and agendas as well as different abilities, making the learning process very individual as the learner connects with the new information to make his or her own meaning (Hein, 1998; Hooper-Greenhill, 1994). Hein
(1998), who focuses on constructivism in the museum setting states, “…the acceptance that all learners construct meaning and that all knowledge builds on the conceptions already in the minds of learners will focus more on universal educability and the value of what people already know”
(p. 99). From the connections and making of meaning, learners build their own understanding, hence the term, constructivism (Hein, 1998; Hooper-Greenhill, 1994). Knowles (1980) acknowledges constructivism and adds that the experience of the learner affecting meaning making is even more of a factor when that individual is an adult due to his or her lifetime of experience, making adult learning distinctive (Dudzinska-Przesmitzki & Grenier, 2008;
Knowles, 1984; Knowles, 1980). Docent training is, at its most basic, adult education.
According to Knowles (1980), there are assumptions which guide the teaching of adults and, in
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 19
accordance with this notion, models for facilitating adult learning have been created to make the experience more beneficial to the adult learner (Lawler, 2003; Lawler & King, 2000; London,
1960; McCray, 2016; Merriam, 2001). One of those models, the Adult Learning Model for
Faculty Development (Lawler & King, 2000) is a model designed for use with professional developers working with teachers of adults and is practical for the nonformal educational realm
(Lawler, 2003).
The formality of the learning situation is determined by the outcome, such as a diploma, as well as the rigor of the curriculum (Colley, Hodkinson, & Malcolm, 2002; Eshach, 2007;
UNESCO, 1947). In the case of docent training, the educational domain is considered nonformal, no diploma is gained, but a purpose and a curriculum exist (Dudzinska-Przesmitzki
& Grenier, 2008). The purpose of docent training is to teach docents how to communicate, effectively, information about a collection to visitors, both adults and children (Burnham & Kai-
Kee, 2005; Castle, 2001; Grenier, 2009). Docent training also falls into a specific category of nonformal learning which is adult education (Dudzinska-Przesmitzki & Grenier, 2008) .
Research by Lawler (2003), London (1960), and Merriam (2001) has shown that adult learning programs are most effective when a program model is used to prepare and implement it. The
Adult Learning Model for Faculty Development recommends stages of preparation, planning, implementation, and evaluation that are designed to meet the specific attributes of adult learners and to guide the facilitator (Lawler, 2003; Lawler & King, 2000; McCray; 2016). Due to the lack of evidence of actual programs and practices of docent training, the researcher will use this model as a map to guide the inquiry into the common components of the planning processes of museum docent training.
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 20
The researcher has little literature-based evidence for predicting what the study will reveal, therefore, to guide the study, the theory of andragogy and the Adult Learning Model for
Faculty Development (Lawler & King, 2000) are used as a reference to formulate the inquiry.
The Adult Learning Model for Faculty Development (Lawler & King, 2000) will be employed because it focuses on specific steps to create adult educational programs, which are relevant to docent training. The four stages of this model are pre-planning, planning, delivery, and follow-up
(Lawler & King, 2000). The theory of andragogy (Knowles 1980) is applied as it was the grounding theory for the creation of the Adult Learning Model for Faculty Development (Lawler
& King, 2000); focusing on the theoretical assumptions about adult learners.
Research Questions
The questions guiding the study are:
1) What are the components of docent training programs in nationally accredited
museums in the United States?
2) How do the components of docent training programs in nationally accredited
museums in the United States compare to one another?
3) How do the components of docent training programs in nationally accredited
museums in the United States correspond to the four stages in the Adult Learning
Model for Faculty Development?
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 21
Definition of Terms
For the purpose of this study, the following terms will be defined: Museum, Docent,
Docent Training, Nationally Accredited Museums, Nonformal Education, and Andragogy. These terms are either museum specific terms or education specific terms that are relevant and crucial to the study.
Museum. According to the American Alliance of Museums, a museum must have specific attributes such as being an organized, nonprofit institution, essentially educational or aesthetic in purpose, having a professional staff, owning, or using tangible objects, caring for them, and exhibiting them to the public on some regular schedule (American Alliance of Museums, 2018).
A museum can be any of the following types of institutions: historical, art, science, children’s, military and maritime museums, as well as aquariums, zoos, botanical gardens, arboretums, historic sites, and science and technology centers, all of which are eligible for accreditation by the American Alliance of Museums (American Alliance of Museums, 2018; Wells, Butler, &
Koke, 2016). For the purpose of this study, the use of the term museum encompasses any or all of these types of institutions.
Docent. A docent is a volunteer or paid individual who has a great deal of knowledge about the collection and guides visitors in their interpretation and appreciation of the artifacts on display as well as generating dialogue (DePrizio, 2016; Gilman, 1915; Grenier & Scheckley, 2008; Stark,
2016; Williams, 1996; Wolins, Spires, & Siverman, 1986). The first known use of the word in
American museums was by Benjamin Gilman at the Museum of Fine Art, Boston, MA in the late nineteenth century (Ellenbogen, n.d.; Museum Education Roundtable, 1985; Wells, Butler, &
Koke, 2016). In some museums, docents are also called Gallery Teachers, Museum Teachers, and Gallery Educators (McCray, 2016; Williams, 1996; Wolins, Spires, & Silverman, 1986).
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 22
Docent Training. The education of docents in museums to prepare them to act as educational agents for the staff. Training is a way to educate the docents about the content of the collection as well as the educational theories that the museum espouses (Bays, 1973; Burnham & Kai-Kee,
2005; Castle, 2001; Grenier, 2008; McCray, 2016; Wolins, Spires, & Siverman, 1986). The current study is designed to uncover what actual practices are occurring in docent trainings around the country.
Nationally Accredited Museums. The governing body for museums in America is the
American Alliance of Museums and its purpose is to provide resources, education, advocacy, professional networks, and financial reports for museums (American Alliance of Museums,
2018). The American Alliance of Museums is also the only accrediting body for museums in the
United States (American Alliance of Museums, 2018). For a museum to be accredited, it must complete the required steps, which begins with approval of the Core Documents, which include a
Mission Statement, a Strategic Institutional Plan, an Institutional Code of Ethics, a Disaster
Preparedness/Emergency Response Plan, and a Collections Management Plan (American
Alliance of Museums, 2018). After the American Alliance of Museums has approved the Core
Documents, a museum can move to the Accreditation Process. The Accreditation Process involves Self-Assessment and then Core Standards approval, centering around Public Trust and
Accountability, Mission & Planning, Leadership and Organizational Structure, Collections
Stewardship, Education and Interpretation, Financial Stability, and Facilities and Risk
Management. The Core Standards are followed by a site visit. The entire Accreditation process, beginning with Core Document Verification and ending with the Accreditation, takes about three years (American Alliance of Museums, 2018).
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 23
Nonformal Education. Education that is institutionalized, intentional, and planned by an education provider (Coombs, Prosser, & Ahmmed, 1973) is considered nonformal. Nonformal learning has a set of distinctions that can be used to identify it: organized, structured activities, designed for an identifiable target group, organized to achieve a specific set of learning objectives, non-institutionalized, and taking place outside the established education system
(Coombs, Prosser, & Ahmmed, 1973). Nonformal learning occurs along with main streams of education and professional preparation without granting any official certificates and can be carried out by organizations that complement formal education (Kryston , 2013). When pertaining to museum education, Dudzinska-Przesmitzki & Grenier (2008) state, “Nonformal learning opportunities refer to such events as docent training programs and educational lecture series, and are guided by museum-structured objectives” (p. 10). The defining characteristic of nonformal education is that it is an addition, alternative and/or a complement to formal education within the process of the lifelong learning of individuals. Nonformal education takes place outside the formal system on either a regular or an intermittent basis (UNESCO, 2018). The term was introduced in the 1960s due to the changing needs of adult learners outside of schools
(Dudzinska-Przesmitzki & Grenier, 2008).
Andragogy. Grounded in the idea of experience, andragogy is the study of how adults learn – the art and science of adult learning (Knowles, 1980). Although the theory of andragogy is often attributed to Knowles (1980), he did not found the theory itself, but it was extensively studied and written about by him (McCray, Gallery Educators as Adult Learners: The Active Application of Aduclt Learning Theory, 2016). The following are Merriam’s (2001) summaries of
Knowles’s six assumptions about adult learners:
• Adults are self-directed learners
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 24
• Adults have a growing reservoir of experience which is a resource for learning
• The readiness of an adult to learn is closely related to the developmental task of his or her
social role.
• Adults have an immediacy to learn
• Adults are internally motivated to learn
• Adults need to know why they need to learn something.
These six assumptions drive andragogy and help facilitators of learning to tailor education to the adult learner (Knowles, 1984).
Researcher Bias
The researcher is currently employed at a museum of art and conducts docent training at that institution. The museum in which the researcher is employed is not part of the study. Due to the personal connection to the subject, the researcher could be considered biased to the results of the study. Because the researcher plans and implements the training at the museum where she works and because it is the only docent training program that she is involved with, the researcher expected to see some of the same components in other museum docent training programs that exist in her own program. Due to the lack of literature available in the field, the researcher has formed her own original ideas of what docent training programs look like based on the program at her institution. Similarly, the researcher follows docent educator blogs and listserv email groups and, therefore, has seen some trends within the docent training community emerge in these discussions. The researcher’s current docent training procedures will not affect the outcome of the study; however, the researcher’s docent training procedures may be affected by the results of the study.
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 25
CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW
A lack of empirical research in the field of docent training practices and procedures in museums is perplexing (Burnham & Kai-Kee, 2007; DePrizio, 2016; Dudzinska-Przesmitzki &
Grenier, 2008; Grenier, 2009; McCray, 2016; Monk, 2013). In the literature, researchers have shown the educational history and purpose of museums, reporting that museums are a significant educational partner to schools (Dewey, 1900; Dudzinska-Przesmitzki & Grenier, 2008; Foreman-
Peck & Travers, 2013; Hooper-Greenhill, 1994; Monk, 2013), and a valuable resource for communities as learning institutions (American Alliance of Museums, 2018; DePrizio, 2016;
Hein, 1998; Hooper-Greenhill & Moussouri, 2000). There is also evidence that the specific environments of these learning institutions serve as distinctive settings that affect the outcome of their educational offerings (Falk & Dierking, 2000; Hooper-Greenhill, 1994; Hooper-Greenhill
& Moussouri, 2000). Educational theories, some of which are akin to those used in schools, and some which are museum-specific, are in abundance throughout the available literature (Ebitz,
2005; Hein, 1998; LaChapelle, Keenlyside, & Douesnard, 2016; Monk, 2013) and are particularly pertinent to docent training, as these are the very theories that museums espouse and want the docents to use in their teaching (Castle, 2006; Gilman, 1915; Grenier, 2009;
LaChapelle, Keenlyside, & Douesnard, 2016; Monk, 2013). The field of literature is also ripe with articles that suggest docents are a rich resource to museums in their educational agency
(Burnaham & Kai-Kee, 2007; Castle, 2001; Grenier, 2008; Grenier, 2009; King & Glaser, 1989;
LaChapelle, Keenlyside, & Douesnard, 2016). These studies, including some dating back to the
Victorian Era, have established the importance of museum docents as a conduit for the museum’s educational mission to the visitors, both general guests and schoolchildren on tours.
With all of this information about the museum industry and its educational value in utilizing
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 26
volunteer docents as teachers, it is curious that there is not more empirical data to assist professional museum educators in identifying the common components; the planning and specific attributes of docent training in museums.
In this chapter, the history of museum education is studied as a way to explain the rich foundation of educational theory that exists in museums. Early theorists, with interests in museums and education, laid a path of fertile ground for theories of learning and models for practice that can guide museums in their educational mission (Dewey, 1900; DePrizio, 2016;
Hein, 2004; Lawler, 2003; Lawler & King, 2000; Monk, 2013) and since then, the learning theories have been applied to different types of education—formal, informal, and nonformal— which will be reviewed to understand the complexity of differences and similarities among them and their relationship to museum learning (Burnham & Kai-Kee, 2011; DePrizio, 2016;
Dudzinska-Przesmitzki & Grenier, 2008; McCray, 2016). One type of nonformal education, adult education, also known as andragogy, has been studied to understand its relevance to docent education within the realm of adult learning (Burnham & Kai-Kee, 2007; Dudzinska-Przesmitzki
& Grenier, 2008; Knowles, 1984; Hamadache, 1991; McCray, 2016; Nurhayati, 2015). The models, principles, and assumptions of andragogy are reviewed to guide in the understanding of the structure and planning of docent training programs. Along with the structure and planning of docent training programs, research on theories, which can be applied to the teaching of content and methods in docent training programs, is also reviewed. One such theory, pedagogical content knowledge, the well-known and respected theory used in the training of educators in the formal education realm (Aleccia, 2011; Bucat, 2005; Cochran, King, & DeRuiter, 1991;
Fernandez, 2014; Grossman, 1990; National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education,
2008) will be discussed for its significance in museum education as well as its nonformal
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 27
education counterpart, andragogical content knowledge, which is used in the adult educational domain (Nurhayati, 2015). Other museum education techniques such as dialogic interpretation, questioning, and meaning making will briefly be investigated as potential areas of interest in docent training programs. Because using models assists in understanding social phenomena as well as in devising strategies for taking action (Hamilton, 1992), models of teacher preparation, adult education planning, and andragogy will be considered using the framework of the Adult
Learning Model for Faculty Development (Lawler & King, 2000), which identifies four stages for working with teachers of adults: pre-planning, planning, delivery, and follow up. The literature in these areas that pertain to docent education will be reviewed to identify best practices that will be used to guide the methodology for this study.
History of Museum Education
In the early nineteenth century, museums in America were more like collections of oddities meant for entertainment and less like the educational institutions we know today
(Doering, 1999; Flanders, 1979; Hein, 1998; Hooper-Greenhill, 2005). Two museums that were exceptions to the rule during that time were the Peale Museums located in Philadelphia and in
Baltimore, established in 1786 and 1814, respectively (Mendinghall, 1975; Sellers, 1980). These two museums were the first to create an educational environment rather than one of mystery and peculiarities (Conn, 1998; Sellers, 1980; Smithsonian Art Institute, n.d.). After the civil war ended in 1865, new learning theories emerged in education which focused on pragmatisism and science rather than merely gleaning education from books written by scholars long ago
(Ellenbogen, n.d.; Phillips, 2014). John Dewey, one of the most influential authorities in the field of education, embraced museums for their edifying aspects rooted in experiential, scientific, object-centered learning (Dewey, 1900; Hein, 2004; Monk, 2013). Monk (2013) states, “the
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 28
influence of Dewey’s philosophy of education is widespread and resounding” (p. 64). Dewey’s penchant for real-life experiences and scientific methods were in accord with the mission of the museums of natural history and art that were growing more prevelant in the early twentieth century (Hein, 2004). Support from Dewey served to boost the popularity of museums as places of education (Conn, 1998).
Dana (1917), another influential museum education theorist, introduced a forward- thinking model of the museum that encouraged education and public access. He advised museums that were merely collecting works to be kept in vaults, to expand their obligation to the public and to education by adopting more inclusive practices (Bennett, 1994; Conn, 1998; Dana,
1917; Weil, 2002). Through his model, which prioritized public access and responsibility to the common people, Dana helped to shape both museum and libraries into the institutions of education we know today (Bennett, 1994). His new museum model was designed to create an institute of visual instruction which would function as a living thing, as definitively living as is the school (Dana, 1917).
Dana’s vision of the museum functioning as an educational establishment for public consumption was embraced by museums in America (Bennett, 1994; Weil, 2002). More people taking advantage of the rich stores of information that museums housed, created a greater need for effective plans of guidance to interpret the information (Adams, 1937). To bridge the gap between the object being viewed and the viewer, individuals who functioned as interpretative and educational agents for the museum, called docents, were appointed to guide the uninformed visitors through the “labyrinth of culture to which he lacks the secret” (Adams, p. 31). Bronson
Hart, an early advocate of docents as museum educators, did not care for the term “guide.”
According to Bronson Hartt (1901), “Any average-witted man can learn to convoy visitors about
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 29
a museum…But the docent is a bird of another feather. Broadly intelligent, trained to know not only pictures and statues, but people” (p. 701). Bronson Hart was one of the first to understand the value of docents to museums.
The first museum to use the term “docent” was the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston, MA
(Gilman, 1915; Hein, 1998; Hooper-Greenhill, 1994). Benjamin Ives Gilman gave the title to the individuals in the museum who were not paid staff members, but were knowledgeable about the art and willing to assist the visitors in their viewing and interpretation of it. Gilman’s use of the term “docent” was a deliberate choice as the word comes from the Latin “to teach” (Ivir, 1989) and he was a strong believer in the educational qualities that museums held (Buff, et al., 1977).
According to Gilman, museums function in three ways: gardant, monstrant, and docent (Gilman,
1915). The gardant function of the museum is to guard and protect the artwork or relics held within. Museums are well known for their work in preserving and maintaining works of art and other objects in their care (American Association of Museums, 2008; Weil, 2002). The individual who is responsible for this caretaking in the museum setting is the curator. The word curator comes from the Latin “cura” which means “to care for” (Chisholm, 1911, p. 636).
Museum curators must safeguard the objects in the museum’s collection so that the integrity of the object remains intact for the public to view them (American Association of Museums, 2008;
Gilman, 1915; Weil, 2002). This brings forth the second function of the museum, as theorized by Gilman (1915): monstrant. As monstrant, a museum serves as a place to display the artifacts in its collection (Gilman, 1915). The objects may be protected and held in a vault, but unless they are able to be viewed, they have no purpose (Adams, 1937; American Association of
Museums, 2008; Dana, 1917; Gilman, 1915; Hein, 1998; Weil, 2002). And finally, the museum functions as docent, or teacher (Gilman, 1915). The term “docent” as used by Gilman represents
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 30
a function of the museum whereas today, the term has shifted to mean a person who gives tours in the museum (Castle, 2001). Just as Dana (1917) was the first to advocate that museums must not hide their rich resources in vaults, but instead, showcase them for the public to see, enjoy, and interpret, Gilman was the first promoter of the educational component of the museum – on- site teachers who would guide visitors, not just through the museum for the sake of viewing the objects, but also through the wealth of information and aesthetic properties concealed within the relics on display (Buff, et al., 1977; Gilman, 1915; Hooper-Greenhill, 1994). According to
Gilman (1915), the docent function of the museum, “is a necessary obligation grounded in the nature of a museum as a permenant exhibition” (p. 2).
At the end of the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth century, museums and schools had much in common (Conn, 1998; Gilman, 1915) as both entities were claiming their educational value in America. However, the reformation of public education in New York City,
St. Louis, Philadelphia, and San Francisco in the latter part of the nineteenth century reflected a national desire for unification among institutions of education (Tyack, 1974). To describe the reform and how education was affected, Tyack (1974) states,
What the structural reformers wanted to do, then, was to replace a rather mechanical form
of public bureaucracy, which was permeated with 'illegitimate' lay influence, with a
streamlined 'professional' bureaucracy in which lay control was carefully filtered through
a corporate school board (p. 168).
This reform then created standardization in public education instead of reliance on individual, local, or political influences to taint the curriculum (Tyack, 1974). Consequently, standardization of schools brought forth government assessment of educational entities (Conn,
1998), and museums, being regarded as institutions of education even at this time, were
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 31
considered to be subject to the same assessment and standardization as schools. However, being privately owned, the museum industry opted to forgo funding from government agencies in return for exemption from the assessments being suggested (Conn, 1998; Ellenbogen, n.d.). This decision allowed them to move ahead as educationally independent, without having to follow national academic guidelines (Conn, 1998; Ellenbogen, n.d.) and so, the divergence between assessement practices in schools and museums created the delineation of formal and informal learning environments (Ellenbogen, n.d.; Colley, Hodkinson, & Malcolm, 2002).
Formal and Informal Learning
A formal learning environment is one in which the objectives, curriculum and organization are structured (Eshach, Bridging In-school and Out-of-school Learning: Formal, informal and non formal edcuation, 2007). Schools are the major occupier of this category due to the organized classroom structure of a teacher who instructs students in a controlled environment (Colley, Hodkinson, & Malcolm, 2002). The goal of a formal learning environment is to produce certification in some form such as a diploma (Coombs, Prosser, & Ahmmed, 1973;
Eshach, 2007). Informal learning environments, in contrast, are not structured in terms of learning objectives, learning time, or learner support (Eshach, 2007). Typically, the end goal of an informal learning situation is not certification, but intrinsically motivated (Eshach, 2007).
Informal learning environments include museums, zoos, gardens, libraries, and other non- structured public institutions of education. Dewey’s vision of pragmatism and hands-on, experiential learning in the early part of the twentieth century was of the informal vein (Burnham
& Kai-Kee, 2011; Hein, 2004; Monk, 2013) such that Dewey promoted an ideal school, which would have a museum located in the center along with a library so that the two sectors of learning, formal, and informal, could mingle throughout the school day (Hein, 2004; Monk,
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 32
2013). In this ideal school, children would be able to experience both the structured classroom learning and the non-structured museum learning in one place. Today, museums are a partner to schools, helping to enrich the educational experience (Andre, Durksen, & Volman, 2017;
Foreman-Peck & Travers, 2013). The Smithsonian Office of Educational Research (1985) asserts that informal learning is an important complement to formal learning stating, “Schools alone are not equipped to address all the educational needs of America today” (p.157).
Since the inception of the term informal learning, debates have occurred regarding the intentionality of the learning (Colley, Hodkinson, & Malcolm, 2002). The literature remains mixed with theories of informal learning as that which happens when an individual unintentionally learns something and that which can occur with intention, but out of a classroom
(Coombs, Prosser, & Ahmmed, 1973). Shugurensky (2000) gave definition to informal learning by citing three modes within informal learning: self-directed, incidental, and tacit. These three forms created a way to explain the level of consciousness and intentionality of the learner.
According to Shugurensky (2000), self-directed informal learning is conscious and intentional, and an example of self-directed informal learning would be a casual, self-guided visit to a museum; incidental learning is conscious and unintentional such as watching televison; and the third type of informal learing, tacit learning, is unconscious and unintentional such as the ability to detect humor or read body language. Many museum education theorists have embraced the idea of informal learning, especially the self-directed variety, to inform their work (Falk &
Dierking, 2000; Hein, 1998; Hooper-Greenhill, 1994). These theorists use the term especially when studying the learning that takes place when visitors of museums are allowed to interpret and construct meaning of the objects on display with limited or no guidance from docents.
Although this type of learning is foundational to museum experiences (Falk & Dierking, 2000;
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 33
Hein, 1998; Hooper-Greenhill, 1994), it has been difficult to capture in order to measure learning outcomes due to the intrinsic and personal nature (Andre, Durksen, & Volman, 2017; Falk &
Dierking, 2000; Hein, 1998; Smithsonian Institution, 1985). As Falk and Dierking (2000) posit, every visitor comes to the museum with his or her own agenda, background knowledge and reaction to the space. Andre, Durksen, and Volman (2017) state, “the challenge for researchers investigating children’s learning in museums is to account for a multitude of confounding, competing and mutually-influencing factors” (p. 56). Foreman-Peck and Travers, in their 2013 study on museum pedagogy, revealed that even when aligning museum learning to generic learning outcomes (GLO), there were still too many variables to be able to determine learning outcomes (Foreman-Peck & Travers, 2013). Foreman-Peck and Travers (2013) suggested that it is impossible and inappropriate to establish a baseline assessment of what a visitor can do or know before a visit. Although museums and schools share the common goal of education, it is apparent from the literature that measuring learning outcomes is one of the biggest differences between formal and informal learning (Eshach, 2007; Falk & Dierking, 2000). Rather than measuring learning, museums can focus their efforts on training their docents in how to best transfer information to the learner through trusted educational theories (Castle, 2001).
Nonformal Learning and Adult Education
The majority of the literature, which discusses formal and informal learning, tends to have a biased approach placing more value on either formal or informal learning depending on the author and his or her affiliation (Colley, Hodkinson, & Malcolm, 2002; Hamadache, 1991).
Most of the literature weighs heavily on the side of formal education being the more valuable of the two (Hamadache, 1991). However, Scribner and Cole (1973) first challenged this concept of formal learning being the accepted norm for learning as the team claimed that most things in life
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 34
are better learnt through informal processes, using language learning through immersion as an example. Moreover, anthropologists have noted that complex learning still takes place within indigenous communities that have no formal educational institutions (Lave & Wenger, 1991).
Neither formal nor informal learning encompasses the entirety of learning, as the type of learning is dependent on context (Colley, Hodkinson, & Malcolm, 2002; Lave & Wenger, 1991). In response to the debate about informal and formal education, another form of learning, which is neither of the two has been suggested – nonformal learning (Colley, Hodkinson, & Malcolm,
2002; Dudzinska-Przesmitzki & Grenier, 2008; Eshach, 2007; Grenier, 2009). Nonformal learning is a hybrid of the two; like informal learning, it does not take place in the classroom, however, like formal learning, there is a curriculum, albeit a light one, often called open curriculum (Kryston, 2013), to be taught (Colley, Hodkinson, & Malcolm, 2002). Examples of nonformal learning include swim lessons, seminars, and organized clubs such as Boy Scouts or
Girl Scouts that focus on education. The concept was created by United Nations Educational,
Scientific, and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) in an attempt to validate all forms of learning; formal, informal, and nonformal giving merit to each in its distinctive context (United Nations
Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation, 1947; United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation, 2018). Nonformal learning has a set of distinctions that can be used to identify it: organized, structured activities, designed for an identifiable target group, organized to achieve a specific set of learning objectives, non-institutionalized, and taking place outside the established education system (Coombs, Prosser, & Ahmmed, 1973). In addition, nonformal education came from the response to the changing needs of adult learners outside of schools
(Dudzinska-Przesmitzki & Grenier, 2008).
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 35
As mentioned earlier, museum learning by visitors has been generally characterized as informal learning especially in the case of a visitor who is viewing the museum in a recreational manner (Falk & Dierking, 2000; Hein, 1998). However, the characteristics which define nonformal learning adhere to docent education, because docent education is adult education, and, therefore, a type of nonformal learning. It is adult education that drives UNESCO’s research of nonformal learning, primarily because world-wide, and especially in developing and third-world countries, adult education is a vital part of the economy, where formal education is not mandatory and adults must learn a new trade in order to earn a living (Coombs, Prosser, &
Ahmmed, 1973; United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation, 1947). In developed countries, like the United States, that have higher graduation rates and more focus on higher education than developing and third world countries, adult education is not principally focused on teaching job skills, but is typically considered life-long learning; a holistic way of enhancing one’s life (Dudzinska-Przesmitzki & Grenier, 2008). In a typical docent training program, docents are participating in an organized, structured activity that is designed for an identifiable target group and is organized to achieve a specific set of learning objectives and takes place outside of the school (Grenier, 2009; Wolins, Spires, & Siverman, 1986). According to theses parameters, docent training falls within the realm of nonformal learning as adult education (Colley, Hodkinson, & Malcolm, 2002; Dudzinska-Przesmitzki & Grenier, 2008;
McCray, 2016).
The Adult Learning Model for Faculty Development
Lawler and King (2000) created the Adult Learning Model for Faculty Development to guide the facilitation of adult learning programs. Lawler (2003) states, “Incorporating adult learning prinicples into the professional develoment activities and viewing teachers of adults as
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 36
adult learners may be a paradigm shift” (p. 19). The model, which is grounded in andragogy, recognizes that adult learners bring backgrounds and experiences to the program which make the planning and implementation different than school learning. The model is created for faculty professional development and although docents are not paid professionals, docent training is a program to develop the skills of teaching in the museum. The framework for the model relies on andragogy and,
…a rich historical literature. Recognizing that the purposes and philosophical orientation
of different adult education program development models differ, our literature review
draws upon common principles and practices of how adults learn and the best practices of
adult education program development (Lawler & King, 2000, p. 3).
The Adult Learning Model for Faculty Development (Lawler & King, 2000) blends both the principles of adult learning and well-grounded adult education program-planning concepts to create a four stage model. The stages are “interrelated and dynamic asking how the activities and proposed learning objectives work with the principles of adult learning” (Lawler, 2003, p.19). The model aligns with the theory of andragogy by putting the focus on the learner and the special attributes of adult learners rather than the teaching techniques (Lawler, 2003). The Adult
Learning Model for Faculty Development (Lawler & King, 2000) accepts the adult learner’s need for inclusion in the decision of what is to be learned as well as embraces the experiences and roles that adult learners bring to the experience.
The four stages of this model are pre-planning, planning, delivery, and follow-up (Lawler
& King, 2000). Pre-planning involves the identification of the purpose for the training and how it fits in the culture, mission, and goals of the organization as well as where the learning takes place and what resources, such as personnel and tools, are available. In this stage, the facilitator
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 37
seeks to understand those who will take part in the training, both the facilitator and the participants, and what the needs of the learner are. Lawler and King (2000) state, “Utilizing adult learning principles will provide a foundation for developing ownership, motivation, and participation” (p. 4). This stage provides the structure and agenda for the program. The next step, planning, is where the specific components of the programming are considered. The planning stage is driven by aspects such as goals of the trainings and how they will be evaluated, who will be implementing the training, when and how often the training will occur, and how the training will be promoted and delivered. According to Lawler and King (2000), the planning stage is “…complex and ongoing, a nonlinear process where continuous evaluation can provide opportunities for improved effectiveness” (p. 4). Lawler and King (2000) offer six steps to the planning stage which are: selecting a topic, identifying a presenter, preparing for delivery, preparing for support and transfer of learning, scheduling the event and beginning the evaluation.
The next stage is delivery and in this stage, the pre-planning and planning elements are put into action. The delivery is the implementation and teaching using the agenda created and seeking the goals that have been established prior to the program. Another aspect of delivery is the incorporation of adult learning prinicples such as prior experience and social roles of the learner.
The final stage of the model is the follow-up stage. This stage can be considered the evaluative stage, where the facilitator and participants reflect on the training to gage its effectiveness. Self- evaluation by the facilitator and the learner, peer evaluations, summative, and formative evaluations may all be used in this stage. Additionally, support for learners who have completed the training and how they can access the support are considered part of the follow-up stage
(Lawler & King, 2000). Table 3 illustrates the stages, characteristics, and hallmarks that
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 38
correspond to the stages of the Adult Learning Model for Facutly Development (Lawler & King,
2000).
Table 3 Stages, Characteristics, and Hallmarks of the Adult Learning Model for Faculty Development
Stage Characteristics Hallmarks Pre-Planning Big-Picture Planning • Create annual schedule, i.e. frequency of trainings • Plan budget for the program • Set goals for training • Decide on framework for the training
Planning Detail Planning • Decide on facility • Consider ways to evaluate learners and program • Schedule individual training sessions • Decide on time and length of each training • Choose topics for each training • Schedule guest speakers • Communicate training dates and times
Delivery Actual Training • Implement the training that has been planned
Follow-Up Evaluation of learner and program • Choose method for evaluating learner • Choose method for evaluating program
In relation to docent training and the quest for discovering the techniqes being used in docent training programs in the U.S., the stages of the Adult Learning Model for Faculty
Development (Lawler & King, 2000) can provide a framework for the researcher to pinpoint questions that are relevant to the purpose of the study. The stages are, therefore, included along with the museum-specific research that pertain to each stage.
Pre-Planning: Docent Education
Lawler and King (2000) posit in the Adult Learning Model for Faculty Development, that the first stage of adult education is pre-planning; setting the purpose of the educational initiative.
In the case of this study, the purpose of the educational initiative is training docents in museums
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 39
to be quality agents to carry out the educational mission of the museum. Due to the influence of two early museum theorists, Gilman (1915) and Dana (1917), museum docents are often the individuals who handle the face-to-face education of the public in museums today. Gilman’s
1880s innovative practice of inviting non-paid individuals with great knowledge of the collection to be guides of interpretation in the museum has remained (Gilman, 1915). Today, docents in the museum still act as educational agents for the staff (American Association of Museums,
2008; Buff, et al., 1977; Burnham & Kai-Kee, 2011; Falk & Dierking, 1997; Flanders, 1979;
Gilman, 1915; Grenier & Scheckley, 2008; Hooper-Greenhill & Moussouri, 2000; Wolins,
Spires, & Siverman, 1986). Dana’s (1917) model for creating an educational space with public accessibility has been widely accepted in museums and has resulted in many school visits, where students can take part in the educational experience of museums (Andre, Durksen, & Volman,
2017; Burnham & Kai-Kee, 2011; Falk & Dierking, 2000; Hein, 1998; Hooper-Greenhill, 1994).
The third theorist whose work in education and museums has helped to influence the role of the docent is Dewey. Dewey’s (1900) model in which museums and schools are complementary to each other’s educational mission has resulted in the current trend of schools traveling to museums for field trips (American Association of Museums, 2008; Falk & Dierking, 2000;
Foreman-Peck & Travers, 2013; Hooper-Greenhill, 1994), which serves as a way to involve students in the experiential learning that Dewey touted as essential (Hein, 2004). School tours for children are one of the primary responsibilities of docents (Buff, et al., 1977; Castle, 2006;
Falk & Dierking, 2000) and the literature field is rich with resources for museum learning theories and ways that museums can use them (Falk & Dierking, 1997; Hein, 1998; Hooper-
Greenhill & Moussouri, 2000; Weil, 2002).
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 40
The literature that focuses on the actual training of docents, however, is minimal (Falk &
Dierking, 1997; Falk & Dierking, 2000; Grenier, 2009; Grenier & Scheckley, 2008; Wolins,
Spires, & Silverman, 1986). Grenier (2009), one of the most published experts on docent training, states,
If museums are to use docents effectively, they must have a better understanding of how
to address the preparation and developmental needs of these individuals. Even with an
increasing need for understnding how such vounteers learn their craft and gain expertise,
empirical research is minimal (p. 142).
Similarly, Castle (2006) found that although there is a multitude of literature available about museum education and the value of docents in museums, there is a gap in the literature regarding docent training techniques and practices. The disproportion between research on museums’ educational theories, practices, and properties and research on the techniques of educating those who are to disseminate this information to visitors is confusing. One possibility for this disporportion is that researchers feel that museum professionals in the field are more interested in knowing about the educational theories of the museum and studying the effects of these educational theories on their audiences than they are about the art of teaching the docents
(Grenier R. , 2008). Grenier (2008) conducted a case study on two museum docent training programs to better understand the reality of the practice. One of the findings of this qualitative study revealed the misalignment of the educational theory espoused by the museum with the practices of docent training; a mirror image of the state of the literature.
Grenier (2008) discovered that museums believe that docents should adopt and utilize the same educational theory as the museum, such as constructivism. Hein (1998) describes constructivism as it pertains to museums as,
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 41
…active participation of the mind in learning, and recognition that the process of learning
is not a simple addition of items into some sort of mental data bank, but a transfomation
of schemas in which the learner plays an active role and which involves making sense out
of a range of phenomena presented to the mind (p.22).
This theory resonates with museum education due to its reference to independent and individualized learning which is influenced by the previous experiences of the learner, however,
Grenier (2008) revealed that in docent trainings, contradictory messages were sent to the docents when the museum educator, instead of utilizing constructivist techniques, implementated a lecture-style, didactic model when teaching the docent. Lecture-style, didactic teaching does not lean on the foundation of constructivism, and therfore, sent a mixed-message to the docents; causing Grenier to title her study “Practicing What We Preach” as a prescriptive recommendation to docent trainers (Grenier, 2008). The two museum professionals in Grenier’s
2008 case study advocated inquiry and discovery models for docents to use with visitors on tours which has roots in constructivism, but when training the docents, they simply used the lecture technique of didactic learning (Grenier R. , 2008). When asked about the disparity between theory and practice, the museum professionals asserted that the priority of training was on docents’ knowledge of the contents of the museum in order to have a detailed knowledge of the collection (Grenier R. , 2008). In this study, there was also no mention by the trainer of the pedagogical strategy that the docents needed to employ while working with the students nor was the expected pedagogical practice demonstrated by the trainers themeselves (Grenier R. , 2008).
This case study was conducted to show the necessity for continuity in theory and instruction in docent training with modeling of expected pedagogical methods (Grenier R. , 2008).
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 42
Others have found a similar disconnect between the expectations of how the docent will teach after training and what is actually presented to them during the training as well as how it is presented (Castle, 2001). Castle (2001) reported that, “One challenge inherent in the exploration of quality docent training practices in the literature is that museum teaching is not a profession like school teaching. Prospective school teachers must meet certain standards agreed upon by the profession and the government, the successful attainment of which is marked by a teaching certificate” (p. 41). Castle (2001) also notes that, “the museum teacher's role has not been given the consideration it deserves-even by museum teachers themselves” (p. 51). Castle’s remarks suggest that, unlike formal teacher education which has been heavily studied and written about, museum docent education procedure is not given the same priority in the literature as teacher education procedures. Grenier’s (2008) case study reflects this same idea; that docent trainers may not be instructing the docents about pedagogical methods due to the lack of literature on docent training best practices. Both Castle (2001) and Grenier (2008) have found that docent training is without standardization. The purpose of docent training, identifying theories and theorists used in the framework, as well as the intended strategies used to model the museums espoused educational theories could potentially be components of the pre-planning stage of docent training.
Planning: Pedagogical Content Knowledge
The next step of the Adult Learning Model for Faculty Development (Lawler & King,
2000) focuses on the planning of the program. In the planning stage, the educator considers the type of activities that will take place in the program, who is being taught, and how will they be taught (Lawler & King, 2000). In the context of docent training, this stage has a myriad of possibilities in museums across America when considering the activities and people involved
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 43
based on the wide variety of venues, however, due to the theory that any teacher in any context must have a foundation for teaching (Castle, 2006; Council of Chief State School Officers, 2013;
Ebitz, 2005; Fernandez, 2014; Grenier, 2009; Grossman, 1990; Nurhayati, 2015; Shulman, 1986;
Shulman, 1987), this literature review begins with the last of the considerations: how to teach.
As noted earlier, merely informing docents about the collection of the museum is not equal to training them how to impart this knowledge to visitors (Grenier R. , 2008). According to
Ferndandez (2014), “mastering of a body of knowledge in a certain subject matter can make one an expert in their field” (p. 80), however, it has been shown that this concept of expertise applies to many professions, but not to teachers. Fernandez (2014) states, “Interestingly, for the profession that educates all others, the teachers; there is no consensus about the body of knowledge necessary to be a teacher, even about its existence” (p. 79). According to Bucat
(2005), “there is a vast difference between knowing about a topic (content knowledge) and knowledge about the teaching and learning of that topic (pedagogical content knowledge)” (p. 2).
The idea of pedagogical content knowledge has come to represent the knowledge that teachers use in their process of teaching (Fernandez, 2014). Prior to the concept of pedagogical content knowledge, the education of teachers was similar to what Grenier (2008) found currently to be happening in the education of docents—content knowledge and mastery without teaching methods of instruction (Fernandez, 2014). Since then, there have been numerous models to represent the body of knowledge base for teaching (Fernandez, 2014; Shulman, 1986). One of those models, the idea of pedagogical content knowledge (Shulman, 1986), concerns the manner in which teachers relate their pedagogical knowledge (what they know about teaching) to their subject matter knowledge (what they know about what they teach), in the school context for the teaching of specific students (Cochran, King, & DeRuiter, 1991). The research suggests that the
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 44
more pedagogical content knowledge that a teacher has the more effective the teaching will be
(Aleccia, 2011; Cochran, King, & DeRuiter, 1991). Shulman (1986) developed the concept of pedagogical content knowledge and defined the basis of the theory as:
…the most regularly taught topics in one’s subject area, the most useful forms of
representation of those ideas, the most powerful analogies, illustrations, examples,
explanations, and demonstrations…ways of representing and formulating the subject that
make it comprehensible to others. Pedagogical content knowledge also includes an
understanding of what makes the learning of specific topics easy or difficult; the
conceptions and preconceptions that students of different ages and backgrounds bring
with them to the learning of the most frequently taught topics and lessons (p. 9-10).
The last part of the quote by Shulman (1986) mentions conceptions and preconceptions of the students, that which makes learning easy or difficult, is nearly parallel to Hein’s (1998) interpretation of the constructivist theory in museum learning wherein Hein asserts that museum learning is difficult to measure because each visitor comes with their own personal experience before, during, and after the visit. Thus prior knowledge and experience of the student, whether in the classroom or museum, affects the learning outcome (Hein, 1998; Shulman, 1987).
The concept of pedagogical content knowledge is widely used in teacher preparation for formal environments in the United States (Aleccia, 2011; Bucat, 2005; Cochran, King, &
DeRuiter, 1991; Fernandez, 2014). This concept is one that is difficult to teach, according to
Grossman (1990), “…no program of teacher prep can teach prospective teachers all the knowledge and skills they will need during their teaching careers, one function of teacher education is to prepare teachers to learn from further classroom experience” (p. 114). Aleccia
(2011) posits that the best way for teacher educators to teach the concept of pedagogial content
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 45
knowledge to future educators is to model the skills in the classroom in their own lessons. More than just modeling, Aleccia (2011) reports that teacher educators must exude pedagogial content knowledge in three other ways as well; teacher educators must be clear about their mission, they must be rigorously prepared, and they must bridge theory and practice. According to Aleccia
(2011), the four criteria represent pedagogial content knowledge in action; showing pre-service educators the ways to implement pedagogical content knowledge concepts in their own work.
These recommended procedures for teacher educators are much like the components that Grenier
(2008) noted were lacking in her case study of docent education; the museum educators that trained the docents did not put the espoused educational theory of the museum into practice while training the docents. Grenier’s (2008) recommendation to the museum educators in the study was to model their educational theory in practice while training the new docents so that they could better comprehend the theory in action.
Although teachers and docents are different in their professional status and certification, they both have a common goal; to educate (Aleccia, 2011; American Association of Museums,
2008; Burnham & Kai-Kee, 2011; Castle, 2006; Castle, 2001; Falk & Dierking, 1997; Hein,
1998; Grenier, 2008; Grenier, 2009; Hooper-Greenhill, 1994). In Shulman’s (1987) view of teaching, he identifies the “commonplaces of teaching” as:
• A teacher knows something not understood by others, presumably students.
• A teacher can transform understandings, performance skills, or desired attitudes and
values into pedagogical representations and actions.
• Teaching begins with the teachers’s understanding of what is to be learned and how it is
to be taught.
• Teaching ends with new comprehensions by both the teacher and the student. (p. 8)
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 46
These concepts apply to formal and nonformal teachers alike, regardless of the place or domain of education; Castle (2001) and Nurhayati (2015) both note that there are no specific boundaries of location specified by Shulman (1987) in these commonplaces. Castle (2001) states that the theory of pedagogical content knowledge is more about transforming content into active teaching and less about the type of learning environment in which the exchange takes place.
The importance of pedagogical content knowledge in teacher education has been established (Aleccia, 2011; Fernandez, 2014). The museum educator who conducts docent training has similar repsonsibilities to the teacher educator (Castle, 2001) as he or she is accountable for teaching both content and methods to the docents so that they can effectively transfer their knowledge of the collection to the learner (Burnham & Kai-Kee, 2011; Castle,
2006). The recommendation from Aleccia (2011) for teacher educators is to include modeling, a clear mission, rigorous preparation, as well as bridging theory and practice when training the teachers. The same concept of modeling, used by teacher educators on their college students, is also a recommended technique by Grenier (2008) for museum educators to use in the education of docents who are adults learners in the museum setting. Burnham and Kai-Kee (2011) sum up the importance of museum educators modeling the outcome they desire stating, “If docents are convinced that what they do is respected as a profound and meaningful enterprise, and if educators model for their docents the kind of teaching they believe in, then the docents themselves will make positive changes in their practice as a matter of course” (p.17).
The AAM has created standards for museum education (Table 4) that could be referenced along with the Adult Learning Model for Faculty Development (Lawler & King, 2000) to guide docent training programs. Just as standards are considered in formal education when preparing future teachers, the AAM Standards for Museum Professionals (EdCom, 2002) could be
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 47
considered by museum professionals training docents in the museum. The Accessibility standard specifically mentions museum educators having knowledge of the and respect for the audiences they serve, which bears a similarity to the concept used in teacher preparation of Pedagogical
Content Knowledge (Shulman, 1986); understanding not just the content being taught, but the perspective and aptitude of the learner as well.
Table 4 Standards for Museum Professionals. EdCom (2002.) p. 10
Standard Description Accessibility FOCUS ON AUDIENCES AND COMMUNITY. Museum educators have knowledge of and respect for the audiences their museums serve. They promote museums’ public service role within our changing society. DIVERSITY OF PERSPECTIVES. Museum educators use interpretive practices that acknowledge the variety of cultural, scientific, and aesthetic points of view that contribute to visitors’ understanding. They create opportunities that enable informed viewpoints to receive judicious consideration. Accountability EXCELLENCE IN CONTENT AND METHODOLOGY. Museum educators have a solid grounding in the history, theory, and practice of the disciplines relevant to their institutions. They demonstrate knowledge of human development, educational theories, and teaching practices related to the personal and group learning that takes place in museums. Advocacy ADVOCACY FOR AUDIENCES. Museum educators facilitate a spirit of teamwork and collaboration within the museum to promote the best interest of audiences. ADVOCACY OF EDUCATION. Museum educators promote education as central to advancing the mission and goals of the museum. DEDICATION TO LEARNING. Museum educators possess a love of learning and a commitment to nurture and develop an informed and humane citizenry.
Planning: Adult Learning Theories
Adult education relies heavily on reasearch in nonformal learning, where models and theories for these particular learners have emerged (Coombs, Prosser, & Ahmmed, 1973;
Burnham & Kai-Kee, 2007; Dudzinska-Przesmitzki & Grenier, 2008; Grenier, 2009;
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 48
Hamadache, 1991). The study of adult education and how adults learn was first studied in
America in the 1920s and, according to Merriam (2001), “has no one single theory or model that directs research” (p. 3). Instead, a mosaic of theories, principles, and models form the concept of adult learning and education (Merriam, 2001). Within these theories and models, there is a focus on strategies for planning and implementing adult education as well as theories for understanding the specific qualities of an adult learner. Boone, Safrit, and Jones (2002) reviewed thirteen different adult educational programming models some of which were designed for formal education, such as completion of high school degrees by adults, and some which were designed for nonformal education. Boone, Safrit, and Jones (2002), note that Tyler’s (1949) curriculum principles are a basis for the majority of the models for adult education programming. Tyler
(1949) was an educational theorist in the first half of the twentieth century whose model for curriculum has become a foundation for the American educational system (Shurgurensky, 2012).
Shurgurensky summarized Tyler’s (1949) work in curriculum development, which focused on four basic principles:
1.Defining appropriate learning objectives.
2.Establishing useful learning experiences.
3.Organizing learning experiences to have a maximum cumulative effect.
4.Evaluating the curriculum and revising those aspects that did not prove to be effective.
(Shurgurensky, 2000, p. 26)
One of the theories that is built on Tyler’s (1949) curriculum framework is andragogy, the art and science of how adults learn. One of the major innovators in the field of adult education, Knowles (1980), defined a set of assumptions about andragogy which are: adult learning is self-directed, adult learners have a great deal of life experience, the readiness of the
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 49
learner is related to the developmental task of the social role of the learner, adult learners are aware of the need for immediacy, adult learners are motivated intrinsically, and adults need to know why they need to learn something (Knowles, 1980). These assumptions do not apply only to adults, but they are the underpinnings of adult education (Knowles, 1980, Merriam, 2001).
When comparing andragogy to pedagogy, it is common to think that one theory only applies to adults and one to children, however, it is not the age of the learner that determines whether andragogy or pedagogy is utilized, but rather, the focus of the educational goal (McCray, 2016;
Merriam, Caffarella, & Baumgartner, 2006; Merriam, 2001). Pedagogy is a teacher-centered form of education (McCray, 2016; Merriam, 2001; Merriam, Caffarella, & Baumgartner, 2006), where the teacher is in control of the information and pace of the learning whereas andragogy is a learner-centered style of education where the learner controls the information and the pace of the learning; this difference is due to the qualities and attributes of the learner (McCray, Gallery
Educators as Adult Learners: The Active Application of Adult Learning Theory, 2016).
According to McCray (2016), andragogy “recognizes adult learners as both self-directed and autonomous and sees teachers as facilitators rather than presenters” (p. 11). Merriam, Caffarella, and Baumgartner (2006) state, “andragogy is probably the best-known set of principles or assumptions to guide adult learning practice” (p.79), however, they argue that the characteristics of the learners should be the central focus in andragogy rather than the style of the teaching and that andragogy goes beyond age and years and includes complexities like developmental cues and social roles making the learner an important variable to the teaching. Dudzinska-
Przesmitzki and Grenier (2008), echo the importance of the learner in andragogy by stating,
“regardless of its form, the learning experiences of adults are important due to their broader life experiences, established identity, abstract thinking ability, understanding of the world they live
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 50
in, and their unique learning expectations” (p. 10). The combination of the views in the literature as it pertains to andragogy provoke awareness of the importance of both the learner and the presentation of information which provide a framework for audlt educators.
Just as pedagogical content knowledge is considered to be an essential skill for effective teaching (Cochran, King, & DeRuiter, 1991; Council of Chief State School Officers, 2013;
Fernandez, 2014; Shulman, 1987) and is a skill that the teacher uses to impart content knowledge to the students, adult education also includes a similar model, the andragogical content knowledge (Nurhayati, 2015). Knowles (1984) noted that the educational system continues to try to teach adults using the same methods applied to children in elementary and secondary schools. An adult has a lifetime of experience, much more than the limited experience of children, which makes the teaching and learning different in adult education (Santos, 2012).
Self-direction and autonomy are two more important considerations for choosing andragogical methods over pedagogical methods in the training of docents (Dudzinska-Przesmitzki & Grenier,
2008; Knowles, 1984; Lawler & King, 2000; McCray, 2016; Reischmann, 2004). As well as noting the differences in the learner, andragogy focuses on the role of the teacher as facilitator rather than presenter, which allows for learners to be involved in the process rather than being giving information (Knowles, 1980; Knowles, 1984; Nurhayati, 2015; Reischmann, 2004;
Santos, 2012; Saunders, 1991). When these aspects of adult learning are considered, it is clear why andragogy is the preferred method for teaching adults (Knowles, 1980; Knowles, 1984;
Nurhayati, 2015; Reischmann, 2004; Santos, 2012; Saunders, 1991). Allowing the learner to assist or have ownership in the preparation makes andragogy different than pedagogy; however, the same guiding principles such as awareness of how the student learns, how to best share the information, and a need for content knowledge is essential to both pedagogical content
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 51
knowledge and andragogical content knowledge (Nurhayati, 2015). According to Nurhayati
(2015), the sectors of learning, formal, informal, and nonformal, all “require a competent educator to be able to motivate, stimulate the learners, develop the learing materials, provide a conducive learning environment and also be able to evaluate and assess learning” (p. 221). From the review of pedagogical content knowledge and andragogical content knowledge, the foundation is the same (content knowledge, understanding learners, creating pertinent lessons, creating an environment fit for learning, and conducting assessment of self and student), but the techniques change with the learner; providing for the qualities that make children and adult learners different (experience, self-direction, and autonomy).
Andragogical content knowledge (Nurhayati, 2015) is one possible model that could be used as framework for docent education as it is focused on the learner and her priorites in learning (Dudzinska-Przesmitzki & Grenier, 2008; Knowles, 1980; Knowles, 1984; McCray,
2016; Nurhayati, 2015; Reischmann, 2004; Santos, 2012; Saunders, 1991). Awareness of the distinctive qualities that the adult learner brings to the classroom as well as the diverse needs of the learner would be useful knowledge to a museum educator who designs and implements the education of the docents (Dudzinska-Przesmitzki & Grenier, 2008; Reischmann, 2004; Santos,
2012). Along with the awareness of adult learning attributes, andragogical content knowledge advocates for a mastery of content knowledge, lesson planning skills, effective learning environment, and assessment of self and student (Knowles, 1980; Knowles, 1984; McCray,
2016).
Another adult learning theory that could provide a framework for docent training programs is London’s (1960) five steps for planning adult education. London’s (1960) model is heavily dependent on Tyler’s (1949) curriculum assumptions as well. The five steps in London’s
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 52
model are: determine the needs of the constituents; enlist their participation in planning; formulate clear objectives; design a program plan; plan; and carry out a system of evaluation.
London (1960) acknowledges an idea that Knowles (1980) later built into his theory of andragogy, which is that adult learners need to be a part of the planning for their learning.
London (1960) posits that when the learner is involved in the planning, it creates a sense of ownership for the learner, which enhances their desire to continue. Although London’s model is linear (Boone, Safrit, & Jones, 2002), it encompasses some of the same ideas as andragogical content knowledge, such as consideration of the learner and what he or she would like to receive from the education.
Planning: Content and Methods of Adult Education
Pedagogical content knowledge (Shulman, 1986), andragogy (Knowles, 1980), andragogical content knowledge (Nurhayati, 2015), Tyler’s Curriculum Model (Tyler, 1949), and London’s Five Steps to Planning Adult Education (London, 1960) are viable options for consideration as models to be used in the planning stage in adult education; specifically in the category of how to teach the adult learner in the planning stage of the Adult Learning Model for
Faculty Development (Lawler & King, 2000). According to Lawler and King’s (2000) model, the other areas to consider in the planning stage are the individuals involved and what activities will be taught. Lawler and King (2003) state that, adult learning is a social activity that brings together many different people with many different experiences and, because of this diversity, the teacher must understand the group as a whole as well as individuals. These types of variables are the content and methods that make up the adult education programs. Another recommendation by Lawler and King (2000) is that the teacher must implement active learning into the program, as research has shown that adults who are active in their learning "will be more
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 53
likely to incorporate what they are learning in personally, meaningful ways" (Myers &Jones,
1993, p. 32). It is also crucial that the teacher allows for self-reflection as well as gains feedback from the learners (Lawler & King, 2000). These concepts add to the personal dimension of andragogy that has been noted as an essential component (Dudzinska-Przesmitzki & Grenier,
2008; McCray, 2016; Merriam, 2001).
Lawler and King (2003) mention active learning and dialogue as key components to adult education. These components resonate with current trends in museum learning (Burnham &
Kai-Kee, 2005; Burnham & Kai-Kee, 2007; DePrizio, 2016; McCray, 2016; Monk, 2013;
LaChapelle, Keenlyside, & Douesnard, 2016). Active learning is an approach that strives for involvement of the student in the teaching. First conceived by Revans in the early twentieth century, active learning has become an important aspect of museum visits; even helping to spawn some of the current museum genres like science museums and hands-on children’s museums (Moussouri, 1997). Dewey was an early supporter of the active learning approach and much of constructivist learning is based on the student involvment in the learning process (Hein,
1998; Hein, 2004; Falk & Dierking, 2000). The other component, dialogue, is an off-shoot of active learning (Barnes, 1989). In the literature, there is a strong case for dialogic methods in the museum (Burnham & Kai-Kee, 2011; DePrizio, 2016; LaChapelle, Keenlyside, & Douesnard,
2016), an approach that seeks to encourage verbal exchanges among visitors by resorting to informal conversation in combination with structured discussions (Burnham & Kai-Kee, 2011).
The Dialogic Approach depends on social interaction to make meaning using language as the means for communication and has its roots in constructivism (LaChapelle, Keenlyside, &
Douesnard, 2016). LaChapelle, Keenlyside, and Douesnard (2016) suggest training docents to
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 54
use a dialogic approach by video taping them giving tours and then viewing it to let them evaluate their own success or need for improvement on their skills.
Another important piece of the planning stage is the content (Lawler & King, 2000). In the case of museum docent training, the content is the collection. Although it has been stated that content teaching alone has proven to be ineffective (Grenier, 2008), there is still a need for the museum educator to inform the docents about the pieces in the collection (American Alliance of
Museums, 2008; Bronson Hartt, 1910; Burnham & Kai-Kee, 2011; DePrizio, 2016; EdCom,
2002; Gilman, 1915; Grenier, 2009; King & Glaser, 1989; Stark, 2016). Burnham and Kai-Kee
(2011) acknowledge the importance of knowing the pieces in the collection so that the docent can use this information to pique the interest of the visitor, allowing them to attend to the artifacts. This aligns with the constructivist theories that have been mentioned as well as pedagogical content knowledge; the educator has the content knowledge as well as the skills to lead the learner into their own meaning making.
Delivery: Museum Educator Standards
The third stage in the Adult Learning Model for Faculty Development is delivery (Lawler
& King, 2000). This stage focuses on the implementation and incorporation of the information gained during the pre-planning and planning stages. The implementation is delivered in docent training by the teacher, the museum professional. According to the American Alliance of
Museums (2008), “Standards are consensus documents or written statements of generally accepted principles. Standards provide a common language to enable museums to communicate about their performance and increase accountability” (p. 1). The American Alliance of Museums
(2018), the governing body for museums in America, gives this museum-specific definition of standards and, therefore, bears heeding by museums who wish to be in compliance with their
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 55
recommendations and policies. The American Alliance of Museums (2018) has been a leader in developing best practices and advocating for museums since 1906. Formerly known as the
American Association of Museums, the organization is the accrediting body for all museums in the U.S. (American Alliance of Museums, 2018). In their book, National Standards and Best
Practices for U.S. Museums (American Alliance of Museums, 2008), it states, “Standards are generally accepted levels of attainment that all museums are expected to achieve” (p. 6). In both of these descriptions of standards introduced by the American Alliance of Museums, the intention is to address all types of museums: art, historical, science, natural history, children’s, and including zoos, arboretums, botanical gardens, (American Alliance of Museums, 2008). The
American Alliance of Museums (2008) created the standards for museums in the early 1970s when application reviewers for museums that were seeking accreditation realized that a set of objective criteria to assess museums was necessary
The American Alliance of Museums later adopted a set of standards for museum professionals that were borrowed from a team of museum education researchers who were, like the American Alliance of Museums reviewers, seeking a way to objectively set criteria by which museum educators should be held accountable (Ebitz, 2005; EdCom, 2002; King & Glaser,
1989). The guiding principles of the standards that the research team, led by King and Glaser
(1989), created were: knowledge, principles, advocacy, communication, evaluation, management, collaboration, dissemination, and professional development (p. 12-13). After adoption by the American Alliance of Museums, the standards were refined and reworded (Table
5) and published in EdCom, a report publication on the state of museum education (EdCom,
2002). The guiding principles in this new set of standards for museum professionals are, “focus on audiences and communities, diversity of perspectives, excellence in content and methods,
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 56
advocacy for audiences, advocacy of education, and dedication to learning” (pp. 9-10). The standard for museum professionals that is particularly pertinent to this study is the “excellence in content and methods” (p. 9). The extended language in this particular standard states, “Museum educators have a solid grounding in the history, theory, and practice of the disciplines relevant to their institutions. They demonstrate knowledge of human development, educational theories, and teaching practices related to the personal and group learning that takes place in museums.”
(EdCom, 2002, p. 10). This set of standards is designed for the museum education professional and, typically, at museums in America the museum education professional would be the staff member who trains the docents (Dexter Lord & Lord, 2009; Wolins, Spires, & Silverman, 1986).
The American Alliance of Museums makes it clear in this standard, that museum professionals who train docents must have both knowledge of content and pedagogical knowledge in the form of educational theories and teaching practices (EdCom, 2002). This is crucial if the training of docents is to be foundationally educational.
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 57
Table 5 Standards for Museum Professionals. EdCom (2002) p. 10
Standard Description Accessibility FOCUS ON AUDIENCES AND COMMUNITY. Museum educators have knowledge of and respect for the audiences their museums serve. They promote museums’ public service role within our changing society. DIVERSITY OF PERSPECTIVES. Museum educators use interpretive practices that acknowledge the variety of cultural, scientific, and aesthetic points of view that contribute to visitors’ understanding. They create opportunities that enable informed viewpoints to receive judicious consideration. Accountability EXCELLENCE IN CONTENT AND METHODOLOGY. Museum educators have a solid grounding in the history, theory, and practice of the disciplines relevant to their institutions. They demonstrate knowledge of human development, educational theories, and teaching practices related to the personal and group learning that takes place in museums. Advocacy ADVOCACY FOR AUDIENCES. Museum educators facilitate a spirit of teamwork and collaboration within the museum to promote the best interest of audiences. ADVOCACY OF EDUCATION. Museum educators promote education as central to advancing the mission and goals of the museum. DEDICATION TO LEARNING. Museum educators possess a love of learning and a commitment to nurture and develop an informed and humane citizenry.
Follow-Up: Evaluations
The final stage of the Adult Learning Model for Faculty Development (Lawler & King,
2000) which has been utilized as a model for defining docent training research is follow-up. The follow-up stage is where the evaluation of the program, educator, and learner happens as well as any support for the newly trained learner (Lawler & King, 2000). As Lawler and King (2000) posit, when the program ends, the evaluation that was planned in the pre-planning stages may often be forgotten or avoided, yet it is a valuable component of the program for future improvements. Evaluation is increasingly important in museums to gauge the relevance and educational impact that the museum has had on the visitors (EdCom, 2002; Flanders, 1979).
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 58
One area that is lacking in the literature is evidence of methods and tools for evaluating docent training programs (Ebitz, 2005). Ebitz (2005) notes in his study of museum educators that program evaluation is something that directors, board members, and other administrative officials consider to be an important part of the museum educator’s job, but evidence of how to perform the evaluations is missing from museum research literature, including the American
Alliance of Museum’s (2008) guide for museum education. In adult education research, evaluation of the program is also mentioned as an important component (Boone, Safrit, & Jones,
2002; McCray, 2016), however, little detail of how to evaluate programs is given. EdCom
(2002) recommends that museum educators, “incorporate evaluation findings into the planning and/or revision of interpretation” (p. 10), however no further indication of how to evaluate or what tools can be used is mentioned. King & Glaser (1989), in their Professional Standards for
Museum Educators, state, “Recognizing that learning is a lifelong pursuit, museum educators should persistently seek opportunities to expand their own expertise in education methods, knowledge of their museum's collections, evaluation, and management” (p. 13). This follows the pattern of the previously reviewed sources; recommending evaluation, this time for the trainer, but, again, without specific information on how to do so. Flanders (1979) offers one solution to evaluating a docent program, by offering that the public evaluates the docents’ skills. This would offer a “growing fund of knowledge about how different tours reach different objectives, and, in turn, meet the needs of different visitor groups” (Flanders, 1979, p. 2).
Assessing the docent is a way to understand the effectiveness of the training program, however, it can involve stress for the docent depending on the evaluation method (Flanders,
1979). One type of evaluation suggested by Flanders (1979) is a test administered to assess the docent’s knowledge of content in the museum. Although this would be useful to measure
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 59
content knowledge, it would not assess the docent’s pedagogical knowledge, something that has been shown to be an important aspect of teaching (Castle, 2006; Fernandez, 2014; Shulman,
1986; Shulman, 1987). To amend this, Flanders (1979) offers a solution of testing the docent on content and communication skills which bridges the gap in pedagogical content knowledge.
Flanders (1979) states, “…evaluation of both knowledge and of tour performance is directed toward the docent, who is expected to meet a certain standard, just as teachers must satisfactorily complete college courses and student teaching before they can be certified, and as pilots must earn their wings” (p. 2). Flanders (1979) also recommends evaluating the docent training program rather than the individual docent, by being consistent in evaluating yearly to notice trends and monitor and improve programs.
Peer evalaution is a less intimidating form of evaluation recommended by Flanders
(1979). The concept of learning from a mentor is prominent in the literature for both teacher training and docent programs (Aleccia, 2011; Castle, 2001; Ebitz, 2005; Fernandez, 2014;
National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education, 2008; Shulman, 1987); in the formal education of teachers, the practice is called student teaching, in the museum, it is referred to as shadowing. Shadowing is a method used for new docents to glean ideas, tactics, and information from perrenial docents. Shadowing is useful for new docents as well as those who may have had to take an extended leave (Grenier, 2009). Additionally, shadowing is useful in teaching and in evaluation of docents in the form of peer evaluation (Castle, 2001; Flanders, 1979; Wolins,
Spires, & Silverman, 1986). Peer evaluation is a valuable tool for understanding the readiness of a new docent and does not carry with it much stress (Flanders, 1979).
Another form of evaluation that is mentioned in the literature is self-evaluation (Flanders,
1979). Grenier (2008) offers the use of self-evaluation in the form of self-regulation, which is a
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 60
metacognitive method that the docent can use to improve and learn as needed. Grenier (2008) posits that museum educators can offer suggestiong to docents such as “self-evaluation, independently seeking out new and relevant information, keeping records and monitoring of one's progress, imposing self-consequences, seeking peer or staff assistance, and reviewing one's prior learning” (p. 11). As an example, she suggests that a docent who does not have the answer to a question asked by a visitor may research the question on her own after the tour (Grenier,
2008). Another option suggested by Flanders (1979) is to video record a tour for viewing afterwards where docents can see their performance from a different perspective. Of the categories of evaluation, self-evalution was the method that was most easily found to have examples for implementation in the literature.
Summary
The educational goal of a museum is to communicate the knowledge of content in the collection to the viewer in a way that is suitable and receivable (Buff, et al., 1977; Castle, 2001; Castle,
2006; Grenier, 2008 ). Although this is the intended goal, a practical guide for achieving it is not readily available. The literature is lacking in the necessary research of docent training practices which could be used to guide docent trainers in the educational mission of the museum particularly in the area of empirical research (Burnham & Kai-Kee, 2011; Castle, 2001; Dexter
Lord & Lord, 2009; Ebitz, 2005). In this chapter, the history of museum education and how it has influenced museum practices such as educational theory and importance of docents in museums today has been established (Dana, 1917; Dewey, 1900; Falk & Dierking, 2000; Hein,
1998; Hooper-Greenhill, 1994). This chapter has also developed the idea that formal and nonformal educators have a common purpose despite the differences in the end- UNESCO goal attainment of certification or diploma (UNESCO, 1947). To guide the researcher’s study of the
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 61
common components of docent training among nationally accredited museums in the U.S., the framework by Lawler and King (2000) used in the Adult Learning Model for Faculty
Development was studied. The model suggests pre-planning, planning, delivery and follow-up as the four stages of adult education programs. Along with these four stages, theories of learning and museum education were also reviewed to better understand the culture of museums and the lens through which educational goals are viewed. Because pedagogical content knowledge is a proven theory for effective teaching practices in the classroom, (Aleccia, 2011; Bucat, 2005;
Castle, 2001; Cochran, King, & DeRuiter, 1991; Council of Chief State School Officers, 2013;
Fernandez, 2014; Foreman-Peck & Travers, 2013; Grenier, 2008; National Board for
Professional Teaching Standards, 2016; Shulman, 1986; Shulman, 1987), it has been reviewed as well as the adult education counterpart, andragogical content knowledge which can serve as a theoretical underpinning to assist in the assurance of quality educational practices in the museum
(Castle, 2001; Grenier, 2008; Nurhayati, 2015). This review of literature seeks to provide an overview of the state of museum education and docent training in order to serve as a guide for the formulation of questions to gather empirical data about current docent training practices in
U.S. museums. By utilizing the Adult Learning Model for Faculty Development (Lawler &
King, 2000) as a framework for inquiry, as well as the recommendations found in the literature, the researcher was able to formulate analyses of the docent training programs found in accredited museums in the United States.
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 62
CHAPTER III. METHODOLOGY
In Chapter two, it was established that although there is significant evidence of literature discussing educational theories that museums espouse and expect docents to adhere to, the literature is lacking in examples, especially empirical evidence, of docent training practice or methods used to effectively transfer the knowledge of content about the collection and pedagogical methods from the museum professional to the docents (DePrizio, 2016; Dudzinska-
Przesmitzki & Grenier, 2008; McCray, 2016). In fact, it has been shown through limited examples of docent training practices in the literature that the practice of docent training mirrors this phenomenon; museum professionals know what they want docents to do, but do not show them how to do it (Grenier, 2008). It was also established in the previous chapters that docent training falls into the category of nonformal education, and specifically, adult education
(Dudzinska-Przesmitzki & Grenier, 2008; Knowles, 1984; Knowles, 1980; Santos, 2012;
Shugurenksy, 2000). The theory that guides adult education is andragogy; the art and science of adult learning (Knowles, 1984; Knowles, 1980; Merriam, 2001). Andragogy asserts that adult learners, because of their age, draw heavily upon their reservoir of experiences when learning, as well as the idea that adult learners have self-direction, intrinsic motivation, social role, and a desire for inclusion in the planning of the learning (DePrizio, 2016; Dudzinska-Przesmitzki &
Grenier, 2008; Knowles, 1984; Knowles, 1980; Lawler & King, 2000; Merriam, Caffarella, &
Baumgartner, 2006; Merriam, 2001). These diverse attributes of adult learners have inspired learning models in adult education that embrace the distinctiveness of adult education. One such model, the Adult Learning Model for Faculty Development (Lawler & King, 2000), harnesses the andragogical principles to create a four-stage plan for facilitators of adult learning; pre-planning, planning, delivery, and follow-up (Lawler, 2003; Lawler & King, 2000). The pre-planning stage
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 63
focuses on the purpose of the training and how it fits the culture, mission, and goals of the organization. The next step, planning, is centered on the logistics of the program: who will be involved, where will the training take place, when and how often will the training occur, and how will the program be promoted and delivered. The third stage is the delivery stage: the implementation of the pre-planning and planning stages. Finally, stage four, follow-up, seeks to evaluate the program, internally and externally (Lawler & King, 2000). The Adult Learning
Model for Faculty Development (Lawler & King, 2000) is used in the current study as a vehicle to guide inquiry for a questionnaire for museum professionals. The questions for the museum professionals regarding their docent training practices are grounded in the theory of andragogy and were developed using the four stages of the Adult Learning Model for Faculty Development
(Lawler & King, 2000) as a map for guidance.
Research Questions
The questions that guided the research for this study stem from a gap in the literature about docent training in American museums (Dudzinska-Przesmitzki & Grenier, 2008; McCray,
2016).
1. What are the components of docent training programs in nationally accredited museums
in the United States?
2. How do the components of the docent training programs in nationally accredited
museums in the United States compare to each other?
3. How do the components of docent training programs in nationally accredited museums in
the United States correspond to the four stages in the Adult Learning Model for Faculty
Development?
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 64
These questions serve to summarize the purpose of the study, which was to identify components of docent training programs and practices in nationally accredited museums in the U.S. and to compare the components identified among the museums. Additionally, this study intends to determine how the components of docent training found among the sample correspond with the four stages of Adult Learning Model of Faculty Development (Lawler & King, 2000).
Research Design
The design of the research was based on the Adult Learning Model for Faculty
Development and its four stages (Lawler, 2003; Lawler & King, 2000). To create a connection between the Adult Learning Model for Faculty Development and docent training, inquiry centering on and stemming from the four stages of the model was presented to the museum educators in the sample, allowing them to elaborate on their individual museums’ docent training programs. The goal of the questions was to provide the participants a chance to freely expound on their individual docent training programs by asking open-ended questions. The elements of the model, pre-planning, planning, delivery and follow-up, were woven into the questions to allow the individual museum educators to customize their responses rather than be led into answers or given limited choices from which to choose. Schuman & Presser (1979) propose that open-ended questions offer several benefits when used in surveys including making sure that all possible response options are included in the final questionnaire and avoiding bias. Because this research study is a qualitative study, the objective of the researcher was to gain detailed, freely given responses to the questions posed. According to Holland & Christian (2009), “Open-ended questions are important measures because they allow respondents to answer in their own words without being influenced by the response categories provided (p. 198).” In an attempt to gather genuine responses (Holland & Christian, 2009) as well as to offer all possible response options
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 65
and to avoid bias (Schuman & Presser, 1979), the researcher devised open-ended questions based on the Adult Learning Model for Faculty Development (Lawler & King 2000).
The series of questions were sent to 501 museums that have been identified on the
American Alliance of Museum’s website as being accredited (American Alliance of Museums,
2018). The questions for the questionnaire were derived from established educational theories, which are relevant to museum learning and adult learning that align with the four stages of the
Adult Learning Model for Faculty Development (DePrizio, 2016; Dudzinska-Przesmitzki &
Grenier, 2008; Grenier, 2008; Hein, 1991; Hein, 1998; Merriam, Caffarella, & Baumgartner,
2006; London, 1960; Merriam, 2001; Monk, 2013; Shulman, 1987; Shulman, 1986).
According to Harvard University (2007), ideal survey questions accomplish three goals: measuring the underlying concept it is intended to tap, not measuring other concepts, and means the same thing to all the respondents. In order to accomplish these goals, Harvard University
(2007) offers the following tips for survey questions: avoid technical terms and jargon, avoid vague or imprecise terms, define things specifically, avoid complex sentences, provide frame of reference for time or place, make sure scales are ordinal, avoid double-barreled questions, answer choices anticipate all possibilities, and avoid leading or emotional questions. The questionnaire in the current study was designed following the suggestions offered by Harvard
University (2007) in the attempt to elicit the intended outcome; information about docent training practices based on the four stages of the Adult Learning Model for Faculty Development
(Lawler & King, 2000). The questions were designed to prompt subjective reflections from the respondent about their docent training program that will be coded and analyzed. To attempt to ensure validity of the instrument prior to the dissemination of the questionnaire, it was administered to museum education staff members at two local museums not included in the
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 66
study, a practice that is recommend by Harvard University (2007). The education staff at the selected museums were used as a test group to verify that the language and format of the questionnaire is understandable to others who work in the same profession as the sample, the museum industry.
One way to learn about the docent training programs in nationally accredited museums is to gather basic, demographic information about the museums as well as ask open-ended questions for those who are creating and implementing the education programs; allowing those who are involved in the study to speak for themselves, providing their perspectives in words
(Denzin & Lincoln, 1994; Holland & Christian, 2009; Schuman & Presser, 1979). This interpretive data, which can be coded and categorized, assisted in creating a description of these museums’ educational strategies for their docent training.
As previously stated, this study was conducted using qualitative methods, which implies a constructivist framework; allowing the respondent to make meaning of the questions and create a picture of their experience as it pertains to their museum’s docent training program (Collins,
2010; Creswell & Poth, 2018). Thick, qualitative responses add a detailed description of the practices identified from the data giving a more robust picture of docent training practices in accredited museums in America (Creswell & Poth; 2018; Schuman & Presser, 1979). Utilizing subjective responses from a sample aids in the construction of meaning while avoiding bias
(Johnson & Onwegbuzie, 2004; Schuman & Presser, 1979). This reflects the goal of the researcher in the current study; understanding both the what and how of docent training practices by gathering qualitative data from the individual docent trainers surveyed.
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 67
Participants
The participants of the study were museum educators who work at American, nationally accredited museums. The American Alliance of Museums is the accrediting body for museums in the United States and its accreditation program is a means for museums to increase their credibility and value to stakeholders (American Alliance of Museums, 2018). Currently, the
American Alliance of Museums identifies 531 museums in the United States as accredited
(American Alliance of Museums, 2018). The museums that have achieved accreditation can be one of many types of museums such as art, history, youth, science, and maritime as well as non- traditional museums such as zoos, botanical gardens, and arboretums (American Alliance of
Museums, 2018; Wells, Butler, & Koke, 2016). The accreditation process begins with the completion of a Core Document process, which is Mission Statement, Strategic Institutional
Plan, Code of Ethics, Disaster Preparedness/Emergency Response Plan, and Collections
Management Policy (American Alliance of Museums, 2018). After submission of the documents and then approval by American Alliance of Museums, a museum must then move forward with the Characteristics of Excellence Program (American Alliance of Museums, 2018). The
Characteristics of Excellence Program asks the following two questions of museums attempting to acquire accreditation:
● How well does the museum achieve its stated mission and goals?
● How well does the museum’s performance meet standards and best practices, as they are
generally understood, in the museum field, as appropriate to its circumstances?
The Accreditation process is centered on self-study, peer review, takes eight to sixteen months to complete, and is then repeated again every ten years (American Alliance of Museums, 2018).
The rigorous process that the American Alliance of Museums maintains serves as a way to
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 68
standardize museum operations (American Alliance of Museums, 2018). The participants for this study will be accredited museums from the American Alliance of Museums bank of organizations, which have completed the accreditation process.
The American Alliance of Museums offers a search function on their website that recognizes accredited museums by state (American Alliance of Museums, 2018). Using this function, the researcher was able to create a list of 501 museums, all of which have completed the accreditation process through the American Alliance of Museums. As stated above, this sample is comprised of a variety of traditional museums and non-traditional museums. The purpose for using these organizations as the participants for the study is that each of them has completed the accreditation process and, in doing so, has proven that they are high-quality institutions (American Alliance of Museums, 2018).
Each of the museums that have been identified as accredited by the American Alliance of
Museums was given a questionnaire about their organization’s docent training program
(Appendix A). The questionnaire was emailed to the individual on staff who filled the role of
“museum educator.” The industry accepts many titles for the role of museum educator, such as
Director of Education, Curator of Education, Volunteer Education Manager, etc. (Hooper-
Greenhill, 1994; Wild & Hudson, 2008). To ensure that the questionnaire was sent to the correct individual at each institution, the researcher attempted to determine, by job title listed on the institution’s website, which individual serves as the museum educator. The individuals who were appropriated to the role of museum educator were sent the questionnaire via email.
According to McPeake, Bateson, & O’Neill (2014), the success of return rates is affected by sending an invitation, reminders, and second reminders to the sample group. Table 6 illustrates the rates of improvement with each of these measures, invitation, reminder, and second
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 69
reminder, utilized. Duffett, Burns, & Adhikari (2012), concur with the research, also recommending an invitation and two reminders to ensure best response rate.
Table 6 Impact of reminders on response rate (McPeake, Bateson, & O’Neill, 2014)
Response Rate from Email (%) Overall Response Rate after Each Round (%) Initial Email Invitation 42 42 First Reminder 16 58 Second Reminder 4 62
Instrumentation and Data Sources
The questionnaire for the study was comprised of qualitative measures as well as a small selection of questions designed to collect demographic information (Appendix A). The purpose for the mostly qualitative approach for this study is to capture interpretive, individual data. The researcher contacted many different individuals who work in many different museums to attempt to understand if there are common components to docent training programs in the U.S. The researcher’s goal was to identify common and varied components within the sample population of museums and additionally, the researcher also sought to identify how the practices correlate with the four stages of the Adult Learning Model for Faculty Development (Lawler & King,
2000). This information was analyzed to understand the principles and practices that the respondents utilize in their individual docent training programs.
The qualitative inquiries on the questionnaire were designed to gather individualized information from the participants about the attributes of the docent training program at their museums that fall into the categories of pre-planning, planning, delivery, and follow-up according to the Adult Learning Model for Faculty Development (Lawler & King, 2000). The
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 70
rationale behind asking these questions was to understand the processes and attributes that are being implemented at accredited museums, as the review of literature revealed that very little empirical evidence in these areas of docent training are available to date (DePrizio, 2016;
Dudzinska-Przesmitzki & Grenier, 2008; McCray, 2016). The researcher intended to investigate possible trends within the responses of accredited museums that point to commonalities and variety among the docent training programs, which may be used to understand the practices of docent training programs within the sample of American accredited museums.
The questionnaire framework (Appendix A) was divided into the following categories:
“The Museum Educator,” “The Museum,” both of these sections are demographic in nature, then
“Pre-Planning,” “Planning,” “Delivery,” and “Follow-Up”; which are based on the four stages of the Adult Learning Model for Faculty Development (Lawler & King, 2000). The specific inquiries within the “Pre-Planning,” “Planning,” “Delivery,” and “Follow-Up” sections were created by using the Adult Learning Model for Faculty Development (Lawler & King, 2000).
The inquiries included some guidance to the aspects of each stage, such as the mission and goal of training, the logistical work involved in planning the training, the mode and method of delivery of training, and the strategies used to evaluate the program to assist the direction of the responses by the participants. The prescribed docent training practices from the literature
(American Alliance of Museums, 2018; Dudzinska-Przesmitzki & Grenier, 2008; Grenier, 2008;
Hein,1998) may or may not be uncovered within the thick descriptive responses of the Museum
Educators, however, the questions were intended to elicit these details as well. The researcher, through the questionnaire, sought to answer the driving questions for this study being: What are the components of docent training programs in nationally accredited museums in The United
States? How do the components of docent training programs in nationally accredited museums
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 71
in the United States compare to one another? How do the components of docent training programs in nationally accredited museums in the United States correspond to the four stages in the Adult Learning Model for Faculty Development (Lawler & King, 2000)?
The data sources for the study is the primary data received from the questionnaire responses, as the data was acquired from the museum educators working in a museum that has been targeted for this sample. The advantage of using primary data sources is that the researcher collected the information that addresses docent training from the museum professionals, directly, which will provide information that has been largely unavailable previously (Dudzinska-
Przesmitzki & Grenier, 2008).
Data Collection Procedures
The questionnaires were sent via electronic mail to the participants with a one-month period for completion using Google Forms; an online survey generating tool. The use of digital forms in data collection is relatively new, but has many advantages identified by Thriemer, et al.
(2012), “…faster and 25% cheaper. Data was more accurate (7% versus 1% erroneous data) and omission did not occur with electronic data collection. Delayed data turnaround times and late error detections in the paper-based system, which made error corrections difficult, were avoided using electronic data collection” (p. 113). According to Thriemer, et al (2012), “Electronic data collection offers direct data entry at the initial point of contact. It has numerous advantages and has the potential to replace paper-based data collection in the field” (p. 113) . The security of these forms is high, according to Google (2018), because many layers of security have been built in to their form technology such as encryption and restricted access for anyone not specified to have access. Another added security feature offered by Google forms is the ability to export the information to be analyzed and delete the information to ensure security (Google, 2018). The
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 72
questions had yes/no buttons for respondents to mark or a field of entry for text for questions that require extended responses. Google forms also allow the survey to be closed to participant on a selected date chosen by the researcher, which prohibits responses being populated into the questionnaire. This feature keeps the data clean without allowing responses to be added after data analysis has begun (Google, 2018).
Data Analysis
The questions on the instrument were designed to collect interpretive and subjective comments with information about each museums’ docent training practices. The demographic data was analyzed by the Google form itself, which contains a data analysis feature that graphs closed ended or multiple-choice questions (Google, 2018). The qualitative data that was collected from the questionnaires was entered into MAXQDA (MAXQDA, 2018) software so that the responses from the sample could be analyzed. The data that was collected from the questionnaires was examined by using various strategies and methods such a priori coding, open coding, axial coding, and code counting to develop a deeper understanding of the individual and collective responses by the participants (Creswell & Poth, 2018); each strategy being implemented cyclically as the analysis progressed.
The initial, or a priori, codes were developed using the four stages of the Adult Learning
Model for Faculty Development (Lawler & King, 2000). The researcher formatted the questionnaire to correspond to the stages developed by Lawler & King (2000) so the stage identifiers were used as the a priori codes: “Pre-Planning,” “Planning,” “Delivery,” and “Follow-
Up.” These codes created an organizational structure that the researcher followed to uncover practices of the training programs as they related to the Adult Learning Model for Faculty
Development, which was used as framework for the study (Lawler & King, 2000). Although the
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 73
researcher was seeking to uncover the components of docent training programs used in accredited museums in the United States and the common components found within these programs, the a priori codes were developed solely on the Adult Learning Model for Faculty
Development (Lawler & King, 2000) as the components and common components were unknown and could not be given a priori codes. The researcher was searching for the recommended steps within each stage of the Adult Learning Model for Faculty Development
(Lawler & King, 2000) to guide the first cycle of coding.
According to Miles, Saldana, and Huberman (2014), “Coding is heuristic – a method of discovery. You determine the code for a chunk of data by careful reading and reflection on its core content or meaning” (p. 73). This heuristic approach for coding was used in the next stage of data analysis, open coding, to get a broad sense of the data that was collected from the questionnaire, which allowed the making of meaning within the data collected (Creswell & Poth,
2018). The responses of the participants were read and reflected upon to facilitate in the development of a customized code system that identified the components found in docent training in nationally accredited museums that participated in the current study. Each museum being unique meant that every response and program were unique. The questions, which were mostly open-ended, allowed for a great deal of description and detail among the participants in their responses. Memoing was used as a way to initially process the information that was received via the Google form questionnaire. Creswell and Poth (2018) recommend memoing as,
“Theory-building emerges through the simultaneous and iterative data collection, analysis, and memoing processes” (p. 87). The open coding process assisted the researcher in understanding the scope of the responses, the breadth of the actual practices in the docent training programs described by the respondents, and the initial theories about the docent training programs. Open
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 74
coding is considered beneficial when looking for central phenomena (Creswell & Poth, 2018) .
In the current study, the central phenomena are the common components in docent training programs in nationally accredited museum. In vivo coding allowed the researcher to create codes from individual responses that embodied a cultural or museum specific phrase (Miles,
Huberman, & Saldana, 2014). The actual practices and components were determined during the open coding process in the first cycle of coding using descriptive codes and In Vivo codes to illuminate the individuality among them.
Next, axial coding was used to analyze the components of the docent training programs in accredited museum in the United States to create sub codes and develop pattern codes. Axial, or second cycle, coding is recommended in qualitative research to pull information from the first cycle of coding into more meaningful themes (Miles, Huberman, & Saldana, 2014). Cycling through the codes, the researcher used inductive and deductive strategies to identify unique elements within each component that was coded in the open coding process. In this step, the researcher referenced knowledge of museum study terminology from the review of literature and the researchers’ own experience in the museum industry to group the components into similar and different practices. Pattern codes were developed to establish themes among the data.
According to Miles, Huberman, and Saldana (2014), “Pattern coding, as a Second Cycle method, is a way of grouping those summaries into a smaller number of categories, themes or constructs”
(p. 86). The In Vivo coding was contextualized and sorted into the pattern categories where applicable. Also, during this cycle, the a priori codes were analyzed to determine the level of adherence to the stages of the Adult Learning Model for Faculty Development (Lawler & King,
2000).
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 75
After the axial coding process, the researcher began to count codes to reveal relationships between the practices within training programs. This step allowed the researcher to better understand one of the premises for the study, which centers on how docent training programs and practices in accredited museums in the United States compare to one another.
Assumptions
The researcher assumed that the participants would answer the questionnaire truthfully and in the best interest of the museum industry. The researcher also assumes that many of the sample population that received the questionnaire will likely not return the responses. According to Fincham (2008), “E-mail response rates may only approximate 25% to 30% without follow-up e-mail and reinforcements” (p. 43). In addition, Baruch (1999) found that the two main reasons for non-response to surveys were failure to deliver the questionnaires to the target population
(e.g. wrong address, absent from work) and the reluctance of people to respond. For these reasons, it was imperative for the researcher to identify the correct individual at the museums responsible for docent training and to follow up after sending the questionnaire.
The researcher also assumed that the collaborative spirit of the museum community would be a positive influence on the cooperation of the sample population (Yarrow, Clubb, &
Draper, 2008). This attribute of the industry was helpful to the response rate and the quality of the responses to the questionnaire.
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 76
CHAPTER IV. RESULTS
The aim of the current study was to better understand the components of docent training programs in accredited museums in the United States; how the docents are trained, why the training takes place, and how the museum professionals who train docents plan for the educational experience. Although docent training takes place and best practice recommendations have been made, very little is available in the literature about the actual practices being used to train docents. To add to the body of research on docent training, the researcher reached out to
501 museum professionals working in museums accredited by the American Association of
Museums about their training practices.
The survey sent to the museum professionals was an open-ended set of questions guided by the recommendations of the Adult Learning Model for Faculty Development (Lawler & King,
2000) which was created to assist individuals who plan professional development for teacher educators. The inquiry was sent to the sample population of 501 museum education professionals via a link to a Google form in an email to which 163 individuals replied (32.5%).
Within the total group of 163 that replied, those who answered “no,” to the first question, “Does your museum have a formal docent training program?” were eliminated from the study, leaving the sample population of 121 museum professionals from accredited museums in the United
States whose museum has a formal docent training program.
The sample population of accredited museums identified themselves by their content
(Table 7) among these, three of the museums qualified themselves as “University” museums.
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 77
Table 7
Types of Museums Represented and Number of Each
Type of Museum n %
Art 56 46.2 Historical 33 27.3 Science 10 8.3 Natural History 6 5 Arboretum 5 4.1 Military 3 2.5 Zoo/Aquarium 2 1.7 Air & Space 1 .8 Anthropological 1 .8 Archeological 1 .8 Art & Science 1 .8 Art & History 1 .8 Maritime 1 .8 Art, History, Native American, & Natural History 1 .8
The three guiding questions that led the research were:
1. What are the components of docent training programs in nationally accredited museums
in the United States?
2. How do the components of the docent training programs in nationally accredited
museums in the United States compare to each other?
3. How do the components of docent training programs in nationally accredited museums in
the United States correspond to the four stages in the Adult Learning Model for Faculty
Development?
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 78
The researcher delved deeply into the open-ended descriptive responses given by the 121 museum professionals to uncover the answers to the three research questions. Through memoing, coding, and analysis, the components, commonalities, and correlations began to emerge creating a more descriptive understanding of the docent training programs in accredited museums in the United States.
To understand the rich, narrative responses from the 121 participants with a docent training program in their museum, the researcher began by importing the replies to a data analysis program, MAXQDA (MAXQDA, 2018), to begin coding. The process of coding began by sorting the responses according to their respective questions on the survey that aligned with the four stages of the Adult Learning Model for Faculty Development (Lawler & King, 2000), pre-planning, planning, delivery, and follow-up. The stages of the framework model were considered a priori codes because the researcher had established the codes before the data was collected. The codes were determined by the stages that Lawler and King (2000) recommend in their model and they were the guiding structure for the questions in the survey.
Once the data was sorted by the a priori codes, the researcher began open coding to get an overview of the terminology, replies, and meaning from the participants’ narrative descriptions of their docent training programs. The open coding process was helpful to reveal trends that began to emerge within the data in each of the a priori coded areas. During the open coding, the researcher also used a memoing technique and in vivo coding to track similarities and differences within the sample, leading to the establishment of the components found in docent training programs in accredited museums in the United States.
Once the open coding was complete, the researcher went back to each code and began to implement axial coding to reveal sub codes that emerged. The sub codes enabled the researcher
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 79
to see the variety within the common components of the museums showing that although docent training programs may have similar practices, there can still be individuality within them. The researcher continued to repeat the axial coding process, creating subcategories and subordinate categories within the codes, until the data had been thoroughly examined including decoding variations in terminology, revealing reasons for differences, and understanding similarities and dissimilarities in each participants’ museum programs.
What are the components of docent training programs in nationally accredited museums in the United States?
The components of the docent training programs in nationally accredited museums in the
United States are numerous and varied. To identify the components of the training programs, the researcher used a priori codes rooted in the four stages of the Adult Learning Model for Faculty
Development (Lawler & King, 2000): pre-planning, planning, delivery, and follow-up. Each of the stages were coded with the eponymous a priori code to begin sorting out the data that was collected within the narratives given by the respondents. The researcher then created subcategories in each of these codes to signify trends that emerged as well as subordinate categories within each of the subcategories. To demonstrate the findings of the research, the data is presented in tables according to each of the major codes along with the subcategories and subordinate categories. Each subcategory and subordinate category will be discussed as well as a report of the percentage of individuals in each.
The descriptors for each of the subcategories and subordinate categories were determined by the comments of the respondents to the open-ended questions on the Docent Training Survey
(Appendix A) regarding their docent training programs. The final number of descriptors,
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 80
including the four main categories based on the four stages of the Adult Learning Model for
Faculty Development (Lawler & King, 2000), their sub-categories, and subordinate categories totaled 219, showing the myriad of components within the docent training programs in the current study. To illustrate the diverse number of responses in each stage of training, the researcher counted the codes that exist in each of the four stages as well as showed the percentage of the total codes represented in each stage. The “Pre-Planning” category had 138 code categories (63%), the “Planning” category had 50 code categories (23%), the “Delivery” category had 26 code categories (12%), and the “Follow Up” category had 5 code categories
(two percent) of the total (Fig.1). The 219 total descriptive codes that were assigned to the population of responses (Appendix B) represent the components found within the docent training programs in the sample population of accredited museums in the United States.
Figure 1 Number of Categories Identified in Each of the Four Codes that Correlate to the Adult
Learning Model for Faculty Development (Lawler & King, 2000)
Delivery 26 Follow Up 5
Planning 50 Pre- Planning 138 Pre-Planning Planning Delivery Follow Up
Code 1: Pre-planning
The pre-planning stage involves indentifying the purpose of the training and how it fits in the culture, mission, and goals of the organization as well as securing a location for each of the
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 81
training sessions, and budgeting for resources, such as personnel, refreshments, and tools. In this stage, the museum professional seeks to understand who will be involved in the training, including trainers and participants, and what the potential and realized needs of the learner are.
The code descriptor assigned to this stage was “Pre-Planning” (Appendix B). Within this category, sub-categories were created to describe the themes that emerged in the responses to the survey. The sub-categories of “Pre-Planning” were: “Pre-Training,” “Type of Training,”
“Individuals Involved in Training,” “Budget,” “Training Schedule,” and “Framework.” All of the sub-categories contained subordinate categories that further illuminate unique components of the training programs.
Pre-Training Subcategory
The “Pre-Training” subcategory was grouped according to two approaches that emerged in the responses, “Interview Process” and “Recruitment.” Interview Process describes the process that museums take to secure new docents including an application for those who want to become docents, background checks on the potential docents for security purposes, and an interview, either formal with several people involved or a more informal an intimate interview with a museum or docent representative. The recruitment process involves the museum’s promotion of the docent positions available and/or the docent training opportunity. The number of museums that use an Interview Process or Recruitment and the subcategories can be seen in
Table 8. Having not discovered commentary in the literature about these pre-training procedures, the researcher was intrigued by the number of museum professionals that use these techniques in their museums
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 82
Table 8
Pre-Training Methods Pre-Training Methods Subordinate Category n % Interview Process 17 14 Application 9 7.4 Background Check 6 5 Formal Interview 10 8.3 Informal Interview 4 3.3 Recruitment 20 16.5
Type of Training Subcategory
The subcategory, “Type of Training,” summarized who the training was designed to educate or how it was implemented. The subordinate categories within “Type of Training” included “New Docents” which is training meant to service only those who have never attended training before, “Returning Docents” which services docents who have previously completed training for new docents, “Combined Docents” which is designed for a blend of new and experienced docents, and “Customized” in which respondents mentioned customizing the type of training for the docents who have signed up for training regardless of their previous experience (Table 9). The researcher did not mention the type of training or who it was intended for in the survey question, which may explain the low number of respondents that shared this information in their narrative responses.
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 83
Table 9
Type of Training Type of Training n % New Docent Training 3 2.5 Returning Docent Training 5 4.1
Combined Docent Training 7 5.8 Customized Docent Training 15 12.4
Departments Involved in Training Subcategory
The next sub-category of “Pre-Planning” was “Individuals Involved in Training” which captured comments by the respondents about which department or volunteer personnel are part of the docent training process, whether it be planning or implementing the program. Those who responded to the survey had job titles that alluded to the Education Department of their individual museums, however, only 51 of the respondents mentioned the specific individuals involved in the training in their responses. There were four subordinate categories that were created from the responses: “Docents,” “Education Department,” “Education Department and
Docents,” “Education Department and Curatorial Department,” and “Education Department,
Curatorial Department, and Docents” (Table 10) and each of the categories describes the individuals involved in the training process at the museum.
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 84
Table 10
Departments Involved in Docent Training Departments n % Education Department 38 31.4 Education Department and Docents 8 6.6
Education Department and Curatorial Department 3 2.5 Education Department, Curatorial Department, and Docents 2 1.7
Budget Subcategory
Within the subcategory of “Budget,” the respondents mentioned two aspects, the amount of money in the budget for docent training, “Budget Amount,” and the items on which the funds were spent, “Budget Expenses.” These two aspects of the category, “Budget,” each had several subcategories as seen in Tables 11 and 12. The budget amount in the museums ranged from no funds to over $5,000 being allotted for the docent training program and included the non-specific term, “Minimal.” The expenses of the docent training programs included background checks, which were part of the interview process in six of the museums, field trips with the docents to other museums or educational venues, hospitality such as beverages and food for the training, printing of materials for the docents, honoraria for the guest speakers, and payment of staff members.
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 85
Table 11
Budget Amount Allotted for Docent Training Budget Amount n % No Budget 14 11.6 $1.00 - $99.99 0 0 $100.00 - $499.99 1 >1 $500.00 - $999.99 5 4.1 $1,000.00 - $1,999.99 4 3.3 $2,000 - $4,999.99 2 1.7 >$5,000 2 1.7 “Minimal” 5 4.1
Table 12
Budget Expenses for Docent Training Budget Expenses n % Background Checks 1 >1 Field Trips 3 2.5 bac Hospitality 6 5
Printing 7 5.8 Speaker Fees 9 7.4 Staff Payment 6 5
Training Schedule Subcategory
The next category within the “Pre-Planning” coded segments was the “Training
Schedule,” one of the recommended elements of the Adult Learning Model for Faculty
Development (Lawler & King, 2000), which was to establish the schedule of the docent training program in the big picture plans. There emerged three aspects of “Training Schedule” which were: the length of the training program (Table 13), the frequency of the training program (Table
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 86
14), and the frequency of the trainings (Table 15). The first subcategory, “Length of Docent
Training Program,” captured the amount of time allotted for the entire docent training program on the museums’ calendar. The “Frequency of Docent Training Program” captured how often the program is offered, and the final category, “Frequency of Docent Trainings,” indicated how many classes are scheduled in a training program rotation. These three aspects gave the researcher a snapshot of how demanding the docent training programs may or may not be depending on the time required to complete it as well as the regularity with which the museums in the sample train docents as the terms “varies,” “sporadically,” and “no frequency” were used in some cases.
Table 13
Length of Docent Training Program Program Length n % 1 – 5 Weeks 18 14.9 6 – 12 Weeks 14 11.6 bac 4 – 6 Months 14 11.6
7 – 12 Months 13 10.7 13+ Months 6 5 Varies 6 5
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 87
Table 14
Frequency of Docent Training Program Program Frequency n % More Than Once Per Year 10 8.3 Yearly 11 9.1 bac Every 2 Years 2 1.7
Sporadically 4 3.3
Table 15
Frequency of Docent Trainings Training Frequency n % Multiple Days per Week 4 3.3 Weekly 11 9.1 bac Bi-Monthly 10 8.3 Monthly 15 12.4 No Frequency 6 5
Framework Subcategory
The pre-planning stage of the Adult Learning Model for Faculty Development recommends establishing the framework for the program prior to beginning the classes. The sample of museum educators offered a wide variety of frameworks and rationales behind their programs. In order to make sense of the large number of responses related to the framework of the docent training programs, the researcher created three subcategories that could divide the numerous responses into a clearer picture. The three categories were “Purpose of Training,”
“Philosophy,” and “Methodology.” The first category, “Purpose of Training,” captured responses that focused on what the training is designed to teach the docents. Subcategories in
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 88
this area included “Art Concepts” which were museum-specific topics that relate to art museums’ docent training, which was the majority of the sample. Within this subcategory, there were 4 subordinate categories of responses: Art History, Art Style and Media, Artist Study, and
Elements of Art. Although these four subordinate categories are all art related and were mentioned by museum educators working in art museums. The second subcategory in “Purpose of Training,” was “Collection,” which captured responses that mentioned teaching new docents about the artifacts held within the museum, while the subcategory of “History of the Museum” focuses on the docents learning about the museum’s foundation and history. The next subcategory of “Purpose of Training” was “Orientation/ Expectations,” describing docent training practices that introduce new docents to the museum, and staff as well as what is expected of them as docents. The final subordinate category of “Purpose of Training” was
“Policy and Procedures” aimed at teaching the new docents about the museum’s layout, functionality, and security, which is a core component of the AAM accreditation process. Table
16 illustrates the subcategory of “Purpose of Training” along with its subordinate categories and the responses given by the sample.
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 89
Table 16
Purpose of Docent Training Program Purpose of Training n % Concepts 13 10.7 Art History 4 3.3 bac Art Style and Media 3 2.5 Artist Study 2 1.7 Elements of Art 4 3.3 Collection 38 31.4 History of Museum 17 14 Orientation/Expectations 24 19.8 Policy/Procedures 12 9.9
The next subcategory of “Framework” is “Philosophy” which summarized the responses that mentioned museum education theories or philosophies as a component of the museum’s docent training practices. In this subcategory were “Dialogic Techniques,” an approach that focuses on discussion of the artifact between the viewer and docent; “Educational Strategies for
Diverse Learners,” whereby the docents are taught ways to engage learners of all ages, stages, and backgrounds; “Inquiry Based,” a technique that encourages questioning from the docent to elicit critical thinking from the viewer; “Interactive,” which would entail a hands on or physical type experience; “Interpretation,” which encourages docents to allow the viewer to see the artifact in his or her own way rather than being given specific attributes to focus upon; “Museum
Studies,” captures the many different museum-specific theories of learning and engagement with guests; “Theories of Learning,” focuses on general learning theories that are not museum- specific such as Gardner’s Theory of Multiple Intelligences; and “Visual Thinking Strategies,” an approach that utilizes visual literacy to guide viewers to an interpretation of the artifact. Table
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 90
17 shows the subcategory of “Philosophy” along with the subordinate categories and the responses given by the sample.
Table 17
Philosophy of Docent Training Program Philosophy of Training n % Dialogic Techniques 7 5.8 Educational Strategies for Diverse Learners 21 17.4 bac Inquiry Based 20 16.5 Interactive 15 12.4 Interpretation 14 11.6 Museum Studies 4 3.3 Theories of Learning 3 3.3 Visual Thinking Strategies 11 9.1
The final subcategory of the “Framework” coded category was “Methodology,” which summarized the how the docent training is presented to the docent class. The subordinate categories in “Methodology” were “Customization,” “Homework,” “Lecture,” “Mentorship,”
“Practicing,” “Scaffolding,” and “Shadow.” The methods were used singularly or in conjunction with other methods. “Customization” is the idea of creating a training for each individual docent to focus on their specific area of interest or need. “Homework” captured responses that mentioned giving the docents assignments to work on in between classes. “Lecture” was used to group responses where the participant mentioned a lecture style training with the docents.
“Mentorship” denoted responses that mentioned using docent mentors to help train and support the new docents. The subordinate category of “Practicing” grouped responses that mentioned the docents rehearsing or trying their techniques before giving an actual tour. “Shadowing” was used to group responses from educators who encourage the new docents to watch tours being
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 91
given while by seasoned docents to get ideas and understand the tour experience. The
“Methodology” subcategory and its elements are shown in Table 18.
Table 18
Methodology of Docent Training Methodology n % Customization 20 16.5 Homework 28 23.1 bac Lecture 14 11.6 Mentorship 26 21.5 Practicing 36 29.7 Shadowing 59 48.8
Code 2: Planning
The next category, “Planning,” was driven by aspects such as goals of the trainings and how they will be evaluated, who will be implementing the training, when and how often the training will occur, and how the training will be promoted as indicated by the Adult Learning
Model for Faculty Development (Lawler & King, 2000). During the planning stage, Lawler and
King (2000) recommend preparing for the individual training sessions by selecting topics, identifying presenters, formulating a plan for communication, scheduling the sessions, and beginning to develop the evaluation. Sub-categories found among the responses in the
“Planning” category include “Technology,” “Special Guests,” “Special Topics,” and
“Communication of Training Schedule.”
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 92
Technology Subcategory
The subcategory in the “Planning” coded segment captured the types of technology that the museums use to train and communicate with their docent classes. The respondents listed a wide variety of technologies used in their programs. Table 19 illustrates the forms of technology used to communicate with the docents, including “Lack of” which captured responses where limited or no technology was able to be used.
Table 19
Technology Used for Training and Communication
Technology n % Blog 2 1.7 Dropbox 2 1.7 bac Email 26 21.5 Facebook (Closed Group) 2 1.7 Facetime 1 .08 Google Drive 7 5.8 Lack of Technology 3 2.5
Learning Management System 6 5 Online Survey 9 7.4 Online Trainings 1 .08 Password Protected Website 14 11.6
Viddler 1 .08
Volgistics 1 .08 VSys 1 .08 YouTube 3 2.5
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 93
Special Guests Subcategory
The next subcategory of the “Planning” category was “Special Guests” and captured the individuals who are chosen by the museum professionals to present to the docent class during training. The participants mentioned internal staff members, specifically curators and directors, as well as non-specific staff and also outside guest speakers for the trainings. Table 20 illustrates the “Special Guest Speakers for Docent Training” that were mentioned and the number of each.
Table 20
Special Guest Speakers for Docent Training Special Guests n % Curator 10 8.3 Director 4 3.3 bac Outside Experts 30 24.8 Non-Specific Staff Members 11 9.1
Specific Topics Subcategory
The Adult Learning Model for Faculty Development (Lawler & King, 2000) calls for preparing the topics for the training prior to the classes similar to lesson planning in the classroom. The responses that mentioned specific subject matter being a part of the planning stage, were categorized as “Special Topics.” The first subordinate category was
“Classroom/Behavior Management Skills” capturing various special topics that related to this subject matter. Other subordinate categories were “Art Topics,” “Collection Information,”
“Exhibit Information,” “Museum History,” “Non-Art Museum Specific Topics,” “Orientation,”
“Staff-Specific Topics,” and “Touring Strategies.” The “Specific Topics” align with the
“Purpose of Training” category from the “Pre-Planning” coded segments, showing that the
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 94
museum professionals follow through with the purpose designated in the big-picture planning.
Table 21 illustrates the “Specific Topics for Docent Training Sessions” along with the number of responses and percentage from the sample.
Table 21
Specific Topics for Docent Training Sessions Specific Topics n % Classroom Behavior/Management Skills 8 6.6 Art Topics 9 7.4 Collection Information 8 6.6 Exhibits (permanent, temporary and 14 11.6 traveling) Museum History 4 3.3 Non-Art Museum Specific Topics (History, 10 8.3 Science Dinosaurs) Orientation 3 2.5 Staff-Specific Topics 6 5 Touring Strategies 14 11.6
Mode of Communication of Training Subcategory
The final step of the planning stage in the Adult Learning Model for Faculty
Development (Lawler & King, 2000) is the communication of the trainings to the docents, labeled “Mode of Communication of Training.” Within the responses by the sample, the researcher created three subordinate categories: “Email,” “Mail,” and “Other,” which captured less common responses such as telephone calling. Table 22 illustrates the Modes of
Communication of Training and the number of responses and percentages found within the respondents’ comments.
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 95
Table 22
Modes of Communication of Training Schedule Mode of Communication n % Email 36 29.8 Mail 12 9.9 bac Other 16 13.2
Code 3: Delivery
The delivery stage of the Adult Learning Model for Faculty Development (Lawler &
King, 2000) describes the implementation of the goals that have been established prior to the program; what takes place during the trainings and the mode used to implement it. The
“Delivery” code category contained the subcategory “Training Practices,” (Appendix B) with multiple subordinate categories that describe the practices that take place in the trainings. The subordinate categories were: “Activities,” “Answer Questions,” “Demonstrations by Other
Docents,” “Discussion,” “Gallery Walk,” “Listen to a Lecture,” “Observation,” “Practicing,”
“Reviewing Docent Notebook,” “Reviewing the Tour Script,” “Shadowing,” and “Watching a
Video.” These activities and the number of responses for each along with the percentage of the sample that uses this technique are represented in Table 23.
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 96
Table 23
Docent Training Practices Docent Training Practices n %
Activities 9 7.4 Answer Questions 5 4.1 Demonstrations by other Docents 7 5.8 Discussion 7 5.8 Gallery Walk 10 8.3
Listen to a Lecture 16 13.2 Observation 10 8.3 Practicing 12 9.9
Review Docent Notebook 5 4.1 Review the Tour Script 6 5
Shadow 3 2.5 Watch a Video 3 2.5
Code 4: Follow-Up
The final of the four main coded categories of the data is “Follow-Up,” which correlates with the eponymous stage of the Adult Learning Model for Faculty Development (Lawler &
King, 2000). In this stage, the facilitator and the participants reflect on the training and the outcomes to gauge its effectiveness. The subordinate categories created in the “Follow-up” category are “Docent Evaluation,” “Program Evaluation,” and “Ongoing Support” (Appendix B).
“Docent Evaluation” focused on the museum professional’s assessment of the docent who has completed training, the “Program Evaluation” captured the comments given regarding some form of assessment of the training program, and “Ongoing Support” grouped responses about ways that the museum staff or docent cadre gives guidance and appreciation to their docents.
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 97
Table 24 displays the “Types of Docent Evaluation” along with the representation of responses within the sample.
Table 24
Types of Docent Evaluation Follow-Up n % Staff Feedback 42 34.7 Peer Feedback 11 9.1 Mentor Feedback 3 2.5 bac Formal Assessment 14 11.6 No Assessment 24 19.8
Table 25
Forms of On-Going Support Support n %
Celebrations 8 6.6 Check-In with docents 23 19 Continuing Trainings 35 5.8 Field Trips 9 7.4 Meetings 15 12.4
Mentor 7 5.8 Other Resources 18 14.9
How do the components of docent training programs in nationally accredited museums in the United States compare to one another?
The participating museums in the current study varied widely in regards to their personnel titles, number of staff members, and their collections. These types of differences were
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 98
expected due to the individuality of each museum, however, there were still many common components found among the responses. Some of the overarching components found in the data, such as the individual who plans docent training, where the training takes place, the purpose of the training program, the use of guest speakers at training sessions, techniques used in training, docent and program evaluation, all had similarities. The researcher, from her own experience in docent education and experience in the museum industry, had anticipated that similarities might exist among the responses from the sample, especially in aspects that have been noted in the literature. There also emerged some unexpected commonalities among the sample as well.
Change, Flexibility, and Appreciation
Although each museum is different in its collection, personnel, and terminology the researcher found other areas of commonality among them – the emergence of similar phenomena throughout the responses that could be grouped into themes. Some common themes that the researcher found emerging within the responses that were not specifically mentioned by the questions include “change,” “flexibility,” and “appreciation,” which will be interwoven among the results as they occur. “Change” was identified when the participant mentioned a recent or upcoming modification to the docent training program. Twenty-three of the 121 museum educators (19%) mentioned a change in their programs. The term “flexibility” was used by the researcher to code statements that indicated an attitude of pliancy by the museum professionals in situations where adaptations were made to the program or schedule to meet the needs of the docents. Forty of the 121 respondents (33%) mentioned flexibility in their training programs whether that be flexible training times, methods, or schedules. Statements were coded as
“appreciation” when there was a mention of a token or expression of gratitude by the museum
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 99
professionals toward the docents. Thirteen of the 121 respondents (11%) mentioned appreciation of their docents.
The themes of “change” and “flexibility” occurred within the responses in the “Pre-
Planning” section of the survey; whereas the theme of “appreciation” occurred in the responses in the “Follow-Up” section of the survey. The occurrence of these phenomena in the responses of the particular sections of the survey was consistent with the concepts that can be found in the aligning stages of the Adult Learning Model for Faculty Development (Lawler & King, 2000).
The pre-planning stage of the model is where the big-picture development of the program takes place. Within this stage, the individual creates the timing and schedule of the program for the year and, if change or flexibility is warranted, it would likely be made at this point. Similarly, the follow-up stage of the Adult Learning Model for Faculty Development (Lawler & King,
2000) calls for evaluation of the program and its participants. During this stage, the educator evaluates and gives feedback to the learner, at which time, the docent educator can reflect on the program as a whole. It is in this stage in the docent training that appreciation for time and service given by the docents might be formally acknowledged and, accordingly, the researcher found the “appreciation” phenomena within the responses in the “follow-up” section of the survey.
Comparison of Docent Training Programs
Out of the 163 museums that replied to the survey, 121 of them have a volunteer/docent training program. Of the 121 participating museums with a docent training program, 105 (85%) of the individuals who completed the survey reported that they are the staff members at their museum who plans the docent training program. All of these individuals are members of the
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 100
Education Department in their museum, as stated by their job title; a practice recommended in the literature (Grenier & Scheckley, 2008; Wolins, Spires, & Silverman, 1986). According to the respondents who mentioned in their replies which departments are involved in the planning process at their museums, ninety of them said that the Education Department was the sole department involved. In the remaining responses, two other entities were noted as being part of the docent training process: the Curatorial Department and the Docent Council. The Curatorial
Department refers to museum staff members who work with or as the curator to acquire, store, research, and care for the artifacts in the collection. The Docent Council is typically made up of volunteer docents who help the paid staff to make decisions about the training and tours. These two groups were involved in the planning in thirteen cases, ten of which involved the Education
Department and Docent Council and three involved the Education Department and Curatorial
Department. In two cases, all three entities, Education, Curatorial, and Docent Council, were involved in planning the docent training program. This finding was consistent with the notation in the literature that the Education Department is where the docent training program lies (Bays,
1973; Hooper-Greenhill, 1994; Hooper-Greenhill & Moussouri, 2000; King & Glaser, 1989;
Wolins, Spires, & Siverman, 1986).
Pre-Planning
In the Adult Learning Model for Faculty Development (Lawler & King, 2000), the pre- planning stage recommends promoting the training program to alert and invite the intended audience. For 21 of the 121 museums that were part of the current study, the first step in promoting the training was recruiting and interviewing potential docent trainees, mentioning that their institution has a recruitment process for finding docents using a variety of methods and tools with which to accomplish it. Ten individuals from museums that recruit docents mentioned
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 101
that recruitment is ongoing during the year whereas other institutions recruit new docents just ahead of their training programs to fill the class. When recruiting, participants mentioned using various methods for reaching potential docents such as email, social media, volunteer recruitment websites, newspaper advertising, listservs, print media such as flyers and postcards, face-to-face, and word of mouth methods to support their efforts. After recruiting potential docents, an interview process, whether formal or informal, may take place. Fifteen of the responding organizations mentioned holding interviews to select docents for their programs. Of these museums, six require a background check before an individual can move forward in the process. One of the six museums that mentioned requiring a background check is located in a high school building where security is a high priority.
In the Adult Learning Model for Faculty Development (Lawler & King, 2000), the pre- planning stage provides the details for the program. It is recommended that the timetable of the program be established during this stage; the frequency of the training program, the frequency of the training sessions, and the length of the training program from start to graduation. The museums had a wide range of training schedules, but a common element began to emerge within the variety; the researcher began to see a theme of “flexibility” emerging among many of the responses.
The first area where the researcher noted “flexibility” was in the area of group training versus individual training. The need for group or individual training seemed to be a driving force to determine the frequency of docent trainings offered. Ninety-three of the museums in the study mentioned creating an annual docent training class; however, twenty-two of the museums in the study choose to offer training individually and on-demand rather than in a scheduled class.
One respondent whose museum chooses to train docents on an as-needed basis stated, “Our
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 102
docent training program is probably more casual than most since we are a small historic site that is constantly recruiting volunteers. The one-on-one training and tailoring the training schedule to fit the volunteer's schedule works for us.” Another respondent mentioned that the experienced docents were not available or plentiful enough for giving tours so there came a need to continuously train more docents. The respondent stated,
We are challenged by not having a sufficient number of docents for the tours we offer 7
days a week, the amount of field trips we have, and the number of special events we host
on the weekend. Our volunteer numbers are holding steady if not slightly growing, but
our docent corps is not growing at the rate we need to replace docents lost through
attrition. Finding enough docents who are willing and physically able to give tours in a
3-story mansion is a challenge. And some of my younger, recently retired docents travel
frequently, which means they are often not available.
Because of the constant need for new docents, this particular museum has chosen to be fluid in its training schedule; offering one-on-one training when a docent candidate is available rather than waiting for a full docent class. “Flexibility” was noted from a participant who described the museum’s frequency of training by stating, “We train individually or as a group if we have several volunteers ready to train.” Nine of the twenty-two museums that hold individual trainings in the current study are Historical museums.
The need for new docents often was not the only impetus for fluidity in the frequency of docent training. Respondents mentioned various reasons for choosing to incorporate “flexibility” in the frequency of the training schedule. One respondent whose museum is located in a rural area commented, “Regular training during the weekend or weekday were unsuccessful.” To
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 103
accommodate the docents, the trainer is developing a video-based training that docents can access from home when it is convenient for them. Several participants mentioned allowing docents to train on their own time as the reason for the infrequency in the training schedule. One such respondent commented, “They train until they and their trainer feel they are ready. This usually takes 4-8 weeks. We don’t set a time limit for learning the material but encourage them to complete it in a reasonable amount of time.”
Although there are museums, such as the examples given, that offer a malleable schedule and timeline for their docent training, 62 of the museums that mentioned frequency in training, opt for a routine and consistent training schedule, either annually, twice per year, every two years, or every three years with the majority choosing annual trainings (Fig. 2).
Figure 2 Percentage of Docent Training Program Frequency
Annually 5%2% 6% Twice per Year 13% Before a New Exhibit Opens Every Two Years
74% Every Three Years
The second type of frequency found within the pre-planning stage of the Adult Learning
Model for Faculty Development (Lawler & King, 2000), is the frequency of the individual training sessions. In preparing an adult learning program, it is necessary to determine how often
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 104
the classes will take place as part of the big-picture planning process. Once again, the element of
“flexibility” was evident within the comments given by the participants, this time regarding the length of the training program and may be due, as seen earlier, to individualized learning on the part of the docent. One respondent stated, “The whole process of docent training can take anywhere from 12 to 25 days depending on the availability and skill level of the volunteer.” In this case, the new docent has the opportunity to meet as many times as needed rather than abiding by a set schedule. This type of fluidity and respect for the learner is in accord with the self-directed learning often found in adult learning scenarios (Knowles, 1984).
Another driving force for the phenomenon of “flexibility” in the frequency of training sessions was relevant to the adult learner as well. Seventeen museums mentioned that they offer the same training sessions multiple times during the day or week to accommodate the schedule of the docents. This practice reflects another difference between formal learning and adult learning where the learner is not required to attend, but chooses to attend when they are able.
One respondent whose museum offers multiple training times stated, “… training is held on the weekends or in the evening, to accommodate people who are still working.” Another respondent mentioned offering training options on multiple days as a way to appeal to the potential docents’ schedules, “Since we are trying to recruit volunteers to help out at all times of the day, we schedule multiple orientations on different days of the week and time of day.” These examples of open training sessions are a practical way to keep docents on the roster.
In the area of training session frequency, among the 85 respondents who mentioned the frequency of their sessions, 41 mentioned a routine schedule for their sessions. Within this subset, sixteen of the museums have training on a monthly basis and eleven of the museums have weekly trainings; implying a very rigorous volunteer responsibility that requires a great deal of
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 105
time dedicated to the museum. This dedication is another hallmark of adult learners who are often intrinsically motivated to learn (Knowles, 1984).
The final area of the training schedule that the researcher studied is the length of time scheduled for each class. The results in this area were quite consistent among all of the museums with the training sessions lasting anywhere from 1.5 hours to 3 hours per session. There were a very small number of outliers to the trend – only six of the 81 participants who mentioned the length of time per training session fell out of the 1.5 to 3-hour range. Surprisingly, the frequency of training sessions does not seem to have much effect on the length of training time as the average amount of time spent in training sessions in the monthly group was 2.11 hours whereas the average amount of time spent in training session in the weekly group was 2.39 hours. The museums that have weekly docent training allotted slightly longer training times, signifying a great deal of dedication among the docents who volunteer at these institutions.
In the “Pre-Planning” category, one element that became conspicuous was the mention of a recent change within the docent training program, which resulted in the in vivo code of
“change.” The types of “changes” named in the responses were concerning the rigor of the program, the mode of the training, or the method used in training. Seven of the participating museums stated that they were making their training programs more rigorous, whereas two of the respondents mentioned making their program less demanding. One respondent who was trying to create a less arduous program cited a problem with retention as the reason for the change.
I inherited a program that recruited about 10-12 trainees every other year and trained
them through two 90-minute meetings every week from September through May.
Classes were held in the Museum spaces and required extensive amounts of both
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 106
Museum educators’ time to create and deliver content weekly. This became too time
consuming for the staff to maintain, especially considering the 50% retention rate of the
trainees.
Examples of “changes” in the mode of training include transitioning from face-to-face trainings to a digital format, as mentioned previously, whereas an example of “change” in the method of training described moving from a lecture format to a more interactive training. One participant mentioned, “We have recently changed the way we do trainings, moving away from a traditional class-based training to on-the-floor mentoring and training protocols as to better serve our volunteer needs.” Another respondent had this to say about training methods, “I used to make a relevant PowerPoint presentation, but I find that our time is better spent actually looking at the art.”
Another area in the responses that showed variance between the museums was the target audience for the trainings. Some of the institutions mentioned have a special training for new docents and a separate training for returning or experienced docents, while others combine the two groups into one training program. If the latter model was implemented, the experienced docents were often used as mentors for the new docents to give them support in their training.
One respondent stated, “During the training program, trainees are paired with a mentor docent who guides them through the process.” Mentorship was a common trend throughout the responses.
The use of mentorship in training revealed a commonality among the museums in the current study; however, other areas showed great differences. One area examined in the big- picture planning that showed a remarkable variance was in the budgeted funding for docent
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 107
training. Fifty-nine participants commented on the docent training budget at their museum, but only 34 specifically mentioned the dollar amount that their museums’ budget for docent training.
Fourteen of the museum professionals stated that there is no budget for the program, of which, three stated that their time was the only part of docent training that was accounted for in the budget. Two of the individuals with no budget for docent training mentioned that, although there was no money for the training, there was money set aside for a volunteer appreciation event to thank the docents for their time. One more commonality among the museums that have no budget for training was the use of volunteers, experienced docents to train the incoming docents.
One of these respondents stated, “There is no budget for this training; it involves 3 - 4 people
(some of whom are docents themselves).” Still others mentioned that the tour program revenue is used to offset the docent training expenses allowing the museum to defray the cost.
Twenty-seven museum professionals mentioned specific funding built in to their budgets for the program (Fig. 3). The dollar amounts set aside for docent trainings were diverse and ranged anywhere from $100 to $2,000 with one museum reporting $9,000 for the training of their over 100 docents.
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 108
Figure 3 Museum Budgets for Docent Training
16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 $0 $1 - $99 $100 - $500 - $1,000 - $2,000 - $5,000+ $499 $999 $1,999 $4,999
The great variance in budgeted funding for docent training resulted in a variety of materials and other costs used for the training. Some museums with a modest budget utilized the funding to pay for printing and other educational paper products. Many of the museums also mentioned using the funds for hospitality costs such as coffee, donuts, and other refreshments provided at the trainings. When museums were given more abundant financial resources, the money was typically spent on honoraria for guest speakers and scholars, field trips for docents to other museums, or custom museum workshops brought in for training such as Museum Hack.
The variation of monetary allotments for docent training in the sample population was an indicator of the large disparity among the museums’ programming and practice. Although there were many museum professionals who mentioned little to no budget, none of these respondents mentioned any resentment of this fact.
The last area of the “Pre-Planning” section that the researcher focused on is the framework used for the docent training. The researcher was expecting to see a broad range of
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 109
frameworks used for the trainings as the literature had suggested that there is no standard in this area (Carr, 2016; EdCom, 2002; King & Glaser, 1989). The structure for the various docent training programs met the expectation of the researcher and the literature; the training frameworks are diverse, revealing many different methodologies and philosophies among the museums. To construct meaning from the large number of responses, the researcher took the topic of “framework” and broke it into three smaller sub-categories: “purpose,” “philosophy,” and “methodology.” These three categories encapsulated the different aspects that seemed to make up the framework described in the responses. These three descriptors helped to differentiate between the reason for docent training (purpose), the educational philosophy behind the training (philosophy), and how the philosophy was imparted (methodology).
The participants of the current study listed many reasons for docent training that could be categorized as “purpose.” The researcher was able to group these reasons ideologically into five categories coded as “concepts,” “content of the museum,” “history of the museum,” “orientation and expectations,” and “policy and procedures.” The code “concepts” was used by the researcher as a way to encapsulate trainings that focus on the core mission of the museum such as art history, historical information about a state, county, family, or animal behavior at a zoo.
An example of a museum’s “concepts” can be found in this statement, “Definitions of techniques and styles used by the artist/s are also important to include since most docents are not artists themselves. Sometimes a list of terms with definitions is included, like for a show on printmaking.” The “content” of the museum was another area that many of the museums focused on in their training. Many of the museums mentioned a large portion of their training being spent on educating the docents about the individual items that compose the collection of the museum such as art, artifacts, clothing, machinery, or animals.
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 110
The “history of the museum” was another common component in the “purpose” category, which is in accord with the one of the recommendations in the Adult Learning Model for Faculty
Development (Lawler & King, 2000), integrating the culture of the organization in the pre- planning stage. Introducing the history of the museum to the new docents helps to indoctrinate the culture of the museum into the training, giving the new docents a sense of how the museum came to be and why it exists. An example of the history of the museum being integrated into training can be found in this participant’s comment, “Strand 1 is designed to familiarize docents with the history of the Burchfield Penney Art Center, the artistic contributions of Charles E.
Burchfield, the legacy of Charles Rand Penney, the extensive collection of regional work, special exhibitions and our outstanding sustainable building.” The new docents in this training program will be immersed in the mission of the museum through the unique history that shaped it. The final two areas pertaining to the “purpose” category of docent training are
“orientation/expectations” and “policy/procedures,” which focus on the organization, its structure, and the way it functions.
The researcher used the code “orientation/expectation” to group responses that mentioned the insertion of a welcome and overview of the museum, learning about the museum’s hierarchy, and instructions on what a docent is expected to do at the museum. In the “policy/procedure” category, the researcher grouped responses that alluded to the routines and rules that exist at the museum. Comments in the “orientation/expectation” category mentioned introducing the new docents to the staff at the museum, the other docents, and the layout of the building as well as attendance and tour expectations. An example of “orientation/expectation” can be found in this participant’s statement, “Volunteers receive a 3-hour orientation block (facilitated by volunteer department staff – logistics and basic information of being a volunteer).” The
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 111
“policy/procedures” code is one the researcher expected to see, as this is one area that the
American Association of Museums (AAM) maintains in its five core documents for accreditation. Each museum that is accredited by the American Association of Museums (AAM,
2018) must produce a Policy and Procedures document that describes safety and emergency plans. One of the trainers stated that during this time they cover, “procedural matters (tour of workspaces, meeting staff, HR requirements, emergency procedures, checking in groups, using the telephone system, etc.)” One of the respondents even mentioned an explanation of accreditation documents to the new docents.
The next of the three sections of the framework for docent training involve the educational philosophy used in the training process. The researcher was highly anticipating the descriptions in this area to give insight into the fundamentals of the different docent training programs in the current study. The philosophies are frameworks that museum professionals use as the basis for the educational compass of the museum.
The framework theme of “Philosophy” was broken down into five smaller categories by the researcher including “dialogic inquiry,” “theories of learning,” “interpretation,” “inquiry- based learning,” and” educational schemes for diverse learners.” The categories were based on terminology used by the participants that alluded to the philosophy to which their museum espouses, all of which are derived from prescription in the literature. For example, dialogic inquiry (Wells G. , 1999), which calls for interactive discussion between the docent and the viewers, has been noted as beneficial when used in the museum (Burnham & Kai-Kee, 2011;
DePrizio, 2016; LaChapelle, Keenlyside, & Douesnard, 2016). The category of “theories of learning” encapsulated comments that mentioned many frameworks, such as this statement, “For docents in training, some specific topics are visual literacy, theories of learning, communication
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 112
at age level, Visual Thinking Strategies, Multiple Intelligences and the Project MUSE technique, good guiding questions, and crafting a tour.” Interpretation, viewing art critically to make meaning in a personal way, is another recommendation for museum education found in the literature. The category, “inquiry-based learning” was created to capture the responses that mentioned this term or responses that mentioned teaching their docents questioning techniques.
The final category, “educational schemes for diverse learners” was created when a participant mentioned that the docents are trained to adapt their tour to meet the needs of diverse learners such as non-English language speakers, those who are hearing impaired, very young or very old visitors, and guests with physical or mental disabilities.
The number of educational philosophies was fairly large and the individual philosophies were diverse; however, the choice of philosophy seemed to align with the type of museum that was espousing it. For example, many of the art museums focused on “interpretation” and
“dialogic inquiry” whereas the science museums tended more toward “theories of learning” and
“inquiry-based learning.” This theme of alignment between museum type and educational philosophy was encouraging to the researcher, signaling current educational research being utilized by the museums to make decisions regarding their chosen educational compass.
The “educational strategies for diverse learners,” a concept that transcends content or collection had 27 responses, the highest number of responses for all of the categories in
“philosophy.” Because museum visitors are a diverse population in age, ethnicity, race, gender, learning abilities, and physical abilities, docents are often trained to work with people with differences. Evidence of training programs that seek to meet the needs of diverse learners were found in the following comments:
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 113
• “This framework includes age appropriate dialogue, in-gallery activities, hands-on
studio training, and critical thinking questions to build meaningful dialogue with
diverse audiences.”
• “Special topics include professional development through partner organizations
who can provide formal trainings on disabilities/diversity/socioeconomic issues
that impact tour groups.”
• “All docents are expected to be able to touch on key narrative elements, and
suggest presentation approaches based on age groups or learning levels within the
tour groups.”
• “We cover topics such as working with different visitor needs, talking about
sensitive topics, diversity, and inclusive language.”
• “… working with students with special needs, understanding different learning
styles, how to best reach extended ‘gifted’ learners, cultural sensitivity and
awareness, English language learners, and more.”
As part of the training for diversity, participants mentioned age-related educational concepts as well. Training that focused on age-appropriate learning was also included in the “educational strategies for diverse learners” category.
The final category found within the framework of the training was “methodology.” The researcher used this code to encapsulate the various methods that the trainers used to impart the educational philosophies. Some of the subcategories included in this category include
“mentoring,” “shadowing,” “lecture,” and “practicing.” Each of these categories signifies a technique that the trainers use to teach their new docents the content and or skills needed to
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 114
conduct tours. Mentoring allows the new docent to learn from the sage advice of an experienced docent who guides them in their training. Shadowing is a technique whereby the new docent follows an experienced docent during her tours to watch her presentation. Scaffolding is a byproduct of constructive learning where the learner, or new docent, is introduced to new subjects gradually, allowing her to use the knowledge she has gained in past lessons to help make meaning from the new material. Lecturing is seminar-style learning where the teacher shares information through a presentation to the learner. Practicing, in museum education, is the idea of being able to try the new techniques that have been learned in class in a mock tour scenario prior to putting them into action in an actual tour. All of these techniques can be found in museum education literature (Burnham & Kai-Kee, 2007; Burnham & Kai-Kee, 2011; Castle,
2001; Castle, 2006; Grenier, 2008; Grenier & Scheckley, 2008).
Seventy-five of the museum professionals said their museums use “shadowing” and 67 use “mentoring.” “Shadowing” may occur during “mentoring,” but the two can also be mutually exclusive. “Practicing” was used in 41 of the museums and involves the new docent rehearsing his or her new skills by giving tours to a closed audience such as peer docents or family members. The techniques that were categorized by the researcher may be used alone or in concert with other techniques mentioned.
Two other strategies that were included in the “methodology” area were “customization” and “homework.” “Customization” occurs when a museum allows or encourages docents to write their own tour script or narrative rather than memorizing one written by the staff. Thirteen museum professionals mentioned a scripted tour being used in their museums of which, ten allow their docents to personalize their script so they can talk to visitors about the areas that excite them most and use their own voice to do so. The code of “homework” was used to group
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 115
responses that described classwork or expectations that the docents were responsible for learning or doing on their own time. Some examples of “homework” include reading journals, books, handouts, manuals, and handbooks or watching videos.
Planning
The second stage of the Adult Learning Model for Faculty Development (Lawler & King,
2000), is the planning stage where the logistical and detailed efforts to prepare for training occur.
One unexpected theme began to emerge in the section coded as “Planning” – the mode used to communicate the training schedule to the docents. The theme that appeared revolved around the technology or lack thereof used by the museums to inform the docents about training sessions.
The use of technology was expected, but the many and various technological methods was unexpected, including typical means such as email, Google Drive, and Dropbox as well as some less typical platforms such as closed Facebook groups, YouTube channels, blogs, and university learning management systems. The list also included unusual or museum-specific methods of communication like VSys, Viddler, and Volgistics, all of which are software used to manage and train volunteers. The methods of communication were not all technological as some of the participants mentioned snail mail and phone calls as being their method of choice. One participant showed some frustration about her docents’ lack of technological skills when she stated, “We call docents to sign them up for tours. We also email docents. But many of them are still not on EMAIL!”
Another aspect of the planning stage in the Adult Learning Model for Faculty
Development (Lawler & King, 2000) is deciding whether to use guest speakers in the training.
Fifty-nine of the participants in the study identified types of guest speakers, most of which were staff members from other areas of the museum such as the Director or the Curator. Aside from
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 116
the use of in-house guest speakers, many participants mentioned outside guest speakers as well.
Depending on the purpose of the training, the speakers varied a great deal. Examples of outside speakers include, “guest speakers in working with various guests with special needs, i.e. WNY
Alzheimer's Association, children with autism, people who are hearing impaired, etc., specialists,” or, “one docent's husband leads sessions on public speaking for a living, so he graciously donated a session to our team on how to improve their public speaking and presentation skills.” Some of the trainers mentioned bringing in faculty from area universities who are experts in the subject matter or professional storytellers who lead workshops in how to engage listeners.
Delivery
The delivery stage of the Adult Learning Model for Faculty Development (Lawler &
King, 2000) is the point at which all of the preparation comes together and the museum professional implements the training. The respondents were asked to share the methods that they use to train their docents. Though the volume of information that the docents revealed in this section was not extensive, the information itself yielded details that shed much light on the actual practices used in the docent training programs in accredited museum in the United States.
Consistent with the other areas of the survey, the practices that were mentioned by the respondents in the “Delivery” section were wide-ranging yet some commonalities surfaced as well. Five practices emerged as the most prevalent within the responses given by the participants: gallery walk, lecture, observation, practice, and activities. The first two methods, gallery walk and lecture, were often mentioned by professionals working in art and historical museums whereas the observation, practice, and activities methods were mentioned by respondents working in all of the museum types surveyed.
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 117
Gallery walk is the act of slowly leading the docents through the galleries while verbally emphasizing key pieces of art or artifacts. Gallery walks seemed to be a common method used specifically for introducing the docents to new art on display or introducing new docents to the art or artifacts in the museum.
Another common method of imparting information to the docents was lecturing. The types of museum that used a lecture-style training were diverse including art museums, historical museums, maritime museums, and military museum. An example of lecture-style training was found in this statement, “Sometimes curators talk about new developments in their field.
Sometimes they learn about new special exhibits coming to the Center. Sometimes we review interpretive techniques. They are usually lecture style, or tours of the exhibits.” This museum professional went on to say, “We are finding that our docent group is aging out, and we are not attracting as many new docents.” The age of the docents in this mueum may be a contributing factor to the use of lecture as it requires less walking or standing than some other methods of training.
Although the aforementioned examples seem to be utilizing lecture almost exclusively,
12 of the 18 programs (67%) that have lecture-style training also include an interactive portion of the training. This statement is an example of a museum offering several training styles, “The sessions involved lecture format, discussion, gallery discussion, tours and programs modeled and observed, and role playing.” One respondent mentioned making a change from lecture to more interactive training,
The original framework was modeled on university classes – lecture style, in a classroom,
focused almost entirely on content acquisition, with a syllabus and textbooks. What we
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 118
moved to was an open classroom framework with class time dedicated mostly to practical
skills and teaching models (with some time for content questions), while content
acquisition was done on the trainee’s own time at home through an online teaching
platform provided by our university.
There were 299 mentions of training methods used by the 121 participating museums indicating the combination of methods being implemented in different departments, which also includes docents training other docents. The respondent in this statement mentions the interactive part of the training being done by the docents themselves, “A 'typical' class consists of a one-hour lecture (either an art-historical lecture by a college faculty professor or a curator), time for announcements, then an hour or more in the galleries for docent-led facilitations/trainings or gallery presentations/practice by the docents-in-training.” Another example highlighting the phenomenon of curators using the lecture-style in training was a very frank comment from one respondent,
For curatorial sessions, there tends to be less discussion. In the past, the curators took the
whole 1 1/2 hours. More recently, I've scheduled time for me to precede or follow
curators with teaching ideas related to the content they've presented to help steer away
from the ‘sage on the stage’ dynamic that is still in some docents' framework.
The comment by this participant acknowledges the recommendation in the docent training literature to use more interactive techniques and shows that this museum professional is working to make interaction a part of the docent culture in the museum while also allowing fellow colleagues to give their insights, in their own preferred styles, to the docents as well.
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 119
The next method that occurred often within the result of the survey was observation, the act of watching another experienced docent or staff member giving a tour. As previously mentioned, a large number of individuals mentioned using mentor docents or shadowing in their docent training practices, making the observation technique expected; however, the form that the observation took added an element of interest.
Observation may mean that the museum creates a mock tour experience for the trainees to watch and learn from or it can be an opportunity for new docents to view actual tours given by experienced docents. The two different types of observation mentioned offer the trainees a chance to see what the experienced docents do; how they deliver the information and field inquiries in either a closed-group setting or in a live tour.
Practicing was mentioned by eleven museum professionals and is compatible with the observation method. Practicing was used as both a method of learning and as a method of evaluation. One participant’s comment shows the dual purpose of practicing,
Later comes trainees practicing with the teacher and classmates in the rooms they will be
doing the tour. This allows the students to challenge each other [facts, verbal skills,
where they are standing etc.] and the instructor to clean up and get rid of problems. This
practice with the teacher/classmates was something that experienced docents wished they
had more of when I surveyed them before I began teaching the class in 2003.
Shadowing with an experienced docent on a tour and practicing by taking the lead on a small part is another combinaton of multiple methods. An example of this type of practicing can be found in this participant’s comment, “In their second semester they are partnered with a seasoned docent to give part of an actual school tour.” This comment suggests a gradual release of the new docent into the touring arena. Another museum educator chooses to begin the
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 120
practicing sooner, “As soon as possible I get them trying various methods of presenting work in the galleries.” One participant noted, “…they shadow other docents for several weeks as they give guided tours of the building and exhibition galleries. When the docent feels ready he/she takes me or my assistant director of education on a tour.” This example shows how the practice can be beneficial as an evaluative tool as well.
The last method in the top five methods used for delivering the training to the new docents was activities, a hands on application of the materials presented. The museum type that mentioned using activities the most in training was art museums. The activities mentioned were typically hands-on or discussion-based activities that included feedback from the docents. One example of an activity mentioned was a collaborative event, “We also have in-gallery activities at most training sessions that give docents the resources, tools and time to work together, challenge each other and come up with objects and/or questions for upcoming tours of certain themes.” Another example of activities that may take place in docent training include role playing and technology training. Other mentions of activities included non-tour focused activities, such as ice-breakers, to allow the docents to get to know one another, luncheons, and off-site development such as field trips to other museums.
Follow-Up
The final section of the docent training survey involved the follow-up section of the Adult
Learning Model for Faculty Development (Lawler & King, 2000). The follow-up includes an evaluation of both the learner and the training program as well as ongoing support given post- training. As with the other areas in the survey, the methods and activities used in evaluation and support were quite diverse among the museums. In terms of the evaluations, existence of an
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 121
evaluation system , the type of evaluation used, and the level of importance placed on the evaluation were all areas that showed variation. The ongoing support given after training was also differing among the population showing variety in the type of support given, if any.
Of the 104 museums that mentioned evaluation of the new docents, 81 have some sort of evaluation process whereas 23 of the participating museums in this category have no evaluation process. Many of the museums that mentioned having no formal evaluation commented that this is an element that the museum intends or wants to add. Various reasons exist for the lack of an evaluation process. One museum professional stated, “We do not currently have a docent evaluation program in place due to limited staff time and resources.” Another stated the desire to implement an evaluation process, “Unfortunately this is an area of weakness and we have no formal process in place.”
Within the 81 museums that do evaluate their new docents, the most used evaluation technique was observation and feedback (Fig. 4) with formal assessment (in the form of a test), research presentation, or graduation tour following as the next most used methods of evaluating new docents. Other types of new docent evaluation mentioned in smaller numbers were check- ins, complaints by guests, and hour tracking.
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 122
Figure 4 Types of New Docent Evaluation Used in Accredited Museum in the United States
Observe & Feedback Graduation Tour Test Presentation
Evaluation of the docent training program was mentioned by many of the participants in the study. Forty-five of the museums mentioned getting feedback from the docents as a way to evaluate the success of the training program. Seventeen individuals mentioned verbal feedback and twenty-two mentioned surveys, written or online, as vehicles for receiving the feedback.
Five of the participants mentioned evaluation per training session to assess individual topics or presenters and to assist in guiding future planning and five others mentioned using school tour evaluations as a way to assess the docent training program.
The final component of this section was the ongoing support being given to the new and experienced docents in the museum. Seventy-eight (64%) of the participants mentioned some type of ongoing support being given to the docents in the form of continuing trainings, individual support, or on-site or off-site resources. One participant summed up the purpose of the monthly meetings this way, “…we offer in-services to keep docents up-to-date on current interpretations and information, as well as myth-busting in-services and handouts to prevent misinformation being given on tours.” Another participant mentioned offering support right after a tour has
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 123
ended, “We also encourage informal discussions, celebrations, and trouble-shooting following each tour (verbal/conversation).”
Besides meeting to sharpen docenting skills, other modes of offering support for the docents include libraries, both physical and digital, videos, blogs, and newsletters. Docent
Councils are groups of volunteer docents who help train, manage, and make decisions with the paid staff. Eleven of the participants mentioned utilizing docent councils, harnessing the knowledge and experience of the docents who have been giving tours for many seasons.
Although most of the support for docents is intended to enrich the docents’ knowledge of the collection, there was another strong category of support in the survey, which was in the area of volunteer appreciation. Twenty-two of the participants mentioned celebrating and thanking their volunteers in special ways to show them how important their service is to the museums.
Luncheons, dinners, celebrations, picnics, field trips to other museums, and discounts in the museum store were just some of the ways that the museum staff shows appreciation to their volunteer educators. One participant mentioned the benefits of being a docent including free tickets to events, while other examples of museums showing their docents their appreciation include home cooked meals, studio visits, classes, coffee meetings, or champagne receptions.
The one common thread found throughout the vast majority of the stages of the survey was the desire to effectively train docents to become agents of the museum, in fact the researcher was able to find this theme in 118 of the 121 participants’ responses. The following comment from one participant sums up the sentiment of docent training from the perspective of the museum professional,
Docent training is a constant on-going process. Yes, you can just train for the next show
coming up, but then people forget things about the permanent collect. Ideally, a good
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 124
program will get docents started within a set time period using standard, uniform training
material, it will reeducate old docents along with new docents as you go, and it will
prepare old and new docents alike to be able to give a tour about anything in your
museum.
How do the components of docent training programs in nationally accredited museums in the United States correspond to the four stages in the Adult Learning Model for Faculty
Development?
The Adult Learning Model for Faculty Development (Lawler & King, 2000), was used as framework for discovering the components of docent training programs in accredited museums in the United States. The model was originally developed as a best practice for professional developers who prepare educational workshops for faculty members who teach adult learners.
The similarities in the purpose of faculty professional development and docent training made this model an ideal format from which to pose questions to museum professionals who train docents for their docent education programs. The four stages of the Adult Learning Model for Faculty
Development (Lawler & King, 2000) are designed to guide the planner of the program through the appropriate steps of preparation to produce a well-developed educational scenario from start to finish (Table 8).
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 125
Table 26 Stages, Characteristics, and Hallmarks of the Adult Learning Model for Faculty
Development
Stage Characteristics Hallmarks Pre-Planning Big-Picture Planning • Create annual schedule, i.e. frequency of trainings • Plan budget for the program • Set goals for training • Decide on framework for the training
Planning Detail Planning • Decide on facility • Schedule individual training sessions • Decide on time and length of each training • Consider ways to evaluate learners and program • Choose topics for each training • Schedule guest speakers • Communicate training dates and times
Delivery Actual Training • Implement the training that has been planned
Follow-Up Evaluation of learner and program • Choose method for evaluating learner • Choose method for evaluating program
The first stage of the Adult Learning Model for Faculty Development (Lawler & King,
2000) is the pre-planning stage where the big-picture planning should begin. In the responses of the participants, the researcher was looking for examples that identifed the purpose for the training and how it fits in the culture, mission, and goals of the organization as well as where the learning takes place and what resources were available, as recommended by Lawler and King
(2000). There was some evidence of correspondence to the Adult Learning Model for Faculty
Development (Lawler & King, 2000) within the sample. Fifty-nine percent of the respondents mentioned an aspect of their training program that supported the culture of the organization.
When deciding on which statements to code as “culture,” the researcher was looking for comments that spoke to how the training program represented the educational vision of the
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 126
museum or comments about its unique collection. One example of a museum’s culture being highlighted in the training would be,
The purpose of our tours, which for many students is their first experience in an art
museum, is to communicate to students that people make meaning from art in many
different ways and to give them 3-4 different possibilities for how they might approach or
enjoy art in a museum. As such, our docents are asked to think about why they are drawn
to particular pieces in our collection, and how they like to connect art: do they enjoy
talking with others, sketching, reading labels, finding out more about the artist, doing
something hands-on, etc.?
This statement shows the commitment of the museum to impart its culture of art appreciation to the new docent trainees so that they can make students’ visits meaningful.
Another aspect of the pre-planning stage is to decide on the goal or purpose of the training (Lawler & King, 2000). Eighty-three percent of the participants mentioned the goal of their training in their pre-planning. For example, one participant stated the goal of training in this way,
Training covers: the museum’s philosophy of teaching and good activity-based
pedagogy, understanding the characteristics of learners of different ages and how to
deliver appropriate learning experiences, knowledge of the Museum's collections,
physical spaces and history, and general art historical knowledge. We take a hands-on
approach to learning that situates the docents as learners. Docents will do the activities
before learning how to facilitate them and whenever possible we make the docents
responsible for their own learning. Considerable time is also used observing tours and in
self-reflection.
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 127
This museum professional mentioned several big-picture goals for the docent training program as well the framework used all while considering the adult learner and the expectations the museum holds for her.
The planning stage of the Adult Learning Model for Faculty Development (Lawler &
King, 2000), focuses on the smaller details that help to plan each individual session such as topics for each session, what time of day the training will take place, and how the training sessions will be communicated to the docents. Though the topics that the museum professionals use in the docent training programs are as various as the museums themselves, the act of deciding which topics to use in training was mentioned by nearly all of the participants. Eighty- eight percent of the museum professionals mentioned specific topics that they use in their trainings such as art history, family history, animal behaviors, and pedagogy. Lawler and King
(2000) also recommend selecting the guest speakers for the programs during the planning stage.
Thirty percent of the particpants mentioned bringing in guest speakers for the trainings some of which were outside speakers and others who were museum staff members. The planning stage was mentioned in other ways in many of the participants’ comments showing the commitment to detail among the participants surveyed.
Delivery is the next stage of the model created by Lawler and King (2000). During this stage, the implementation of the training occurs; the work that was done in the pre-planning and planning stages is put into action. The particpants were open to sharing their delivery techniques with 99% of the 121 respondents stating what their training process looks like. As previously stated, this was an area that the researcher was very interested in learning about due to the lack of details about the delivery in the literature on docent training. The delivery stages described by the museum professionals had different levels of detail in relation to the Adult Learning Model
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 128
for Faculty Development (Lawler & King, 2000) with some of the respondents giving very descriptive responses such as this example,
Training includes art history related to the collection (presented by Curatorial), education
theory (presented by Education staff and consultants), touring techniques (presented by
Education staff and touring docents), and specific logistics. In addition to class work,
trainees observe and report on four active docent tours, as well as complete a series of
four presentations, which increase in duration and difficulty, until a final tour, full
length, with real visitors/students. During the training program, trainees are paired with a
mentor docents who guides them through the process.
This statement shows correspondence to Lawler and King’s (2000) model by stating both the content of the training along with the individual responsible for the specific areas of training and even gives insight to the follow up activities used in this program. Other participants gave a sample of their docent trainings by sharing their agenda for a training session.
The final stage of the Adult Learning Model for Faculty Development (Lawler & King,
2000) is the follow-up stage, where the learner is given feedback and support as well as the chance to evaluate the training program. Many of the respondents mentioned evaluative elements of their training programs, but not all had a plan for assessment of either the docent or the program. As stated previously, of the 104 museums that mentioned evaluation of the new docents, 81 have some sort of evaluation process whereas 23 of the participating museums in this category have no evaluation process. The follow-up stage is the area where there was the least correspondence between the Adult Learning Model for Faculty Development (Lawler & King,
2000) and the actual museum practices revealed in the current study.
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 129
Alignment with Andragogical Principles
The Adult Learning Model for Faculty Development (Lawler & King, 2000) is grounded in andragogy, the study of teaching adult learners. This component makes the model ideal for the current study, as docent training is primarily intended for adult learners. The expectation of the researcher in the current study was to find evidence of andragogical principles woven into the practices and preparation of the docent training programs in the current study. The researcher created three codes for andragogical principles to categorize them as they appeared in the responses, grouping certain principles together that seemed to blend ideologically. The first grouping was coded “Initiative” and captured the principles of self-directed learning, immediacy to learn, and internally motivated to learn. The second code created by the researcher was
“Experience” which encapsulated the principle of adults having a growing reservoir of experience as a resource for learning and the principle of the readiness of adults to learn being closely related to the developmental task of his or her social role. The third code created by the researcher to identify andragogical principles within the data was “Learning Self-Advocate.”
This code served to group the responses that mentioned adults needing to know why they are learning something. These codes helped the researcher to locate areas of the docent training programs where the principles of andragogy were being acknowledged and utilized by the trainers.
The first code, “Initiative,” was found in 94 of the 121 (78%) responses. The researcher was looking for evidence that the new docents were encouraged by the docent training program to use their internal motivation to further their learning experience. Statements that were categorized as “Initiative” included:
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 130
• “I also share aspects of the tour that can be scaffolded, but encourage the docents
to create their own process for doing so.”
• “Once they are comfortable they take more and more responsibility with
conducting tours.”
These examples show degrees of awareness of allowing new docents, as adult learners, to self- direct their learning, one of the unique elements of andragogy.
The second code used to identify andragogical principles being used in the sample population was “Experience.” For this code, the researcher was looking for statements that showed the museum professionals were capitalizing on the adult learners’ lifetime of experience or taking advantage of the experienced docents to help guide the new docents’ learning. One area that the researcher found to point to this andragogical principle was in the common use of mentorship. Mentoring was the most used method of training new docents, (used by 55% of the participants), alluding to the fact that the experienced docents are using their reservoir of knowledge to assist in the training of the new docents. Other examples of statements that were coded “Experience” that did not involve mentoring are:
• “During the interview we cover the applicant’s background in education,
mining/geology knowledge, scheduling availability, and other certifications they may
have.”
• “Another important example is that one docent, who was formerly in HR at a large
company, helped us redesign our recruitment program.”
• “Where and what programs new volunteers initially shadow and are eventually placed
depends on both their interest and on the skill and experience they bring to the table.”
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 131
The third code created to identify andragogical principles put into action within the responses of the current study was “Learning Self-Advocate,” which alludes to the docents’ desire to understand why they are learning something. This characteristic is distinctive to andgrogy and signals the learner’s individual, educational needs and desires. Adult learners are choosing to learn and, therefore, have a need to be an active participant in what they are learning
(Knowles, 1980). Twenty of the museum professionals in the current study mentioned self- advocacy in regard to docent groups, helping to shape the content of the program, while fifteen stated individual docents being given a choice in which area they are trained. Some examples of
“Learning Self-Advocate” include:
• “Once they've mastered that they can chose to volunteer in other areas of the
museum (helping in collections, leading K-12 education programs, etc.).”
• “Docents can give feedback in writing after every professional development session
and I send an electronic survey at the end of the training year that asks them questions
related to the Museum's goals and their preferences.”
These examples highlight docents being given a choice in what they are learning and the rate at which they learn it, both of which are hallmarks of andragogical principles. One example of learning self-advocacy in the training programs is stated here, “At our museum we allow the docents to take the facts and figures about the artifacts and exhibits and build their own tours from the information we give them. This enables our docents to feel more comfortable with the tours they give and the scripting they use.” Allowing the docents to customize their tour gives them a sense of ownershp in the learning process, which is highly recommended when dealing with adult learners (Knowles, 1980).
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 132
Within the responses, acknowledgement of andragogical principles was apparent in many cases, however, one museum professional who reported having issues with retention stated,
Once selected as a volunteer, placement and training take place. Those placed as docents
in the fine art galleries are trained in customer service. It is required they have a
background in art, either studio art or art history. They are given a handbook to review
that gives tips on how to conduct a tour for different audiences, along with a binder filled
with guides about art objects on view and current exhibits. The guides provide the
docents with information the artists, historical and social context, explanation of
techniques, a vocabulary list, and references for further research. Docents are asked to
shadow another docent and provide me with a tour before they can give tours on their
own. The entire training lasts about 2-3 weeks. Most docents do not get past this period
and end up quiting. Those that stay (about 10%) are successful docents for up to a year.
We have not had a docent who has surpassed a year of consistent volunteering.
Although this museum’s training program capitalizes on the adult learner’s self-directedness, the lack of support and choice may be part of the retention problem. The following statement made by another museum professional captures the balance between giving the docents a purpose and allowing them to do what they do best, “I encourage docents to find their own voice, passion, and teaching style, and emphasize dialogue or activities over the lecture format in the galleries.”
Summary
The docent training programs in accredited museums in the United States are as varied and diverse as the museums themselves. Each museum has its own mission, culture, and goal reflected within its docent training programs. Many of the museums that participated in the survey have elements that make their docent training special and specific to the collections
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 133
housed within their walls. The diversity of the training programs was evident in the language, methods, modes, preparation, and practices in the sample of the current study; no two museums’ docent training programs were identical.
Although the docent training programs within the study had many differences, there were still common components that surfaced within them as well. Many of the museum professionals in the study expressed the desire to continue to improve their programs, to be flexible for the benefit of their docent trainees, to rely on their experienced docents to assist in the training processes, and to appreciate their docent corps for the valuable time and talent they give to the museums.
The participants of the study also articulated an understanding of and adherence to andragogical principles in their education of the docents in their programs, allowing their volunteers to take initiative, actively participate in the learning experience, and utilize their reservoir of knowledge to construct meaning from the education.
Although the researcher was able to better understand the components of docent training programs in accredited museums in the United States, there is still much that is unknown in the diverse field of docent education. While analyzing the responses of the participants and compiling profiles for the stages of the museum docent education process, the researcher began to see potential for future studies in the field, as well as ways that the current study could have been improved; perhaps revealing alternative methods that could be used to uncover more detailed and in-depth information about the docent training programs in accredited museums in the United States.
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 134
CHAPTER V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The components found in the participants’ docent training programs were great in number; the researcher recorded 219 different components of docent training among the museum professionals’ responses with several subcategories in each. The comparisons between the museums became evident to the researcher in the responses to one of the first questions on the survey: “What is your title?” Although the title of the museum professional who plans and implements the training program for docents at any of the 121 museums in the sample has no bearing on the program itself, the fact that there were 88 different titles among the 121 respondents is an indication of the diversity in museums. The same phenomenon, multiple titles for similar professions, occurs in higher education in its system of title and rank for faculty members (Shamos, 2002); although there are basic and similar titles such as instructor and professor, “the variety of academic titles in use is impressively vast” p. 2. Shamos (2002) found that the numerous variations of basic titles has arisen in American universities due to careful crafting of the designation to personalize or customize it to the unique role of the individual.
Depending on the rank of the individual and the subject matter they teach, the title may be altered to reflect the distinctions. The same may be true for museum professionals who train docents in accredited museums in the United States; the titles are reflective of the content or duties for which the individual is responsible and yet, symbolic of the museums’ sui generis culture. Rankings such as Assistant, Associate, and Manager exist within the sample as well as titles like Director, Curator, and Educator. Similar to the system reported in higher education
(Shamos, 2002), there is often a qualitative suffix such as “of Education,” “of Exhibits,” “of
Interpretation,” and “of Programs.” Ultimately, the title of the individual bears no evidence to the effectiveness of the program, instead, this phenomenon demonstrates how different each
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 135
museum is from the others and how the differences affect the vocabulary of the responses more than the actual processes themselves. The researcher concluded that the essence of accredited museums in the United States are similar, but the details, much like the collections they hold, make them unique. The spirit of individuality found in the museums was echoed in the details of their docent training programs, while a sense of general uniformity enveloped the practices within the sample.
Review of the Study
The purpose of the current study was to identify components of docent training programs and practices in nationally accredited museums in the United States and to compare the identified components among the museums. Additionally, the study was implemented to determine how the components of docent training programs found among the sample correspond with a model for adult learning.
The questions guiding the study are:
1) What are the components of docent training programs in nationally accredited
museums in the United States?
2) How do the components of docent training programs in nationally accredited museums in the
United States compare to one another?
3) How do the components of docent training programs in nationally accredited
museums in the United States correspond to the four stages in the Adult Learning
Model for Faculty Development?
The 121 respondents in the study are museum professionals that work in accredited museums in the United States and have docent training programs in their museums, which they plan and implement. The participants provided detailed, descriptive answers to the open-ended
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 136
questions on the docent training survey (Appendix A) offering insight into the practices of their respective docent training programs. The researcher coded and qualitatively grouped the replies according to components of the programs, common components among the sample programs, and their correspondence to the Adult Learning Model for Faculty Development (Lawler & King,
2000), which was used as a framework for the study. The researcher was also able to find evidence of techniques and methods recommended in the literature about docent training as well as nonformal and adult education and categorized this information as such.
The data suggested that the components of the docent training programs in the current study are varied and diverse; just as the museums that took part in the study are distinctive from one another. Each museum in the study had an individual quality that made its docents and its docent training programs unlike the others, however, the researcher found commonalities, especially within the methodologies, among the programs as well.
Discussion
The responses given by the participants in the study paint a picture of the inner workings of the docent training programs in accredited museums in the United States. The participants shared the details of their programs, the preliminary preparation, organization, budgeting, implementation, scheduling, communicating, and evaluation. The details make the programs distinctive, but the overall view revealed homogeneity among the museums.
What are the components of docent training programs in nationally accredited museums in the United States?
Much like the modification of titles for the museum professionals, the training programs in the museums displayed elements of individuality and customization to reflect the collections and the docents, themselves. The “Pre-Planning” coded data, coinciding with the pre-planning
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 137
stage of the model, is where Lawler and King (2000) recommend that the culture and mission of the organization are inserted. This area showed the greatest differentiation among the sample.
Because each museum is truly different from the others in collection and ideology, it makes sense that the “Pre-Planning” section would have the greatest diversity. Just as the museum professionals who plan and implement the trainings are individual and, therefore, have titles that reflect that individuality; the docent training programs at each museum reflect the distinctiveness of the museum itself. The new docents, being adult learners who have their own schedules and rates of learning, affected the differences displayed in the data as well.
Upon completion of the analysis of data, the researcher was surprised to find that museums falling into the same category i.e. art, history, science, etc., had many differences in their docent training programs. This fact caused the researcher to look for contributing factors leading to the differences within all of the museum types in the study. Factors such as the number of docents, the location of the museum, the museum’s affiliation with a university, the age of the docent corps, and whether the museum’s docents are volunteer or paid all made a difference in a museum’s docent training program. Other examples of individuality, such as time of the program, frequency of the sessions, and educational resources, illustrate the level of customization in each program based on the amount of background knowledge, skills, and availability the new docents bring to the position. By recognizing these attributes, the museums are utilizing their docents and abilities in ways that are both beneficial to the museum and rewarding for the adult learner. This wide-range in the data, which initially appeared to the researcher an indication of great disparity in docent training programs, could be better described as a reflection the individuality of the museums, the museum professionals, and the docents.
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 138
Simply stated, no museum docent training program in the study was exactly the same as another, just as no two museums are exactly the same.
Although the composite of components that were revealed among the museums in the current study was great, the researcher was able to make an assemblage of the overall state of docent training in accredited museums in the United States according to the stages of the Adult
Learning Model for Faculty Development (Lawler & King, 2000). The researcher synthesized the components, highlighting those that were used by the majority, to give a complex overview of the docent training programs in accredited museums in the United States.
During the pre-planning stage, which calls for big picture, structural preparation, museums begin to map out the training program – scheduling dates, facilities, and guest speakers as well as allotting budget allowances for materials, refreshments, and guest speaker fees. From the sample, it was established that most docent training programs are an annual or twice-yearly occurrence with a class of new docents that meet 6-12 times either weekly or monthly, gathering in the museum for training, accomplished with little to no money set aside in the budget for the program. Prior to the commencement of the program, the museum professionals recruit individuals to become volunteer docents at their museums. This recruitment can happen through strategic face-to-face interactions, mail or email announcements, or volunteer website promotion, but the most reliable method of spreading the word to recruit new docents is through word of mouth recommendation from current docents in the program.
The pre-planning stage is also when the museum professional decides upon the framework for the training program, including the purpose of the training and how it will be successfully conveyed to the docents. The museum professionals focus on acclimating the new docents to the content of the museum’s collection, the expectations of the docents, an orientation
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 139
to the museum as well as the history of the museum. The trainers also emphasize creating an atmosphere where docents strive to meet the needs of diverse learners, considering their age, stage, abilities, and culture. Museum professionals inspire their docents to ask questions of the viewers, rather than lecturing, and encourage interactive techniques in the museum. In order to train the new docents to adopt these ideals, the museum professionals utilize their seasoned docents as a way to model the desired techniques and behaviors. They do so by allowing the new docents to shadow the experienced docents as well as pairing the two in a mentorship. Not only do the new docents learn from those with more experience, but they form bonds to encourage friendships as well.
The last component of the pre-planning stage is the consideration of evaluation methods and tools to assess the individual docents and the program. Museum professionals are excellent at turning the mirror on themselves – seeking feedback from the participants in their docent program about the effectiveness of the instruction and functionality of the tours. They do not have the same penchant for evaluating the docents; the museum staff members are reluctant to commit to assessing their docent cadre on their skills, knowledge, or techniques even though they admit to seeing the value in doing so. Some of the reasons for the lack of evaluating the docents varied including factors such as time, financial resources, and sensitivity to the docents.
Once the decisions regarding the scheduling, purpose, and framework have been made, the individual developing the training can begin focusing on the details of the sessions such as what topics will be covered, which guest speakers will present and when, and how the training schedule will be communicated to the docents. The preparation can be considered much like lesson planning in the world of formal education whereby the teacher must consider the content to be delivered to the learners, the best ways to convey that information, and who will present it.
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 140
Docent training is nonformal, adult education so the museum professional must consider the principles of andragogy when developing the sessions, such as the learners’ motivation and interests.
Outside speakers, such as experts in the field of the museum’s collection or experts in another relevant topic, are the most chosen special guests for presenting to docents in the training. Academics who have a great deal of knowledge in a particular subject are typical guest speakers, enriching and enlightening the docents with contextual information that can be used to supplement their tours. Other guest speakers may be those with knowledge of ways to communicate with special needs audiences or ways to communicate in unique ways with typical audiences, both categorized as visitor management techniques. All of these special presentations are designed to broaden the knowledge and confidence of the docents. Aside from outside speakers, the museum professionals also request their fellow museum colleagues to share insights with the docents pertaining to their specific department of the museum. Other topics that museum professionals schedule to be a part of the docent training program are touring techniques, information about specific exhibits on display, and information about the museum’s collection.
Once the speakers and topics have been decided upon and arranged, the museum professional communicates the session schedule with the docents. Email remains the most reliable and efficient method for connecting with the docents in order to share training information, though password-protected websites have become more prevalent for communication. Phone calling and postal mail are also still used to ensure the docents receive information about trainings, but much less often than electronic methods.
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 141
The next stage of docent training is the delivery stage, where the preparation and logistical work is implemented. Although the literature has cautioned the use of lecture in docent training, many museum professionals are still using lecture as a way to convey information to the docents. The literature has shown that using lecture sends a confusing message to the docents as it causes the docents to perceive that lecture is the desired mode of transferring information to the museum visitors, when in fact, the museum professionals would like the docents to question and interact with the guests. The mixed message of “do what I say not what I do” can produce docents who lecture to the museum guests about the collection rather than question and interact.
The importance of teaching docents about the artifacts in the collection in the same manner that they are expected to deliver the information to the museum guests has seemingly begun to take hold. The museum professionals are using lecture, but for the most part, they are coupling it with other, more desirable methods of instruction such as gallery walks, practicing, and observation. The training sessions generally last from 1.5 to 3 hours and often take place when the museum is closed to the public. Museum professionals are aware of the busy schedules with which their docents live and to accommodate that, they often offer the training session more than once, giving the volunteer more than one option to attend.
Once the training sessions are complete, the evaluations that were decided upon earlier in the pre-planning stage. The museum professionals feel their biggest weakness lies in this area.
As previously stated, there is a concerted effort toward improving the docent training program, but a lack of enthusiasm for assessing the individual docents. Reasons including time, financial resources, and sensitivity to the docents were mentioned by the respondents who do not evaluate their docents’ knowledge and skills. Those who do implement docent evaluation use mostly passive forms of evaluation such as observation, however, a few of the museum professionals
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 142
use tests to assess their new docents’ knowledge of the collection and hold individual meetings with the docents to review their progress and skills.
Along with evaluating the program and docent, another component of the follow-up stage is offering ongoing support to the docents. The museum professionals were very likely to offer support to their docents in the form of docent libraries, enrichment sessions, field trips to other museums, and individual meetings to tutor new docents. The museum professionals recognize the value of their docent corps and place high priority on retention among them. Often, the researcher saw evidence in the responses of the appreciation that the museum professionals have for their volunteer counterparts who serve as the face of the museum to the public.
How do the components of docent training programs in nationally accredited museums in the United States compare to one another?
When comparing the docent training programs in the current study, the researcher was looking for similarities and differences. The differences surfaced, organically, during the coding process as the researcher created numerous codes for the multitudinous components within the programs. The area of greatest diversity, as stated earlier, was found in the section coded “Pre-
Planning”, which calls for the organization’s mission and culture to be introduced and intertwined with the training. This phenomenon was consistent with one of the educational standards recommended by the American Alliance of Museums (American Alliance of
Museums, 2018), which states, “The museum uses techniques, technologies, and methods appropriate to its educational goals, content, audiences, and resources.” If every museum were to use identical training, the standard set forth by the AAM would not be met as each museum has its own specific educational goals, content, audience, and resources and must tailor its docent training programs to reach each of these points.
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 143
Although the individual components of the docent training programs in accredited museums in the United States were varied and diverse, there were many common components within the sample population as well. The common components that emerged were the overarching aspects of the training such as philosophies and frameworks being used. As the researcher coded the responses according to the Adult Learning Model for Faculty Development
(Lawler & King, 2000), common components emerged within all four stages of the model: pre- planning, planning, delivery, and follow-up, with the greatest similarity found in the delivery section. The delivery section of the model is where the work that was done in pre-planning and planning stages come together and the actual training takes place. It was in this section that the researcher found the most homogeny between the programs; in the techniques and methods used to train the new docents.
The first of the common components found in the data, training new docents on educational strategies for diverse learners, reflected the intentions of early museums found in literature. The sample population had many different ways of describing their educational strategies for diverse learners, but the shared ideology was woven among many of the responses from the museum professionals. Statements honoring diversity in age, stage, and ability found in the data acknowledge the inclusive nature of museums; a principle upon which modern day museums were founded (Dana, 1917). Similarly, this inclusivity is found in the Principles of
Best Practices for Museum Education (EdCom, 2002) in the category of “Accessiblity” that calls for museums to “engage the community and serve the museum’s audiences” (p. 5). An exemplar of inclusion came from a participant whose museum brings in a special education professional from a local school district to speak on this topic with the docents practicing by modeling ways to best reach a variety of audiences and needs.
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 144
The effective use of proven educational techniques such as modeling was another commonality in the responses from the sample. Modeling is the act of performing the desired technique or method by the mentor, teacher, or experienced docent so that the new docent may clearly view the expected behavior. This term is often used in classroom education research
(Aleccia, 2011; Burnham & Kai-Kee, 2011; Council of Chief State School Officers, 2013;
Fernandez, 2014; Knowles M. , 1984; Santos, 2012; Shulman, 1987). Its use in museum docent training accents the dedication to educational practices within the sample population of museums.
Techniques prescribed in the literature appeared in the docent training practices within the study. The most popular techniques within the museum sample were gallery walks, lecturing, practicing, observation, and activities. Although these techniques were commonly used, there was a distinct difference between museum types in the use of certain techniques. Art and history museums utilized gallery walks and lectures much more than the other types of museums. Interestingly, literature discourages the use of lecturing as a method for teaching
(Burnham & Kai-Kee, 2005; Burnham & Kai-Kee, 2011; Castle, 2001; Grenier, 2008; Grenier &
Scheckley, 2008; Lawler & King, 2000) yet, it is still being used in museum docent training; especially in art and historical museums. The positive aspect found in the sample regarding the use of lecturing was that it was often paired with a more interactive technique such as discussion or gallery walk. The limited use of lecture as the single method of implemenation added to the evidence of scholarship within the docent training community as many of the respondents made mention that they pair lecture with a more preferred method of presenting educational material.
Another example of a common component found within the sample of museums in the current study, is the practice of educating the new docents on the content of the museum. While
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 145
it may seem intuitive to teach the new docents about the contents of the museum, some of the museums in the study do not make this a part of their formal training. Those that do educate their docents on the museum’s collection were the majority and in doing so, are adhering to the
AAM guideline for educational standards (American Alliance of Museums, 2018) as well as the
Principles of Best Practices for Museum Education (EdCom, 2002), which states in its
“Accountability” category that museums, “demonstrate excellence in content knowledge by mastering the content related to the museum’s collections, exhibitions, and mission” (p. 5).
The final relevant common component found in the docent training program survey results was in the area of evaluation. In this area, the museum professionals remarked that many of them do not evaluate the new docents after training. Lack of evaluation presents an area of concern as the literature has shown that doing so is an important aspect of the training process
(Bays, 1973; DePrizio, 2016; Flanders, 1979; King & Glaser, 1989; McCray, 2016) and, as mentioned in the literature, all types of learning – formal, informal and non formal – rely on evaluation to assess the learner and the lessons (Nurhayati, 2015). The Standards for Museum
Professionals (EdCom, 2002) recommends that museum professionals, “Persistently seek opportunities to expand the knowledge of learning theory, education methods, evaluation, media, management, scholarship related to the museum’s collections, and best practices in the field” (p.
10). The lack of evaluatory measures for the new docents is in conflict with the industry standards and, interestingly, most of the participants who do not evaluate their docents mentioned the fact that they are aware of the need to do so, but don’t implement the practice.
The lack of evidence in the literature on recommended evaluation methods for docent training is reflected in the field through this current study (Dudzinska-Przesmitzki & Grenier, 2008;
Flanders, 1979) and highlights an area of docent education that could be further explored.
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 146
Although many museum professionals in the sample population revealed that they do not evaluate the newly trained docents, evaluation of the docent training program was found more often within the sample. The researcher found this fact to be on par with the spirit of museums; self-reflective and continuously improving. The museum professionals in the study mentioned various options provided to the docents, both new and returning, for evaluating the training programs signaling a desire to improve their programs and to become as effective as possible.
The practice of evaluting the docent training program may also be reflexive; an impulsive reaction to the lack of literature on effective docent training practices. Perhaps, if museum professionals were to better understand the expectations of the industry by being given more explicit recommedations for docent training practices, the continuous need to seek change or alter their programs would be less.
How do the components of docent training programs in nationally accredited museums in the United States correspond to the four stages in the Adult Learning Model for Faculty
Development?
The Adult Learning Model for Faculty Development (Lawler & King, 2000) was used as the framework for the current study due to its affiliation with academia and andragogy, both of which have a relationship to museum docent training. The model was used to guide the researcher in formulating questions for the museum professionals’ survey about their docent training programs and the model was used as an index for analyzing the responses given by the museum professionals. Although the Adult Learning Model for Faculty Development (Lawler &
King, 2000) was not created for use with museum docent training, specifically, it has served as a way to congruently study the docent training programs in accredited museums in the United
States.
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 147
The researcher found interest in the bandwidth of the responses per stage of the model as the pre-planning stage had a significantly larger number of codes within it as compared to the other three stages. The disparity of the codes per stage had several possible reasons for occurring such as survey fatigue (Backor, Golde, & Nie, 2007) or the individuality of the museum. The theory that fatigue caused the respondents to give more detail in the first question than the others does not necessarily hold true in the current study as the third question in the survey, which was about the delivery stage, had the next largest number of codes assigned to it.
If the participants were growing weary of responding to the survey and, therefore, giving less detail to subsequent questions, there would not likely be a spike in details in the third question, rather the responses would grow smaller with each question (Backor, Golde, & Nie, 2007). The second possibility for the great number of codes in the pre-planning section of the survey may be due to the originality of each museum. It is in this stage that the participants were prompted to mention the framework of the docent training program. Framework in an educational program is built and tailored to the organization and the participants. It was in the framework responses that the researcher saw many comments pertaining to the purpose for training, the educational philosophy of the museum, and methodology used in the trainings that were customized to the museum itself. The phenomenon of diversity in the framework of the museum docent training programs is in accord with the Adult Learning Model for Faculty Development (Lawler & King,
2000), which recognizes differentiation in frameworks of adult education programs as well as the
Principles for Museum Education (EdCom, 2002), which encourage museums to create educational goals based on their individual collections and audiences. The “Pre-Planning” section of the survey yielded many insights to the individuality of the museums.
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 148
One of the researcher’s goals was to learn whether museum professionals were treating their docent training programs in the same way that a professional developer would treat her programming for faculty education. Lawler and King (2000) recommend that the individual who leads this type of programming begins with the overarching goal for the series; a big picture plan that shows consideration of higher-level goals such as scheduling, budgeting, incorporation of mission and goals, and evaluation methods for the learner and the training. This stage, the pre- planning, is deliberate and organized. The participants in the current study were asked to describe, in detail, the big-picture planning process of the docent training program at their museum such as who is involved, facilities, budgets, length of training program, and/or framework. The responses from the participants showed alignment to the model as many of the museum professionals commented on each of the suggested areas. The museum professionals seemed to have examined the majority of the considerations recommended by Lawler and King
(2000) for program preparation with the exception of the budget for the training. The funding for the docent training programs in the museums were mentioned by less than half of the respondents and the majority of those who mentioned funding reported that there is no money set aside for docent training. A board that makes decisions about funding and budget items governs many museums, therefore, the lack of funding may be out of the respondents’ control or professional scope; however, it is an interesting finding and one that has not been addressed to a great degree in the docent training literature.
The next section of the model and the survey is “Planning,” where the museum professionals were asked to describe, in detail, the development process for the individual docent training sessions at their respective museums such as the communications of the training schedule, specific topics, and/or special guests. The museum professionals’ responses showed
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 149
alignment to the model in their use of communication, topic choices, and special guest appearances at their trainings. There were half as many codes created from the comments in the
“Planning” section of the survey; however, there were only slightly fewer respondents that did not mention some aspect of the planning stage in their response. The researcher noticed that the individuality of the museum did not have as much effect on the possible answers to the
“Planning” questions; most of the museums had similar practices in this area.
The “Delivery” section of the survey asked the participants to describe, in detail, the implementation of the training sessions at their museum such as time of day, materials, activities, and time allotment. The researcher was looking for what actually occurs in docent training sessions in museums. Nearly all of the participants shared details about their trainings including what takes place, when, what types of materials are given to the docents, and even the hospitality arrangements such as coffee, donuts, and even champagne, showing a return of individualization to the culture of the museum.
The last area the researcher focused on was the “Follow-Up,” the evaluation methods used by the museum professionals to assess the docents’ understanding of the material presented and to assess the program’s effectiveness. As previously stated, the “Follow-Up” section, specifically the evaluation of the docents’ learning, was the least utilized practice among the
Adult Learning Model for Faculty Development and an area that many museum professionals confess to be weak in their programs. The researcher initially looked at the low number of museums that evaluate the docents as a negative aspect, but upon further deliberation, the researcher began to understand the lack of evaluation. The lay teachers in museums are primarily volunteers and, as many of the participants mentioned, they are retirees. The researcher wondered if the museum professionals felt that evaluating the docents on their
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 150
knowledge of the museum’s contents and methods for giving tours was coming from a place of empathy; not wanting to offend or upset the individuals who spend much of their free time volunteering to assist the museum staff. The appreciation for the docents that the participants mentioned gave the researcher pause to wonder if the gift of time and talent that the docents give to the museum outweighs the desire to evaluate the docents’ learning. However, Flanders (1979) states,
…evaluation of both knowledge and of tour performance is directed toward the docent,
who is expected to meet a certain standard, just as teachers must satisfactorily complete
college courses and student teaching before they can be certified, and as pilots must earn
their wings (p. 2).
The researcher understands both the need for standardization within the museum education realm and the hesitation of the museum professionals in doing so, suggesting another area where further research is necessary. The positive aspects of the “Follow-Up” section were the program evaluations designed to improve the training programs and the ongoing support that many of the museums gave to their docents to assist in their continuing educational efforts.
Recommendations
For the Museum Industry
After analyzing the results from the responses, the researcher has found that there is a need in the industry for a model to guide museum professionals in creating, maintaining, and improving their docent training programs.
The complexity of museum docent training program components in the current study is mainly due to the individuality of the participating museums; however, a tool for standardization in docent training programs could be helpful, not to reduce the unique qualities of the museums,
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 151
but to enhance each museum’s educational quality. As previously mentioned, standards are helpful in teacher education to guide the industry and produce teachers who are competent and abreast of the latest information available from Council for Accreditation of Educator Programs
(CAEP). Principles of best practice for museum education (EdCom, 2002) were created to assist museum professionals in a similar way; however, it has been established that the prescribed museum education standards are vague and leave much to interpretation. A template for training based on the stages of the Adult Learning Model for Faculty Development (Lawler & King,
2000) could be constructed that would act as a framework for docent training programs, allowing for museum professionals to feel more confident about their practices and processes.
This hypothetical docent training model could be produced in such a way to allow for individualization and customization, as no two museums have exactly the same collection, audience, or docents, just as the Adult Learning Model for Faculty Development (Lawler &
King, 2000) allows for incorporating the culture and purpose of the organization implementing the professional development training. As the current study has illustrated, docent training programs in accredited museums in the United States can be analyzed for their components, commonalities and differences, and correspondence to suggested practices by using a model for adult education. Therefore, it makes sense that a similar model, which is specific to adult education in museums, namely docent training, could be generated and disseminated to museums as a way to design, maintain, and improve their docent training programs.
Each stage of the Adult Learning Model for Faculty Development was found to have congruence with docent training practices, though some stages aligned more closely than others did. The pre-planning stage of the model is intended to be comprehensive with a long-range strategy for the entire training program – the purpose of the training and how it fits in to the
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 152
culture, mission, and goals of the organization. To accomplish the pre-planning stage, the facilitator focuses on the reason that the training program is necessary, the intended audience and their needs, resources available for the program such as facilities and budget, how long the training program will last, and the structure of the program. In the current docent training study, the researcher discovered that not all museums abide by the model in certain areas for reasons related to the individual nature of the museum; however, inconsistency with the model’s commendations also occurs due to lack of adherence to or knowledge of the prescriptions offered by the body of museum education literature. For example, the number of individuals in a museum’s docent corps affected the training structure in certain participating museums, as some with very low docent numbers chose to use an on-demand, one-on-one schedule for training versus museums with consistently larger numbers of docents that train entire classes on an annual basis. This particular contingency is due to the museums’ size or location, but other recommended practices that were absent from some docent training programs had nothing to do with the individuality of the museum. The lack of a plan for or implementation of docent evaluation was discovered among a portion of the sample even though the literature recommends evaluating docents for consistency and accuracy in tours (Flanders, 1979). To heighten awareness and encourage best practices, the hypothesized model would include an explicit guide for creating and implementing docent evaluation with customizable options for museums of all sizes based all of which would be based on proven methods from literature.
Furthermore, the implementation of such a model would assist in filling gaps in the literature where there is insubstantial evidence of best practices. The example of docent evaluation is apropos for this discussion as well. Although there is literature that suggests the importance of evaluation of docents, there is little literature that explicitly examines exact
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 153
methods for evaluating docents. By implementing the proposed model, data could be gathered from docent training practices from the field to compile a best practice in docent evaluation.
Docent evaluation is one are in the pre-planning stage where shortcomings in the field could be enhanced by the introduction of a model for docent training. The researcher discovered some type of inconsistency between museums in all of the stages of the model, with many of the respondents lacking in one area or another such as framework for the program, frequency of training programs and sessions, modes of communicating with docents, materials used for training sessions, and method used for teaching the docents. These are other areas that could be strengthened and enhanced if a more standardized model was available to guide museums in their efforts. Based on the large number of participants who requested to receive the results of the study i.e. 88 out of 121 respondents, the researcher discerned that museum professionals desire to follow best practices and would welcome the addition of a tool that could be used to improve and direct their docent training programs.
Hypothetical Improvements for the Current Study
The researcher’s introspection for recommendations regarding the current study uncovered several areas that could have been improved if the study were to be repeated. The first area of improvement would be the survey sent to the museum professionals (Appendix A).
Several of the respondents mentioned that the survey was too long and would have appreciated more close-ended questions to alleviate some of the time required to complete the survey. While the researcher understands the value of time, the open-ended questions were necessary to gather thick, qualitative responses from the participants; however, the survey could have included more closed-ended questions in the survey and the researcher could have eliminated a few of the questions that, in retrospect, were not necessary, such as the number of years that the museum
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 154
has been accredited by the AAM. Similarly, the researcher could have conducted phone or face- to-face interviews to collect the data from the participants, which would have saved their time in filling out the survey, but allowed for the thick, qualitative responses that the researcher desired.
Another change that could have improved the study follows the same vein as the changes mentioned above, which is conducting face-to-face interviews or attending other museums’ docent training programs to add another level of research to the results. Creswell and Poth
(2018) recommend ethnographic research methods to gain a true understanding of the patterns that can be found and used to describe the culture of a group (pg. 91). The outcome described by
Creswell and Poth would add to the understanding of the docent training programs and the literature about it.
Future Research Opportunities
After reviewing the data and analyzing the results, the researcher found potential areas for future research opportunities such as budgets in docent training programs, evaluation measures of docents in museums, and technology used in docent training programs.
The need for more research surfaced in the areas of budgeting for docent training. As was shown in the data of the study, many museums are lacking a budget for their docent training programs, yet the literature shows that docents are a vital part of carrying out their missions. The researcher would suggest a study that could explore funding processes in museum for their docent training practices, highlighting the importance of monetary support to continue the education of museum docents.
Similarly, the study revealed a lack of research in the area of evaluation of docents. The data showed that many museum professionals are hesitant to assess their museum docents’ knowledge or skills. This phenomenon could be due to the lack of proven methods for doing so.
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 155
The current study used older literature (Flanders; 1979) to guide the understanding of docent evaluation methods because no other studies could be found. An individual interested in researching the evaluative methods of docents in museums may find useful literature in the field of adult education or volunteer training.
Another area of interest to the researcher was the use of and types of technology used to communicate with the docents regarding docent training announcements. There were more methods used than the researcher anticipated including Learning Management Systems found on university campuses, museum-specific methods such as VSys, typical methods like email, and even museums that use snail mail or phone calls due to the lack of technological sophistication on the part of their docents. The type of technologies used and the attitudes of the docents toward technology might be another area that could produce valuable research.
These are three potential areas that could be further explored to add to the literature on docent training programs in museums.
Limitations
The researcher recognizes the limitations of both the study and the ability of the researcher to conduct it, most of which revolve around the data collection process. The researcher was able to locate 501 museums that have been accredited by the American Alliance of Museums on the AAM website by conducting a search within the accreditation tools.
Although the website listed each museum by state, the contact information for the staff members was not available. In order to send the survey to the individual who conducts docent training, the researcher located the education department on each of the 501 websites and, using deductive reasoning, selected the individual whose job title and description seemed to most logically align with that of the individual who might be in charge of training docents. The researcher conceded
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 156
to sending the email to the general contact email for museums where the contact information was unavailable for the individual that the researcher suspected to be the museum professional who trains docents. Because of this caveat, there is a chance that the email sent to many of the museums was either not received by the correct department or person for whom it was intended.
The rate of response to the survey was 32% overall and 25% for those who have a formal docent training in their museum. These percentages are within the acceptable range of response rates
(Baruch, 1999), however, the researcher realizes that had the identity of the museum professional who educates docents been available on more websites, the response may have been higher.
Another area of data collection that created a limitation of the study was the researcher’s lack of ability to contact the museum professionals in person or by phone. Had the researcher been able to visit the museums to see the training in action or to speak to the participants rather than relying on their written explanation of the programs, more data could have been collected to add to the volume of information on docent training practices in accredited museum in the
United States. Similarly, as previously stated, some of the participants in the study mentioned in their survey responses that they simply did not have time to write all of the details to their training programs in the short amount of time they were able to spend on the survey. This limitation could have been resolved if the researcher had been able to meet the museum professionals in person.
The researcher acknowledges the absence of Interrater Reliability due to the lack of others examining and coding the data that was collected. The data was coded a priori according to the stages of the Adult Learning Model for Faculty Development (Lawler & King, 2000), however, subsequent coding was done subjectively based on the researcher’s knowledge of
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 157
museum docent education terminology. The researcher used her knowledge of museum industry language to code, in vivo.
In summary, the researcher acknowledges that the sample size and method of data collection could be considered limitations to the current study.
Conclusion
Docent training programs in accredited museums in the United States are a blend of complexity and familiarity, individualism and community, uniqueness and similarity; a true reflection of the museums in which the docents train. The collection housed in the museums are various – art, historical artifacts, dinosaur bones, or living animals – but the museum professionals in the museums have a common desire; to educate docents about the culture, mission, collections, and audience of their respective museums and they do so using established methods from the literature on education in museum. Evidence of scholarship and continuous improvement among the museum professionals in the study was easily found, signaling a perpetuation of the educational value of museums in America.
The researcher’s exploration of docent training practices in accredited museums in the
United States began with a comparison of museum education and formal education; believing that a similarity could be found between the two. After reviewing the literature on the different styles of education such as formal, informal, and nonformal, the researchers began to understand the organic difference between learning in school and learning in a museum. Could the training of the educators in both scenarios be similar? Could museum docents benefit from standards- based education techniques just as pre-service teachers do? The literature suggests that even the education of docents and teachers is different in many ways with different outcomes and different purposes. All of these questions led the researcher to wonder if, because there is no
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 158
standardization in museum education and the docents are educated differently than teachers, there is any commonality to what and how docents are being trained in museums today. The research in the literature was asking the same question – what are the practices occurring in museum docent training programs?
The inquiry began – reaching out to 501 museums in the United States that have been accredited by the AAM, the researcher asked the museum professionals about their programs using a model from the literature in preparing adult education programs. The results came in and the researcher began to sort, code, and construct meaning from the vast number of responses, reading, and rereading so as not to misinterpret lexical differences as true differences, but to contextualize comments searching for the underlying meaning. After becoming familiar with the comments, positive and negative, and the sentiments, heartwarming and heartbreaking, the researcher was able to paint a picture of the docent training programs from the museums that participated in the study.
Each museum, each museum professional, and each museum docent training program is truly one of a kind. From details such as expectations of the docent corps, time involvement, frequency of training sessions, size of docent class, and dollars spent on training, the researcher concluded that there is no one right way to train docents in a museum; what makes each museum unique also makes the docent training program special.
On the other hand, the docent training programs are all similar in many ways. The majority of the programs use methods recommended in the literature to implement their training as well as offering ongoing support to their docents. The bulk of the responses from the museum professionals revealed a true appreciation for the docents who offer their time to assist the museum staff and the responses from the field reflected a sense of pride in each of their
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 159
programs. The museum professionals seem to enjoy the responsibility of educating the docents, the preparation, and implementation, dedication of the docents, and the museum holdings.
The researcher has considered the collective responses from the museums involved in the study and has concluded that, for the most part, museum docent training programs are following the prescribed advice of the museum education literature, utilizing the limited available recommendations as well as adhering to the principles of andragogy; however, the museum community still longs for more structure and direction from experts and practitioners in the field.
To fill that need, a model, much like the highlighted adult education model, would be helpful to guide museum professionals in designing, maintaining, and improving docent training; an ideal solution to the lack of standardization within this educational arena. The model would also serve to create unification, helping to produce useful, future data, which could then be analyzed to verify or refine the recommendations from the literature and the practices used in museums.
Museums are noble institutions that exist to bring enlightenment, entertainment, and culture to the public. Staying true to their roots, museums seek to offer an opportunity for the masses to see, appreciate, and learn from artifacts of great intellectual value. Those who greet and teach the public in these institutions continue without any monetary reward, but do so from an intrinsic motivation. The education of these volunteers is something that museum professionals enjoy and feel proud to do. A model for docent education that reflects the strong tradition of museum education with the best practices in adult education could elevate the responsibility of these volunteer lay teachers to the true meaning of the word they use to describe their position – docent: to teach.
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 160
References
Adams, T. (1937). The civic value of museums. New York: American Association for Adult
Education.
Aleccia, V. (2011). Walking our talk: The imperative of teacher educator modeling. The
Clearing House, 84, 87-90.
American Alliance of Museums. (2002). Excellence in practice: Museum education principles
and standards. Washington, DC: American Alliance of Museums.
American Alliance of Museums. (2008). National standards and best practices for U.S.
museums. Washington, D.C.: AAM Press.
American Alliance of Museums. (2018). About AAM. Retrieved from American Alliance of
Museums: https://www.aam-us.org/programs/about-aam/
American Alliance of Museums. (2018). Accreditation. Retrieved from American Alliance of
Museums: https://www.aam-us.org/programs/accreditation-excellence-
programs/accreditation/
American Alliance of Museums. (2018, October). Annual meeting 2019. Retrieved from
AAM.org: https://annualmeeting.aam-us.org/
American Association of Museums. (1992). Excellence and equity: Education and the public
dimension of museums. Washington, D.C.: American Asociation of Museums.
American Association of Museums. (2008). National standards and best practices. Washington
D.C.: Author.
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 161
Backor, K., Golde, S., & Nie, N. (2007). Estimating survey fatigue in time use study. Stanford
University: The Stanford Institute for Quantitative Study of Society (SIQSS), Department
of Sociology.
Barnes, D. (1989). Active learning. Leeds: Leeds University.
Baruch, Y. (1999). Response rate in academic studies – A comparative analysis. Human
Relations, 52, 421-438.
Bays, A. (1973). Docent training programs. Roundtable Reports.
Bennett, T. (1994). That those who may run may read. In E. Hooper-Greenhill, The Educational
Role of the Museum 2nd Edition (pp. 241-254). New York, NY: Routledge.
Boone, E., Safrit, R., & Jones, J. (2002). Developing programs in adult education: A conceptual
programming model. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press, Inc.
Bronson Hartt, M. (1910). Docentry: A new profession. Outlook, 94, 701-708.
Bucat, R. (2005). Implications of chemistry education research for teaching practice:
Pedagogical content knowledge as a way forward. Chemistry Education International, 6,
1-2.
Buff, L., Fertig, B., Herman, J., Hoth, S., Murphy, N., Wasilewski, M., & Yellis, K. (1977). The
Museum Docent. Museum Education Roundtable(Spring), 1-6.
Burnham, R., & Kai-Kee, E. (2005). The art of teaching in the museum. The journal of aesthetic
education, 39(1), 65-76.
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 162
Burnham, R., & Kai-Kee, E. (2007). Museum education and the project of interpretation in the
Twenty-First Century. The Journal of Aesthetic Education, 41(2), 11-13.
Burnham, R., & Kai-Kee, E. (2011). Teaching in the art museum: Interpretation as experience.
Los Angeles: Getty Publishing.
Castle, C. (2006). Blending pedagogy and content: A new curriculum for museum teachers. The
Journal of Museum Education, 123-132.
Castle, M. (2001). Interpreters, docents and educators: Ways of knowing, ways of teaching in a
history museum, an art gallery and a nature centre. Toronto: University of Toronto.
Chisholm, H. (1911). Curator. In Encyclopædia Britannica 7 11th ed. (p. 636). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Pres.
Cochran, K., King, R., & DeRuiter, J. (1991). Pedagogical content knowledge: A tentative model
for teacher preparation. Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research
Association (p. 23). Chicago: Universtiy of Northern Colorado.
Colley, H., Hodkinson, P., & Malcolm, J. (2002). Non-formal learning: Mapping the conceptual
terrain. a consultation report. Leeds: University of Leeds Lifelong Learning Institute.
Conn, S. (1998). Museums and American intellectual life, 1876–1926. . Chicago: University of
Chicago Press. Retrieved from State University:
http://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/2254/Museum-an-Educational-Institution.html
Coombs, P., Prosser, R., & Ahmmed, M. (1973). New paths to learning for rural children and
youth: Non-formal education for rural development. New York: International Council for
Educational Development.
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 163
Council of Chief State School Officers. (2013). Interstate teacher assessment and support
consortium InTASC model core teaching standards and learning progressions for
teachers 1.0: A resource for ongoing teacher development. Washington, D.C.: Author.
Creswell, J., & Poth, C. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow. New York: Harper Collins.
Dana, J. (1917). The new museum. New York: Elm Tree Press.
Darling-Hammond, L., Holtzman, D., Gatlin, S., & Heilig, J. (2005). Does teacher preparation
matter? Evidence about teacher certification, teach for America, and teacher
effectiveness. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13(42).
DePrizio, J. (2016). Making the case for transforming training. Journal of museum education,
41(1), 3-9.
Dewey, J. (1900). The school and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education; An introduction to the philosophy of education.
New York: Macmillan.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: MacMillan.
Doering, Z. (1999). Strangers, guest, or clients? Visitor experiences in museums. Curator: The
Museum Journal, 42(2), 74-87.
Dudzinska-Przesmitzki, D., & Grenier, R. (2008). Nonformal and informal adult learning in
museums: A literature review. The Journal of Museum Education, 33(1), 9-22.
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 164
Ebitz, D. (2005). Qualifications and the professional preparation and development of art museum
educator. Studies in Art Education, 150-169.
EdCom. (2002). Excellence in practice: Museum education standards and principles.
Washington, DC: American Association of Museums Education Committee.
Ellenbogen, K. (n.d.). The Museum as an educational institution: The birth of public museums,
museums after the civil war, a shift in education. Retrieved from State University:
http://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/2254/Museum-an-Educational-
Institution.html#ixzz5Cfkolij8
Eshach, H. (2007). Bridging in-school and out-of-school learning: Formal, informal and non
formal edcuation. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(2), 171-190.
Falk, J., & Dierking, L. (1997). The museum experience. Washington, D.C.: Whalesback Books.
Falk, J., & Dierking, L. (2000). Learning from museums : Visitor experiences and the making of
meaning. Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press.
Falk, J., Moussouri, T., & Coulson, D. (1998). The effect of visitors’ agendas on museum
learning. Curator, 106-122.
Fernandez, C. (2014). Knowledge base for teaching and pedagogical content knowledge (PCK):
Some useful models and implications for teachers' training. Problems of Education in the
21st Century, 60, 79-100.
Fernandez-Keys, A. (2010). Caught in the middle: thoughts and observations on the information
needs of art museum docents. Art Documentation: Bulletin of the Art Libraries Society of
North America, 29(2), 36-39.
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 165
Fincham, J. (2008). Response rates and responsiveness for surveys, standards, and the journal.
American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 72(2), 43.
Flanders, M. (1979). Evaluating docents: Mentioning the unmentionable. Museum Education
Roundtable, 4(3), 1-4.
Foreman-Peck, L., & Travers, K. (2013). What is distinctive about museum pedagogy and how
can museums best support learing in schools? An action research inquiry into the practice
of three regional museums. Educational Action Research, 21(1), 28-41.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York:
BasicBooks.
Gilman, B. (1915). Museum ideals of purpose and method. Boston: Museum of Fine Arts.
Google. (2018). Google privacy and terms. Retrieved from Google:
https://policies.google.com/privacy?hl=en&gl=us#infosecurity
Grenier, R. (2008). Practicing what we preach. Journal of interpretation research, 13(1), 7-25.
Grenier, R. (2009). The Role of learning in the development of expertise in museum docents.
Adult Education Quarterly, 59(2), 142-157.
Grenier, R., & Scheckley, B. (2008). Out on the floor: Experiential learning and the implications
for the preparation of docents. Journal of Museum Education, 33(1), 79-97.
Grossman, P. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher education. New
York, NY: Teacher's College Press.
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 166
Hamadache, A. (1991). Non-formal education: A definition of the concept and some examples.
Prospects, 21(1), 111-124.
Hamilton, E. (1992). Adult education for community development. New York: Greenwood Press.
Harvard University . (2007, November 17). Tips on question wording. Retrieved from Harvard
University Program on Survey Research:
https://psr.iq.harvard.edu/files/psr/files/PSRQuestionnaireTipSheet_0.pdf
Hein, G. (1991). The constructivist theory. The Museum and the Needs of People (p. 10).
Jerusalem: Lesley College.
Hein, G. (1998). Learning in the museum. New York, NY: Routledge.
Hein, G. (2004). John Dewey and museum education. Curator, 47(4), 413-427.
Hein, G. E. (1998). Learning in the museum. London: Routledge.
Holland, J., & Christian, L. (2009). The influence of topic interest and interactive probing on
responses to open-ended questions in web surveys. Social Science Computer Review,
27(2), 196-212.
Hooper-Greenhill, E. (1994). Museums and their visitors. London: Routledge.
Hooper-Greenhill, E. (1994). The educational role of the museum. New York, NY: Routledge.
Hooper-Greenhill, E. (2007). Museums and education: Purpose, pedagogy, performance.
Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
Hooper-Greenhill, E., & Moussouri, T. (2000). Researching learning in museums and galleries
1990-1999. Leicester: Research Centre for Museums and Galleries.
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 167
Ivir, V. (1989). Internationalisms: Marked or unmarked. Markedness in Synchrony and
Diachrony, 39, 139.
Johnson, R., & Onwuegbuzie, A. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose
time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14–26.
Judd, C. H. (1918). Survey of the St. Louis Public Schools. Yonkers-on-Hudson, NY: World
Book.
King, K., & Glaser, N. (1989). Professional standards for museum educators. The Journal of
Museum Education, 14(3), 11-13.
Knowles, M. (1980). The modern practice of adult education: From pedagogy to andragogy.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Cambridge Adult Education.
Knowles, M. (1984). Andragogy in action: Applying modern principles of adult learning. San
Francisco: Jossy-Bass Publishing.
Kryston, M. (2013). The significane of nonformal education with focus on interest-based
education. Technology of Education, 1-9.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation .
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lawler, P. A., & King, K. P. (2003). Changes, challenges, and the future. New Directions For
Adult & Continuing Education,, 98, 83-91.
Lawler, P., & King, K. (2000). Planning for effective faculty development; Using adult learning
strategies. Malabar, FL: Krieger.
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 168
London, J. (1960). Program development in adult education. In M. Knowles, Handbook of Adult
Education in the United States (pp. 65-81). Chicago: Adult Education Association of the
United States of America.
MAXQDA. (2018). What is MAXQDA. Retrieved from MAXQDA:
https://www.maxqda.com/what-is-maxqda
McCray, K. (2016). Gallery educators as adult learners: The active application of adult learning
theory. Journal of Museum Education, 41(1), 10-21.
McPeake, J., Bateson, M., & O’Neill, A. (2014). Electronic surveys: How to maximise success.
Nurse Researcher, 21(3), 24-26.
Mendinghall, J. (1975). National register of historic places inventory nomination: Peale's
Baltimore Museum. Washington, D.C.: National Park Service.
Merriam, S. (2001). Andragogy and self-directed learning: Pillars of adult learning theory. New
Directions for Adult & Continuing Education, 2001(89), 3-14.
Merriam, S., Caffarella, R., & Baumgartner, L. (2006). Learning in adulthood 3rd Edition. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Merriam-Webster. (2018). Docent: Did you know? Retrieved from Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/docent
Miles, M., Huberman, A., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods
sourcebook. Los Angeles: Sage.
Monk, D. (2013). John Dewey and adult learning in museums. Adult Learning, 24(2), 63-71.
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 169
Mortimore, P. (1999). Understanding pedagogy: And its impact on learning. London: Paul
Chapman Publishing.
Moussouri, T. (1997). Family agendas and family learning in hands-on museums. Leicester:
University of Leicester.
Museum Education Roundtable. (1985). Museum education research: Future directions. The
Journal of Museum Education, 2-3.
Myers, C., & Jones, T. B. (1993). Promoting active learning: Strategies for the college
classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. (2016). What teachers should know and be
able to do. Arlington, VA: Author.
National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2008). Professional standards for the
accreditation of teacher preparation institutions. Washington, D.C.: Author.
Nurhayati, S. (2015). Andragogical content knowledge as a key component in the training of the
instructors of nonformal education. International Education Studies, 8(2), 219-230.
Olivetti, E. (2003). Latin-English Dictionary. Retrieved from Latin Dictionary:
https://www.online-latin-dictionary.com/latin-english-
dictionary.php?lemma=DOCEO100
Piaget, J. (1957). Construction of reality in the child. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Reischmann, J. (2004, September 9). Andragogy. history, meaning, context, function. Retrieved
from Andragogy.net: http://www.andragogy.net/
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 170
Research Centre for Museums and Galleries. (2003). Measuring the outcomes and impact of
learning in museums, archives and galleries. Leicester: Department of Museums Studies.
Santos, R. (2012). Andragogy content knowledge technology: A training model for teaching
adults. Ann Arbor, MI: Pro Quest.
Saunders, C. (1991). Pedagogy vs. andragogy: Are we treating our students like children?
Military Intelligence, 17(1).
Scribner, S., & Cole, M. (1973). Cognitive consequences of formal and informal education.
Science, 182(4112), 553-559.
Shamos, M. (2002). Handbook of academic titles. Retrieved from Carnegie Mellon University:
http://euro.ecom.cmu.edu/titles/titlebook.htm#Title
Shugurenksy, D. (2000). The forms of informal learning: towards a conceptualization of the
field. Ontario: Centre for the Study of Education and Work.
Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational
Researcher, 15(4), 4-14.
Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of a new reform. Harvard
Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22.
Shurgurensky, D. (2012, May). 1949: Ralph Tyler publishes basic principles of curriculum and
instruction. Retrieved from History of Education: Selected Moments of the 20th Century:
http://schugurensky.faculty.asu.edu/moments/1949tyler.html
Skinner, B. (1938). The Behavior of organisms: An experimental analysis. New York: Appleton-
Century.
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 171
Smithsonian Art Institute. (n.d.). Rembrandt Peale. Retrieved from Smithsonian American Art
Museum: https://americanart.si.edu/artist/rembrandt-peale-3725
Smithsonian Institution. (1985). Annual report of the Smithsonian Institution. Washington, D.C.:
Author.
Stark, R. (2016). Cultivating shared leadership with docents and staff. Journal of Museum
Education, 41(1), 22-28.
Thriemer, K., Ley, B., Ame, S. M., Puri, M. K., Hashim, R., & Chang, N. (2012). Replacing
paper data collection forms with electronic data entry in the field: findings from a study
of community-acquired bloodstream infections in Pemba, Zanziba. BMC Research Notes,
5, 113. doi:http://doi.org/10.1186/1756-0500-5-113
Tyack, D. (1974). The one best system: A history of American urban education. Boston: Harvard
University Press.
Tyler, R. (1949). Principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
UNESCO. (1947). Fundamental education, common ground for All Peoples. In M. o. Kingdom,
Handbook of Suggestions for the Consideration of Teachers and Others Concerned with
Elementary Schoo. Paris: UNESCO.
United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2018). Glossary. Retrieved
from UNESCO: http://uis.unesco.org/node/334726
Vygotsky, L. (1934). Thought and language. Cambridge: MIT Press.
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 172
Weil, S. (2002). Making museums matter. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institute.
Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Towards a sociocultural practice and theory of education.
New York: Cambridge Press.
Wells, M., Butler, B., & Koke, J. (2016). Interpretive planning for museums. New York:
Routledge.
Wild Czajkowski, J., & Hudson Hill, S. (2008). Transformation and interpretation: What is the
mueums educator's role. The Journal of Museum Education, 33(3), 255-236.
Williams, B. (1996). An Examination of Art Museum Education Practices Since 1984. Studies
in art education, 38(1), 34-49.
Wolins, I., Jensen, N., & Ulzheimer, R. (1992). Children's memories of museum field trips: A
qualitative study. Journal of Museum Education, 17-18.
Wolins, I., Spires, S., & Silverman, H. (1986). Meeting our mission: Phased education for
museum docents. The Journal of Museum Education, 11(2), 11-12.
Yarrow, A., Clubb, B., & Draper, J.-L. (2008). Public libraries, archives and museums: Trends
in collaboration and cooperation. The Hague: International Federation of Library
Associations and Institutions.
Yenawine, P. (1999). Theory into practice: The visual thinking strategies. Aesthetic and Art
Education: A Transdisciplinary Approach (pp. 1-11). Lisbon, Portugal: Calouste
Gulbenkian Foundation, Service of Education.
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 173
APPENDIX A
Docent Training Practices Questionnaire
Does your institution have a formal docent/volunteer training program?
Yes No
The Museum Education Professional 1. What is your title:
2. Number of years in your current role:
3. Number of years in the museum industry:
4. Do you plan docent training at your museum?
• If yes, how long have you been planning docent training at your museum?
The Museum 1. What type of museum do you work in?
Historical
Art
Children’s
Science
Maritime
Military
Zoo
Arboretum or Botanical Garden
Other
2. What year was the museum was founded?
3. How many years accredited has your museum been accredited by the AAM?
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 174
4. How many staff members are employed by your museum?
Docent Training Pre-Planning Please describe, in detail, the big-picture planning process of the docent training program at your museum such as who is involved, facilities, budgets, length of training program, and/or framework. Docent Training Planning: Please describe, in detail, the planning process for the individual docent training sessions at your museum such as the communications of the training schedule, specific topics, and/or special guests. Docent Training Delivery: Please describe, in detail, the delivery of the training sessions at your museum such as time of day, materials, and time allotment. Docent Training Follow-Up: Please describe, in detail, the follow-up of the docent training program such as evaluation and support.
Is there any additional information that you would like to share about your docent training program?
If you would be willing to participate in a phone interview to discuss your docent training program in more detail, please provide the following information: Name:
Museum:
Phone Number:
If you are interested in receiving the results of this study, please send an email to me, Kerry Teeple [email protected]
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 175
APPENDIX B
Components of Docent Training in Accredited Museums in the United States Pre-planning Pre-Training Interview process Application Background Check Informal Interview Formal Interview Recruitment Type of Training New Docent Training Returning Docent Training Combined Docent Training Customized Departments Involved in Planning of Docent Training Docents Education Department Education Department and Docents Education Department and Curatorial Department Education Department, Curatorial Department, and Docents Budget Budget Amount No Budget $1 - $99 $100 - $500 $500 - $999 $1,000 - $1,999 $2,000 - $4,999 >$5,000 "Minimal" Budget Expenses Background Checks Field Trips Hospitality Printing
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 176
Speaker Fees Staff Payment Training Schedule Program Length 1-5 Weeks 6-12Weeks 4 - 6 months 7-12 months 13+ months Varies Program Frequency More Than Once per Year Yearly Every 2 years Sporadically Training Frequency Multiple Day per Week Weekly Bi-Monthly Monthly No Frequency Framework Purpose of Training Art Concepts Art History Art Style and Media Artist Study Elements of Art Collection History of Museum Orientation/Expectations Policy/Procedures Philosophy Dialogic Techniques Educational Strategies for Diverse Learners Inquiry Based Interactive Interpretation Museum Studies
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 177
Theories of Learning Visual Thinking Strategies Methodology Customization Homework Lecture Mentorship Practicing Shadow Planning Technology for Training and Communication Blog Dropbox Email Facebook/closed group Facetime Google Drive Lack of Learning Management System Online Survey Online Trainings Password Protected Website Viddler Volgistics VSys YouTube Special Guests Curator Director Outside Speakers Other Staff Members Specific Topics Classroom/Behavior Management Skills Audience considerations and touring strategies: Inclusivity; Managing challenging situations; Public-speaking skill development
COMMON COMPONENTS OF DOCENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 178
Working with visitors with accessibility needs, etc. Art History Art Topics Collection Information Exhibits (Permanent, Temporary and Traveling) Museum History Non-Art Museum Specific Topics (History, Science, Dinosaurs) Orientation Staff-Specific Topics Touring Strategies Mode of Communication of Training Email Mailing Other Delivery Practices Activities Answer Questions Demonstrations by other Docents Discussion Field Trips Gallery Walk Lecturing Observation Practicing Review Docent Notebook Review the Tour Script Shadow Socialize Watch a Video Follow Up Ongoing support Docent Evaluation Program Evaluation