AN ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION OF Laura H. Good for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Science Education presented on April 30, 2013. Title: Unpacking Docent Practice in Free Choice Science Learning Settings: A Qualitative Study Documenting the What and Whys of Docent Interpretive Practice Abstract approved: ____________________________________ Shawn M. Rowe Museum settings including aquariums, zoos and science centers rely heavily on their volunteer docent populations to interact with and communicate science and conservation concepts to the visiting public. The interactions docents have with museum visitors are important to meeting the educational expectations of museums and improving public science literacy as a whole, yet research to date is limited around docent practice, docents' reflections on that practice nor the sources for docents to learn that practice. Thus, we have little understanding of the interpretive practice docents actually undertake whilst interacting with visitors, why they choose to enact particular strategies, and how they came to learn those practices. Using a grounded qualitative approach within a framework of mediated action and cultural historical activity theory, this case study utilized video observations of docent practice at a science center, pre and post observation interviews, and focus groups to 1) document docent practices for engaging visitors, 2) explain those practices from the docents’ own perspectives, and 3) examine those practices from the point of view of how they align with teaching and learning theories and interpretive practice. Thematic analysis using constant comparative methods demonstrate four claims about docent practice: 1) docents view teaching in the museum as opportunities to spark interest with these new experiences. Practices are chosen to engage visitors in these experiences. Docents choose to highlight these experiences as they believe they are reasons to be engaged; 2) docents as teachers are perceptive about their audience. They pay attention to patterns and provide information in response to those patterns. Docents utilize a shared repertoire of practice and information in their community developed from understanding visitor patterns of interest; 3) docents care about their setting and the exhibits within it. They also care about the visitor experience as a whole, and have to be flexible when working with different types of learners. They believe that being a docent means balancing potentially conflicting roles; and 4) docents use interpretation as a pedagogy to engage visitors with science and create personally meaningful experiences. Analysis of significant interactions between docents and visitors shows that such practices are mediated through a variety of discursive and physical tools and implemented by docents as a means of engaging visitors with science and conservation. Moreover, most of these skills appear to be learned on-the-job within their communities of practice, and while specific docent actions and skills may be different across contexts, member checks with docents working in other museum settings demonstrate the resonance of the findings across contexts. The findings of the study are placed in the context of interpretation theories of communication as well as research on docents as lifelong, free-choice learners both facilitating and participating in societal STEM learning activity. Findings and methods of research from this study are valuable to the greater understanding of how docents learn and enact interpretive practice and the development of more effective professional development for docents in museum settings. © Copyright by Laura H. Good April 30, 2013 All Rights Reserved Unpacking Docent Practice in Free Choice Science Learning Settings: A Qualitative Study Documenting the What and Whys of Docent Interpretive Practice by Laura H. Good A DISSERTATION submitted to Oregon State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Presented April 30, 2013 Commencement June 2013 Doctor of Philosophy dissertation of Laura H. Good presented on April 30, 2013. APPROVED: ________________________________________ Major Professor, representing Science Education ________________________________________ Dean of the College of Education ________________________________________ Dean of the Graduate School I understand that my dissertation will become part of the permanent collection of Oregon State University libraries. My signature below authorizes release of my dissertation to any reader upon request. ____________________________________ Laura H. Good, Author ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I can only say working towards this doctorate has been an amazing journey. I would like to begin by expressing enormous thanks to my advisor, Shawn Rowe, for his assistance with not only the development of this research, but also my development as an academic. Shawn has offered stellar advice throughout all stages of my doctoral program, supported me with research assistantships, and has been a model mentor to me since the very first day I showed up at graduate school. I will forever owe you cake. Thanks is also due to my committee members, Lynn Dierking, Bob Lillie and Michael Harte, as well as my graduate council representative, Jeff Stone, who, even from afar, offered support, patience and guiding questions throughout the process of completing my research and doctoral program. I would also like to sincerely thank the wonderful volunteers and docents who participated in this research, and for their time and willingness to share their thoughts on being a docent and allow me to follow them with video cameras. You are some of the most hard-working, generous and dedicated people I have ever met in my life, and I am so grateful to have worked with you during the last few years. Many thanks are also due to my fabulous colleagues Becca Harver, Michelle Mileham and Susan O’Brien for their assistance with data collection, transcription, and analysis, and to Mark Farley for help with technology development and all the free rides to Newport that allowed me to collect data. Along the way there have been many people who have also helped in the development of this research. Thank you to all of the members of the free choice learning lab meetings that have offered help and advice over the years. Thank you to the visitor center staff and aquarists for being supportive of the camera work, and making the visitor center a great place to work. Thanks are also due to, of course, my student cohort whose support, sense of humor and general cheerleading was pivotal to my degree progress. I am also grateful to the Mamie Markham research funds and Oregon Sea Grant for their support and recognizing the value of this research. Thank you to all my friends and family for their love and support, and to my parents especially, the ultimate lifelong learners, who encouraged their daughter to be curious about everything and to always follow her dreams. And lastly, I would like to thank my amazing husband Kyle for the unlimited love, support, kindness and happiness he gave throughout this process, and for always believing in me even when I didn’t. You are, and always will be, my heart, my soul and my inspiration. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION ….……………………………………… 1 The Development of this Investigation …………………………… 1 Problem Statement……………..………………………………….. 2 Project Description…………...…………………………………… 3 Summary……………………..…………………………..………... 5 CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW…………………………………. 6 Environmental Science Learning in Museum Settings…………… 6 Informal Educators……………..…………………………………. 9 The Role of the Museum Docent………………………………… 11 Docent Practice……………..…………………………..………... 12 Docent Learning in Communities of Practice…………………… 15 Docents as Lifelong Learners…..…………………………………. 18 Environmental Interpretation and Interpretive Practice…………… 19 Summary………………..…………………………..……….......... 22 CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY……………………………………… 23 Theoretical Perspective…………………………………………… 23 Purpose of this Study……………..………………………………. 27 Methodological Framework…….………………………………… 29 Data Collection..……………..…………………………..………... 32 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Page Phase 1: Documenting Practice……………..…………………… 37 Phase 2: Reflecting on Practice……………..…………………… 43 Phase 3: Member Checks…….……………..…………………… 46 Analytical Framework………………………..…………………… 48 Trustworthiness…………….…..…………………………………. 52 CHAPTER IV: RESULTS & DISCUSSION……………………………… 55 Four Claims about Docent Practice………………….…………… 56 Claim 1…………..……………..…………………………………. 61 Claim 2…………..……………..…………………………………. 75 Claim 3…………..……………..…………………………………. 86 Claim 4…………..……………..…………………………………. 95 Sources of Learning for the Practices Observed and Explained…… 101 CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION…………………………………………… 104 Summary of Outcomes………..…………………………………. 104 Collective Meaning Making Processes………..…………………… 106 The Bigger Picture of Generated Grounded Theory……………… 110 Alignment with Current Theory……………..…………………… 111 Adding to Theory…………….……………..…………………… 112 Implications and Significance to the Field………………………… 114 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Page Reflections on the Study………..…………………………………. 119 Further Work……..……………..…………………………………. 122 BIBLIOGRAPHY………..……………..…………………………………. 125 APPENDICES…………..……………..…………………………………. 132 Appendix A: Demographics of Visitor Participants………………. 133 Appendix B: Preliminary Interview Questions……………………. 135 Appendix B: Post-Observation Interview Guide for Researcher…. 137 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Nested Communities of Practice..…………………….…………