QuickTimeª and a

decompressor
are needed to see this picture.

Davida de Hond

Thesis Proposal

15 October 2010

Version 2, extension and clarification

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

BACKGROUND AND FRAMEWORK................................................................................................ 3

RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND THESIS STATEMENT AND RESEARCH OUTCOMES.........4
RESEARCH QUESTIONS:................................................................................................................................ 4
THESIS STATEMENT..................................................................................................................................... 4
RESEARCH OUTCOMES..................................................................................................................................4
TARGET GROUPS................................................................................................................................. 5
THE PRE-PILOT.....................................................................................................................................6
RESEARCH................................................................................................................................................. 6
1. Toolkit............................................................................................................................................ 6
2. Translation.....................................................................................................................................6
PHASING PRE-PILOT...........................................................................................................................7
PRELIMINARY LITERATURE LIST................................................................................................. 8

2
Background and framework

Paradigm shift
The heritage field is, and have always been, in transition. The first museums were children of
the modernistic age, a place for showcasing of wealth and a place to meet other members of
the upper classes, a positivistic school of thought with scientific logic and a vast trust in telling
the ONE truth, that was above all objective, but was actually always smeared with linear
views from one perspective and context. This Top-Down approach stayed in tact for a long
time, but craquele started to show within this structure. With the passing of time and several
historic events and processes, the truth has changed and the paradigm shift took place. More
and more heritage institutions, and museums in particular, have become places of education.
With as a strong turning point during the second museum revolution as a real starting point for
learning at the core of the sector. Now, in the 21st century, heritage institutions are placing
themselves more and more within society, and at the same time the society claims their
space within the institutions and the stories that are being told there.

Changes are mostly not made overnight; it is a process. The process of these evolving
systems can be seen as fluidity. Museums and other heritage institutions are not trendsetting
in society and therefore they have to abide to the changes that are set by the society they are
placed in, both in the local context (the actual place that the heritage institution is placed) and
in a more broad sense. Therefore they have to keep moving in order to stay relevant to that
society.

The society as an entity has become, in different ways, a more important stakeholder within
the narrative of the heritage field. It is commonly shared that a good museum is a societal
relevant one, this can be argued of course, but in the light of the recent times, it can be
stated. Museums need to thrive in the information-age, where users become providers and
museums become collectors of different perspective.

Account for the performance

This makes it increasingly important to ‘prove’ the societal relevance and measure the impact
that you heritage institution has in the society it is placed in. Visitor numbers were seen as a
way to prove the success ór failure of a heritage institution, program, exhibition or activity. But
true value can not be measured merely by gathering numerical measurements.

3
Research questions and thesis statement and research outcomes

Research questions:

Head-question:

How does Museum education relate to museum learning within the 21st century Dutch
discourse and how can we measure the impact of a visit, with the U.K Generic Learning
programme as a case study?

Sub-questions:

1. Why and for whom is there a need for measuring impact within the Dutch Heritage
field?
2. What are the differences between Museum education and Museum learning?
3. What is the difference between hardcore educators and learning facilitors?
4. What is needed to implement the GLO programme from the U.K context, with the
lingual, theoretical and contextual differences beared in mind?
5. Are the GLO’s the right instrument to measure the outcomes of learning experiences
within the heritage institution?
6. What can we learn from the theoretical debates surrounding the GLO’S that occurred
within the U.K context?
7. What information and data sets are needed to research implementing possibilities
within the pilot-project?
8. What are the linguistic differences in understanding between British English and Dutch
language?

Thesis statement

Within this thesis the paradigm shift from Modernism to Post-modernism and the changing
society in the Netherlands will be explored and compared to the U.K context and their
measuring initiative. Resulting in a theoretical framework surrounding semantics, learning,
performance indicators and measuring impact. Besides this theoretical thread the practical
outcome will be a Dutch translated and tested toolkit, which will be used in the pilot project.

Research outcomes

1. The theoretical framework surrounding Education between the U.K. and Dutch context
will have been explored through literature reviews and comparison.
2. A GLO – toolkit; consisting of an unambiguous, Dutch set of research tools.
3. The preliminary research project (the pre-pilot) assures that the pilot testing will be
done with the same concepts and language, therefore from the same baseline.
4. A study day, organised with the Dutch Museum Association

4
Target groups

Besides possible usability at a later stage within the Dutch museum field of the Generic
Learning Outcomes, for now there are three specific target groups to be named:

1. Lectoraat Cultureel Erfgoed (Ruben Smit en Jan Sass), Reinwardt Academy

The outcomes and products of this thesis will make it possible that further research can be
done on the ‘Generic Learning Outcomes’ and will ensure taking it to the next phase.

2. Bachelor students ‘Cultural Heritage’, Reinwardt Academy

The group of 6 Bachelor students will take part in the pilot-research.

They will need an unambiguous set of research tools, a pre-tested and ‘tuned’ research kit
that enables them to undertake research individually, but with the end-results being gathered
and analysed. Within the Dutch context a translation, with safeguarding the feel of the set of
words is needed and will be provided for within the toolkit.

3. Section Public and Participation, Dutch Museum Association

The Dutch Museum Association, and the Section Public and Participation in particular are
interested in measuring the impact of a visit to the museum and the possibility of
implementing the GLO’s within the Dutch context, the would like a theoretical based
presentation and debate study day. The outcomes of this thesis will provide information and
grounds for Ruben and myself to organise it.

5
The pre-pilot

Research

1. Toolkit
Within the GLO-programme there were several methodologies used, from different
perspectives and with different complications that cannot be used all together. Some show
flaws that were spotted later than the actual research and some will not work within the Dutch
context. To make a fundamented choice, this needs to be researched. Points being explored
here are:

1) Which set of methodology gets the most valuable data?

2) How do the children react to different questions and data-gathering tools?
3) Which interview techniques work the best?
4) What is the most thought-provoking question without steering the mind towards a
certain GLO?
5) Is longitudinal research feasible within the research of the Bachelor students? (And if
so: What procedures were used, what were the conclusions, which approached were
uses and what forms of critique came to the surface?)
6) To what extent will the museum need to be informed about the research and how?
7) How will the research within a school-group be structured and in what way will the
research be divided? (f.e: First the child on its own, than interview with the child and
then talking through the results with the teacher.)

About the gathered data:

8) What is the best way to analyse the qualitative data?

9) Which digital software programs were used to analyse the different data gathered
within the U.K?

2. Translation

Focus on the semantic discrepancies in both the English and the Dutch languages that are
lingering between the entire word set around museums and education, such as:

• Education
• Learning
• Informal learning
• Didacticism
• Outcomes

Besides the discourse-debate there is another layer that needs to be focussed on: translating
the research tools into a meaningful Dutch toolkit from the used English. Not only linguistically
seen, but with an emphasis on the semantics. Intersubjectiveness can never be excluded, but
there needs to be some consensus in meaning of the words of the translation.

6
Phasing Pre-pilot

In the initial proposal the Theoretical research was the starting point, now the Pre-pilot is.
During the pre-pilot, the questions stated above will be answered and input for the theoretical
research will be gathered. When the Pre-pilot is ended I will be able reflect on the GLO’s in a
more profound way.

1. Answering the questions above

2. Approaching the two testing institutions (The Water museum for school group testing
and the Museum Valkhof for individual visitors)
3. Preparing the Pre-pilot and make methodology sets
4. Approaching schools for cooperation
5. Begin the pre-pilot testing starting after the autumn-break and end before the holidays.
6. Gather data structured
7. Analyze data, with the BA-students and Ruben Smit and Jan Sas
8. Make decisions regarding the toolkit
9. Deliver the toolkit for the pre-pilot.

7
Preliminary Literature list
Anderson, D., A common Wealth (London, 1999)

Baarda, D.B., Basisboek kwalitatief onderzoek: handleiding voor het opzetten en uitvoeren
van kwalitatief onderzoek (W.P., 2005)

Black, G., The engaging museum

Bloom, B.S., Engelhart, M.D, a.o., Taxonomy of educational Objectives; Handbook 1:

Cognitive domain (New york, 1956)

Bodilly, B.J., Augustine, C.H.,Revitalizing arts education through community-wide

coordination (Santa Monica, 2008)

Boeije, H.R. Analyseren in kwalitatief onderzoek: denken en doen (2005)

Evans, V., How words mean : lexical concepts, cognitive models, and meaning construction

Frissen, V., De domesticatie van de digitale wereld (oratie EUR, Faculteit der Wijsbegeerte,
2004).

Gibbs, G., Analysing Qualitative Data (Qualitative Research Kit) (W.P., 2008)

Hein, G.E., Learning in the Museum (London, 1998)

Hooper Greenhill, E., Developing a scheme for finding evidence of the outcomes and impact
of learning in museums, archives, and libraries: The conceptual framework, learning impact
research project. (Leicester, 2002)

Hooper Greenhill, E., Measuring learning outcomes in museums archives and libraries: the
Learning Impact Research Project (LIRP) (Leicester, 2004)

Hooper Greenhill, E., Museums and gallery education (Leicester, 1991)

Hooper Greenhill, E., Museums and the shaping of knowledge (New york, 1992)

Hooper-Greenhill, E., Museums and Education: Purpose, Pedagogy, Performance

(Routledge, 2007)

Hooper-Greenhill, E., The educational role of the museum (Leicester, )

Jacobs, G., ‘Hypermedia and discovery based Learning: What Value?’ in Australasian
Journal of Educational Technology 21 (3)

Laurillard, D., Rethinking University Teaching: A controversial framework for the effective use

8
of learning technologies (London, 2002)

Schmidt, J., E., Language and space, an international handbook of linguistic variation (W.P,
2010)

Seuren, A.M., The logic of language (Oxford, 2010)

Shulman, l., Making Differences: A Table of Learning (Oxford, 2009)

Silverman, D., Interpreting Qualitative Data: Methods for Analyzing Talk, Text and Interaction
(W.P., 2006)

Silverman, D., Qualitative Research: Theory, Method and Practice (W.P., 2004)

Smith, C., Blunkett, D., The Learning power of Museums- a vision for museum education
(London, 2000)