Path to Pencil findings

1
Path to Pencil findings Justin Dillon, Heather
King, Andres Acher, Kings College London Emilio
Balzano, Francesco Cuomo, Marco Serpico,
University of Naples
The way we are proceeding The conclusions we are
reaching

2
Evaluation our itinerary

• How our original framework evolved

During our visits
During our analysis
3
Where we are now ?
4 Models teaching-learning/Practice What
teaching approaches were chosen?
3 Museums/Research Use of educational (and
other) research
2 Museums/Teachers The nature of the knowledge
transfer
1 Context Project within its wider institution
5 Models of science/Curri Why how was the
content chosen?
6 Evaluation What is the project aiming to do
and how does it monitor and evaluate its work?
8 Community of practice Involvement in,
fostering of, and use of wider network of PPs
7 Gender Differences Extent to which gender
differences are addressed
9 Professional Development Educational People
4
9 Boxes
Cross comparisons
Case studies
Criteria of innovation
5
Big steps
Two ideas to communicate our results
Steps ahead
6
Big steps

• pinpoint areas for improvement
• identify the characteristics of key players
  needed for the future
• communicate better with teachers, and to find
  out what their needs are
• understand what kinds of learning (affective,
  cognitive) they want to foster
• Allocate their human resources and money
• The relationship with Universities brought
  clear advantages in planning and report PPs
  projects

7
Steps ahead

• The method and nature of evaluation should be
  appropriate for the goals of the activity.
• To really understand the impact of your
  activity, it may be necessary to use multiple
  methods of evaluation
• Museum programmes aim to offer affective
  experiences as well as cognitive experiences -
  there are more appropriate evaluation methods to
  capture (or lose) that-
• Enlist the help of experts in education
  evaluation, e.g researchers from local
  universities, colleagues at other museums

8

• Dissemination results in the respective
  institutions were reported as difficult ... To
  what extent was this taken into account in
  advance?
• Many of you lost lots of data during the process
  losing the opportunity to support the reflection
  on the evaluation process and the identification
  of critical pints

9
Relationship with
Teachers What we saw as
improvements
Big steps

• Identifying teachers needs as a first step of
  the partnership
• Training the teachers in informal methodologies
• Listening students through Teachers
• Review the way to interact e with Teachers
  (involve them in planning activities)
• The majority has recovered teacher's interest in
  continuing with the experience (so, motivation
  was there)

2 Museums/Teachers The nature of the knowledge
transfer
10
Steps ahead

• Most of you have worked with friend teachers
  
• What about the others?? How to get them?
• Some of you have thought about involving
  scientists to strengthen bridges between real
  research and schools
• We found less on barriers and problems
• In the relationship with the content...the
  tension with the curriculum was an obvious
  issue

11
THANK YOU for your listening
12
What evaluation tools were used?
13
What evaluation tools were left aside?
14
(No Transcript)
15

• What we would like discuss with you?

• 1. To what extent was the evaluation that you
  carried innovative?
• 2. How useful was the evaluation that you carried
  out?
• 3. What impact will working with Pencil have on
  your future practices?
• 4. To what extent are the innovations you
  proposed in your pilot projects are sustainable
  beyond pencil?
• 5. Do the teachers you worked with think
  differently about your museum/centre? Will they
  teach differently in schools?