GEM/SMC GRASS ROOTS PROJECT
Update 2 - Initial Consultation
May 2005
Findings from initial consultation with GEM Scotland members
Current Training and Study Day Attendance
Specific training needs
Level of training
Length of training
Resources
Current use of SMC and GEM networks
Conclusions and suggestions
Improving Networks
Consultation – Part 2
Findings from initial consultation with GEM Scotland members
Over the last few weeks, I have been carrying out an initial consultation with
GEM members to gather information on training needs, identify gaps in provision
for both training and resources and gain an idea of members use and thoughts
about GEM and SMC networks and opportunities. It also gave me an opportunity to
introduce myself to a number of GEM members and I would like to thank those of
you with whom I spoke for your time and very valuable suggestions and comments.
I would also like to thank those of you who e-mailed me your responses.
The methodology adopted for the initial consultation was that of an in-depth
telephone interview with a focus on open rather than closed questions in order
to acquire some high quality data. Although interviewees were encouraged to
speak freely, and the interviewee given freedom to speak about what they wanted
to, an interview framework was devised to ensure that all areas being researched
would eventually be covered in an interview. This technique allowed the
interviewer to pursue interesting comments and seek clarification when
necessary. Comprehensive notes were taken throughout the interview and
immediately afterwards. These notes were analysed and collated to a standard
format. Each interview lasted between 20 and 60 minutes, with the average length
of about 35 minutes. No-one refused to be interviewed. My impression was that
interviewees felt able to speak open and freely as I was perceived to be
independent of both GEM and SMC.
It is relevant to note that the people surveyed tended to be education
specialists or those with a particular interest in learning. 25% were museums
with no dedicated education staff or resources. They mainly requested resources
on all areas of learning, in particular the real basics and guidelines for
setting up of education events and resources. The other 75% had more specific
areas around which they felt resources could be developed.
Current Training and Study Day Attendance
Out of the 20 GEM Scotland members who took part in the consultation, just less
than half (45%) currently attend GEM Study days. Most of those who attend do so
on average once a year with 15% attending every few years. The main reason for
attending these days was for networking and meeting ‘like-minded’ people.
Developing subject knowledge, support and new ideas were also significant
reasons for attendance.
The main reason given for not attending was lack of time. Many commented that
the demands of their job were too great to be able to get away from the office
without the training having a significant relation to the work they were doing.
The second largest barrier was the distance of travel to GEM study days. The
cost of travel, cost of the course, level and what’s on offer are also important
factors when considering attendance.
Out of the 20 GEM Scotland members who took part in the consultation, 75% attend
SMC training days. All said the main reason for attendance was to develop
subject knowledge. A few also said it was useful for networking, support and
sharing of new ideas. A couple also commented that they were the nominated
person picked by their line manager to attend training days.
Those who don’t attend gave the main reasons as the level of what was on offer
and the relevance to their job. A few commented that the courses were ‘old hat’.
The cost and distance of travel was also a factor when considering attendance,
although not as highlighted as for GEM days. Two people didn’t attend as they
are not SMC members (freelance specialists). A few were also too busy.
Specific training needs
The areas most highlighted for training requests (and the percentage of
interviewees mentioning them) were curriculum/schools (50%), sharing and
examples of good practice (45%), the crossover and sharing of ideas between
museums and the arts (30%) and disabilities (30%).
Other areas of interest were child safety (15%), evaluation (10%), setting up of
programmes (10%), current language (10%), computer based training and developing
resources (10%), adult learners (5%), marketing for schools (5%), working with
volunteers (5%), families (5%) and reminiscence (5%).
People drew particular attention to secondary school issues, curricular
developments, building education into exhibitions at the start and evaluating
non-formal education.
Level
of training
The level of training requested varied, depending on subject and personal level
of needs. Most agreed that an introduction to the training at a grass roots
level in the morning, followed by more in-depth, challenging activities would be
good. The people who were education specialists (education officers and curators
with educational experience) tended to want more in-depth training whereas the
others who are currently trying to implement new educational activities into
their programme felt they needed ‘the basics’. GEM membership is very varied and
covers people with very different background knowledge, activities and
responsibilities and so level of needs can vary considerably between members.
Length of training
The majority of those consulted (85%) preferred training to be a full day. It is
easier to justify travel expenses and associated costs for a full day. Also,
half days tend to end up taking your full day by the time you travel, so
employers get more ‘value for money’ from staff going for a full day.
Resources
The most popular area of request from members was for resources concentrating on
developing events, workshops and resources (80%) such as loans kits and resource
boxes and related uses and activities to these. Guidelines and policies (50%)
was another popular area and also working with disabilities and special needs
groups (40%).
Schools, families, ICT, outreach and adult learners were all requested by 35% of
interviewees. Working with volunteers and marketing were requested by 15% and
funding, pre-school and interpretation were requested by 10%.
Nearly everybody felt that case studies with practical examples should be
included, especially to highlight successful resources.
Current use of SMC and GEM networks
Of the 20 people with whom I spoke, 60% were aware of and made regular use of
the GEM networks. There was a general feeling with people of what the networks
actually are and maybe an awareness issue around this. For example those who
knew about things such as ‘Jiscmail’ rated the networks very highly, with most
rating them as very good or excellent. A few people commented that they felt
they were stronger in England, which also led into the training aspects with
more chances for members to ‘meet up’ at training days. Of the 40% who couldn’t
comment, it was mainly down to either being quite new to GEM or simply not being
aware or having the time to investigate Jiscmail and attend study days.
Again with SMC those who were more aware of SMC’s activities rated them fairly
highly, although there was a general feeling that there was not such a strong
learning support network in place. 50% couldn’t comment as they felt they
weren’t really aware of strong learning and access networks; however some
requested to be added to the database which already will help to strengthen
networks. It was generally felt among those who didn’t rate the networks that
more could be done and again this may be an awareness issue for members of what
is actually available to them and this needs to be addressed by both the Grass
Roots project and SMC’s Learning and Access team.
Conclusions and suggestions
From my consultation with GEM members, there have been many requests for more
study days, with particular highlights being frequently made to what is on offer
‘down south’. There is a clear demand for more frequent events and training
opportunities for museum education specialists with a variety of different
subjects; some subjects were requested time and time again.
GEM members enjoy training days as a way of networking and sharing of ideas with
like people. I think this needs to be recognised and taken into account when
organising ‘refresher’ training days for education specialists. Attendance at
SMC days seems to be directly for developing subject knowledge and I believe the
two can be merged in a complementary way for the Grass Root’s specialist
training programme.
I plan to develop resources focusing on the main areas of requests, but taking
into account the ‘grass roots’ use of these with the intended audience being
people with no knowledge or those just beginning to implement educational
activities. The lesser mentioned areas such as funding and marketing will feed
into the larger areas. For example in a resource on how to facilitate school
visits funding and marketing to schools will be included.
Everyone with whom I spoke seemed encouraging about the use of web-based
resources and from this I have decided to make quite detailed guidelines a part
of the Grass Roots website. The paper resources will be an extension of this
focusing on the main priority areas with more detailed instructions and tool
kits. However, the web resources will also be easily printable for use by those
without web access.
Improving Networks
Some people felt that it was more down to them not using the networks available,
even commenting that they know it’s there if they need it. So from this I think
it is definitely a matter of raising awareness and highlighting the benefits of
using the networks for members. Many commented that my post is a ‘great step’ in
improving and helping network support and thought it was a very encouraging
move.
It was suggested that more frequent meetings should be held for GEM members in
Scotland and there should be days of sharing good practice and have an element
of ‘celebrating’ and ‘flagging-up’ the good work which goes on in Scotland. A
number of people commented that there were too few days in Scotland and constant
comparisons were made to activities in England. The current study days were felt
to be most important for making contacts and networking and this opportunity to
get together and discuss ideas was integral. More room for discussion was
recommended.
One member suggested that the network could provide support for young members in
finding employment and training opportunities.
A number of members requested more frequent mail-outs and more information on
the other GEM networks, i.e. freelance network.
Independents felt they needed more support to get information out about their
activities from local authorities which may be a network support issue.
From the consultation, I was also invited to a number of museum forums to find
out about successful existing networks and how we can build upon these.
Consultation – Part 2
My next task is to carry out ‘survey part 2’ with selected SMC member museums
with limited education resources (e.g. lack of funding, lack of LA funding, are
remote, have no education specialists on staff and lack of ICT knowledge and/or
infrastructure) to gain a greater understanding of training and resource needs
in these museums. I will again be targeting around 20 museums for consultation.
I hope to complete this over the next few weeks and update this site with my
findings. In the meantime, please feel free to contact me with any comments you
have regarding the consultations or any other aspects of the Grass Roots
project.
Susan Galloway
GEM/SMC Education Officer
Grass Roots Project
26th May 2005