Transcript Fostering Tomorrow`s Learning Society

Instrumental Museum and
Gallery Policy
Lynn D. Dierking
John H. Falk
Oregon State University
USA
IMLS Approach
Organization's mission statement or key action words
Program
Purpose
We do what? Summary of key proposed services
Family programming
For whom?
Target population(s)
Families
For what
Benefits/changes in skill, knowledge,
outcome(s)? attitude or life condition
Families will demonstrate new or more
developed skills/knowledge with
regard to science education.
Intended Outcomes
Indicators (Measures)
Immediate:
Intermediate:
Long-term:
IMLS Outcome Example
Outcome: Families are more aware of the importance
of science education and are able to demonstrate
new or more developed skills/knowledge in the area
of science.
Indicator Data
Source
To
Whom
Data
Target
Intervals
NSF Approach
Impact Category
Generic Definition
Awareness,
knowledge or
understanding
Change in, or exercise of awareness,
knowledge, understanding
Engagement or
interest
Change in, or exercise of
engagement/interest
Attitude
Change in, or exercise of attitude;
attitudes refer to changes in relatively
stable, more intractable constructs
such as empathy for animals and their
habitats, appreciation for the role of
scientists in society
Behavior
Change in, or exercise of behavior;
these impacts are particularly relevant
to projects that are environmental or
socio-political in nature
Skills
Development and/or reinforcement of
skills, either entirely new ones or the
reinforcement, even practice of
developing skills; skills include a level
of depth and skill such as engaging in
scientific inquiry skills (observing,
classifying, exploring, questioning,
predicting, or experimenting), as well
as developing/practicing very specific
skills
One other bit….
Based on No Child Left Behind and
Academic Competitiveness Council





Only certain designs are considered “rigorous”
Developed a pyramid with randomized control
treatment (RCT) designs at the apex
Bottom is “well-matched” comparison groups
Qualitative designs and measures do not even
make it on the pyramid
Confusion between research and evaluation
No question there is a need for
measurable accountability
Who should be defining the metrics? Top
down from the government or bottom up
from organizations?
Why? To legitimize institutional value or
improve institutional performance?
Is it possible to have one set of metrics
that do both?
If it was bottom up, what would it look like?
Social
Context
EXTERNAL
ASSETS
•Individuals
•Organizations
•Communities
Assessment
INTERNAL
ASSETS
•Physical
•Human
•Intellectual
Political
Context
Assessment
MEETING
PUBLIC NEEDS
& DESIRES
THROUGH
PRODUCTS,
SERVICES &
EXPERIENCES
Assessment
Economic
Context
FINANCIAL
ASSETS
•Earned
•Support
•Contributed
•Endowment
Assessing Museum Value
The good that the organization provides to its
visitors.
The assets of the organization, including
particularly its intellectual capital and brand.
The benefits provided by the organization to
the community above and beyond the specific
good generated for individual visitors or other
stakeholders.
The quality of the organization’s workplace,
including that each employee experiences
continued growth and development.
The financial health of the organization.