Teaching Statement
1. Approach, Rationale, and Overview
My approach to teaching is to empower students with the skills and experiences
that expand their horizons, prepare them for the meaningful careers they
are pursuing and encourage them to be self-reflective, ethical professionals
and productive contributors to civil society. Whether their career paths
include archaeology or not, I hope that their experiences in my classes will
impress upon them the role that an understanding, preserving, and interpreting
the past plays in a vital human society.
In order to combine the goals of attaining practical knowledge with critical
inquiry and on order to promote community engagement, my teaching integrates
service learning and applied research opportunities. We meet as often as
possible in museums, using exhibits and collection storage areas as teaching
labs. We use the real exhibiting dilemmas and ethical challenges facing area
museums as the fodder for discussion, team-based problem solving, and applied
learning. The "capstone" project of the course is an exhibit
project - a "soup to nuts" team-based projects where the
students conceptualize, research, design, write, fabricate and install the
exhibit. Needless to say, it is a very full semester that eventually may
become a year-long course, but it is also one of the most rewarding to teach
and, according to the students, one of the most valuable in their undergraduate
curriculum. The "real life" settings and the teamwork bring numerous
challenges (see Course Development), but they are also what make the ambitious
course objectives realizable.
The basic pedagogical structure of the course is to pair the presentation
of the particular topic (an aspect of museum practice such as exhibit development
and design, museum education, collections management, museum technology,
conservation, membership, marketing, public relations, development, administration,
and governance) with an applied in-class exercise and, in many cases, a take-home
assignment that is related to the larger exhibit project. Because the course
scope is so broad, there is an emphasis on presenting resources for further
information or training so that students entering the profession can go to
the appropriate source should the particular area become pertinent for the
tasks at hand. The in-class exercises are some of the productive and engaging
parts of the course. Some of these are role-playing or hands-on exercises
in class and others are part of the classes which take place in museums (where
students also get to tour facilities and hear from experts in the particular
area).
The course is offered once a year, and each year I design student projects
which become the primary vehicle for the student work in the class. The projects
are generally exhibit projects (one year I had them create their own museum
from scratch), but allied assignments such a condition reports, marketing
plans, press releases, educational program plans, budgets, etc. bring in
other aspects of museum practice. In the past I have tried individual and
team-based projects, and I have also had students do projects that were self-contained
in the classroom and projects that involved collaborating with a real organization
or institution. Each year has had its advantages and disadvantages.
The evaluation of course objectives is achieved through a number of
different instruments. Students complete a number of written assignments
during the
semester which require them to apply material from readings, lectures,
and in-class exercises to specific exhibits or museum settings. Students
are
also evaluated through a course portfolio which they must compile throughout
the semester. Finally, students are graded on their participation which
is determined both by in-class work, attendance records, and the instructor’s
observation of participation in team exercises and group discussions.
In 2003 for the first time I also had students complete both peer and
self-evaluations
(see additional material), the scores of which were figured into their
final course grade and the comments (done anonymously) returned to the
student
being evaluated. I found the peer and self evaluations very valuable
(a sentiment echoed by a number of the students), and in the future will
hand out the
templates on the first day of class.
2. MATRIX Principles
The interdisciplinary nature of museums and the applied focus of the
class made it an excellent vehicle for many of the MATRIX principles.
Stewardship issues are central to the mastery of collections care and
management on a number of levels. Students understand the role of collections
in the overall role of museums and understand the ethical, financial,
and legal obligations for museum accessioning objects and the cost of
conserving the massive collections accumulated through archaeological excavations.
The
course also addressed stewardship issues in balancing the need to protect
and preserve artifacts while also using appropriately to further museums’ educational
missions. They must also confront the implications of choices in what
to preserve and what not to preserve, and what that means for the stories
we
will be able to tell in the future.
Professional ethics and values are critical to almost every aspect of
museum practice, and the intersection with archaeological ethics is
very strong. The aspects of ethical administration and governance of
museums shares
common concerns with the accountability and transparency of any not-for-profit
organization. Students’ understandings of the ethics of cultural
property accessioning, deaccessioning, and display go beyond simply understanding
the legal requirements but considering areas not specifically covered
by
law but instead by dictates of professional standards as articulated
by the American Association of Museums.
Diverse interests are central to the role of museums and their communities.
While this aspect of museum practice is dealt with more fully in the
companion to the Methods class (Introduction to Museum Studies), the Freetown
Village
project and examples of culturally specific museums in the course readings
raise issues of representing diverse communities.
Social relevance is another aspect that is more fully covered in the
Introduction to Museum Studies class (where the central questions are "what is a
museum?" and "what is its role in society?"), but every
aspect of the museum profession is based on the assumption that museums
are primarily in the not-for-profit sector and therefore exist to serve
the public
good. This may addressed in a discussion of how a director balances
the need for earned income through higher admission prices with the fact
that the
museum is then pricing a segment of the population it has traditionally
served. It may be relevant in a discussion of how collections policies
both shape
and reflect their representation of communities and how historically
that has led to the exclusion of segments of society.
Communication in this course is a central skill in written, oral, and
visual form. Students present their work in some for in almost every
class and produce numerous written assignments. They must communicate with
each
other in the course of team projects (and many indicate that this is
one of the most challenging and valuable aspects of what they learn). They
must
also confront, some for the first time, the challenging integration
of text, object, and image that is the essence of exhibit making.
Basic archaeological skills are embedded in this course primarily in
the post-excavation aspects of collections care and management, and in
the use
of objects to communicate information and interpretations through exhibits
and educational programs. In addition, skills such as the creation of
presentations and graphic design through PowerPoint, label writing, research,
and photographing
objects are relevant to archaeology settings.
Real world problem solving is probably the strongest aspect of the pedagogical
strategy of this class. The exhibit project is clearly the most dramatic
example, but the in-museum classes and case studies offer students
the opportunity to apply and integrate their new found knowledge in ways
that
deepen their
understanding and create lasting learning. Students who have gone
on to work in museums have reported that the experiences that have been
most
helpful
were their hands-on work with real problems in real museum settings.
3. Institutional Context
Indiana University Purdue University at Indianapolis (IUPUI) is an
urban research university created in 1969 through the merger of Indiana
University
and Purdue University programs located in Indianapolis. IUPUI offers
the broadest range of academic programs of any campus in Indiana and
is the state’s
principal site for graduate professional education. It enrolls nearly
28,000 students in 18 schools. IUPUI ranks among the top five campuses
nationally
in terms of the number of health-related degrees it confers, and is
the center for advanced technology in the state.
This urban setting is critical to the premise of the Museum Methods
course as survey of museum practice through applied learning. The
course takes
advantage of the richness and variety of museums in the Indianapolis
area with in-museum classes, team teaching with museum professionals
for case
studies and problem-based learning. The applied practice focus of
the Methods course is complemented by the fall semester offering of "Introduction
to Museum Studies" which provides a grounding in the history
of museums, an introduction to theories of museum representation and
the
interpretation of material culture, and a lively inquiry into contemporary
issues in the museum field.
The Methods course is offered each spring by Museum Studies program
within the School of Liberal Arts. It is required for students in
the Undergraduate
Museum Studies Certificate program and may also fulfill an Anthropology
methods course requirement for majors, but it has no prerequisites
and is open to anyone. As a result, the students are diverse in almost
every
aspect. Capped at 24, the course attracts people with a wide range
of work and life experience, and educational goals. The students come
to
the class with a variety of disciplinary training, such as art history,
studio art, history, geology, sociology, anthropology, non-profit
management, education, as well as general education students. The
course also regularly
attracts students who already have undergraduate degrees, but are
taking the course while considering pursuing a museum career. Some
students
are already working in museums and are seeking to improve their skills
or
enter a different aspect of museum work. Some are thinking about a
museum career and are still " vocational shopping". Others
have no intention of going into museum work, but thought the course
sounded
like
fun and/or it filled a distribution requirement that worked for their
schedule. While most of the students are undergraduates, it is also
available for graduate credit and those graduate students must complete
additional
readings, written assignments, and an extra research project.
This institutional setting means that the course must be structured
so that it can work on a variety of levels. The course serves as an
introduction
for those just exploring the museum field, those doing vocational
discernment and trying to figure out what aspect of the museum field
they should
focus on, and those wanting a one semester "crash course" overview
while they are getting a related degree such as Philanthropy, Education,
or Public History.
Applied learning raises interesting logistical challenges. It should
be noted that real projects cost real money, and yet the exhibits
curated during the five years I have taught the class are a testimony
to the
resourcefulness
of students. There is no technology fee for the class, but I have
been able to use departmental funds to provide a modest budget to
cover basic
materials. Occasionally I have secured other funds to supplement costs,
either from University sources or from the institutions or organizations
where the exhibits have been mounted. Budgets have ranged from $100
to $1000.
The exhibits and class projects have all been mounted with relatively
limited space and equipment. When on campus, the class meets in a
lab classroom which provides table space well suited for handling
objects
or brainstorming designs on newsprint. The program has some low-tech
design and fabrication equipment (such as mat cutter, small dry mount
press,
etc.), but most of the fabrication is done in students’ garages
or off-campus spaces. The course does not cover computer generated
graphics or design, but most students have a basic knowledge of PowerPoint
or
other simple programs which can create quite impressive graphics,
and we have
access on campus to a large scale plotter/printer.
4. Course Development
Over the five years I have taught the course, I have tried different
combinations of team and individual projects for the semester-long
exhibit project.
The first year each student developed a scale model for an exhibit
that only reached the proposal stage. Students produced some truly
imaginative
work, but without the implementation of actually mounting the exhibit,
the range of skills learned was limited and they didn’t have
to work as a team. The second and third years I divided the class
into
three groups (of 7-8 people) each of which curated an exhibit at a
different community organization or museum. The community engagement
aspect was
very rewarding (one was an exhibit in a nursing home on its history
which
dated back to the end of the Civil War), but the budget limitations
made it difficult to meet the standards expected by the community
organizations. Furthermore, the fact that most of the exhibit work
was done outside
of
class time meant not only that there was little opportunity to use
the experience as a teaching opportunity, but also that there were
not many
checks in the event of problematic dynamics within the teams.
For the years the course was taught (and radically revised) for the
MATRIX project (2002 and 2003), I tried two different ways of structuring
the
project that attempted to address the concerns and challenges of the
first three years of the course. In 2002 (see more detailed discussion
below)
I used an exhibit I was co-curating with two other faculty members
as an opportunity for students to participate in aspects of the exhibit’s
research, design, and fabrication, and at the same time charged the
students with individually developing an exhibit concept and design
that might
be mounted in the same temporary exhibit space. In 2003, I tried for
the doing a full exhibit project with the entire class. The exhibit
development
process was divided into two phases: preliminary research and concept
development (during which student were on one of three teams developing
competing proposals), and final concept and design phase (when students
were on one of four teams (curatorial, design, collections, and production/fabrication),
each of which served a distinct but interconnected role in the exhibit
development process.
Each year’s course has had distinct advantages and disadvantages.
I continue to struggle with finding ways to reduce the workload, which
is onerous even for a 400 level course, while still keeping the benefits
of doing applied projects. I try to provide more resources for students
wrestling with the inevitable frictions and frustrations of doing
team projects, which are particularly challenging in our largely commuter
school where most of the students have substantial work and family
commitments.
I try to find appropriate community venues for exhibits where the
students can both make a contribution to the mission of the organization
and
have
the freedom to conceptualize and develop their own creative and scholarly
exhibit. These projects must also have subject matter that the students
(from a range of disciplines) can reasonably master over the semester
and objects that both appropriate for them to be working with, given
their limited training and can be used ethically given the physical
setting
of the exhibits (which may not have the highest standards of climate
control, security, etc.). Finally, these projects must work with the
very modest
budgets which is a growing challenge given the rapidly increasing
fees for photograph reproduction and usage fees being charged by most
repositories.
2002 semester (see project guidelines in Additional Materials)
In 2002 I designed projects that were a combination of individual
and team and a combination of class-based and community partnered.
It so
happened that this year I was curating a temporary exhibit, along
with two other
faculty members from the IUPUI School of Liberal Arts, on a local
African-American archaeology project that my colleague Paul Mullins
conducts. The exhibit
was to be the temporary component of a larger exhibit being developed
by Freetown Village, a small African-American living history museum
based in Indianapolis, that was to be part of the new Indiana State
Museum - a
massive new museum opening in May just on the edge of campus. The combination
of circumstances seemed ideal to give the students an opportunity to get "real" experience
with hands-on exhibit production by participating in our exhibit while
also having the autonomy, economy, and ease of individual exhibit
development projects. The project also allowed the community element
(or service
learning as it is known on our campus), because the students were
curating exhibits
for the same temporary exhibit space I was working on, and their concepts,
research, and designs were to be given to Freetown for whatever use
they wanted to make of them in their on-going development of exhibits
for the
space.
The semester was a rich and rewarding one, but not without its complications.
The major complication was that Freetown’s three year exhibit development
process (working with Ralph Appelbaum and Associates, the same firm designing
the rest of the museum exhibits) and their negotiations with the Indiana
State Museum came to a crisis point a month before the opening of the
museum. The decision was made not to proceed with the partnership and
not to open the space until a future date. It is far too complicated a
tale to spin here, but the result for the class was that the faculty-curated
exhibit was delayed a month and given a different venue within the State
Museum. The change meant that the fabrication part of the exhibit happened
after the semester was over and students did not get to be involved. (we
did a "workshop" with other materials). The students’ research
and concept/design development was still presented to the Freetown
staff (in oral presentations and in documents and drawings) for use
in whatever
home they identify.
Lessons learned:
In spite of the challenges of the circumstances beyond my control,
there was still some wonderful successes, and I think we all learned
a great
deal. I have tried to highlight a number of particular challenges
of the course, and to offer the potential responses for others who
may
want to
try those aspects of the curriculum (and these are also responses
I intend to try for next year).
challenges/solutions:
Reality-based projects are complicated because reality is complicated. To help students deal with this, I tried to stress both the inevitability and the value of having to deal with unforeseen circumstances since that is what they will be facing in their future careers as well. I also tried to keep communication as clear and as open as possible. Despite these efforts, there was still some confusion about what work the students were expected to complete and by when.
have students sign a one-page "assignments and deadlines" sheet signifying that they have read and understand the components of the project and when they are due.
There were also the usual problems of procrastination, especially since for most of the students this was their first exhibit development project.
have more often "check ups" on the progress of the exhibit projects - probably the last ten to fifteen minutes of each class - in which students report briefly on where they are and can get feedback on any problems or concerns
instead of just an exhibit development timeline (which they completed), make it a checklist with specific due dates
The work load was difficult for most students to manage.
Reduce the number of lecture topics so that there can be more opportunity for student to internalize the material presented
have team based projects so that the workload of the exhibit development can be shared (I've done this in the past and it has its own challenges: uneven participation and effort among group participants, challenges of group evaluation, logistics of team meetings especially on a commuting campus,
potentially expand the course to a year with the first semester focusing on the survey of museum practice and preliminary research for the exhibit and the second semester do the more intensive exhibit development work.
The "imaginary" part of the project was challenging for some students (i.e. the collection they were working with was not "real" and the space they were designing for is not yet finished, and also, the exhibit itself would not necessarily be realized
Have "real" exhibit projects (although this presents the challenge of finding appropriate community partners for mounting exhibits and appropriate collections to work with. It also requires raising funds, albeit modest, for the photos, and fabrication costs.)
There was a range of experience and skills in the group that made it hard to find a pace that worked for everyone.
Solutions are limited on this one because enrollment needs require combining undergraduate and graduate students, and there is concern that introducing pre-requisites will mean the course will not fill. One answer may be to offer two "tracks", but then the equity of evaluating and grading comes in to play. Honors options only work for the few students who are on an honors track.
2003 semester (see project guidelines in Additional Materials)
The main change in the 2003 course design from the previous year was a class-wide exhibit project on the history of the University’s Theatre Program. Because of the theme of the exhibit I also devoted a week to Museum Theater which is a growing area of museum education and programming.The project was divided into two phases. The first phase was devoted to research the topic, becoming familiar with the collections, and developing a concept for the exhibit. The students worked on one of three teams for this phase and presented their proposals in a competitive bid setting (as if they were exhibit development firms competing for a museum contract. The second phase reassigned the students (based on a skills inventory they filled out) into one of four teams, each of which took primary responsibility for a core aspect of exhibit development: curatorial, design, collections, and production/fabrication.
The intent of the structure was both to distribute the work load and simulate the team-based approach used in most museums. The team based approach achieved these goals, I believe, but they also magnified some of the communication issues and scheduling challenges. Not all team members completed their share of the work and there were frequent misunderstandings about which tasks were an individual’s or a team’s responsibility. This confusion led both to missed deadlines as some critical path tasks were not completed according to the schedule and also to the assumption of responsibilities that went beyond a group’s purview. To address this issues, I provided more in-class time to discuss the exhibit project and left opportunities for "progress reports" as a way to help coordinate the group work of the class. The group dynamics continued to be challenging, but the exhibit came together down the final stretch of the semester, and the successful exhibit opening saw enthusiastic celebration and no small amount of pride in their accomplishments.