F 6 · Assessment and evaluation
The Anderson Report stresses the need to assess the success of learning activities within the museum environment. This emphasis was essential at a time when a surprising number of museums kept no proper record of visits, even from schools. Following the Report’s emphasis on the need for continuing assessment, this has become a central requirement for heritage sites, particularly when they seek funding from public sources or from charitable foundations. While there is no doubt of the need to ensure that visitors to museums or buildings enjoy a worthwhile experience, the informal evidence offered by those museums where outcomes are regularly measured (notably national museums) suggests that the process can become formulaic, especially when institutions are required to ensure that visitor numbers, for example from minority groups, meet rigidly defined criteria. Producing regular detailed analysis of visitors is extremely time-consuming for sites which often are severely stretched already. As the manager of one project put it, numbers are not enough – those who assess projects for grant-making purposes should personally see what is done, rather than require voluminous visitor figures.
The assessment of outcomes has been the subject of much research in recent months. This research has resulted in some important findings (such as Inspiring Learning for All, 2004). This points out the lack of research on the nature of learning in museums, libraries and archives – a point which can equally be made about heritage sites.
The report indicates the variety in learning approaches and suggests new ways of assessing the ‘soft’ outcomes (‘attitudes, values, emotions and beliefs’) that result from museum visits. The report advocates a system of Generic Learning Outcomes to measure increases in knowledge and understanding and skills, changes in attitudes or values, evidence of enjoyment and creativity, and of changes in behaviour. These outcomes concentrate on assessing the learner’s experience rather than tabulating figures. It is the quality of experience rather than the number of participants, that really counts.
We would suggest that flexibility and creativity are appropriate here. The research pioneered by the Research Centre for Museums and Galleries, and already successfully applied, is clearly applicable to the heritage buildings sector.
|
section start
|
