Behind the scenes at the museum

1
Behind the scenes at the museum

• An account of a cross-faculty employer-based
  project
• Rose Spilberg Department of Computing
• Pam Locker Design for Exhibition Museums
• University of Lincoln

2
In a nutshell

• students from two different faculties, on very
  different courses
• BA Design for Exhibition and Museums
• BSc Web Technology, BSc Multimedia Technology
• worked on employer-based projects with a real
  client
• supported by a small project fund
• here we give a report of this experience

3
In this account

• background and initiation of the project
• detail of the work undertaken
• constraints, issues and problems
• student evaluation
• what we have learned
• our conclusions

4
Origin of the project

• FED bids invited
• internal funds for teaching innovation
• Fund for Educational Development
• from Centre for Educational Research
  Development (CERD)
• small bids (max 5000) invited
• chatting over lunch
• Pam, Design for Exhibition Museums (AAD)
• Rose, Creative Technology courses (MHT)
• initial project proposed (and accepted)

5
Our objective

• To provide a cross-faculty cross-disciplinary
  experience, with work focused on a real client.
• applied vocationally-oriented courses
• students need experience of group work
• cross-disciplinary teams
• communication transferable skill
• employer engagement
• faculties and departments make this difficult
• self-contained, separate, different cultures
• different patterns, teaching models, assessment
  methods

6
The final project

• finalising the proposal
• Manchester Jewish Museum
• seeking input for redesign and updating
• keen to provide context for student projects

7
The museum projects

• a former synagogue
• Grade II listed building
• 1874
• a social history museum since 1984
• the Ladies Gallery
• National Centre for Tolerance proposal
• outreach via the web-site
• up-dating of displays

8
The project work

• DEM students
• new design proposals for the museum gallery
• BSc students
• Web Technology
• museum web-site redesign
• Multimedia Technology
• a multimedia interactive artefact for the museum

9
Implementation issues (1) locating the project

• curriculum vehicle for the museum project
• need to fit into degree programmes
• additional work on top of required assessments
  not acceptable
• staffing resource only available through course
  unit staffing
• DEM integrated across several different units
• Technology courses did the work under the unit
  Level 2 group project (done by all)
• assessment 20 of year for both

10
Implementation issues (2) timetable

• DEM course
• 2nd-year cohort 12
• primed and planning from May-June 08
• project work woven into 2nd-year curriculum in
  blocks
• work started at week 1

• Technology courses
• 2nd-year cohort 160
• all allocated to project groups
• two groups selected (volunteered) for museum
  project
• selection only possible at/after weeks 2-4
• project work only one strand of five units being
  worked on throughout

11
Making the collaborative space

• joint meetings, visits and socials
• to MJM
• to other museums in London, Amsterdam
• shared communications
• joint visits from MJM curator and manager

12
Implementation issues (3) day-to-day timing
issues

• Visits
• DEM students visited MJM and Amsterdam before
  Tech groups existed
• Joint visits to London, Manchester Tech
  students had to manage competing requirements and
  deadlines

13
Implementation issues (4)

• extra commitment motivation demanded
• from all
• but particularly for Tech groups
• client project requirements were over above
  unit assessment tasks
• two sets of objectives and requirements to meet
• rewards were great, but even so ...

14
Project outcomes exhibited 1st June

• DEM students
• a range of plans and designs for the re-vamped
  gallery
• Web Technology
• prototype new web site design, incorporating
  interactivity, feed-back and updated technologies

15
Exhibition 1st June

• Multimedia Technology
• interactive map implemented and being tested

16
Student evaluation

• questionnaire at end of project
• seeking views about
• cross-faculty collaboration aspects of the
  project
• employer-based live client aspects of the project
• administered at final group meeting/lunch
• respondents only 11 (out of 21)
• 8 DEM, 3 Tech

17
Cross-faculty collaboration (1)

• all respondents felt they worked well within
  their individual project teams
• We worked well with weekly or fortnightly
  meetings and also designated work.
• Collaborated more as a group than previous
  projects

18
Cross-faculty collaboration (2)

• they didnt feel the cross-faculty collaboration
  worked all that well
• Worked well but more contact with other course
  might have helped.
• There could have been more scheduled meeting
  times, although this was probably hard as DEM
  worked on it for three weeks, in DCI it was the
  year
• Although we have made friends in another course,
  we have never actually worked together.

19
Employer aspects

• Students enjoyed and valued the live client
  nature of the project
• The ability to work with a live client was
  fantastic. What more could a creative student ask
  for?! The staff at MJM were also so
  accommodating.
• There was a live client with their own opinions,
  their own expectations, their real
  issues/problems that need to be solved.
• There was more pressure to get things right
  because it was real life.

20
What we found employer engagement

• highly desirable
• highly valued by students
• live project increased commitment, motivation,
  interest, determination
• imposes additional problems and constraints
• waiting for client response
• employers own constraints
• technology platform
• client base

21
Employer engagement requires

• major commitment from employer
• time
• input
• broad support from organisation plus
• scheme champion
• with appropriate level of power/control
• prepared for some expenditure
• understanding of/sympathy with educational
  objectives

22
Cross-institutional collaboration

• much harder than employer engagement
• students really wanted more
• interdisciplinary project teams
• very difficult to mix
• course designs and teaching models, course
  rhythms and calendars, assessments
• funding was key
• group visits, off-site meetings
• students wanted more

23
Conclusions

• successful project
• met our objectives in terms of project-based work
  and employer engagement
• less successful in cross-institutional terms
• but
• relied on availability of special funding
• difficult to see how to take this forward into
  mainstream given current constraints within
  normal working arrangements

24
Funding (5000)

• travel
• visits to Manchester, London, Amsterdam
• other spending
• some materials purchase
• some catering
• staff time
• impossible to fund

25
The last word

• from student feed-back, on the project work
• felt more real cared about it more