The Professionalization of Museum Educators: The Case in Science Museums

Abstract

Museum educators have a longstanding presence and importance in museums, but there is limited recognition and understanding of their work, both in research and practice. Investigations into the pedagogical actions of educators in science museums suggest that educators do not share a common understanding of best practice, which may be due to the absence of professional preparation grounded in a recognized knowledge base. To ensure quality and credibility of museum education work, and for the occupation to complete its professionalization process, a knowledge base is needed. Thus, we offer a framework upon which the professional work of museum educators may be grounded. This knowledge framework comprises six components: context, choice and motivation, objects, content, theories of learning, and talk, which are organized into three domains of knowledge: museum content knowledge, museum pedagogical knowledge, and museum contextual knowledge.

Informal Science Educators' Pedagogical Choices and Goals for Learners: The Case of Planetarium Professionals

“…Learning Science in Informal Environments, suggests six goals, three of which are well reflected in the planetarium professional data (though these are spread across the participants): Developing Interest in Science, Understanding Science Knowledge, and Engaging in Scientific Reasoning. Similar to science museum professionals (Tran 2007;Tran and King 2007) and another study of planetarium professionals (Croft 2008), these planetarium professionals felt that inspiring interest or engagement to be one of the two most important goals for the planetarium.…”

“…Museum educators often draw on the pedagogical practices of classroom teachers, at least partly because they are often hired from people who are certified as teachers (Tal and Morag 2007;Tran 2007). Observations suggest they often use didactic, educator-directed instruction (Tran and King 2007). This may be because, "in lieu of any other model of practice, educators may be transferring the organization and management practices of the school system straight into the museum environment" (Tran and King 2007, p. 134).…”

“…However, ISE professionals also display characteristics of reform-based teaching, such as adapting instruction to visitors' prior knowledge by making changes to planned activities (Tran 2007). ISE professionals often indentify with having a curiosity about the world, an interest in learning, and a desire to share their own passion about science with their audience (Bailey 2006;Tran and King 2007).…”

“…Using a learning science framework on frontline ISE practitioners may help us understand their role as agents in the learning environment. A researchbased perspective on ISE professionals will allow the field to provide appropriate professional development and promote a strategic design of products to support the creation of these learning environments (Bevan and Xanthoudiki 2008;Tran and King 2007). This paper explores ISE practitioners' goals and beliefs about the learning environment by focusing on one particular sub-set of informal science educators: planetarium professionals.…”

Equity in informal science education: developing an access and equity framework for science museums and science centres

“…The central role of family mediation in visits to science centres, aquaria or museums suggests that providing more explicit and accessible support for families to build ISE literacies could be valuable. Similarly, while not all ISE participants interact with staff during visits to ISLEs, staff facilitation has been found to make or break a visit (Ash & Lombana, 2011;Ruiz-Funes, 2008;Uyen Tran & King, 2007). Thus, explicit staff facilitation on developing ISE literacies, not only through the mediation of science learning opportunities, but general orientation, language support and assistance with decoding exhibits, interactives and activities may be particularly valuable for disadvantaged or new participants.…”