RUNNING HEAD: Linking Communities 1

Linking Communities for Shared Success:

Museum and Public Charter School Partnerships

Lindsay Heffernan

Post University

2017
Linking Communities 2

Abstract

Meaningful partnerships between museum organizations and public charter schools in

Bridgeport and New Haven, CT offer the opportunity for increased museum visitation while

aiding in closing the achievement gap for participating elementary school students. This project

developed and analyzed tiered activities that utilize museum visits, classroom assessments, and

experiential learning to impact student achievement and foster in students an understanding of

the role museums can play in historic preservation, learning and community building. The

project included tools for brokering and developing partnerships utilizing web and cloud-based

technologies to ease potential resource drains on all involved institutions. The project focused on

personalized activities and curriculum opportunities that support differentiated learning for

mixed-ability classes and streamlined communications between participating organizations.

Linking Communities 3

Problem Statement

Arts and cultural organizations including museums struggle to attract new, diverse

audiences in the wake of changing demographics in the United States. Reports by the American

Association of Museums (2008) highlight the disparity between the changing face of the country

and the dominance of white, middle-aged patrons at most museums (p. 6-8). Building more

diverse audiences who provide both funding and patronage to museums is key to the survival of

non-profit, non-formal education organizations including museums. Historically, museums have

sought to connect with younger, less homogenous visitors through elementary school field trips

and programs. These numbers have been drastically reduced, however, in recent years as school

budgets have faced increasing cuts, and museums struggle to provide personalized, differentiated

learning that appeal to individual teachers (Mehta, 2008).

Underserved, urban community organizations and schools lack the resources to introduce

museums and their related learning experiences to students resulting in fewer elementary aged

students growing up to be life-long museum patrons. Additionally, these schools and community

organizations miss out on important extended, experiential learning programs that re-enforce the

work done in the classroom. Through meaningful partnerships, museums can hope to create

access to growing, diverse populations while schools can work to bridge learning gaps and

provide experiences consistent with those of more affluent, elementary school peers. This

symbiotic relationship will help students to feel a sense of belonging within arts and cultural

organizations while also supporting learning and 21st century skills.

This project explored:

Linking Communities 4

How can arts and cultural organizations have a positive impact on the long term

learning of elementary school students in underserved populations such as those

in Bridgeport and/or New Haven, CT?

What curriculum and logistical considerations outside of funding need to be

explored to make such partnerships successful?

Review of Literature
Linking Communities 5

Non-formal arts and cultural organizations, here defined as museums, stand to be strong

educational partners to public charter elementary schools in underserved, urban areas. Through

meaningful partnerships museums and public charter elementary schools will enhance and

bolster curriculum through experiential learning opportunities working collaboratively to address

the needs of students and both organization types. These partnerships increase the viability and

sustainability of museums by creating multicultural access points for non-traditional audiences

while offering fresh perspectives and approaches for students who lack the same cultural

resources of their more affluent peers.

While the benefits of such partnerships are quite clear, there remain a number of limiting

factors beyond funding that often prohibit such partnerships from growing. Complicated the

issue of building partnerships among these types of organizations are a lack of community

standing for museums, a lack of resources for underserved, urban students at public charter

schools, and varying approaches among schools that have greater autonomy than traditional

public and private schools. Lacking a singular, monolithic approach to education, museum

partners and public charter schools will need to navigate a number of logistical challenges to

form meaningful partnerships. These concerns highlight potential stumbling blocks for building

the type of partnerships proposed in this larger analysis of museums and public charter schools,

but existing literature helps to lay the ground work for ways through which they may be

overcome with time and planning.

Lack of Community Standing for Museums

Arts and cultural museums do not always hold high standing in underserved, urban

communities. They typically face stigma as spaces designed for affluent, white audiences.

Attempts to engage and embrace a more culturally responsive through multicultural approaches
Linking Communities 6

have historically failed by attempting to isolate the non-white experience from the larger

historical or artistic canon (Guillbault, 2011). Both Guillbault (2011) and Chung, Wilkening &

Johnstone (2008) highlight the ways in which museums have been well-intentioned in

introducing African-American, Latin American and similarly grouped exhibitions into public

spaces, but have done so only in specific shows rather than in a fully integrated way allowing for

cultural organizations to retain their essence of whiteness. By relegating minority and

underrepresented races into solitary exhibitions, these organizations set those groups aside as

other and, thereby, extend this otherness to audiences reflected in such shows (Guillbault, 2011).

A lack of representation among underserved populations can eliminate personal connections to

museums or an understanding of how such organizations can and should be used to improve

learning.

Census and visitor data points to why this approach is rather problematic for museums

hoping to find sustainability amidst shifting budgets and decreases in visitation. Studies by

scholars working with the American Association of Museums including Chung, Wilkening, &

Johnstone (2008) note that by the year 2034 white audiences are apt to the minority.

Organizations will see not only a dip in visitorship and, by extension, funds to maintain overhead

costs, but also stand to see an impact on available workers as a more diverse population neglects

to take an interest in museum related fields (Chung, Wilkening, & Johnstone, 2008). Not only

will this have a lasting impact on the museums, but also may limit the prospects that individual

students explore as they approach college and career.

The increasing diversity faced by museums is shared with schools including public

charter schools. Suh (2015) illustrates the ways in which public schools face increasingly diverse

populations. In light of recent educational developments including No Child Left Behind, school-
Linking Communities 7

and district-wide diversity has increased while placing the burden on schools to find ways to

overcome the achievement gap despite a lack of resources (Suh, 2015).

Despite the lack of standing identified within the literature on this topic, a number of case

studies show the way that school communities embracing museums create opportunities for

collaboration and comfort within the traditional classroom (Vitalaki, 2011). When public school

educators and administrators work with museums in their community, they are able to open

dialogues that create a strong sense of belonging within a class providing a potential outlet for

expression (Vitalacki, 2011). The study presented by Vitalacki (2011) also illustrates the need for

a time investment by school communities showing the results over a three-month program. This

is counter to the more traditional American model of one-off school visits that are increasingly

pushed aside as school is more rigidly structured around issues of testing. The schools that are

most successful in the existing literature have spent an extended period of time in creating the

programming collaboratively.

Lack of Resources for Underserved, Urban Students at Public Charter Schools

The achievement gap between affluent, white children and their underserved, urban

counterparts increasingly highlights dangers the country may face in the global marketplace

when competing with countries that have larger investments in public education (Suh, 2015). Suh

(2015) uses the increasing globalization of the world marketplace as proof positive that external

partnerships are beneficial for public schools including charters. Partnerships as defined by Suh

(2015) may be financial or programmatic with for-profit or non-profit organizations. Under this

analysis, schools lack the means to overcome the achievement gap alone and must look to the

larger community for support (Suh, 2015). This correctly highlights benefits of partnerships to
Linking Communities 8

improve resources, but does not address the fact that such a partnership would create a dialogue

and a mutually beneficial relationship.

Suhs (2015) analysis is expanded on by both Vitalaki (2011) and Stark (2013) both

highlighting examples of public education institutions working with partners to close

achievement gaps. Stark (2013) focuses in high school aged students working on research while

Vitalaki (2011) looks at elementary aged students participating in museum settings. Both

instance highlight the benefits of museum partnerships to overcome a lack of resources in public

schools, but they are also notable for both relating to schools in Europe or the British

Commonwealth (Stark, 2013; Vitalaki, 2011). This is significant because unlike Suh (2015) who

is analyzing American needs and resource gaps, Vitalaki (2011) and Stark (2013) are

approaching the topic from regions where public funding is able to underwrite such partnerships

and state sponsorship makes such partnerships more state intervention than a meaningful

partnership between two independent bodies.

Ford (2016) and Diaz (2016), both American scholars discussing topics related to school

choice in the United States, work as a counterpoint to Vitalaki (2011) and Stark (2013) by

shedding light on the lack of public resources and the shortcomings of a free, appropriate public

education in the US. This is significant to the problem facing partnerships between museum and

public charter schools because it highlights that governmental resources are not available in the

United States at an adequate level to close the achievement gap or to facilitate partnerships

(Ford, 2016; Diaz, 2016). In drawing attention to the concept of a free and appropriate public

education as well as the challenges of gaining resources for diverse school audiences, Ford

(2016) and Diaz (2016) also touch on the lack of consistency among types of schools in the
Linking Communities 9

United States compared to European and Commonwealth countries as described by Vitalacki

(2011) and Stark (2013).

Resources are admittedly a term rather loosely defined by most scholars to relate directly

to funding. One tangible that can be quantified as one looks at resources is technology. As Arnett

(2016) points out, technology is one of the key resources needed by schools to drive student

outcomes. Nevertheless, funding discrepancies can limit access to these types of materials and

resources (Ford, 2016). Drawing attention to this discrepancy is key because it extrapolates on

the ways that each school may offer a challenge rather than schools as a singular, monolithic

group.

Varying Curricular Approaches and Benchmarks for Museums and Schools

While a number of researchers above touched on the resources and benefits of

partnerships, other scholars explain the challenges of partnerships and school success due to the

lack of consistency among types of schools and cross-sector partners. Battisti (2009) looks at

several of these challenges in terms of cross-sector partnerships. While the main focus of

Battistis (2009) work is not schools or museums, the author illustrates the complexities of

diverse partnerships both in terms of ways they can be used to addressed with a focus on the

notion of corporate citizenship, a state where individuals across multiple sectors owe it to one

another to work toward addressing societal shortcomings. Battistis (2009) discussion of cross

sector partnerships creates a bridge between the partnerships proposed by Vitalacki (2011) and

Stark (2013) while also acknowledging and expanding on a number of the difficulties presented

by Suh (2015), Vitalacki (2011) and Stark (2013).

Additionally, Battisti (2009) serves as a bridge to the discussion of school choice as

discussed by Diaz (2016) and Ford (2016). Collectively, these three scholars build on the notion
Linking Communities 10

that a lack of standardization across sectors brings issues regarding benchmarks,

accomplishments and performance (Battisti, 2009; Diaz, 2016; Ford, 2016). Diaz (2016) most

directly deals with issues pertaining to public charter school performance, and its inconsistencies.

While school choice and the prominence of public charter schools continues to grow, Diaz

(2016) points out that choices are still often limited or forced upon underserved populations. The

presentation of curriculum is not consistent from one school to a next, and public charter schools

may have different benchmarks even within the same district (Diaz, 2016). Diaz (2016)

enumerates concerns about how underserved students may fall further behind the mark because

of a lack of oversight on learning outcomes and objectives. While teachers often have more

autonomy opening up the possibility of a cross-sector partnership with a museum, creating

programs that address the varying needs of starkly different schools may be challenging

compared to traditional public schools.

Gill, Yatsko, & Lake (2016) provide insight on the areas of concern broached by Diaz

(2016) and many of the other scholars represented here. Through a four-year study, Gill, Yatsko,

& Lake (2016) observed and interviewed a variety of stakeholders throughout the charter

networks in the United States. Their research illustrated the diversity within charter schools in

terms of curriculum, goals and outcomes (Gill, Yatsko, & Lake, 2016). This four-year study

explored charter schools as fertile ground for partnerships, but cautioned that public charter

schools are not monolithic and that partnerships are apt to fail because they do not recognize the

lack of unification among charter schools (Gill, Yatsko, & Lake, 2016). While the study

uncovered a number of areas of concern regarding partnerships, it did offer an optimistic outlook

on partnerships and networking both among charter schools and with cross-sector partners (Gill,

Yatsko, & Lake, 2016). Suggesting that an embrace of the diversity among these school types
Linking Communities 11

rather than trying to create uniformity echoes a number of other works cited here including

Chung, Wilkening & Johnstone (2008) and Battisti (2009). Notable among Gill, Yatsko, &

Lakes (2016) findings is that no one set of guidelines can cleanly encompass all possible

partnerships suggesting that a program wishing to create such partnerships would need to be

flexible and predicated on change rather than permanence.

Review of Literature: Conclusion

The literature available on this topic covers a multitude of ways that organizations and

schools have partnered in the past. It draws attention to the many challenges each type of

organization may face in approaching education. There are, however, few resources that deal

directly with the problems related to long-term, meaningful partnerships between museums and

public charter schools as a whole. Instead, existing literature typically touches on one component

of the larger problem. There are a number of case studies available that highlight successful

programs and positive impacts of such partnerships that can be bolstered with census and visitor

data available for larger national trends and local area addressed within this undertaking.

The bulk of reference materials focus primarily on science or STEM-related partnerships

with many being state sponsored programs happening in Europe with governmental funding and

buy-in, two elements that this exploration will assume not to be in place for potential

partnerships. Little has been uncovered in terms of arts and cultural organizations or specific ties

to public, charters schools, though few do discuss broader topics of non-formal education or

museum settings as important components to the learning process. Subsequent research will need

to focus on materials available that speak directly to museum fields something lacking in the

Post University Library. Original research through communication with arts and cultural
Linking Communities 12

organizations may also bear fruit that will be beneficial to better understanding the challenges of

this problem.

What is encouraging about the literature in this particular field is that it does reveal a

wealth of opportunity. The challenges are very real, and there is genuine concern about how to

approach many aspects of museum-school partnerships, but previous studies also offer some

guidance on approaches to avoid and for the needs of broad communities. This leaves a great

deal of room to explore specific localities in applying strategies.

Research Design & Methodology

This project aimed to discover how partnerships between museums and public charter

schools in underserved, urban schools can improve learning outcomes while creating future

museum patrons by fostering an interest in such institutions through their class work. The project

focused on students in public charter schools in Bridgeport, CT who have high rates of

underrepresented races and low-income families who historically have less interaction with

museums than their white peers. The project included a website that provides easy access to all

partnership materials for museum partners as well as streamlined communication and direct

instructions for participation. This website worked toward limiting the amount of drain on human

capital and eliminating the workflow difficulties of cross-sector partnerships wherein both

sectors often have limited staffing. The project used a mixed methods research approach in

collecting and evaluating data wherein tools for collecting both qualitative data about students

experience and quantitative data about meeting learning benchmarks were created to ensure

partnership accountability.

Activity Schematic
Linking Communities 13

This project included components for maintaining communications between

organizations, personalizing curriculum, facilitating learning and evaluating the experience for

students:

Activity/Deliverable Description
1) Program Website All partnership program information is included on and
managed through a website Designed using Google
Forms and integrated into the Google Site, these forms
streamline communication between partners. Digitizing
paperwork and research results ensures continuity across
partnerships, creates clear milestones for partners and
allows for quantification of all data. The cloud-based
nature of the forms also allows for multiple managers to
work with partners and for easy succession in the event
that an organization has turn over in staffing. Forms
include: Planning Surveys, Group Information
Submission Form, Feedback Form, and Contact Form.
designed with Google Sites. The website integrates
multiple Google Apps and downloadable materials that
all easy access to all materials for participating schools.
2) Common Forms Designed using Google Forms and integrated into the
Google Site, these forms streamline communication
between partners. Digitizing paperwork and research
results ensures continuity across partnerships, creates
clear milestones for partners and allows for
quantification of all data. The cloud-based nature of the
forms also allows for multiple managers to work with
partners and for easy succession in the event that an
organization has turn over in staffing. Forms include:
Planning Surveys, Group Information Submission Form,
Feedback Form, and Contact Form.
3) Partnership Timeline Detailed description and visual layout of all partnership
requirements. This allows for consistent deadlines and
completion of materials. It creates clear expectations for
partners and an understanding of what will be given in
return.

4) Learner Profiles As the partnership program offers tiered activities and

differentiated instruction, the website includes 3 learner
profiles for classroom teachers to use in grouping
students and providing instruction. Each Learner Profile
includes information about expectations and learning
outcomes for students.
Linking Communities 14

5) Student Inventory Form To aid teachers in assigning students to specific learner

6) Pre-Visit Activity
7) Post-Visit Activity
8) Class-Wide Assessment Rubric
profiles, the Student Inventory Form allows them to
analyze students to determine best placement if they are
less certain or less familiar with the student.
The website includes a differentiated lesson plan and
related worksheets for classes to complete prior to their
museum visit. These worksheets introduce students to
museum terminology and concepts while also
introducing them to rules related to their visit.
Similar to the Pre-Visit Activity, a differentiated lesson
plan and worksheets are provided for a follow-up
activity to check on retention and understanding of the
museum experience.
Teachers must complete and submit a rubric that
assesses their student learning based on how they
performed on activities and any formative assessments
given in class. This information is then used to
constantly assess the program.

Data Collection, Analysis & Evaluation

As a mixed methods research project, this undertaking lends itself to multiple types of

evaluation. The practitioner needs to assess and evaluate the success of the experimental

partnership based on both quantitative and qualitative means. The quantitative evaluation will

stem from formal classroom assessment that mirrors exams or similar tasks previously used by

the classroom teachers to evaluate the program. The practitioner will need to have access to both

the assessment itself and any related rubrics prior to the museum visit and activity to ensure the

activities completed mirror the objectives albeit in a new, non-formal way as described above.

Additionally, the practitioner will seek the average score of the assessment from the previous

year. This information will be used in conjunction with the grades of the participating group(s) to

determine how the skill achievement and knowledge retention relates to previous groups. This

will give the practitioner an understanding of how the performance of students has or has not

improved as a result of the partnership.

Linking Communities 15

The qualitative data will focus on exploring the student and class experience. A pre- and

post-visit survey of students will ask students to explain how the museum visit and related

activities improved their confidence, helped with their perception of learning the material and

impacted their interest in museums. Surveys will be age appropriate and while a number of

questions will be open-ended similar responses will be collated to get a sense of trends within the

responses, positive and negative. Teachers will be also be invited to complete a post-visit

reflection to highlight for the practitioner the lasting impact of the experiential learning activities

as well as to provide feedback about the pros and cons of the visit to allow for changes to be

made in the next cycle of research.

Research Design & Methodology: Conclusion

Action research requires that practitioners reassess and implement projects multiple times

in order to determine the most appropriate course of action (Ary, Sorensen, & Walker, 2013). The

above methodology leaves space for revision as needed to ensure that student outcomes are

appropriately met and replicated as appropriate to justify the need for such meaningful

partnerships. Ideally, such a project should be repeated over multiple years or units to fully

explore and confirm trends.

Evaluation & Assessment

This project followed the non-implementation route outlined by Post University (2017) as

part of its Masters of Education in Teaching & Learning. While the program has not been used

practically at this time, it was reviewed by a small panel of experts who evaluated the project

components in terms of its success and ability to meet the Post University requirements for a

Capstone Project. The Evaluation Rubric (Appendix B) outlines the criteria used for evaluation.
Linking Communities 16

Notably, the panel of experts found that many components of the project were

implementation ready. The panel praised the focus on both logistical concerns and curriculum

concepts to ensure that a multitude of groups could participate in the program. The tiering of

activities provided opportunities for customization and personalization that the panel of experts

found helpful in making the program useable for mixed-ability classes. The Panel of Experts also

noted that the program seemed to align with a number of key elements related to the Post

University Master of Education program and learning outcomes. Full completed assessments by

the members of the panel including information on their backgrounds are included with this

paper (Appendix C)

In addition to review of the project of a panel of experts, the practitioner completed a

self-assessment of the project, its management and effectiveness. The Self Assessment Rubric

(Appendix D) assesses the way in which the practitioner developed the project and the ways in

which the practitioner met the requirements of Post Universitys Masters of Education program.

The full self-assessment of the practitioner is included (Appendix E) and includes an

assessment of all components of the Capstone Project including the Final Report Paper, Share

Fair and Project Deliverables. Overall, the self-assessment revealed a Capstone Project that fell

into the Proficient to Exemplary range based on the criteria provided for the Capstone Project.

The conceived project was completed on time with all major milestones being met, contributed

toward personal and professional growth, and showed a high level of academic work consistent

with graduate level courses.

Notable in the assessment of the components of the Capstone Project is the projects

alignment with Post Universitys (2017) Master of Education Program Outcomes. These

Outcomes include: analyzing emerging technology trends to support learning, comparing

Linking Communities 17

theories of teaching and learning and applying them in a variety of educational contexts, and

establishing and evaluating learning communities that are collaborative, inclusive, and support

the needs of diverse learners (Post University, 2017). There outcomes are represented through the

development a web-based deliverable for use by a cross-sector partnership group that utilizes

different types of learning including traditional classroom instruction and experiential

opportunities in the community. In addition to these program outcomes, the project also aligned

with concentration specific outcomes including: using selected advanced instructional strategies

appropriate for specific learning outcomes and applying assessment strategies (Post University,

2017).

Discussion & Reflection

Overall, this Capstone Project proved to be successful as an exercise in synthesizing

concepts and course work completed throughout the Master of Education program. I pushed

myself to integrate technologies and ideas that were new to me and focused on creating an

implementation-ready product that spoke to my educational context and the many things I have

learned as a student at Post University.

While I appreciated the challenge of this project very much, I did find myself consistently

frustrated with some of the project parameters particularly my uncertainty in terms of scope.

Ultimately, I believe that I managed my time well and was able to create a multi-faceted product

that addressed the many needs of the problem statement that I proposed, but upon reflection, I

think that I would have benefited from a better understanding of an appropriate scope so that I

would feel more at ease and confident in the overall thrust of my project.

One weakness of the research of this project grew out of this uncertainty of clear

parameters. My five person Panel of Experts had a number of questions about expectations and
Linking Communities 18

scope that were not readily available by sharing the course documents. Three of five panelists

completed their assessments. While this gave a good sample to work from, I would have liked to

have more information. From conversations with panelists, the inability to complete the

evaluation stemmed mostly from the reduced summer schedule than from any major concerns

with the project. If I were to approach this project again, I would certainly feel more confident in

the expectation of the Panel of Experts, but I do believe I would have been more successful in

this arena if I had this knowledge earlier in the process. Additionally, the panel gave very short

answers to the questions. It was difficult to truly reflect on their evaluation, but I appreciate that

they took the time needed to complete it.

I am happy with what I have produced for this project and believe that it does extend the

research in the field by looking to answer and assist in matters related to brokering deep

partnerships. It addresses a number of concerns that were raised by the initial literature and looks

to streamline a number of processes that could be seen as overly complex. The final product

serves as a strong potential model for future professional endeavors.

References

Arnett, T. (2016). Connecting ed & tech: Partnering to drive student outcomes.

Ary, D., Jacobs, L., Sorensen, C., & Walker, D. (2013). Introduction to research in education.

Cengage Learning.
Linking Communities 19

Battisti, M. (2009). Below the surface: The challenges of cross-sector partnerships. Journal

of Corporate Citizenship, Fall(35).

Chung, J., Wilkening, S., & Johnstone, S. (2008). Museums & society 2034: Trends

and potential futures. San Francisco, CA: American Association of Museums.

Diaz, E.H. (2016). Is it really a choice? How charter schools without choice may result in

students without a free appropriate public education. Brigham Young University

education & law journal, (1).

Ford, M.R. (2016). Funding impermanence: Quantifying the public funds sent to

closed schools in the nations first urban school voucher program. Public

Administration Quarterly, 40(4).

Gill, S., Yatsko, S., & Lake, R. (2016). Herding cats: Managing diverse charter school interests

in collaboration efforts.

Guilbault, J. (2011). The question of multiculturalism in the arts in the postcolonial nation-

state of Trinidad and Tobago. Music & politics, V(1).

Mehta, S. (2008, May 9). Schools cant spare time or dimes for field trips. Retrieved

from: http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-fieldtrips19-2008may19-story.html.

Post University. (2017). Master of Education: Curriculum & program outcomes. Post

University. Retrieved from: http://post.edu/academics/master-of-

education/curriculum.

Stark, E. (2013). Real-life solutions to real-life problems: Collaborating with a non-profit

foundation to engage honors students in applied research. Journal of the National

Collegiate Honors Council, 14(2).

Linking Communities 20

Suh, R. (2015). External partnering with public schools. Research starters education.

Vitalaki, E. (2011). Museum education as a tool for promoting school-wide community and

family cooperation in elementary: A preliminary report. Problems of education in the

21st century, 36.

Appendix A: Project Management Plan

Problem Statement

Underserved, urban youth are at a disadvantage compared to their more affluent peers

due to a lack of resources. Through meaningful partnerships with local museums, public charter
Linking Communities 21

schools in urban areas can close the achievement gap through experiential learning activities. For

such an undertaking to be successful, schools and museums would work closely together to

develop personalized curriculum that speak directly to specific schools needs and wants. These

partnerships will be mutually beneficial in not only closing the achievement gap, but also in

providing museums and similar cultural institutions with new audiences.

Learners and Audience

This project will connect with teachers and students at urban public charter schools in

Connecticut. The teachers would be integral to the success of the program because materials

would be altered to ensure they specifically met individual classroom needs. The learners would

be elementary students from the partnership schools. Ideally, students would be in grades 4-6,

but flexibility would be built into the program to allow for the maximum number of area students

to participate. For the sake of simplicity, materials developed for this particular iteration of the

project will focus on fourth graders since participants are hypothetical at this stage. Participating

classes will be comprised of diverse populations with a high occurrence of minority students and

low-income participants based on the location and communities targeted by this project.

Learning Objectives

Students who participate in this project will show improvements in the classroom and

will exhibit a stronger understanding of museums. Following completion of this project, students

will be able to:

Articulate the importance and usefulness of museums to learning about new and

diverse things.

Write expressively about museum objects using new and unit specific vocabulary.
Linking Communities 22

Synthesize connections between multiple objects, related concepts and work

completed in the classroom.

Apply their knowledge of the museum and unit to successfully complete an

assessment.

Project Calendar

Task Name Start Date End Date

Create sample project information to be distributed to 6/26/2017 6/28/2017

hypothetical partners
Develop focus group materials that would be used for teacher 6/26/2017 6/30/2017
engagement and planning
Develop pre-visit student activities/materials to be used in 6/30/2017 7/4/2017
the classroom
Develop post-visit student activities/materials to be used in 7/3/2017 7/6/17
the classroom
Develop tiered activities for museum visits to allow students 7/7/17 7/17/17
to be divided into groups
Develop learning profiles to be used by teachers to match 7/18/17 7/22/17
students to tiered activities
Generate a small website or online hosting area for storing 7/20/17 8/2/17
documents that would be accessible to partners for exchange
of information
Create rubric for assessment materials for in-classroom 7/25/17 7/27/17
assessment to ensure that objectives have been met
Submit materials for feedback and revise materials 7/28/17 8/10/17
Second submission of materials for feedback and revision 8/10/17 8/15/17

Complete final report and PLE posting as required 8/16/17 8/20/17

Appendix B:

Non-Implementation Evaluation
Linking Communities 23

While this action research project will be implantation ready as per the

requirements of Post Universitys Master of Education Capstone Project Guidelines,

extenuating circumstances make it more appropriate to use the non-implementation track

for the project. As a result, the deliverables generated for this project will be reviewed by a

Panel of Experts to ensure that they align with the intended learning objectives and goals of

the project. Members of the Panel of Experts will be provided with a questionnaire that

addresses each aspect of the project. The questionnaire includes open-ended questions that

allow for qualitative feedback and recommendations as well as Lickert Scale questions that

allow for a normalized, quantified review of the elements.

Capstone Project Evaluation Questionnaire

Thank you for participating in this evaluation of this project. Your feedback will be used to
determine the effectiveness of this project should it be implemented. Please provide any
information that you believe would be useful to the project manager to improve this project.

Learning Objectives: Please review each of the intended learning objectives below and provide
feedback on the successes and areas of opportunity for each.
1) Using the scale below, please rate the project as a whole based on how well it articulates the
importance and usefulness of museums to hypothetical students.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
2) Thinking of the components of the project that you reviewed, which one (1) element best
embodied the learning objective above? Why?

3) What would you modify about this project to ensure that it is best meeting this objective? A
modification might include an addition, subtraction or change to an existing element.

4) Using the scale below, please rate the project as a whole based on its ability to teach students
to write expressively about museum objects using new vocabulary.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Linking Communities 24

5) Thinking of the components of the project that you reviewed, which one (1) element best
embodied the learning objective above? Why?

6) What would you modify about this project to ensure that it is best meeting this objective? A
modification might include an addition, subtraction or change to an existing element.

7) Using the scale below, please rate the project as a whole based on its requirement that students
synthesize connections between objects, concepts and classwork.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
8) Thinking of the components of the project that you reviewed, which one (1) element best
embodied the learning objective above? Why?

9) What would you modify about this project to ensure that it is best meeting this objective? A
modification might include an addition, subtraction or change to an existing element.

10) Using the scale below, please rate the project as a whole based on its likelihood to promote
application of knowledge through classroom assessment.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11) Thinking of the components of the project that you reviewed, which one (1) element best
embodied the learning objective above? Why?
Linking Communities 25

12) What would you modify about this project to ensure that it is best meeting this objective? A
modification might include an addition, subtraction or change to an existing element.

Implementation Readiness: While this project is not being implemented at this time, it is
important that it be implementation ready at its conclusion. Please rate each component that you
reviewed for its readiness. You may elaborate below your assigned rating if you wish.
Mostly Not
Implementation Needs
Criteria Implementation Implementation
Ready Improvement
Ready Ready
Deliverable #1:
Partnership
Information for
on-boarding and
education of
partnering
organizations.
Deliverable #2:
Common Forms
and Logistical
Tools
Deliverable #3:
Pre- and Post-
Visit Materials
for Student
Evaluation
Deliverable #4:
Learning Profiles
for Classroom
Teacher Use
Deliverable #5:
Class
Assessment
Tools
Deliverable #6:
Cloud-Based
Environment for
Linking Communities 26

Hosting
Generated
Content
Please describe any additional comments that you have about this project and its implementation
status. Note: This project does not address funding issues that might preclude a partner from
participating.

Appendix C

Completed Panel of Experts Assessments

A panel of five experts was put together to review the deliverables for this project. Of the

five experts, three completed the assessment and returned them in time for the completion of this

project. The panel included an entry-level museum educator, a charter school art teacher, and a

museum director. Their notes have been compiled in one assessment form below:

Assessment Key: Entry-Level Museum Educator, Art Teacher, Museum Director, Consensus

Capstone Project Evaluation Questionnaire

Thank you for participating in this evaluation of this project. Your feedback will be used to
determine the effectiveness of this project should it be implemented. Please provide any
information that you believe would be useful to the project manager to improve this project.

Learning Objectives: Please review each of the intended learning objectives below and provide
feedback on the successes and areas of opportunity for each.
1) Using the scale below, please rate the project as a whole based on how well it articulates the
importance and usefulness of museums to hypothetical students.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
2) Thinking of the components of the project that you reviewed, which one (1) element best
embodied the learning objective above? Why?
The activities used for the pre- and post-visit activities because it highlighted the way that
students can use museums and understand them.
The pre- and post-visit materials because of how they introduce museum work in a way that
typical classroom work wouldnt.
The learner profiles for their ability to organize students into ready groups.
Linking Communities 27

3) What would you modify about this project to ensure that it is best meeting this objective? A
modification might include an addition, subtraction or change to an existing element.
Nothing. I think its great and very helpful.
I would like to see additional resources and more diverse materials
Id like to see more materials developed.

4) Using the scale below, please rate the project as a whole based on its ability to teach students
to write expressively about museum objects using new vocabulary.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8/8 9 10
5) Thinking of the components of the project that you reviewed, which one (1) element best
embodied the learning objective above? Why?
Pre- and Post-Visit Materials because its where they are used the most compared to the educator
tools.
Pre-and Post-Visit Materials.
Pre- and Post-Visit Materials. I think the museum materials would too if they were created.

6) What would you modify about this project to ensure that it is best meeting this objective? A
modification might include an addition, subtraction or change to an existing element.
More art creation would be nice.
It would be interesting to see some other ways that terminology is used and how it would shape
up in a museum.
Different types of work being produced.

7) Using the scale below, please rate the project as a whole based on its requirement that students
synthesize connections between objects, concepts and classwork.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
8) Thinking of the components of the project that you reviewed, which one (1) element best
embodied the learning objective above? Why?
Pre- and Post-Visit materials help to highlight the ways these connect.
I think the overall program really encourages this as opposed to one specific element.
Learner profiles. I think that they really help to emphasize appropriate levels for students.
9) Using the scale below, please rate the project as a whole based on its likelihood to promote
application of knowledge through classroom assessment.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
10) Thinking of the components of the project that you reviewed, which one (1) element best
embodied the learning objective above? Why?
The class-wide assessment offers the chance to make sure theyre applying knowledge.
I really like the way that it draws on both museum knowledge and unit knowledge. This seems to
help to make them use multiple types of knowledge.
Love the multiple types of assessment and inclusion of the teachers own assessment to fit an
individual classroom.
12) What would you modify about this project to ensure that it is best meeting this objective? A
Linking Communities 28

modification might include an addition, subtraction or change to an existing element.

Implementation Readiness: While this project is not being implemented at this time, it is
important that it be implementation ready at its conclusion. Please rate each component that you
reviewed for its readiness. You may elaborate below your assigned rating if you wish.
Mostly Not
Implementation Needs
Criteria Implementation Implementation
Ready Improvement
Ready Ready
Deliverable #1:
Partnership
Ranked by all 3
Information for
reviewers as
on-boarding and
Implementation
education of
Ready
partnering
organizations.
Deliverable #2: Ranked by all 3
Common Forms reviewers as
and Logistical Implementation
Tools Ready
Deliverable #3:
Ranked by all 3
Pre- and Post-
reviewers as
Visit Materials
Implementation
for Student
Ready
Evaluation
Deliverable #4: Ranked by all 3
Learning Profiles reviewers as
for Classroom Implementation
Teacher Use Ready
Deliverable #5: Ranked by all 3
Class reviewers as
Assessment Implementation
Tools Ready
Deliverable #6:
Cloud-Based Ranked by all 3
Environment for reviewers as
Hosting Implementation
Generated Ready
Content
Please describe any additional comments that you have about this project and its implementation
status. Note: This project does not address funding issues that might preclude a partner from
Linking Communities 29

participating.
No Reply
Id very much like to see this developed further to include potential museum components once
youre working in a museum.
No Reply

Appendix D

Self-Assessment
Linking Communities 30

In assessing the success of this project, one must analyze how well the project

author and manager crafted and executed the project. The deliverables must both align

with Post Universitys desired outcomes for the Capstone Project and the projects intended

outcome. In order to best assess the project manager, it makes the most sense to look at

each deliverable in terms of their relevance to those outcomes and the larger project.

Capstone Project Self-Assessment Rubric

Final Report Paper & Share Fair Presentation
Exemplary Proficient Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Points
Criteria (3) (2) (1) (0)
Appropriate
research is
completed
and presented
to support the
project.
Follows APA
formatting
including in-
paper
citations and
references
Writing is
professional
and academic
in nature
Presentation
is of high
quality,
legible and
professional
in nature
Total Points /12
Deliverable #1: Partnership Information for on-boarding and education of partnering
organizations.
Exemplary Proficient Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Points
Criteria (3) (2) (1) (0)
Generated
during
intended time
period
Linking Communities 31

adhering to
project
timeline
Contributes
toward
professional
growth and
personal
learning
Aligns with
intended goals
of the project
as outlined by
the Final
Report
Relates to
M.Ed
outcomes
Total: /12
Deliverable #2: Planning Documentation and Common Forms
Exemplary Proficient Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Points
Criteria (3) (2) (1) (0)
Generated
during
intended time
period
adhering to
project
timeline
Contributes
toward
professional
growth and
personal
learning
Aligns with
intended goals
of the project
as outlined by
the Final
Report
Relates to
M.Ed
outcomes
Total: /12
Deliverable #3: Pre- and Post-Visit Materials for Student Evaluation
Linking Communities 32

Exemplary Proficient Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Points

Criteria (3) (2) (1) (0)
Generated
during
intended time
period
adhering to
project
timeline
Contributes
toward
professional
growth and
personal
learning
Aligns with
intended goals
of the project
as outlined by
the Final
Report
Relates to
M.Ed
outcomes
Total: /12
Deliverable #4: Learner Profiles for Classroom Teacher Use
Exemplary Proficient Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Points
Criteria (3) (2) (1) (0)
Generated
during
intended time
period
adhering to
project
timeline
Contributes
toward
professional
growth and
personal
learning
Aligns with
intended goals
of the project
as outlined by
the Final
Linking Communities 33

Report
Relates to
M.Ed
outcomes
Total: /12
Deliverable #5: Classroom Assessment Tools
Exemplary Proficient Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Points
Criteria (3) (2) (1) (0)
Generated
during
intended time
period
adhering to
project
timeline
Contributes
toward
professional
growth and
personal
learning
Aligns with
intended goals
of the project
as outlined by
the Final
Report
Relates to
M.Ed
outcomes
Total: /12
Deliverable #6: Cloud-Based Environment for Hosting Generated Content
Exemplary Proficient Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Points
Criteria (3) (2) (1) (0)
Generated
during
intended time
period
adhering to
project
timeline
Contributes
toward
professional
growth and
personal
Linking Communities 34

learning
Aligns with
intended goals
of the project
as outlined by
the Final
Report
Relates to
M.Ed
outcomes
Total: /12

Final Total:

Appendix E
Linking Communities 35

Completed Self-Assessment

Capstone Project Self-Assessment Rubric

Final Report Paper & Share Fair Presentation
Exemplary Proficient Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Points
Criteria (3) (2) (1) (0)
The research
drew on a
number of
Appropriate
different
research is
resources and
completed
looking at 3
and presented
multiple
to support the
education
project.
contexts as
appropriate for
this project.
Follows APA
formatting APA
including in- formatting is
3
paper employed for
citations and all
references components
Writing is Conforms with
professional professional
3
and academic and academic
in nature standards
The
presentation
Presentation
used an
is of high
appropriate
quality,
amount of text 3
legible and
while also
professional
introducing
in nature
voice over
narration.
Total Points 12/12
Deliverable #1: Partnership Information for on-boarding and education of partnering
organizations.
Exemplary Proficient Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Points
Criteria (3) (2) (1) (0)
Generated Work was 3
during completed on
intended time time and in
period keeping with
Linking Communities 36

adhering to
project
timeline the PMP.
Required the
practitioner to
think critically
Contributes
about how a
toward
partnership is
professional
formed and 3
growth and
what a
personal
management
learning
role in such a
partnership
looks like.
Aligns with Aids in the
intended logistical
goals of the implementation
project as of partnerships 3
outlined by and workflow
the Final as outlined in
Report the report
This
represents a
necessary
component of
this project,
but is not
necessarily
Relates to
key to the
M.Ed 2
M.Ed
outcomes
outcomes,
though it does
draw on the
inclusivity
and multiple
contexts
outcomes.
Total: 11/12
Deliverable #2: Planning Documentation and Common Forms
Exemplary Proficient Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Points
Criteria (3) (2) (1) (0)
Generated Work was 3
during completed on
intended time time and in
period keeping with
adhering to the PMP.
Linking Communities 37

project
timeline
Contributes Focused on
toward lower level
professional skills, but still
growth and contributed
2
personal toward
learning learning in
terms of
inclusivity
Aligns with Aids in the
intended goals logistical
of the project implementation
as outlined by of partnerships 3
the Final for maximum
Report learning
opportunities
Relates to Works toward
M.Ed inclusivity and
outcomes diversity in 3
educational
contexts.
Total: 11/12
Deliverable #3: Pre- and Post-Visit Materials for Student Evaluation
Exemplary Proficient Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Points
Criteria (3) (2) (1) (0)
Generated
during Work was
intended time completed on
period time and in 3
adhering to keeping with
project the PMP.
timeline
Contributes Required the
toward synthesis of
professional concepts from
growth and multiple
personal courses 3
learning factored into a
specific
education
context.
Aligns with Added in 3
intended goals differentiating
of the project instruction and
as outlined by making it open
Linking Communities 38

the Final to diverse

Report groups.
Relates to Utilized
M.Ed curriculum
outcomes theories
emphasized by 3
the Teaching &
Learning
concentration.
Total: 12/12
Deliverable #4: Learner Profiles for Classroom Teacher Use
Exemplary Proficient Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Points
Criteria (3) (2) (1) (0)
Generated
during Work was
intended time completed on
period time and in 3
adhering to keeping with
project the PMP.
timeline
Encouraged
thoughts about
Contributes how students
toward think and learn,
professional and how to
3
growth and implement
personal those in a
learning particular
educational
context.
Aligns with Allowed for
intended goals proper
of the project grouping of
3
as outlined by students and
the Final differentiation
Report of instruction.
Utilized
curriculum
Relates to theories
M.Ed emphasized by 3
outcomes the Teaching &
Learning
concentration.
Total: 12/12
Deliverable #5: Classroom Assessment Tools
Criteria Exemplary Proficient Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Points
Linking Communities 39

(3) (2) (1) (0)

Generated
during Work was
intended time completed on
period time and in 3
adhering to keeping with
project the PMP.
timeline
Contributes Required deep
toward critical
professional thinking about
growth and assessment
personal tools and ways
3
learning of
implementing
them in a
cross-sector
partnership.
Aligns with Helped to
intended goals ensure
of the project evaluation of
as outlined by material over
3
the Final an extended
Report period in a
consistent and
replicable way.
Relates to Aligned
M.Ed closely with
outcomes evaluation and
assessment 3
goals of
learners and
educators
Total: 12/12
Deliverable #6: Cloud-Based Environment for Hosting Generated Content
Exemplary Proficient Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Points
Criteria (3) (2) (1) (0)
Generated
during Work was
intended time completed on
period time and in 3
adhering to keeping with
project the PMP.
timeline
Contributes Required 3
toward learning and
Linking Communities 40

using new
technologies
professional
and looking for
growth and
ways that they
personal
can improve
learning
professional
standing
Aligns with
Aids in closing
intended goals
the logistical
of the project
concerns and 3
as outlined by
creating cross-
the Final
sector bridges
Report
Relates to Analyzed new
M.Ed technologies to
outcomes encourage
diversity in
learning and 3
inclusivity of
multiple
learning
contexts.
Total: 12/12

Final Total: 82/84