1

Running head: ROLES

Chaperone Roles During Field Trips

And

Roles of Field Trips from Teachers’ Perspectives

Cori Elsesser

ETR 745x

Northern Illinois University

 2
ROLES
Chaperone Roles During Field Trips

According to the American Alliance of Museums (n.d.), approximately 55 million

students around the country take field trips to informal learning institutions like museums, zoos,

aquariums, and nature centers each year. These field trips are either self-guided field trips with

the classroom teachers facilitating and guiding learning, sometimes with the help of materials

provided by the informal learning institution, or educational programs offered by the institution

with staff facilitating and guiding learning. No matter the type of field trip, the teacher cannot

facilitate and guide learning for an entire class. Therefore, teachers call upon chaperones, who

usually do not have educational training, for assistance. While previous research studies have

been conducted on teachers and their roles during field trips, the chaperones, who are often the

ones interacting with the majority of students during field trips, are not well represented in the

literature.

The purpose of this study is to explore the roles of chaperones and possible conflicts

resulting from those roles during field trips from the perspective of teachers and chaperones.

This study will incorporate a sensitizing framework derived from role theory, as synthesized by

Morris (1971), and a modified grounded theory design, which integrates grounded theory design

as described by Glaser and Strauss (2008) with components of portraiture as developed by

Lawrence-Lightfoot and Davis (1997), to develop a grand theory of chaperone roles during field

trips.

Sensitizing Framework

Role is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary (2016) from the social sciences as “the

characteristic or socially expected behaviour [sic] pattern of any person with a certain identity or
 3
ROLES
status in a particular social setting or environment.” A second definition adds that role is “the

function performed by someone or something in a particular situation or process.” The second

definition is an important addition because its focus on function relates to this study’s specific

sensitizing framework.

In sociological theory in general a role includes the social expectations and the expected

behaviors attached to a particular social position or status, as well as the privileges and

responsibilities of that position (Calhoun, 2002; Scott, 2015). Sociological theory also notes that

there is always tension between the expectations of the role and individual enactments of the

role, a type of role conflict. Through the lens of structural functionalism, a top down approach,

roles are situated within the positions of larger social systems. In this sense, specific roles have

fixed expectations, responsibilities, obligations, privileges, rights, duties, and relationships. In

other words, structural functionalism seeks to understand roles and their functions within a given

social situation. For example, people who interact with an individual in a given status will expect

specific behaviors or roles for that status. Status, role, and role conflict are three of the main

concepts in role theory.

Role Theory

Role theory specifically started with Ralph Linton in 1936 and has been expanded upon

by many authors including Newcomb (1950), Sarbin (1954), Parsons (1951), Merton (1957),

Gross (1958), and others. Oftentimes, authors utilized unique terminology for key concepts

which differ from other authors despite having similar meanings. Morris (1971) describes and

integrates various terminology into an understandable sensitizing framework.

 4
ROLES
Role theory usually starts with the key concepts of role and status. All authors agree that

there are three elements implied in the various definitions of role and status: “There is the notion

that individuals are (a) in positions within a social structure and (b) that they behave with

reference to (c) a set of expectations” (Morris, 1971, p. 397). Element (a) constitutes an actor’s

status or the position of an actor in a system of social relationships or social structure. Elements

(b) and (c) combine into the concept of role which has three components described by various

terminology. For the current study, the three components are defined by Morris (1971) as:

(a) Role-demand may be defined as the structurally given demands (norms,

expectations, taboos, responsibilities and the like) associated with a given

social position (e.g. status),

(b) Role-conception may be defined as the [actor’s] orientation or conception

[e.g. values, functions, and behavioral patterns] of the part he [or she] is to

play in the organization [or social structure], and

(c) Role-performance is commonly defined as the actions of the [actor]. [p. 397].

These three components demonstrate that there are multiple expectations for each social status.

The pattern of role relationships and the accompanying set of expectations by various actors in a

social system for a single status is called a role-set. In other words, a role-set is the combination

of all the roles of a single status. Role-sets are the foundation for role-conflict.

Role conflict occurs when the network of role expectations or role-set conflict with one

another. The literature includes four types of role conflict which Morris (1971) summarizes as:

(a) Inter-role conflict occurs “when a person occupies two or more [roles] simultaneously

and when role expectations of one are incompatible with the role expectations of the

other” (p. 398).

 5
ROLES
(b) Intra-sender conflict includes “conflicts which are derived from the contradictory

expectations of a single member of the role set” (p. 398). In other words, one actor in the

social system has conflicting expectations for a role thereby sending conflicting signals to

other members in the social system.

(c) Intra-role conflict is when an actor perceives that he or she is confronted with

incompatible role expectations for behavior from other actors in the social system. That is

while “role-sets engender, through conflicting, even incompatible, role exceptions, role

strain” occurs (p. 398). Intra-role conflict involves many mechanisms such as

“differential involvement by members of the role set, difference in power, observability,

and varying degrees of isolation” (p. 399).

(d) Self-role conflict occurs “when the expectations and obligations of the [actor’s] status are

incongruent with the [actor’s] own values [, needs,] and role-conception” (p. 399).

These four conflicts demonstrate that an actor simultaneously faces three problematic issues

which determine the adjustments or mechanisms the actor makes for conflict to be resolved. The

three issues include: “(a) conflict arising from incompatible expectations of the role-set, (b)

‘conflict’ arising from role ambiguity, and (c) conflict arising from lack of congruence between

individual’s personal needs or role conception and the organizational role expectations” (p. 402).

Both the three components of role and the four types of role conflict will play an important

function in my study.

Chaperone Roles in the Literature

In the literature, the concept of role has been applied to studies about chaperones on field

trips. However, the use of role as a concept has been stripped from its context in role theory.

Researchers have taken two main approaches to studying chaperone roles. First, some
 6
ROLES
researchers look at chaperone roles based on descriptive behavior. For example, Sedzielarz

(2003) took an ethnographic approach to studying chaperone-child interactions. Sedzielarz

developed nine possible roles chaperones can take including guide, group facilitator, timekeeper,

learning leader, teacher, role model, security guard, learner, and strategizer. Sedzielarz also states

that chaperones are constantly reassessing which role they are taking at any given moment based

on negotiating the changing behavior of a child’s reactions. The author also notes, without

referencing role conflict, that chaperones are conflicted between the ideal chaperone role and

their ability to fulfill the ideal role. In another study, Wood (2010) investigated chaperone

behavior to determine if chaperones act as escorts, educators, or parents. The escort role is the

functional role teachers expect in which chaperones make field trips easier by dealing with

logistical issues. Educators are chaperones who work as visit guides by directing experiences and

is the preferred role by museum staff. The role of parent lies in between the escort role and the

educator role; the chaperone engages in both types of behavior to enhance and participate in

learning. The conclusion of the study was that chaperones carry out all three roles of escort,

educator, and parent.

The second approach is to look at chaperone behavior and categorize their actions

according to strategies. Kisiel (2006) developed a strategy categorization based on 115 teacher

surveys and ten teacher observations during field trips. While his strategies of structured student

engagement, unstructured student engagement, supervision, and documentation were created

based on teacher data instead of parent chaperones, it can be argued that chaperones utilize some

of the same strategies.

 7
ROLES
Role Theory in the Current Study

The sensitizing framework of role theory is appropriate for the current study because it

provides background knowledge for defining the study’s core concepts of chaperone roles and

role conflicts (role theory’s key concept of status will be predefined as teacher, chaperone, and

student). In the current study, the concept of roles is defined as multiple expectational

responsibilities, conceptual functions, and enacted behaviors of a given social position or status.

Specifically, this role definition will be applied to the status of chaperone. The definition calls

for the examination of expectations for chaperones from various other statuses in the social

system like teachers and students (role-demands), conceptualizations of the chaperone roles from

the point of view of a chaperone (role-conceptions), and the actions of a chaperone (role-

performances). All the various chaperone roles together create the chaperone role-set.

The second core concept, role conflict, is defined as any inconsistency, contradiction, or

incompatibility about an actor’s role-set both within an actor and between members of a social

system. In the situation of chaperone role-set, role conflicts that may occur include, for example,

when a chaperone conceives differing chaperone role expectations (an example of inter-role

conflict), when role expectations for a chaperone do not align with the chaperone’s personal

values (an example of self-role conflict), when one teacher sends conflicting signals or signs

about chaperone roles (an example of intra-sender conflict), or when teachers and students

expect different behaviors of chaperones (an example of intra-role conflict).

The role theory sensitizing framework will also help me focus the study through what

Lawrence-Lightfoot and Davis (1997) call relevant dimensions from their portraiture design.

According to Lawrence-Lightfoot and Davis, relevant dimensions are derived from previous

research, help focus studies conducted at multiple sites, and frame the initial scaffold for
 8
ROLES
perspective-taking and data collection. During data analysis, relevant dimensions are the “areas

of mattering” from which “instances of mattering” or themes emerge. These emerging themes

can then be tested at a site. Lawrence-Lightfoot and Davis note that, “While some emergent

themes will necessarily have more resonance within one dimension than another, resonance

across dimensions suggest authenticity” (p. 220). In other words, data analysis should not only

look for themes within a given relevant dimension but should also look for how themes span

different dimensions. The incorporation of the three role components and the four role conflicts

from Morris (1971) as relevant dimensions modifies the otherwise grounded theory design of the

current study.

Sensitizing Framework Diagrams

Role Theory Core Concepts

 9
ROLES
Types of Role Conflict

Inter-role conflict

Intra-sender conflict
 10
ROLES
Intra-role conflict

Self-role conflict
 11
ROLES
Research Design and Method

In qualitative research, there are a variety of research designs that inform a study’s

methods. For this research study, a modified grounded theory design will be employed in which

elements of portraiture (Lawrence-Lightfoot & Davis, 1997) are fused into an overall grounded

theory design (Glaser & Strauss, 2008). This modified grounded theory design will inform data

collection procedures and data analysis techniques.

Modified Grounded Theory Design

In general, a grounded theory research design seeks to discover and generate theory

rooted in data that has been systematically obtained from social research. A main theoretical

foundation of grounded theory design is that a theory “cannot be divorced from the process by

which is it generated.” (Glaser & Strauss, 2008, p. 5). Glaser and Strauss continue that,

“generating a theory from data means that most hypotheses and concepts not only come from the

data but are systematically worked out in relation to the data during the course of the research”

(p. 6). This is done through comparative analysis of numerous carefully selected cases. Grounded

theories that are generated by comparative analysis include (1) conceptual categories and their

conceptual properties as well as (2) hypotheses of generalized relations among the categories and

their properties. According to Charmaz (2014), grounded theory researchers collect rich data and

thick description seeking sensitizing concepts. Researchers also simultaneously collect and

analyze data using the constant comparative method. Glaser and Strauss (2008) describe the four

stages of the constant comparative method as: “(1) comparing incidents applicable to each

category, (2) integrating categories and their properties, (3) delimiting the theory, and (4) writing

the theory” (p. 105). The two defining characteristics of the constant comparative method stem

from processes in the first stage. First, the researcher codes an incident into a category and
 12
ROLES
compares the incident to “previous incidents in the same and different groups coded in the same

category” (p. 104). By constantly comparing incidents, theoretical properties of each category

are soon generated leading to the second defining process: the researcher stops coding and writes

a memo on the potential theoretical properties. The constant comparative method continues until

the categories become theoretically saturated.

The current study is slightly modified from this traditional grounded theory approach by

incorporating aspects of portraiture design as specified by Lawrence-Lightfoot and Davis (1997).

As previously mentioned, core concepts from the role theory sensitizing framework will be

utilized as relevant dimensions. Another important contribution to my study from Lawrence-

Lightfoot and Davis is the focus on searching for deviant voices or the discrepant perspective

that seem to fall outside and diverge from the emergent themes. Deviant voices will be especially

important when seeking out the relevant dimensions for the four role conflicts which in their

very nature stem from dissonance across and within actors.

This modified grounded theory design is well suited for my study. In terms of

affordances, the purpose of grounded theory design, to generate theory established by data,

matches the goal of my study. Also, the comparative nature of grounded theory design data

collection and analysis offers an opportunity in terms of varying site contexts. Finally, since

there has been little research done on my topic of chaperone roles during field trips, grounded

theory design’s emphasis on developing concepts and categories along with associated properties

is very beneficial for my study. The inclusion of two design elements of portraiture will help

focus the study and prevent wondering.

The one challenge is that grounded theory design is time intensive which might be

problematic. After saturating data at one site, grounded theory dictates that another site is
 13
ROLES
selected for data collection based on a slight difference from the first site. At this new site, data

collection occurs until saturation at which point a third site with another slight difference is

selected for data collection. This process continues until all differences are accounted for and a

grand theory is developed. Since grand theory is the desired end result for the current study, the

modified grounded theory design is an appropriate fit.

Data Collection

In order to create a grand theory on chaperone roles during field trips, I will employ a

modified grounded theory design to examine three types of field trips at numerous informal

educational institutions across the Chicagoland area. These informal educational institutions

could include the Morton Arboretum in Lisle; Cantigny Park in Wheaton; the Shedd Aquarium,

Adler Planetarium, Field Museum, and Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago, the

Brookfield Zoo in Brookfield, and Naper Settlement in Naperville to name a few. Sites will be

selected using maximum variation purposeful sampling in order to have diverse academic fields

represented by the informal educational intuitions. At the selected sites field trip programs will

be defined as being in one of three categories including self-guided field trips, self-guided field

trips with additional materials provided by the institution, and guided field trips. Pre-defining

these categories of field trip programs and selecting programs at these institutions across

program types will facilitate the development of chaperone roles grand theory.

For each field trip selected at a site, three categories of data will be collected. First, I will

observe the chaperone participants during their field trip experience, keeping an observational

running record which will be typed into field notes. Next, I will conduct interviews with

chaperones once the field trip is completed. Questions will focus on the participant’s preparation

to be a chaperone and what a good and bad chaperone would look like. Finally, I will interview
 14
ROLES
the teachers to ascertain their perceptions of chaperone roles, both ideal and in actuality. These

three categories of data will be compared with each set through triangulation. Sets of data will be

compared with the grounded theory constant comparison method.

Data Analysis

While I will employ the constant comparison method throughout data analysis, I will also

make use of five out of six coding methods which according to Saldaña (2013) are part of the

grounded theory design coding canon. For the grounded theory design coding canon, first cycle

coding methods include:

 In Vivo Coding – coding that “refers to a word or short phrase from the actual language

found in the qualitative data record” (p. 91);

 Process Coding – coding that “uses gerunds exclusively to connotate action in the data …

[coding] simple observable activity … and more general conceptual action … [it can]

imply actions intertwined with the dynamics of time” (p. 96); and

 Initial Coding – coding that “breaks down qualitative data into discrete parts, closely

examining them, and comparing them for similarities and differences” (p. 100).

These three first cycle coding methods will help capture participants wordage in describing

chaperone roles and role conflicts as well as portray the actions of chaperones which can be

compared using the constant comparative method.

After the first coding cycle ends and coding clean up takes place, I will apply organizing

techniques such as code mapping or code landscaping as discussed by Saldaña (2013) either

before or concurrent with second cycle coding. Code mapping and code landscaping are visual

techniques that help a researcher go “from the full set of codes, which is then reorganized into a

selected list of categories, and then condensed further into the study’s central themes or
 15
ROLES
concepts” (p. 194). With code mapping or code landscaping, second cycle coding methods take

on a visual appearance which can spark new ideas.

The grounded theory coding canon calls for the use second cycle coding methods. I will

use two of the three second cycle coding methods from the grounded theory coding canon

including first:

 Focused Coding – coding that “searches for the most frequent or significant codes to

develop the most salient categories in the data corpus and requires decisions about which

initial codes make the most analytic sense” (p. 213) and then

 Axial Coding – coding that take categories from first cycle coding and “relates categories

to subcategories and specifies the properties and dimensions of a category … properties

(i.e. characteristics of attributes) and dimensions (the location of a property along a

continuum or range) of a category … let the researcher know if, when, how , and why

something happened” (p. 218).

With these two second cycle coding methods, I will be able to gain a deeper understanding of

chaperone roles as described and enacted by different participant statuses by comparing

properties and dimensions to develop a theory.

Throughout the analysis process, I will make extensive use of analytic memo writing.

Analytic memos are “a place to ‘dump your brain’ about the participants, phenomenon, or

process under investigation by thinking and thus writing and thus thinking even more about

them” (Saldaña, 2013, p. 41) The connection between thinking and writing as a reiterative

process means that the content of analytic memos can cover a broad range of topics. However,

Saldaña (2013) says:

 16
ROLES
The purposes of analytic memo writing are to document and reflect on: your

coding processes and code choices; how the process of inquiry is taking shape;

and the emergent patterns, categories and subcategories, themes, and concepts in

your data – all possibly leading toward theory. [p. 41].

Analytic memo writing linking to theory development makes analytic memo writing a great tool

for a grounded theory design especially when combined with the grounded theory coding canon

and the constant comparison method.

Design and Sensitizing Framework

My plan for data analysis combines many aspects from my role theory theoretical

framework and my grounded theory research design. Key concepts of role theory such as status,

role-demand, role-concept, role-performance, role-set, inter-role conflict, intra-sender conflict,

intra-role conflict, and self-role conflict will act as relevant dimensions in which deviant voices

will be sought. The grounded theory design coding canon for first and second cycle coding

methods will inform the type of coding conducted. Finally, the analytic memo writing will help

feather out my ideas to formulate a grand theory of chaperone roles.

 17
ROLES
Roles of Field Trips from Teachers’ Perspectives

Before I conduct the proposed study on chaperone roles during field trips, I have utilized

the proposed data analysis techniques on previously collected data from a similar study. The

purpose of that previous study was to explore teacher agendas, including motivations and

strategies, of annual field trips to a consistent location for three fifth grade teachers from a

suburban elementary school to the Field Museum in Chicago. This purpose statement can be

rephrased to align more with the proposed sensitizing framework: The purpose of this study was

to explore teacher’s perspectives of the roles of an annual field trip to a consistent location for

three fifth grade teachers from a suburban elementary school to the Field Museum in Chicago.

Originally this study’s data included three interview transcripts from each participant and a field

note from an observation of the annual field trip. For the purposes of coding practice, only the

interview transcripts will be considered.

Coding Discussion

For the first cycle of coding I employed In Vivo coding and Process coding as defined by

Saldaña (2013). I also applied the procedure of comparing codes for similarities and differences

as described in Initial coding and the constant comparison method. With no predetermined

coding scheme, my codes emerged from the data. My first list of codes after the first cycle of

coding included redundant codes and needed some coding clean-up in which codes were

condensed into broader codes. My final list of codes from the first coding cycle are in Table 1.

Using the codes from my first cycle coding, I went on to what Saldaña (2013) terms

Focused Coding, the first second cycle coding step for the grounded theory coding canon. I

broke the codes down into the two categories of “Field Trip Positives” and “Field Trip
 18
ROLES
Negatives.” In the end this was not useful because some codes fell into both categories. For

example, the codes “Visiting City” and “Debriefing” could be a positive or a negative depending

on specific teacher perspectives or circumstances.

Table 1
First Cycle Final Codes
In Vivo Codes Process Codes
“in real life” Changing the pace Representing school
“make their brains explode” Connecting to curriculum Questioning
“keeping numbers down” Stressing Taking pictures
“taking time to absorb it” Bringing chaperones Experiencing
Tracking students Organizing trip
Keeping costs down Guiding experience
Loosing student Visiting museums
Visiting city Debriefing
Broadening horizons Inspiring learning
Timing Misbehaving students
Eating at museum Interacting with things
Sharing with family Making memories
Culminating outing Speaking Spanish
Being with friends Having fun
Providing activity Being bored
Finding things Learning

Considering this focused coding attempt did not yield any worthwhile results, it seemed

like a bad idea to continue to axial coding, the next step in the grounded theory coding canon.

Instead I tried out a code mapping technique to see if visualizing my codes would help with

second cycle coding. I created a mind map hierarchy chart, Figure 1, with the code “Broadening

Horizons” at the center. I chose “Broadening Horizons” as the center because it seemed to

encompass many of the other codes both positive and negative. In the mind map, I included not

only codes but also summaries from the data.

 19
ROLES
Figure 1
Code Mapping: “Broadening Horizons” Mind Map

With this code mapping, I felt confident in continuing with axial coding with “Inspiring

Lifelong Learning” as my axis category since it was one of the main roles of field trips described

by the participants. Figure 2 diagrams the conditions, interactions, and consequences for the axial

category “Inspiring Lifelong Learning” as a main role for field trips to museums according to the

three teachers interviewed. The following memo looks at the conditions for the axial code

“Inspiring Lifelong Learning.”

 20
ROLES

Interactions
• Having fun
• Making memories
• Interacting with models/activities
• Choosing topic
• Making connections
• Learning with friends
Conditions Consequences
• Taking pictures
• Asking questions • Sharing with family
• Sparking curiosity • Taking time to learn more
• Seeing things “in real life” • Building confidence
• Finding things
• Broadening horizons

Inspiring
Lifelong
Learning

Analytical Memo

From Classroom to Beyond: Conditions for “Inspiring Lifelong Learning”

Anna, Kali, and Victor, three fifth grade classroom teachers, all explicitly state that the

main role for their grade’s annual field trip to the Field Museum is the Egyptian exhibit’s great

connection to the social studies curriculum. In their district, the fifth grade studies ancient

civilizations in social studies including ancient Egypt. Therefore, the one field trip the grade gets

each year highlights ancient Egypt and it just happens to be at a world renown museum. This

seems straight forward, however when digging deeper, this explicit role of the field trip has

broader implicit meanings. An implicit role of the annual field trip is to inspire lifelong learning

in their students. As Kali concisely said, “the ideal trip could give [students] those memories that

last a lifetime and spark a lifelong interest, hopefully, in museums or other places that facilitate

learning.” But how does this lifelong interest in learning come about from a field trip? Inspiring
 21
ROLES
lifelong interest in learning has conditions that starts with classroom content and then expands

beyond.

After learning about a topic in the classroom, in this case ancient Egypt, that topic is

brought to life in the museum context. Students enjoy finding artifacts and demonstrative

interactives that relate to classroom content. Anna describes students finding class related

content as a fun process:

I think the kids enjoyed it, they had a lot of fun, they were able to find things we
talked about in class. They were kind of amazed at how heavy the block was for
pyramids. [The museum] had that rope and you can try and pull it. I think that was
probably the most popular. And the baby mummy. They were pretty amazed by
that. How it was all black. It wasn’t wrapped up anymore. So [the students] had a
good time and were able to find some of those things [from class].
Students being able to find and interact with things that they had prior knowledge of from the

classroom, for Anna, is a main indicator of a successful field trip thereby highlighting its

important role. For Kali, finding artifacts and “seeing things in the flesh that we’ve [been]

learning about” is also very important. Being able to see something in real life brings a level of

concreteness to something that has been taught. For example, Kali said, on the field trip students

“realize that mummies are actually real and not just these mythical creatures.” Learning about

mummies in school did not make it real to students; seeing mummies from ancient Egypt on a

field trip however made mummies real. Through finding real life artifacts directly related to

school content, the process of inspiring lifelong learning begins, especially when students

become curious and ask questions.

Exposing students to informal learning institutions like museums through field trips and

relating content in these institutions to classroom content is a first step in demonstrating that

learning can take place in settings other than school. This broadening of horizons was important
 22
ROLES
for all three teachers. For Victor, the field trip was a form of experiential learning or learning

which “can’t [be done] in the confines of a regular classroom.” Providing students with a field

trip highlights that learning can occur through experiences. According to Victor, field trips are

“an experiential thing. For [students] to share their experiences and to have seen things they may

have otherwise not [have] had a chance to see.” Experiences like field trips to museums

demonstrate how learning can be an extracurricular activity.

Kali echoed Victor’s emphasis on experiential learning. Kali described the takeaways for

students from the field trip:

“I want them to understand the fabulous culture and opportunities that we have in
the city that they could go back with family and hopefully are inspired to do some
of these things, and take trips, to be by the museum campus. And just be exposed
to all that there is to see and experience in the city. And the museum itself, just all
the wonderful and amazing things they can learn and see and touch and
experience being in a museum.”
Kali notes that by taking students to a museum they are exposed to an experience of learning that

can be repeated with loved ones. In later interviews, Kali repeats this sentiment several times. In

the second interview, Kali said that she wants to “have the opportunity to provide [students]

those memories that last a life time and give them that spark [of] a lifelong interest in museums

or other places that facilitate learning.” Here Kali points how memories of field trips to museums

are linked to lifelong interest in learning. In the last interview, Kali succinctly concludes how

field trips are important because they incorporate “real-world experience … the love of places

that can provide you [with] knowledge and rich experiences and culture.” Once again museums

provide real-world experiences which lead to knowledge and the love of the places that provide

that knowledge. Although field trips start by connecting with classroom curricular content, they

expand to other content areas through the joy of learning.

 23
ROLES
References

American Alliance of Museums. (n.d.), Museum Facts. Retrieved from http://www.aam-

us.org/about-museums/museum-facts

Calhoun, C. (Ed.). (2002). Role. In Dictionary of Social Sciences [Oxford Reference].

Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (2008). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for

qualitative research. New Brunswick, NJ: AldineTransaction.

Kisiel, J. (2006). An examination of fieldtrip strategies and their implementation within a natural

history museum. Science Education, 90(3), 434-452.

Lawrence-Lightfoot, S., & Davis, J.H. (1997). The art and science of portraiture. San Francisco,

CA: Jossey-Bass.

Morris, B. (1971). Reflections on role analysis. The British Journal of Sociology, 22(4), 395-409.

Role, n. (2016). In OED Online. Oxford University Press. Retrieved from

http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/166971?result=1&rskey=KyFpBc&

Saldaña, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (2nd ed). Los Angeles, CA:

Sage.

Scott, J. (Ed.). (2015). Role (social role, role theory). In A Dictionary of Sociology (4th ed.)

[Oxford Reference].

Sedzielarz, M. (2003). Watching the chaperones: An ethnographic study of adult-child

interactions in school field trips. The Journal of Museum Education, 28(2), 20-24.
 24
ROLES
Wood, E. (2010). Defining the chaperones’ roles as escort, educator or parent. Visitor Studies,

13(2), 160-174.