Children Take the Lead Evaluation Report by Cambridge Curiosity and Imagination

Le ad

ke a T n e r Child

n luatio Repo a rt Ev na n a o by J

d an l l Ho

It has been an amazing journey to have worked with two such inspiring and contrasting galleries together with so many children and their families. We have been awed by the children’s capacity to lead us to see new ways to engage with art and ideas and different spaces and we are delighted to have created something that families respond to so favourably and that gallery professionals find interesting and challenging. Idit Nathan, Lead Artist, Children take the Lead It [the PropsBox] is open ended, it can be re-used and it will be a different experience every time. It enables the imagination that the kids bring to be engaged, it springboards and ricochets ideas… I liked the blindfold immensely – the colour, the shape, the multiple eye-holes. The play on disguise and playing with the idea of looking – very clever to have all of this in one object. Sarah Campbell, Education Officer, Kettle’s Yard [CCI’s] ‘play in process’ approach really suits Wysing’s way of working. As a process based organisation working with a partner who can also translate what Wysing is trying to do into a format that families can understand is really helpful, i.e.: artists come here to play with ideas and you can come and do this too… We now have a more solid offer for visiting families on non-workshop days and something that will encourage families to spend more time in the gallery. Kirstin Bicknell, Education Development Manager, Wysing Arts Centre

Contents 1

Executive Summary……………………………………………………………… 2

Project Aims and Objectives……………………………………………………

2 4

Introduction…………………………………………………..............................

Project Management and Process……………………………………………..

The Evaluation Framework and Methodology………………………………..

Qualitative Outcomes…………………………………………………………… 21

6 8 9

Quantitative Outputs…………………………….………………………………

13 16

29 A Journey through quotes - how the PropsBox enables engagement, from the perspective of families ……………………………………………................... Additional Outcomes and Learning……………………………………………… 33

Conclusions and Recommendations…………………………………………… 39

Appendices………...........……………………………………………….……… 47

References and Bibliography…………………………………………………… 45

Executive Summary

Cambridge Curiosity and Imagination (CCI) and the Children take the Lead Project

CCI works with creative practitioners to inspire and enrich communities through memorable experiences. They make ideas grow by looking, doing, exploring and discovering alongside the people and organisations they work with.

CCI’s experience led them to further explore: how children approach their worlds with a freshness and curiosity. They were particularly interested in the possibilities of this in relation to how we experience contemporary art. They began to think about how children can lead their families in engaging and responding to conceptual art. Out of this grew Children Take the Lead (CttL), an action research project that would:

Invite children to lead in exploring high quality art; listen to their ideas to understand the world as seen; work with these new understandings to demonstrate how organisations can significantly enhance their capacity to build family audiences and to: develop a model for enabling families to engage with culture. Project partners and timeline

CCI partnered two local but internationally significant cultural partners - Kettle’s Yard in Cambridge and Wysing Arts Centre in Bourn, Cambridgeshire. Early on, it was established that the project would work towards a product that would enable these childlike perspectives to be shared - through playful interventions which would be produced for the arts organisations. Whilst both contemporary arts organisations, these institutions presented distinct needs, aspirations and challenges and offered excellent potential for developing and testing theories and resources which may be of interest to a range of other cultural organisations.

Cycle one of this action research project, was broadly in operation from July until December 2011, and worked intensively with Kettle’s Yard. Cycle Two, broadly in operation from January to September 2012, worked intensively with Wysing. As an action research project, in order to maximise on resources, it was agreed that the external evaluator’s primary focus should be at the prototype product testing.

Between June 2011 and October 2012, CttL engaged with a vast number of people which included 120 school children and 70 family groups. It also achieved a significant number of outputs, far more than initially anticipated. This was an involved and complex project, with many reflections, discussions and decisions throughout the project. Everyone in the project team worked ‘above and beyond’ to ensure that the project happened and that the ambitious high-quality experiences for participants were achieved at all times. In particular we looked at process, outcomes and purpose which included revisiting project aims, continual assessment of resource development, exploring the journeys of family groups and those involved in the project and any evidence for potential rolling out of the model.

Measuring impact

We needed to explore how the PropsBox influenced family groups’ enjoyment of contemporary art together with impact on: inspiration and enjoyment; feelings about the cultural venue as a place for them; interactions with other family members as well as whether they explicitly engaged with the art. We also asked; what the barriers were for them; whether the Props Box differed from other experiences they had had as families at cultural venues previously, and if so, how their experience and interaction with the PropsBox would now lead onto them doing something else.

The qualitative experience and feedback of all the family groups involved at the prototype PropsBox testing sessions revealed a huge amount. All of these learnings, and more, were fed into the development of the final PropsBox. The resulting evidence from the enquiring approach of the artist-led action research, the overall evaluation and the two rigorous testing sessions with new families, clearly reveal that CCI has achieved what it had set out to do in the first instance. The PropsBox

The CttL project team have succeeded in creating a multi-sensory resource that offers experiences which help to bring contemporary art to life for family visitors. CCI genuinely has a collaborative and inclusive approach and works hard to democratise creative enquiry. There is no doubt that children were allowed to take the lead and all co-creators discovered and shared the most fruitful, inspirational and playful ways to experience contemporary art. Family groups appear to have engaged with contemporary art in a new way. In particular they: had fun; looked at artworks they wouldn’t have looked at; looked for longer; explored in a different way; related themselves to the ideas in the artworks; and played more collaboratively.

The break away from the traditional dynamic, where family resources are ‘tagged-on’ after key materials are developed by ‘expert’ curators or educators, has enabled the project team to create an innovative, open-ended offer which is truly meaningful to families. It’s deliberate construction as non-exhibition specific means that it can be used time and time again with a range of artworks. This is something that really appealed to both cultural partners and some families had commented on as well.

There is now a real product created for families by families which will enable future family audiences to playfully engage with contemporary art. The families involved in its development are proud and cultural partners are excited with both the product and its potential. They, and the CttL team, believe it works and have either started to use it or are planning to in the near future. The PropsBox and working with families

families played with the Props in front of the artworks, they felt at ease in the space and their sense of ownership and entitlement was definitely increased. These families also went on to say that ‘they wanted to come back’. Given that the PropsBox can be used again and again on repeat visits, it is not necessarily negative if the first time a family uses the PropsBox it is more about familiarisation and ownership of the space. Indeed both cultural partners commented on the potential of the PropsBox to develop and sustain family audiences. It is also important to note how visible the voices of dads and boys were during this project. Many of the development and prototype testing sessions, particularly at Kettle’s Yard, were almost entirely made up of families with boys. It is interesting that they found the approach particularly useful when it came to engaging with contemporary art and each other.

The excitement that the PropsBoxes generates has led to interesting debates. Both cultural partners commented on how wonderful it was to see families feeling so welcomed and engaged but that they also have a responsibility for all their visitors, including older people, researchers, or people who experience contemporary art in a more contemplative way. We have discussed mechanisms for ensuring that families en mass feel both welcomed and reassured about how to use the spaces. Long-term impact

CCI now needs to consider the long term impact of the PropsBox. Up until this point we have been evaluating the research and development of the PropsBox. Now that they have been handed over to Kettle’s Yard and Wysing it is critical to review their impact on family experience over the longer term. How will they be used in reality and what real role will they play in terms of engagement, learning or audience development at Kettle’s Yard and Wysing? The project sparked a huge number of debates around engagement, learning and play, with both the project team and learning professionals. These are questions for the next phase of the research, currently being planned by the project team. It will be interesting to now see the impact of the PropsBox and how it ‘plays out’ in the longer term.

It is also vital that CCI maximise on the momentum of the evidenced success of the PropsBox and that they further explore how they could ‘sell on’ this model or create new partnerships. There is already significant interest from a range of high profile national contemporary art institutions and CCI need to take advantage of this interest. It is essential that CCI secure funding as soon as possible to enable them to roll out this work and to operate a longitudinal evaluation of the PropsBoxes in action.

Meeting Kettle’s Yard

Introduction

Cambridge Curiosity and Imagination (CCI) was established in 2002 and works with organisations and people seeking to develop closer relationships with the communities they serve. CCI’s experienced and innovative artists help to make ideas grow by looking, doing, exploring and discovering together. CCI draws on the expertise of more than 20 contemporary artists and creative practitioners from across the East of England region, ranging from poets to sculptors, architects to film-makers.

CCI values creativity and celebrates creative thinking and experiences in each project through films, trails, books, research, photos, exhibitions, presentations and recordings as appropriate. The CCI approach is to place people at the centre of the experience, in the role of researchers and experimenters. Artists and creative practitioners work alongside participants as facilitators, offering them ideas to engage with.

In October 2010 CCI decided that they would like to build on their artistic expertise and knowledge of communities in order to explore: how children can lead their families in engaging and responding to conceptual art. CCI are particularly concerned with the ‘sociability of engagement’ with contemporary art, as John Cage has explored:

Art instead of being an object made by one person is a process set in motion by a group of people. Art's socialised (sic). It isn't someone saying something, but people doing things, giving everyone (including those involved) the opportunity to have experiences they would not otherwise have had. John Cage, Diary: How to Improve the World (you will only make matters worse) continued, part 3 (1967)

CCI are interested in how this ‘sociability of engagement’ lends itself to how children approach their worlds with a freshness and curiosity - something that many adults consider lost. CCI thought about these two principles in relation to settings that promote contemporary art and how these often struggle to make their work accessible to children and their families. CCI wanted to explore how the ability of children to see the potential for play and joy in the everyday can move even the most cynical of adults.

Additionally, the family-friendly activities offered in galleries or arts centres are traditionally workshops, trails or activity sheets designed by and facilitated by adults:

Gallery self-guides tend to provide activities for children, and nothing for adults, or reading material which is exclusively directed at adults. Only a small minority provide material that enables adults and children to learn… the holistic notion of meaning making (as opposed to learning) draws attention to the potential for museums to change people’s lives by enabling them to actively construct meaning. Emily Pringle, Families and Creative Learning in Art Galleries, Engage 25 (2010)

CCI set out to explore how children can take the lead in investigating and responding to the ideas and provocations so richly abundant in a setting and how families can play and learn creatively together in ways that stimulate and develop everyone involved. They asked: if adults can learn to listen to children and explore alongside them, can they too experience that immersion and pleasure for themselves?

We want to support organisations to find meaningful and memorable ways for families to engage with them. We think children working with their families can lead the way on this. Through their questions, fascinations and observations, we as organizations can find a way to make places and ideas accessible and interesting to more people. Ruth Sapsed, Director, CCI

CCI subsequently proposed a research and development project to the Arts Council in December 2010, which would: involve children, families, artists, and educators to create child-centered resources and approaches that are family-friendly, inspiring, provocative and for use in connection with the [contemporary art] setting. Following a period of consultation and development, this proposal was funded in March 2011.

Project Aims and Objectives

The project became known as Children take the Lead (CttL) and CCI stated that this was an action research project that would: Invite children to lead in exploring high quality art; listen to their ideas to understand the world as seen; work with these new understandings to demonstrate how organisations can significantly enhance their capacity to build family audiences and to develop a model for enabling families to engage with culture.

It shared and communicated these project objectives with its collaborators and potential audiences and stakeholders from the outset, as follows: Visiting contemporary art galleries can be difficult especially if you feel you ought to understand or like what you’re looking at. Children don’t seem to suffer from these anxieties. We’d like to find out how to explore contemporary art through a child’s eyes. Cambridge Curiosity and Imagination (CCI) believe that children are the most implacable enemies of boredom. They are full-time researchers, untiring makers of actions, ideas and theories. They are born strong, interested, capable and curious and will show us what they are thinking in many ways – they move, draw, paint, build, act, sing – they use ‘100 languages.’ So in Children Take the Lead, CCI will be letting them take the lead in finding out about contemporary art.

CCI was awarded an Arts Council England Grants for Arts Award to run this innovative research programme with clusters of Cambridgeshire children and their families. Working in partnership with Wysing Arts Centre and Kettle’s Yard Gallery, CCI artists were to explore, alongside groups of young researchers, to discover how to help other families enjoy visiting these contemporary art galleries.

By inviting children and families to take the creative lead through a programme of workshops and linked events, CCI artists enabled them to offer back the world of these contemporary art galleries as seen through their eyes. Through their responses, discovered through words, images, movement and discussion, CCI believed that others could re-enter the joy of a world full of the fascinations and possibilities.

Inspired by these creative responses and imaginings, CCI then planned to develop new family-friendly resources for both galleries. The aim was to support the engagement of new family visitors, particularly those who may not be familiar with contemporary art, with two of the UK’s leading contemporary arts organisations, thus enabling more families to choose to access and experience contemporary art.

CCI cited the specific aims of the project as:

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6. 7.

To research and understand the ideas about and fascinations with the particular arts organisation through the perspective of the children.

To enable communities of children, families and linked professionals to participate in a memorable and meaningful programme of creative activities with their local arts organisations. To share these perspectives through playful interventions produced for the arts organisations. To influence future children and families to engage with the arts organisations.

To enable arts organisations to build new and dynamic relationships with children and families. To enable CCI to share the research findings and recommendations with organisations nationally.

Enable CCI to continue to campaign for the importance of the childâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s voice.

Project Management and Process

Children Take the Lead was project managed by CCI’s Director and a Lead Artist in conjunction with supporting artists. This project team was supported by an administrator, CCI’s Board, the CttL steering group, a CCI graphic designer/film-maker and an independent product designer. The steering group consisted of representatives from CCI, partner organisations Wysing Arts Centre and Kettle’s Yard, members of CCI’s Board who have a special interest in this project as well as individuals who are external to these organisations who brought key additional skills to the table – in terms of expertise and networks. Further guidance and support also came from Hannah Fouracre, Relationship Manager, Engagement and Participation, and Mark Richards, Head of Development at the Arts Council. The steering group met regularly during the project to review the project’s development and individuals also acted as consultants to the project throughout. Reflection and evaluation were an important part of the steering group’s work, which consists of the following people:

Ruth Sapsed, Director, CCI and project manager for CttL Idit Nathan, Artistic Advisor, CCI and lead artist, CttL Lawrence Bradby, working as artist partnership Townley and Bradby, Artist, CttL. Helen Stratford, CCI, Artist, CttL Kirstin Bicknell, Education Development Manager, Wysing Arts Centre (partner organisation) Sarah Campbell, Education Officer, Kettle’s Yard (partner organisation) Mary Jane Drummond, Author and Researcher and CCI Board Member Giles Lane, Director, Proboscis, a non-profit social and cultural invention and innovation studio Joanna Holland, External Evaluator

Project team members from CCI and the partner organisations agreed a schedule of activities and key dates, although the process remained as flexible and responsive as possible to the needs of partner and feeder organisations and participants. Other members of the steering group offered valuable practical support throughout and a number of voluntary personnel, from photographers through to tea-makers supported the project at various stages. Despite a number of significant set-backs and difficulties, everyone in the project team worked ‘above and beyond’ to ensure that the project happened and that the ambitious high-quality experiences for participants were achieved at all times. This project is a credit to all those involved as without their dedication, passion and commitment of additional time CttL would not have made the significant impact that it has or subsequently have the ability to affect the cultural engagement landscape as it now does.

The lead artist, supported by the project manager, also set up and ran a project blog dedicated to CttL which tracked progress and development throughout the project. Other team members contributed to this at various stages during the project. The blog evidences some of the consultative artist-led ‘action research’ which shaped and developed the project and final PropsBox. With 50 entries and 4,000 visits, it also played a useful role in terms of publicity and was the best example of a useful (and utilised) project blog that I have seen in the last 10 years of this work. It now serves as a public

and fully accessible archive of the project, highlighting significant dates, milestones and key developments: http://childrentakethelead.wordpress.com/

CCI worked with two local but internationally significant cultural partner organisations during this project - Kettle’s Yard in Cambridge and Wysing Arts Centre in Bourn, Cambridgeshire. These institutions are incredibly different and therefore have a distinct set of needs, aspirations and challenges. This variety offered excellent potential for developing and testing resources which may be of interest to a range of other cultural organisations with distinctive and varied requirements. Each organisation also had different existing relationships with children and families and it was interesting to see how this project complimented or altered these existing audience relationships.

Two primary schools, each one local to one of the cultural institutions, were also recruited as partners in the process. These were critical in terms of the engagement and recruitment of local families and both head teachers worked hard to ensure that information about this project was disseminated to their communities.

Cycle one, broadly in operation from July until December 2011, worked intensively with Kettle’s Yard and The Spinney Primary School, in Cherry Hinton, Cambridge. Cycle Two, broadly in operation from January to September 2012, worked intensively with Wysing and The Vine Primary School at Cambourne. The schools played a critical role in terms of ideas, developed during the venue-based, class focused workshops. These ideas informed CCI’s understanding and future development of the PropsBox. Both schools were also invaluable in terms of recruiting families to the project’s family development workshops.

It is important to note that neither of these schools are in particularly affluent areas of Cambridge City or Cambridgeshire and, whilst their involvement was dependent on the goodwill and enthusiasm of staff, they were targeted by CttL with these socio-geographic factors in mind. It was important to both CCI and the partner organisations for this work to play a part in developing non-traditional audiences and, in particular, developing an increased understanding of the needs of family audiences from less affluent areas of the county or city. Over 90% of the children who attended the development workshops had no previous relationship with the cultural institutions.

This was an involved and complex project, with many reflections, discussions and decisions throughout the project. The broad overall goal was to work with local families where the children would take the lead to develop and create resources to engage other families with contemporary art. The key milestones during this project are detailed in the diagram below. This cycle was repeated with each cultural partner, with minor adaptations. For example: the Wysing cycle followed the Kettle’s Yard cycle and utilised the props developed for prototype use (as well as new ones) and required slightly fewer workshops; and the ‘hopes and fears’ and ‘what will success look like’ documents were reflected on at the beginning of the Wysing cycle and not recreated.

The whole process was supported by steering group and project team discussions, reflecting on what was and wasn’t working and the original project aims. These discussions were continually fed into the projects development. Each cycle included the following elements: 1.

3. 4.

5. 6.

CCI Liaison with school and two classes selected by the head teacher.

‘Hopes and fears’ and ‘what will success look like’ were explored with the CttL project team and steering group by the external evaluator.

Visits by CttL team to children’s classes (year 2 and year 5 at Spinney, and two year 3 classes at The Vine) at the schools to introduce children to the project, the concepts and some games to see how they would take these ideas forward.

Two visits by all classes to their link cultural partner organisation where children explored ways of playfully interacting with the gallery spaces at these sessions (Lead artists playfully questioned children’s responses and ideas and observed and feedback key interests / developments).

A sharing and recruitment session at the school for interested families to be come involved in CttL independently. One of these sessions was also attended by the external evaluator.

Two or three weekend development workshops for families at the cultural venue. These families were recruited at the school exhibition and through local publicity and networks (6-7 families came to each of the weekend workshop development sessions).

These development workshops were very ‘hands on’ and playful, followed by questions and reflection on what was and what wasn’t working for families as well as observations of and conversations with families. Children were allowed to ‘take the lead’ but in a family group context. The external evaluator attended the final development sessions of each cycle and interviewed attendees – this was fed back to the team and inputted into the project.

Critically each cycle consulted families working with the Prototypes: 1.

3. 4.

6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

The CttL team had approximately 6 weeks to develop the first prototype Props boxes for Kettle’s Yard, based on the evidence gathered from children and families at all the previous sessions (evidence was gathered from both the artists as part of the ongoing action research project and by the external evaluator). As a result of all of the consultation and research the initial PropsBox was created. It was a box with 6 compartments, each of which had a playful object together with a card suggesting games and ways of playing with the object to gether with an invitation to leave a record of your own newly devised game. Objects included a blindfold, listening cups, cape, dice and number cards.

Once the Props Box was developed, there was a two day trial/testing of props boxes which was open to the public (families self-selected and only one of the research families attended a trial session). These sessions were very playful, loud and expansive.

At this stage the external evaluator assessed the usage of the PropsBoxes and the props by families against the agreed evaluation framework. A combination of observation, questionnaires and informal interviews were used to obtain this information.

All the data was then collated and emerging themes were shared with the project team. The project team then reflected on whether they felt the project was achieving its aims and any learnings were fed into the next stage of the project.

The second prototype developed was a PropsBag for the Wysing stage which reflected the need for the objects to be more easily carried by families. Again these Prototypes were tested at a two-day trial, documented and learnt from.

The team then worked with product designer Alan Perks from Fitdesign to create a final, robust and sustainable, version of the PropsBox. Ten were produced for use at the galleries of partner organisations plus ten for future projects.

At this stage a ‘Conflab’ was also held with peers from the cultural and learning sectors to discuss the use of play in cultural engagement and to explore the use of the PropsBoxes themselve

The Evaluation Framework and Methodology

Joanna Holland was appointed as the external evaluator of Children Take the Lead (CttL) once funding from the Arts Council was secured in March 2011.

As CttL was an artist-led action research project it was important to establish where this action research ‘ended’ and the external evaluation ‘began.’ We wanted to minimise any duplication of research and to establish clear roles and responsibilities from the outset.

Through consultation with the project manager, lead artist, CCI Board, the Arts Council and the Project Steering Group it was agreed that the external evaluator’s primary focus should be at the prototype product testing. It was felt that researching the impact of the potential product on families in detail, in terms of engagement, would enable more ready assessment of its success (against original project aims) and any potential to be rolled out. The qualitative findings evidenced in this report echo this agreed focus and are from both the prototype product testing weekends at Kettle’s Yard and Wysing. All of this emerging evidence, along with feedback from the cultural partners, was shared and reviewed before being fed into the development of the final PropsBox. This report summarises these key findings as the role of the evaluator in this project was to research, evidence and share findings at every stage of the project, not to merely undertake a summary document at the very end.

The artist-led action research ran alongside the external evaluators work and all parties agreed to liaise throughout the project to ensure that there was a steady flow of information exchange and learning. The detail of the artist-led action research is not referenced in this report. However the project blog evidences many of the creative investigations that ran through the course of the project: http://childrentakethelead.wordpress.com/ Following an initial evaluation-scoping exercise we agreed that a flexible framework that provided a structure for reviewing and assessing the impact of the product (the key output) was essential. It would: • •

• •

•

Be based on the strategic aims of CttL. Develop potential indicators for impact (although these may develop as the project progresses). Measure what was important rather than what is easy to measure. Use a qualitative approach that allowed for a plurality of answers (especially as public engagement is multi-layered and complex). Use methods which were appropriate to its differing audiences.

Additionally we would still obtain basic, useful, quantitative data.

We quickly established our primary audiences as follows: • •

Families involved in testing the products. Key stakeholders such as partner organisations, funders and CCI themselves.

This was an involved and complex project, with many reflections, discussions and decisions throughout the project. In particular we looked at process, outcomes and purpose which included revisiting project aims, continual assessment of resource development, exploring the journeys of family groups and those involved in the project and any evidence for roll out of model. This was achieved through a combination of round-table discussions, conversations, observations, interviews and questionnaires to explore the usefulness of the prototypes against the original project aims. The strategic aims of CttL, as set out in the application to the Arts Council, are as follows: 1.

2. 2. 4.

6. 7.

Research and understand the ideas about and fascinations with the particular arts organisation through the perspective of the children. Enable communities of children, families and linked professionals to participate in a memorable and meaningful programme of creative activities with their local arts organisations. Share these perspectives through playful interventions produced for the arts or ganisations. Influence future children and families to engage with the arts organisations.

Enable arts organisations to build new and dynamic relationships with children and families.

Enable CCI to share the research findings and recommendations with organisations nationally. Enable CCI to continue to campaign for the importance of the child’s voice.

Developing our indicators for impact

When it came to the public testing of the prototype PropsBox we needed to gather evidence to be set against the original project aims but also around the practicalities and usefulness of the PropsBox. In order to answer the question: Did it do what we set out to do? we needed to find out how the PropsBox impacted upon family groups’ experience of contemporary art. It was particularly important to explore how the PropsBox impacted on: inspiration and enjoyment; their feelings about the cultural venue as a place for them; interactions with other family members; dwell time; as well as whether they explicitly engaged with the artworks on display. It was critical to ask about what wasn’t working and so we enquired about: what the barriers were for them; whether the Props Box differed from other experiences they had had as families at cultural venues, and if so, how? Finally we asked if this interaction would lead onto them doing something else. However, we were also aware that we did not want to inundate the families who were testing the prototype with large numbers of questions. We agreed that we would establish a number of indicators to investigate the impact on families but that we would ask broad questions which could umbrella these indicators, to minimise participant burden. We wanted to be true to the original project aims but

also to link into national frameworks which people would be familiar with. In order to do this we explored a number of different cultural evaluation frameworks and adapted and combined these for use during PropsBox development and testing with family groups at cultural partner venues. We wanted to ask the questions that we needed to ask them but within recognised frameworks which might be more meaningful to potential future commissioners or partners. The frameworks we referenced and adapted included the following: Museums, Libraries and Archives’ Inspiring Learning for All Generic Learning Outcomes and Inspiring Learning for all Social Outcomes; Flow Associates’ Completing Kettle’s Yard; and Arts Council England’s self-evaluation.

This adaptation enabled us to consider relevant questions with which to quantify participants experience in order to gather evidence for ‘change’ in relation to key statements. We came up with a set of statements and under each one of these there were a set of indicators which enabled us to build a profile of the user’s experience. Importantly this enabled us to grid people’s responses to their experience whilst not having to use difficult language and terminology with participants such as contemporary art, entitlement or engagement for example.

These statements were developed into a set of questions to which we added some quantitative data questions. Each question had a series of indicators under the umbrella statement which could be logged on an excel sheet during the write up. Details of the indicators themselves can be found in appendix 1 CttL consultation indicators for prototype PropsBox trials. This questionnaire was undertaken as a ‘family interview’ at the end of each family’s testing session and can be found in appendix 2: The Prototype PropsBox Questionnaire. We also observed all the activity that took place and had informal conversations and feedback from families and gallery representatives during each testing period.

Alongside the primary focus on prototype product testing, the external evaluator undertook a number of evaluation exercises with the project team and families throughout the project. In conjunction with the artist-led research, these were, continually fed back into project and product development. You can find more detail in appendix 3: A summary of the evaluation evidence gathered during the project.

Meeting Wysing

Quantitative Outputs

Between June 2011 and October 2012, CttL resulted in the following outputs: • • • • • • • • • • •

Four development days with children in cultural institutions. Two development days in school. Two family sharing events in school. Five research and development days with families in cultural institutions. Four prototype PropsBox testing days with families in school. One public session with the final PropsBoxes. Five steering group meetings. Numerous project meetings throughout with all partners to share planning. Regular feedback briefings face-to-face and via email with schools. One session with Early Arts practitioners at firstsite gallery. One Conflab to share learning about the PropsBox and explore play in relation to cultural engagement.

The above activities enabled engagement and collaboration with: •

• • •

120 children aged between six and ten during school and cultural institution research days (over 90 of these children had not previously visited the cultural institution they worked with). Families of these children at the in-school sharing days. 24 families during research and development days. 47 family groups (162 people ranging from babies to grandparents) during Props testing (only one family attended both events). Two schools one of which did not have a previous relationships with the partner cultural organisation, via: - Four class teachers - Two head teachers Two partner organisations, who had not previously worked together on this scale. A masters student at Cambridge University Faculty of Education, researching the pros and cons of actual and virtual play and engagement. Seven artists. 4,000 online visitors to the project blog. 40 professional peers from the learning and cultural worlds through a final Conflab meeting.

During this time the artists, project manager and team developed: • • • • • • • •

A dedicated project blog: http://childrentakethelead.wordpress.com/ Three short films with final film in production. Props for testing and research. A prototype Props Box and contents for Galleries. A prototype Props Bag and contents for Galleries with significant external space. A prototype Props booklet to accompany the props. A prototype organisation-tailored map for cultural engagement. Ten final PropsBoxes for use at partner organisations plus ten for future projects.

We also asked for some more information about the families we worked, engaged and collaborated with. At the initial ‘family sharing day’ at the Spinney School, Cherry Hinton, Cambridge we wanted to gather some benchmarking data about what families do for fun. We also wanted to find out whether they have a relationship with Kettle’s Yard to date or any other cultural venues in Cambridge. We collected data in an informal way and although this was far from an exact science, wanted to try and establish some baseline evidence about the types of activities the young people might attend – and ask them in a non-intrusive, child-led way which supported the overall goals of the children take the lead project. Perhaps unsurprisingly, we found out that attendance at art galleries was the least popular cultural activity. Theatre was the most popular – many of the children had been to see pantomimes and a few had been to the ballet. The majority of children spoke about activities at the park with few talking about science discovery centres or museums. Very few of them had visited Kettle’s Yard although a larger number of parents had heard of it. They also shared some comments about their experience of cultural activity, particularly museums and galleries:

I don’t like to visit art galleries I don’t know anything about it

And when asked about dislikes: When I’m asked to be quiet

Mum

Child

These comments were echoed in the interviews with family groups where parents voiced that although they enjoyed some arts activities they felt that they didn’t always understand what contemporary artists were trying to do or why they earned vast sums of money. When we reviewed this data we felt that it was not as useful as we had hoped as not all the families who took part in this initial consultation went on to be involved in the project. We decided not to repeat this level of detail for the Wysing cycle with the Vine School. The evidence does however, give us a snapshot into the cultural experiences of family groups in one area of Cambridge.

As noted earlier, the Spinney School is not in a particularly affluent area of Cambridge City and, whilst the schools involvement was dependent on the goodwill and enthusiasm of staff, they were targeted by CttL with such socio-geographic factors in mind. It was important to both CCI and the partner organisations for this work to play a part in developing non-traditional audiences and, in particular, developing an increased understanding of the needs of family audiences from less affluent areas of the county or city.

This is also true of the Vine School, in Cambourne, near to Wysing. We were unable to establish any benchmarking data at this sharing day (for various reasons, including the Spinney data only being of limited use to this evaluation) but we have been able to map both areas to the Arts Council’s Audience Insights segmentation data. This revealed that the ward areas of both Bourn (which includes Cambourne) and Cherry Hinton have significantly fewer of the ‘highly engaged with the arts’, ‘traditional culture vultures’ than Cambridge City and Cambridgeshire as a whole, although both are still just above the national average. The Arts Council’s description of a Traditional Culture Vulture is:

Someone who is at a later stage in life and having attained a high standard of living, Traditional culture vultures have time to devote to their many leisure interests. Art and culture take up the majority of their time, alongside traveling and spending time with family.

This data also revealed that Bourn has fewer ‘Family-and Community-focused’ people, potentially making recruitment of this group an even bigger challenge. It is difficult to get a steer on the cultural engagement of Cambourne per se as it is covered by the ward of Bourn which includes a number of villages with quite different socio-economic footprints. The Arts Council’s descriptor for ‘Family-and Community-focused’ is as follows:

Typically in their 30s and 40s, Family-and community-focused have built a comfortable nest with their moderate financial means, and their priorities lie with their children, connecting with the local community and holding on to their cultural roots. Their interests lie squarely with their immediate surroundings and understanding people like themselves.

Cherry Hinton is more in line with the national average when it comes to this group, showing that there is a demand and need for family-led resources in this area. Interestingly each cycle (Kettle’s Yard and Wysing) recruited the same number of family groups for the PropsBox research and development sessions and almost the same number of family groups for the prototype PropsBox testing, despite the difference (according to the Insights data) in make-up of ‘family-and community-focused’ people. Although the Arts Council segmentation data can’t tell us everything we need to know about potential audiences it does mean that CCI’s CttL work has, as intended, targeted more non-traditional audiences.

Out of the Kettle’s Yard family groups consulted at the prototype PropsBox testing stage, 50% had not been to the gallery as a family before. And at Wysing testing stage, 60% had not previously been there as a family. The Audience insights data helps us to have a better understanding of the motivations of these audiences and offers us a little more also insight into how this cultural experience might fit into people’s lives today. Exploring this data alongside our own has helped to ensure that this work strategically develops resources which have the best potential for engagement with these geographically significant groups. We asked for some detailed information from the 47 family groups who attended the prototype PropsBox testing days at both Kettle’s Yard and Wysing. Family group size varied from 2-7 people with the majority of groups being formed of 3-4 people.

We engaged family groups from Bourn*, Cambourne*, Cambridge, Caxton, Eaton Scoton (nr St Neots), Ely, Girton, Great Cambourne*, Haverhill, Kingston, Lower Cambourne*, Sawston, Shelford, Waterbeach and Willingham. As might be expected, the majority of families who engaged with the props box trials at Kettle’s Yard came from Cambridge (mainly CB4, CB2 and CB1) and the majority of families who engaged with the Wysing Props bag trials came from villages close to the institution, indicated by an asterix above. Out of the 47 family groups there were: •

•

95 children (between the ages of 0 and 19, with the most common ages being 4, 6, 7 and 8, closely followed by 5, 10 and 6. The least common ages were 0, 1, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19).

67 adults, who were seemingly very well educated, with 30 adults citing ‘post graduate’ as their highest academic qualification, 13 citing ‘undergraduate’ and 1 citing ‘A’ Levels’ and 1 citing ‘GCSE’s.’ Seven family groups did not answer this question.

We also asked family groups what ethnic group they considered themselves to be from:

UK/Brazilian 2% White/Mixed Race/Hispanic 2% British Vietnamese and Vietnamese 2% Mixed Iranian 2% Mixed Ethnic 2% Asian (Chinese) 2% White 73% Rather not say 4% Left question blank 11%

Qualitative Outcomes

This section focuses on the qualitative experience and feedback of the 47 family groups involved at the prototype PropsBox testing sessions at Kettle’s Yard and Wysing. There were additional learnings too, in terms of feedback about the PropsBox from the cultural partners and professional peers, as well as the impact of this project on CCI as an organisation. This additional evidence is detailed in Section 8: Additional outcomes and learning.

This section details the evidence we gathered from the two prototype testing session weekends at Kettle’s Yard and Wysing. During each session we interviewed every family group who took part in the testing, using the questionnaire detailed in ‘appendix 2: The Prototype PropsBox Questionnaire’ as the starting point for discussion. We also observed the sessions carefully and held informal conversations with individuals and family groups throughout in order to obtain additional data and evidence. The questionnaires were based on ‘umbrella’ questions underneath which there are a number of indicators for impact. Broadly we explored whether the PropsBox impacted on: • • • •

Their inspiration and enjoyment. Their feelings about the cultural venue as a place for them. How they interacted with each other – was it different? Whether they explicitly engagement with the art.

• •

What the barriers were for them. Whether the Props Box differed from other experiences they had had as families at cultural venues, and if so, how. If this interaction would now lead onto them doing something else.

We also asked:

•

The indicators for impact that sit under each of these ‘umbrella’ questions are detailed in appendix 1 CttL consultation indicators for prototype PropsBox trials. We engaged with 162 people over both weekends. This was in addition to the 120 children and 24 family groups who had been involved in the research and development aspects of the project which enabled the PropsBox to get to this prototype stage.

As indicated above we wanted to know what potential impact the PropsBox could have, in terms of all sorts of different aspects of engagement, from dwell time to dialogue and from inspiration to cultural ownership. Did it make a difference? If it did, how did it make a difference? It was also absolutely critical to ask people what wasn’t working for them and we encouraged people to be as honest as possible. Once we had asked these questions all of the information was mapped onto an excel sheet under the umbrella headers. We also mapped the number of mentions of each of the Props, both positive and negative, to try and further our understanding of which props were most enjoyed by the families. This information was then transferred into an emerging themes working document which was reviewed by the project team and the project steering group.

[I] thought the props really helped break the ice and allowed us to engage with what can be seen as pretty tricky artworks. Mum on how the PropsBox allowed them to engage more with artworks in the gallery at Wysing Arts.

The final contents of the PropsBox were based on the information gathered from both the Kettle’s Yard and Wysing testing weekends, as well as observation of which props appeared to enable the most dialogue and engagement with the contemporary art in the setting. The following sections outline the key themes as they emerged. Emerging Themes, CttL prototype PropsBox testing Kettle’s Yard, November 2011: Things we know to be working

Families appear to have engaged with contemporary art in a new way: • • • •

• • • • •

They had fun. They looked at artworks they wouldn’t have otherwise looked at. They looked for longer. They talked with people they wouldn’t have spoken to about art (brothers, dads, sons in particular). They listened to each other. The described things carefully. They worked collaboratively. They had a more ‘in-depth’ experience than they may have done otherwise. Children were allowed to take the lead.

Additionally: • •

• • •

•

Parents felt that they had permission to be silly. Parents were happy to have a framework / focus / approach / sense of purpose that meant they could feel like they could ‘appreciate contemporary art more.’ Many people clearly loved the open ended approach. The activity stood out from previous cultural resources that the families had experienced. Parents commented on how the props ‘supported a notion of change’ and ‘enabled family dialogue that would not have existed without them.’ Despite a relatively ‘buoyant’ session there were no complaints from other gallery visitors or attendants.

Families also stated that they felt that they engaged more with the art because they were continually in front of it more, for example: not immediately going off to the education room to draw away from the art.

Families stated that they stayed longer because the resource was available, implying that dwell time had been increased. The overwhelming majority (2/3) of family groups attended the session for over an hour:

• • • •

30 mins: 2 34 mins: 1 60 mins +: 16 No answer: 5

One parent said:

I have not been before and we would have left a long time ago (one and a half minutes after we arrived!) if this hadn't been on offer…

There is also no doubt that the activity has strengthened people’s sense of entitlement and ownership of Kettle’s Yard, and that they now see it as a more family friendly place. This was particularly important for those who visited for the first time. From going home to create their own listening tubes, draw or paint, to stating that they want to come back to Kettle’s Yard or that they feel more confident about experiencing other cultural venues as a family, the evidence suggests that this experience has impacted positively on the majority of participants’ view of a family experience of culture. Emerging themes: CttL prototype PropsBox testing Kettle’s Yard, November 2011: The Props themselves

Which props did families engage with the most? This is exceptionally hard to quantify but we undertook a rough tally of mentions of likes / dislikes of props. And, in order of preference, this is what we found out: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

The blindfold was a roaring success. The audio cups were popular too. The Corolla Cape seemed particularly good for younger children. People have signalled out the dice as one of the strongest props. The numbers were well received as well.

A number of families found the blue thing very frustrating (note, this and a number of other items, did not make it into the final PropsBox). It appears that older children (8 upwards) particularly enjoyed the blindfold(s) and that younger children (up to 5) particularly enjoyed the Corolla Cape.

Emerging themes, CttL prototype PropsBox testing at Kettle’s Yard, November 2011 and Wysing, June 2012: Shared learnings

We also learnt a lot about areas which needed to be developed or aspects which weren’t working so well and could be changed. Some of these learnings were specific to individual organisations and some were applicable to both settings. Shared learnings are detailed here and the venue-specific learnings are detailed in the sections below.

All of the information gathered was fed back into the Wysing R&D cycle and subsequently the development of the final PropsBox. This information will also shape how institutions go onto use them in the future.

It was interesting to note that the voices of dads and boys were really important to this project. The families at the family development workshops and the prototype testing trials at both institutions were almost entirely families with boys. Both dads and boys were clearly drawn to this project, they wanted their voices to be heard, they really enjoyed the sessions and they found the approach a very useful means of engaging. The PropsBoxes generated a lot of excitement initially, at both venues. Both cultural partners commented on how wonderful it was to see families feeling so welcomed and engaged but that they also have a responsibility for all their visitors, including older people, researchers, or people who experience contemporary art in a more contemplative way. We have discussed mechanisms for ensuring that families en mass feel both welcomed and reassured about how to use the space.

The evidence reveals that the vast majority of families did engage directly with the artworks, from light touch looking through to very engaged conversations and questions about materials and concepts. There were a minority of cases where children simply ‘enjoyed’ the PropsBoxes in the setting. In these cases it is important to note that families played with the Props in front of the artworks, they felt at ease in the space and their sense of ownership and entitlement was definitely increased. These families also went on to say that ‘they wanted to come back’. Given that the PropsBox can be used again and again on repeat visits, it is not necessarily a negative if the first family usage of the PropsBox is more about familiarisation and ownership of the space. Indeed both cultural partners commented on the potential of the PropsBox to develop and sustain family audiences. Emerging themes, CttL prototype PropsBox testing Kettle’s Yard, November 2011: Things we may need to think about

Here is what we found out at Kettle’s Yard, with information on how the final product has been subsequently adapted in brackets: •

•

• •

Families who were new to Kettle’s Yard and art galleries in general wanted to know the ground rules so they could feel comfortable about any ‘gallery bound aries’ when using the PropsBox (the final PropsBox has explicit messages about ‘gallery behavior’ on its exterior).

Some family groups commented on the fact that they felt that they could really enjoy these resources because of the family atmosphere, enabling them to feel more relaxed (the cultural partners noted that this worked well for some families, although not all families and Kettle’s yard is going to explore the option of ‘family days’).

Some family groups found the initial instructions to be very beautiful but so subtle that they only realised the connections towards the end of the session (the in structions have been developed into a booklet with more explicit designs).

Some found that the instructions were too wordy or complex (the written text in the booklet has been replaced by visuals wherever possible).

• • •

A very small minority didn’t seem to understand that this was a family resource not a resource for children to use alone (the final PropsBox has been designed and will be marketed as a family resource and cultural partners have noted this)

Some people were so overwhelmed by the number of props and choosing that it was almost time to leave! (the selection of props has been narrowed down). Families, particularly children, were clearly delighted that they could make up their own games but it seems that they wanted a mechanism to leave this behind for others in ‘more formal’ way (both cultural partners have noted this and Wysing are developing an online presence where families can share this information. The new PropsBox website also solicits photos and comments documenting families’ experience of using the PropsBoxes: http://www.propsbox.org.uk ).

Emerging Themes, CttL prototype PropsBox testing Wysing Arts Centre, June 2012: Things we know to be working

The playful nature of the props suited the majority of family groups involved. They told us that this approach made them feel like there was ‘more time’ and that family groups had more free rein when it came to choosing what they wanted to engage with; for example how the PropsBox is different to a trail or audio guide which dictate which objects you should engage with, and often in what order. Most people felt that the props gave a ‘new dimension to interacting.’ They particularly enjoyed the ‘touchable’ nature of the both the props and (a number of) the art works – many stating that because of this, as well as the vast space at Wysing, the day had a really different feel from visits to other cultural institutions. On a number of occassions parents mentioned the PropsBox objects ‘touch-ability’ being useful for younger children who found it hard to not touch the artwork. This is also very useful for children and family groups who engage more kinaesthetically and particularly exciting for those that have mostly experienced cultural institutions where you can’t touch the artefacts. Crucially, as with the testing at Kettle’s Yard, these family groups do appear to have engaged with contemporary art in a new way. In particular they: • • • • • •

Had fun. Looked at artworks they wouldn’t have looked at. Looked for longer Explored in a different way. Related themselves to the ideas in the artworks. Played more collaboratively.

•

Happy to have a framework / focus / approach / sense of purpose that enabled them to more easily engage their children. Enjoying the open ended approach.

A large number of parents/grandparents were clearly: •

There was significant evidence of how the props enabled engagement and of family

groups engaging directly with artworks. Many of the children also had a lot of fun making up their own games with the props, a number of which engaged directly with artworks. There was much evidence of children taking the lead.

Although it is hard to directly quantify, based on observations and informal conversations, it seems likely that dwell time was increased by usage of the props as they enabled more dialogue about the art and we estimate that family groups explore the artworks for longer than they may have done without using the props. When asked how long they stayed for at Wysing, 18 out of the 21 family groups stayed for over an hour (some for considerably more time). • • • •

30 mins: 0 45 mins: 1 60 mins +: 18 No answer: 2

Comments and observations reveal that this activity has helped to develop family groups’ sense of entitlement to and ownership of Wysing - as a space for family groups to engage with. Many now see it as a more family-friendly place. This seems particularly important as the overwhelming majority of family groups were visiting Wysing for the first time. At least 8 family groups stated, entirely unprompted, that they want to come back to Wysing. They wanted to come back to see: the gallery, the studios, the treehouse and Amphis. The huge expanse of external space was also a real hit and family groups genuinely seemed to love Wysing as a space. It seemed that family groups had more of an adventure at Wysing than at other cultural institutions. Several family groups commented on how the PropsBox map had helped them with this adventure. The majority of family groups also enjoyed the fact that there was not a prescribed way of doing things. Many of the family groups at Wysing commented on this, some referred to the approach and the props as ‘free flow’ and enjoyed it as it was ‘not like school’ or:

Not so formal … and not like a workshop with a fixed end result.

Emerging themes: CttL prototype PropsBox testing Wysing Arts Centre, June 2012: The Props themselves

Which props did families engage with the most? As with the Kettle’s Yard testing, this is exceptionally hard to quantify but we undertook a rough tally of mentions of likes / dislikes of props. The ages of the children present at the Wysing testing were slightly older and this may have impacted upon the choice and usage of props. In order of preference, this is what we found out: 1. 2.

3. 4.

The phono-cups/tube were a roaring success. The Imagination Pod was the next most mentioned – mostly in relation to the chalk boards. This was swiftly followed by the dice – used ‘to start conversations’. The blindfold.

5. 6. 7.

The drums (big cotton reels). Humming colours was also mentioned several times as a successful game. The least mentioned were the Corolla (cape), the number cards and the coloured discs (the first may well be due to a slightly older audience than the Kettle’s Yard ‘testing group’).

Emerging themes, CttL prototype PropsBox testing Wysing Arts Centre, June 2012: Things we may need to think about

As with the testing at Kettle’s Yard, we learnt a lot during the Wysing testing weekend: about areas which needed to be developed; or aspects which weren’t working so well and could be changed. Wysing-specific learnings are detailed below. This information was fed back into the Wysing R&D cycle and subsequently the development of the final PropsBox. This information has also shaped how institutions go onto use them in the future. Here is what we found out, with information on how the final product has been subsequently adapted in brackets: •

•

Wysing’s outside space was so engaging that it was sometimes challenging to engage families with the gallery space (CCI and Wysing have spoken about this and the role of the PropsBox. It may be that the PropsBox is primarily used within the gallery setting, as a stepping stone to enable engagement from outside to inside. CCI was keen to ensure that Wysing maximises the appeal of their out side space in terms of generating a sense of ownership and entitlement with vis iting families and have therefore devised the interactive map as well as adding the Wysing specific ‘Imaginating shed’. This was known as the Imaginating Pod during PropsBox trials but has now become the Imaginating shed). A minority of families (3 out of 23) did not feel the need to use the props. This was in part due to the vast outside space - for some of these family groups there was a feeling that the Props Bag simply couldn’t compete with the outside space as their children could run free and make up their own games on site (as above, Wysing are thinking about mechanisms that maximise on this family appeal and how the PropsBox helps to take this enthusiasm through to the inside gallery space).

Two family groups found the process too conceptual and wanted more ‘instructions’ and ‘information’ about the artworks themselves or further suggestions for what to do. One parent took issue with what they referred to as ‘managed play’, suggesting that they would rather have total freedom to explore or to have the opposite, a resource that was very structured and results-orientated, in terms of imparting knowledge and information. It is important to note this and the above comments were from people that had either been to Wysing before or those who appeared to be more comfortable and confident with both exploratory experiences and contemporary art (CCI and Wysing realise that cultural institutions will always need to have an offer that appeals to those that are confident enough to engage directly in information-led resources as well as those that wanted to experience the art with little information. Both parties acknowledge that the PropsBox plays a critical role as a link, a stepping stone, a fun

•

‘intellectual access’ route for those who are not as familiar or confident with the cultural scene – something that enables some family groups to engage in a non-threatening and familiar way. It can also be added to, by learning professionals, should they want to engage with more specific learning outcomes).

Three families wanted more suggestions on what to do (the accompanying leaflet in the PropsBox was developed accordingly)

It is also essential to note that the above comments are from less than 20% of those interviewed.

We know that there is a huge amount of excitement about Wysing, from both new and existing family audience members, and there is certainly a general feeling of entitlement. It is important to acknowledge however, that there were comments which revealed some more ‘intellectual-access’ based frustrations, with some family groups finding the inside spaces harder to relate to than the outside spaces.

How the PropsBox enables engagement, from the perspective of families (a journey through quotes) change heading On the PropsBox:

Playing together with props

A Journey through quotes - how the PropsBox enables engagement, from the perspective of families

On the PropsBox

It seemed like an adventure, and the map really helped in making it seem that way. There seemed to be a lot of interactivity, more exploration, and a nice contrast with the indoor and outdoor spaces

Stealth Art Appreciation. By getting in a playful mood, you were able to have a much more interesting experience with the art work. Even if you only occupy 2% of your time in the gallery with looking at art, because you’ve been playing beforehand, you’re ready to relate to the art in new ways.

On playing with the props themselves:

Fun to have the Props Bag.’ Mum found it useful as she walked around ‘to have something to pull out and use/engage D [daughter] with.

They loved the idea of having props because it gave their experience another dimension of interacting.

[We] talked down tubes, we liked these talky things. Props Bag good.

Getting all the words on the word-dice.

This [the Props Bag] catered for all ages. Tactile, touch and feel helped…

Having the Props Bag in the gallery gave them [their children] something to touch. Liked number cards, dice and phono cups.

Much more hands-on.

On how the props enabled engagement:

Thought the props really helped break the ice and allowed us to engage with what can be seen as pretty tricky artworks.

The dice really helped them [the children] to spot things they wouldn’t have seen, and helped them to examine the different art works. The blindfold also really helped, it allowed them to feel and touch things that they wouldn’t normally do. It gave them a focus and you could introduce things in a gentle way. A diversion which made it fun. … [we are] able to be free with imagination and much more actively engaged.

They still had fun playing freely, especially with the props, which did allow them to observe the artwork more… Children interacted with the artwork not knowing that it was art. The context is different. Children tried to mimic the artwork; I was shown photographs of the children lying in a pile using their bodies in order to look like the sculpture out side the barn studio. [The] bag challenged us to experiment rather than just look.

The blindfold also really helped, it allowed them to feel and touch things that they wouldn’t normally do.

[We] played with phonocups. Enjoyed blindfold spinning (sometimes too much - mum). Figured out (and enjoyed) that phono cups allow you to hear ground vi brating. Could also speak through the phono cups which was fun and got all the words on word-dice.

[The] phonocups were great. Every time we got somewhere we looked in bag to see if want to use something out of it and usually stuck to phono cups. Used coloured discs as stepping stones which was nice.

[We played with the] Phono cups and blind fold used them outside. It didn't

matter (if it was clear how to use). It was nice when you put it on both ears and listened to what you sounded like.

Examples of direct engagement with works of art:

[The] children really liked the sounds in the gallery.

I love the collection and this exhibition. I talked to [son aged 6] about the pictures which is not something we would usually stop to do, certainly not for as long as we did. [The children] played with the installations – in particular the dome.

[we enjoyed being] next to the thunder sculpture… listened through the phonocups. [we enjoyed] experimenting with the bag in the gallery.

[we enjoyed] making up witches games’ (Amphis) and ‘rating… using the number cards. [we enjoyed] pretending to be sculptures in the imagination pod.

On using the props to make up their own games in order to engage with the contemporary art: Invented a shadow game in the gallery.

Listening to steps on the dome stage, using the phonocups.

Dialogue through the double windows.

They really enjoyed coming up with games, like the whisper game.

On how the props enabled a more creative approach to exploration:

Children seemed inspired to run around in an inquisitive way, touching things and ‘navigating’ them. (Mum) It is more fun.

The most fun thing the kids have previously engaged with has been the audio guides. Today has been interactive and fun.

On ownership of the cultural venue:

Wysing seems more child-friendly.

We see it differently now, as a place for fun. The Riley exhibition worked really well with the props.

Loved all outside esp. beehive and old tree house – so much to look at. Different and exciting. Didn’t look normal – caught us by surprise.

It has felt more tolerant as we have not immediately been told to shush and sit down quietly on the floor.

In the gallery – experimented with bag. Daughter immediately wanted to take it outside but had run out of time. Loved beehive and fairy tale wood. [We loved the] tree house. Also found faun and throne next to it and loved these. The place felt very magical ‘’Ron Weasley like.’’ Went there first and from there on everything seemed magical - even the word-dice.

They loved the wild grass areas and the chance to discover sculptures hiding away down pathways and round corners. What I liked about the space was that it was open to their interpretation.

On how the combination of the PropsBox and the outside space at Wysing Arts Centre provided a magical space for families: Just being in the country-side made the whole experience feel different. The fact that there’s nature all around made Wysing a unique space. They [the children] definitely felt more relaxed… The open space just made things feel more casual. They mentioned this sense of a freedom to interact, and they didn’t come into it with any expectations. They felt very liberated, very natural, and very free, and were able to interact with things without worrying about whether or not they’re allowed to touch things. …there is just a sense of creativity in the place that you don’t really find in other museums.

On how the PropsBox potentially influenced the desire to repeat their visit: We want to come back: With my husband. As a family. With our own props. With a picnic.

Exploring together

Additional Outcomes and Learning

Learnings, both successes and adaptations, were the mainstay of this whole project. Learnings were continually fed back and discussed with the project team at every stage. Although the evaluators’ primary focus was at prototype testing we also thought it was important to ask key stakeholders about their views, in particular: 1.

2. 3.

•

What the project’s cultural partners see as the PropsBoxes main benefits for them going forward and what they felt worked well and not so well during the project. The perspectives of cultural and learning professional peers at two events (a development day with early arts practitioners at firstsite gallery and a CttL Conflab with creative practitioners, artists and educators at Wysing).

The impact the project has had on CCI as an organisation from the perspective of the CttL lead artist (also original founder of CCI and CCI’s Artistic Advisor) and the CttL project manager (also CCI’s Director).

For Cultural Partners

Sarah Campbell, Education Officer, Kettle’s Yard and Kirstin Bicknell, Education Development Manager, Wysing Arts Centre confirmed that:

Plans for PropsBox usage

They do plan to use the PropsBox as a resource. They want to experiment with their potential usage as self-led resources or facilitated sessions. They think that they could work well for both which is quite exciting: there aren’t a lot of resources that can do this. Sarah Campbell said that Kettle’s Yard will focus on the gallery space as this is where they want to direct people and due to the vulnerable display of some of the objects in the house. Kirstin Bicknell said that Wysing will also focus on the gallery space although the PropsBoxes can also work well in their outside spaces. Views on the tangible benefits of the PropsBox

Sarah feels that Kettle’s Yard has a new, unconventional resource for families; something which challenges the expectation of what a gallery resource can be. She thinks that the uniqueness of the objects have a particularly good fit with the uniqueness of Kettle’s Yard and think that they are also potentially a great way to foster staff learning about engaging with a family audience. Kirstin feels that the PropsBoxes will enable them to offer something much more tangible for families which will encourage more engagement with the gallery space and plans to develop an online presence around their usage to share experiences, ideas and games.

Both partners commented on the quality of the objects: the care and attention to detail and design is amazing. They also like its potential to engage repeat visits as: it is open ended, it can be reused and it will bring a different experience every time. It has the potential to increase our family audience.

Views on the most engaging props

The phonocups… And I am interested in the possibilities of the numbers and question circles. (Kirstin).

I liked the blindfold – the colour, the shape, and the multiple eye-holes. The play on disguise and playing with the idea of looking.(Sarah).

Views on what worked particularly well during the project

Both said that most aspects of the project and the resulting PropsBox worked really well. Both also wanted to highlight areas that really stood out for them. For Kirstin this was particularly enjoying working with CCI as the CttL project had such a neat fit with Wysing’s approach and values and that they enjoyed CCI’s: …play in process’ approach. For Sarah it was: the quality of the reflective process, which is what I always enjoy about CCI and this project was no exception. Following on from CttL, both partners said that they would be keen to work with CCI again.

Views on what didn’t work quite so well during the project

Sarah commented on the debate that had been in play for the duration of the project: whether the role of the PropsBox was about engagement with the artwork itself or about developing a space where families feel welcomed and can develop a sense of ownership. For Kettle’s Yard it is about: the artworks themselves. I love the fact that families feel welcomed and have a sense of place but I want this product to enhance looking at art, not to be a distraction. Having said this I think that this only happened in a minority of cases. The majority of families did engage – from light touch to in-depth discussions. I think that kids just need to spend some time with the PropsBox, as it is so exciting and I really see it as a way in. I think that it is wonderful that families play and that my role is to enable them to connect this play with our art.

Sarah also mentioned that there might be a need to support sessions with provisos about ‘gallery behavior’ to ensure that families understand that they are in a shared space with others such as older people and researchers etc. She also said that it was equally important for these people to see families in the gallery space. This arose as there were a small minority of families who were particularly boisterous during the testing sessions. We should also note that it was unusual to have that many families occupying the same space at any one time and is unlikely to happen again. Sarah also added that: I don’t think that enjoyment is mutually exclusive to consideration; both can happen at once and everyone should feel welcomed.

Kirstin said that there were only very minor things that often happen when working in partnership. Overall she had no concerns about the PropsBoxes themselves but she will be interested to see how being used outside might affect the PropsBoxes and their contents. She is aware that the CCI team has thought carefully about the durability and sustainability of the PropsBoxes but, like Sarah, is curious to see how they will be affected by ‘wear and tear’ and how they will weather over time. Next steps

•

Both cultural partners are planning to use the PropsBoxes and appear to be excited by their potential to engage families. They also feel that there is significant scope to roll out the PropsBoxes to other cultural venues, particularly those with contemporary art collections. They also acknowledge that it would best be introduced to venues’ staff with some sort of consultancy or training: I can really see this working at [contemporary art gallery] for example. If CCI can now market this as a package – of the PropsBoxes and accompanying training that would be great.

For our professional cultural and learning peers

The perspectives of cultural peers were gathered, through questionnaires and conversational feedback, during two key events. The first was held at firstsite

gallery, Essex with Early Arts practitioners. The second was the CttL Conflab where ideas on play, galleries and the PropsBoxes were shared with various cultural peers including creative practitioners, learning professionals and artists. The PropsBox sparked lots of interesting debates, almost all of which reflected conversations that the project team had had throughout the project. The project team had many discussions about: the degree to which it was important to see families engaging explicitly with the artworks; how to communicate appropriate ‘gallery behaviour’; the sustainability and maintenance of the boxes and the objects over time; the aesthetic of the PropsBoxes and what appeals to children and families; and whether families needed a guide with prompts and ideas on how to use the PropsBox. All of these discussions influenced the final design and were also all picked up on by our professional peers. It is important to note that the PropsBoxes are offered as a resource to support the process of building relationships between families and contemporary art settings. They need to be contextualised within that setting and be a part of an offer. Some more confident families may like to engage with contemporary art with more learning-led outcomes and the PropsBoxes can be adapted to do this if learning professionals want to add this to the mix. Debates with professional peers also included broader sector-wide conversations about the current roles of learning and curating and how they sit or interact together when it comes to play and developing audiences. Here is a taster of some of the areas the project team and professional colleagues explored: •

• •

• • •

•

the importance of the role of play and the reality of the role of play at cultural institutions the importance of the child’s voice in developing engaging materials the role of the PropsBoxes and the importance of explicitly engaging with contemporary art the role the PropsBoxes in terms of audience development and families in terms of a sense of entitlement and ownership of contemporary art venues the look and feel of the PropsBoxes - the aesthetic of artists and contemporary art venues vs. the look and feel of what children and families tell us they want to engage with whether there is a need for the guides in the PropsBox – should they just be about self-led play or do families need pointers (dads trialling the PropsBoxes told us they did) what will happen to the PropsBox in the future the importance of engaging the next generation with contemporary art in a non- threatening and inclusive and active way how the playful nature suited the overwhelming majority of family groups, but not everyone the line between education and curation and how the PropsBox encourages further debate around this

A selection of comments from professional peers who played with the Propsboxes and fed back to us:

•

Lots of bursts of inspiration and even more ‘Stones in my shoe!’. Already thinking about an inspiration box for both indoor and outdoor play. It was more hands on and able to explore more independently. The colour of the box is very medical – a minor thing. I’m interested in material engagement with objects so would love to compare their use with, e.g.: using accessioned materials, using handling objects, and using artist-made objects. I would like to make one and use it at my exhibition this Sunday. I think that it is a fantastic way to engage. I like the dice. I love the thought and ideas behind the props boxes but… I’d be interested to reflect more on why the artist-made boxes weren’t used. Is there a plan for a longitudinal evaluation to measure impact on family visitor numbers over time…? Do you envisage a second phase of this project? I was surprised that I laughed so much. It was simple but different. Playing with the PropsBox made me feel [like I was] allowed, more confident, more relaxed.

For CCI

What difference might the PropsBox make to CCI?

The project manager and lead artist both commented on: the possibility of having a ‘product’ that is potentially more tangible and more sellable is a step in a new direction. CCI having a physical resource… which sits with our values and approach… is very useful. But they also commented on the challenges of potentially having a sales based aspect to their business.

CttL has reinforced the desire to trust children and to trust CCI’s ideas on play as an engagement tool. The project has strengthened desire to work with more children and families – ensuring that children’s opinions are valued equally, as well as the importance of utilising key aspects of their own practice – such as playfulness, theatricality and interactivity. They also commented on the added benefit of an increased visibility in contemporary galleries. Views on the potential benefits

The PropsBox potentially gives CCI the option of diversifying its income streams, although this may need some development over time. There is now the potential to build a network of users and to further develop CCI’s profile amongst contemporary art galleries in particular and: it would be good to see some of this extended into the longer term. Additionally further longer term research may help with the above as well as a potential link into advocacy work with families. Views on what worked well during CttL Working with the children, the objects and the elements of surprise worked really well for CCI and they are really pleased to have: generated richer

conversations… managed to create something that families respond to favourably and that gallery professionals find interesting and challenging.

They also really valued having a lead artist and how well the schools worked as connectors to families for project recruitment. Both parties felt that the blog worked particularly well: as a collector of documentation and dissemination portal. Views on what didn’t work so well during CttL

Unsurprisingly there were comments on the length of the project. There have been pros and cons with length of time enabling good dialogue and reflection but simultaneously impacting on momentum. This has been further stressed by practicalities such as fees not being realistic in terms of real time input for all sorts of parties. Nor did the project enable CCI to lever other funds as they had hoped despite trying to do so. Challenges of a small organisation and lack of dedicated development staff combined with the current economic climate are most likely reasons.

The length of the project and the time lags between events also impacted on the possibility of building stronger relationships with some of the families involved. CCI also has an excellent track record of working with teachers and schools and there is some disappointment about the links with schools not being developed further. However, the remit of this project was already vast and the role of the schools within it was relatively narrow. Plans for roll out

From what our cultural partners have said the PropsBoxes will be or are already being used and there appears to be scope for roll out. The challenge is how we now: learn on the ground as it is used. CCI want to clearly understand what they have and it’s impact: the role CCI and the PropsBox now have in terms of potential: influence of others to think about how objects can be used to facilitate dialogue and play. They also want to think about how: engagement with families might change and how they might be recruited; drop-in family workshops might be more appropriate now that the PropsBoxes are in place; and they move forward with any potential ‘sales’ of the PropsBox and what associated training or consultancy is needed.

Sharing conversations

Conclusions and Recommendations

Children take the lead started out as an idea which was developed into a set of propositions asserted as a working hypothesis to guide the projectâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s research. It was a partnership project in the truest sense where children and their families were actively listened-to and worked alongside artists as co-creators. CCI genuinely has a collaborative and inclusive approach and works extremely hard to democratise creative enquiry. Co-creators discovered and shared the most fruitful, inspirational and playful ways to experience contemporary art. Critically, children and their families contributed their own ideas rather than being fed a concept or predetermined output. Later co-creators explored how this research could be transferred into something real, a â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;physicalâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; innovation which other families could use.

The resulting evidence from the enquiring approach of the artist-led action research, the overall evaluation and the two rigorous testing sessions with new families, clearly reveals that CCI has achieved what it set out to do in the first instance. There is no doubt that children were allowed to take the lead and there is now a real product created

for families by families which will enable future family audiences to playfully engage with contemporary art. For the overwhelming majority of families the PropsBox appears to have facilitated engagement with contemporary art in a new way: from looking for longer to more in-depth or different conversations with each other about the art.

It is also important to note how visible and important the voices of dads and boys were during this project and the development of the PropsBox, and that they found the approach particularly useful when it comes to engaging with contemporary art together.

CCI’s ability to critically reflect through documentation, asking questions and sharing practice has, in my opinion, enabled CCI and the project team to succeed in creating a multi-sensory experience which brings contemporary art to life for family visitors. Family groups appear to have engaged with contemporary art in a new way. In particular they: had fun; looked at artworks they wouldn’t have looked at; looked for longer; explored in a different way; related themselves to the ideas in the artworks; and played more collaboratively. This has been brought about by a number of significant innovations, primarily the successful move away from the gallery ‘expert’ vs. ‘lay person’ model of engagement. The importance of developing creative activities and experiences that have relevance and make personal sense to families cannot be stressed enough. The break away from the traditional dynamic, where family resources are ‘tagged-on’ after key materials are developed by ‘expert’ curators or educators, has enabled the project team to create an innovative, open-ended offer which is truly meaningful to families.

As we have seen, there were some aspects of the PropsBox which did not work as originally intended but these were developed and adapted successfully as the project went along. It is important to note that there was a small minority of families (less than 10%) who did not feel that that the PropsBox was for them, most of which were more familiar with contemporary art as a concept or with the cultural venue they attended. The evidence reveals that the vast majority of families did engage directly with the artworks, from light touch looking through to very engaged conversations and questions about materials and concepts. There were a minority of cases where children simply ‘enjoyed’ the PropsBoxes in the setting, rather than engaging directly with the art works. In these cases it is important to note that families played with the Props in front of the artworks, they felt at ease in the space and their sense of ownership and entitlement was definitely increased. These families also went on to say that ‘they wanted to come back’. Given that the PropsBox can be used again and again on repeat visits, it is not necessarily a negative if the first family usage of the PropsBox is more about familiarisation and ownership of the space. Indeed both cultural partners commented on the potential of the PropsBox to develop and sustain family audiences.

The PropsBoxes also generated a lot of excitement initially. Both cultural partners commented on how wonderful it was to see families feeling so welcomed and engaged but that they also have a responsibility for all their visitors, including older people, researchers, or people who experience contemporary art in a more contemplative way. We have discussed mechanisms for ensuring that families en mass feel both welcomed and reassured about how to use the space.

Critically, the majority of families that did use the PropsBox found it to be incredibly useful and engaging. The PropsBox enabled these families to actively connect with contemporary art on their terms; using their own experiences, stories and lives to playfully make emotional contact with contemporary art.

This connection is not enabled so readily with more traditional resources which tend to have fixed learning outcomes. The Props encourage you to slow down, to look, to dialogue about what is in front of you. When people use them in front of the contemporary art-works, the evidence shows that families looked for longer, talked to each other differently and engaged with art that they would have otherwise walked past. We also know that the playful experience allowed people to share discoveries and that the pressure of being ‘the expert’ was taken away from adults, enabling them to let their guard down and become more playful and open to possibilities themselves. This in turn has meant increased access, more empowered local communities, and, importantly, the creation of new opportunities for dialogue about the collections for future families. This has also enabled the partner organisations to alter their status (in the minds of visiting families) from a space primarily for the ‘contemporary art enthusiasts’ to somewhere more open and accessible to family groups.

It is also important to note the flexible nature of the PropsBox and its deliberate construction as non-exhibition specific. There was a clear brief from the partner cultural organisations, both with fast paced exhibitions schedules, about the importance of the development of a resource which is inspiring but also infinitely adaptable. Obviously the option is also there for learning professionals to add to the PropsBox to enable it to become exhibition specific if that is what is needed.

At the halfway and end stages of this phase of the project the team and external evaluator reflected on to what extent the original project aims had been achieved. Indeed, as you can see below, if we view the original project aims as hypothesis we have ‘ticked’ them all but it is important to note that many hypothesis are ongoing. As discussed later in this section, in many senses we are now at the beginning of a project, rather than the end. At the outset of this phase of CttL CCI cited the specific aims of the project as: •

•

To research and understand the ideas about and fascinations with the particlar arts organisation through the perspective of the children. - Achieved in the context of this project.

To enable communities of children, families and linked professionals to partici pate in a memorable and meaningful programme of creative activities with their local arts organisations - Achieved with local families recruited for this project and with professionals at the chosen cultural partner organisations. To share these perspectives through playful interventions produced for the arts organisations. - Achieved in terms of the creation of the physical PropsBox.

•

• •

•

To influence future children and families to engage with the arts organisations. - The project has enabled the engagement of new families with each cultural organisation and they have a more robust offer for families but it is now up to the individual institutions to use the PropsBox as they see fit – with potential to develop their audiences and their offer for family groups. To enable arts organisations to build new and dynamic relationships with children and families. - As above.

To enable CCI to share the research findings and recommendations with organisations nationally. - This is ongoing but has been achieved to a degree with; significant dissemination already being shared through the blog with a growing audience of 4,000 international followers; the new PropsBox website and its growing audience; opportunities for national professionals at both firstsite gallery and the project’s Conflab at Wysing; and now the dissemination of the findings of this report. Enable CCI to continue to campaign for the importance of the child’s voice. - As above. Again this is ongoing but future dissemination about this work will enable this to be shared even more.

CttL has reached a point where both the children and families, and the partner cultural institutions involved in the research, development and testing of the PropsBox have created something which has been shown to actively engage these families with contemporary art. Therefore there is no doubt that the short term project outcomes have been achieved. However, what about the long term impact? The work to date has also sparked many important debates such as the importance of the role of play and the reality of the role of play at cultural institutions or the role of the PropsBoxes and the importance of explicitly engaging with contemporary art. These debates, and more, were echoed in the firstsite early arts session and the CttL Conflab held at Wysing. More detail on these can be found in section 8 – Additional outcomes and learning.

As we can see from these debates and the ongoing hypothesis, in some senses this is the beginning of a new research project. CttL has opened up a number of potential future pathways for research and debate and the beginning of many new conversations. It is however, important that CCI clarifies its own vision for the next stage of this project. In order to maximise on the success of the PropsBox at this stage CCI now need to consider some important questions about sustainability and next steps. It would be prudent for them to focus on what they know to be working and clearly focusing their ambitions, leaving some of the other debates to be followed by fellow researchers. For example, we know that the PropsBoxes work; in fact in the context in which they have been developed and tested to date, they exceeded expectations. But what about their long term impact? Now that the PropsBoxes have been handed over to Kettle’s Yard and Wysing it is critical to review their impact on family experience

over the longer term. Further investigation into their impact on family engagement and / or audience development would be very valuable. Up until this point we have been evaluating the research and development of the PropsBox. Now CCI really need to evaluate the real product in use by learning professionals, to see how it is used independently. CCI needs to seek financial support to undertake a longitudinal study of the PropsBoxes in action, to investigate their impact on individual institutions: who uses them? How are they used? How do galleries link them to their audience development plans? How do they affect or develop their current offer for families? What impact do they have on repeat visits etc.? Do they act as a stand along play resource or do learning professionals add to them to engage with specific learning outcomes? How are they used in reality and what real role do they play in terms of audiences, engagement and learning at Kettle’s Yard and Wysing.

This evidence would further support the roll out of the resources to other cultural institutions which CCI should follow up as early as possible. There is now considerable support for free play as a means of engagement in cultural institutions as well as interest in the potential impact of the PropsBox:

It’s good to see cultural institutions exploring the concept of free play and its potential influence on engagement and learning. It will be interesting to see the impact of CCI’s play-based methodology on the two institutions they have been working with through the PropsBoxes and how they are made use of in the future. Frances Williams, Head of Education, South London Gallery

CCI now have an interesting product which works for the two cultural organisations they partnered and the families that created it. Despite this being a very early stage of the next phase, there is already significant interest from other important national contemporary art venues. It is crucial that this interest is followed up as soon as possible: CCI's Children Take the Lead is ground breaking family and early years work that the staff and I here at Ikon are certainly keeping an eye on. We are looking to develop our offer for families and children... Hopefully this can be the start of a really productive conversation. Simon Taylor, Head of Learning, Ikon gallery, Birmingham

PropsBox from CCI was a thoroughly well planned and creative model for use in gallery spaces. At firstsite we are keen to progress this kind of offer in our spaces for families. Every Saturday we have a Free Family Saturday session and the PropsBox would be an ideal solution to use for some of these sessions. We are particularly interested in the fact that artists and participants have had input into the design and construction. We look forward to seeing where the development of the project goes.

Judith Merritt, Head of Learning, firstsite gallery, Colchester

The evidence of the impact of the PropsBox on families, the two partner cultural institutions and the interest from key contemporary art venues around the UK clearly

suggests that there is great potential for roll out of the PropsBox. It would be sensible for CCI to obtain financial support which enables them to investigate the landscape further and to create a robust business model which moves them into a sustainable second project stage. This must consider how CCI might be best situated, managed and resourced, in order to realise any roll-out ambitions in a timely and sustainable fashion. This could include SWOT and STEEPLE and different market analysis and needs to be achieved as soon as possible. So much rigorous work has gone into this project and it has such potential, it would be incredibly sad to not see this supported into this second phase.

It is vital that CCI maximise on the momentum of the evidenced success of the PropsBox and that they further explore how they could ‘sell on’ this model or create new partnerships, whilst the interest is there. It would be valuable to undertake a more robust audit of what other products are already out there; what, if any, competition is there and how associated pricing structures and product / consultancy offers could affect how CCI chooses to develop the PropsBox offer. CCI need to find out what potential customers think about their potential offer or package of offers. For example it seems unlikely that the PropsBox would work solely as an ‘off the shelf’ product and that CCI would be better placed to offer it in tandem with some training and potential CPD for future organisations.

The dissemination of this work has already begun but it is critical to share these findings with as wide an audience as possible. The above could possibly be combined with this sharing as institutions need to explore the role that play has within their own programmes currently and the potential that it has. Frances Williams, Head of Learning, South London Gallery, was the keynote speaker at the CttL Conflab and she concluded with three pertinent questions. It would be useful for CCI to consider these when they begin to roll out the PropsBox and any associated consultancy to their peers: •

What does ‘play’ mean in this context?

•

What’s in it for the institutions?

•

What kinds of experiences are galleries best placed to offer children?

Creating games

Bibliography

Articles Bacon, Nicola, Faizullah, Nusrat, Mulgan, Geoff and Woodcraft, Saffron, Transformers: How local people innovate to address changing social needs, NESTA Research Report 2008.

Bradburne, Dr James M., AADipl MCSD, Director General, Collecting ourselves. An approach to art, museums and exhibitions. Museum fur Angewandte Kunst, Frankfurt, 2001.

Cage: John, Diary: How to Improve the World (you will only make matters worse) continued part 3, 1967.

Pringle, Emily, Families and Creative Learning in Art Galleries. Engage - the international journal of visual art and gallery education, edition 25, 2010.

Pringle, Emily, Learning in the gallery: context, process, outcomes. Engage Publication, 2006.

Publications

The Cat came as a tomato: Conversations on contemporary art and play. Contributors: Fisayo Bello & Nuno Tiago Marijo, Joost Beunderman, Toni Cockram & Sue Elvidge, Lawrence Bradby, Alex Evans, Febrik, Margot Heller, Tim Gill, Tue Greenfort, Kit Hammonds, Pat Kane, Daniel Lehan, Andrea Mason, Carmen Moersch, Nils Norman et al. South London Gallery, 2011.

Imagination. Engage - the international journal of visual art and gallery education, edition 16, 2005.

Exchange: Artists, Young people and galleries. Engage - the international journal of visual art and gallery education, edition 27, 2011

TGI Insights and Integration (Kantar Media), Audience Insights Segmentation Data and Arts-based segmentation research. Arts Council, 2011

Appendices

Appendix 1

Children take the lead, consultation impact indicators for prototype PropsBox trials at Kettle’s Yard Gallery, 2011 and Wysing Arts Centre, 2012

Where appropriate indicators are linked with MLA’s Inspiring Learning for All Generic Learning Outcomes and Generic Social Outcomes frameworks, as well as Flow Associates’ Completing Kettle’s Yard evaluation framework. Questions 1. Can you describe any bursts of fun, imagination or inspiration you have had today? 2.

3. 4. 5.

Do you think that you have talked, worked or played better with anyone today? This may need a ‘family’ prompt?

Do you think you might go on to do something else following today’s activities? What might that be?

Has anything changed your feelings about Kettle’s Yard/Wysing as a place for you? What didn’t work for you today? Please be as honest as possible, it is really useful for us to know.

Evidence

Below details the type of evidence we will be looking for under each question. 1.

Can you describe any bursts of fun, imagination or inspiration you have had today? Here we will be looking for evidence for the following strategic aims of CttL: • Research and understand the ideas about fascinations with the particular arts organisation through the perspective of the children • Enable communities of children, families and linked professionals to participate in a memorable and meaningful programme of creative activities with their local arts organisation • Influence future children and families to engage with the arts organisation

Specifically we’ll be looking for a memorable and / or meaningful experience and ‘fascinations’ with the collection, whether they are enjoying the process and if they are engaged with the resources themselves.

We will also be looking for evidence from the Inspiring Learning for All Generic Learning Outcome 4: Enjoyment, Inspiration and Creativity and looking for evi dence of families: • Having fun, being surprised, thinking innovatively, creativity, exploration, experimentation, being inspired etc. Do you think that you have talked, worked or played better with anyone today?

Here we will be looking for evidence for the following strategic aims of CttL: • Research and understand the ideas about fascinations with the particlar arts organisation through the perspective of the children • Enable communities of children, families and linked professionals to participate in a memorable and meaningful programme of creative activities with their local arts organisation • Influence future children and families to engage with the arts organisation We will be looking for evidence of how families interact with each other, and pos sibly gallery staff. Also if people understand the benefits of collaborative woring, general communication and social skills, and how people inspire each other etc.

Additionally we will be looking for evidence of the Inspiring Learning for All Generic Social Outcome 1: Stronger and safer communities, specifically: • Encouraging familial ties and relationships Do you think you might go on to do something else following today’s activities? What might that be?

Here we will be looking for evidence for the following strategic aims of CttL: • Research and understand the ideas about fascinations with the particular arts organisation through the perspective of the children • Influence future children and families to engage with the arts organisation

We will also be looking for evidence from the Inspiring Learning for All Generic Learning Outcome 5: Behaviour and Progression and looking for evidence of things like: • Finding things out, coming back to the gallery, making things subsequently, and a change in thinking etc.

Has anything changed your feelings about Kettle’s Yard/Wysing as a place for you? Here we will be looking for evidence for the following strategic aims of CttL: • Influence future children and families to engage with the arts organisation

We will also be looking for evidence of the Inspiring Learning for All Generic Learning Outcome 3: Attitudes and Values and Generic Social Outcome 2: Strengthening Public Life, especially providing safe, inclusive and trusted public spaces

We will be specifically looking for evidence of feelings and perceptions in relation to Kettle’s Yard/Wysing, like: • A sense of belonging, a sense of ownership, wanting to come back, feelings of comfort and confidence, wanting to pass on comments and ideas to staff, attitudes towards the organisation etc.

What didn’t work for you today? Please be as honest as possible, it is really use ful for us to know.

This question will help to ensure that we obtain the views and opinions of these participants, both positive and negative. It will help people to actively comment on what participants do not enjoy about this resource and their experience and I will be looking for evidence of: • Negative experiences in relation to this experience • Any barriers to participation and how we might be able to remove them • The quality of the experience and how this can be improved, if necessary • any communication issues

Appendix 2 The prototype PropsBox questionnaire. The below questionnaire is from the Kettleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Yard cycle but it mirrors the Wysing one in terms of questions asked.

Appendix 3

Appendix 3 A summary of the evaluation evidence gathered during the project

The below timeline also details how people were consulted. All of these findings were shared with the project team and evidence was discussed and fed back into the development of the product. Should people be interested in additional evaluation detail many of these documents are available to view by request. June 2011 • Clarification of Evaluation needs and Evaluator role for CCI’s Children Take the Lead (round-table discussion with project manager and lead artist, later agreed by project team, steering group and Arts Council, England). •

•

Explored ‘hopes and fears’ with the project team (group and round-table discussion - included cultural partner organisations).

Explored ‘What does success look like’ with the project team (group and roundtable discussion – included cultural partner organisations).

July 2011 • CttL outline evaluation framework established (consultative document shared with team). •

•

Basic benchmarking during the Spinney School R&D session (verbal questions for participants). Additional benchmarking at sharing day at The Spinney School (interactive question TV, apple evaluation tree, conversations and observation).

September 2011 • Aspirations for the project for key stakeholders such as ACE and partner schools (telephone interviews and one-to-ones). •

•

Creating an evaluation framework for testing the impact of the CttL resource with families – September 2011 (consultative documents shared with Lead artists, project manager and steering group).

Establishing CttL resource development session questions - Spinney School Families at Kettle’s Yard (consultative documents shared with Lead artists, project manager and steering group).

October 2011 • CttL resource development sessions - Spinney School Families at Kettle’s Yard (informal interviews and observation of families during final R&D session). •

The above fed into the development of a prototype version of the PropsBoxes.

November 2011 • Establishing Indicators for CttL Public Consultation PropsBox trials (consultative document shared with project team and follow-up round-table discussion). •

•

Development of questionnaires, based on established indicators, for prototype PropsBox Trials (email and telephone discussions). Kettle’s Yard prototype PropsBox testing weekend (observation and impact indicator interviews with every family).

December 2011 • Feedback from KY Prototype PropsBox public trials (shared in Excel form). •

•

Emerging themes and quantitative data from Kettle’s Yard prototype PropsBox public trials shared (Excel and Word documents, then round-table discussion).

CttL - the evaluation story so far (summary document of the Kettle’s Yard cycle shared with team).

January 2012 • Evaluation plan for CttL Wysing cycle, March 2012 – October 2012 (summary document shared with project manager and Lead artist).

March 2012 • Basic benchmarking during the Vine School R&D session (verbal questions for participants). April 2012 • Additional benchmarking at sharing day at The Vine School (conversations and observation).

May 2012 • CttL resource development sessions – The Vine School Families at Wysing (informal interviews and observation of families during final R&D session).

June 2012 • Wysing prototype PropsBox testing weekend (observation and impact indicator interviews with every family).

August 2012 • Emerging themes and quantitative data from Wysing prototype PropsBox public trials shared (Excel and Word documents, then round- table discussion).

September / October 2012 • Project exit interviews with cultural partner organisations (face to face interviews).

October 2012 • Questionnaires for peers at Conflab (write-up of questionnaires completed shared with project team). •

•

Summary of debate about PropsBox at Conflab and feedback from peers (write-up shared with project team).

Project group reflection on aims and objectives and initial ‘hopes and fears’ and ‘what will success look like’ documents (round-table discussion and email feedback).

November 2012 • Final Evaluation report shared publicly.

Itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s good to see cultural institutions exploring the concept of free play and its potential influence on engagement and learning. It will be interesting to see the impact of CCIâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s play-based methodology on the two institutions they have been working with through the PropsBoxes and how they are made use of in the future. Frances Williams, Head of Education, South London Gallery

CCI's Children Take the Lead is ground breaking family and early years work that the staff and I here at Ikon are certainly keeping an eye on. We are looking to develop our offer for families and children... Hopefully this can be the start of a really productive conversation. Simon Taylor, Head of Learning, Ikon gallery, Birmingham

Judith Merritt, Head of Learning, firstsite gallery, Colchester

Question for Helen Stratford from a child who visited her studio

www.propsbox.org.uk www.cambridgecandi.org.uk www.childrentakethelead.wordpress.com