Abstract
Evaluation of museum education programming is integral to the success of a museum’s education department. To gain insight into how teachers use and perceive the education programs and materials at the Crocker Art Museum, an online survey of 121 mostly Sacramento-area teachers was conducted, the first comprehensive evaluation of all school and teacher programs offered by the museum since the re-opening of its new expanded facility in 2010. The survey consisted of thirty questions, divided into four sections designed to gather background and demographic information, how teachers use the visual arts to teach, which Crocker Art Museum education resources respondents were using and why, and suggestions to increase use of programs and materials. Three survey reports published by the Asian Art Museum in San Francisco, Museum-Ed, a non-profit organization headquartered in Minneapolis, and the Museum Association of New York were reviewed to provide a baseline of understanding for interpreting the data from the survey. Findings showed that the Crocker Art Museum was the primary source of museum education resources for survey respondents, nearly all of whom use the visual arts to teach in the classroom. The majority of respondents taught K-6 and used the visual arts to teach art; however, respondents also used visual arts materials to teach English language arts, history/social science, math, and science. Findings showed, though, that respondents attended Crocker Art Museum education programs to instill an appreciation for art or to provide an art museum experience for their students. Respondents favored school campus programs slightly over in-museum programs and indicated low attendance for professional development programs and very low use of the online lesson plan database. A percentage of respondents assumed the online database was for fourth grade curriculum only because it is titled “Striking Gold,” which was an unexpected finding. Being unaware of the museum’s programs and materials was the most often cited reason respondents gave for not using more of the resources. Other reasons included costs, often paired with transportation challenges, and time.