A key outcome from the MN pilot was the creation of tours for the permanent collection. At the end of the course, CC students simplified the tours they created so that they’d be easier to use with other schools.  I met with docents to review their thoughts on how to make these tours sustainable.  The docents appreciated the ability to divide a tour into shorter segments, so that each tour could be it’s own 20 minute stand-alone or paired with any other 20 minute section.  A video of the tours being taught by the CC students was created to support the training of docents.

The energy and enthusiasm of the elementary students during the tours was astounding.  From the moment students walked into a gallery, excited voices could be heard:  “Look, look – I wrote about that picture” and “Wow – that’s so much bigger than what I thought it would be.”  The most common response to the open ended question on the post survey related to students’ enjoyment of being actively engaged in looking and responding to art.

Questions for further study:

• How can incorporating pedagogies that prioritize marginalized and underrepresented voices be used more often as valid starting points for conversations and engagements with and about visual art?
• What type of post-tour curriculum would support teachers in continuing this approach, using art to support students’ comfort in voicing their lived experiences as a conduit to talking about systemic injustice?
• What is the best approach to support docents who were not a part of the project to feel comfortable using MN questions and the CC student-developed touring plans? (This question needs to follow workshops for docents to explore their own implicit bias first, so that they can understand how their biases impact responses to students’/visitors’ answers to MN questions.)
• Does the model of providing short, active tours that can be combined when needed lead to visitor-centric experiences for patrons?
• How can a MN approach be modified for other ages, including adults?