by Joanna Holland

Children

Take

theLead

Evaluation Report

It has been an amazing journey to have worked with two such inspiring and contrastinggalleries together with so many children and their families. We have been awed by thechildren’s capacity to lead us to see new ways to engage with art and ideas and differentspaces and we are delighted to have created something that families respond to sofavourably 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 experienceevery time. It enables the imagination that the kids bring to be engaged, it springboardsand 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 – veryclever 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 processbased 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 comehere to play with ideas and you can come and do this too… We now have a more solidoffer 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

Executive Summary………………………………………………………………

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

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

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

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

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

Qualitative Outcomes……………………………………………………………

A Journey through quotes - how the PropsBox enables engagement, from theperspective of families ……………………………………………...................

Additional Outcomes and Learning………………………………………………

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

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

Appendices………...........……………………………………………….………

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

2

5

7

9

13

16

21

29

33

39

45

47

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 mem-orable experiences. They make ideas grow by looking, doing, exploring and discoveringalongside 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 ofthis 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 understandthe world as seen; work with these new understandings to demonstrate how organisa-tions can significantly enhance their capacity to build family audiences and to: developa model for enabling families to engage with culture.

Project partners and timeline

CCI partnered two local but internationally significant cultural partners - Kettle’s Yard inCambridge and Wysing Arts Centre in Bourn, Cambridgeshire. Early on, it was estab-lished that the project would work towards a product that would enable these childlikeperspectives to be shared - through playful interventions which would be produced forthe arts organisations. Whilst both contemporary arts organisations, these institutionspresented distinct needs, aspirations and challenges and offered excellent potential fordeveloping and testing theories and resources which may be of interest to a range ofother cultural organisations.

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

Between June 2011 and October 2012, CttL engaged with a vast number of peoplewhich included 120 school children and 70 family groups. It also achieved a significantnumber of outputs, far more than initially anticipated. This was an involved and complexproject, with many reflections, discussions and decisions throughout the project. Every-one in the project team worked ‘above and beyond’ to ensure that the project happenedand that the ambitious high-quality experiences for participants were achieved at alltimes. In particular we looked at process, outcomes and purpose which included revis-iting project aims, continual assessment of resource development, exploring the jour-neys of family groups and those involved in the project and any evidence for potentialrolling out of the model.

1

2

Measuring impact

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

The qualitative experience and feedback of all the family groups involved at the proto-type PropsBox testing sessions revealed a huge amount. All of these learnings, andmore, were fed into the development of the final PropsBox. The resulting evidence fromthe enquiring approach of the artist-led action research, the overall evaluation and thetwo rigorous testing sessions with new families, clearly reveal that CCI has achievedwhat 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 offersexperiences which help to bring contemporary art to life for family visitors. CCI genuinelyhas a collaborative and inclusive approach and works hard to democratise creative en-quiry. There is no doubt that children were allowed to take the lead and all co-creatorsdiscovered and shared the most fruitful, inspirational and playful ways to experiencecontemporary art. Family groups appear to have engaged with contemporary art in anew 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 theartworks; 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 theproject team to create an innovative, open-ended offer which is truly meaningful to fam-ilies. It’s deliberate construction as non-exhibition specific means that it can be usedtime and time again with a range of artworks. This is something that really appealed toboth 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 itspotential. They, and the CttL team, believe it works and have either started to use it orare planning to in the near future.

The PropsBox and working with families

The evidence reveals that the vast majority of families did engage directly with the art-works, from light touch looking through to very engaged conversations and questionsabout 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

3

families played with the Props in front of the artworks, they felt at ease in the spaceand their sense of ownership and entitlement was definitely increased. These familiesalso went on to say that ‘they wanted to come back’. Given that the PropsBox can beused again and again on repeat visits, it is not necessarily negative if the first time afamily 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 developand sustain family audiences.

It is also important to note how visible the voices of dads and boys were during thisproject. Many of the development and prototype testing sessions, particularly at Kettle’sYard, were almost entirely made up of families with boys. It is interesting that they foundthe approach particularly useful when it came to engaging with contemporary art andeach other.

The excitement that the PropsBoxes generates has led to interesting debates. Bothcultural partners commented on how wonderful it was to see families feeling so wel-comed and engaged but that they also have a responsibility for all their visitors, includ-ing older people, researchers, or people who experience contemporary art in a morecontemplative way. We have discussed mechanisms for ensuring that families en massfeel 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 pointwe have been evaluating the research and development of the PropsBox. Now thatthey have been handed over to Kettle’s Yard and Wysing it is critical to review their im-pact on family experience over the longer term. How will they be used in reality andwhat real role will they play in terms of engagement, learning or audience developmentat Kettle’s Yard and Wysing? The project sparked a huge number of debates aroundengagement, 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 theproject 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 thePropsBox and that they further explore how they could ‘sell on’ this model or createnew 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 outthis work and to operate a longitudinal evaluation of the PropsBoxes in action.

4

Mee

ting

Kettle

’s Ya

rd

Introduction

Cambridge Curiosity and Imagination (CCI) was established in 2002 and works withorganisations and people seeking to develop closer relationships with the communitiesthey 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 morethan 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 projectthrough films, trails, books, research, photos, exhibitions, presentations and recordingsas appropriate. The CCI approach is to place people at the centre of the experience, inthe role of researchers and experimenters. Artists and creative practitioners work along-side participants as facilitators, offering them ideas to engage with.

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

2

5

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

CCI are interested in how this ‘sociability of engagement’ lends itself to how childrenapproach their worlds with a freshness and curiosity - something that many adults con-sider lost. CCI thought about these two principles in relation to settings that promotecontemporary art and how these often struggle to make their work accessible to childrenand their families. CCI wanted to explore how the ability of children to see the potentialfor 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 tradi-tionally 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 read-ing material which is exclusively directed at adults. Only a small minority provide ma-terial 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 peo-ple’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 respondingto the ideas and provocations so richly abundant in a setting and how families can playand 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, canthey too experience that immersion and pleasure for themselves?

We want to support organisations to find meaningful and memorable ways for familiesto engage with them. We think children working with their families can lead the way onthis. Through their questions, fascinations and observations, we as organizations canfind 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 inDecember 2010, which would: involve children, families, artists, and educators to createchild-centered resources and approaches that are family-friendly, inspiring, provocativeand for use in connection with the [contemporary art] setting. Following a period of con-sultation and development, this proposal was funded in March 2011.

6

Project Aims and Objectives

The project became known as Children take the Lead (CttL) and CCI stated that thiswas an action research project that would:

Invite children to lead in exploring high quality art; listen to their ideas to understandthe world as seen; work with these new understandings to demonstrate how organi-sations can significantly enhance their capacity to build family audiences and to de-velop a model for enabling families to engage with culture.

It shared and communicated these project objectives with its collaborators and poten-tial audiences and stakeholders from the outset, as follows:

Visiting contemporary art galleries can be difficult especially if you feel you ought tounderstand or like what you’re looking at. Children don’t seem to suffer from theseanxieties. We’d like to find out how to explore contemporary art through a child’seyes. Cambridge Curiosity and Imagination (CCI) believe that children are the mostimplacable enemies of boredom. They are full-time researchers, untiring makers ofactions, ideas and theories. They are born strong, interested, capable and curiousand 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 lettingthem take the lead in finding out about contemporary art.

CCI was awarded an Arts Council England Grants for Arts Award to run this innovativeresearch programme with clusters of Cambridgeshire children and their families. Work-ing in partnership with Wysing Arts Centre and Kettle’s Yard Gallery, CCI artists wereto 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 work-shops 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 otherscould 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 newfamily-friendly resources for both galleries. The aim was to support the engagement ofnew 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 fam-ilies to choose to access and experience contemporary art.

3

7

CCI cited the specific aims of the project as:

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

2. To enable communities of children, families and linked professionals to participate in a memorable and meaningful programme of creative activities withtheir local arts organisations.

3. To share these perspectives through playful interventions produced for the arts organisations.

4. To influence future children and families to engage with the arts organisations.

5. To enable arts organisations to build new and dynamic relationships with childrenand families.

6. To enable CCI to share the research findings and recommendations with organisations nationally.

7. Enable CCI to continue to campaign for the importance of the child’s voice.

8

Project Management and Process

Children Take the Lead was project managed by CCI’s Director and a Lead Artist inconjunction 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 inde-pendent product designer. The steering group consisted of representatives from CCI,partner organisations Wysing Arts Centre and Kettle’s Yard, members of CCI’s Boardwho have a special interest in this project as well as individuals who are external tothese organisations who brought key additional skills to the table – in terms of expertiseand networks. Further guidance and support also came from Hannah Fouracre, Rela-tionship Manager, Engagement and Participation, and Mark Richards, Head of Devel-opment at the Arts Council. The steering group met regularly during the project to reviewthe project’s development and individuals also acted as consultants to the projectthroughout. Reflection and evaluation were an important part of the steering group’swork, which consists of the following people:

Ruth Sapsed, Director, CCI and project manager for CttLIdit Nathan, Artistic Advisor, CCI and lead artist, CttLLawrence Bradby, working as artist partnership Townley and Bradby, Artist, CttL.Helen Stratford, CCI, Artist, CttLKirstin 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 MemberGiles Lane, Director, Proboscis, a non-profit social and cultural invention and innovation studioJoanna Holland, External Evaluator

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

The lead artist, supported by the project manager, also set up and ran a project blogdedicated to CttL which tracked progress and development throughout the project.Other team members contributed to this at various stages during the project. The blogevidences 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 playeda 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

4

9

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

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

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

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

It is important to note that neither of these schools are in particularly affluent areas ofCambridge City or Cambridgeshire and, whilst their involvement was dependent on thegoodwill and enthusiasm of staff, they were targeted by CttL with these socio-geo-graphic factors in mind. It was important to both CCI and the partner organisations forthis 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 af-fluent areas of the county or city. Over 90% of the children who attended the develop-ment workshops had no previous relationship with the cultural institutions.

This was an involved and complex project, with many reflections, discussions and de-cisions throughout the project. The broad overall goal was to work with local familieswhere the children would take the lead to develop and create resources to engage otherfamilies with contemporary art. The key milestones during this project are detailed inthe diagram below. This cycle was repeated with each cultural partner, with minor adap-tations. For example: the Wysing cycle followed the Kettle’s Yard cycle and utilised theprops developed for prototype use (as well as new ones) and required slightly fewerworkshops; and the ‘hopes and fears’ and ‘what will success look like’ documents werereflected on at the beginning of the Wysing cycle and not recreated.

10

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 discus-sions were continually fed into the projects development. Each cycle included thefollowing elements:

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

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

3. Visits by CttL team to children’s classes (year 2 and year 5 at Spinney, and twoyear 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.

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

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

6. 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).

11

7. 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 allowedto ‘take the lead’ but in a family group context. The external evaluator attendedthe 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. 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 artistsas part of the ongoing action research project and by the external evaluator).

2. 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 together with an invitation to leave a record of your own newly devised game. Objects included a blindfold, listening cups, cape, dice and number cards.

3. Once the Props Box was developed, there was a two day trial/testing of propsboxes which was open to the public (families self-selected and only one of theresearch families attended a trial session).

4. These sessions were very playful, loud and expansive.

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

6. All the data was then collated and emerging themes were shared with the projectteam.

7. The project team then reflected on whether they felt the project was achievingits aims and any learnings were fed into the next stage of the project.

8. 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.

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

10. At this stage a ‘Conflab’ was also held with peers from the cultural and learn-ing sectors to discuss the use of play in cultural engagement and to explorethe use of the PropsBoxes themselve

12

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 wherethis action research ‘ended’ and the external evaluation ‘began.’ We wanted to minimiseany duplication of research and to establish clear roles and responsibilities from theoutset.

Through consultation with the project manager, lead artist, CCI Board, the Arts Counciland the Project Steering Group it was agreed that the external evaluator’s primary focusshould be at the prototype product testing. It was felt that researching the impact of thepotential product on families in detail, in terms of engagement, would enable more readyassessment of its success (against original project aims) and any potential to be rolledout. The qualitative findings evidenced in this report echo this agreed focus and arefrom both the prototype product testing weekends at Kettle’s Yard and Wysing. All ofthis emerging evidence, along with feedback from the cultural partners, was sharedand reviewed before being fed into the development of the final PropsBox. This reportsummarises these key findings as the role of the evaluator in this project was to re-search, evidence and share findings at every stage of the project, not to merely under-take a summary document at the very end.

The artist-led action research ran alongside the external evaluators work and all partiesagreed 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 notreferenced 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 frameworkthat provided a structure for reviewing and assessing the impact of the product (the keyoutput) 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.

5

13

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

1. Research and understand the ideas about and fascinations with the particulararts organisation through the perspective of the children.

2. Enable communities of children, families and linked professionals to participatein a memorable and meaningful programme of creative activities with their localarts organisations.

2. Share these perspectives through playful interventions produced for the arts organisations.

4. Influence future children and families to engage with the arts organisations.

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

6. Enable CCI to share the research findings and recommendations with organi-sations nationally.

7. 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 practicalitiesand usefulness of the PropsBox. In order to answer the question: Did it do what we setout to do? we needed to find out how the PropsBox impacted upon family groups’ ex-perience of contemporary art. It was particularly important to explore how the PropsBoximpacted on: inspiration and enjoyment; their feelings about the cultural venue as aplace for them; interactions with other family members; dwell time; as well as whetherthey explicitly engaged with the artworks on display. It was critical to ask about whatwasn’t working and so we enquired about: what the barriers were for them; whetherthe 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 doingsomething else. However, we were also aware that we did not want to inundate thefamilies who were testing the prototype with large numbers of questions.

We agreed that we would establish a number of indicators to investigate the impact onfamilies 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

14

also to link into national frameworks which people would be familiar with. In order to dothis we explored a number of different cultural evaluation frameworks and adapted andcombined these for use during PropsBox development and testing with family groupsat cultural partner venues. We wanted to ask the questions that we needed to ask thembut within recognised frameworks which might be more meaningful to potential futurecommissioners or partners. The frameworks we referenced and adapted included thefollowing: Museums, Libraries and Archives’ Inspiring Learning for All Generic LearningOutcomes and Inspiring Learning for all Social Outcomes; Flow Associates’ CompletingKettle’s Yard; and Arts Council England’s self-evaluation.

This adaptation enabled us to consider relevant questions with which to quantify par-ticipants experience in order to gather evidence for ‘change’ in relation to key state-ments. We came up with a set of statements and under each one of these there werea set of indicators which enabled us to build a profile of the user’s experience. Impor-tantly this enabled us to grid people’s responses to their experience whilst not havingto 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 somequantitative data questions. Each question had a series of indicators under the umbrellastatement which could be logged on an excel sheet during the write up. Details of theindicators themselves can be found in appendix 1 CttL consultation indicators for pro-totype PropsBox trials. This questionnaire was undertaken as a ‘family interview’ at theend of each family’s testing session and can be found in appendix 2: The PrototypePropsBox Questionnaire. We also observed all the activity that took place and had in-formal conversations and feedback from families and gallery representatives duringeach testing period.

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

15

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.

6

Mee

ting

Wys

ing

16

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 Con-

flab 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 andcollaborated 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 forfun. We also wanted to find out whether they have a relationship with Kettle’s Yard todate or any other cultural venues in Cambridge. We collected data in an informal wayand although this was far from an exact science, wanted to try and establish somebaseline evidence about the types of activities the young people might attend – andask them in a non-intrusive, child-led way which supported the overall goals of the chil-dren take the lead project. Perhaps unsurprisingly, we found out that attendance at artgalleries was the least popular cultural activity. Theatre was the most popular – manyof 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 sciencediscovery centres or museums. Very few of them had visited Kettle’s Yard although alarger number of parents had heard of it. They also shared some comments about theirexperience of cultural activity, particularly museums and galleries:

17

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

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

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

As noted earlier, the Spinney School is not in a particularly affluent area of CambridgeCity and, whilst the schools involvement was dependent on the goodwill and enthusi-asm 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 partin developing non-traditional audiences and, in particular, developing an increased understanding of the needs of family audiences from less affluent areas of the countyor city.

This is also true of the Vine School, in Cambourne, near to Wysing. We were unable toestablish any benchmarking data at this sharing day (for various reasons, including theSpinney data only being of limited use to this evaluation) but we have been able to mapboth areas to the Arts Council’s Audience Insights segmentation data. This revealedthat the ward areas of both Bourn (which includes Cambourne) and Cherry Hinton havesignificantly fewer of the ‘highly engaged with the arts’, ‘traditional culture vultures’ thanCambridge City and Cambridgeshire as a whole, although both are still just above thenational 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 andculture take up the majority of their time, alongside traveling and spending time withfamily.

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 toget a steer on the cultural engagement of Cambourne per se as it is covered by theward of Bourn which includes a number of villages with quite different socio-economicfootprints. 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 comfortablenest 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 likethemselves.

18

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. Inter-estingly each cycle (Kettle’s Yard and Wysing) recruited the same number of familygroups for the PropsBox research and development sessions and almost the samenumber 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 knowabout potential audiences it does mean that CCI’s CttL work has, as intended, targetedmore non-traditional audiences.

Out of the Kettle’s Yard family groups consulted at the prototype PropsBox testingstage, 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 tohave a better understanding of the motivations of these audiences and offers us a littlemore 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 strategicallydevelops resources which have the best potential for engagement with these geograph-ically significant groups.

We asked for some detailed information from the 47 family groups who attended theprototype PropsBox testing days at both Kettle’s Yard and Wysing. Family group sizevaried 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 Cam-bourne*, Sawston, Shelford, Waterbeach and Willingham. As might be expected, themajority of families who engaged with the props box trials at Kettle’s Yard came fromCambridge (mainly CB4, CB2 and CB1) and the majority of families who engaged withthe Wysing Props bag trials came from villages close to the institution, indicated by anasterix 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 ‘postgraduate’ as their highest academic qualification, 13 citing ‘undergraduate’ and1 citing ‘A’ Levels’ and 1 citing ‘GCSE’s.’ Seven family groups did not answer this question.

19

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%

20

Qualitative Outcomes

This section focuses on the qualitative experience and feedback of the 47 family groupsinvolved at the prototype PropsBox testing sessions at Kettle’s Yard and Wysing. Therewere additional learnings too, in terms of feedback about the PropsBox from the culturalpartners 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 andlearning.

This section details the evidence we gathered from the two prototype testing sessionweekends at Kettle’s Yard and Wysing. During each session we interviewed every fam-ily 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 alsoobserved the sessions carefully and held informal conversations with individuals andfamily groups throughout in order to obtain additional data and evidence.

The questionnaires were based on ‘umbrella’ questions underneath which there are anumber of indicators for impact. Broadly we explored whether the PropsBox impactedon:

• 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.

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, and if so, how.• If this interaction would now lead onto them doing something else.

The indicators for impact that sit under each of these ‘umbrella’ questions are detailedin appendix 1 CttL consultation indicators for prototype PropsBox trials. We engagedwith 162 people over both weekends. This was in addition to the 120 children and 24family groups who had been involved in the research and development aspects of theproject 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 andfrom inspiration to cultural ownership. Did it make a difference? If it did, how did it makea difference? It was also absolutely critical to ask people what wasn’t working for themand we encouraged people to be as honest as possible. Once we had asked thesequestions all of the information was mapped onto an excel sheet under the umbrellaheaders. We also mapped the number of mentions of each of the Props, both positiveand negative, to try and further our understanding of which props were most enjoyedby the families. This information was then transferred into an emerging themes workingdocument which was reviewed by the project team and the project steering group.

7

21

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

The final contents of the PropsBox were based on the information gathered from boththe Kettle’s Yard and Wysing testing weekends, as well as observation of which propsappeared to enable the most dialogue and engagement with the contemporary art inthe 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 theywere 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, implyingthat dwell time had been increased. The overwhelming majority (2/3) of family groups attended the session for over an hour:

22

• 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 entitlementand 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 hometo create their own listening tubes, draw or paint, to stating that they want to come backto Kettle’s Yard or that they feel more confident about experiencing other cultural venuesas a family, the evidence suggests that this experience has impacted positively on themajority 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 quantifybut we undertook a rough tally of mentions of likes / dislikes of props. And, in order ofpreference, this is what we found out:

1. The blindfold was a roaring success.2. The audio cups were popular too. 3. The Corolla Cape seemed particularly good for younger children.4. People have signalled out the dice as one of the strongest props.5. The numbers were well received as well.

A number of families found the blue thing very frustrating (note, this and a number ofother 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, November2011 and Wysing, June 2012: Shared learnings

We also learnt a lot about areas which needed to be developed or aspects whichweren’t working so well and could be changed. Some of these learnings were specificto individual organisations and some were applicable to both settings. Shared learningsare 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 shapehow institutions go onto use them in the future.

23

It was interesting to note that the voices of dads and boys were really important to thisproject. The families at the family development workshops and the prototype testing tri-als at both institutions were almost entirely families with boys. Both dads and boys wereclearly drawn to this project, they wanted their voices to be heard, they really enjoyedthe sessions and they found the approach a very useful means of engaging.

The PropsBoxes generated a lot of excitement initially, at both venues. Both culturalpartners commented on how wonderful it was to see families feeling so welcomed andengaged but that they also have a responsibility for all their visitors, including older peo-ple, researchers, or people who experience contemporary art in a more contemplativeway. We have discussed mechanisms for ensuring that families en mass feel both wel-comed and reassured about how to use the space.

The evidence reveals that the vast majority of families did engage directly with the art-works, from light touch looking through to very engaged conversations and questionsabout 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 fam-ilies played with the Props in front of the artworks, they felt at ease in the space andtheir sense of ownership and entitlement was definitely increased. These families alsowent on to say that ‘they wanted to come back’. Given that the PropsBox can be usedagain and again on repeat visits, it is not necessarily a negative if the first family usageof the PropsBox is more about familiarisation and ownership of the space. Indeed bothcultural partners commented on the potential of the PropsBox to develop and sustainfamily 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 producthas been subsequently adapted in brackets:

• Families who were new to Kettle’s Yard and art galleries in general wanted toknow the ground rules so they could feel comfortable about any ‘gallery boundaries’ 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 reallyenjoy these resources because of the family atmosphere, enabling them to feelmore relaxed (the cultural partners noted that this worked well for some fami-lies, 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 subtlethat they only realised the connections towards the end of the session (the instructions have been developed into a booklet with more explicit designs).

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

24

• A very small minority didn’t seem to understand that this was a family resourcenot a resource for children to use alone (the final PropsBox has been designedand 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 thatit 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 Wysingare 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 toldus that this approach made them feel like there was ‘more time’ and that family groupshad more free rein when it came to choosing what they wanted to engage with; for ex-ample how the PropsBox is different to a trail or audio guide which dictate which objectsyou should engage with, and often in what order. Most people felt that the props gavea ‘new dimension to interacting.’ They particularly enjoyed the ‘touchable’ nature of theboth the props and (a number of) the art works – many stating that because of this, aswell as the vast space at Wysing, the day had a really different feel from visits to othercultural institutions. On a number of occassions parents mentioned the PropsBox ob-jects ‘touch-ability’ being useful for younger children who found it hard to not touch theartwork. This is also very useful for children and family groups who engage more ki-naesthetically and particularly exciting for those that have mostly experienced culturalinstitutions where you can’t touch the artefacts.

Crucially, as with the testing at Kettle’s Yard, these family groups do appear to haveengaged 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.

A large number of parents/grandparents were clearly:

• Happy to have a framework / focus / approach / sense of purpose that enabledthem to more easily engage their children.

• Enjoying the open ended approach.

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

25

groups engaging directly with artworks. Many of the children also had a lot of fun makingup 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 conversa-tions, 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 theartworks for longer than they may have done without using the props. When asked howlong 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 familygroups’ sense of entitlement to and ownership of Wysing - as a space for family groupsto engage with. Many now see it as a more family-friendly place. This seems particularlyimportant as the overwhelming majority of family groups were visiting Wysing for thefirst time. At least 8 family groups stated, entirely unprompted, that they want to comeback to Wysing. They wanted to come back to see: the gallery, the studios, the tree-house and Amphis.

The huge expanse of external space was also a real hit and family groups genuinelyseemed 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 com-mented on how the PropsBox map had helped them with this adventure. The majorityof family groups also enjoyed the fact that there was not a prescribed way of doingthings. Many of the family groups at Wysing commented on this, some referred to theapproach 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, June2012: The Props themselves

Which props did families engage with the most? As with the Kettle’s Yard testing, thisis 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 slightlyolder and this may have impacted upon the choice and usage of props. In order of preference, this is what we found out:

1. The phono-cups/tube were a roaring success.2. The Imagination Pod was the next most mentioned – mostly in relation to the

chalk boards.3. This was swiftly followed by the dice – used ‘to start conversations’.4. The blindfold.

26

5. The drums (big cotton reels).6. Humming colours was also mentioned several times as a successful game.7. 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, June2012: 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 welland could be changed. Wysing-specific learnings are detailed below. This informationwas fed back into the Wysing R&D cycle and subsequently the development of the finalPropsBox. This information has also shaped how institutions go onto use them in thefuture. Here is what we found out, with information on how the final product has beensubsequently adapted in brackets:

• Wysing’s outside space was so engaging that it was sometimes challenging toengage families with the gallery space (CCI and Wysing have spoken about thisand the role of the PropsBox. It may be that the PropsBox is primarily used withinthe gallery setting, as a stepping stone to enable engagement from outside toinside. CCI was keen to ensure that Wysing maximises the appeal of their outside space in terms of generating a sense of ownership and entitlement with visiting families and have therefore devised the interactive map as well as addingthe Wysing specific ‘Imaginating shed’. This was known as the Imaginating Podduring 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 therewas a feeling that the Props Bag simply couldn’t compete with the outside spaceas 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 andhow the PropsBox helps to take this enthusiasm through to the inside gallery space).

• Two family groups found the process too conceptual and wanted more ‘instruc-tions’ and ‘information’ about the artworks themselves or further suggestions forwhat 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 theopposite, a resource that was very structured and results-orientated, in terms ofimparting knowledge and information. It is important to note this and the abovecomments 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 institu-tions 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 thatwanted to experience the art with little information. Both parties acknowledgethat the PropsBox plays a critical role as a link, a stepping stone, a fun

27

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

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

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

We know that there is a huge amount of excitement about Wysing, from both new andexisting family audience members, and there is certainly a general feeling of entitle-ment. It is important to acknowledge however, that there were comments which re-vealed some more ‘intellectual-access’ based frustrations, with some family groupsfinding 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:

28

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 ‘tohave 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.

8

Play

ing to

geth

er w

ith p

rops

29

[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 diversionwhich 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 themto 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 outside 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 vibrating. Could also speak through the phono cups which was fun and got all thewords 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. Usedcoloured discs as stepping stones which was nice.

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

30

matter (if it was clear how to use). It was nice when you put it on both ears andlistened 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 pic-tures 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 thecontemporary 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.

31

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. Differ-ent 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 ArtsCentre 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.

32

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 wasimportant to ask key stakeholders about their views, in particular:

1. 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.

2. 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).

3. The impact the project has had on CCI as an organisation from the perspec-tive 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:

9

Explo

ring

toge

ther

33

Plans for PropsBox usage

They do plan to use the PropsBox as a resource. They want to experiment withtheir potential usage as self-led resources or facilitated sessions. They think thatthey could work well for both which is quite exciting: there aren’t a lot of re-sources that can do this.

Sarah Campbell said that Kettle’s Yard will focus on the gallery space as this iswhere 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 theuniqueness of Kettle’s Yard and think that they are also potentially a great wayto foster staff learning about engaging with a family audience.

Kirstin feels that the PropsBoxes will enable them to offer something much moretangible for families which will encourage more engagement with the galleryspace 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 todetail and design is amazing. They also like its potential to engage repeat visitsas: it is open ended, it can be reused and it will bring a different experience everytime. 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 andquestion circles. (Kirstin).

I liked the blindfold – the colour, the shape, and the multiple eye-holes. The playon 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. ForKirstin this was particularly enjoying working with CCI as the CttL project hadsuch 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 reflectiveprocess, which is what I always enjoy about CCI and this project was no excep-tion. Following on from CttL, both partners said that they would be keen to workwith CCI again.

34

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 theproject: whether the role of the PropsBox was about engagement with the artworkitself or about developing a space where families feel welcomed and can developa sense of ownership. For Kettle’s Yard it is about: the artworks themselves. Ilove the fact that families feel welcomed and have a sense of place but I wantthis product to enhance looking at art, not to be a distraction. Having said this Ithink that this only happened in a minority of cases. The majority of families didengage – from light touch to in-depth discussions. I think that kids just need tospend some time with the PropsBox, as it is so exciting and I really see it as away in. I think that it is wonderful that families play and that my role is to enablethem to connect this play with our art.

Sarah also mentioned that there might be a need to support sessions with provi-sos about ‘gallery behavior’ to ensure that families understand that they are in ashared space with others such as older people and researchers etc. She alsosaid that it was equally important for these people to see families in the galleryspace. This arose as there were a small minority of families who were particularlyboisterous during the testing sessions. We should also note that it was unusualto have that many families occupying the same space at any one time and is un-likely to happen again. Sarah also added that: I don’t think that enjoyment is mu-tually exclusive to consideration; both can happen at once and everyone shouldfeel welcomed.

Kirstin said that there were only very minor things that often happen when workingin partnership. Overall she had no concerns about the PropsBoxes themselvesbut she will be interested to see how being used outside might affect the Props-Boxes and their contents. She is aware that the CCI team has thought carefullyabout the durability and sustainability of the PropsBoxes but, like Sarah, is curi-ous to see how they will be affected by ‘wear and tear’ and how they will weatherover 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 significantscope to roll out the PropsBoxes to other cultural venues, particularly those withcontemporary art collections. They also acknowledge that it would best be intro-duced to venues’ staff with some sort of consultancy or training: I can really seethis working at [contemporary art gallery] for example. If CCI can now market thisas a package – of the PropsBoxes and accompanying training that would begreat.

• For our professional cultural and learning peers

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

35

gallery, Essex with Early Arts practitioners. The second was the CttL Conflabwhere ideas on play, galleries and the PropsBoxes were shared with various cul-tural peers including creative practitioners, learning professionals and artists. ThePropsBox sparked lots of interesting debates, almost all of which reflected con-versations that the project team had had throughout the project. The project teamhad many discussions about: the degree to which it was important to see familiesengaging explicitly with the artworks; how to communicate appropriate ‘gallerybehaviour’; the sustainability and maintenance of the boxes and the objects overtime; 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 thePropsBox. All of these discussions influenced the final design and were also allpicked up on by our professional peers. It is important to note that the Props-Boxes are offered as a resource to support the process of building relationshipsbetween families and contemporary art settings. They need to be contextualisedwithin that setting and be a part of an offer. Some more confident families maylike to engage with contemporary art with more learning-led outcomes and thePropsBoxes can be adapted to do this if learning professionals want to add thisto the mix.

Debates with professional peers also included broader sector-wide conversationsabout the current roles of learning and curating and how they sit or interact to-gether when it comes to play and developing audiences. Here is a taster of someof 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 contem-porary 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 justbe 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 encour-

ages further debate around this

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

36

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 havinga ‘product’ that is potentially more tangible and more sellable is a step in a newdirection. CCI having a physical resource… which sits with our values and approach… is very useful. But they also commented on the challenges of po-tentially having a sales based aspect to their business.

CttL has reinforced the desire to trust children and to trust CCI’s ideas on playas an engagement tool. The project has strengthened desire to work with morechildren and families – ensuring that children’s opinions are valued equally, aswell as the importance of utilising key aspects of their own practice – such asplayfulness, theatricality and interactivity. They also commented on the addedbenefit 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 potentialto build a network of users and to further develop CCI’s profile amongst contem-porary art galleries in particular and: it would be good to see some of this ex-tended into the longer term. Additionally further longer term research may helpwith 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

37

conversations… managed to create something that families respond tofavourably 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 blogworked 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 havebeen pros and cons with length of time enabling good dialogue and reflection butsimultaneously impacting on momentum. This has been further stressed by prac-ticalities such as fees not being realistic in terms of real time input for all sorts ofparties. 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 dedicateddevelopment staff combined with the current economic climate are most likelyreasons.

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

Plans for roll out

From what our cultural partners have said the PropsBoxes will be or are alreadybeing used and there appears to be scope for roll out. The challenge is how wenow: learn on the ground as it is used. CCI want to clearly understand what theyhave and it’s impact: the role CCI and the PropsBox now have in terms of poten-tial: 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 familiesmight 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 trainingor consultancy is needed.

38

Conclusions and Recommendations

Children take the lead started out as an idea which was developed into a set of propo-sitions asserted as a working hypothesis to guide the project’s research. It was a part-nership project in the truest sense where children and their families were activelylistened-to and worked alongside artists as co-creators. CCI genuinely has a collabo-rative and inclusive approach and works extremely hard to democratise creative enquiry. Co-creators discovered and shared the most fruitful, inspirational and playfulways to experience contemporary art. Critically, children and their families contributedtheir 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‘physical’ 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, clearlyreveals that CCI has achieved what it set out to do in the first instance. There is nodoubt that children were allowed to take the lead and there is now a real product created

10

Shar

ing co

nver

satio

ns

39

for families by families which will enable future family audiences to playfully engagewith contemporary art. For the overwhelming majority of families the PropsBox appearsto have facilitated engagement with contemporary art in a new way: from looking forlonger 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 wereduring 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 sharingpractice has, in my opinion, enabled CCI and the project team to succeed in creating amulti-sensory experience which brings contemporary art to life for family visitors. Familygroups 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; exploredin a different way; related themselves to the ideas in the artworks; and played morecollaboratively.

This has been brought about by a number of significant innovations, primarily the suc-cessful move away from the gallery ‘expert’ vs. ‘lay person’ model of engagement. Theimportance of developing creative activities and experiences that have relevance andmake personal sense to families cannot be stressed enough. The break away from thetraditional dynamic, where family resources are ‘tagged-on’ after key materials are developed by ‘expert’ curators or educators, has enabled the project team to create aninnovative, open-ended offer which is truly meaningful to families.

As we have seen, there were some aspects of the PropsBox which did not work asoriginally intended but these were developed and adapted successfully as the projectwent along. It is important to note that there was a small minority of families (less than10%) who did not feel that that the PropsBox was for them, most of which were morefamiliar 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 art-works, from light touch looking through to very engaged conversations and questionsabout 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 theartworks, they felt at ease in the space and their sense of ownership and entitlementwas definitely increased. These families also went on to say that ‘they wanted to comeback’. Given that the PropsBox can be used again and again on repeat visits, it is notnecessarily a negative if the first family usage of the PropsBox is more about familiari-sation and ownership of the space. Indeed both cultural partners commented on thepotential of the PropsBox to develop and sustain family audiences.

The PropsBoxes also generated a lot of excitement initially. Both cultural partners com-mented 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 welcomedand reassured about how to use the space.

40

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 play-fully make emotional contact with contemporary art.

This connection is not enabled so readily with more traditional resources which tend tohave 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 contem-porary art-works, the evidence shows that families looked for longer, talked to eachother differently and engaged with art that they would have otherwise walked past. Wealso know that the playful experience allowed people to share discoveries and that thepressure of being ‘the expert’ was taken away from adults, enabling them to let theirguard 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 futurefamilies. This has also enabled the partner organisations to alter their status (in theminds 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 con-struction as non-exhibition specific. There was a clear brief from the partner cultural organisations, both with fast paced exhibitions schedules, about the importance of thedevelopment of a resource which is inspiring but also infinitely adaptable. Obviouslythe option is also there for learning professionals to add to the PropsBox to enable it tobecome exhibition specific if that is what is needed.

At the halfway and end stages of this phase of the project the team and external eval-uator 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 laterin this section, in many senses we are now at the beginning of a project, rather thanthe 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 particlararts organisation through the perspective of the children.

- Achieved in the context of this project.

• To enable communities of children, families and linked professionals to participate in a memorable and meaningful programme of creative activities with theirlocal 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 artsorganisations.

- Achieved in terms of the creation of the physical PropsBox.

41

• 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 culturalinstitutions involved in the research, development and testing of the PropsBox havecreated something which has been shown to actively engage these families with con-temporary art. Therefore there is no doubt that the short term project outcomes havebeen achieved. However, what about the long term impact? The work to date has alsosparked 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 theimportance 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 isthe 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 toconsider 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 theirambitions, leaving some of the other debates to be followed by fellow researchers. Forexample, we know that the PropsBoxes work; in fact in the context in which they havebeen developed and tested to date, they exceeded expectations.

But what about their long term impact? Now that the PropsBoxes have been handedover to Kettle’s Yard and Wysing it is critical to review their impact on family experience

42

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 beenevaluating the research and development of the PropsBox. Now CCI really need toevaluate the real product in use by learning professionals, to see how it is used inde-pendently. CCI needs to seek financial support to undertake a longitudinal study of thePropsBoxes in action, to investigate their impact on individual institutions: who usesthem? How are they used? How do galleries link them to their audience developmentplans? How do they affect or develop their current offer for families? What impact dothey have on repeat visits etc.? Do they act as a stand along play resource or do learn-ing professionals add to them to engage with specific learning outcomes? How are theyused in reality and what real role do they play in terms of audiences, engagement andlearning at Kettle’s Yard and Wysing.

This evidence would further support the roll out of the resources to other cultural insti-tutions which CCI should follow up as early as possible. There is now considerable sup-port for free play as a means of engagement in cultural institutions as well as interestin 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’splay-based methodology on the two institutions they have been working with throughthe 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 theypartnered and the families that created it. Despite this being a very early stage of thenext phase, there is already significant interest from other important national contem-porary 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 thestaff and I here at Ikon are certainly keeping an eye on. We are looking to develop ouroffer for families and children... Hopefully this can be the start of a really productiveconversation.

Simon Taylor, Head of Learning, Ikon gallery, Birmingham

PropsBox from CCI was a thoroughly well planned and creative model for use ingallery spaces. At firstsite we are keen to progress this kind of offer in our spaces forfamilies. Every Saturday we have a Free Family Saturday session and the PropsBoxwould be an ideal solution to use for some of these sessions. We are particularly in-terested in the fact that artists and participants have had input into the design andconstruction. 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 insti-tutions and the interest from key contemporary art venues around the UK clearly

43

suggests that there is great potential for roll out of the PropsBox. It would be sensiblefor 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 sustainablesecond project stage. This must consider how CCI might be best situated, managedand resourced, in order to realise any roll-out ambitions in a timely and sustainablefashion. This could include SWOT and STEEPLE and different market analysis andneeds to be achieved as soon as possible. So much rigorous work has gone into thisproject and it has such potential, it would be incredibly sad to not see this supportedinto this second phase.

It is vital that CCI maximise on the momentum of the evidenced success of the Props-Box 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 robustaudit 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 seemsunlikely that the PropsBox would work solely as an ‘off the shelf’ product and that CCIwould be better placed to offer it in tandem with some training and potential CPD forfuture organisations.

The dissemination of this work has already begun but it is critical to share these findingswith 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 concludedwith three pertinent questions. It would be useful for CCI to consider these when theybegin to roll out the PropsBox and any associated consultancy to their peers:

• What does ‘play’ mean in this context?

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

• What’s in it for the institutions?

44

Bibliography

Articles Bacon, Nicola, Faizullah, Nusrat, Mulgan, Geoff and Woodcraft, Saffron, Transform-ers: How local people innovate to address changing social needs, NESTA ResearchReport 2008.

Bradburne, Dr James M., AADipl MCSD, Director General, Collecting ourselves. Anapproach to art, museums and exhibitions. Museum fur Angewandte Kunst, Frank-furt, 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 interna-tional journal of visual art and gallery education, edition 25, 2010.

Pringle, Emily, Learning in the gallery: context, process, outcomes. Engage Publica-tion, 2006.

11Cr

eatin

g ga

mes

45

Publications

The Cat came as a tomato: Conversations on contemporary art and play. Contribu-tors: Fisayo Bello & Nuno Tiago Marijo, Joost Beunderman, Toni Cockram & SueElvidge, Lawrence Bradby, Alex Evans, Febrik, Margot Heller, Tim Gill, Tue Greenfort,Kit Hammonds, Pat Kane, Daniel Lehan, Andrea Mason, Carmen Moersch, Nils Nor-man 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 ofvisual art and gallery education, edition 27, 2011

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

46

Appendices

Appendix 1

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

Where appropriate indicators are linked with MLA’s Inspiring Learning for All GenericLearning Outcomes and Generic Social Outcomes frameworks, as well as Flow As-sociates’ Completing Kettle’s Yard evaluation framework.

Questions1. Can you describe any bursts of fun, imagination or inspiration you have had

today?

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

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

4. Has anything changed your feelings about Kettle’s Yard/Wysing as a place foryou?

5. 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.

12

47

We will also be looking for evidence from the Inspiring Learning for All GenericLearning Outcome 4: Enjoyment, Inspiration and Creativity and looking for evidence of families: • Having fun, being surprised, thinking innovatively, creativity, exploration,

experimentation, being inspired etc.

2. 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 par-

ticipate in a memorable and meaningful programme of creative activitieswith 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 possibly 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

3. 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 particu-

lar 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 GenericLearning Outcome 5: Behaviour and Progression and looking for evidence of things like: • Finding things out, coming back to the gallery, making things subse-

quently, and a change in thinking etc.

4. 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

48

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.

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

This question will help to ensure that we obtain the views and opinions of theseparticipants, both positive and negative. It will help people to actively commenton what participants do not enjoy about this resource and their experience andI 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

49

Appendix 2The prototype PropsBox questionnaire. The below questionnaire is from the Kettle’s Yard cycle but it mirrors the Wysing one interms of questions asked.

50

Appendix 3

51

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

The below timeline also details how people were consulted. All of these findings wereshared with the project team and evidence was discussed and fed back into the devel-opment of the product. Should people be interested in additional evaluation detail manyof 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 round-table 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 questionsfor 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 withfamilies – 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.

52

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 prototypePropsBox 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 PropsBoxpublic trials shared (Excel and Word documents, then round-table discussion).

• CttL - the evaluation story so far (summary document of the Kettle’s Yard cycleshared 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).

53

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.

54

It’s good to see cultural institutions exploring the concept of free play and its potentialinfluence on engagement and learning. It will be interesting to see the impact of CCI’splay-based methodology on the two institutions they have been working with throughthe 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 thestaff and I here at Ikon are certainly keeping an eye on. We are looking to develop ouroffer for families and children... Hopefully this can be the start of a really productiveconversation.

Simon Taylor, Head of Learning, Ikon gallery, Birmingham

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

Judith Merritt, Head of Learning, firstsite gallery, Colchester

www.propsbox.org.ukwww.cambridgecandi.org.uk

www.childrentakethelead.wordpress.com

Question for Helen Stratford from a child who visited her studio