Competent museum guides: defining competencies for use in art and history museums

ABSTRACT

This study aimed to identify the competencies required for museum guides who lead tours of school students in art and history museums. We compiled a preliminary list of competencies from the literature and interviews with 16 Dutch museum guides and three educators. Next, the Delphi technique was used to validate the list of competencies. A total of 26 experts, consisting of 12 educators, 9 guides, and 5 teacher trainers, rated the importance of the competencies and the clearness of the formulation on a 5-point Likert scale. In two rounds, consensus was established on 45 competencies. We organized the competencies into four areas: (1) handling the group within the museum environment, (2) communication skills, (3) knowledge and pedagogy, and (4) professionalism. The list of competencies gives museums insight into the competencies museum guides should have, can help guides reflect on their own practices, and stimulates them to further develop their own competencies.

KEYWORDS:

• Competencies
• museum guides
• guided tours
• museum education
• art education
• history education

Introduction

Museums are recognized as valuable places for learning and teaching art and history. To support students’ learning processes, museums often deploy museum guides¹ to facilitate the museum visit and to help students find personal connections with the objects (Best 2012; Burnham and Kai-Kee 2011; Grever and Van Boxtel 2015; Kristinsdóttir 2016; Tran and King 2007). Guided tours have been part of the museum repertoire for over a century, and they play an important role in the knowledge transfer that occurs in museums. Initially, most guided tours were given by the directors or curators of a museum (Hooper-Greenhill 1991; Grondman et al. 2010). Around the turn of the twentieth century, educators began appearing in museums (Hein 1998). In the 1960s, education became a distinct profession in museums. Nowadays, almost every museum has a department, employees, or volunteers who focus on education.

The way museum guides teach in museums evolved from a focus on the transfer of knowledge through lectures to student-activation and dialogue (Hooper-Greenhill 1999; Roberts 1997). Museum guides who engage in the daily face-to-face interaction with visitors are often freelancers and often lack professional training (Grondman et al. 2010). The quality of teaching by museum guides plays an important role in determining the extent to which a tour is a meaningful learning experience for participating students. In spite of a long tradition and increased professionalization of education in museums, the profile of effective museum guides is not sufficiently clear.

In the literature on learning and teaching in museums, the learning objectives and specific characteristics of museums as learning environments, have been the object of a number of studies (Burnham and Kai-Kee 2011; Greene, Kisida, and Bowen 2014; Hein 1998; Hooper-Greenhill 1991, 1999, 2007; Marcus, Stoddard, and Woodward 2012; McRainey and Russick 2010; Schep, Van Boxtel, and Noordegraaf 2015). The question of which competencies museum guides need in order to facilitate students’ learning processes during a guided tour, however, has been understudied (Best 2012; Grenier and Sheckley 2008; Kristinsdóttir 2016; Tran and King 2007). Our focus in this study pertains to what competencies museum guides need.

Little is known about the competencies required for giving tours to students in art and history museums, although, (at least in the Netherlands) these two types of museums are the most visited museums by school students (Stichting Museana 2015). Therefore, our research question is: Which competencies do museum guides need in order to give tours to primary and secondary school students in art and history museums? Insights into the competencies guides need to give tours can help museums with the training and selection of their guides and can support museum guides in their professional development. The aim of our study was to define a validated list of competencies (which is included in Table 1 in the results section).

Table 1. Competencies of museum guides in art and history museums.

No.	Competency	Description
Area 1: Handling the group within the museum environment
1	Open attitude	The guide is relaxed, approachable, and has an open attitude towards the group and the diversity of persons and views within the group.
2	Making an immediate rapport	The guide is capable of establishing an immediate rapport with the group, is able to make the students feel at ease, and maintains this during the tour.
3	Assessing the group	The guide has knowledge about the target group and can make an estimation of the interest, expectations, and level of the group by asking questions and ‘reading’ their non-verbal communication.
4	Interest in the group	The guide takes the students seriously and shows interest in the ideas, questions, and backgrounds of the students.
5	Creating a safe environment	The guide is capable of creating a safe learning environment in which students can participate in an equal way and in which their input is dealt with in a respectful way.
6	Creating a positive and relaxed atmosphere	The guide is able to create a relaxed and positive atmosphere, for example, by using humor.
7	Enthusiasm and energetic	The guide is energetic and enthusiastic about the things he or she tells, and knows how to kindle enthusiasm in the students.
8	Sensitivity to the group dynamics	The guide has a certain sensitivity to the group dynamic and is capable of adjusting his or her behavior to the situation.
9	Coping with resistance	The guide knows how to cope with resistance or inappropriate remarks and tries to use these remarks to enrich the dialog.
10	Taking the lead	The guide takes the lead and is clear about the program, rules, and expectations towards the group, without putting him or herself above the group.
11	Protecting the objects	The guide is consciously aware of the safety of the objects and corrects possibly dangerous behavior of the students.
12	Time management	The guide is capable of using the time efficiently, and the tour has a clear beginning, middle, and end.
13	Awareness of the environment and positioning	The guide is flexible and capable of dealing with the busyness in the museum. The guide positions him or herself and the group in front of the object in a way such that all students can see the object without blocking the passage for other visitors.
14	Keeping an overview	The guide keeps an overview of the group, makes sure all students are following, and ensures the students do not bother other visitors.
Area 2: Communication Skills
15	Clear talk	The guide speaks clearly, audibly, and with an appropriate intonation.
16	Vocalization and expression	The guide breathes quietly, speaks with a pleasant timbre, and is able to engage the students through his or her intonation, rhythm, timing, and mimics. The guide knows how to use his or her voice without damaging it.
17	Careful listening	The guide listens carefully and sincerely and uses the input of the group to enrich the dialog.
18	Linguistic skills and use of language	The guide is linguistically skilled, has an extensive general and specialized vocabulary, and adjusts his or her use of language to the level and perceptions of the students.
19	Conversation techniques	The guide is skilled in starting and facilitating a conversation in different ways and is capable of encouraging participation of the students.
20	Nonverbal communication	The guide gives clear non-verbal cues to the students, and the non-verbal communication (e.g., body language, mimics, posture) is in line with the verbal communication.
21	Awareness of one's own communication	The guide is aware of his or her own posture, use of voice, and body language and is capable of adjusting this to the situation.
Area 3: Knowledge and Pedagogy
22	Use of knowledge	The guide has general knowledge of culture, art history, and history and is capable of using this knowledge in a flexible way, tailored to different groups, to give meaning to objects, contextualize objects, make connections, and to answer questions.
23	Use of curricular knowledge	The guide has knowledge about the curriculum and is capable of using this knowledge to connect the tour to the curriculum.
24	Use of knowledge of the collection	The guide has knowledge about the collection and is capable of using this knowledge in a flexible way to give meaning to objects, contextualize objects, make connections, and to answer questions.
25	Creating a common thread	The guide uses his or her knowledge to create a common thread in the tour.
26	Stimulate an open attitude	The guide is capable of inspiring the students to have an open attitude towards new experiences.
27	Explaining	The guide is capable of translating his or her knowledge to the level and perceptions of the target group and ensures everyone's understanding.
28	Storytelling	The guide is capable of telling stories in relation to an object in an engaging way.
29	Asking questions	The guide is capable of using questions to activate the knowledge of the students, to give room for different perspectives, and (depending on the goals) to prompt students to create associations, reason, think out loud, analyze, contextualize, interpret, reflect, and use their imagination.
30	Stimulate students to look carefully	The guide is able to let students look carefully at an object and encourages them to actively make meaning of that object.
31	Contextualizing objects	The guide finds a balance between looking at objects and contextualizing them.
32	Using objects as a window	The guide can use an object as a window to a historical period or event.
33	Using objects for critical analyses	The guide can use objects to critically analyze how art and history are represented and interpreted.
34	Usage of learning activities	The guide uses learning activities and exercises that are fitted to a certain group, the moment, and the object and (in this way) provides for variation.
35	Balance between interaction and explaining	The guide searches for a balance between explaining and interaction and ensures that there are enough opportunities for the students to experiences art and history.
Area 4: Professionalism
36	Cooperation with other guides	The guide consults with other guides about the route and takes other guides into account during the tour.
37	Cooperation with security guards	The guide communicates (if necessary) with security guards and follows their instructions.
38	Cooperation with teachers	The guide adjusts the program with the visiting teacher and gives the teacher an appropriate role during the tour.
39	Reliability	The guide is reliable, loyal, punctual, sticks to the agreements made with the museum, and gives the tours in accordance with the designed program.
40	Flexibility	The guide is flexible and has an open attitude towards change.
41	Represent the museum	The guide is aware of his or her role as an ambassador of the museum and behaves accordingly.
42	Reflecting on personal performance	The guide reflects on his or her own practices and is aware of his or her own strengths and areas for improvement.
43	Giving and receiving feedback	The guide is open to feedback, uses this feedback to improve, and is willing to give feedback to other guides (the educators).
44	Professional development	The guide uses the opportunities for professional development offered by the museum and is actively looking for ways to develop his or her competencies.
45	Contribute to improving tours	The guide critically reflects on tours and uses this reflection and his or her knowledge of pedagogy to contribute to redesigning a program.

Defining competencies

The concept of competency is used and defined in various ways in different countries, by different authors, and in different learning theories (Merriënboer, Van der Klink, and Hendriks 2002). Competencies are often considered part of the developable potential, which is important to perform a specific job. Although there is a wide variety of the dimensions that jointly define competencies, almost all definitions include knowledge, skills, and attitudes (Caena and Margiotta 2010; Merriënboer, Van der Klink, and Hendriks 2002). This conceptualization of competency is also used to define teacher competencies (e.g., Williamson McDiarmid and Clevenger-Bright 2008). In addition to developable elements, desirable personal characteristics that are unchangeable or difficult to change are sometimes enclosed in the definition, such as individual motives, traits, and self-concepts. Spencer and Spencer (1993) use the metaphor of an iceberg to describe the interrelation of more cognitive and more character-related competencies: skills and knowledge are represented by the ice above the waterline and are thus observable and relatively easy to train, whereas the other three lie below the waterline and are less visible, and more difficult to change.

The goal for the development of a definition of competencies also affects the scope and content of the definition. When the goal is to use the definition in the process of selection and recruitment, then it focuses more on stable characteristics, whereas in educational settings, competencies are most often seen as developable (Merriënboer, Van der Klink, and Hendriks 2002). Because we are interested in both goals, we define competencies in this study as an integrated set of knowledge, skills, attitudes, and personal characteristics that a museum guide needs to effectively perform in front of school groups in art and history museums.

Research on museum guides

The roles and practices of museum guides are an understudied topic. The few studies that center around museum guides focus on the development of their expertise (Grenier 2009), the strategies used by (volunteer) guides in art museums to tailor their education activities in order to make them more relevant and interactive (Neill 2010), or the nature of guided tours as interactive rather than prescribed lectures (Best 2012).

Unlike the competencies of museum guides, the work and competencies of teachers has been studied extensively (e.g., Caena and Margiotta 2010). In teacher training programs, competency profiles are prevalent. These profiles often consist of a few bigger categories of competencies. Williamson McDiarmid and Clevenger-Bright (2008), who reviewed conceptualizations of teacher competencies, include subject matter; pedagogical and curricular knowledge; planning, managing, and interpersonal skills; and dispositions towards flexibility, change, and examining one's own practices. These competencies are directed at teaching in the classroom and working in a school environment. Although teaching in museums shares certain characteristics with teaching in schools, the learning environment greatly differs – museum tours are typically one-off events that take approximately one-two hours, focus on specific objects and take place in environments that include other visitors. Therefore, the specific competencies museum guides need may vary from those of classroom teachers.

Three studies more closely focus on the competencies or knowledge museum guides should have. Almost 40 years ago, Bleick (1979) first identified which pedagogical competencies volunteer guides needed in order to give tours in art museums. Bleick (1979) described two definitions of competence: ‘the adequacy for the task’, using Houston and Howsam's description from 1974, and ‘having requisite ability or qualities’, using Funks dictionary from 1963. The results of this study consist of a list of 42 competency statements divided into four major competency categories: (1) communication competencies, (2) knowledge competencies, (3) affective attribute competencies, and (4) touring methods and strategy competencies. Bleick created a preliminary list of competencies based on the literature and interviews with museum staff and volunteer guides. This list was validated in two steps: first, three educators evaluated the list, and second, by a questionnaire that was distributed to museum staff and volunteer guides in 84 museums throughout the United States.

A second, more recent study by Tran and King (2007) focused on the practices of educators – paid members of the staff who engage in the daily face-to-face interaction with visitors – in science museums. Tran and King did not use the concept of competencies and instead created a ‘knowledge framework’ consisting of six core components: context, choice and motivation, objects, content, learning theories, and talk. These six components form ‘the foundation for the body of knowledge and skills relevant to educational practices in museums, and [are] thus to be used as the basis for professional preparation and practices of museum educators’ (Tran and King 2007, 132). Tran and King first analyzed the literature for key factors underpinning the work of museum-based teaching and learning. Subsequently, they shared their findings with museum education and research colleagues during a number of small group discussions.

A third study by Albertijn and Hoefnagels (2012) did not solely focus on teaching in museums, but on the role of educators in the broader field of cultural education and participation, including, among others, dance instructors and conductors. Albertijn and Hoefnagels’ competency profile is organized into five main clusters: (1) cultural and artistic competencies; (2) pedagogy, coaching and supervision, and group dynamics; (3) team and networking; (4) self-evaluation and development; and (5) administrative and practical responsibilities. They defined competencies as ‘the capacity to use knowledge, skills, and attitudes in an integrated way for societal activities’ (Albertijn and Hoefnagels 2012, 5). Albertijn and Hoefnagels based their competency profile on literature research, interviews with educators, and discussions with a sounding board. Their aim was to present a general description of competencies for different types of educators and to lay the foundation for a detailed description of specific professions.

Our study contributes to the existing literature by focusing on professional museum guides who give tours to students in art and history museums.

Teaching in the context of a guided tour

Museums represent a specific teaching context that offers opportunities and limitations for teaching. Guided tours usually take between 60 and 90 min and are sometimes followed by a workshop. Guides are expected to represent the museum and should act accordingly (Albertijn and Hoefnagels 2012). Tour groups in the Netherlands typically consist of 10–15 students who are usually unknown to the museum guides; for some students it may be their first museum visit. Ideally, guides are capable of creating an immediate rapport and are enthusiastic; they also ensure all students feel comfortable in the museum and include all students in the tour (Bleick 1979). Furthermore, guides should be able to connect to and build on the experiences, interests, and wishes of different visitors and be flexible with the tour program (Bleick 1979; Burnham and Kai-Kee 2011; Tran and King 2007).

The physical context (e.g., the size and shape of the building), the amount of visitors, the location of the museum, and the different types of objects all influence the opportunities for teaching (Tran and King 2007). During a guided tour, guides must take the lead, should move their group around in a proper manner without disturbing other visitors (Bleick 1979; Tran and King 2007), and ensure the safety of the objects (Albertijn and Hoefnagels 2012). Guides should position themselves and the group so that all group members can see the object and hear each other (Bleick 1979). The objects make museums a special place for learning, therefore guides must be competent in utilizing these objects for teaching and tailoring their approach to different groups and individuals. For example, guides should be able to entice students to look carefully at objects (Bleick 1979; Burnham and Kai-Kee 2011), to encourage discussion about objects (Bleick 1979), and to help students to analyze historical representations (Marcus, Stoddard, and Woodward 2012).

In order to demonstrate the above competencies, museum guides should have sufficient domain knowledge, knowledge about the collection, as well as knowledge about current affairs and trends (Albertijn and Hoefnagels 2012; Bleick 1979; Burnham and Kai-Kee 2011; Tran and King 2007). Additionally, when guides give tours to school groups, knowledge about the curriculum or educational goals is also important (Albertijn and Hoefnagels 2012). Flexibility in the use of knowledge is crucial; guides must strike a balance between sharing their knowledge and letting visitors come to their own interpretations (Burnham and Kai-Kee 2011; Tran and King 2007). However, sufficient knowledge is crucial to engage and build on the interests of the visitor, to tell stories, to answer and ask questions, and to explain (Albertijn and Hoefnagels 2012; Bleick 1979; Burnham and Kai-Kee 2011; Foreman-Peck and Travers 2013; Grenier 2009; Tran and King 2007).

For all of the above-mentioned competencies, guides need excellent verbal and non-verbal communication skills. They should speak clearly and engagingly, listen carefully to the input of the visitors, be able to initiate a dialogue, have different verbal strategies, and adjust their language and word usage to visitors of different ages and intellectual levels (Bleick 1979; Albertijn and Hoefnagels 2012; Neill 2010; Tran and King 2007). They should also be self-reflexive and willing to learn (Albertijn and Hoefnagels 2012).

To summarize, some main categories of competence can be distilled from the literature on teaching in the museum. Guides need interpersonal and communication skills; knowledge about history, art, and the objects; pedagogical skills; organizational skills; and a professional attitude.

Method

To examine which competencies museum guides need, we used a mixed-methods design, consisting of a review of the literature, interviews, and a Delphi technique. First, we used the literature that we discussed above as a framework and as input for the interviews. Next, we interviewed three museum educators and 16 museum guides about giving tours in museums, which resulted in a draft list of competencies. Finally, we used the Delphi technique (N = 26) to validate the list of competencies and to create a final list with important competencies for museum guides in art and history museums.

Interviews

Participants

Participants comprised three heads of education (educators) and 16 museum guides. We included the heads of education because they are responsible for the vision the museum has on education, the quality of education, and the supervision of the guides. The educators we interviewed (all women) worked in the museums that partnered this research project.² Two of the museums are art museums and one of the museums combines art and history. All three museums are based in Amsterdam, the Netherlands; are large (between 600,000 and 2.5 million visitors); and employ approximately 25–100 museum guides who give tours regularly.

The participating educators were asked to nominate guides who they thought would be capable of explaining which competencies are relevant to give tours to students. The experience of the guides (women = 11; men = 5) with guiding tours varied from 2 to 19 years (mean = 6.8). Their ages ranged from 26 to 59 (mean = 36.4). All participants had, at minimum, completed a bachelor's degree. Six of the guides majored in art, five guides in history, and five combined the two domains. Several of the museum guides held additional jobs, for example, as teachers at high schools or as visual artists. Most museum guides worked in at least two museums; in total, the guides we interviewed worked in 13 different museums in the Netherlands, spread over five cities.

Data gathering

We used a semi-structured interview to gather our data. The interviewer had a predefined list of questions about the profession of museum guides, but non-listed topics mentioned by the interviewees could also be discussed. First, in order to identify the main areas of competencies, the interviewees were asked what they consider to be key competencies. Subsequently, the interviewer and interviewees engaged in a conversation about other relevant competencies, based on the predefined list of categories drawn from the literature on teaching in museums: objects, interpersonal and communication skills, knowledge, pedagogy, organizational skills, and professionalism. Thereafter, interviewees who worked in both art and history museums were asked to compare teaching in both types of museums – in order to gain better insight into which competencies are more important for art or history museums. The interviewees were asked to explain their answers with examples from their personal experience.

All interviews were recorded and transcribed. The duration of the interviews varied from 40 to 90 min. In order to support the analysis and interpretation of the information gained from the interviews, the researcher observed 15 guided tours in the participating museums. Of the observed tours, 10 were given by guides who were interviewed.

Data analysis

The interviews were analyzed, labeled, and coded in two rounds with Atlas.ti. In the first round, we used sensitizing concepts to organize the data (Bowen 2006). This process of labeling was partly bottom-up, based on the input of the participants, and partly informed by categories derived from the abovementioned literature as well as competency profiles of teachers. The first round resulted in 33 competency labels. After that, in a second round of coding, more detailed codes were given to categories that could be further specified. For example, the label interpersonal skills was divided into codes such as enthusiasm, humor, interest in the group, and creating a rapport with the group. Subsequently, we re-assigned the statements made by the interviewees in order to investigate which separate competencies could be identified. Next, we created a first draft that consisted of 44 competencies.

In line with other competency profiles, such as teacher profiles and Albertijn and Hoefnagels profile (2012), we organized the 44 competencies into main areas of competence. Out of the answers to the question, what are the key competencies of a museum guide, we distilled three main areas of competencies: (1) handling the group within the museum environment; (2) communication skills; (3) knowledge and pedagogy. Several other competencies that were discussed during the interviews, but that did not fit these categories, were grouped into a fourth category: (4) professionalism.

Validation through a Delphi study

Participants

For the Delphi study we selected three different groups of participants involved in guiding tours in museums: museum educators, museum guides, and teacher trainers. Teacher trainers were added because they are trained to reflect on the competencies that are needed to teach art and history.

Three of the 12 participating educators work in the participating museums. The other museum educators were nominated by the departments of education housed in the three participating museums. The main criterion for museum educators was that they are responsible for supervising museum guides in an art or history museum. Educators came from 12 different institutions across the Netherlands. Four of the educators work in an art museum, three of them in a history museum, and five educators work in a museum that combines art and history. The 12 educators’ (women N = 12) ages ranged from 27 to 58 (mean = 38.5). Their years of experiences as educators ranged from 1.5 to 28 years (mean = 9.9).

The museum guides (N = 9) were nominated by the museum educators of the three participating museums, and all but one worked in at least one of the participating museums; most of them also worked in other museums. Four of the guides mainly give tours in art museums – the other five focus on history. The nine museum guides’ (women N = 7) ages ranged from 27 to 54 (mean = 38). Their years of experience as guides ranged from 3 to 26 years (mean = 9).

The teacher trainers were selected out of an earlier selection made in a former study about the educational aims of guided tours (Schep, Van Boxtel, and Noordegraaf 2015) and came from five different teacher training institutions across the Netherlands. The five teachers trainers’ (women N = 4) ages ranged from 50 to 56 (mean = 53). Their years of experience as teacher trainers ranged from 13 to 30 years (mean = 23.4).

Data gathering

We used the Delphi technique to investigate consensus among museum educators, museum guides, and teacher trainers on the list of competencies that resulted from the first phase. The design of our Delphi study is modeled on a study by Wijnen-Meijer et al. (2013), who used a Delphi technique to discover essential facets of competence for clinical entrustment decisions. In their study, rather than inviting the respondents to come in for a joint discussion, Wijnen-Meijer et al. invited experts to rate the competencies independently from each other. The advantage of this method is that there is no risk of peer pressure. A practical advantage of this method is that experts do not have to convene at a certain time and place. In the second round, participants were shown the average scores of all participants on each item and a list of revisions based on the remarks on the competencies in the first round.

We asked participants in this Delphi study to rate the 44 competencies in our preliminary list on two aspects: (1) clarity and completeness of the formulation and (2) relevance for museum guides who give tours to school groups. For each of the competencies, we developed a 5-point Likert scale with the following questions, (1) to what extent is the formulation of this competency clear and complete and (2) how important is this competency for a museum guide? Only the two endpoints of the scale were labeled: on the first question, 1 (totally unclear and incomplete) to 5 (very clear and complete) and on the second question, 1 (unimportant) to 5 (very important). The participants were asked to give remarks about the competencies, to propose improvements for the descriptions, and to mention relevant competencies that were not included in the list.

One of the competencies was labeled as specific to teaching in history museums and three as specific to teaching in art museums. The participants were asked to what extent they think these competencies were only specific to either art or history museums, or relevant for both museums. We used a 5-point scale that ranged from 1 (very specific to art museums) to 5 (very specific to history museums). By means of an open-ended question, we asked the experts to name other museum- specific competencies. Finally, the experts were asked to evaluate the grouping of the competencies into the four main areas, and if not, to propose different areas.

In the second round, we presented the experts a list consisting of 45 competencies and an overview of the adjustments. Participants were asked the same questions as in the first round. Round two started three weeks after the closing of round one.

Data analysis

In order to decide if a competency should be accepted, rejected, or revised, we used the expert ratings on relevance and on the clearness of the formulation. The mean score on each question was used to calculate their validation of the suggested competency. Competencies with a mean of 4.00 or higher on relevance were validated for the final list.

In line with Wijnen-Meijer et al. (2013), we computed the skewness of the distribution to check on symmetry and to control whether the experts’ ratings tended to lean in one direction. In this study, we aimed to find consensus on the relevant competencies for museum guides. All the experts’ comments were selected and evaluated. We modified the competencies based on the scores and on the remarks of the experts.

We used the mean score to decide if competencies were museum specific. Competencies that had a score between 2.5 and 3.5 were evaluated as relevant for both museum types. We discussed competencies that had a score between 2.5–2.0 and 3.5–4, using the remarks of the experts. Finally, we evaluated competencies that scored under 2.00 or above 4.00 as museum specific.

Results

In the first part of this results section, we present an overview of the competencies introduced during the interviews, grouped according to the framework for discussing competencies listed above. In the second part, we report the results of the Delphi study and present the definitive list of competencies.

Interviews with educators and museum guides

A museum guide will take you even deeper into the museum, the collection, but also literally the building. Where you as an ordinary visitor might not dare enter, the museum guide takes you inside. As a kind of torch which illuminates the path. April

Handling the group within the museum environment

A competency that was mentioned during all interviews was flexibility. This competency seems to be interwoven with many other competencies. For example, according to the interviewees, museum guides should be flexible in order to deal with different types of visitors. The interviewees had a shared understanding about the role guides play in managing visiting groups. Guides named several characteristics required to establish an immediate rapport, such as an open attitude and an open stance towards the group. Furthermore, guides should be enthusiastic and emphatic, use humor, have knowledge about students’ interests and students’ perception of their environment, and show their interest in the group and individuals by asking questions. Guide Lucy explained:

Love for your visitors is really important. You have to look for things that connect you and the visitors. What are they interested in? You should make a quick estimation of this by asking questions at the start. Why are you here? Have you been here before? You can also tell something about yourself, but not too much, to loosen things up.

Interviewees explained that these first moments are important to create an environment of trust in which the students feel secure, are willing to participate, and are respected for their contribution. Besides being welcoming to the group, one museum guide stated, you should be clear about what you want and expect of the group. She illustrated this point by explaining what she did wrong as a starting guide: ‘Once I asked a group of noisy and boisterous students if they would like to put their bags in the closet. They responded by saying that they would not like to do that (Roselyn)’. Some guides explained that they begin by asking students about their ideas of appropriate behavior in a museum in order to have a conversation about the rules – without dictating them. Guides explained, because you are responsible for the group, you have to find a balance between taking the lead and not putting yourself above the group.

After these first moments of getting to know each other, guides stated the importance of maintaining this pleasant atmosphere and to make sure that you ‘read’ what the group wants and feels during the tour and act accordingly. Guide David expressed the importance of ‘reading what the group wants’ by describing the wrong attitude:

You also have museum guides that really perform for themselves. Guides who talk a lot and who just like to hear themselves talk. People who put themselves at the center, who want to tell and finish their story, no matter if the group is watching and listening or not, they just need to finish their thing.

The museum environment itself also demands specific competencies of the guides. Guides must lead a group through the museum in which other visitors wander around and in which valuable objects are on display and often several tours take place at the same time. For that reason, museum guides explained the importance of keeping track of the group, the situation, and the time. They must ask themselves several questions: Is everybody following? Can all the students see the object? Is the group bothering other visitors? Is there another guide at the object I want to discuss? And, most important, are the objects being put at risk? Therefore, awareness of the situation and positioning yourself and the group in front of the objects are important aspects of managing the group in an orderly fashion. While discussing this topic, most interviewees mentioned that you need to be flexible in order to adjust your tour to all the unexpected situations that can arise – especially in large museums with many visitors.

The time available for a tour – usually 60–90 min – demands good time management. Educator Madeline expressed, ‘you have one hour. The next group is waiting for you, but your current group should have the feeling that they really learned something, while having a relaxed tour. You should be very competent in leading the group’.

Communication skills

Interviewees stated that excellent communication skills are crucial for guides. As expressed by educator Mildred: ‘You should be able to play with language, and notice when and how to phrase something differently. If you only have one way of communicating, there will come a moment when you just don't know what to say’. Adding to this, guide Liz explained, ‘you need to be skilled in conversation techniques. You should know how to start a conversation, keep it going, and know which questions you should ask to enrich the discussion’.

When guides described how they communicate with students, they used words such as humor, exciting, and provocative. These terms indicate that the tour should be interesting, lively, and rouse students’ curiosity. Therefore, guides need to have a rich vocabulary, an excellent command of language, and should be able to adjust their language and word usage to suit students of different ages and capacities. All interviewees stated that it is essential that you speak clearly and in a lively way and listen carefully in order to react appropriately.

Some of the guides compared their job to acting or performing. For example, to make a story more animated, guides can play with their intonation, rhythm, timing, mimics, or adopt the role of a ‘historical character’. In this, non-verbal communication (e.g., body language, mimics, posture) plays an important role. The non-verbal cues given by the guide should not contradict what they are saying. Strong non-verbal communication also helps guides to manage the group. For example, by using hand gestures guides can indicate where students should stand, and with eye contact and facial expressions guides can relay messages such as ‘are you still listening?’. Furthermore, interviewees explained that guides should be skilled in reading the non-verbal cues of the students, for example, to notice if they are still interested. Regarding performers or actors, some guides mentioned terms such as authenticity, naturalness, and sincerity. For example, one guide explained that sometimes a thin line exists between acting and overplaying and that this is different for every group.

Knowledge and pedagogy

All interviewees named knowledge as a prerequisite for leading tours. Museum guides need different types of knowledge: knowledge of the collection, the curriculum, the target audience, as well as broader knowledge of art and cultural history. However, most guides acknowledged that it is especially important for you to use your knowledge in a flexible way, and to differentiate between groups, but also within the group. For example, you need knowledge to answer questions, to ask the right questions, make connections between objects, and to tell stories, but your knowledge should not stand in the way of the experiences and the meaning-making process of the visitor. Guides must find a balance between following the prescribed program and building on the interest and questions of the students. For example, guide Frank stated, ‘I think you should also try to be creative. You should dare to wander away from the prescribed program if the situation requires this’. However, interviewees also explained that a guide's role is to structure the museum visit for the students. Therefore, they should be able to create a common thread or follow a program designed by the educators. For example, depending on the goals, there should be an explicit theme during the tour, or the guide should connect the discussed objects.

Guides agreed on the idea that the objects should be the focus of attention during the tour. Guide Giovanni explained, ‘I really try to avoid saying or doing something which makes the artwork only a piece of the scenery. You think ‘Gosh, I am listening to a story, but I could hear this story basically in every room’.’ Guide David explained that looking at objects is a central activity; therefore, you should be able to direct students’ attention because students are not used to looking at an object for a long time. Interviewees mentioned several ways to do this: stimulate students to look carefully, give them specific points to focus on, ask them questions, let them wonder, and ask them to express their thoughts and feelings when referring to the objects. Furthermore, interviewees expressed the importance of stimulating students's meaning-making. Guide Reza elaborated this by comparing his idea of guiding tours in the past and the current way of guiding tours:

People from the ‘old school’ might want to tell a historical narrative with a museum object. I really think, in this postmodern society, this is inappropriate. The best thing you can do is to investigate the different meanings of an object through a dialogue.

In this process, there is an important role for the guides to help the students analyze the objects as pieces of art, as historical sources, or for example, how the objects are presented by the museum.

Professionalism

Although museum guides mostly give tours on their own, they expressed the importance of cooperating with other guides. For example, before the start of a tour, guides talk about the route; they welcome the students and divide them into smaller groups. During the tour, it is important to establish (eye) contact with other guides to communicate about the time you still need to discuss an object, for instance. Guides should also stay in contact with the security guards. Usually, groups of students are accompanied by a teacher or parents. Guides explain that it is useful to give these supervisors a role during the tour, for example, by asking them to make sure everybody is following the group.

Professional development was a topic in which guides and educators’ ideas slightly differed. Educator Sophie explained, ‘an important issue is learning. I believe you need a certain attitude and willingness to keep learning, otherwise you get stuck in your fixed mindset’. A certain eagerness for further learning, reflecting on one's own practice, and being open to feedback from other guides and educators were named as important attitudes for further development of tour-guiding skills and competencies. However, some guides explained that there is not always enough time to reflect thoroughly and feedback moments organized by the museums are limited.

The educators also stressed the importance of commitment to the museum, and even more important, the awareness that you represent the museum and should act accordingly. For example, guides should be polite, welcoming, positive, and enthusiast about the museum; they must dress properly and have a neat appearance. Most guides acknowledged the latter points; however, they also stated that for them commitment to the museum was a less central issue.

Differences between teaching in art museums and history museums

Most guides had difficulties explaining the differences between guiding tours in art museums and guiding tours in history museums. One guide explained that she sees herself more as a facilitator who adjusts to the individuals in the group, rather than adjusting to the teaching environment. Another guide stated:

It [art] is a different field. History is more about knowledge, it is also about interpretations. It isn't completely objective, of course, but still I would say it is more objective than art. You look less with an esthetic eye towards an object if the focus is on history. John

Several guides tried to explain the difference by arguing that if you approach the object as a piece of art, the focus is more on the interpretation and on seeing how the object is made, for example. By contrast, a historical approach is often directed more towards the context and storytelling. Guide Suzanna, who studied history, was very explicit about the difference:

Yes, you need different skills. I like art museums, but for me it is too much about what people think about an object. I just don't like such an approach; it makes me uncomfortable … I also think I won't have any added value because I can't add knowledge.

Overall, the main differences appear to be competencies in the category knowledge and pedagogy, for example, the specific content knowledge you should have and how to approach an object.

Based upon the interviews, we created a list of 44 competencies – organized into four areas. Three of the competencies were labeled as competencies specific for giving tours in art museums: stimulating an open attitude, limiting the input of your own knowledge, and looking carefully at art. One competency was specific to history museums and described that guides should be able to use objects as a window, illustration, or example of a certain period in time. In the following section, we present the results of the validation of the list and the definitive list of competencies.

Results of Delphi study

Our Delphi study had two rounds. We will briefly discuss the competencies that were accepted and rejected and the adjustments we made to the other competencies. When relevant, we added the scores of the Delphi study in brackets. The complete list of the ratings on the relevance and clarity of the formulation in both rounds can be obtained from the first author.

Of the 44 competencies, 34 were accepted. These competencies had mean scores between 4.31 and 4.88 on the criterion relevance of the competency. In some cases, we made minor adjustments to the formulation. The competency be open for deviating thoughts was accepted but was completely re-written due to a low score on the clearness of the formulation (3.38). Experts stated that the initial description was too negative. Therefore, this competency became stimulate an open attitude in the students. This competency also moved from area 1 to area 3, knowledge and pedagogy. Experts argued that this competency has more to do with the pedagogical skills of a guide than with skills that guides need to interact with the group. Originally, this competency was designated for art museums, but in the second round the label was removed, because it was evaluated as relevant for both types of museums.

Two competencies were rejected and removed from the second round of the questionnaire. Experts judged the competency commitment to the museum (mean 3.85) of less importance because most guides are freelancers and are not necessarily part of the organization. The competency limiting the use of your knowledge (mean 3.73) was also rejected; most experts argued that this competency, designated for art museums, is not necessary and even nonsensical. However, they acknowledged that it is important for guides to find a balance between interaction and telling stories or facts about the objects. Some of the experts remarked that this competency focused too much on a particular style of guiding tours – tours that use Visual Thinking Strategies (VTS), for example. In these type of tours, guides limit their input to a set of standard questions, without giving additional information. Most experts stated the importance of museum guides adding their knowledge to the discussions during the museum tour.

We merged two pairs of competencies. The competency empathy was added to the description of the competency interest in the group because the experts felt that bonding with the group and welcoming them was more or less a part of the same competency. We also merged pedagogical use of objects (dedicated to the use of objects) with stimulate students to look carefully because experts explained that these two descriptions were not distinct enough.

Five competencies were divided into 10 separated competencies. In the first description, the competency about knowledge contained both content knowledge and knowledge about the curriculum; in the second round, this competency was divided in two. The competency use of knowledge of the collection originally contained a remark about creating a common thread. In the second round, we formed two separate competencies because most experts stated that these are two important and distinct competencies. The description of the competency reliability also contained a statement about flexibility, but in the second round, these were also split for the same reasons. Furthermore, we divided cooperating with colleagues and security. The experts remarked that these are very different types of collaboration. For example, with other guides you develop a route strategy, whereas with security you mainly address safety issues regarding the objects.

The competency pedagogical use of historical objects that was originally designated for history museums was divided into the competencies, using objects for critical analyses and using objects as a window. Because the experts’ ratings indicated that these competencies are also relevant for teaching in art museums, the label was removed. Over 50% of the experts rated the competency as relevant for both museum types.

Round 2

In the second round of the Delphi study, all 45 competencies were validated as relevant competencies for museum guides in both art and history museums. The competencies had mean scores between 3.92 and 4.92. Only minor adjustments were made after remarks about the formulation of some competencies. The ratings on the clearness of the formulation ranged from 4.11 to 4.96. Table 1 shows the final list of competencies that were validated in the Delphi study.

Conclusions and discussion

This study explored which competencies professional museum guides need in order to lead tours of school groups in art and history museums. We compiled a list of 45 competencies, organized into four main areas, that were validated by museum education experts as important competencies for museum guides in both art and history museums. The four main areas are (1) handling the group within the museum environment, (2) communication skills, (3) knowledge and pedagogy, and (4) professionalism.

Although the context of the learning environment is important for teaching (Falk and Dierking 2000), the results from this study seem to suggest that the competencies museum guides need in art museums compared to history museums do not significantly differ. Originally, we formulated four museum-specific competencies, all belonging to knowledge and pedagogy. However, all the competencies we presented in our study were deemed relevant for guides in both types of museums. An explanation might be that both museum types show objects that are the result of human culture. Therefore, they partly have a comparable collection; some museums also combine art and history. Another explanation might be that we defined our competencies quite broadly. For example, the knowledge guides should have in both types of museums differs, but we formulated the knowledge competency in general terms. The differences can be found in the way objects are used for teaching. In history museums, guides focus more on the context and historical narrative; whereas in art museums, the focus is initially on the object itself (e.g., the shapes, colors, and textures of a painting), which demands a different approach to the objects.

If we compare our list of competencies with existing studies on museum guides, we see similarities and some differences. One of the key competencies for guides seems to be flexibility. For example, Tran and King (2007), considered the concept of diversity ‘to imbue each of their six components of knowledge’ (138). With this, they mean that a key competency for educators is to adjust to different contexts, people, and objects they encounter – stated more simply, to be flexible.

Compared to the competency statement of Bleick (1979), our list focuses somewhat more on the interaction and specific learning activities that stimulate one's own meaning making instead of knowledge transfer. The competencies communication and interacting with the group are quite similar. The main differences between our profile and Albertijn and Hoefnagels (2012) can be seen in the specific pedagogical competencies, such as contextualizing objects and critically analyzing (representations of) objects. Albertijn and Hoefnagels focused less on the specific use of museum artifacts because their profile is aimed at educators in the broader field of cultural education.

The main difference between our profile and the knowledge framework of Tran and King (2007) is that we described ours in terms of observable behavior. Furthermore, one of the six components of their framework is dedicated to learning theories, whereas our list lacks such an explicit role. For example, during the interviews, guides did not spontaneously mention knowledge of learning theories, such as constructivism. When they were asked about it, most guides explained they do not see knowledge of learning theories as an essential competency for guiding tours because educators are responsible for writing the tour programs.

The list of competencies must be considered as a list of general competencies, focusing on teaching in art and history museums. Museums may pick their own focus points. Especially in the category of knowledge and pedagogy, differences between museums may exist. Hence, a further study could focus on the specific pedagogies that fit different types of art and history museums.

As already noted by Tran (2008) and discussed in the interviews, continuing education is important; however, educators and guides do not completely agree on the terms. Some guides explained that there is not always enough time to reflect thoroughly, and feedback moments organized by the museums are limited, which might be even more the case for volunteer guides. For our next study, we intend to use the list of competencies to develop a self-evaluation instrument that helps guides to reflect on their own practices. Besides using the list of competencies for this purpose, the list of competencies can also be used to develop training programs for new museum guides or for the selection process of museum guide applicants.

Acknowledgements

We thank all the museum guides and educators for their time and contribution.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors

Mark Schep is a Master of Science in Social Psychology and Master of Arts in History Education at the University of Utrecht. Currently he is a Ph.D. candidate at the University of Amsterdam on the research project Museum guide: a profession in its own right. In this project Schep examines which competencies museum guides should have when they give guided tours to school groups, and if and how observation instruments and self-evaluation instruments can help the further professionalization of museum tour guiding.

Carla van Boxtel is professor of History Education at the Research Institute of Child Development and Education and the Amsterdam School for History, University of Amsterdam. Together with Julia Noordegraaf, she is the lead researcher for the research project Museum guide: a profession in its own right. Her main research interest is the learning and teaching of history in schools and museums, with a focus on the improvement of students' historical reasoning. She has published in international volumes and peer-reviewed journals, such as Cognition and Instruction, Journal of Curriculum Studies and Educational Psychology Review.

Julia Noordegraaf is professor of Digital Heritage and director of the Amsterdam Centre for Cultural Heritage and Identity at the University of Amsterdam. Her research focuses on the preservation and reuse of audiovisual and cultural heritage. She has published, amongst others, the monograph Strategies of Display (2004/2012) and, as principal editor, Preserving and Exhibiting Media Art (2013). Noordegraaf currently leads research projects on the conservation of digital art and on the reuse of digital heritage in data-driven historical research. She acts as board member for Media Studies in CLARIAH, the national infrastructure for digital humanities research, funded by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research, NWO.

ORCID

Mark Schep http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8713-4452

Additional information

Funding

This article is one of the outcomes generated from the project Museum guide: a profession in its own right (Rondleiden is een vak) funded by Fonds 21 and the Mondriaan Fund.

Notes

1. In the field of museum education, several terms are used to describe the facilitators of a museum visit, for example, museum docents , tour guides, museum educators, gallery educators, interpreters, facilitators and museum guides. In this study, we use the term (museum) guide to refer to persons who are paid to engage in daily face-to-face interactions with a group and lead a group through the museum.

2. The Rijksmuseum, the Van Gogh Museum, and the Stedelijk Museum (all located in Amsterdam) are partners in this research project.

Appendix A. Participants.

Table A1. Characteristics of interviewees.

Name	Number of Museums	Gender	Focus on	Education	Experience	Age
Educators
Sophie	1	Female	Art	3/3	7	30s
Mildred	1	Female	Art/history	3*	6	40s
Madeline	1	Female	Art/history	3/3	5	50s
Museum guides
Rebecca	9	Female	Art/history	3	19	49
Lucy	2	Female	Art	2	13	43
Mary	3	Female	History	3	8	42
Roselyn	4	Female	Art/history	3	10	39
Suzanna	4	Female	History	1	7	43
Frank	3	Male	Art	3*	3	27
John	4	Male	Art/History	2/3	6	57
Liz	3	Female	Art	3	5	26
Emma	2	Female	Art/history	2/3	10	49
David	4	Male	History	1/3/3	10	36
Eliza	1	Female	Art	2	2	27
April	3	Female	Art/history	2/3	5	30
Giovanni	2	Male	Art	3	3	31
Joanna	1	Female	Art	3	2	29
Emily	1	Female	History	3	3	28
Reza	3	Male	History	3*	3	27
	M = 3	F = 11			M = 6,8	M = 36,4

Note: Level of education: 1 = University of Applied science, Teacher Education, 2 = University of Applied Sciene (bachelor degree), Art Academy, 3 = University Master's degree. * = Teacher Education Masters.

Appendix B. Results of Delphi study.

Table B1. Experts ratings for ‘relevance’ of competencies area 1, handling the group within the museum environment.

No.	Competency	Round 1				Round 2
		Mean	SD	Loa	Skew	Mean	SD	Loa	Skew
1	Open attitude	4.77	.514	96.2	−2.260	4.85	.368	100	−2.038
2	Making an immediate rapport	4.50	.762	92.3	−1.766	4.58	.643	92.3	−1.286
3	Assessing the group	4.65	.562	96.2	−1.403	4.85	.368	100	−2.038
4	Interest in the group	4.69	.549	96.2	−1.645	4.73	.533	96.2	−1.925
A	Empathy	4.46	.647	92.3	−.807
5	Creating a safe environment	4.69	.549	96.2	−1.645	4.81	.402	100	−1.659
6	Creating a positive and relaxed atmosphere	4.42	.758	84.6	−.915	4.46	.706	88.5	−.932
7	Enthusiasm and energetic	4.46	.706	96.2	−1.701	4.69	.549	96.2	−1.645
8	Sensitivity to the group dynamics	4.58	.578	96.2	−.997	4.60	.500	100	−.435
9	Coping with resistance	4.38	.571	96.2	−.206	4.46	.582	96.2	−.500
10	Taking the lead	4.73	.452	100	−1.105	4.92	.277	100	−.3298
11	Protecting the objects	4.38	.852	84.6	−1.290	4.42	.809	88.5	−1.452
12	Time management	4.35	.562	96.2	−.065	4.50	.583	96.2	−.656
13	Awareness of the environment and positioning	4.50	.583	96.2	−.656	4.62	.571	96.2	−1.189
14	Keeping an overview	4.73	.452	100	−1.105	4.73	.452	100	−1.105

Note: M = Mean score, SD = Standard deviation, Loa = Level of agreement, Skew = Skewness.

Table B2. Experts ratings for ‘relevance’ of competencies area 2, communication skills.

No.	Competency	Round 1				Round 2
		Mean	SD	Loa	Skew	Mean	SD	Loa	Skew
15	Clear talk	4.88	.326	100	−2.558	4.96	.196	100	−5.099
16	Vocalization and expression	4.65	.562	96.2	−1.403	4.64	.490	100	−.621
17	Careful listening	4.56	.712	84.6	−1.359	4.65	.629	92	−1.683
18	Linguistic skills and use of language	4.46	.582	96.2	−.500	4.42	.643	92	−.667
19	Conversation techniques	4.65	.562	96.2	−1.403	4.69	.549	96	−1.645
20	Nonverbal communication	4.35	.629	92.3	−.408	4.38	.571	96	−.206
21	Awareness of one's own communication	4.42	.578	96.2	−.351	4.34	.562	96	−.065

Note: M = Mean score, SD = Standard deviation, Loa = Level of agreement, Skew = Skewness.

Table B3. Experts ratings for ‘relevance’ of competencies area 3, knowledge and pedagogy.

No.	Competency	Round 1				Round 2
		Mean	SD	Loa	Skew	M	SD	Loa	Skew
22	Use of knowledge	4.73	.533	96.2	−1.925	4.77	.430	100	−1.358
B	Limiting use of knowledge	3.73	1.116	61.5	−.925	…	…	…	…
23	Use of curricular knowledge	…	…	…	…	4.15	.834	73	−.308
24	Use of knowledge of the collection	4.62	.571	96.2	−1.189	4.69	.549	96	−.308
25	Creating a common thread	…	…	…	…	4.44	.712	88	−.902
26	Stimulate an open attitude	4.35	.745	84.6	−.680	4.31	.679	88	−.471
27	Explaining	4.88	.326	100	−2.558	4.81	.402	100	−1.659
28	Storytelling	4.43	.590	95.6	−.454	4.62	.496	100	−.504
29	Asking Questions	4.77	.430	100	+1.358	4.85	.464	96	−3.217
30	Stimulate student to look carefully	4.77	.514	96.2	−2.260	4.50	.648	92	−.955
C	Pedagogical use of objects	4.50	.583	96.2	−.656
31	Contextualizing objects	4.15	.834	80.2	−.756	4.31	.617	92	−.287
32	Using objects as a window	4.58	.643	92.3	−1.286	4.62	.496	100	.504
33	Using objects for critical analyses	4.58	.643	92.3	−1.286	3.92	.862	68	−.262
34	Usage of learning activities	4.31	.928	88.5	−1.985	4.54	.508	100	−.164
35	Balance between explaining and interaction	4.38	.941	88.5	−2.132	4.54	.508	100	−.164

Note: M = Mean score, SD = Standard deviation, Loa = Level of agreement, Skew = Skewness.

Table B4. Experts ratings for ‘relevance’ of competencies area 4, professionalization.

No.	Competency	Round 1				Round 2
		Mean	SD	Loa	Skew	Mean	SD	Loa	Skew
36	Cooperation with other guides	4.42	.578	96.2	−.351	4.54	.508	100	−.164
37	Cooperation with security guards	…	…	…	…	4.35	.562	96	−.065
38	Cooperation with teachers	4.44	.651	92.0	−.747	4.50	.583	96	−.656
39	Reliability	4.73	.452	100	−1.105	4.92	.272	100	−.373
40	Flexibility	…	…	…	…	4.61	.571	96	−1.189
41	Represent the museum	4.73	.452	100	−1.105	4.77	.514	96	−2.260
42	Reflecting	4.60	.577	96.0	−1.130	4.76	.436	100	−1.297
43	Giving and receiving feedback	4.58	.578	96.2	−.997	4.65	.485	100	−.687
44	Professional development	4.35	.846	84.6	−1.192	4.48	.585	96	−.592
D	Commitment to the organization	3.85	.834	61.5	3.08	…	…	…	…
45	Contribute to improving tours	4.31	.928	88,5	−1.98	4.50	.707	96	−1.838

Note: M = Mean score, SD = Standard deviation, Loa = Level of agreement, Skew = Skewness.

Table B5. Experts ratings for ‘clearness of the formulation’ of competencies area 1, handling the group within the museum environment.

No.	Competency	Round 1			Round 2
		Mean	SD	Loa	Mean	SD	Loa
1	Open attitude	4.42	.902	88.5	4.56	.711	88.0
2	Making an immediate rapport	4.23	.992	76.9	4.69	.549	96.2
3	Assessing the group	4.46	.582	96.2	4.61	.496	100
4	Interest in the group	4.77	.514	96.2	4.80	.401	100
A	Empathy	4.38	.752	84.6
5	Creating a safe environment	4.62	.804	80.8	4.38	.697	88.5
6	Creating a positive and relaxed atmosphere	4.42	.697	96.2	4.76	.429	100
7	Enthusiasm and energetic	4.19	.902	88.5	4.76	.514	96.2
8	Sensitivity to the group dynamics	3.38	1.201	80.8	4.53	.617	92.3
9	Coping with resistance	4.12	1.143	76.9	4.61	.760	92.3
10	Taking the lead	4.50	.949	84.6	4.53	.803	88.5
11	Protecting the objects	4.65	.629	92.3	4.76	.429	100
12	Time management	4.58	.703	96.2	4.84	.367	100
13	Awareness of the environment and positioning	4.46	.811	88.5	4.84	.637	100
14	Keeping an overview	4.69	.618	92.3	4.38	1.022	80.8

Note: M = Mean score, SD = Standard deviation, Loa = Level of agreement.

Table B6. Experts ratings for ‘clearness of the formulation’ of competencies area 2, communication skills.

No.	Competency	Round 1			Round 2
		Mean	SD	Loa	Mean	SD	Loa
15	Clear talk	4.46	.989	84.6	4.84	.367	100
16	Vocalization and expression	4.46	.811	88.5	4.65	.745	92.3
17	Careful listening	4.69	.679	96.2	4.80	.401	100
18	Linguistic skills and use of language	4.81	.402	100	4.88	.325	100
19	Conversation techniques	4.52	.823	88.0	4.69	.679	96.2
20	Nonverbal communication	3.96	1.183	65.4	4.11	.863	76.9
21	Awareness of one's own communication	4.38	1.061	80.8	4.53	.904	88.5

Note: M = Mean score, SD = Standard deviation, Loa = Level of agreement.

Table B7. Experts ratings for ‘clearness of the formulation’ of competencies area 3, knowledge and pedagogy.

No.	Competency	Round 1			Round 2
		Mean	SD	Loa	Mean	SD	Loa
22	Use of knowledge	3.96	1.038	73.1	4.42	.643	92.3
B	Limiting use of knowledge	3.73	1.458	61.5	…	…	…
23	Use of curricular knowledge	…	…	…	4.42	.702	88.5
24	Use of knowledge of the collection	4.58	.703	96.2	4.42	.757	92.3
25	Creating a common thread	…	…	…	4.32	.945	84.0
26	Stimulate an open attitude	3.38	1.235	53.8	4.15	.833	80.8
27	Explaining	4.46	.905	88.5	4.73	.533	96.2
28	Storytelling	4.52	.846	86.9	4.84	.464	96.2
29	Asking Questions	4.12	1.033	76.9	4.23	.697	88.5
30	Stimulate student to look carefully	4.60	.707	88.0	4.53	.770	92
C	Pedagogical use of objects	4.27	1.079	69.2
31	Contextualizing objects	4.54	.811	88.5	4.46	.706	88.5
32	Using objects as a window	4.73	.533	96.2	4.65	.485	100
33	Using objects for critical analyses	4.73	.533	96.2	4.44	.869	92
34	Usage of learning activities	4.27	1.079	76.9	4.38	.706	88.5
35	Balance between explaining and interaction	3.62	1.299	53.8	4.15	.862	80.8

Note: M = Mean score, SD = Standard deviation, Loa = Level of agreement.

Table B8. Experts ratings for ‘clearness of the formulation’ of competencies area 4, professionalization.

		Round 1			Round 2
No.	Competency	Mean	SD	Loa	Mean	SD	Loa
36	Cooperation with other guides	4.54	.859	84.6	4.80	.633	96.2
37	Cooperation with security guards	…	…	…	4.88	.325	100
38	Cooperation with teachers	4.42	.987	84.6	4.88	.325	100
39	Reliability	4.69	.618	92.3	5.00	.000	100
40	Flexibility	…	…	…	4.66	.761	91.7
41	Represent the museum	4.92	.272	100	4.92	.271	100
42	Reflecting on own performance	4.69	.618	92.3	4.88	.431	96.2
43	Giving and receiving feedback	4.73	.667	96.2	4.92	.217	100
44	Professional development	4.77	.652	96.2	4.96	.196	100
D	Commitment to the organization	4.73	.533	96.2	…	…	…
45	Contribute to improving tours	4.23	1.032	80.8	4.57	.757	92.3

Note: M = Mean score, SD = Standard deviation, Loa = Level of agreement.