Advertisement

Developing & using interaction geography in a museum

  • Ben Rydal Shapiro
  • Rogers P. Hall
  • David A. Owens
Article

Abstract

There are many approaches that support studies of learning in relation to the physical environment, people’s interaction with one another, or people’s movement. However, what these approaches achieve in granularity of description, they tend to lose in synthesis and integration, and to date, there are not effective methods and concepts to study learning in relation to all of these dimensions simultaneously. This paper outlines our development and use of a new approach to describing, representing, and interpreting people’s interaction as they move within and across physical environments. We call this approach interaction geography. It provides a more integrative and multi-scalar way to characterize people’s interaction and movement in relation to the physical environment and is particularly relevant to learning research and professional design practice in informal learning settings. The first part of this paper illustrates our development and use of interaction geography to study visitor engagement in a cultural heritage museum. In particular, we illustrate Mondrian Transcription, a method to map people’s movement and conversation over space and time, and the Interaction Geography Slicer (IGS), a dynamic visualization tool that supports new forms of interaction and multi-modal analysis. The second part of the paper describes one team of museum educators, curators, archivists, and exhibit designers using a computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) environment based on interaction geography. We show how this environment used interaction geography to disrupt the conventional views of visitor engagement and learning that museum professionals hold and then reframe these disruptions to enable museum professionals to perceive visitor engagement and learning in innovative ways that potentially support their future design decisions. We conclude the paper by discussing how this work may serve as a blueprint to guide future efforts to expand interaction geography in ways that explore new collaborations across the fields of education, information visualization, architecture, and the arts.

Keywords

Interaction geography Interaction analysis Time geography Computer-supported collaborative learning Learning sciences Museum studies Information visualization Architecture 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work is made possible by wonderful collaborations with our museum partners, many generous families and visitors participating in this research, the Space, Learning & Mobility Lab at Vanderbilt University, Leona Schauble, and the National Science Foundation, who supports this work through the Bridging Learning in Urban Extended Spaces (BLUES) Project. In addition, we would like to thank Brette Garner, Lara Heiberger, Danielle Keifert, and others from the Interaction Analysis Lab at Vanderbilt, Mark Shapiro and the Processing Foundation for software development advice and inspiration, and Kären Wieckert, and Barbara and Steve Magie for important and timely feedback throughout this project.

References

  1. Azevedo, F. S. (2013). The Tailored Practice of Hobbies and Its Implication for the Design of Interest Driven Learning Environments. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 22(3), 462–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Becker, H. (2007). Telling About Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  3. Cleveland, B. (2009). Equitable pedagogical spaces: Teaching and learning environments that support personalisation of the learning experience. Critical and Creative Thinking: The Australasian Journal of Philosophy in Education, 17(2), 59–76.Google Scholar
  4. Cleveland, B., & Fisher, K. (2013). The evaluation of physical learning environments: a critical review of the literature. Learning Environments Research, 17, 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cress, U. (2008). The need for considering multilevel analysis in CSCL research—An appeal for the use of more advanced statistical methods. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3(1), 69–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cress, U., Stahl, G., Ludvigsen, S., & Law, N. (2015). The core features of CSCL: Social situation, collaborative knowledge processes and their design. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 10(2), 109–116.Google Scholar
  8. Cresswell, T. (2010). Towards a politics of mobility. Environment and planning D: society and space, 28(1), 17–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Crowley, K., & Jacobs, M. (2002). Building islands of expertise in everyday family activity. In G. Leinhardt, K. Crowley, & K. Knutson (Eds.), Learning conversations in museums (pp. 333–356). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  10. Davidsen, J., & Ryberg, T. (2017). “This is the size of one meter”: Children’s bodily-material collaboration. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 12(1), 65–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Derry, S. J., Pea, R., Barron, B., Engle, R., Erickson, F., Goldman, R., Hall, R., Koschmann, T., Lemke, J., Sherin, M., & Sherin, B. (2010). Conducting video research in the learning sciences: Guidance on selection, analysis, technology, and ethics. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19, 1–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ellenbogen, K. M., Luke, J. J., & Dierking, L. D. (2004). Family learning research in museums: An emerging disciplinary matrix? Science Education, 88(S1), S48–S58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Erickson, F. (2004). Talk and social theory: Ecologies of speaking and listening in everyday life. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  14. Erickson, F. (2007). Ways of seeing video: Towards a phenomenology of viewing minimally edited footage. In R. Goldman, R. Pea, S. Barron, & S. Derry (Eds.), Video research in the learning sciences (pp. 145–155). 732). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associate Publishers.Google Scholar
  15. Escott, C., Merritt, G., & MacEwan, W. (2004). I saw the light: The story of Hank Williams. New York: Back Bay Books.Google Scholar
  16. Flood, V. J., Neff, M., & Abrahamson, D. (2015). Boundary interactions: Resolving interdisciplinary collaboration challenges using digitized embodied performances. In CSCL’15: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference for Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (Vol. 1, pp. 94–100). Gothenburg: The International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
  17. Fry, B. J. (2004). Computational information design. Ph.D. Dissertation. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  18. Gamoran Sherin, M., & Van Es, E. A. (2009). Effects of video club participation on teachers' professional vision. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(1), 20–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Goodwin, C. (1994). Professional vision. American Anthropologist, 96(3), 606–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hagerstrand, T. (1970). What about people in regional science? Papers in Regional Science, 24(1), 6–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hall, E. T. (1966). The hidden dimension, 1st ed. New York: Doubleday & Co.Google Scholar
  22. Hall, R., & Stevens, R. (2015). Interaction analysis approaches to knowledge in use. In A. A. diSessa, M. Levin, & J. S. Brown (Eds.), Knowledge and interaction: A synthetic agenda for the learning sciences (pp. 72–108). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Hall, R., Marin, A., Taylor, K. H., Silvis, D., Pinkhard, N. & Enyedy, N. (2017). Can we use location-aware tools and practices to create a new genre of learning on the move (LoM)? Discussion Session at the 47th Annual Meeting of the Jean Piaget Society, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  24. Ingold, T. (2007). Lines: A Brief History. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. Ito, M., et al. (2009). Hanging Out, Messing Around, and Geeking Out: Kids Living and Learning with New Media. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  26. Johansson, E., Lindwall, O., & Rystedt, H. (2017). Experiences, appearances, and interprofessional training: The instructional use of video in post-simulation debriefings. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 12(1), 91–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(1), 39–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kendon, A. (1990). Spatial organization in social encounters: The F-formation system. Conducting interaction: Patterns of behavior in focused encounters, pp. 209–238.Google Scholar
  29. Kwan, M., & Lee, J. (2003). Geovisualization of Human Activity Patterns Using 3D GIS: A Time-Geographic Approach. In M. F. Goodchild & D. G. Janelle (Eds.), Spatially Integrated Social Science: Examples in Best Practice, Chapter 3. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Lave, J., Murtaugh, M., & de la Rocha, O. (1984). The dialectics of arithmetic in grocery shopping. In B. Rogoff & J. Lave (Eds.), Everyday cognition: Its development in social context (pp. 67–94). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Leander, K. (2002). Locating Latanya: The situated production of identity artifacts in classroom interaction. Research in the Teaching of English, 37(2), 198–250.Google Scholar
  32. Lemke, J. L. (2000). Across the scales of time: Artifacts, activities, and meanings in ecosocial systems. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 7(4), 273–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ligorio, M. B., & Ritella, G. (2010). The collaborative construction of chronotopes during computer-supported collaborative professional tasks. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5(4), 433–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ludvigsen, S., Cress, U., Law, N., Rosé, C. P., & Stahl G. (2016) Collaboration scripts and scaffolding. International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 11(4), 381–385.Google Scholar
  35. Lymer, G., Ivarsson, J., & Lindwall, O. (2009). Contrasting the use of tools for presentation and critique: Some 779 cases from architectural education. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 780, 4(4), 423–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ma, J. Y., & Munter, C. (2014). The Spatial Production of Learning Opportunities in Skateboard Parks. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 21(3), 238–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Monahan, T. (2002). Flexible space and built pedagogy: Emerging IT embodiments. Inventio, 4(1), 1–19.Google Scholar
  38. Marin, Ananda M. (2013). Learning to Attend and Observe: Parent-child Meaning Making in the Natural World. Ph.D. Dissertation. Northwestern University.Google Scholar
  39. Nagel T., Klerkx J., Vande Moere A., Duval E. (2013) Unfolding – A library for interactive maps. In: Holzinger A., Ziefle M., Hitz M., Debevc M. (eds) Human Factors in Computing and Informatics. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 7946, pp. 497–513). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.Google Scholar
  40. Peponis, J., Zimring, C., & Choi, Y. K. (1990). Finding the Building in Wayfinding. Environment and Behavior, 22(5), 555–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Peppler, K. (Ed.). (2017). Encyclopedia of out-of-school learning (Two-volume set). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  42. Reas, Casey and Fry, Ben. (2007). Processing: a programming handbook for visual designers and artists. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  43. Rowe, D., & Neitzel, C. (2010). Interest and Agency in 2 and 3 Year Olds' Participation in Emergent Writing. Reading Research Quarterly, 45(2), 169–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Schauble, L., Leinhardt, G., & Martin, L. (1997). A framework for organizing a cumulative research agenda in informal learning contexts. Journal of Museum Education, 22, 3–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Scollon, R. (2008) Geographies of discourse: Action across layered spaces, paper for the ‘Space interaction discourse’ conference, Aalborg University, 12-14 November.Google Scholar
  46. Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. W. (2003). Discourses in place: Language in the material world. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Scott-Webber, L. (2004). InSync: Environment Behavior Research and the Design of Learning Spaces. Ann Arbor: Society for College and University Planning.Google Scholar
  48. Shapiro, B.R. (2017a). Using Space Time Visualization in Learning Environment Design. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA '17). ACM, Denver, CO, USA (pp. 178–183).Google Scholar
  49. Shapiro, B.R. (2017b). Exploring the Use of Interaction Geography to Advance Post-Occupancy Evaluation. In Proceedings of the 1st annual Transitions Symposium. The University of Melbourne’s Innovative Learning Environments and Teacher Change (ILETC) Project, 2016–2019. Melbourne School of Design, University of Melbourne.Google Scholar
  50. Shapiro, B.R., and Hall, R. (2017). Making Engagement Visible: The Use of Mondrian Transcripts in a Museum. In CSCL’17: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference for Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, (Vol. 1, pp. 33–40). Philadelphia: International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
  51. Shapiro, B.R. & Pearman II, Francis A. (2017). Using the Interaction Geography Slicer to Visualize New York City Stop & Frisk. In Proceedings of the IEEE VIS 2017 Arts Program, VISAP’17. Phoenix, AZ.Google Scholar
  52. Sheller, M., & Urry, J. (2006). The new mobilities paradigm. Environment and Planning A, 38(2), 207–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Stahl, G. (2017). Group practices: A new way of viewing CSCL. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 12(1), 113–126.Google Scholar
  54. Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D. (2006). Computer-supported collaborative learning: An historical perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
  55. Stahl, G., Ludvigsen, S., Law, N., & Cress, U. (2014). CSCL artifacts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning., 9(3), 237–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Stasko, J., Görg, C., & Liu, Z. (2008). Jigsaw: Supporting Investigative Analysis through Interactive Visualization. Information Visualization, 7(2), 118–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Steier, R. (2014). Posing the question: Visitor posing as embodied interpretation in an art museum. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 21(2), 148–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Stevens, R., & Hall, R. (1997). Seeing the Tornado: how VideoTraces mediate visitor understandings of (natural?) spectacles in a science museum. Science Education, 81(6), 735–747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Suthers, D. D., Dwyer, N., Medina, R., & Vatrapu, R. (2010). A framework for conceptualizing, representing, and analyzing distributed interaction. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5(1), 5–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Taylor, K. H., & Hall, R. (2013). Counter-mapping the neighborhood on bicycles: Mobilizing youth to reimagine the city. Technology. Knowledge and Learning, 18(1–2), 65–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Taylor, K. H. (2017). Learning along lines: Locative literacies for reading and writing the city. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 26(0), 1–42.Google Scholar
  62. Tzortzi, K. (2014). Movement in museums: mediating between museum intent and visitor experience. Museum Management and Curatorship, 29(4), 327–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Venturini, T., Jensen, P., & Latour, B. (2015). Fill in the Gap: A New Alliance for Social and Natural Sciences. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 18(2), 11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Wineman, J., Peponis, J., & Dalton, R. (2006). Exploring, Engaging, Understanding in Museums. Paper presented at the Space Syntax and Spatial Cognition Workshop: Spatial Cognition '06, Universität Bremen, Bremen.Google Scholar
  65. Zahn, C., Krauskopf, K., Hesse, F. W., & Pea, R. (2012). How to improve collaborative learning with video tools in the classroom? Social vs. cognitive guidance for student teams. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 7(2), 259–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Zimring, C. M., & Reizenstein, J. E. (1980). Post-occupancy evaluation: An overview. Environment and Behavior, 12, 429–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society of the Learning Sciences, Inc. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ben Rydal Shapiro
    • 1
  • Rogers P. Hall
    • 1
  • David A. Owens
    • 1
  1. 1.The Space, Learning & Mobility Lab at Vanderbilt UniversityNashvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations