Designing for Hybrid Learning Environments in a Science Museum: Inter-professional Conceptualisations of Space

  • Alfredo JornetEmail author
  • Cecilie Flo Jahreie
Part of the Human–Computer Interaction Series book series (HCIS)


This article examines conceptualisations of space in the design of hybrid learning environments. Our focus is the relationship between the task of designing a museum exhibition space and the material and conceptual tools that an inter-professional team of researchers, museum curators and exhibition designers take up, interpret and transform in order to make them serve the team’s purpose. Using Cultural-Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) as a theoretical lens, our purpose is to understand how the tools mediate the task. Understanding the relationship between the physical space and social interaction has become a central concern in the design of hybrid learning environments, i.e. spaces where digital and physical elements are combined to foster immersive learning experiences. Research has focused on exploring the ways users experience designed spaces. However, little attention has been paid to how designers negotiate conceptualisations of space in the design process.

Using video recordings of the interactions of an inter-professional team, we explore how material and conceptual tools mediate the conceptualisations of space in the design of a hybrid learning environment in a science museum. In this chapter, we discuss how the notion of transparency and the prototype of a motion-sensing device became powerful tools in the design of hybrid learning environments. We also discuss how the relationship between the tools and the task has to be understood based on the object-motives of each of the different professional practices. It is argued that a design strategy that includes an understanding of the design process as a cultural-historical process allows for innovative implementations in hybrid learning environments.


Heat Pump Design Work Digital Device Science Museum Mixed Reality 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Bannon, L., Benford, S., Bowers, J., & Heath, C. (2005). Hybrid design creates innovative museum experiences. Communications of the ACM, 48(3), 62–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bell, M. W. (2008). Toward a definition of “Virtual Worlds”. Journal of Virtual Worlds Research 1(1). Retrieved from
  3. Binder, T., De Michelis, G., Ehn, P., Jacucci, G., Linde, P., & Wagner, I. (2011). Design things. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  4. Ciolfi, L. (2004). Understanding spaces as places: Extending interaction design paradigms. Cognition, Technology Work, 6(1), 37–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ciolfi, L., & Bannon, L. (2005). Space, place and the design of technologically-enhanced physical environments. In P. Turner & E. Davenport (Eds.), Spaces, spatiality and technology (Vol. 5, pp. 217–232). Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ciolfi, L., & Bannon, L. (2007). Designing hybrid places: Merging interaction design, ubiquitous technologies and geographies of the museum space. CoDesign, 3(3), 159–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology: A once and a future discipline. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  8. de Freitas, S., Rebolledo-Mendez, G., Liarokapis, F., Magoulas, G., & Poulovassilis, A. (2010). Learning as immersive experiences: Using the four-dimensional framework for designing and evaluating immersive learning experiences in a virtual world. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(1), 69–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dourish, P. (2001). Where the action is: The foundations of embodied interaction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  10. Dourish, P. (2006). Re-space-ing place: “Place” and “space” ten years on. Paper presented at the proceedings of the 2006 20th anniversary conference on computer supported cooperative work, Banff.Google Scholar
  11. Edwards, A., & Kinti, I. (2010). Working relationally at organisational boundaries. Negotiating expertise and identity. In H. Daniels, A. Edwards, Y. Engeström, T. Gallagher, & S. R. Ludvigsen (Eds.), Activity theory in practice. Promoting learning across boundaries and agencies (pp. 126–140). Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Ellis, V. (2008). Boundary transformation in a school-university teacher education partnership: The potential of developmental work research in DETAIL. Paper presented at the sociocultural perspective on teacher education and development: New directions for research, University of Oxford.Google Scholar
  13. Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.Google Scholar
  14. Engeström, Y. (1995). Objects, contradictions, and collaboration in medical cognition: An activity-theoretical perspective. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, 7, 395–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Engeström, Y. (1999). Innovative learning in work teams: Analyzing cycles of knowledge creation in practice. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Towards an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133–156.Google Scholar
  17. Engeström, Y. (2007). Enriching the theory of expansive learning: Lessons from journeys toward coconfiguration. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 14(1–2), 23–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Engeström, Y. (2008). From teams to knots: Activity-theoretical studies of collaboration and learning at work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Engeström, Y., Lompscher, J., & Rückriem, G. (Eds.). (2005). Putting activity theory to work: Contributions from developmental work research (Vol. 13). Berlin: Lehmanns Media.Google Scholar
  20. Ferguson, R., Gillen, J., Peachey, A., & Twining, P. (2013). The strength of cohesive ties: Discursive construction of an online learning community. In M. Childs & A. Peachey (Eds.), Understanding learning in virtual worlds (pp. 83–100). London: Springer.Google Scholar
  21. Harrison, S., Dourish, P. (1996). Re-place-ing space: The roles of space and place in collaborative systems. Paper presented at the Computer-Supported Cooperative Work CSCW’96, Boston.Google Scholar
  22. Heeter, C. (1992). Being there: The subjective experience of presence. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 1(2), 262–271.Google Scholar
  23. Jahreie, C. F., & Krange, I. (2011). Learning in science education across school and science museums—Design and development work in a multiprofessional group. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 6(3), 174–188.Google Scholar
  24. Jahreie, C. F., Arnseth, H. C., Krange, I., Smørdahl, O., & Kluge, A. (2011). Designing for play-based learning of concepts in science: Technological tools for bridging school and science museum contexts. Children, Youth, and Environments, 21(2), 236–255.Google Scholar
  25. Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(1), 39–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kaptelinin, V. (2005). The object of activity: Making sense of the sense-maker. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 12(1), 4–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kaptelinin, V. (2011, January 4–7). Designing technological support for meaning making in museum learning: An activity theoretical framework. Paper presented at the HICSS 44,, Hawaii.Google Scholar
  28. Kerosuo, H. (2003). Boundaries in health care discussions: An activity theoretical approach to the analysis of boundaries. In N. Paulsen & T. Hernes (Eds.), Managing boundaries in organizations: Multiple perspectives (pp. 169–187). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  29. Kerosuo, H. (2006). Boundaries in action: An activity-theoretical study of development, learning and change in health care for patients with multiple and chronic illnesses. Helsinki: University of Helsinki, Department of Education.Google Scholar
  30. Lund, A., & Rasmussen, I. (2008). The right tool for the wrong task? Match and mismatch between first and second stimulus in double stimulation. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3(4).Google Scholar
  31. Mantovani, G., & Riva, G. (1999). “Real” presence: How different ontologies generate different criteria for presence, telepresence and virtual presence. Presence, 8(5), 540–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Moher, T. (2006). Embedded phenomena: Supporting science learning with classroom-sized distributed simulations. Paper presented at the human factors in computing systems, Montreal.Google Scholar
  33. Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research. (2010–2011). St.mld. 22: Motivasjon—mestring—muligheter [Motivation, requirement, possibilities]. Oslo: Ministry of Education and Research.Google Scholar
  34. Peachey, A. (2008). The third place in second life: Real life community in a virtual world. In A. Peachey, J. Gillen, D. Livingstone, & S. Smith-Robbins (Eds.), Researching learning in virtual worlds (pp. 91–110). London: Springer.Google Scholar
  35. Schultze, U. (2010). Embodiment and presence in virtual worlds: A review. Journal of Information Technology, 25, 434–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Smørdal, O., Slotta, J., Krange, I., Moher, T., Novellis, F., Gnoli, A., et al. (2012). Hybrid spaces for science education. In J. van Aals, K. Thompson, M. J. Jacobson, & P. Reimann (Eds.), Proceedings of the future of learning: 10th international conference of the learning sciences (ICLS 2012) (Vol. 2, Short papers, symposia, and abstracts, pp. 9–15). Sydney: International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
  37. Turner, P. (2007). The international basis of presence. In Proceedings of the 10th international workshop on presence (pp 127–134). Barcelona: ISPR (International Society of Presence Research). ISBN: 978-0-9792217-1-2Google Scholar
  38. Turner, P., & Turner, S. (2006). Place, sense of place and presence. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 15(2), 204–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Turner, P., Turner, S., & Carroll, F. (2005). The tourist gaze: Towards contextualised virtual environments. In P. Turner & E. Davenport (Eds.), Spaces, spatiality and technology (pp. 281–297). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Valsiner, J., & Van der Veer, R. (2000). The social mind: Construction of the idea. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EducationUniversity of OsloOsloNorway
  2. 2.Training DepartmentØstfold County CouncilSarpsborgNorway

Personalised recommendations