Advertisement

Individual and Collaborative Personalization in a Science Museum

  • Betsy van Dijk
  • Andreas Lingnau
  • Geert Vissers
  • Hub Kockelkorn
Chapter
Part of the Gaming Media and Social Effects book series (GMSE)

Abstract

Museums increasingly use interactive technologies to make a museum visit more rewarding. In this chapter, we present opportunities that tabletop environments offer for learning, enjoyment, motivation, collaboration and playful interaction in museums. We discuss experiments with a tabletop interface in a popular science museum. This museum is an open space where visitors walk around and interact with exhibits in various ways. We integrated a tabletop application in the existing museum context that allowed visitors, mostly children, to plan and personalize their visit in a playful way. Personalization was either done individually, in a pilot experiment, or in a small group, in the main experiment. The question to be answered was whether children who follow a personalized route through the museum enjoy the experience more, are more motivated, learn more, and are more collaborative than children who follow a route that was not personalized, individually or collaboratively. We did not find many differences between experimental conditions (personalized versus nonpersonalized groups) on enjoyment and collaboration, possibly due to the fact that our research setting resembled “in the wild” studies more than classical experiments. However, in one experiment we found a learning effect of personalization. Overall, scores on the enjoyment measures were high and the experiments gave rise to engaged behavior and playful interaction. We discuss implications of our work for the study of collaborative learning in tabletop environments.

Keywords

Personalization Collaboration Enjoyment Playfulness Tabletop Museum 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme FP7/2007–2013 under grant agreement n° 231507 and from the Pieken in de Delta project (number PID092064) SEA (Smart Experience Actuator).

References

  1. Anderson D, Lucas KB, Ginns IS (2003) Theoretical perspectives on learning in an informal setting. J Res Sci Teach 40(2):177–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anstead E, Durrant A, Benford S, Kirk D (2012) Tabletop games for photo consumption at theme parks. In: Proceedings of the 2012 ACM international conference on Interactive tabletops and surfaces, pp 61–70Google Scholar
  3. Antle AN (2007) The CTI framework: informing the design of tangible systems for children. In: Proceedings of the 2006 ACM international conference on tangible and embedded interaction, pp 195–202Google Scholar
  4. Asai K, Kondo T, Kobayashi H, Sugimoto YY (2012) Browsing lunar surface using tabletop augmented reality at exhibit in science museum. J Inf Syst Educ 10(1):11–31Google Scholar
  5. Aubusson P, Griffin J, Kearney M (2012) Learning beyond the classroom: implications for school science. In: Fraser BJ, Tobin KG, McRobbie CJ (eds) Second international handbook of science education. Springer, Netherlands, pp 1123–1134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barranis NJ (2011) Altering user perceptions of applications: how system design can impact playfulness and anxiety. University of Illinois, UrbanaGoogle Scholar
  7. Bell G (2002) Making sense of museums: the museum as ‘cultural ecology’. Intel White Paper, pp 1–17. http://echo.iat.sfu.ca/library/. Accessed 02 June 2013
  8. Bell MW, Smith-Robbins S, Withnail G (2010). This is not a game—social virtual worlds, fun, and learning. In: Peachey A et al (eds) Researching learning in virtual worlds. Human-computer interaction series. Springer, London, pp 177–191Google Scholar
  9. Bieldt N (2012) Building a transformative museum? Getting to ‘Our Place’ through the creative industries lens: a case study from New Zealand. In: Kristiansen E (ed) The transformative museum—proceedings of the DREAM conference, May 2012, Roskilde University, Denmark, pp 1–14Google Scholar
  10. Bundy AC (1993) Assessment of play and leisure: delineation of the problem. Am J Occup Ther 47(3):217–222Google Scholar
  11. Dahl MI, Stuedahl D (2012) Transforming children’s participation and learning in museums: from singular dialogues to a multilayered explorative experience. In: Kristiansen E (ed) The transformative museum—proceedings of the DREAM conference, May 2012, Roskilde University, Denmark, pp 96–109Google Scholar
  12. Damala A, Kockelkorn H (2006) A taxonomy for the evaluation of mobile museum guides. In: Proceedings of the 8th conference on human-computer interaction with mobile devices and services. ACM, pp 273–274Google Scholar
  13. Dani DE, Koenig KM (2008) Technology and reform-based science education. Theor Pract 47(3):204–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dillenbourg P, Evans M (2011) Interactive tabletops in education. Int J Computer-Support Collab Learn 6(4):491–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dixon D (2009) Nietzsche contra Caillois: beyond play and games. In: The philosophy of computer games conference, University of OsloGoogle Scholar
  16. Dohse KC, Dohse T, Still JD, Parkhurst DJ (2008) Enhancing multi-user interaction with multi-touch tabletop displays using hand tracking. In: IEEE proceedings of first international conference on advances in computer-human interaction, pp 297–302Google Scholar
  17. Eccles JS, Wigfield A (2002) Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annu Rev Psychol 53(1):109–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fantuzzo J, Coolahan K, Mendez J, McDermott P, Sutton-Smith B (1998) Contextually-relevant validation of peer play constructs with African American Head Start children: Penn interactive peer play scale. Early Childhood Res Q 13(3):411–431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fleck R, Rogers Y, Yuill N, Marshall P, Carr A, Rick J, Bonnett V (2009) Actions speak loudly with words: unpacking collaboration around the table. In: Proceedings of the ACM international conference on interactive tabletops and surfaces, pp 189–196Google Scholar
  20. Forehand M (2005) Bloom’s taxonomy: original and revised. In: Orey M (ed) Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. http://epltt.coe.uga.edu/index.php?title=Bloom%27s_Taxonomy. Accessed 31 May 2013
  21. Hall T, Bannon L (2005) Designing ubiquitous computing to enhance children’s interaction in museums. In: Proceedings of the 2005 ACM conference on interaction design and children, pp 62–69Google Scholar
  22. Helsper EJ, Eynon R (2010) Digital natives: where is the evidence? Br Educ Res J 36(3):503–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Henricks TS (2010) Caillois’s man, play, and games—an appreciation and evaluation. Am J Play 3(2):157–185Google Scholar
  24. Hinrichs U, Carpendale S (2011) Gestures in the wild: studying multi-touch gesture sequences on interactive tabletop exhibits. In: Proceedings of CHI 2011, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 7–12 May 2011, pp 3023–3032Google Scholar
  25. Hornecker E (2010) Interactions around a contextually embedded system. In: TEI 2010, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, 25–27 Jan 2010, pp 169–176Google Scholar
  26. Hornecker E, Nicol E (2011) Towards the wild: evaluating museum installations in semi-realistic situations. In: Proceedings of re-thinking technology in museums conference. http://www.ehornecker.de/Papers/HorneckerNicolFinal.pdf. Accessed 31 May 2013
  27. Hornecker E, Marshall P, Rogers Y (2007) From entry to access: how shareability comes about. In: Proceedings of the 2007 conference on designing pleasurable products and interfaces, pp 328–342Google Scholar
  28. Hsi S (2003) A study of user experiences mediated by nomadic web content in a museum. J Comput Assist Learn 19(3):308–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Iglesias CA, Garijo M, Santiago F (2009) A playful approach for learning intelligent systems in engineering. In: EAEEIE annual conference, 2009, pp 1–4Google Scholar
  30. IJsselsteijn W, de Kort Y, Poels K, Jurgelionis A, Bellotti F (2007) Characterising and measuring user experiences in digital games. In: Proceedings of ACE 2007, Salzburg, Austria. http://www.yvonnedekort.nl/pdfs/ACE%202007%20workshop%20submission%20TUe%20final.pdf. Accessed 31 May 2013
  31. Kangas M (2010) Creative and playful learning: learning through game co-creation and games in a playful learning environment. Thinking Skills Creativity 5(1):1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Karimi A, Lim YP (2010) Children, engagement and enjoyment in digital narrative. Curriculum, technology & transformation for an unknown future. In: Steel CH, Keppell MJ, Gerbic P, Housego S (eds) Proceedings of the Australasian society for computers in learning in tertiary education (ASCILITE), Sydney, pp 475–483Google Scholar
  33. Karoulis A, Sylaiou S, White M (2006) Usability evaluation of a virtual museum interface. Informatica 17(3):363–380MATHGoogle Scholar
  34. Kearsley G, Shneiderman B (1999) Engagement theory: a framework for technology-based learning and teaching. http://home.sprynet.com/~gkearsley/engage.htm. Accessed 28 May 2012
  35. Kidd J, Ntala I, Lyons W (2011) Multi-touch interfaces in museum spaces: reporting preliminary findings on the nature of interaction. In: Rethinking technology in museums: emerging experiences, University of LimerickGoogle Scholar
  36. Koeffel C, Hochleitner W, Leitner J, Haller M, Geven A, Tscheligi M (2010) Using heuristics to evaluate the overall user experience of video games and advanced interaction games. In: Evaluating user experience in games. Springer, London, pp 233–256Google Scholar
  37. Kotler N, Kotler P (2000) Can museums be all things to all people?: missions, goals, and marketing’s role. Mus Manage Curatorship 18(3):271–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Krapp A (1999) Interest, motivation and learning: an educational-psychological perspective. Eur J Psychol Educ 14(1):23–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Krathwohl DR (2002) A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: an overview. Theor Pract 41(4):212–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Manches AD (2010) The effect of physical manipulation on children’s numerical strategies: evaluating the potential for tangible technology. Ph.D. thesis, University of NottinghamGoogle Scholar
  41. Marchetti E, Petersson Brooks E (2012a) From lecturing to apprenticeship; introducing play in museum learning practice. In: eLmL 2012, fourth international conference on mobile, hybrid, and on-line learning, pp 94–99Google Scholar
  42. Marchetti E, Petersson Brooks E (2012b) Playfulness and openness: reflections on the design of learning technologies. In: ArtsIT 2011, LNICST 101. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 38–45Google Scholar
  43. Marshall P (2007) Do tangible interfaces enhance learning? In: Proceedings of TEI’07. ACM, New York, pp 163–170Google Scholar
  44. Marshall P, Morris R, Rogers Y, Kreitmayer S, Davies M (2011). Rethinking ‘multi-user’: an in-the-wild study of how groups approach a walk-up-and-use tabletop interface. In: Proceedings of the 2011 annual conference on human factors in computing systems, May 2011, pp 3033–3042Google Scholar
  45. Martin LMW (2004) An emerging research framework for studying informal learning and schools. Sci Educ 88 (Special Issue):71–82Google Scholar
  46. Martocchio JJ, Webster J (1992) Effects of feedback and cognitive playfulness on performance in microcomputer software training. Pers Psychol 45(3):553–578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. McAuley E, Tammen VV (1989) The effects of subjective and objective competitive outcomes on intrinsic motivation. J Sport Exerc Psychol 11(1):84–93Google Scholar
  48. McAuley E, Duncan T, Tammen VV (1989) Psychometric properties of the intrinsic motivation inventory in a competitive sport setting: a confirmatory factor analysis. Res Q Exerc Sport 60(1):48–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Meisner R, vom Lehn D, Heath C, Burch A, Gammon B, Reisman M (2007) Exhibiting performance: co-participation in science centres and museums. Int J Sci Educ 29(12):1531–1555Google Scholar
  50. Meneses R, Ortega R, Navarro J, de Quijano SD (2008) Criteria for assessing the level of group development (LGD) of work groups groupness, entitativity, and groupality as theoretical perspectives. Small Group Res 39(4):492–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Michael D, Pelekanos N, Chrysanthou I, Zaharias P, Hadjigavriel LL, Chrysanthou Y (2010) Comparative study of interactive systems in a museum. In: Digital heritage. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 250–261Google Scholar
  52. O’Brien HL, Toms EG (2008) What is user engagement? a conceptual framework for defining user engagement with technology. J Am Soc Inform Sci Technol 59(6):938–955CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. O’Malley C, Stanton Fraser D (2004) Literature review in learning with tangible technologies. Futurelab, Bristol, Report 12Google Scholar
  54. Pedretti E (2002) T. Kuhn meets T. Rex: critical conversations and new directions in science centres and science museums. Stud Sci Educ 37(1):1–41CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  55. Perloy LM (2011) The influence of personalization on education and enjoyment in a museum. Master thesis, Human Media Interaction, Twente University, EnschedeGoogle Scholar
  56. Prensky M (2001) Digital natives, digital immigrants: part 1. On the Horiz 9(5):1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Price S, Pontual Falcão T (2011) Where the attention is: discovery learning in novel tangible environments. Interact Comput 23:499–512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Price S, Rogers Y, Scaife M, Stanton D, Neale H (2003) Using ‘tangibles’ to promote novel forms of playful learning. Interact Comput 15(2):169–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Quistgaard N, Kahr-Højland A (2010) New and innovative exhibition concepts at science centres using communication technologies. Mus Manage Curatorship 25(4):423–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Read JC, MacFarlane S (2002) Endurability, engagement and expectations: measuring children’s fun. In: Proceedings of the 2002 conference on interaction design and children, IDC’02. ACM, New York, NY, pp 1–23Google Scholar
  61. Reeve J (1989) The interest-enjoyment distinction in intrinsic motivation. Motiv Emot 13(2):83–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Rogers CS, Impara JC, Frary RB, Harris T, Meeks A, Semanic-Lauth S, Reynolds M (1998) Measuring playfulness: development of the child behaviors inventory of playfulness. Play Cult Stud 1:121–135Google Scholar
  63. Rogers Y, Scaife M, Gabrielli S, Smith H, Harris E (2002) A conceptual framework for mixed reality environments: designing novel learning activities for young children. Presence: Teleop Virtual Environ 11(6):677–686CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Roussou M (2010) Learning by doing and learning through play: an exploration of interactivity in virtual environments for children. In: Parry R (ed) Museums in a digital age. Routledge, London, pp 247–265Google Scholar
  65. Ryan RM, Deci EL (2000) Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. Am Psychol 55(1):68–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Schiefele U (1991) Interest, learning, and motivation. Educ Psychol 26(3/4):299–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Shernoff DJ, Csikszentmihalyi M, Schneider B, Shernoff ES (2003) Student engagement in high school classrooms from the perspective of flow theory. Sch Psychol Q 18(2):158–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Streng S (2009) The role of personal and shared displays in scripted collaborative learning. In: Gross T et al (eds) INTERACT 2009, Part II, LNCS 5727, pp 876–879Google Scholar
  69. Takatalo J, Häkkinen J, Kaistinen J, Nyman G (2007) Measuring user experience in digital gaming: theoretical and methodological issues. In: Electronic imaging 2007, international society for optics and photonics, 649402, pp 1–13Google Scholar
  70. Takatalo J, Häkkinen J, Kaistinen J, Nyman G (2010) Presence, involvement, and flow in digital games. In: Evaluating user experience in games. Springer, London, pp 23–46Google Scholar
  71. Teague R, De Jesus K, Ueno MN (2001) Concurrent vs. post-task usability test ratings. In: CHI’01 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems, pp 289–290Google Scholar
  72. Tuddenham P, Robinson P (2007) Distributed tabletops: supporting remote and mixed-presence tabletop collaboration. In: TABLETOP’07, second annual IEEE international workshop on horizontal interactive human-computer systems, pp 19–26Google Scholar
  73. University of Rochester (n.d.). Intrinsic motivation inventory. http://www.selfdeterminationtheory.org/questionnaires/10-questionnaires/50. Accessed 2 Dec 2011
  74. Van Dijk EM, Lingnau A, Kockelkorn H (2012) Measuring enjoyment of an interactive museum experience. In: Proceedings of the 14th ACM international conference on multimodal interaction, pp 249–256Google Scholar
  75. Van Dijk EMAG, van der Sluis F, Perloy LM, Nijholt A (2014) A user experience model for tangible interfaces for children. International Journal of Arts and Technology, Special Issue on Expressive Interactive Systems for Arts and Entertainment (selected contributions from Intetain 2011), to appearGoogle Scholar
  76. Vom Lehn D, Hindmarsh J, Luff P, Heath C (2007) Engaging constable: revealing art with new technology. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, pp 1485–1494Google Scholar
  77. Wakkary R, Hatala M (2007) Situated play in a tangible interface and adaptive audio museum guide. Pers Ubiquit Comput 11(3):171–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Walker K, Fróes I (2011) The art of play: exploring the roles of technology and social play in museums. In: Beale K (ed) Museums at play: games, interaction and learning. Museums Etc, Edinburgh. http://www.lkl.ac.uk/kevin/play.pdf. Accessed 30 May 2013
  79. Xie L, Antle AN, Motamedi N (2008) Are tangibles more fun?: comparing children’s enjoyment and engagement using physical, graphical and tangible user interfaces. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on tangible and embedded interaction, pp 191–198Google Scholar
  80. Yager SE, Kappelman LA, Maples GA, Prybutok VR (1997) Microcomputer playfulness: stable or dynamic trait? ACM SIGMIS Database 28(2):43–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Yelland N (2011) Reconceptualising play and learning in the lives of young children. Australas J Early Childhood 36(2):4–12Google Scholar
  82. Zuckerman O, Arida S, Resnick M (2005) Extending tangible interfaces for education: digital montessori-inspired manipulatives. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, CHI’05. New York, NY, pp 859–868Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Betsy van Dijk
    • 1
  • Andreas Lingnau
    • 2
  • Geert Vissers
    • 3
  • Hub Kockelkorn
    • 4
  1. 1.Human Media InteractionUniversity of TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Computer and Information ScienceUniversity of StrathclydeGlasgowScotland
  3. 3.InnoTePNijmegenThe Netherlands
  4. 4.MuseonThe HagueThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations