(actually present in an exhibition),
virtual learners (online) and a third group
in a 3D virtual reality environment. Their
work explores the social context of
learning in a way that bridges or blurs the
boundaries between visitors who are local
and remote, and between digital and
physical. The intention is that learners will
be able to create associations within a
museum collection and between
collections, and that those associations
will form a resource not only for
subsequent visits, but also for the visits
of others.
The STEM project (www.sciencemuseum.
org.uk/education/stem) encourages
visitors to the physical museum or to its
website to share their ideas on the
educational use of the National Museums
of Science and Industry, which are
published on the web (Bazley 1998). For
students it is a way of ‘promoting deeper
reflection on the visit than might otherwise
take place’, and many of the sites created
are ‘superb educational resources in their
own right’. Teachers can produce valuable
guides and resources for other teachers
using the museums, including one for the
Magician’s Road gallery, referred to above.
Further collaborations with US teachers
and the Franklin Institute in Philadelphia
indicate the potential for crossing
boundaries in work of this type. Elinich
(2004) describes the Franklin Institute’s
project Keystone Online, in which
research-based activity kits and
professional development opportunities
combine with a dedicated website to
facilitate inquiry-based science teaching.
3.4 PERSONALISATION
AND MOBILITY
Learning in museums and galleries has
been supported by electronic technologies
for over forty years, since the first audio
guides were developed – firstly reel-to-reel
tape, then cassette and, now, digital
systems (Proctor and Tellis 2003).
The introduction of digital technologies
represents not simply a further
enhancement in sound quality, nor merely
the additional possibilities of multimedia.
The key factor is the offer of a totally new
learning experience, based upon
apparently unlimited choice and freedom.
Flexibility is crucial, enabling learners to
select their own pathways and pacing.
Underlying museums’ use of such
approaches are both practical and
philosophical perspectives. Sharples (2000)
has developed a ‘theory of lifelong
learning’ mediated by handheld and
wearable technology, considering
hardware, software, communications and
interface design. Devices must be:
• highly portable, so that they can
be available wherever the user needs
to learn
• individual, adapting to the learner’s
abilities, knowledge and learning styles
and designed to support personal learning, rather than general office work
• unobtrusive, so that the learner can
capture situations and retrieve
knowledge without the technology
obtruding on the situation
• available anywhere, to enable
communication with teachers,
experts and peers
• adaptable to the learner’s evolving
skills and knowledge
• persistent, to manage learning
throughout a lifetime, so that the
learner’s personal accumulation of
resources and knowledge will be
immediately accessible despite
changes in technology |
|
• useful, suited to everyday needs
for communication, reference, work
and learning
• intuitive to use by people with no
previous experience of the technology.
Two approaches in current use are
handhelds and wearables. Both offer the
potential of an individualised approach to
learning, differentiated – at least to some
extent – by learner choice. Indeed the
differences between the two systems are
largely ergonomic rather than conceptual,
relating principally to portability and visual
display. Either can carry data in on-board
memory or by accessing a virtual network;
both can be triggered by the learner and/or
by sensor systems in the museum’s
exhibits. As Hepple (2000) reminds us,
within months (rather than years) the
majority of those who enter the physical
space of a museum will be carrying their
own digital communications device.
Wireless networks are already in place in
many public spaces. Educators have begun
– perhaps a little tentatively – to embrace
the technology, rather than to deny its
existence or to prohibit its use.
Sparacino (2002) describes a study – with a
wearable/heads-up display – at the MIT
Museum, in the exhibition Robots and
Beyond. The system is intended to
“’understand the use’ and to produce an
output based on the interpretation of the
user’s intention in context”. This, however,
is inevitably based on behaviour – time
spent in particular places, objects viewed
(an advantage of the heads-up system),
information requested etc – rather than
on the analysis of any learning per se.
The Electronic Guidebook project at the
Exploratorium in San Francisco makes
effective use of handhelds (Semper and
Spasojevic 2002). As with Sparacino’s
work, many of the lessons learned relate
to visitor behaviour and to practical
matters. Seen as a highly positive feature,
the ability to bookmark material for
subsequent retrieval was identified as
instrumental in facilitating playing with the
exhibits, central to the Exploratorium’s
philosophy, where “the right answer is a
question” (Klages 1995). In contrast, there
was a tendency for reduced interaction,
both with the exhibits themselves and with
other visitors. This negative aspect
appeared to have both mechanical and
cognitive dimensions: the need to hold the
device reduced hands-on activity while the
reading demands inhibited conversation.
Hsi (2003) follows up this work with a
further study. She concentrates rather
more on learning issues, on what she
terms “nomadic inquiry”. Learners can
manipulate information and conduct
investigations while moving between the
physical exhibit, the virtual realm of the
handheld and other experiences. However,
while positive about the potential of the
system, she again highlights the two major
concerns previously identified: the danger
of replacing hands-on interaction –
“mediated by conversations with others and
cognitively challenging” – with “a headsdown
one-way transmission of information”.
Avoiding this requires careful instructional
design; learners can then benefit from
their mobility within the physical context
of objects and exhibits without feeling
socially or physically isolated.
Combatting social and physical isolation is
something towards which museums strive,
particularly in relation to visitors with
disabilities. The MUSEpad project is designing,
... next page |
|
|
|
within months
the majority of
those who enter
the physical
space of a
museum will be
carrying their
own digital
communications
device |
