Katie Stofer « The Free-Choice Learning Laboratory at HMSC

About Katie Stofer

Research Assistant Professor, STEM Education and Outreach, University of Florida PhD, Oregon State University Free-Choice Learning Lab

Do visitors use STEM reasoning when describing their work in a build-and-test exhibit? This is one of the first research questions we’re investigating as part of the Cyberlab grant, besides whether or not we can make this technology integration work. As with many other parts of this grant, we’re designing the exhibit around the ability to ask and answer this question, so Laura and I are working on designing a video reflection booth for visitors to tell us about what happened to the structures they build and knock down in the tsunami tank. Using footage from the overhead camera, visitors will be able to review what happens, and hopefully tell us about why they created what they did, whether or not they expected it to survive or fail, and how the actual result fit or didn’t match what they hoped for.

We have a couple of video review and share your thoughts examples we drew from; The Utah Museum of Natural History has an earthquake shake table where you build and test a structure and then can review footage of it going through the simulated quake. The California Science Center’s traveling exhibit Goosebumps: the Science of Fear also allows visitors to view video of expressions of fear from themselves and other visitors filmed while they are “falling”. However, we want to take these a step farther and add the visitor reflection piece, and then allow visitors to choose to share their reflections with other visitors as well.

As often happens, we find ourselves with a lot of creative ways to implement this, and ideas for layer upon layer of interactivity that may ultimately complicate things, so we have to rein our ideas in a bit to start with a (relatively) simple interaction to see if the opportunity to reflect is fundamentally appealing to visitors. Especially when one of our options is around $12K – no need to go spending money without some basic questions answered. Will visitors be too shy to record anything, too unclear about the instructions to record anything meaningful, or just interested in mooning/flipping off/making silly faces at the camera? Will they be too protective of their thoughts to share them with researchers? Will they remain at the build-and-test part forever and be uninterested in even viewing the replay of what happened to their structures? Avoiding getting ahead of ourselves and designing something fancy before we’ve answered these basic questions is what makes prototyping so valuable. So our original design will need some testing with probably a simple camera setup and some mockups of how the program will work for visitors to give us feedback before we go any farther with the guts of the software design. And then eventually, we might have an exhibit that allows us to investigate our ultimate research question.

I think what finally turned the tide for me in recruitment was emails to specific colleges at OSU. I guess I was confused because I thought I wasn’t allowed to email students, but it seems really I wasn’t allowed to use the “All-Student-Email” list. Sending emails to particular department administrators to forward to their own lists apparently is perfectly kosher, if not exactly completely unbiased recruitment. It did generate a flurry of responses, 50 or so in a few days, with maybe 20% of those guys (going by names only). Email to fraternities, however, seemed to be a dud (I’m not even sure any of them got forwarded), unless it just took a few days for the guys to sign up and I am confusing them with the ones I thought came from department emails.

The best scheduling method so far has been calling those folks who provided a telephone number; I got one on the phone who recalled seeing the doodle poll I sent with available interview times, but he also said he wasn’t sure what it was about. So, despite the end of the sign-up survey noting that a doodle poll would be sent, again, that information seemed to get overlooked.

Another rather wasted effort at recruiting was me sitting with a sign in the Dutch Bros. coffee shop, even when I was offering gift cards to their establishment for participation. I got one guy who was an engineer inquire why I wasn’t signing up engineers, but otherwise, no bites. Ditto for hanging out in the dining hall; one guy eyed the sign but said he wasn’t a Dutch Bros. guy. Cash, it seems, is king, as long as you can convince your funding source you are not laundering money (hint: get receipts).

Now the question is whether all of them will show up. So far, I’ve had one no-show after the phone calls for scheduling. The rest of the week I have about 6 more interviews, which will get me pretty close to finished if all of them show up. I’m sending email reminders the day before, so I’m crossing my fingers.

Despite our fancy technology, there are some pieces of data we have to gather the old-fashioned way: by asking visitors. One piece we’d like to know is why visitors chose to visit on this particular occasion. We’re building off of John Falk’s museum visitor motivation and identity work, which began with a survey that asks visitors to rate a series of statements on Likert (1-5) scales as to how applicable they are for them that day, and reveals a rather small set of motives driving the majority of visits. We also have used this framework in a study of three of our local informal science education venues, finding that an abbreviated version works equally well to determine which (if any) of these motivations drives visitors. The latest version, tried at the Indianapolis Museum of Art, uses photos along with the abbreviated number of statements for the visitors to identify their visit motivations.

We’re implementing a version on an iPad kiosk in the VC for a couple of reasons: first, we genuinely want to know why folks are visiting, and want to be able to correlate identity motivations with the automated behavior, timing, and tracking data we collect from the cameras. Second, we hope people will stop long enough for us to get a good reference photo for the facial recognition system. Sneaky, perhaps, but it’s not the only place we’re trying to position cameras for good reference shots. And if all goes well with our signage, visitors will be more aware than ever that we’re doing research, and that it is ultimately aimed at improving their experience. Hopefully that awareness will allay most of the final fears about the embedded research tools that we are hoping will be minimal to start with.

How do we get signs in front of visitors so they will actually read them? Think about how many signs at the front door of your favorite establishment you walk past without reading. How many street signs, billboards, and on-vehicle ads pass through our vision barely a blur? While exhibit designers spend many an hour toiling away to create the perfect signs to offer visitors some background and possible ways to interact with objects, many visitors gloss right over them, preferring to just start interacting or looking in their own way. This may be a fine alternative use for most cases, but in the case of our video research and the associated informed consent that our subjects need to offer, signs at the front door are going to be our best bet to inform visitors but not unduly interrupt their experience, or make museum entry and additional unreasonable burden for visitors or staff. Plus, the video recording is not optional at this point for folks who visit; you can visit and be recorded, or you can’t visit.

Thankfully, we have the benefit of the Exploratorium and other museums who have done video research in certain exhibits and have tested signs at their entrances and the percentage of visitors who subsequently know they’re being recorded for research. Two studies by the Exploratorium staff showed that their signs at entrances to specifically cordoned-off areas stating that videotaping for research was in progress were effective at informing 99% of visitors to the exhibit areas that a) videotaping was happening and b) it was for research. One interesting point is that their testing of the signs themselves and the language on them revealed that the camera icon needed to be rather old-school/highly professional looking to distinguish itself from the average visitor making home movies while visiting a museum and be clearly associated with official research purposes.

Source: store.sony.com via Free-Choice on Pinterest

Never mind the cameras we’re actually using look more like surveillance cameras.

Source: Uploaded by user via Free-Choice on Pinterest

So our strategy, crafted with our Institutional Review Board, is several-fold. Signs at the front entrance (and the back entrance, for staff and volunteers, and other HMSC visitors who might be touring the entire research facility for other reasons and popping in to the VC) will feature the large research camera and a few, hopefully succinct and clear words about the reasons we’re doing research, and where to get more information. We also have smaller signs on some of the cameras themselves with a short blurb about the fact that it’s there for research purposes. Next, we’re making handouts for people that will explain in more detail what our research is about and how the videos help us with that work. We’ll also put that information on our web site, and add the address of the video research information to our rack cards and other promotional material we send around town and Oregon. Of course, our staff and volunteers are also being included in the process so they are well-equipped to answer visitor questions.

Then there’s the thorny issue of students. University students who are over 18 who are visiting as part of a required class will have to individually consent due to federal FERPA regulations. We’re working with the IRB to make this as seamless a process as possible. We’ll be contacting local school superintendents to let them know about the research and let them inform parents of any class that will be attending on a field trip. These students on class field trips will be assumed to have parental consent by virtue of having signed school permission slips to attend Hatfield.

Hopefully this will all work. The Exploratorium’s work showed that even most people who didn’t realize they were being recorded were not bothered much by the recording, and even fewer would have avoided the area if they’d actually known before hand. As always, though, it will be a work-in-progress as we get visitor and volunteer feedback and move forward with the research.

Gutwill, J. (2003). “Gaining visitor consent for research II: Improving the posted-sign method.” Curator
46(2): 228-235

Gutwill, J. (2002). “Gaining visitor consent for research: Testing the posted-sign method.” Curator 45(3): 232-238.

That’s the question we’re facing next: what kind of audio systems we need to collect visitor conversations. The mics included on the AXIS cameras that we’re using are built-in to them and just not sensitive enough. Not entirely surprising, given that they’re normally used for video surveillance only (it’s illegal to record audio in security situations), but it does leave us to our own devices to figure something else out. Again.

Of course, we have the same issues as before: limited external power, location – has to be near enough to plug in to a camera to be incorporated into the system, plus now we need at least some of them to be waterproof, which isn’t a common feature of microphones (the cameras are protected by their domes and general housing). We also have to think about directionality; if we come up with something that’s too sensitive, we may have bleed over across several mics, which our software won’t be able to separate. If they’re not sensitive enough if in enough directions, though, we’ll either need a ton of mics (I mean, like 3-4 per camera) or we’ll have a very limited conversation capture area at each exhibit. And any good museum folk know that people don’t stand in one spot and talk, generally!

So we have a couple options that we’re starting with. One is a really messy cheap mic with a lot of wires exposed, which may present an aesthetic issue at the very least, and the other are more expensive models that may or may not be waterproof and more effective. We’re working with collaborators from The Exploratorium on this, but they’ve generally up to now only used audio recording in areas they tucked back from the noisiest parts of the exhibit floor and soundproofed quite a bit besides. They’re looking to expand as they move to their new building in the spring, however, so hopefully by putting our heads together and, as always, testing things boots on the ground, we’ll have some better ideas soon. Especially since we’ve stumped all the more traditional audio specialists we’ve put this problem to so far.

… is what we’ll be doing starting this fall as a group of advisees of Dr. Rowe. As a couple of us near defense time (we hope), it seemed a good time to start a regular discussion of the theories and frameworks most pertinent to what we all do. There are a lot of them; as much as we share interest in science education, we have a lot of different ideas about how to do it for the array of audiences and venues we’re concerned with as well. So expect more along those lines coming up in the blog.

For now, here’s a video of Dr. Rowe introducing his own framework, which of course informs the entire lab agenda:

The Free-Choice Learning Laboratory at HMSC

Informal science education research

Author Archives: Katie Stofer

About Katie Stofer

Encouraging Visitor Reflection around STEM

Magic combo: email recruiting + telephone scheduling

Visitor datum one: Visit motivation

Can you hear me now?

Theoretically Speaking …

Contact Info