Another task within my Master’s research is checked off.  I have reviewed and noted the conversations and behaviors from video footage of 25 family groups using our Ideum multi-touch table exhibit.  As I went through the footage, it was fascinating to see the similarities and differences in how groups used the exhibit, talked (or not) while using the table, and the elements of the exhibit that appeared most attractive to them.  I will be analyzing the engagement and learning strategies data along with the group interview responses that I collected post-use of the exhibit.  I am so thankful for the infrastructure that we have installed as part of the Cyber Lab.  The video recordings that include audio of the group conversation has been a great way to examine the data beyond field notes from the date of observation.  Quite a bit of data to make sense of!

This quarter I have had the opportunity to take the Socio-Cultural Dimensions of Learning course from Dr. Lynn Dierking at Oregon State University.  It has aligned perfectly with where I am at in my project.  Topics in the course have included how we learn through our interactions and observations of others, how culture influences learning, and how institutions scaling from families, to museums, up through society plays a role in the learning experience.  Family learning in museum spaces has been one topic that we have focused on, particularly how different members of a multi-generational group make meaning of exhibits and content that is personal and relevant to their experience.  An element that I have taken an interest in is the roles that the family members take, whether it is the adult or child, and who “takes charge” of the interaction with the exhibit.  For example, is it primarily the adult showing the child how to use it, or explaining what the information means?  In what ways do they make connections to what the child already knows?  These questions relate to my observations with the touch table.  I have seen evidence of the child taking charge of the interaction and showing the adult, and I’m curious to investigate what strategies the child uses to “show” the adult what to do.  I wonder if it is because this generation is often around touch surfaces with their personal electronics, that they feel comfortable taking on that role to “teach” the adult.

I have also appreciated the opportunity to interact with other students in the socio-cultural dimensions class that are located around the country, many who also work in free choice learning venues.  Several students have shared teaching and learning strategies that they use to interact and engage with their visitors.  The course has inspired me to think more about the transition from theory to practice, by applying what we are studying to improving the learner experience.  We can conduct this research, but until it is applied and shared, it seems anticlimactic (at least to me!).  I hope from my research of watching the natural behaviors of families using the multi-touch table, I can provide recommendations for ways to improve content to facilitate the behaviors they are already expressing.  The technology is a tool that is being used to share science content, so what meaning are the users making of that information?  Research has been done on the overall usability of large scale touch surfaces in public spaces, but how does that connect to learning in a space where individuals have choice and control over their experience with the technology?  It is not so much as HOW they use it, but what do they gain as a result of the interaction on a personal or social level?  The beauty of research – you look to answer some questions and come up with more!

I have been absent from blog posting as of late due to the whirlwind of grad school, but that also means there is quite a bit to share related to work in the lab and research!  My last post described the experience at ASTC in North Carolina – a great opportunity to see work at other science and technology centers, and to meet professionals in the field that are doing incredible things at these locations.  Since then I have been ramping up on my personal research, but also balancing coursework.

I am really excited to be enrolled in Oregon State University’s Free Choice Learning (FCL) series this year.  Everything I was learning “in the field” is now gaining context through courses in personal, sociocultural, and physical dimensions of learning.  I have the opportunity to practice evaluation methods through assignments and read papers related to my research on family group interactions in the museum.  I am thankful that I get to take these classes from Dr. John Falk and Dr. Lynn Dierking, two researchers that have studied FCL for many years!

In the visitor center, we are focused on getting our facial recognition cameras consistently working and capturing data.  We have been collecting images, but getting 11 cameras to stream a lot of data at the same time is challenging as both the hardware and software have to sync.  This has been a great learning opportunity in trial and error, but also learning the “language” of a field I am not familiar with.  As I have to troubleshoot with engineers and software developers, I have been learning vocabulary related not only to the camera system, but also the usability of configuring the cameras and the software.  Beyond the task of setting this up, it is an experience that I will reflect on with future projects that require me to learn the language of another industry, embrace trial and error, and patience in the process.

In addition to Cyberlab duties, I am busy coding video of families using the multi-touch table collected in August 2014.  Over the past twenty years, research on family learning has shown us how exhibits are often used (much of this research was done by Falk, Dierking, Borun, Ellenbogen, among others).  I am curious about the quality of interactions occurring at the touch table between adults and children.  I developed a rubric based on three different dimensions of behaviors – responsive engagement, learning strategies and opportunities, and directive engagement, and whether they are observed at low, moderate, or high levels.  These categories are modified from the types of behavior outlined by Piscitelli and Weier (2002) in relation to adult-child interactions surrounding art.  From their work, they found that a distribution of behaviors from these categories support the value of the interactions (Piscitelli & Weier, 2002).  Each category looks at how the adult(s) and child(ren) interact with each other while manipulating the touch table.  I also modeled the rubric after what is used in the classroom to assess teacher and student interactions around tasks.

An example of a high level of responsive engagement would be that the adults and children are in close proximity to each other while using the exhibit, their hands are on the touch surface for a majority of the time, the adults are using encouraging words and acknowledging the child’s statements or questions, and there similar levels of emotional affect expressed between them.  Learning strategies focuses more on the verbalization of the content of the exhibit and the integration of information, such as connecting the content to prior knowledge or experiences external to exhibit use.  Finally, directive engagement looks at whether the adult is providing guidance or facilitating use of exhibit by directing a task to be performed, showing a child how to accomplish the activity.  From this data, I hope to understand more at depth how the table is used and the ways adults and children interact while using it.  This may give us some idea as to how to support software and content design for these forms of digital interactives, which are becoming more popular in the museum environment.

My goal is to have videos coded by the end of the month, so back to work I go!

Piscitelli, B., & Weier, K. (2002). Learning With, Through, and About Art: The Role of Social Interactions. In S. G. Paris (Ed.), Perspectives on Object-Centered Learning in Museums (pp. 121–151). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Pic_table

As I wind down the first year of my Master’s program, I have had a chance to reflect on the different accomplishments achieved within the Cyberlab, the classroom, and professionally.  I have had the chance to wear many hats beyond the typical “grad student” role.  For example, I have been a server administrator, sound engineer, exhibit maintenance support, logistics manager, and lab ambassador…to name a few.  So many different opportunities have led to new learning experiences that I had not anticipated.  As there is no manual for setting up a “Cyberlab,” I feel I have so much more insight now to share with other groups that may attempt this in their institution for learning research.

As of this week, 30 cameras have been installed around multiple exhibits to capture interactions and movement.  We now have great views of the octopus tank, the touch pools, wave tanks, the touchtable, touchwall, and Magic Planet.  The image included in this post is an example of one such view in our Rhythms Room.  Several cameras can be used to monitor the traffic flow and patterns as visitors circulate the center.  Our BlackFly and Flea (facial recognition) cameras recently came in, which creates unique issues with mounting these small pieces of technology.  We have enlisted the support of an engineer with access to a 3-D printer that can be used to custom build to our needs.  We hope to have these cameras installed within the next few weeks to begin testing the facial recognition capabilities.  More progress with each passing day.

rroom2

One of the Cyberlab cameras captures the Rhythms Room at Hatfield Marine Science Center.

Today I am heading to St. Paul, Minnesota, for the Science on a Sphere workshop at the Minnesota Science Museum.  As we have the Magic Planet exhibit (pictured above), a globe that displays different visualizations of environmental processes, this will be a chance to connect with other institutions that have this form of exhibit in a public space and talk about use and the direction of this technology.  I am excited for the chance to help represent the Cyberlab and showcase what is in place at Hatfield Marine Science Center to support other researchers around the country and world.  Hopefully we will meet some potential collaborators and new Cyberscholars.  I am also looking forward to visiting a science museum I have not been to before.  My perspective of the museum has changed, meaning that I often take a step back to analyze the exhibit and the interactions taking place around it.  I need to remind myself to also be a “visitor” as I will be wearing my researcher “hat” plenty this summer!

 

 

 

This summer my research will start on visitor use of the touchtable.  I have been looking for content that is relevant and engaging beyond sorting or scanning through a collection of images.  Many of the programs utilize these tasks and I am seeking something a bit more robust.  Finding software that is coded in a way that will run on an oversized “tablet” and apply to a public informal learning environment seems to be a unique combination.

Being new to the world of communicating science via exhibits, there is a lot to learn about the integration of physical, personal, and sociocultural dimensions within an informal learning environment.  If we are using technology as a medium for an exhibit, what can make it an engaging exhibit beyond the table itself?   Research on visitor interaction with exhibits has advanced immensely in recent decades.  One of the first papers I read in this area was Bitgood’s 1987 article on “Principles of Exhibit Design” in Visitor Behavior.  Bitgood outlines aspects of exhibit design that influence viewing time.  Some of these factors involve appealing to the senses or by using motion, where the object is placed, or how “real” it looks, and whether it facilitates personal meaning and social interaction between visitors.  This last concept is particularly relevant to the touchtable as that it allows for multiple users at once, but if crowding occurs, that may influence the overall visitor experience.  It is a fine balance!

So putting my software design cap on and thinking aloud for a moment…  If I had access to a program I could install on the touchtable today, it would be formatted in a way that the public could interact with data to generate models or create visuals.  For example, giving access to a dataset that can be manipulated and then transformed into something visually meaningful to the visitor.  What might this look like?  It might be a graph or some other creative means to represent their interpretation of the data.  At OSU, there are so many different forms of data coming out of Hatfield alone, how might we allow a visitor the chance to make meaning from it?  If there was a way for them to share this interpretation, how might it compare with what other visitors have created?  Hmmm, I could be creating a future project for myself…I will continue to play detective as I search out what is useful for our environment at this time and for my project.  Curious to hear what others might have to say about science “apps” or educational software for the museum setting.  Feel free to share!

Spring Quarter is now upon us and with that there is plenty of “spring cleaning” to get done in the Cyberlab prior to the surge of visitors to Newport over the summer months.  For a free-choice learning geek like me, this period of data collection will be exciting as I work on my research for my graduate program.

The monitoring and maintenance of the audio and video recording devices continues!  Working with this technology is a great opportunity to troubleshoot and consider effective placement around exhibits.  I am getting more practice with camera installation and ensuring that data is being recorded and archived on our servers.  We are also thinking about how we can rapidly deploy cameras for guest researchers based on their project needs.  If other museums, aquariums, or science centers consider a similar method to collect audio and video data, I know we can offer insight as we continue to try things and re-adjust.  At this point I don’t take these collection methods for granted!  Reading through published visitor research projects, there was consideration for how to minimize the effect of an observer or a large camera recording nearby and how this influenced behavior.  Now cameras are smaller and can be mounted in ways that they blend in with the surroundings.  This helps us see more natural behaviors as people explore the exhibits.  This is important to me because I will be using the audio and video equipment to look for patterns of behavior around the multi-touch interactive tabletop exhibit.

Based on comments from our volunteers, the touchtable has received a lot of attention from visitors.  At this time we have a couple different programs installed on the table.  One program from Open Exhibits has content about the electromagnetic spectrum where users can drag an image of an object through the different sections of the spectrum, including infrared, visible, ultraviolet, and x-ray, while providing information about each category.  Another program is called Valcamonica, which has puzzles and content about prehistoric petroglyphs found in Northern Italy.  I am curious as to the conversations people are having around the table and whether they are verbalizing the content they see or how to use the technology.  If there are different ages within the group, is someone taking the role as the “expert” on how to use it?  Are they modeling and showing others how to navigate through the software?  Are visitors also spending time at other exhibits near the table?  There are live animal exhibits within 15 feet of the table and are they getting attention?  I am thinking about all of these questions as I design my research project that will be conducted this summer.  Which means…time to get back to work!