Upload
martin-bazley
View
606
Download
3
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Slides used to support discussion at a session at Institute of Education, London on 10 January 2013 as part of a module in the MA in MUSEUMS & GALLERIES IN EDUCATION called ‘Material and Virtual Cultures: trans-forming the museum and gallery experience’ led by Caroline Marcus and Pam Meecham
Citation preview
DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY IN MUSEUMS – case studies
Institute of Education10 January 2013
Martin Bazley (Martin Bazley & Associates)
Martin BazleyPreviously• Teaching (7 yrs)• Science Museum, London,
Learning Unit, Internet Projects (7yrs)• E-Learning Officer, MLA South East (3yrs)
Martin BazleyCurrently• Consultancy, websites, training, user
testing, evaluation …Martin Bazley & Associateswww.martinbazley.com
Martin Bazley & Associates
BBC / Public Catalogue Foundation Your Paintings project
Consulting on user interface
Consulting on online survey
User testing
Martin Bazley & Associates
Ford Madox Brown Work schools interactive with embedded video
Consulting on content and user interface
User testing (classroom-based)
(Also worked on redevelopment of main website)
Martin Bazley & Associates
Ashmolean Jameel Centre Eastern Art Online
Consulting on content and user interface
User testing – HE and specialists
Martin Bazley & Associates
The National Archives Cabinet Papers project
Consulting on content and user interface for schools
User testing (classroom-based)
Martin Bazley & Associates
John Ruskin Elements of Drawing website
Consulting on content and user interface
User testing – HE and Ruskin specialists
(Also development of schools resource)
Elements of online learning resourcesImage(s) + caption(s)
Key question(s) / short activities
Background teacher notes / pupil activity sheets
Zoomable images
Video
Interactive
More complex functionality
Increasing cost and complexity
Increasing cost and complexity M
ost u
sefu
l for
teac
hers
Mos
t use
ful f
or te
ache
rs
These are the first things to provide, and do not require high levels of IT expertise or investment
Video can be done quite easilyThe others will mean investment of money and /or expert time
Two contrasting examples of resource development
Both produced for Ashmolean Museum- Flash interactive- John Ruskin resources including video
• Funded through Take One… Picture project
• Repurposing an existing activity
• Focus on interactive element – buying in expertise not available in-house
• Opportunity to review and improve content
• Opportunity to involve local teachers
• Time consuming (attention to detail important), but great results!
• Attempts to create interactives in house less successful
Example 1: Brighton Then & Now whiteboard interactive
Brighton Then and Now screenshot
http://www.ashmolean.org/education/resources/resources2011/interactives/Brighton/Brighton.html
Take One Picture interactive: pros
+ An ‘interactive’ resource often seems more attractive.
+ Offers a richer experience around each painting.
+ Activity is closely guided, so can be used even by inexperienced teachers.
Take One Picture interactive: cons
- Relatively expensive to produce.- Quite limited in application – teachers cannot
adjust to suit their needs. - Because most images / assets are ‘wrapped’ in
Flash, this type of resource is sometimes less findable via Google etc.
• Funded through AHRC grant - small component of bigger project
• Starting from scratch - defining concept very time consuming
• Opportunity to work closely with local school on in depth project
• Heavy demands on education staff time – (esp Joint Museums Art Education Officer)
• Opportunity to try out new approaches eg video clips
•Resulted in ‘solution’ for education staff to create teaching and learning packages (requiring minimal help from busy ICT team)
Example 2: ‘Through Ruskin’s Eyes’ learning package
‘Through Ruskin’s Eyes’ screenshot
http://educationonline.ashmolean.org/ruskin/
John Ruskin resource: pros
+ Provides images, videos and straightforward activities that students or teachers can use in their own way.
+ Less expensive to develop+ More likely to be found via Google etc+ Used WordPress.com for prototyping and
Wordpress.org for the final site – with the option to produce more as required
John Ruskin resource: cons
- Does not have the ‘wow’ factor of an ‘interactive’
Overall comparison
TOP: approach quite well defined so easier to see the potential. More constrained.
Ruskin: more specialist audience so more in depth activities. Working with partners creative but increases complexity.
Developing a learning resource: iterative review
your content curriculum (find a match)
Ch
eck
Does it match your audience’s specific needs?
If so TEST - and then amend
Learning activities Learning outcomes (find a match)
More information / advice / ideas
Martin Bazley0780 3580 737
www.martinbazley.com