Mobile, web-based tools for HE students on field trips

VisitScape

Mobile, web-based tools for HE students on field trips

Giasemi Vavoula

University of [email protected]

Funded by SPLiNTSpatial Literacy in Teaching CETL

VisitScape

05/10/10 2

Outline

• Educational Context

• The technology

• Evaluation methods

• Findings

• Emerging themes

G. Vavoula ([email protected])

VisitScape

05/10/10 3

Background – The Curriculum

• School of Museum Studies

• Two campus-based MA programmes, with 4+1 taught modules, 8-week placement module, and dissertation module

• Sessions for each module include 1-2 study visits to UK museums and galleries where students typically:

• Attend lectures by / discuss with venue staff

• Explore venue to analyse choices of objects, exhibits, designs, space layout, lighting, interpretation methods, visitor behaviour, etc.


VisitScape

05/10/10 4

Background – Module 4 Museums and Regeneration: The Regeneration Game

• 3-week group work to develop a “strategic bid” portfolio for the funding of a new capital development and/or programming for an inadequately funded local authority museum.

• Taught sessions focus on skill development and the development of an understanding of museums and regeneration.

• “The Regeneration Game aims to provide students with an understanding of museums and the contemporary political environment within which museums operate. It aims to equip students with knowledge and skills which will enable them to be strategic and pragmatic in their dealings with funders and potential funders.”

• Assessment

• Group bid portfolio (50%)

• Individual oral presentation (50%)


VisitScape

05/10/10 5

Learning Outcomes

Knowledge Skills

• cultural, economic, social, and

political contexts of museums

• financial needs of museums for capital

development and programming

• funding sources for museums

• knowledge and understanding of

theories and debates in relation to

‘culture-led’ regeneration

• knowledge and understanding of the

strategic development of funding bids

• developing and testing oral presentation

• working in an inter-disciplinary team

• developing and delivering a pitch

• advocacy

• writing a strategic document and

professional writing

• understanding and objectively

assessing a variety of different kinds

of material and making critical

judgements

• high level problem solving skills for

complex real-life problems

• personal and professional self-reflection



VisitScape

05/10/10 6

Activity Subject Tutor

Workshop Group project induction session Module tutor

Lecture Museums and regeneration Module tutor

Lecture Museums and regeneration Guest lecturer

Study visit ‘Culture-led’ Regeneration in Birmingham

Module tutor

Small group workshops Study visit discussion and feedback Module tutor

Workshop Bid writing Module tutor

Briefing The museum’s needs Guest curator

Small group Surgeries with ‘Museum Committee’ Module tutor & Guest curator

Workshop Presentation skills Module tutor & Learning Centre rep



VisitScape

05/10/10 7

Activity Subject Tutor

Workshop Group project induction session Module tutor

Lecture Museums and regeneration Module tutor

Lecture Museums and regeneration Guest lecturer

Study visit ‘Culture-led’ Regeneration in Birmingham

Module tutor

Small group workshops Study visit discussion and feedback Module tutor

Workshop Bid writing Module tutor

Briefing The museum’s needs Guest curator

Small group Surgeries with ‘Museum Committee’ Module tutor & Guest curator

Workshop Presentation skills Module tutor & Learning Centre rep



VisitScape

05/10/10 8

Background – What students want from a study visit• Survey in 2008-09 with students and staff at the

School asked “How would you describe an ideal study visit?” (open-ended question)

• Responses analysed as per descriptors used and yielded a list of study visit attribute values

• Some could be paired as opposite values of one attribute, e.g.

• Free-form vs. structured as values for ‘structuredness’

• Social vs. solitary as values for ‘sociability’

• Others could not be paired, e.g. ‘informative’, ‘well-prepared’ and ‘inspiring’

• Conclusions:

• conceptions of an ideal study visit vary with individuals when it comes to certain visit attributes (some like it structured, some like it free-form)

• Certain study visit attributes take values somewhere in the middle (has a structure but also allows for free-form exploration)

• There seems to be consensus about the values of some study visit attributes (nobody wants an uninspiring visit)

• List lends itself well to semantic-differential questionnaire...

Attribute Attribute ValuesPreparation Well-prepared ↔ Ill-preparedSupport Well supported ↔ Poorly supportedInformativeness Informative ↔ UninformativeInspiration Inspiring ↔ UninspiringExcitement Exciting ↔ BoringEase Challenging ↔ TrivialActiveness Active ↔ PassiveGuidance Self-guided ↔ PrescribedSafety Safe ↔ PrecariousBusyness Busy ↔ LeisurelyCalmness Calm ↔ HecticExecution Smoothly run ↔ ProblematicResources Resource-rich ↔ Resource-barePace Rushed ↔ Well-pacedInterestingness Interesting ↔ UninterestingDiversity Diverse ↔ MonotonousCollaboration Individual work ↔ Group workRelevance to course Course-relevant ↔ Course-irrelevantStructuredness Free-form ↔ StructuredNovelty Novel ↔ RepetitionSociability Social ↔ SolitaryComfort Comfortable ↔ TiresomeEnjoyment Fun ↔ TediousEngagement Engaging ↔ DisengagingGrounded Theoretical ↔ Hands-on


VisitScape

05/10/10 9

Background – What students want from a study visit• Survey in 2008-09 with students and staff at the

School asked “How would you describe an ideal study visit?” (open-ended question)

• Responses analysed as per descriptors used and yielded a list of study visit attribute values

• Some could be paired as opposite values of one attribute, e.g.

• Free-form vs. structured as values for ‘structuredness’

• Social vs. solitary as values for ‘sociability’

• Others could not be paired, e.g. ‘informative’, ‘well-prepared’ and ‘inspiring’

• Conclusions:

• conceptions of an ideal study visit vary with individuals when it comes to certain visit attributes (some like it structured, some like it free-form)

• Certain study visit attributes take values somewhere in the middle (has a structure but also allows for free-form exploration)

• There seems to be consensus about the values of some study visit attributes (nobody wants an uninspiring visit)

• List lends itself well to semantic-differential questionnaire for evaluating actual visits

Attribute Attribute ValuesPreparation Well-prepared ↔ Ill-preparedSupport Well supported ↔ Poorly supportedInformativeness Informative ↔ Uninformative

..........

extremely very quite neither quite very extremely

Well-prepared □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Ill-prepared

Well supported □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Poorly supported

Informative □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Uninformative

Inspiring □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Uninspiring

Exciting □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Boring

Challenging □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Trivial

Active □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Passive

..................


VisitScape

05/10/10 10

Background – What students want from a study visit• Survey in 2009-10 with students at the School

asked them to rate the relative importance of these values for an ideal study visit

• Greyed (negative) values had to be left out (expecting that ‘uninformative’ etc. would get lowest rating)

• Used the below design:

Attribute Attribute ValuesPreparation Well-prepared ↔ Ill-preparedSupport Well supported ↔ Poorly supportedInformativeness Informative ↔ UninformativeInspiration Inspiring ↔ UninspiringExcitement Exciting ↔ BoringEase Challenging ↔ TrivialActiveness Active ↔ PassiveGuidance Self-guided ↔ PrescribedSafety Safe ↔ PrecariousBusyness Busy ↔ LeisurelyCalmness Calm ↔ HecticExecution Smoothly run ↔ ProblematicResources Resource-rich ↔ Resource-barePace Rushed ↔ Well-pacedInterestingness Interesting ↔ UninterestingDiversity Diverse ↔ MonotonousCollaboration Individual work ↔ Group workRelevance to course Course-relevant ↔ Course-irrelevantStructuredness Free-form ↔ StructuredNovelty Novel ↔ RepetitionSociability Social ↔ SolitaryComfort Comfortable ↔ TiresomeEnjoyment Fun ↔ TediousEngagement Engaging ↔ DisengagingGrounded Theoretical ↔ Hands-on

Well-prepared □ □ □ □ □ □ □Well supported □ □ □ □ □ □ □

Informative □ □ □ □ □ □ □Inspiring □ □ □ □ □ □ □Exciting □ □ □ □ □ □ □

Challenging □ □ □ □ □ □ □Active □ □ □ □ □ □ □

...........

On the block scale below, where the shortest blockrepresents least important and the tallest is most important, please rate the importance of the following attributes of an ideal study visit:


VisitScape

05/10/10 11

Background – What students want from a study visit• Survey in 2009-10 with students at the School

asked them to rate the relative importance of these values for an ideal study visit

• Greyed (negative) values had to be left out (expecting that ‘uninformative’ etc. would get lowest rating)

• Used the below design:

Attribute Attribute ValuesPreparation Well-prepared ↔ Ill-preparedSupport Well supported ↔ Poorly supportedInformativeness Informative ↔ UninformativeInspiration Inspiring ↔ UninspiringExcitement Exciting ↔ BoringEase Challenging ↔ TrivialActiveness Active ↔ Passive

..........

Well-prepared □ □ □ □ □ □ □Well supported □ □ □ □ □ □ □

Informative □ □ □ □ □ □ □Inspiring □ □ □ □ □ □ □Exciting □ □ □ □ □ □ □

Challenging □ □ □ □ □ □ □Active □ □ □ □ □ □ □

...........

On the block scale below, where the shortest blockrepresents least important and the tallest is most important, please rate the importance of the following attributes of an ideal study visit:

• Analysis problem: what does a rating of ‘7’ (most importance) for both ‘free-form’ and ‘structured’ mean for structuredness?

• The person is placing equal importance on both

• So importance rating averages for each opposite pair (x, y) were scaled add up to 8 using the formulas:

and

while for those pairs with omitted values (‘ill-prepared’, ‘poorly supported’, etc.), each omitted value was assigned the lowest importance rating of 1.

yx

xx

*8'

yx

yy

*8'


VisitScape

05/10/10 12

Background – What students want from a study visit


VisitScape

05/10/10 13

Background – Birmingham Study Visit

From the handout:

• “in order to understand museums ... we also need to understand how the museum, its programmes, its architecture, its visitors are connected (or not) to its wider cultural, economic and social context.”

• Physical environment• Architectural statement about city’s civility, scientific advancement and creativity?

• Plaques revealing funding / function?

• Sculptures / memorials characterising the space?

• Cultural environment• Museum programmes that involve particular communities?

• What kind of visitors does it attract because of its location?

• Social environment• Does the city / area look prosperous or economically depressed?

• Are there new / old services around the museum?

• Are there lots of people in the area?


VisitScape

05/10/10 14

On this study visit you will become flâneurs. We will be taking a walking tour of parts of central Birmingham and visiting two very different museums and a department store:

We will discuss your ‘findings’ at the study visit workshops so please ensure you take notes of the clues that you find and your analysis of what they tell you about Birmingham. You will be assisted by the prompt questions listed at the end of this document. You will find you get a lot more out of this study visit if you consult some of the materials listed in the study visit reading list on Blackboard.


• Birmingham Museum and Art Gallery was opened in 1885 and is located next to Victoria and Chamberlain Squares originally opened in the 19th century but which have undergone substantial refurbishment in the last 20 years.

• You will walk through Centenary Place, a part of the city which has focused on leisure and cultural facilities to encourage regeneration of this part of the city centre.

• You will walk through Brindleyplace, another regenerated part of the city, here you will visit Ikon Gallery which moved into its current building in 1998.

• You will then walk back to the Bullring, a recently developed shopping centre located on a medieval market place which is the result of a major building project which opened in 2001. In Bullring you will visit Selfridges Department store.


VisitScape

05/10/10 15

• 10.00: Arrive Hill Street. Take 45 minutes exploring Chamberlain and Victoria Squares and the civic spaces thereabouts including the public art and monuments and clues relating to these.

• Ask yourselves who are the people, things memorialised in the public art and monuments here?

• What do the various plaques say about the history and contemporary context of Birmingham?

• What do you think the civic fathers of Birmingham were trying to communicate in the organisation of the spaces and buildings you see here?

• Note the various plaques which tell you who, why and how various spaces, buildings and monuments were funded.



VisitScape

05/10/10 16

• 10.45-12.00: Go to Birmingham Museum and Art Gallery to meet the principal curator, who will talk to you and allow you to ask questions about the history of BMAG. Then take a self-guided tour of the Gallery.

• What were some of the themes of the 19th century cultural regeneration which BMAG was part of? How did the founders of BMAG hope that the institution would lead regeneration?


Never Morning Wore to Evening but Some Heart Did BreakLangley, 1894


VisitScape

05/10/10 17

• 12.00-13.00: Walk through Paradise Forum to Centenary Way and Centenary Place, then along Broadstreet to Brindleyplace. Note the ‘signs’ in the landscapes around you – monuments on display, public buildings and commercial outlets which front on to the Square and Brindleyplace.

• What do you think is the function of these different spaces?

• What do you think is the relationship between public spaces which are dominated by commercial leisure services and publicly funded leisure services?

• How are Brindleyplace and Centenary Place different to the spaces around BMAG?

• What do you think the city is trying to say about itself through these places?



VisitScape

05/10/10 18

• 13.00-14.30: Go to the Ikon Gallery to meet the learning curator, for a talk and a tour of the gallery.

• How is the location of the Ikon Gallery different to BMAG? What opportunities and challenges do you think this presents?

• What were some of the themes of the 21st century cultural regeneration which Ikon is part of? How does Ikon and its funders hope that the institution will aid regeneration?


Clare Rojas.We They, We They

Installation, Ikon, 2010Photo: Stuart Whipps


VisitScape

05/10/10 19

• 14.30-16.00: Walk back through Brindleyplace, Broad Street, Centenary Square, Paradise forum and Victoria Square to the top of New Street and down to the Bullring. Notice the different distinct parts of the city and how they relate to each other.

• How do you think the Bullring relates to the other spaces you have been?

• What do you think Birmingham is saying about itself through the Bullring?

• Note the exhibitionary techniques used to display different ‘artifacts’ within Selfridges, what are they?

• What strategies does the store use to convey value and significance in different objects within the store?

• How are the exhibitionary techniques in this store different to that of a museum or gallery? How are they the same?

• How do you think the Bullring might effect Birmingham’s regeneration?



VisitScape

05/10/10 20

Background – Study Visit materials / resources• Handout described above

• Separate list of questions for each of the four locations

• Pre-reading list:Primary texts:Davies, S., 1985, By the gains of industry: Birmingham Museums and Art Gallery 1885-1985, Birmingham Art Gallery.Hunt, Tristram, 2004, Building Jerusalem: the rise and fall of the Victorian city, Weidenfeld & Nicolson.Kennedy, L., ed., 2004, Remaking Birmingham: The Visual Culture of Urban Regeneration, Routledge.

Sites and institutions to be visited:Victoria Squarehttp://www.birmingham.gov.uk/GenerateContent?CONTENT_ITEM_ID=913&CONTENT_ITEM_TYPE=0&MENU_ID=682&EXPAND=251Birmingham Museum and Art Galleryhttp://www.bmag.org.uk/Centenary Squarehttp://www.birminghamuk.com/centenary.htmhttp://www.birmingham.gov.uk/GenerateContent?CONTENT_ITEM_ID=888&CONTENT_ITEM_TYPE=0&MENU_ID=165Brindley Place (look under ‘Info’ for ‘Brindleyplace history’)http://www.brindleyplace.com/Ikon Galleryhttp://www.ikon-gallery.co.uk/Birmingham Bullringhttp://www.bullring.co.uk/website/MenuTitleOnly.aspx?currentSectionId=05e70eec-3a28-43cc-8a6b-9007f15962a3&PLID=-1&LH=TopLevelBirmingham cultural context:Birmingham Changed: Backgroundhttp://www.birminghamuk.com/aroundbirmingham.htmBirmingham Historic Environment Conservation www.birmingham.gov.uk/buildingconservationStatues and Public Arthttp://www.birmingham.gov.uk/GenerateContent?CONTENT_ITEM_ID=884&CONTENT_ITEM_TYPE=0&MENU_ID=1Famous Brummieshttp://www.birmingham.gov.uk/GenerateContent?CONTENT_ITEM_ID=31047&CONTENT_ITEM_TYPE=0&MENU_ID=15Other culture-led regeneration areas and projects in Birmingham:Jewellery Quarter Regeneration Partnershiphttp://www.birmingham.gov.uk/GenerateContent?CONTENT_ITEM_ID=12991&CONTENT_ITEM_TYPE=0&MENU_ID=679&EXPAND=251Museum of the Jewellery Quarterhttp://www.bmag.org.uk/index.php?type=element&maincat=1&subcat=2&subelement=3The Custard Factoryhttp://www.custardfactory.com/Millennium Pointhttp://www.birmingham.gov.uk/GenerateContent?CONTENT_ITEM_ID=3150&CONTENT_ITEM_TYPE=0&MENU_ID=11143&EXPAND=251Think Tank museumhttp://www.thinktank.ac/


http://www.birmingham.gov.uk/GenerateContent?CONTENT_ITEM_ID=913&CONTENT_ITEM_TYPE=0&MENU_ID=682&EXPAND=251

http://www.bmag.org.uk/

http://www.birminghamuk.com/centenary.htm

http://www.birmingham.gov.uk/GenerateContent?CONTENT_ITEM_ID=888&CONTENT_ITEM_TYPE=0&MENU_ID=165

http://www.brindleyplace.com/

http://www.ikon-gallery.co.uk/

http://www.bullring.co.uk/website/MenuTitleOnly.aspx?currentSectionId=05e70eec-3a28-43cc-8a6b-9007f15962a3&PLID=-1&LH=TopLevel

http://www.birminghamuk.com/aroundbirmingham.htm

http://www.birmingham.gov.uk/buildingconservation




http://www.bmag.org.uk/index.php?type=element&maincat=1&subcat=2&subelement=3

http://www.custardfactory.com/


http://www.thinktank.ac/

VisitScape

05/10/10 21

Background – (After the) Birmingham Study Visit

• Post-visit workshop

• In this workshop we will review your experiences on the study visit. Thinking about Birmingham and other cities you are familiar with we will discuss:

• what you thought about the iconography of the different city spaces you experienced?• how you understood the museums in their larger urban context?• do you think culture-led regeneration is a successful strategy for economic, social and/or

cultural development?• do you think culture-led regeneration enables access to culture?• does culture-led regeneration facilitate ‘social inclusion’?

• The session is designed to further develop your understanding of both the history and the contemporary contexts of museums in urban environments.

• The ‘Museums and Regeneration Reading List’ and the ‘Birmingham Study Visit Reading and Resource List’ … will be helpful for this session.


VisitScape

05/10/10 22

Student preparations for a study visit (in general):• “skim read [materials provide by tutor] but didn’t go into much detail or

do my own research”

• “gave us so many materials that it was confusing”

• “[I use] the bus journey [to prepare for a study visit]”

• “everyone would read more if it was seen as obligatory, if they knew they had to bring that knowledge and materials to discussion. I know I would”

• “not much”

Note: some students do actually prepare

• But they bring along:

• Course notes, notebook, camera, handouts

• And they receive on the day (from tutor / venues):

• More handouts, briefs, leaflets, maps


VisitScape

05/10/10 23

exhibits

buildings

policies

mission

Technology to support Birmingham study visit

Physical spaceMuseums, squares,

public art, commercial outlets, statues,

monuments, exhibits...

Organisational spaceMissions, policies, social and political agendas, economic targets...

Conceptual spaceHistoric meanings of museums,

planning, visitor studies, exhibition design, education,

inclusion, accessibility...

topic

topic

concept

concept concept

concept

concept

Collaborative virtual spaceAccessing, capturing, sharing,

reflecting


VisitScape

05/10/10 24

Collaborative Virtual Space: Requirements

• Access• Information provided by tutor about the physical / organisational space; and

about the conceptual space• But: they cannot read too much on the go

• Capture• Aspects of the physical / organisational space

• Reflections on relevance of those aspects with conceptual space• Provide alternative to their notebooks

• Share• Students reflect on relationships between all spaces and make those reflections,

along with their captured materials, public and accessible by all other students / tutors

• But not by those outside the course

• Shared student content sits along information provided by tutor

• Look back• Captured and shared materials are brought back in the classroom to aid the

debriefing session


VisitScape

05/10/10 25

HP iPAQ 614c Business Navigator

•3G•4-inch transflective TFT display•Integrated WLAN 802.11b/g; Bluetooth 2.0 with EDR•Touch screen and stylus•Integrated microphone, receiver, 2 speakers and one 3.5 mm 4 pin stereo headphone jack•4 programmable keys•Voice recorder•GPS•3 Megapixel camera

Mscape

• Mobile media gaming platform, by HP

• Maker: Map, defined regions, media associated with regions

• Player: identifies region based on GPS and plays associated media• Everything pre-

defined / pre-loaded on mediascape

ASP.Net web-based application

•Bespoke•Serves as data provider for user specified content•Data upload through PDA button, from the PDA storage media using the website interface. •Data is created on the PDA outside of the MScape application•The presentation of user content based on the user’s geographic location

System description


VisitScape

05/10/10 26

System description

Request content

Upload content

Consume content

Create content


VisitScape

05/10/10 27

The trial

• 9 iPAQs with mobile internet running modified Mscape application

• 9 students in experimental group; 42 in control group

• Pre-visit (exp. group only)

• Focus group

• System demonstration

• On the day

• Pre-questionnaire on the bus (exp. + control groups)

• Visit with tools (exp. group only)

• Post-questionnaire on the bus (exp. + control groups)

• Post-visit (exp. group only)

• Focus group


VisitScape

05/10/10 28

Also a trial of character...

• ... for participants and researchers

• Weeks before the trial we found out that Mscape would be ‘discontinued’

• Days before the trial iPAQs become lost luggage

• Turn up last minute, but decide to freeze in freezing weather

• Technical support not available in person

• Server overload with so many requests gives formidable 404 kind of message

• But, perseverance (obstinacy?) won and we did go on…


VisitScape

05/10/10 29

The trial – how the groups compare per their ideals


VisitScape

05/10/10 30

Findings: expectations for experience of the technology

• Structure the visit

• Learning• Timely and detailed information

• Interactivity

• Sharing

• Photo-documentation

• Guide attention to surroundings

• Distract attention from surroundings

• Orientation• Physical

• Conceptual

• Physical-conceptual (“information about interesting routes before we start wandering”)

• Internet access• Personal social networks

• “Will we be penalised if we go on Facebook?”

• Fun


VisitScape

05/10/10 31

Findings: expectations for visit in general

• Learning• Look at the city, the regeneration funding/funders, the cultural landscape

• Look at museum in context

• How museums fit into overall scheme of the city

• Compare different models of regeneration

• Personal interests• Visit specific site

• Novelty of experience• Walk around the landscape


VisitScape

05/10/10 32

Findings – What did groups think of the visit?

Experimental group found it slightly more:

-Engaging

-Relevant

-Interesting

-Challenging

-Inspiring

-Exciting

and slightly less:

-Social

-Comfortable

-Self-guided


VisitScape

05/10/10 33

Findings – Individuals’ proximities to ideal


VisitScape

05/10/10 34

• Hardware problems• iPAQs froze regularly

• Interface problems• Content upload interface complicated

• No picture preview during upload must rename picture after it is taken

• “in the end I just took photos and saved them on the phone without uploading”

• No control over map vs. content display• Mscape region identification random (e.g.

Showing map while in region instead of content)

• Log in obscured by hidden soft keyboard• Slow response times

• Battery problems• Devices run out of battery half-way through

the visit• Avoided to put on stand-by, as subsequent

request for unlock led devices to freeze and require reboot

• Network/connection problems• Simultaneous picture/comment upload

attempts could not be handled by server• No GPS / reception inside the museum

• Training problems• Lack of adequate prior training meant they

could not operate devices unaided – had to learn the devices and the application

• Distract attention / focus – duty• “I prefer just to explore the city, I don’t want to

always track the machine”• “I don’t know if this way I missed out on other

things”• “[with the technology] I would probably have

stayed to the places we had to see”• “it can be really distractive in a way that you

have this relationship with the device and you need to control it, you need to take pictures, you need to read”

• “we were fiddling with it whilst the curator was talking in BMAG”

Findings: actual experience of the technology – negatives

“That was discouraging, cause I felt everyone else had gone and was enjoying that stuff when we

were stuck with those devices making them work instead of looking at actual things.”


VisitScape

05/10/10 35

• Guiding attention / focus• “it was good that it told me what to pay

attention to”

• “there was a statue I got information from the device about and otherwise I wouldn’t have noticed it”

• Recording / capturing• Shaping behaviour

• “it made me start looking for [interesting, but not necessarily relevant] things to photograph”

• Sharing

• “we were all taking photos e.g. in the Imperial War Museum, but no one was documenting them or sharing with others”

• Real-time: “it’s different that just having a camera and taking pictures and documenting when you come back home, because you can document and put it there and somebody [...] can come and access it [there and then]”

• Informative • Info about the context of artworks

• “these tools are effective and very informative”

• “gave context to stuff I saw with info I wouldn’t get by seeing these buildings, sculptures, squares”

• Instant, real-time sharing• Of information, discoveries, viewpoints

• Satisfaction• “batteries aside, it was really enjoyable

having these devices, I do like handheld equipment”

• Orientation• Physical orientation

• Task orientation

Findings: actual experience of the technology - positives


VisitScape

05/10/10 36

• Interaction with museum and academic staff (and with PhD students)

• “conversations with real professionals [curators] were quite enjoyable. It is good to find out what happens in the real world”

• “staff were really kind, we got some coloured pencils”

• Short bus journey

• Walk around, explore

• Visit specific sites• Self-initiated learning

• Learning • By observing rather than reading only

• Reflective experience on how museum influences city and vice versa

• Focus on the context of the museum as a physical space within the city

• “easier in Birmingham [to map concepts from the coursework to the visit] than mapping exhibition design [in other visits]. Because everything was bigger and we had to walk through it”

• Had the framework to look for information

Findings: actual experience of the visit - positives


VisitScape

05/10/10 37

Findings: actual experience of the visit - negatives

• Information overload

• Task overload

• Bad weather


VisitScape

05/10/10 38

• Hands-on training in advance of the visit

• Use own phone / other model• “you already know how to handle your own

phone”

• “I want to have the pictures I take as my own, so I had to take the photos twice”

• “the device was heavy and bulky”; “was like the big cell phones of the 90s”; “iPhone would have worked much better”

• Sharing• Within small group – increased interaction

and collaboration

• and filtering: “there are so many things that interest you, you can’t upload everything for everyone”

• Use for photodocumenting and sharing rather than information push

• “on the spot information is probably available physically anyway. But we can’t always remember what we documented and we can’t carry around a piece of paper”

• Technology interface• Change upload interface

• Preview of photos during upload• Option to upload immediately after taking

picture

• Add voice connection with other groups

• Integrate other media (audio – but transcribed; video)

• Better integration with coursework• “link its use to preparing some assignment

might be more interesting”

• “we could all upload photos and then identify some forms of display or [...] whatever they were asking you”

• Use for reference / guidance when needed

Findings: what would students change


VisitScape

05/10/10 39

Emerging themes

• Fitting the technology into relevant activity

• Technology – coursework integration

• Is information push passé? • Provide lens to look at world instead

• Sharing culture

• Photo-documentation

• Physical-conceptual orientation

• Mindful that activity will shape behaviour (beyond your intentions)• ‘made me look for interesting things to photograph’• ‘constrained me in terms of where to go’

• Shared device

• Intermittent rather than continuous use

• Context can be perpetual

• Student in Bullring complains he could no longer upload a photo he had taken in Victoria Square


VisitScape

05/10/10 40

“Cause if you don’t feel you are successful with it, there is nothing pushing you to use it in more creative ways”

Museum Studies student, 2010


VisitScape

05/10/10 41

Acknowledgements• SPLINT – Spatial Literacy in Teaching CETL (funding, hardware)

• Adam Rousell, University of Leicester (development)

• Alex Moseley, University of Leicester

• Lisanne Gibson, University of Leicester (study visit tutor)

• Sandy Pearson, University of Leicester (IT support)

• All campus-based 2009-10 Museum Studies students who took part in the trial!
