theswangus

Ok well I am hoping to get better at this writing thing, as at a ‘mature’ age I am back taking classes and the process of writing papers is slow … so slow … so rusty. I am committed to writing a post a week, maybe more. Feel free to comment world, but really this is just for me.

This week I am just musing through what I might right about. Life, learning, and perhaps a bit of gratitude. I think I will push to read a paper or report a week, or heck maybe a good old book report. OK well enough for now. Next time I’ll do a proper outline and actually say something.

There an abundance of examples of how museums are reinterpreting exhibit labels with technology. For my report I selected 12  projects that exemplify of the range of digital exhibit labels that I discovered while digging through museum documentation and  academic research reports. The projects are summarised and presented as a progression from enhancement to transformation of traditional exhibit labels, aligning with Puentedura’s (2012) SAMR Model (Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, Redefinition). The SAMR Model is useful to help categorize how technology can be used to impact learning as well as reflects a common path for technology implementation (Puentedura, 2012).

Project		Description
LIVE! Labels	Wi-Fi enabled hardware and content management software, installed within a variety of museums (ex. art, history) to enable curators to present timely content. Also used to customize content for specific visitors such as school groups, and to post curator chosen visitor comments. (Moss, 2006; Parry et al., 2007)
First Peoples Digital Labels	To complement object and photographic displays for the First Peoples exhibit, the Melbourne Museum installed interactive digital labels offering at depth exploration of exhibit elements. To accommodate all visitors at peak times, a responsive web version of the digital labels was also implemented. (Lightwell, 2013)
Social Object Label	Social Object Labels (SOLs) are installed within museums in close proximity to existing labels to prompt social commentary via QR code, NFC technology or URL. SOLs display a QR code, number of comments and an URL. The intention is to engage visitors in discussion about objects beyond curator provided content. (Winter, Gorman, Brunswick, Browne, Williams & Kidney, 2015)
QRator	Co-creation of content by visitors and curators. QRator iPads installed as interactive exhibit labels posing questions, offering background, and collecting and displaying visitor comments collected via Twitter or iPad entry. Mobile access was enabled by a QR code directing visitors to engage in object conversations on “Tales of Things” (www.talesofthings.com). Offsite direct access was also available on QRator website (www.qrator.org). (Gray, Ross, Hudson-Smith, Terras, & Warwick, 2012).
Google Cultural Institute	Responsive website collection of artifacts from partner cultural institutes. General users and museum professionals can create, share and comment on custom galleries/tours. Partner institutes have access to Google tools to create and publish content on the cultural institute platform, within custom Google app or embedded in the institute’s website. (Stone, 2015; Johnson et al., 2015).
ArtSets	Responsive data aggregation website, with functionality that enables user creation of ArtSets of works currently on display, items within collection and objects from other sources. Users can also create tours based on currently displayed items, incorporating related multi-media files. ArtSets and tours can be shared on the galleries website or social media. (Art Gallery of NSW, 2015)
MyArt Space	Pre, on, and post visit learning model, where visitors use a mobile device to collect museum data (ex. photo, audio, notes). Data is automatically loaded to MyArtSpace website where in combination with museum pre-loaded content, visitors are able to remix content into post-visit reflective presentations. (Vavoula, Sharples, Rudman, Meek, & Lonsdale, 2009)
eXspot	Exploratorium science museum in SanFrancisco implemented an RFID trial with RFID readers mounted on museum exhibits and RF tags carried by visitors on a card or necklace. Visitors received RF tags at reception, were prompted to register via kiosk, ‘collected’ objects of interest and were emailed dynamically generated web pages. (Hsi & Fait, 2005)
Ask	The Brooklyn Museum’s innovative new mobile app will offer state-of-the-art responsive content delivery, driven by geo-location technology (i.e. Beacons). In addition, visitors will be able to use mobile devices to initiate social conversations, by asking questions of experts and receiving responses in real-time.   (Bernstein, 2015a; Bloomberg Connects, 2014)
SmArt Tweet	Mobile app pushes alerts / ‘tweets’ of recommended multimedia content based on user data and Wi-Fi location analysis. Object can ‘talk’ when they are identified as most relevant for a user, given location and user profile. Visitor activity data collected from the mobile device and user feedback feed machine learning to advance user profiling. Trial was conducted at Maschio Angioino castle, Naples, Italy. (Chianese, Marulli, Moscato, & Piccialli, 2013)
The Pen	Visitors to the Cooper Hewitt are given a Pen device, which can digitally collect objects viewed (RFID) as well as design and save creations developed with interactive table exhibits. The Pen records user visits, making the visitor experience accessible and sharable post visit, both offsite or at a return visit. (Cooper Hewitt, 2015; Bloomberg Connects, 2014)
The O	At the MONA all exhibit labels are removed. The O device is supplied to each visitor, and recommends a selection of objects based on user proximity. Users can then choose content of interest, like or dislike objects, and track, save and share their museum path including associated multimedia content. (Carvalho, forthcoming, 2015)

References

Art Gallery of NSW (2015) Art sets and art tours. Retrieved May 2015 from http://www.artgallery.nsw.gov.au/media-office/art-sets-and-art-tours/.

Baldwin, T., & Kuriakose, L. T. (2009). Cheap, accurate RFID tracking of museum visitors for personalized content delivery. Presented at the Museums and the Web 2009, Indianapolis, Indiana. Retrieved June 2015 from http://www.museumsandtheweb.com/mw2009/papers/baldwin/baldwin.html

Bernstein, S. (2015a). Inside out. [Blog post] Retrieved May 2013 from http://www.brooklynmuseum.org/community/blogosphere/2015/03/25/inside-out/

Bloomberg Connects (2014). Bloomberg philanthropies expands and rebrands global engagement program. Retrieved the Bloomberg Philanthropies website May 2015 from http://www.bloomberg.org/press/releases/bloomberg-philanthropies-expands-rebrands-global-engagement-program/

Carvalho, L. (forthcoming, 2015). The O in MONA: Reshaping museum spaces. In L. Carvalho, P. Goodyear & de Laat, M. (Eds.), Place-based spaces for networked learning. New York: Routledge.

Chianese, A., Marulli, F., Moscato, V., & Piccialli, F. (2013). SmARTweet: A Location-Based Smart Application for Exhibits and Museums (pp. 408–415). Presented at the 2013 International Conference on Signal-Image Technology & Internet-Based Systems (SITIS), IEEE. http://doi.org/10.1109/SITIS.2013.73

Cooper Hewitt (2015) The new Cooper Hewitt experience. Retrieved May 2015 from http://www.cooperhewitt.org/new-experience/

Gray, S., Ross, C., Hudson-Smith, A., Terras, M., & Warwick, C. (2012). Enhancing museum narratives with the QRator poject: A tasmanian devil, a platypus and a dead man in a box (pp. 1–96). Presented at the Museums and the Web the international conference for culture and heritage on-line, San Diego, CA, USA. Retreived May 2015 from http://www.museumsandtheweb.com/mw2012/papers/enhancing_museum_narratives_with_the_qrator_pr

Hsi, S., & Fait, H. (2005). RFID enhances visitors’ museum experience at the Exploratorium. Communications of the ACM, 48(9), 60. http://doi.org/10.1145/1081992.1082021

Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Estrada, V., & Freeman, A. (2015). NMC Horizon Report: 2015 Museum Edition (pp. 1–56). Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium. http://www.nmc.org/publication/nmc-horizon-report-2015-museum-edition/

Lightwell (2013). First peoples digital labels: Museum Victoria. Retrieved April 2015 from http://lightwell.com.au/projects/first-peoples-digital-labels/

Moss, R. (2006). New live labels could revitalise the museum. Retrieved from Culture 24 March 20, 2015 http://www.culture24.org.uk/places-to-go/east-midlands/leicester/art41332

Parry, R., Ortiz-Williams, M., & Sawyer, A. (2007). How shall we label our exhibit today? Applying the principles of on-line publishing to an on-site exhibition. in J. Trant and D. Bearman (eds.). Museums and the Web 2007: Proceedings, Toronto: Archives & Museum Informatics. Retrieved from http://www.archimuse.com/mw2007/papers/parry/parry.html

Puentedura, R. R. (2012). The SAMR model: Background and exemplars. Retrieved from http://www.hippasus.com/rrpweblog/archives/2012/08/23/SAMR_BackgroundExemplars.pdf

Stone, D. (2015) Google optimises Australian culture. Retreived from ArtsHub May 2015 http://screen.artshub.com.au/news-article/news/digital/deborah-stone/google-optimises-australian-culture-247300

Vavoula, G., Sharples, M., Rudman, P., Meek, J., & Lonsdale, P. (2009). Myartspace: Design and evaluation of support for learning with multimedia phones between classrooms and museums. Computers & Education, 53(2), 286–299. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.02.007

Winter, M., Gorman, M.J., Brunswick, I., Browne, D., Williams, D. and Kidney, F. (2015). Fail Better: Lessons Learned from a Formative Evaluation of Social Object Labels. 8th International Workshop on Personalized Access to Cultural Heritage, PATCH @ IUI 2015, Atlanta, USA. Retrieved May 2015 from http://www.cmis.brighton.ac.uk/staff/mw159/PATCH_2015_Winter_et_al.pdf

This post is a result of my final project for the Masters of Learning Science and Technology program at the University of Sydney. The project investigated digital exhibit labels for the Australian National Maritime Museum (ANMM), providing a literature review and recommendations for ANMM. A previous post defined digital exhibit labels and discussed the implications of existing and proposed examples (Digital Exhibit Labels – Balancing the Opportunities and Challenges). The review highlighted the ability of current technology to deliver tools whose scope is limited only by the imagination of museums, researchers and visitors.

The future for museum technology is exciting, as museum adopt technology labels are no longer constrained to text on the wall, instead devices and internet access enable previously unconceivable ways to learn in both physical and virtual visits. Yet the speed of development has outpaced substantial evaluation of specific digital exhibit label technology leaving the impact on experience and learning not fully explored.

Labels for Learning

So … can exhibit labels and more specifically digital exhibit labels effectively support visitors and their learning process at museums? My answer is YES, there is evidence indicating that exhibit labels, and to greater extent digital labels, can significantly impact visitor experience and meaning making. Research indicates that label use can increase: exhibit content recall, emotional response, concept comprehension, inquiry skills, attention duration, and discussion quality. Well developed exhibit labels can go beyond providing information becoming a facilitator for the museum experience by providing multimedia, prompting discussion, supporting navigation, offering interpretation, maintaining attention, and provoking response.

However, to be successful digital exhibit labels must balance the needs of the visitor and the institution. Such tools should support individual visitor needs and enhance the physical and social experience, while also communicating key museum messages. Described by Falk and Dierking as a contextual model, meaning making is suggested to occur at the intersection of physical, personal and sociocultural contexts, with the learning evidenced by the change in the individual over time. Initially contextual influences present as an individual’s motivations and preconceptions, change with museum interaction into knowledge and experience, and then ideally transfer to other situations. Digital exhibit labels can help museum visitors manage the contexts of the moment and serve as evidence of the experience, creating an accessible bridge into their everyday life.

Yet regardless of the quality of a label it will not be relevant to all visitors, and no visitor will read every label. Learning is an intensely personal process, with the informal learning process at museums associated with novel experiences and active discovery that is ideally intrinsically motivated, self-directed, and inquiry based. As Kelly suggests the individual and beliefs about their learning identity (i.e. interests, learning style) are central to museum learning connecting purpose, process, people, place and product of a museum experience. Only by evaluating visitor roles, social interactions, tools used, tasks engaged, response to presentations, and content of interest is there a chance that elements of the museum experience can be designed to effectively engage visitor learning identity and influence experience.

Evaluating Technology, Learning & Context

OK so … we know labels can be effective if they consider context and individual needs, and their benefit for visitors can be heightened with the magic of technology. But HOW? The answer is not concrete, rather lies in guidance driven by an evaluation of available related research, learning best practice, current technology examples and the ANMM context.

The first step, as suggested by Kidd, is to reframe technology as a museum learning tool, reinterpreting visitor interaction with technology as engagement instead of distraction. A digital label in any form can become a way to engage with an object of interest, a toolkit to capture the experience, a source for later reflection, and a vehicle for sharing personal interpretations. From the digital exhibit label examples reviewed technology potential is summarized as follows:

Technology Potential

Personalisation Access to new voices Social engagement Evolving experience

Research evidence suggests that digital exhibit labels can be embedded with learning best practices to promote excitement and attention, but should also help guide and manage novelty of location and exhibits. Theses consolidated best practices can be applied to content, device, instructions, and individual … indeed anything that may impact physical, sociocultural or individual contexts.

Learning Best Practice

personalisation – offering a variety of meaningful content and experiences; guidance – indicating suggestions for interaction with objects, tools and social; construction – providing means to document and construct meaning; socialisation – enabling a process of sharing of interpretations and feedback; evaluation – monitoring and optimising emerging activity.

The final portion of the evaluation was a review of the museum context, to guide any ANMM specific considerations. Data sources included visitor surveys, museum guides, marketing materials, business reports and site visits. What became apparent is the pervasive diversity and novelty at the ANMM including the collection (vessels and exhibits), location (harbour and tourist precinct), visitor demographics (domestic, international, children, adults, school, families, etc.), visitor preferences (BYOD, CYOD, no tech), and visitor motivations (learning goals, fun seeking, hobbyist, tourist).

ANMM Context

High novelty (location, collection) Tech savvy visitor population Diverse (collection, population)

ANMM technology implementations must navigate challenges and optimise the affordances of its collection, location and population without dampening the excitement of an indoor / outdoor museum experience in an iconic location. While the current research does not point to the efficacy of one implementation over another, I found enough research to suggest a learning process and activities to foster during development of digital exhibit labels. However, evaluation must continue to monitor resulting human activity as visitor use will best inform as to the success or not of any tool.

Framework for Digital Label Evaluation

The learning process suggested is explore, imagine, inspire – simply defined explore is the process of discovery, imagine is the construction of meaning, and inspire is the opportunity for individual and shared reflection.

Activities to foster in each phase are suggested below. However, each individual will choose their own action, as instructions, tools and environment can only suggest not guarantee specific activities.

Explore	Imagine	Inspire
Planning & research Object interaction Collection & notation Collaboration Social interaction	Attention to connections Construction Presentation Remix & reuse Self-assessment	Sharing Reflection Evaluation Feedback Discussion

The process of explore, imagine and inspire and the suggested activities seek to provide a framework to enable the museum to guide development and evaluate future programs and technology. This framework is technology agnostic, remaining applicable to any implementation from text labels to interactive experiences. It is the process of learning that is the priority, with technology remaining one element of the museum learning network.

Focusing on the learning process also enables targeting of tools to more narrow use cases and user profiles. Although demographics and broad profiles help to prioritise visitors to target, user profiles and scenarios can more humanise the development process and evaluation. To better exemplify the suggested framework, at the end of the post are two potential implementation scenarios – an exhibit website, and a reimagined education program.

What’s Next

Although I have developed personal opinions about what technology may best work for the ANMM, they are just that … opinions. As there is not yet any substantial research to recommend investment in a specific technology, investigating current projects at other institutions (i.e. The O, Ask) and evaluating low cost prototypes are likely the best short-term options for the ANMM.

With a history of trialling new label technologies including audio tours, apps, interactive iPad exhibits, games, QR codes and more, the ANMM will continue to trial and evaluate. For example, Michelle Mortimer at the ANMM has recently developed a new ANMM app and collection highlights tours using Google Cultural Institute tools. However, feedback from the ANMM suggests the main challenge to any sustainable digital label implementation may be data source and management.

I look forward to the continued innovations from the ANMM and the coming Warships Pavilion.

---

Framework in Action – Examples

Shackleton Exhibit Website 

The ANMM Shackleton website is conceived of as an aggregator of exhibit resources and a tool to guide interaction with objects, exhibits, content, tools and other visitors. The website will need to be responsive to a variety of devices and formats as it is assumed visitors will use the website offsite (desktop, tablet, smartphone), on mobile devices at the museum (personal and museum), tablets or other interactive technology mounted within the exhibit, and even as hardcopy print outs. It is important to remember that the website will serve as a digital exhibit label, thus it needs to convey information and guide both physical and virtual visits.

Explore – Website tools to enable exploration include: multimedia content, curator recommended tours, suggested activities associated with exhibit or object, as well as maps and traditional navigation aides. The tours would ideally be customized to meet the needs of prioritized visitor segments for example – Horrible Histories Family Tour (Learning Goals), Shackleton’s Perspective (Hobbiests), ‘Selfie’ Twitter Tour (Tourists). Tasks and activities should be embedded within the tours as well as offered separately as suggestions for how visitors can interact with the website and/or exhibit objects. Example tasks include: supplying response to museum supplied questions by submitting photos to the website, or suggesting a Twitter hash tag for groups to share and catalogue comments and photos during exhibit exploration.

Imagine – A combination of tools for visitors and curators, enabling creation of custom tours from existing collection material and external resources (i.e. personal photos or web content) as well as ability to comment on, remix or reinvent existing tours and online collection. Functionality should enable users to interact with museum and broader collections to create and curate meaningful representations of their experiences (ex. NSW Art Gallery’s ArtSets, Google Cultural Institute User Galleries, Storify). Examples of website use, such as tours, should be created by museum staff and engaged visitors (e.g. ANMM members), further use should be prompted by suggested tasks. These tours would serve to model use, but also be accessible during explore activities. Example tasks might include: remixing supplied tours or recreating a tour with musical commentary only.

Inspire – Tools to help users inspire themselves by reflecting on their work as well as sharing with an interested community. Functionality should create a space on the website that enables visitors to share their creations, tag and categorize content, submit comments and engage in discussions around ANMM or user supplied content of interest. Social media style functionality should provide easy means of leaving comments, sharing, stating a like or dislike, as well as promotion of top ranked or featured content.

HMB Endeavour Reimagined

It is possible to engage visitors in the process of explore, imagine and inspire by augmenting current experiences at the museum with defined tasks enabled by easily accessible technology. The goal being to create low cost prototypes for trial and evaluation. This scenario takes inspiration from Simon’s discussion of social objects within museums, items that stimulate active discussion due to personal relevance, physical presence, provocation or by compelling interaction. Such objects are optimal for the trial of participatory museum experiences, as they already create much discussion.

The ANMM vessel trail and specifically the HMB Endeavour is indeed a social object. A Google search of HMB Endeavour returned more than 65,000 recommendations including ANMM and community produced images, videos, blogs, and information pages, as well as evidence of social media followers. The HMB Endeavour is already a feature in the current ANMM education program as well as clearly represented within various stages of the NSW curriculum.

Implementation of digital exhibit labels for the HMB Endeavour is suggested to first require a consolidation of curator recommended resources. This aggregation of content could be created by the ANMM using Google Cultural Institute, and would enable visitors to explore the HMB Endeavour both online and onsite. Further, Google Cultural Institute could also be leveraged to create a number of tours targeting known interested markets such as school groups. Onsite exploration could be enabled by personal or museum supplied mobile devices, a trail of temporarily installed iPads/kiosks, or even printouts.

This example learning task takes inspiration from TwitterTours at Museum Victoria, with student groups completing the following:

Task	Create a story about a crew member from HMB Endeavour
Segment	Family Learning Goals, K-12 School Group
Motivations	Facilitator, Explorer
Resources Provided	Crew member biographies Multimedia tours Multimedia exhibit collection resources Twitter hashtag Tablet / smart phone (personal or museum supplied) Wireless Internet access
Apps/Tools Recommended	Explore – Twitter Imagine –Shadow Puppet Edu (apple/android), or Book Creator (iPad/Android) Inspire – ANMM Twitter, ANMM Blog, School Edmodo
Suggested Process	Explore – In advance of visit project is discussed with students, and technology is trialled Explore – During visit students use Twitter to comment and upload notes and photos; Educators use Twitter to monitor and guide exploration Imagine – At museum in small groups students are allocated 30 minutes to reflect, discuss and evaluate Twitter feed for knowledge gaps and to collect additional information Imagine – At school access Twitter feed and compile story using recommended tools Inspire – Share creations on ANMM designated site or school’s Edmodo, evaluate and comment on other’s work
Student Evaluation Points	Information technology skills Planning & research; Collection & notation Attention to connections; Self-assessment Reflection; Discussion Evidence of learning: Crew member story; Reflection on process

---

A big thank you to my very patient supervisors at the University of Sydney: Lina Markauskaite and Lucila Carvalho.

---

References – Included in post text

Falk, J. H., & Dierking, L. D. (2012). Museum Experience Revisited. Left Coast Press.

Kidd, J. (2011). Enacting engagement online: framing social media use for the museum. Information Technology & People, 24(1), 64-77.

Kelly, L. (2007). Visitors and learners: Adult museum visitors’ learning identities. Presented at the ICOM-CECA Conference. Retrieved from http://www.austmus.gov.au/uploads/documents/9316/paper%20ceca%202007.pdf

Malloy, J. (2015). Beyond the walls. Retrieved June 2015 from http://meetday.net/schedule/beyond-the-walls/

Simon, N. (2010). The participatory museum. Retrieved May 2015 from http://www.participatorymuseum.org/

 

---

References – Full Report Reference List

Art Gallery of NSW (2015) Art sets and art tours. Retrieved May 2015 from http://www.artgallery.nsw.gov.au/media-office/art-sets-and-art-tours/.

Australian National Maritime Museum (2013) ANMM domestic market segmentation.

Australian National Maritime Museum (2015). Australian National Maritime Museum corporate plan 2015-2019: Shaped by the sea. Commonwealth of Australia.

Baldwin, T., & Kuriakose, L. T. (2009). Cheap, accurate RFID tracking of museum visitors for personalized content delivery. Presented at the Museums and the Web 2009, Indianapolis, Indiana. Retrieved June 2015 from http://www.museumsandtheweb.com/mw2009/papers/baldwin/baldwin.html

Bernstein, S. (2015a). Inside out. [Blog post] Retrieved May 2013 from http://www.brooklynmuseum.org/community/blogosphere/2015/03/25/inside-out/

Bernstein, S. (2015b). The realities of installing iBeacon to scale. [Blog post] Retrieved May 2013 from http://www.brooklynmuseum.org/community/blogosphere/2015/02/04/the-realities-of-installing-ibeacon-to-scale/

Bitgood, S. (1990). The ABCs of label design. Visitor studies: Theory, research, and practice, 2, 115-129.

Bitgood, S. (2000). The role of attention in designing effective interpretive labels. Journal of Intrepretation Research, 5(2), 31–45.

Bloomberg Connects (2014). Bloomberg philanthropies expands and rebrands global engagement program. Retrieved the Bloomberg Philanthropies website May 2015 from http://www.bloomberg.org/press/releases/bloomberg-philanthropies-expands-rebrands-global-engagement-program/

Bransford, J. D., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (2000). How people learn: Mind, brain, experience and school, expanded edition. DC: National Academy Press.

Cahill, C., Kuhn, A., Schmoll, S., Lo, W.-T., McNally, B., & Quintana, C. (2011). Mobile learning in museums: how mobile supports for learning influence student behavior. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (pp. 21–28) Ann Arbor, USA. Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=1999030.1999033

Cant, J. (2014). ANMM visitors’ use of technology report. Commissioned by the Australian National Maritime Museum. Sydney, Australia.

Carvalho, L. (forthcoming, 2015). The O in MONA: Reshaping museum spaces. In L. Carvalho, P. Goodyear & de Laat, M. (Eds.), Place-based spaces for networked learning. New York: Routledge.

Carvalho, L., & Goodyear, P. (2014). The architecture of productive learning networks. New York: Routledge.

Charitonos, K., Blake, C., Scanlon, E., & Jones, A. (2012a). Museum learning via social and mobile technologies: (How) can online interactions enhance the visitor experience? British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(5), 802–819. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01360.x

Charitonos, K., Blake, C., Scanlon, E. & Jones, A. (2012b). Trajectories of learning across museums and classrooms. The Transformative Museum, 22–25 May 2012, Roskilde, Denmark. Retrieved from www. dreamconference.dk/?page_id=1014

Chianese, A., Marulli, F., Moscato, V., & Piccialli, F. (2013). SmARTweet: A Location-Based Smart Application for Exhibits and Museums (pp. 408–415). Presented at the 2013 International Conference on Signal-Image Technology & Internet-Based Systems (SITIS), IEEE. http://doi.org/10.1109/SITIS.2013.73

Cooper Hewitt (2015) The new Cooper Hewitt experience. Retrieved May 2015 from http://www.cooperhewitt.org/new-experience/

de Corte, E. (2010). Historical developments in the understanding of learning. In D. Hanna, I. David & B. Francisco. (Eds.), The Nature of Learning: Using Research to Inspire Practice. Paris: OECD.

DeWitt, J., & Storksdieck, M. (2008). A short review of school field trips: Key findings from the past and implications for the future. Visitor Studies, 11(2), 181–197. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1080/10645570802355562

Dudzinska-Przesmitzki, D. (2008). Nonformal and informal adult learning in museums: A literature review. Journal of Museum Education, 33(1), 9–22. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1179/jme.2008.33.1.9

Falk, J. H. (1997). Testing a museum exhibition design assumption: Effect of explicit labeling of exhibit clusters on visitor concept development. Science Education, 81(6), 679–687.

Falk, J. H. (2011). Contextualizing Falk’s identity-related visitor motivation model. Visitor Studies, 14(2), 141– 157. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1080/10645578.2011.608002

Falk, J. H., & Dierking, L. D. (2012). Museum Experience Revisited. Left Coast Press.

Garcia, B. (2012). What we do best. Journal of Museum Education, 37(2), 47–56.

Goodyear, P. (2000). Environments for Lifelong Learning. In J. M. Spector & T. Anderson, Ergonomics, architecture and educational design (pp. 1–18). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Gray, S., Ross, C., Hudson-Smith, A., Terras, M., & Warwick, C. (2012). Enhancing museum narratives with the QRator poject: A tasmanian devil, a platypus and a dead man in a box (pp. 1–96). Presented at the Museums and the Web the international conference for culture and heritage on-line, San Diego, CA, USA.

Gutwill, J. (2006). Labels for open-ended exhibits: Using questions and suggestions to motivate physical activity. Visitor Studies Today, 9(1), 1-9.

Hou, H. T., Wu, S. Y., Lin, P. C., Sung, Y. T., & Lin, J. W. (2014). A blended mobile learning environment for museum learning. Educational Technology, 17(2), 207-218.

Hsi, S., & Fait, H. (2005). RFID enhances visitors’ museum experience at the Exploratorium. Communications of the ACM, 48(9), 60. http://doi.org/10.1145/1081992.1082021

Jeanneret, Y., Depoux, A., Luckerhoff, J., Vitalbo, V., & Jacobi, D. (2010). Written signage and reading practices of the public in a major fine arts museum. Museum Management and Curatorship, 25(1), 53–67.

Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Estrada, V., & Freeman, A. (2015). NMC Horizon Report: 2015 Museum Edition (pp. 1–56). Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium.

Kafai, Y. B. (2006). Constructionism. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.). The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Kelly, L. (2007). Visitors and learners: Adult museum visitors’ learning identities. Presented at the ICOM-CECA Conference. Retrieved from http://www.austmus.gov.au/uploads/documents/9316/paper%20ceca%202007.pdf

Kelly, L. (2015). Study 3: general museum visitor use of technology and digital. Commissioned by the Australian National Maritime Museum. Sydney, Australia.

Kidd, J. (2011). Enacting engagement online: framing social media use for the museum. Information Technology & People, 24(1), 64-77.

Kozulin, A. (2003). Psychological tools and mediated learning. In A. Kozulin, B. Gindis, V. S. Ageyev, & S. M. Miller (Eds.), Vygotskys Educational Theory in Cultural Context (pp. 15–38). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Laursen, D. (2013). Balancing accessibility and familiarity: offering digital media loans at the museum front desk. Museum Management and Curatorship, 28(5), 508–526. http://doi.org/10.1080/09647775.2013.850828

Lightwell (2013). First peoples digital labels: Museum Victoria. Retrieved April 2015 from http://lightwell.com.au/projects/first-peoples-digital-labels/

Linge, N., Bates, D., Booth, K., Parsons, D., Heatley, L., Webb, P., & Holgate, R. (2012). Realising the potential of multimedia visitor guides: practical experiences of developing mi-Guide. Museum Management and Curatorship, 27(1), 67–82.

Linge, N., Booth, K., & Parsons, D. (forthcoming 2015). Practicalities of developing and deploying a handheld multimedia guide for museum visitors. In L. Carvalho, P. Goodyear & de Laat, M. (Eds.), Place-based spaces for networked learning. New York: Routledge.

Malloy, J. (2015). Beyond the walls. Retrieved June 2015 from http://meetday.net/schedule/beyond-the-walls/

McManus, P. M. (1989). Oh, yes, they do: How museum visitors read labels and interact with exhibit texts. Curator: the Museum Journal, 32(3), 174–189.

Moss, R. (2006). New live labels could revitalise the museum. Retrieved from Culture 24 March 20, 2015 http://www.culture24.org.uk/places-to-go/east-midlands/leicester/art41332

National Research Council. (2009). Learning science in informal environments. National Academies Press.

National Research Council. (2009). Learning science in informal environments: People, places, and pursuits. Committee on Learning Science in Informal Environments. Philip Bell, Bruce Lewenstein, Andrew W. Shouse, and Michael A. Feder, (Eds.). Board on Science Education, Center for Education. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Newhouse, V. (1998). Towards a new museum (Vol. 1). New York: Monacelli Press.

Parry, R., Ortiz-Williams, M., & Sawyer, A. (2007). How shall we label our exhibit today? Applying the principles of on-line publishing to an on-site exhibition. in J. Trant and D. Bearman (eds.). Museums and the Web 2007: Proceedings, Toronto: Archives & Museum Informatics. Retrieved from http://www.archimuse.com/mw2007/papers/parry/parry.html

Patrick, W. (2010). Recognising non-formal and informal learning outcomes, policies and practices: Outcomes, policies and practices. OECD publishing.

Paavola, S., Lipponen, L., & Hakkarainen, K. (2004). Models of innovative knowledge communities and three metaphors of learning. Review of Educational Research, 74(4), 557–576. http://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074004557

Pierroux, P., Krange, I., & Sem, I. (2010). Bridging contexts and interpretations: Mobile blogging on art museum field trips. MedieKultur. Journal of Media and Communication Research, 27(50), 18.

Puentedura, R. R. (2012). The SAMR model: Background and exemplars. Retrieved from http://www.hippasus.com/rrpweblog/archives/2012/08/23/SAMR_BackgroundExemplars.pdf

Screven, C. G. (1992). Motivating visitors to read labels. ILVS Review: a Journal of Visitor Behavior, 2(2), 183-210.

Serrell, B. (1996). Exhibit labels: An interpretive approach. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.

Simon, N. (2010). The participatory museum. Retrieved May 2015 from http://www.participatorymuseum.org/

Sung, Y. T., Hou, H. T., Liu, C. K., & Chang, K. E. (2010). Mobile guide system using problem-solving strategy for museum learning: a sequential learning behavioural pattern analysis. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(2), 106–115. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00345.x

Stone, D. (2015) Google optimises Australian culture. Retreived from ArtsHub May 2015 http://screen.artshub.com.au/news-article/news/digital/deborah-stone/google-optimises-australian-culture-247300

Vavoula, G., Sharples, M., Rudman, P., Meek, J., & Lonsdale, P. (2009). Myartspace: Design and evaluation of support for learning with multimedia phones between classrooms and museums. Computers & Education, 53(2), 286–299. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.02.007

Wang, J., & Yoon, S. (2013). Scaffolding visitors’ learning through labels. Journal of Museum Education, 38(3), 320–332. doi:10.1179/1059865013z.00000000034

Winter, M., Gorman, M.J., Brunswick, I., Browne, D., Williams, D. and Kidney, F. (2015). Fail Better: Lessons Learned from a Formative Evaluation of Social Object Labels. 8th International Workshop on Personalized Access to Cultural Heritage, PATCH @ IUI 2015, Atlanta, USA. Retrieved May 2015 from http://www.cmis.brighton.ac.uk/staff/mw159/PATCH_2015_Winter_et_al.pdf

Yoon, S. A., Elinich, K., Wang, J., Van Schooneveld, J. and Anderson, E. (2013). Scaffolding informal learning in science museums: How much is too much? Science Education, 97 (6), 848–877.

For my final project in the Masters of Learning Science & Technology (MLS&T) program I reviewed the potential of digital labels for museum learning. The project focus on informal learning was inspired by my deep fascination with museums, in part fostered by growing up near Washington D.C. as the nerdy kid of a super nerd dad. Lynda Kelly at the Australian National Maritime Museum (ANMM) guided the topic selection by graciously agreeing to act as my ‘client’ for the project and enabling access to in-house research and staff expertise.

To start I assumed I would be exploring wall mounted replacements for the text cards found next to exhibits, with some sort of data feed system. Wrong! Museums and researchers are trialing many new forms of labels, and indeed crossing previously conceived boundaries between labels, guides, interactives and signage. Although usually conceptualised as text or graphics Screven’s definition of exhibit labels is more comprehensive – “all types of media – print, audio, and graphics and their presentation formats – used to help visitors interpret and relate to exhibit content, have an emotive impact, or motivate attention and effort”. Beyond the museum delivery of information Screven focuses back on the visitor, situating labels as helping to, in some way, augment a visitors experience or changing their understanding.

Contemporary technology has further unbound the potential of the label by making digital exhibit labels possible, and delivering content far beyond simply text or graphics. I found a vast diversity of technology examples in both academic and industry sources with implementations ranging on variables such as hardware (installed tablets to mobile), platform (websites to apps), software (off the shelf or custom), access triggers (QR code to RFID to beacon), content delivery (user selected to machine suggested), content format (text based to interactive), author (curator to visitor), location driven (offsite accessible or onsite location-based), and much more. Indeed it appears that technology can deliver to nearly any imagined vision for a digital exhibit label implementation.

For the final report I narrowed down to a manageable list of examples, starting with technology that is a substitution for conventional labels and advancing to tools that innovate the museum experience (full example list and references). Below are a few selected examples highlighting digital label diversity of fixed installation, responsive website, learning focused and innovation.

• Fixed Installation – First Peoples Digital Labels – To complement large object and photographic displays, the Melbourne Museum installed tablets with interactive digital labels, as well as a responsive web version of the digital labels.

• Responsive Website – Google Cultural Institute – Responsive website collection of artifacts from partner cultural institutes. General users and museum professionals can create, share and comment on custom galleries/tours. Partner institutes also have access to Google tools to create and publish content on the cultural institute website, within custom Google app or embedded in the institute’s website.

• Learning Focused – MyArtSpace – OOKL is the commercial version of the MyArtSpace learning platform, accessible pre-visit, onsite, and post visit. Visitors use a mobile device to collect a visit diary and data (ex. photo, audio, notes). Data, diary and additional museum supplied content is then made available for visitors to remix content into reflective presentations.

• Innovation – The Pen – Visitors to the Cooper Hewitt are given a Pen device, which can digitally collect objects viewed (RFID) as well as design and save creations developed with interactive table exhibits. The Pen records user visits, making the visitor experience accessible and sharable post visit, both offsite or at a return visit.

Mixing research findings with technology examples it is apparent that traditional exhibit labels, and to a greater extent digital exhibit labels can augment both the emotional and intellectual aspects of an individual or group museum experience. Perhaps a video will elicit more emotive connections for one visitor, whereas using a device to track their visit will inspire others to reflect on their visit at a later date. It is clear that digital exhibit labels can enable visitors and museum staff to alter perceptions of a museum experience, by helping to create opportunities such as:

Unexpected experiences Social participation Increased engagement Broader audience relevance Extend access offsite Bridging contexts

Customisation Personalisation Data analysis and augmentation Efficient content update, reuse & automation Variety of author voice

The technology in itself is exciting, but any opportunities supported by digital exhibit labels remain situated within the broader museum context. Implementation of any digital exhibit label will need to be integrated within an already dense network of museum communications, supports, and voices including: websites, paper guides, signage, worksheets, volunteers, marketing, curators, designers, collections data, member data.

Beyond the expected human and technology interactions (i.e. usability, functionality), museums must consider the impact of technology to the whole network inclusive of social interactions, physical environment, individual preference, promotional signage, user distraction, staff workflows, and even change in visitor expectations (i.e. what to do when tech fails).

Even the coolest gadgets, functionality or content can only be successful when practical considerations to the whole museum system are addressed. Challenges to be considered include:

Costs of technology & maintenance Reliability of access Expanded personnel competencies Professional development Content development & maintenance Social moderation Systems integration Consistency across platforms

Added complexity of delivery Data collection & management Geo-location inconsistency Equity of access Roll-out communication Usage instructions Technical support & training Feedback systems

While researching digital exhibit label technology I uncovered a vast array of examples, many proof of concept prototypes, some insights into implementation challenges and early evidence of efficacy for learning. However, the current enthusiasm for creation of new technology for museum visitors lacks the support of analysis of long-term benefits for the museum or visitor as well as guidance on how to make that technology sustainable.

Although, there is no concrete answer for what digital exhibit label is best for any given museum we do know the technology is some combination of innovation and disruption. Case in point is The O at the MONA in Tasmania, where traditional labels do not exist and the handheld O is your only guide. The ability to like, dislike and comment on objects using The O gives visitors a powerful voice in influencing staff decisions, but also creates a dependence on technology as without technology there is no label or guiding curatorial voice.

As a researcher and a museum nerd, I am excited for museums to continue to endeavour to build tools that may influence current cultural beliefs about what it is to experience a museum.

Museums please … think big, prototype and evaluate! 

---

A big thank you to my very patient supervisors at the University of Sydney: Lina Markauskaite and Lucila Carvalho.

---

References, Links and General Inspiration:

Art Gallery of NSW (2015) Art sets and art tours. Retrieved May 2015 from http://www.artgallery.nsw.gov.au/media-office/art-sets-and-art-tours/.

Baldwin, T., & Kuriakose, L. T. (2009). Cheap, accurate RFID tracking of museum visitors for personalized content delivery. Presented at the Museums and the Web 2009, Indianapolis, Indiana. Retrieved June 2015 from http://www.museumsandtheweb.com/mw2009/papers/baldwin/baldwin.html

Bernstein, S. (2015a). Inside out. [Blog post] Retrieved May 2013 from http://www.brooklynmuseum.org/community/blogosphere/2015/03/25/inside-out/

Bitgood, S. (1990). The ABCs of label design. Visitor studies: Theory, research, and practice, 2, 115-129.

Bloomberg Connects (2014). Bloomberg philanthropies expands and rebrands global engagement program. Retrieved the Bloomberg Philanthropies website May 2015 from http://www.bloomberg.org/press/releases/bloomberg-philanthropies-expands-rebrands-global-engagement-program/

Bransford, J. D., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (2000). How people learn: Mind, brain, experience and school, expanded edition. DC: National Academy Press. http://bit.ly/1EBASlf

Carvalho, L. (forthcoming, 2015). The O in MONA: Reshaping museum spaces. In L. Carvalho, P. Goodyear & de Laat, M. (Eds.), Place-based spaces for networked learning. New York: Routledge.

Carvalho, L., & Goodyear, P. (2014). The architecture of productive learning networks. New York: Routledge.

Chianese, A., Marulli, F., Moscato, V., & Piccialli, F. (2013). SmARTweet: A Location-Based Smart Application for Exhibits and Museums (pp. 408–415). Presented at the 2013 International Conference on Signal-Image Technology & Internet-Based Systems (SITIS), IEEE. http://doi.org/10.1109/SITIS.2013.73

Cooper Hewitt (2015) The new Cooper Hewitt experience. Retrieved May 2015 from http://www.cooperhewitt.org/new-experience/

DeWitt, J., & Storksdieck, M. (2008). A short review of school field trips: Key findings from the past and implications for the future. Visitor Studies, 11(2), 181–197. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1080/10645570802355562

Falk, J. H., & Dierking, L. D. (2012). Museum Experience Revisited. Left Coast Press. http://bit.ly/1WDycyI

Harvey, A. (2014). Creating Learning Experiences through Interactive Devices. Journal of Museum Education, 39(2), 207–215. http://doi.org/10.1179/1059865014z.00000000059

Hou, H. T., Wu, S. Y., Lin, P. C., Sung, Y. T., & Lin, J. W. (2014). A blended mobile learning environment for museum learning. Educational Technology, 17(2), 207-218.

Hsi, S., & Fait, H. (2005). RFID enhances visitors’ museum experience at the Exploratorium. Communications of the ACM, 48(9), 60. http://doi.org/10.1145/1081992.1082021

Jeanneret, Y., Depoux, A., Luckerhoff, J., Vitalbo, V., & Jacobi, D. (2010). Written signage and reading practices of the public in a major fine arts museum. Museum Management and Curatorship, 25(1), 53–67.

Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Estrada, V., & Freeman, A. (2015). NMC Horizon Report: 2015 Museum Edition (pp. 1–56). Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium. http://www.nmc.org/publication/nmc-horizon-report-2015-museum-edition/

Kelly, L. (2007). Visitors and learners: Adult museum visitors’ learning identities. Presented at the ICOM-CECA Conference. Retrieved from http://www.austmus.gov.au/uploads/documents/9316/paper%20ceca%202007.pdf

Laursen, D. (2013). Balancing accessibility and familiarity: offering digital media loans at the museum front desk. Museum Management and Curatorship, 28(5), 508–526. http://doi.org/10.1080/09647775.2013.850828

Lightwell (2013). First peoples digital labels: Museum Victoria. Retrieved April 2015 from http://lightwell.com.au/projects/first-peoples-digital-labels/

Linge, N., Booth, K., & Parsons, D. (forthcoming 2015). Practicalities of developing and deploying a handheld multimedia guide for museum visitors. In L. Carvalho, P. Goodyear & de Laat, M. (Eds.), Place-based spaces for networked learning. New York: Routledge.

McManus, P. M. (1989). Oh, yes, they do: How museum visitors read labels and interact with exhibit texts. Curator: the Museum Journal, 32(3), 174–189.

Screven, C. G. (1992). Motivating visitors to read labels. ILVS Review: a Journal of Visitor Behavior, 2(2), 183-210.

Serrell, B. (1996). Exhibit labels: An interpretive approach. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press. https://books.google.com.au/books?id=wgKGCj63YiwC&redir_esc=y

Stone, D. (2015) Google optimises Australian culture. Retreived from ArtsHub May 2015 http://screen.artshub.com.au/news-article/news/digital/deborah-stone/google-optimises-australian-culture-247300

Vavoula, G., Sharples, M., Rudman, P., Meek, J., & Lonsdale, P. (2009). Myartspace: Design and evaluation of support for learning with multimedia phones between classrooms and museums. Computers & Education, 53(2), 286–299. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.02.007

Winter, M., Gorman, M.J., Brunswick, I., Browne, D., Williams, D. and Kidney, F. (2015). Fail Better: Lessons Learned from a Formative Evaluation of Social Object Labels. 8th International Workshop on Personalized Access to Cultural Heritage, PATCH @ IUI 2015, Atlanta, USA. Retrieved May 2015 from http://www.cmis.brighton.ac.uk/staff/mw159/PATCH_2015_Winter_et_al.pdf