Awareness of shared goals and adaptation of information to support learning in museums [Elektronische Ressource] = Bewusstheit geteilter Ziele und adaptive Informationsdarbietung zur Unterstützung von Lernen im Museum / vorgelegt von Eva Mayr

Eva Mayr

Informations

• Publié par: eberhard_karls_universitat_tubingen
• Publié le: 01 janvier 2009
• Nombre de lectures: 4
• Langue: English
• Poids de l'ouvrage: 1 Mo

Extrait

Awareness of Shared Goals and Adaptation of Information
to Support Learning in Museums

BEWUSSTHEIT GETEILTER ZIELE UND ADAPTIVE INFORMATIONSDARBIETUNG
ZUR UNTERSTÜTZUNG VON LERNEN IM MUSEUM



Dissertation
der Fakultät für Informations- und Kognitionswissenschaften
der Eberhard-Karls-Universität Tübingen
zur Erlangung des Grades eines
Doktors der Naturwissenschaften
(Dr. rer. nat.)



vorgelegt von
aMag. rer.nat. Eva Mayr
aus Münichsthal (Österreich)


Tübingen
2009























Tag der mündlichen Qualifikation: 22. Juli 2009
Dekan: Prof. Dr.-Ing. Oliver Kohlbacher
1. Berichterstatter: Prof. Dr. Dr. Friedrich W. Hesse
2. Berichtersatter: Prof. Dr. Stephan Schwan

Contents
List of Figures 4
List of Tables 5
1 Introduction 6
1.1 Personal motivation 7
1.2 Contexts of this dissertation 8
1.3 Bridging visitor research and psychology 9
1.4 Outline 9
2 Informal Learning in Museums 11
2.1 What constitutes informal learning? 11
2.2 Museums as informal learning environments 12
2.3 Learning in virtual versus real exhibitions 14
2.4 Two approaches to support learning in museums 16
2.5 New media as support for learning in museums 17
3 Approach 1: Setting Learning Goals 19
3.1 Goals and information processing 19
3.2 Goals and self regulation of behavior 21
3.3 Learning goals in the museum setting 23
3.4 A support for enhancing learning goals in the museum context 24
3.5 Media for awareness of a shared learning goal 26
4 Approach 2: Supporting Deep Information Processing 28
4.1 Depth of information processing in informal learning 28
4.1.1 Theories on depth of information processing 29
4.1.2 Environmental impact on depth of information processing 31
4.1.3 Impact of learner characteristics on depth of information processing 33
4.1.4 Conclusion 35
4.2 A support for deep information processing in the museum context 35
4.3 Adaptive hypermedia as support for deep information processing 37
5 Methodological considerations 39
5.1 Studying learning in museums in the laboratory 39
5.2 Assessment questions 40
5.2.1 Assessing depth of information processing 40
5.2.2 Assessing learning in museums 43
5.3 Dyadic data analysis 44
6 Aims of this Research Project 46
- 2 -
6.1 Collaborative learning in museums – A research model 46
6.2 Research questions 47
7 Study 1: Virtual Museum 49
7.1 Hypothesis 49
7.2 Methods 50
7.2.1 Research design 50
7.2.2 Sample 50
7.2.3 Material and technology 51
7.2.4 Procedure 52
7.2.5 Measures 53
7.3 Results and discussion 54
7.3.1 Awareness of shared goals 54
7.3.2 Adaptation of information 57
7.4 Conclusion 60
8 Study 2: Laboratory Exhibition 62
8.1 Hypotheses 62
8.2 Methods 63
8.2.1 Research design 63
8.2.2 Sample 63
8.2.3 Material and technology 64
8.2.4 Procedure 65
8.2.5 Measures 66
8.2.6 Analysis 66
8.3 Results and discussion 67
8.3.1 Awareness of shared learning goals 67
8.3.2 Case study: Re-viewing the visitor’s view 71
8.3.3 Adaptation of information 73
8.4 Conclusion 76
9 General Discussion 78
9.1 Comparison of studies 1 and 2 78
9.2 Discussion 82
9.3 Conclusions for further research 85
9.4 Conclusions for media in museums 87
10 Summary 89
11 Zusammenfassung 90
12 References 92
Appendix 103

- 3 -
List of Figures
Figure 1. Model of self-regulated learning in informal settings (cp. Boekaerts, 1999, p. 449;
Boekaerts & Minnaert, 1999, p. 539) 22
Figure 2. Integrated model of goal-oriented collaborative learning in museums 46
Figure 3. Design of the virtual exhibition Nanodialogue: layer 1 (a), 2 (b), 3 (c), and 4 (d) and
pocket PC (e) 52
Figure 4. Self-report measures for depth of processing 53
Figure 5. Exemplary multiple choice question 54
Figure 6. Elevation of the exhibition Nanodialogue (left) and the physical exhibition at the
Knowledge Media Research Center (right) 64
Figure 7. Remote control of additional information displayed on the PDA: Videos from two
cameras were displayed (1a, 1b) that could be selected by the experimenter (1). Content
was sent either via graphical selection of the exhibition wall on mouse click (2b) or via
textual input (2a). Below field 2b the last loggings of the PDA were displayed 65
Figure 8. Range of behavioral measures: minimum, mean, and maximum 67
Figure 9. Part of the exhibition wall „Into the Nanoworlds“: Bordered areas show coding
categories, numbers the order of fixations 72
Figure 10. Scan patterns after goal-relevant and goal-irrelevant exhibits 73

Figure A1. Study 1: self-reported depth of information processing in the virtual exhibition
Nanodialogue in comparison to other daily situations in conditions 2 (awareness of shared
goals) and 3 (no awareness) 104
Figure A2. Study 1: self-reported depth of information processing in the virtual exhibition
Nanodialogue in comparison to other daily situations in conditions 1 (adapted information)
and 2 (random information) 106
Figure A3. Study 2: self-reported depth of information processing in the laboratory
exhibition Nanodialogue in comparison to other daily situations in conditions 2 (awareness
of a shared goal) and 3 (without awareness) 108
Figure A4. Study 2: Self-reported depth of information processing in the laboratory
exhibition Nanodialogue in comparison to other daily situations in conditions 1 and 2 110
Figure A5. Study 2: visual explorations of exhibition walls in the case dyad 111

- 4 -
List of Tables
Table 1. Attributes of formality / informality of a learning environment (Colley et al., 2004;
Malcolm et al., 2003, p. 315f.) 12
Table 2. Characteristics of informal learning and consequences for the research design 39
Table 3. Methods of DIP assessment 41
Table 4. Research design of study 1 50
Table 5. Average exploration duration in dependence of exhibits’ and additional
information’s goal relevance (seconds) 56
Table 6. Information evaluation in condition 2 (with awareness of a shared goal) 69
Table 7. Latencies for participants with awareness of shared goals with adapted (condition 1)
or random (condition 2) additional information 75
Table 8. Comparison of visiting behavior in studies 1 and 2 79
Table 9. Comparison of self-reported depth of information processing in studies 1 and 2 80
Table 10. Comparison of learning in studies 1 and 2 82

Table A1. Study 1: visiting behavior of dyads in conditions 2 (awareness of shared goals)
and 3 (no awareness) for each layer of the virtual exhibition 103
Table A2. Study 1: visiting behavior of dyads in conditions 1 (adapted information) and 2
(random information) for each layer of the hypertext 105
Table A3. Study 2: visiting behavior of dyads in conditions 2 (awareness of shared learning
goals) and 3 (no awareness) 107
Table A4. Study 2: Visiting behavior of dyads in conditions 1 (adapted information) and 2
(random information) 109

- 5 -
1 Introduction
One of the most prominent characteristics of the knowledge society nowadays is that
learning is no longer situated in educational institutions like schools and universities only,
but learning is seen as an omnipresent process during the whole life course. Therefore, a
special emphasis is placed on informal learning nowadays. But what is informal learning?
The European Commission (2001, p. 32) defines it as
Learning resulting from daily life activities related to work, family or leisure. It is not
structured (in terms of learning objectives, learning time or learning support) and
typically does not lead to certification. Informal learning may be intentional but in
most cases it is non-intentional (or “incidental”/random).
However, informal learning is nothing “new”. It has always been part of human culture–even
longer than formal learning. The novelty nowadays lies in the awareness of people that
there is knowledge to gain from everyday life. Thereby, informal learning receives a higher
perceived value and it is attractive for people to be part of this new movement. They actively
participate in this form of learning, making it thereby intentional and structured by their own
learning objectives.
This development also influenced the role of museums in our society: In the knowledge
society the museums started to change from a “repository of knowledge” to an “active
thdisseminator of knowledge” (Donald, 1991). The “cabinets of curiosity” at the end of the 19
1century became places with didactic principles (e.g., labels, thematic exhibitions) in the
middle of the last century and finally “engaging museums” at the end of the last century:
Beginning with the emergence of science centers (Oppenheimer, 1968), museums started to
provide hands-on experiences for visitor engagement. The development of new media
technologies – computers, mobile devices, ambient technologies – furthered