Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Developing & using interaction geography in a museum

  • Published:
International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

There are many approaches that support studies of learning in relation to the physical environment, people’s interaction with one another, or people’s movement. However, what these approaches achieve in granularity of description, they tend to lose in synthesis and integration, and to date, there are not effective methods and concepts to study learning in relation to all of these dimensions simultaneously. This paper outlines our development and use of a new approach to describing, representing, and interpreting people’s interaction as they move within and across physical environments. We call this approach interaction geography. It provides a more integrative and multi-scalar way to characterize people’s interaction and movement in relation to the physical environment and is particularly relevant to learning research and professional design practice in informal learning settings. The first part of this paper illustrates our development and use of interaction geography to study visitor engagement in a cultural heritage museum. In particular, we illustrate Mondrian Transcription, a method to map people’s movement and conversation over space and time, and the Interaction Geography Slicer (IGS), a dynamic visualization tool that supports new forms of interaction and multi-modal analysis. The second part of the paper describes one team of museum educators, curators, archivists, and exhibit designers using a computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) environment based on interaction geography. We show how this environment used interaction geography to disrupt the conventional views of visitor engagement and learning that museum professionals hold and then reframe these disruptions to enable museum professionals to perceive visitor engagement and learning in innovative ways that potentially support their future design decisions. We conclude the paper by discussing how this work may serve as a blueprint to guide future efforts to expand interaction geography in ways that explore new collaborations across the fields of education, information visualization, architecture, and the arts.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Azevedo, F. S. (2013). The Tailored Practice of Hobbies and Its Implication for the Design of Interest Driven Learning Environments. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 22(3), 462–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker, H. (2007). Telling About Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cleveland, B. (2009). Equitable pedagogical spaces: Teaching and learning environments that support personalisation of the learning experience. Critical and Creative Thinking: The Australasian Journal of Philosophy in Education, 17(2), 59–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cleveland, B., & Fisher, K. (2013). The evaluation of physical learning environments: a critical review of the literature. Learning Environments Research, 17, 1–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cress, U. (2008). The need for considering multilevel analysis in CSCL research—An appeal for the use of more advanced statistical methods. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3(1), 69–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cress, U., Stahl, G., Ludvigsen, S., & Law, N. (2015). The core features of CSCL: Social situation, collaborative knowledge processes and their design. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 10(2), 109–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cresswell, T. (2010). Towards a politics of mobility. Environment and planning D: society and space, 28(1), 17–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crowley, K., & Jacobs, M. (2002). Building islands of expertise in everyday family activity. In G. Leinhardt, K. Crowley, & K. Knutson (Eds.), Learning conversations in museums (pp. 333–356). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidsen, J., & Ryberg, T. (2017). “This is the size of one meter”: Children’s bodily-material collaboration. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 12(1), 65–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Derry, S. J., Pea, R., Barron, B., Engle, R., Erickson, F., Goldman, R., Hall, R., Koschmann, T., Lemke, J., Sherin, M., & Sherin, B. (2010). Conducting video research in the learning sciences: Guidance on selection, analysis, technology, and ethics. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19, 1–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellenbogen, K. M., Luke, J. J., & Dierking, L. D. (2004). Family learning research in museums: An emerging disciplinary matrix? Science Education, 88(S1), S48–S58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erickson, F. (2004). Talk and social theory: Ecologies of speaking and listening in everyday life. Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erickson, F. (2007). Ways of seeing video: Towards a phenomenology of viewing minimally edited footage. In R. Goldman, R. Pea, S. Barron, & S. Derry (Eds.), Video research in the learning sciences (pp. 145–155). 732). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associate Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Escott, C., Merritt, G., & MacEwan, W. (2004). I saw the light: The story of Hank Williams. New York: Back Bay Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flood, V. J., Neff, M., & Abrahamson, D. (2015). Boundary interactions: Resolving interdisciplinary collaboration challenges using digitized embodied performances. In CSCL’15: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference for Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (Vol. 1, pp. 94–100). Gothenburg: The International Society of the Learning Sciences.

  • Fry, B. J. (2004). Computational information design. Ph.D. Dissertation. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

  • Gamoran Sherin, M., & Van Es, E. A. (2009). Effects of video club participation on teachers' professional vision. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(1), 20–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin, C. (1994). Professional vision. American Anthropologist, 96(3), 606–633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagerstrand, T. (1970). What about people in regional science? Papers in Regional Science, 24(1), 6–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, E. T. (1966). The hidden dimension, 1st ed. New York: Doubleday & Co.

  • Hall, R., & Stevens, R. (2015). Interaction analysis approaches to knowledge in use. In A. A. diSessa, M. Levin, & J. S. Brown (Eds.), Knowledge and interaction: A synthetic agenda for the learning sciences (pp. 72–108). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, R., Marin, A., Taylor, K. H., Silvis, D., Pinkhard, N. & Enyedy, N. (2017). Can we use location-aware tools and practices to create a new genre of learning on the move (LoM)? Discussion Session at the 47th Annual Meeting of the Jean Piaget Society, San Francisco.

  • Ingold, T. (2007). Lines: A Brief History. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ito, M., et al. (2009). Hanging Out, Messing Around, and Geeking Out: Kids Living and Learning with New Media. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johansson, E., Lindwall, O., & Rystedt, H. (2017). Experiences, appearances, and interprofessional training: The instructional use of video in post-simulation debriefings. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 12(1), 91–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(1), 39–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kendon, A. (1990). Spatial organization in social encounters: The F-formation system. Conducting interaction: Patterns of behavior in focused encounters, pp. 209–238.

  • Kwan, M., & Lee, J. (2003). Geovisualization of Human Activity Patterns Using 3D GIS: A Time-Geographic Approach. In M. F. Goodchild & D. G. Janelle (Eds.), Spatially Integrated Social Science: Examples in Best Practice, Chapter 3. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lave, J., Murtaugh, M., & de la Rocha, O. (1984). The dialectics of arithmetic in grocery shopping. In B. Rogoff & J. Lave (Eds.), Everyday cognition: Its development in social context (pp. 67–94). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leander, K. (2002). Locating Latanya: The situated production of identity artifacts in classroom interaction. Research in the Teaching of English, 37(2), 198–250.

  • Lemke, J. L. (2000). Across the scales of time: Artifacts, activities, and meanings in ecosocial systems. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 7(4), 273–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ligorio, M. B., & Ritella, G. (2010). The collaborative construction of chronotopes during computer-supported collaborative professional tasks. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5(4), 433–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ludvigsen, S., Cress, U., Law, N., Rosé, C. P., & Stahl G. (2016) Collaboration scripts and scaffolding. International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 11(4), 381–385.

  • Lymer, G., Ivarsson, J., & Lindwall, O. (2009). Contrasting the use of tools for presentation and critique: Some 779 cases from architectural education. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 780, 4(4), 423–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ma, J. Y., & Munter, C. (2014). The Spatial Production of Learning Opportunities in Skateboard Parks. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 21(3), 238–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Monahan, T. (2002). Flexible space and built pedagogy: Emerging IT embodiments. Inventio, 4(1), 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marin, Ananda M. (2013). Learning to Attend and Observe: Parent-child Meaning Making in the Natural World. Ph.D. Dissertation. Northwestern University.

  • Nagel T., Klerkx J., Vande Moere A., Duval E. (2013) Unfolding – A library for interactive maps. In: Holzinger A., Ziefle M., Hitz M., Debevc M. (eds) Human Factors in Computing and Informatics. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 7946, pp. 497–513). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.

  • Peponis, J., Zimring, C., & Choi, Y. K. (1990). Finding the Building in Wayfinding. Environment and Behavior, 22(5), 555–590.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peppler, K. (Ed.). (2017). Encyclopedia of out-of-school learning (Two-volume set). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reas, Casey and Fry, Ben. (2007). Processing: a programming handbook for visual designers and artists. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

  • Rowe, D., & Neitzel, C. (2010). Interest and Agency in 2 and 3 Year Olds' Participation in Emergent Writing. Reading Research Quarterly, 45(2), 169–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schauble, L., Leinhardt, G., & Martin, L. (1997). A framework for organizing a cumulative research agenda in informal learning contexts. Journal of Museum Education, 22, 3–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scollon, R. (2008) Geographies of discourse: Action across layered spaces, paper for the ‘Space interaction discourse’ conference, Aalborg University, 12-14 November.

  • Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. W. (2003). Discourses in place: Language in the material world. New York: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Scott-Webber, L. (2004). InSync: Environment Behavior Research and the Design of Learning Spaces. Ann Arbor: Society for College and University Planning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, B.R. (2017a). Using Space Time Visualization in Learning Environment Design. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA '17). ACM, Denver, CO, USA (pp. 178–183).

  • Shapiro, B.R. (2017b). Exploring the Use of Interaction Geography to Advance Post-Occupancy Evaluation. In Proceedings of the 1st annual Transitions Symposium. The University of Melbourne’s Innovative Learning Environments and Teacher Change (ILETC) Project, 2016–2019. Melbourne School of Design, University of Melbourne.

  • Shapiro, B.R., and Hall, R. (2017). Making Engagement Visible: The Use of Mondrian Transcripts in a Museum. In CSCL’17: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference for Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, (Vol. 1, pp. 33–40). Philadelphia: International Society of the Learning Sciences.

  • Shapiro, B.R. & Pearman II, Francis A. (2017). Using the Interaction Geography Slicer to Visualize New York City Stop & Frisk. In Proceedings of the IEEE VIS 2017 Arts Program, VISAP’17. Phoenix, AZ.

  • Sheller, M., & Urry, J. (2006). The new mobilities paradigm. Environment and Planning A, 38(2), 207–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stahl, G. (2017). Group practices: A new way of viewing CSCL. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 12(1), 113–126.

  • Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D. (2006). Computer-supported collaborative learning: An historical perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stahl, G., Ludvigsen, S., Law, N., & Cress, U. (2014). CSCL artifacts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning., 9(3), 237–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stasko, J., Görg, C., & Liu, Z. (2008). Jigsaw: Supporting Investigative Analysis through Interactive Visualization. Information Visualization, 7(2), 118–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steier, R. (2014). Posing the question: Visitor posing as embodied interpretation in an art museum. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 21(2), 148–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, R., & Hall, R. (1997). Seeing the Tornado: how VideoTraces mediate visitor understandings of (natural?) spectacles in a science museum. Science Education, 81(6), 735–747.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suthers, D. D., Dwyer, N., Medina, R., & Vatrapu, R. (2010). A framework for conceptualizing, representing, and analyzing distributed interaction. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5(1), 5–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, K. H., & Hall, R. (2013). Counter-mapping the neighborhood on bicycles: Mobilizing youth to reimagine the city. Technology. Knowledge and Learning, 18(1–2), 65–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, K. H. (2017). Learning along lines: Locative literacies for reading and writing the city. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 26(0), 1–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tzortzi, K. (2014). Movement in museums: mediating between museum intent and visitor experience. Museum Management and Curatorship, 29(4), 327–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venturini, T., Jensen, P., & Latour, B. (2015). Fill in the Gap: A New Alliance for Social and Natural Sciences. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 18(2), 11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wineman, J., Peponis, J., & Dalton, R. (2006). Exploring, Engaging, Understanding in Museums. Paper presented at the Space Syntax and Spatial Cognition Workshop: Spatial Cognition '06, Universität Bremen, Bremen.

  • Zahn, C., Krauskopf, K., Hesse, F. W., & Pea, R. (2012). How to improve collaborative learning with video tools in the classroom? Social vs. cognitive guidance for student teams. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 7(2), 259–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimring, C. M., & Reizenstein, J. E. (1980). Post-occupancy evaluation: An overview. Environment and Behavior, 12, 429–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work is made possible by wonderful collaborations with our museum partners, many generous families and visitors participating in this research, the Space, Learning & Mobility Lab at Vanderbilt University, Leona Schauble, and the National Science Foundation, who supports this work through the Bridging Learning in Urban Extended Spaces (BLUES) Project. In addition, we would like to thank Brette Garner, Lara Heiberger, Danielle Keifert, and others from the Interaction Analysis Lab at Vanderbilt, Mark Shapiro and the Processing Foundation for software development advice and inspiration, and Kären Wieckert, and Barbara and Steve Magie for important and timely feedback throughout this project.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Space, Learning & Mobility Lab at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA

    Ben Rydal Shapiro, Rogers P. Hall & David A. Owens

Authors
  1. Ben Rydal Shapiro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rogers P. Hall
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. David A. Owens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ben Rydal Shapiro.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Shapiro, B.R., Hall, R.P. & Owens, D.A. Developing & using interaction geography in a museum. Intern. J. Comput.-Support. Collab. Learn 12, 377–399 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-017-9264-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-017-9264-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation