(Leo Tan Wee Hin (Editor), R. Subramaniam (Editor)

E-Learning and
Virtual Science
Centers
Leo Tan Wee Hin

Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
R. Subramaniam
Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
Information Science Publishing

Hershey • London • Melbourne • Singapore
Acquisitions Editor: Renée Davies
Development Editor: Kristin Roth
Senior Managing Editor: Amanda Appicello
Managing Editor: Jennifer Neidig
Copy Editor: Alana Bubnis
Typesetter: Cindy Consonery
Cover Design: Lisa Tosheff
Printed at: Integrated Book Technology
Published in the United States of America by

Information Science Publishing (an imprint of Idea Group Inc.)
701 E. Chocolate Avenue
Hershey PA 17033
Tel: 717-533-8845
Fax: 717-533-8661
E-mail: cust@idea-group.com
Web site: http://www.idea-group.com
and in the United Kingdom by

Information Science Publishing (an imprint of Idea Group Inc.)
3 Henrietta Street
Covent Garden
London WC2E 8LU
Tel: 44 20 7240 0856
Fax: 44 20 7379 3313
Web site: http://www.eurospan.co.uk
Copyright © 2005 by Idea Group Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored
or distributed in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, without
written permission from the publisher.
Product or company names used in this book are for identification purposes only. Inclusion of the
names of the products or companies does not indicate a claim of ownership by IGI of the trademark
or registered trademark.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
E-learning and virtual science centers / Leo Tan and R. Subramaniam, editors.
p. cm.
Summary: "The book provides an overview of the state-of-the-art developments in
the new and emerging field of science education, called virtual science centers"--
Provided by publisher.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 1-59140-591-2 (hardcover) -- ISBN 1-59140-592-0 (softcover) -- ISBN 1-
59140-593-9 (ebook)
1. Science--Study and teaching--Computer network resources. 2. Internet in
education. I. Leo Tan, 1944- II. R. Subramaniam, 1952-
Q182.7.E18 2005
025.06'5--dc22
2005004518
British Cataloguing in Publication Data

A Cataloguing in Publication record for this book is available from the British Library.
All work contributed to this book is new, previously-unpublished material. The views expressed in this
book are those of the authors, but not necessarily of the publisher.
E-Learning and
Virtual Science Centers
Table of Contents
Foreword ....................................................................................................................... vii

Bill Peters, The Calgary Science Centre, Canada
Preface ........................................................................................................................... x
Leo Tan Wee Hin, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
R. Subramaniam, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
Section I: Theoretical Issues
Chapter I. Establishing Identification in Virtual Science Museums: Creating

Connections and Community .........................................................................................1
Billie J. Jones, Shippensburg University, USA
Chapter II. Free-Choice Learning Research and the Virtual Science Center:
Establishing a Research Agenda ................................................................................ 28
Kathryn Haley Goldman, Institute for Learning Innovation, USA
Lynn D. Dierking, Institute for Learning Innovation, USA
Chapter III. Contextualized Virtual Science Centers ................................................ 51

Andreas Zimmermann, Fraunhofer-Institute for Applied Information Technology,
Germany
Andreas Lorenz, Fraunhofer-Institute for Applied Information Technology,
Germany
Marcus Specht, Fraunhofer-Institute for Applied Information Technology,
Germany
Chapter IV. Starting With What We Know: A CILS Framework for Moving from
Physical to Virtual Science Learning Environments ................................................. 68
Bronwyn Bevan, Exploratorium, USA
Chapter V. Weaving Science Webs: E-Learning and Virtual Science Centers ........ 93
Susan Hazan, Israel Museum, Jerusalem
Chapter VI. Resource-Based Learning and Informal Learning Environments:

Prospects and Challenges ......................................................................................... 110
Janette R. Hill, University of Georgia, USA
Michael J. Hannafin, University of Georgia, USA
Denise P. Domizi, University of Georgia, USA
Section II: Design Considerations
Chapter VII. Interactivity Techniques: Practical Suggestions for Interactive

Science Web Sites .................................................................................................... 127
Michael Douma, Institute for Dynamic Educational Advancement, USA
Horace Dediu, Handheld Media, USA
Chapter VIII. From the Physical to the Virtual: Bringing Free-Choice

Science Education Online ......................................................................................... 163
Steven Allison-Bunnell, Educational Web Adventures, LLP, USA
David T. Schaller, Educational Web Adventures, LLP, USA
Chapter IX. Storytelling-Based Edutainment Applications ...................................... 190

Anja Hoffmann, ZGDV e.V. - Computer Graphics Center, Darmstadt, Germany
Stefan Göbel, ZGDV e.V. - Computer Graphics Center, Darmstadt, Germany
Oliver Schneider, ZGDV e.V. - Computer Graphics Center, Darmstadt, Germany
Ido Iurgel, ZGDV e.V. - Computer Graphics Center, Darmstadt, Germany
Chapter X. Revolutionizing Information Architectures within

Learning-Focused Web Sites .................................................................................... 215
Ramesh Srinivasan, Harvard University, USA
Chapter XI. From Information Dissemination to Information Gathering:

Using Virtual Exhibits and Content Databases in E-Learning Centers ................... 228
Joan C. Nordbotten, University of Bergen, Norway
Chapter XII. Challenges in Virtual Environment Design: An Architectural

Approach to Virtual Spaces ...................................................................................... 251
Renata Piazzalunga, Information Technology Research Institute, Brazil
Saulo Faria Almeida Barretto, Information Technology Research Institute,
Brazil
Chapter XIII. Personalization Issues for Science Museum Web Sites and
E-learning .................................................................................................................. 272
Silvia Filippini-Fantoni, The University of Paris I Sorbonne, France
Jonathan P. Bowen, London South Bank University, UK
Teresa Numerico, London South Bank University, UK
Chapter XIV. E-Learning and Virtual Science Centers: Designing Technology

Supported Curriculum .............................................................................................. 292
John Falco, Schenectady City School District, USA
Patricia Barbanell, Schenectady City School District, USA
Dianna Newman, State University of New York, USA
Suzanne Dewald, Schenectady City School District, USA
Section III: Case Studies
Chapter XV. A Virtual Museum Where Students Can Learn ................................. 308
Nicoletta Di Blas, Politecnico di Milano, Italy
Paolo Paolini, Politecnico di Milano, Italy
Caterina Poggi, Politecnico di Milano, Italy
Chapter XVI. Open Learning Environments: Combining Web-Based Virtual

and Hands-On Science Centre Learning .................................................................. 327
Hannu Salmi, Heureka, The Finnish Science Centre, Finland and
University of Dalarna, Sweden
Chapter XVII. Use of Log Analysis and Text Mining for Simple Knowledge
Extraction: Case Study of a Science Center on the Web .......................................... 347
Daniel Tan Teck Meng, Singapore Science Centre, Singapore
Chapter XVIII. The Development of Science Museum Web Sites: Case Studies .... 366
Jim Angus, National Institutes of Health, USA
Jim Bennett, University of Oxford, UK
Ann Borda, The Science Museum, UK
Andrew Hodges, University of Oxford, UK
Silvia Filippini-Fantoni, The University of Paris I Sorbonne, France
Alpay Beler, The Science Museum, UK
Chapter XIX. The Educational Approach of Virtual Science Centers: Two Web
Cast Studies (The Exploratorium and La Cité des Sciences et de l’Industrie) ........ 393
Roxane Bernier, Université de Montréal, Canada
Chapter XX. Real Science: Making Connections to Research and
Scientific Data .......................................................................................................... 423
Jim Spadaccini, Ideum, USA
About the Authors ..................................................................................................... 442
Index ........................................................................................................................ 453

vii
Foreword
Four decades ago, a few visionaries — Frank Oppenheimer of the Exploratorium a

leader among them — set out to transform how people learn about science and technol-
ogy. They were convinced of the merit of transforming individual lives and thus trans-
forming society by engaging a broad public with the ideas, methods and fruits of
science and technology. With interactive exhibits as their most engaging tool,
Oppenheimer and his colleagues ignited a dynamic, influential learning revolution.
Today the science center revolution is converging with the Internet revolution and
virtual science centers are an increasing presence in cyberspace. E-Learning and Vir-
tual Science Centers is the first book to document and explore this new phenomenon.
It accesses the collective talent of leading scholars to take a snapshot of these con-
verging revolutions, to probe the trends, assumptions and review the work to date. I’m
excited about this book because its authors provide a structured platform for thinking
as those of us in the profession take the next steps in evolving the virtual science
center.
What is a virtual science center? In this rapidly evolving field we can best understand
this by exploring the different examples cited throughout this book. At the most basic
level the virtual science center is an Internet representation or reflection of an existing,
physical institution. Over the Internet we are able to access some of the qualities and
experiences offered by the physical institution. Billie Jones provides a number of good
examples of this kind of virtual science center in “Establishing Identification in Virtual
Science Museums: Creating Connections and Community.” There are also excellent
examples noted in other chapters.
A growing number of science centers exist only in cyberspace, a trend we can expect to
continue. Jones draws our attention to the Leonardo: Interactive Virtual Science Mu-
seum, where the exhibits consist of a set of well-organized links to the best interactive
science applets on the Internet. A very different, fully virtual example is wonderville.ca,
a highly animated site crafted by the Science Alberta Foundation to enhance science
learning and career interest among students in grades 4-6.
The science center revolution has inspired vigorous research interest in learning. Be-
cause of science centers, the way we understand both formal and “free choice” learning
is profoundly more sophisticated — a sophistication reflected in the chapters of this
book. I am encouraged to see chapters like Goldman and Dierking’s “Free-Choice Learning
viii
Research and the Virtual Science Center: Establishing a Research Agenda”, which looks
toward extending our quest for knowledge about learning to the virtual science center
realm at this early stage of the field’s development.
There are other dimensions of knowledge to be brought to the creation of virtual sci-
ence centers. In the chapter “From the Physical to the Virtual: Bringing Free-Choice
Science Education Online”, Allison-Bunnell and Schaller point out that virtual science
center work to date has sometimes been haphazard in that it is unguided by formal
knowledge of information architecture and virtual reality design. I am pleased to note
that E-Learning and Virtual Science Centers makes a tool kit of ideas and methods
available to science center professionals to enable them to address the next stages in
the development of the virtual science center in a more intentional manner.
There is also a convergence taking place of a variety of science publishers, filmmakers
and media producers with the Internet. Filmmakers and media producers bring skill sets
that will be of value to the development of virtual science centers. An example of a
virtual science center that intensively uses these skills is becominghuman.org, a site
produced by the Institute for Human Origins that describes itself as an “interactive
documentary experience”. The trend to bring other media and other professional skills,
from outside the conventional science center professions, to creating virtual science
centers is one to be monitored as we move into the future.
An important distinguishing characteristic of physical science centers is the signifi-
cant trust the public places in them in two domains: (1) as tellers of scientific truth and
(2) as creators of learning experiences that are understood to be important in people’s
lives. The Internet environment, which is rife with inaccurate, misleading and biased
information, provides virtual science centres with the opportunity to be valued and
popular for their ethical stance and integrity, similar to the value placed in physical
science centres. The same Internet provides an opportunity for education and informa-
tion exchange in this vital area.
In E-Learning and Virtual Science Centers, I am appreciative that a number of the
authors express how the ethical character and integrity of a virtual science center’s
offerings is important. Billie Jones captures this especially well in drawing our attention
to sites that demonstrate “good character, good sense, and goodwill” toward the user.
I am pleased to see Spadaccini’s chapter, “Real Science: Making Connections to Re-
search and Scientific Data”, because connecting our audiences to real science and
scientists is fundamental to the perceived integrity of science centers.
Research about science centre learning, a topic touched on in many chapters, is a key
underpinning of the ethics of science centres. This research is essential in keeping us
true to our missions and true to our audience’s expectations. It distinguishes science
centres from commercial attractions or commercial web sites. Although commercial
attractions may do market research, which assists them in a business sense, they typi-
cally do not document and learn from the value they produce in people’s lives. Docu-
menting our value in people’s lives gives science centers a significant strategic advan-
tage.
What does the future hold for virtual science centers? Two major trends are clear. First
an increasing fraction of humanity will continue to come online. With 13% of the world’s
population already using the Internet and use exceeding 50% of the population in 22
countries, science center professionals must appreciate that a far larger fraction of
ix
humanity already has access to virtual science center experiences than has access to
the physical ones. Thus we can imagine an increasing emphasis on the development of
virtual science centers.
The second trend is that broadband and wireless Internet connectivity will become
almost universally available in many areas of Asia, Europe and North America over the
next few years. Simultaneously, the speed and capacity of home and school computers
will continue to increase. The obvious result of this is the potential to create increas-
ingly sophisticated virtual experiences. The less obvious trend will be the parallel
demand on virtual science center workers to comprehend the tools of the trade and
fully master the methodologies of Internet learning and virtual interaction at a high
level of professionalism.
What of real science centers? One way to think about what is evolving is to compare
real science centers to live theatre and virtual science centers to film. Film and theatre
are both strong and important attributes of modern civilization. Film and theatre have
become distinct professions, though they share some common history and many com-
mon professional attributes. Similarly, it is not hard to imagine the real and virtual
science center professions diverging, as have the theatre and film professions.
Likewise I have no doubt that both real and virtual science centers will exist in the same
mutually supportive way that film and theatre exist together. Both real and virtual
science centers have roles to play in enhancing how people learn, continuing the
important work of transforming individual lives and thus strengthening society.
In concluding this foreword, I congratulate the editors, Leo Tan Wee Hin and R.
Subramaniam, and the authors on a ground breaking book — the first on virtual science
centers, a work that I’m confident will be a most important resource in this new field.
Bill Peters, Chief Executive Officer

The Calgary Science Centre, Canada
x
Preface
Science centers play a key role in many countries in popularizing science and technol-
ogy to the public. By sensitizing the public through the provision of a context that
allows them to realize how science and technology impact on their everyday lives and
society, science centers provide an upstream initiative for the fostering of literacy in
informal science. Their impact is to a significant extent confined to people who enter
their premises to savor their attractions, though many science centers are also involved
in outreach initiatives, which help to expand their influence further. Avenues that help
science centers to reach out to more people will allow them to fulfill their mission
objectives even more purposefully.
In recent times, the Internet has made a profound impact on various aspects of society,
including education. The availability of a PC and a network point is opening up new
possibilities for learning and other fruitful endeavors. It is testament to the vision of
science centers that they have not overlooked the potential of the Internet to aid them
further in their popularization efforts. This has led to the birth of the virtual science
center, the Web-based equivalent of a traditional science center. Whilst pioneering
efforts were limited to the offering of simple information on their Web sites, advances in
technology have allowed science centers to unleash a slew of resources and other
attractions on their Web sites, so much so that the virtual science center now consti-
tutes a new genre of learning in informal science education.
This book aims to provide an overview of the state-of-the-art developments in the field
of virtual science centers and address the needs of practitioners in this fast developing
field. It is the first book on Web-based science centers to appear in the market. Ad-
dressed at science and technology centers, science museums, and researchers and
practitioners in Web-based education, it offers an overview on developments in a new
and emerging field of science education. Other target audiences for the book include
teachers, multimedia developers, educational administrators, developers and managers
of Web technologies, and Web content developers.
The 20 chapters accepted for publication in this book span a diverse spectrum of
topics. It represents contributions from science centers/science museums, academia
and other organizations. A total of 44 authors from 27 institutions are represented in
xi
this effort. The international flavor of the book can be seen from the fact that the
authors come from eleven countries: Brazil, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Israel,
Italy, Norway, Singapore, UK, and the US.
The 20 chapters are grouped into three sections: Theoretical Issues, Design Consider-
ations and Case Studies. The choice of chapter assigned to a particular section is
primarily determined by content coverage and, secondarily, by convenience for read-
ers. Inevitably, there is bound to be some overlapping coverage in the three sections. A
brief commentary on the various chapters follows.
Section I features six chapters on theoretical issues. The platform afforded by theoreti-
cal issues presents an opportunity to analyze issues from fundamental considerations.
In the chapter titled Establishing Identification in Virtual Science Museums: Creating
Connections and Community, Billie Jones draws on the identification metaphor from
the communication domain to advance the view that science museums on the Web need
to connect with their audience through suitable site design and content. This is indis-
pensable for attracting site traffic as well as drawing repeat visitations from the Web-
surfing public. Kathyryn Haley Goldman and Lynn Dierking, in their chapter Free-
Choice Learning Research and the Virtual Science Center: Establishing a Research
Agenda, suggest that the contextual model of learning can be a useful tool to under-
stand the virtual science center and help frame a research agenda for free choice learn-
ing — learning that is self-directed and voluntary. They suggest that better under-
standing of the nature of such virtual experiences and the factors that contribute to
online learning will enable science centers to better design their virtual domains as well
as build a knowledge base on how people engage in free choice learning online. In their
chapter Contextualized Virtual Science Centers, Andreas Zimmermann, Andreas Lorenz
and Marcus Specht argue the need to consider issues such as modality, reception
style, technical limitations, location and time when contextualizing information delivery
on the Web-based science center. They draw on information brokering techniques to
advance an approach for the development and maintenance of context-sensitive sys-
tems and techniques suitable for virtual science centers. Bronwyn Bevan, in her chap-
ter Starting With What We Know: A CILS Framework for Moving from Physical to
Virtual Science Learning Environments, considers how the essential characteristics of
learning within science centers can be translated and applied to learning in Web-based
science centers. She advances the view that science centers need to leverage on their
intrinsic strengths and unique pedagogy to fill an educational niche in the Web land-
scape rather than compete with commercial and other educational agencies engaged in
the development of online learning environments. In the chapter on Weaving Science
Webs: E-Learning and Virtual Science Centers, Susan Hazan suggests the need for
science and technology to be placed in a social context that solubilizes the perceived
boundaries between art, culture and science that are inscribed in institutional activi-
ties. Using examples from museums and other online architectures, she explores inno-
vative systems that harvest data across electronic highways, online collaborations
between museums and their public, and other narratives that invigorate community
knowledge and stimulate science discourse. In the chapter Resource-Based Learning
and Informal Learning Environments: Prospects and Challenges, Janette Hill, Michael
Hannafin and Denise Domizi explore how a resource-based learning approach can be
implemented on the Web sites of science centers. They describe opportunities and
challenges associated with such an endeavor.
xii
Section II features eight chapters that focus on design considerations. The allure of a
virtual science center hinges significantly on its design as much as its content. Design
elements that are compelling have the advantage of adding value to the content hosted
on the Web sites of science centers. Michael Douma and Horace Dediu, in their chapter
Interactivity Techniques: Practical Suggestions for Interactive Web Sites draw on
their experience and expertise in creating interactive Web sites to offer comprehensive
advice to science centers on making online exhibits interactive. Indeed, interactive
exhibits are a major consideration in drawing online visitors to the Web sites of science
centers as well as helping to extend their dwell times there. In the chapter From the
Physical to the Virtual: Bringing Free-Choice Science Education Online, Steven
Allison-Bunnell and David Schaller draw on their experience and expertise to propose
strategies for recreating science center exhibits online. They argue that while physical
and virtual exhibits share certain common features, interactive virtual exhibits need to
be configured in terms of the strengths and limitations of the Web. Anja Hoffmann,
Stefan Göbel, Oliver Schneider and Ido Iurgel, in their chapter Storytelling-Based
Edutainment Applications, underscore the need for science centers not to overlook
the potential of storytelling contexts when interpreting science content online.
Storytelling has the advantage of fostering easy connection with the audience, and
interactives incorporating such narratives can confer yet another dimension to the
learning process. While existing technological contexts have served Web-based sci-
ence centers well, Ramesh Srinivasan argues on the need for science centers not to
overlook the potential of new information architectures in his chapter Revolutionizing
Information Architectures Within Learning-Focused Web Sites. He presents two ap-
proaches for information design: community driven ontologies and social information
filtering agents, and addresses the question of how to share knowledge across a com-
munity of visitors without physical co-assembly. In her chapter titled From Informa-
tion Dissemination to Information Gathering: Using Virtual Exhibits and Content
Databases in E-Learning Centers, Joan Nordbotten draws on some of the experiences
of traditional museums to provide pointers for science centers to use virtual exhibits
and content databases in the e-learning process. She discusses how different e-learn-
ing architectures can support different forms of learning in Web-based science centers
and science museums. Renata Piazzalunga and Saulo Barretto discuss some fundamen-
tal questions concerning creation and development of interfaces in their chapter Chal-
lenges in Virtual Environment Design: An Architectural Approach to Virtual Spaces.
They address three levels of complexity and offer useful tips for science centers to
re(design) their virtual space to promote better interaction with cyberspace visitors.
The subject of personalization — how to tailor an e-learning experience for an indi-
vidual visiting the Web site of a science center, is the focus of the chapter Personaliza-
tion Issues for Science Museum Web Sites and E-Learning, by Silvia Filippini- Fantoni,
Jonathan Bowen and Teresa Numerico. Science centers and science museums have yet
to tap into this tool to a significant extent but it has the potential to draw repeat
visitations and enhance user experience. John Falco, Patricia Barbanell, Dianna Newman
and Suzanne Dewald, in their chapter E-Learning and Virtual Science Centers: De-
signing Technology-Supported Curriculum, propose a partnership model involving
virtual science content providers that creates technology-infused science curriculum
using interactive videoconferencing technologies and supporting Web resources. They
argue that such enriched content can promote new structures of pedagogy that can
motivate students to enhance their cognitive development.
xiii
Section 3 on case studies features six chapters. Case studies help to bridge the gap
between theory and practice, and thus offer useful insights for science centers to learn
from the experiences of others. In the chapter A Virtual Museum Where Students Can
Learn, Nicoletta Di Blas, Paolo Paolini and Caterina Poggi use the example of the col-
laboration between the Israel Museum and the Politecnico di Milano to show how
Internet and multimedia technologies can be effectively exploited to deliver complex
scientific and cultural concepts to middle and high school students. It is based on a
shared 3-D online environment where students from five different countries meet to-
gether to learn, discuss and play, thus dissolving the boundaries of space and time
when reaching out to new audiences and promoting outreach. In his chapter Open
Learning Environments: Combining Web-Based Virtual and Hands-On Science Cen-
tre Learning, Hannu Salmi recounts the experience of the Finnish Science Centre and
other European science centers to show that the virtual science center need not be a
disparate endeavor. By judiciously integrating elements of the gallery experience with
the Web experience, he adds that new avenues for promoting effective learning can
emerge. In their chapter Use of Log Analysis and Text Mining for Simple Knowledge
Extraction: Case Study of a Science Center on the Web, Leo Tan Wee Hin, R.
Subramaniam and Daniel Tan Teck Meng use log analysis of server data to study the
Web site of the Singapore Science Centre. They present a commentary on the use of log
analysis, an overlooked tool, for studying the effectiveness of content hosted on the
Web sites of science centers. In the chapter The Development of Science Museum Web
Sites: Case Studies, Jonathan Bowen, Jim Angus, Jim Bennett, Ann Borda, Andrew
Hodges, Silvia Filippini-Fantoni and Alpay Beler trace the historical development and
features of a number of pioneering science museum Web sites. These historical devel-
opments present useful insights for science museums and science centers, including
those that have yet to transplant themselves onto the Web. Roxane Bernier, in her
chapter The Educational Approach of Virtual Science Centers: Two Web Case Studies,
uses the examples of The Exploratorium and the La Cité des Sciences et de l’Industrie to
cement her argument that innovative pedagogy leveraging on real-time Web casting
can act as a focus to enrich people’s interest in the notion of public understanding of
research. She suggests that a reflective perspective drawn from a multidisciplinary
approach can aid science centers to form their own viewpoints on contemporary issues
ranging from genetic engineering to space exploration. Jim Spadaccini, in his chapter
Real Science: Making Connections to Research and Scientific Data, shows how com-
pelling scientific imagery in a variety of fields of study that are publicly available can
help science centers open up another niche area to help the public better understand
scientific research and the scientific process. He draws on his experience and expertise
with four key educational Web sites to provide useful perspectives.
Leo Tan Wee Hin and R. Subramaniam

National Institute of Education
Nanyang Technological University
Singapore
xiv
Acknowledgments
We thank all authors for their assistance and cooperation in bringing about this book.
Most of the authors also served as referees for the chapters. Their valuable feedback
has helped to improve all chapters, and this is gratefully appreciated.
We thank the National Institute of Education in Nanyang Technological University for
their assistance and support in the course of working on this book project for a year.
We also thank Dr. Bill Peters, Chief Executive Officer of The Calgary Science Center,
Canada, for graciously consenting to write the Foreword for this book.
The staff at Idea Group has been extremely supportive in the process of bringing out
this book. Our grateful thanks go to Ms. Michele Rossi, Ms. Jan Travers and Ms.
Amanda Appicello.
We would also like to place on record our special thanks as well as gratitude and
appreciation to Dr. Mehdi Khosrow-Pour of Idea Group for giving us this great oppor-
tunity to edit this book.
Leo Tan Wee Hin and R. Subramaniam

National Institute of Education
Nanyang Technological University
Singapore
Section I
Theoretical Issues
Establishing Identification in Virtual Science Museums 1
Chapter I
Establishing
Identification in Virtual
Science Museums:
Creating Connections
and Community
Billie J. Jones, Shippensburg University, USA
Abstract
The concept of identification from the field of communication studies is used in this
chapter to discuss the ways to, and the benefits of, develop(ing) identification with an
audience through the design and arrangement of virtual science sites (i.e., aid in the
comprehension of the new, and potentially difficult, content of the site; and help in the
creation of regularly returning site visitors/users). The chapter concludes with checklists
to aid Web site designers/managers and educators analyzing/using virtual science
sites to maximize the benefits of identification.
Introduction
Museums are a culture industry that has evolved over time. Historically, museums have
been the place of rare and often valuable collections, preserved and displayed predomi-
nantly for their aesthetic value, rather than for an educational goal. However, instead of
Copyright © 2005, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written
permission of Idea Group Inc. is prohibited.
2 Jones
a collection as a museum’s commodity, Eilean Hooper-Greenhill (1995) concludes that

“[k]nowledge is now well understood as the commodity that museums offer” (p. 2).
It was modern science museums that took the lead in creating museums that were
designed around the message they wished to espouse rather than a collection they
wished to exhibit (Weinberg & Elieli, 1995, p. 50). As Bonnie Pitman (1999) chronicles,
“The Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago, established in 1926 . . . [and] the New
York Museum of Science and Industry (now defunct) represents (sic) the arrival of
science technology centers, founded without collections, that focus on their role as
educational institutions to promote an understanding of scientific principles” (p. 7).
About this evolution of science and technology centers (as well as children’s museums),
which he calls “great pioneers in improving the process of learning by the young”
(Skramstad, 1999, p. 118), president emeritus of the Henry Ford Museum and Greenfield
Village, Harold Skramstad (1999) writes: “These new types of museums developed out
of community concerns that more traditional, collection-focused museums were not
meeting the learning needs of their audiences” (p. 118). Kenneth Hudson claims that “‘
. . . the most fundamental change that has affected museums during the [past] half century
. . . is the now almost universal conviction that they exist in order to serve the public’”
(as cited in Weil, 1999, p. 232). Not only did science museums take the lead in this change
to serve the public, but according to many their change was also the most profound. Jorge
Wagensberg (2000) writes in his essay, In Favor of Scientific Knowledge: The New
Museums, “[i]t is the science centers and museums that have most changed their content,
their methods, their role in society, and their attitude toward their public” (p. 129).
This evolution of modern museums, particularly science ones, as educational outlets to
serve the public has continued to evolve with the advent of computer technology and
the World Wide Web. As Pitman (1999) notes, “Museums have developed marketing
policies to attract new audiences, to increase the access to their educational resources
both at the museums themselves and through the World Wide Web” (pp. 13-14).
Furthermore, Pitman (1999) continues, “The explosion of the World Wide Web has added
yet another dimension to the role of museums as forums. Museums are becoming ‘virtual
museums’ with beautifully produced pages that summarize their offerings, take you on
a virtual tour of their galleries, and provide access to the collections and exhibitions with
images and audio” (p. 23). Considering the change that the World Wide Web has brought
to the relationship of communities and their museums, Pitman (1999) continues, “. . . we
are not required to go to museums to see certain objects, hear lectures, conduct research,
or participate in discussion” (p. 26); users can experience much from the comforts of their
own home or classroom through the use of virtual science centers. San Francisco’s
Exploratorium (<http://www.exploratorium.edu/>), Philadelphia’s The Franklin Insti-
tute Online (<http://sln.fi.edu/tfi/welcome.html>), and London’s Science Museum (<http:/
/www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/>), which will be discussed later in this chapter, are three
of many science museums that have become impressive virtual centers, as complemen-
tary outreach centers on the World Wide Web; however, other “centers” are entirely
virtual, residing wholly in cyberspace with the intention of educating their audience
about scientific concepts and thinking. The final virtual center that will be discussed
here, Leonardo: Interactive Virtual Science Museum (<http://www.ba.infn.it/~zito/
museo/leonardoen.html>), is one such virtual-only center. Common to all four of these
sites are the centers’ attempts to meet public need toward educational goals in science.
The marriage of science education and the Internet is a natural one, but like any
relationship, some virtual science sites are better than others — better at making its
contents easily accessible, seemingly credible, and comprehensible. The use of state-of-
the-art Web technologies is important; however, those should not be employed at the
exclusion of long-recognized principles of communication. By borrowing the concept of
identification from the field of communication studies, this chapter will discuss the ways,
and the benefits, of developing identification with an audience through the design and
arrangement of the virtual sites of science centers (e.g., aid in the comprehension of the
new, and potentially difficult, content of the site; and help in the creation of regularly
returning site visitors/users). The chapter will conclude with checklists to aid Web site
designers/managers of virtual science sites and educators who use such sites to maximize
the benefits of identification.
The Concept of Identification

Twentieth-century literary and social critic, Kenneth Burke (1967, 1950) claims the term
identification from the field of psychology as the defining term for modern rhetoric in
his germinal article, Rhetoric — Old and New, in which he writes:
If I had to sum up in one word the differences between the “old” rhetoric and
a “new” (a rhetoric reinvigorated by fresh insights which the “new sciences”
contributed to the subject), I would reduce it to this: The key term for the old
rhetoric was “persuasion” and its stress was upon deliberate design. The key
term for the “new” rhetoric would be “identification,” which can include partially
“unconscious” factor of appeal. (p. 63)
Burke (1950) deals with the concept of identification as a rhetorical strategy, linking the
concepts of identification and persuasion when he claims that “Wherever there is
persuasion, there is rhetoric. And wherever there is ‘meaning,’ there is ‘persuasion’”
(p. 172). In short, rhetoric is any use of meaning-laden communication; not only textual
communication, but non-textual as well — images, architecture, spatial arrangement,
even body language all fall under the defining umbrella of rhetoric.
Burke (1950) further writes that, “You persuade a man only insofar as you can talk his
language by speech, gesture, tonality, order, image, attitude, idea, identifying your ways
with his” (p. 55). By demonstrating commonalities between the speaker/writer/designer
and his/her audience, the speaker/writer/designer increases the likelihood that the
audience will be persuaded. Consequently, in order for a science center, physical or
virtual, to educate its audience, it must establish identification with that audience.
4 Jones
Issues of Audience and Ethos

Audience-awareness, the act of recognizing and consciously adapting information to
“his (sic) ways,” is integral to establishing identification, and museums have recognized
that. In its content and presentation science centers must address a diverse audience.
About the “museums of the future,” Maxwell Anderson (1999) wrote, “The nature of a
museum visit will be palpably different, since the visitor will have at his or her command
a massive database delivered at levels appropriate to schoolchildren or to scholars” (p.
135). This needed breadth of content, and presentation and production values may be
difficult to achieve, but others note its importance as well. Although Harold Skramstad
(1999) was quoted earlier as recognizing the pioneering success of science museums in
“improving the process of learning by the young” (p. 118), he adds that “the museum
model of education should not be limited to the younger years. Museums can and should
provide educational experiences for adult learning that are just as powerful. In museums
adults can learn at their own speed and in their own way in a setting that is multisensory
and engages the emotions as well as the intellect. With no mandated curriculum, learners
can organize themselves by almost any criteria of interests” (p. 119). Rather than seeing
this diverse audience with equally diverse needs and interests as a hindrance, Skramstad
continues, “The mixing of education, age, gender, and race can become a strong asset
in a shared learning experience. The museum can provide a place that encourages and
enables intergenerational learning” (p. 119). And Susanna Sirefman (1999) agrees, adding
that “Very few cultural institutions are so effective in dissolving generational gaps” (p. 317).
While Anderson, Skramstad, and Sirefman are referring to physical-space museums, the
same should be said for virtual museums and centers as well. The potentially metaphoric
“database” of Anderson’s “museum of the future,” can become quite literal in a virtual
science center. And Skramstad’s call for “multisensory” settings and multiplicitous
interests aptly describe Web sites’ potential and its audience. Because the audience of
the World Wide Web is so diverse, and so amorphic, provisions must be made for users
from a variety of interest and intellectual levels.
Science centers have recognized this complex audience and have responded to their
needs. In writing about a New York Times section on museums, headlined “Culture’s
Power Houses,” Emlyn H. Koster (1999) notes that “The essential claim [of the Times
section] is that science centers are a relatively flexible type of museum, having shown
repeatedly over a relatively short history an ability to be highly responsive to community
needs” (p. 278). That “responsiveness” is an effort to identify the museum’s ways with
those of its audience. Related to the action of “responsiveness” is the demonstration of
“relevancy.” Pitman (1999) describes “an audience-driven, educationally-active museum
that positions itself as a relevant community resource” (p. 287), and Koster (1999) speaks
of science centers’ “mission of relevancy to the community” (p. 293). In Burke’s terms
that “relevancy” would be the museum’s demonstration of goodwill — caring concern
and likeminded-ness — for the audience, which should lead toward identification.
Goodwill is also demonstrated by museums’ shift from appreciation to activism, not only
in shifting from offering aesthetic collections of objects to offering opportunities for
learning, but also an activism toward responsibility and conservation. Pitman (1999)
writes of the “profound shift from . . . objects of natural history [displayed] in order to
excite wonder and curiosity to exhibits that focus on science and are concerned with the
preservation of species and life on earth” (p. 19). By caring about the world, museums
not only demonstrate their concern for their community, but they also entice and prepare
their visitors to become activists themselves.
That responsiveness and relevancy to community demonstrates not only the museum
creators’/designers’ goodwill toward its audience, but also its credibility — its ethos.
Embedded in the process of establishing identification is the concept of ethos. Part of
Aristotle’s three-part strategy for creating a convincing argument, ethos deals with the
character of the speaker/writer/designer (Cherry, 1994, p. 86). In short, ethos is the
character of the speaker/writer/designer, which is ever-present in a text. This ethos can
be invented, constructed by the speaker/writer/designer through the discourse, or ethos
can be situated, inherent to the speaker/writer/designer based on her/his reputation or
the particular rhetorical occasion (Crowley, 1994). Museums, by general reputation, are
perceived as possessing good character, so they are in an enviable situation to be seen
as credible by that audience; however, science centers and museums can enhance, or
“invent” their ethos, by making prominent their associations with other museums,
educational institutions, other socially-concerned and ethically-aware non-profit orga-
nizations, and even some corporations.
“Inventing” one’s ethos is frequently a reciprocal act, with each bolstering the credibility
of the other. For example, demonstrating (or enhancing) one’s ethical credibility is one
of the reasons for corporate sponsorship of museum exhibitions, in the same way that
corporate support for a museum exhibition lends credibility to the museum, as visitors/
user subconsciously believe that the supported venue must be “good” if it is being
supported by corporate funds. On the other hand, corporate sponsorship can be seen
as sullying a museum’s good name or co-opting a museum’s content, and a corporation’s
presumably well-meaning intention for sponsorship may be interpreted as insincere or
self-serving. While one’s ethos may need bolstering through invention, care must be
taken to demonstrate earnestness and sincerity.
The concept of ethos can be divided into three sub-categories: phronesis, arete, and
eunoia, which help speakers/writers/designers to develop their character in order to
establish goodwill and thereby be rhetorically persuasive. Although there is a great deal
of overlap among these three characteristics, examining their separate identities will help
to more clearly understand their combined ethos. The first of the three, phronesis, uses
“good sense” to prompt persuasion. Clearly, throughout their exhibits — physical-space
or virtual — science centers and museums demonstrate “good sense” through a myriad
of facts presented in an authoritative, objective air, in order to establish their goodwill
toward an audience. As Koster (1999) notes, “Science centers have a particular oppor-
tunity to capitalize on the public’s need to function in a technologically advanced world
in which science-technology-society issues are interwoven” (p. 289). By offering their
audience the “good sense” to function in this technologically advanced world, science
centers and museums enhance their own ethos. Arete is the moral virtue, the “good
character,” the “accepted and embraceable moral sensibility,” that the speaker/writer/
designer demonstrates to her/his audience (Sipiora, 1994, p. 268). As has already been
said, museums enjoy, for the most part, the perception of being ethically upright. And
the third, eunoia, is the mutuality of goodwill — goodwill demonstrated by the speaker/
writer/designer that elicits feelings of identification from the audience, and goodwill on
the part of the audience toward the speaker/writer/designer as a result of that identifi-
6 Jones
cation. Because the museum cares about its community’s needs, its audience will care
about the museum — using and supporting its resources on a recurring basis. Basically,
people believe the sources they trust because of the source’s ethos, and they consult
repeatedly sources in which they believe because they identify with those sources.
Identification in
Physical-Space Science Centers
Physical-space science centers are rife with attempts to establish identification. Skramstad
(1999) writes, “The goals are always to make a connection with an audience, to establish
a relationship of trust, and to cause some specific outcome, whether it be knowledge, fun,
insight, or the purchase of a product or service” (p. 121). In the rhetorical terms discussed
here, the goals of a museum are to demonstrate its good sense — its phronesis — and
its good character — its arête — to create a mutuality of goodwill — eunoia — for/with
its audience through caring consideration and likeminded-ness, thereby showing the
museum’s credible ethos, leading then to audience identification, that “connection,” and
ultimately persuasion, that “specific outcome.”
Skramstad (1999) elaborates:
More and more Americans expect that their social, economic, and cultural
activities, though shaped by a variety of sources, will engage them in a way that
is vivid, distinctive, and out of the ordinary. This is even more the case for
children who are being brought up in a world of interactive media, which sets
up new expectations of active participation. They expect to be treated as
individuals who have a significant capacity to influence as well as be influenced
by any experience in their lives. This means that the world of the next century
[writing of the 21st century], these experiences will have to be developed with
close interaction between their producers and their consumers. This interaction
and the resulting relationship of trust is what increasingly will give authority to
any experience. (p. 121)
That trust can be fostered by demonstrating the museum’s relationships with other
institutions, organizations, and even corporate sponsorship, which can help to show a
museum’s connectedness with its community and its citizenry.
Even paying attention to visitor comforts demonstrates a museum’s goodwill toward its
audience. Paving the way for easy visitor access to centers by providing informational
materials, such as maps and exhibit guides, and as well having staffed information kiosks
and exhibit areas on site with which visitors can interact all help to establish identification
as they demonstrate goodwill for the audience on the museum’s part. About the
expectations of today’s museum-goers, Anderson (1999) writes:
They have certain expectations of comfort and convenience . . . [and he cautions

that] museums often fall below their expectations . . . [with] . . . poor directional
signage, infinitesimal and inscrutable labels, minimal restroom facilities, a
shortage of elevators, inadequate seating, hard stone floors, and overpriced
eateries. (p. 141)
Such failure, although likely not intentional, can be interpreted as a lack of goodwill
toward the museum’s audience. Instead Anderson (1999) insists that: “[m]useums
should be working now to make the museum visit the easiest and most attractive option
possible, through networked collaboration, the use of Web casting, the availability of
up-to-date information on activities in museums, and the provision of services including
on-line ticketing, reservations, and interactivity, in preparation for and in the aftermath
of a visit” (p. 145). The efforts that Anderson calls for are ones that would demonstrate
a museum’s goodwill toward its audience.
Clearly, audience trust and identification is a critical goal, but so too is the integral
component of interactivity. Speaking of the changes that the “wired world” will precipi-
tate, Anderson (1999) writes: “The re-villaging of our sensibilities, independent of
physical location, will draw us toward an experience with which we are inextricably
involved: no longer as passive viewers, but as, at the very least, ‘viewsers’ — viewers
and users of information” (p. 134). It should be noted, however, that the sort of
interactivity that computer technology allows for in both physical and virtual science
museums and centers is not necessarily a new concept. As Anderson (1999) notes:
The temptation to animate the motionless object is not new. It dates at least as
far back as the Capitoline Museums, which were founded in 1471 but extensively
renovated in the nineteenth century. Numerous classical statues there and in the
Vatican museums to this day have brass spindles that allow the visitor to turn the
work on a cylindrical pedestal so as to see it in the best possible light. (p. 141)
This sort of early concern for museum visitors’ experience is mimicked in advanced
technological ways through the manipulation of digitized objects.
It should be noted too that in the physical-space museum field, digitizing objects has
sparked considerable controversy over the possible loss of an original object’s “sacred
aura,” and subsequent loss of physical-space museum visitors. Experts such as Ander-
son (1999) claim:
The situation need not be as bleak as we might fear. Just as slides, postcards,
and posters of famous works of art have encouraged generations of college
students and members of the public to visit art museums, the promulgation of
digital images and information about works of art should encourage future
audiences to visit art museums. No less importantly, the growing surfeit of
“virtual” experiences in daily life is likely to result in a growing appetite for the
authentic, and especially for encounters with those priceless touchstones of
human creativity that cannot be adequately experienced in a virtual medium,
8 Jones
provided that museums do not accede to the impulse to satisfy the lowest
common denominator. (p. 144)
Certainly, the appropriateness of digitizing objects is moot in virtual science center where
that very same mimesis is integral to the virtual exhibit; however, it should be added that
in writing about the effect of museum Web sites on the increased draw that museums are
currently experiencing, Susanna Sirefman (1999) writes that “. . . museum web sites [of
which digitized objects are a component] are included as a positive influence on this
draw” (p. 311). Rather than satiating a potential physical-space museum or center
visitor’s desire for scientific knowledge, virtual sites seem to whet their appetites.
About the interaction to which Skramstad and Anderson refer above, here, too, science
centers and museum seem to be responsive. Of science museums Wagensberg (2000)
writes:
Do not touch has become Please touch. The concept of the display case has
changed into the idea of the experiment; the idea of the academic label has turned
into the text with literary quality; using the sense of sight as the only method
of perceiving has given way to using all the senses (or almost all); the emphasis
has shifted from the preparation of answers to the preparation of questions; and
love of the past alone has given way to a desire to use the museum as a tool for
change. (pp. 129-130)
Questioning is central to the scientific method, so it is only fitting that science museums
and centers valorize questioning as a potential educational end in and of itself. Further-
more, the opportunity to interact with exhibits, either physical-space or as will soon be
discussed, virtual centers, helps visitors to feel a part of — to identify — with the center.
Identification in Virtual Science Centers

Turning to virtual science centers, many of which are related to physical-space science
centers, designers need to consider ways to convey a sense of goodwill to their visitors,
and the ways in which identification is established in virtual science centers are both the
same and different to those of physical-space centers. Traditional learning strategies and
visitor accommodations incorporated in physical-space science centers must be
remediated to take best advantage of the virtual environment.
Remediation, as defined by Jay David Bolter & Richard Grusin in Remediation:
Understanding New Media, is a concept by which newer media “define themselves by
borrowing from, paying homage to, critiquing, and refashioning their predecessors [. .
.]” (cited in Bolter, 2001, 24). In that text, Bolter & Grusin offer examples from new media
like computer graphics and the World Wide Web in which those media have borrowed
from older media like film and photography to create themselves. In Writing Space:
Computers, Hypertext, and the Remediation of Print (2nd ed.), Bolter (2001) extends the
concept of remediation to include the transition from the print age to an electronic,
hypertextual age, saying that: “Hypertext in all its electronic forms — the World Wide
Web as well as the many stand-alone systems — is the remediation of print” (p. 42). While
the medium of the WWW allows for hypertextuality in a way that print text never could,
many of the same rules of print-based texts: reading from left to right, from top to bottom
are usually observed in hypertexts as well. This mixing of new and old offers users a
certain familiarity in an unfamiliar medium.
More than simply borrowing, remediation “involves both homage and rivalry, for the new
medium imitates some features of the older medium, but also makes an implicit or explicit
claim to improve on the older one” (Bolter, 2001, p. 23). Remediation is at the heart of the
evolution in science centers from “cemeteries of knowledge” (Galluzzi, 2000, p. 107) to
places of interactive engagement, and that evolution to interactive engagement has
evolved or been remediated to include multimedia materials. As Koster (1999) writes,
“The science center’s methodology — one initially described as hands-on and now
increasingly multi-sensory and multimedia in nature — has been an important innovation
in the museum field” (p. 291). Clearly the move to “multi-sensory and multimedia” is seen
as an improvement over the past.
And this remediation has continued as physical-space science centers have moved into
cyberspace. For example, arranging a virtual site to mimic the arrangement of a physical
space science museum remediates the traditional expectations of a physical space
museum into its new virtual environment. The Franklin Institute’s virtual science center,
which will be discussed shortly, quite literally does this by using their building’s image
as a central graphic in its site, from which the three major components of the site are linked.
This connection with a physical space building taps what is familiar about a science
center to ease visitors into a potentially unfamiliar location in cyberspace.
The act of remediation is frequently reciprocal, because as a newer medium borrows from
the older, so too may the older medium borrow from the new in an effort to regenerate
itself. Bolter (2001) offers the national newspaper, USA Today as an example “. . . of the
refashioning of the newspaper itself” (p. 51). He continues:
In graphic form and function, the newspaper is coming to resemble a computer

screen, as the combination of text, images, and icons turns the newspaper page
into a static snapshot of a World Wide Web page. In many newspapers the index
now consists of summaries gathered in a column running down the left-hand
side of the page, and a small picture is often included with the summary. Anyone
familiar with multimedia presentations can easily read such a picture as an iconic
button, which the user would press in order to receive the rest of the story. USA
Today in fact makes considerable use of “hypertextual” links back and forth
throughout its pages, and these links are sometimes cued by small graphics. The
purpose of these icons together with the other pictures and graphics is not
merely decorative. Together they help to redefine the function of the newspaper,
which is no longer only to transmit verbal information, but also to provide an
appropriate visual experience and through that experience to dictate an appro-
priate reaction to the stories being told. (Bolter, 2001, p. 51)
10 Jones
This “refashioning” occurs as a result of remediation, which is a fluid process. The use
of images borrowed from the WWW to refashion newspapers had originally been
borrowed from film and television, and today the computer screen-like environment
which Bolter describes above is now common on many television networks, such as
ESPN, where the television screen is frequently a composite of multiple “windows:” with
news bytes and sports scores running in ticker fashion across the top and or bottom of
the main “window” — the current broadcast.
This complex give-and-take of remediation can be seen in science centers as well. As
physical-space science centers moved to remediate their hands-on interactive environ-
ments to include computer-based multimedia technology, virtual science centers, wholly
dependent on computer-based technology, borrowed from the “original” physical-space
as well. As in the example of The Franklin Institute Online discussed above, sometimes
the literal physicality of the physical-space center is borrowed, as is also material from
the physical-space exhibits. In some cases, technologies have advanced so quickly that
it is difficult to ascertain which medium is borrowing from which.
Many of the means of establishing identification in the audience of a physical-space
science center, or at least remediations of the same means of establishing identification,
can be used in virtual science centers; however, demonstrating goodwill toward the
audience of a virtual center, a largely anonymous and widely diverse audience, is more
difficult than establishing identification with visitors to a physical space. First of all, the
demographics of the location of a physical-space center make it somewhat easier to
conceptualize its potential audience; however, such conceptions of audience are much
more difficult to ascertain in cyberspace (technology does allow for some virtual
demographics based on interest, of course). Furthermore, there are no physical beings
with whom users can identify in a virtual space; cyberspace breeds an impersonal
environment; thereby making identification more difficult. Moreover, designers of online
museum exhibits do not have the luxury of spinning knowledge with a narrative thread;
cyberspace valorizes hypertextuality — not linearity. Nevertheless, virtual center de-
signers can still work to establish identification with their cyber visitors.
Virtual science centers are able to establish identification with their audiences primarily
through demonstrating their goodwill for audiences and creating a familiar “architec-
tural” environment. Goodwill for an audience can be demonstrated in a variety of ways.
First of all, making materials available on the WWW in and of itself is a demonstration
of goodwill, not only for potential physical-space visitors but also for the many virtual
visitors who will never set foot in the physical-space center. Beyond simply making
materials available, organizing them in ways that are easily accessible through user-
defined hierarchies (sections/links for different audience types: e.g., educators, physi-
cal-space visitors, students, families) and through search engines is another way that
virtual science centers can demonstrate good sense and goodwill. Because of the
hypertextual context of online museum exhibits, designers have a responsibility and
actually an opportunity to guide site visitors through the inclusion of navigational cues
and devices, and ease of access and navigation are two ways that online exhibition
designs can demonstrate goodwill for their audiences. Certainly, too, the overall look of
the site — its thoughtful use of colors, graphics, multimedia, and interactive components
can all work to create Burke’s “unconscious factor of appeal” — to foster the idea that
a virtual science center believes in its mission and cares about its audience.
Discussing the role of “real-time architecture” of “a physical destination place” (Sirefman,

1999, p. 311), Sirefman writes: “Connection to a local neighborhood and relevance to a specific
community begin with a building attentive to its surroundings . . .[, with] an architecture that
is substantive and welcoming [italics added]” (p. 317). This mandate for “substantive and
welcoming” “real-time architecture” holds true for a virtual site’s architecture as well.
Creating a familiar virtual space with common format schemes can also demonstrate that
good sense and goodwill, but when the virtual space takes advantage of its relationships
with existing science organizations and facilities, sometimes going so far as to borrow
from the physical architecture of its buildings, the virtual center seeks to locate visitors
in a safe space from which to navigate the center’s new and exciting terrain. Exploring
and learning new concepts and ideas can be exciting for some and intimidating for others
— familiar touchstones in site organization can provide users with the familiar foundation
from which to safely explore the unknown.
To demonstrate these principles of demonstrating good sense, good character, and
goodwill toward an audience in order to establish identification, the sites of four virtual
science centers will be discussed: The Franklin Institute Science Museum Online (http:/
/sln.fi.edu/tfi/welcome.html); the Science Museum (http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/);
the Exploratorium: The museum of science, art and human perception (http://
www.exploratorium.edu/); and Leonardo: Interactive Virtual Science Museum (http://
www.ba.infn.it/~zito/museo/leonardoen.html). By examining the ways that each of these
centers demonstrates goodwill toward their audiences, one can extrapolate principles for
center design and usage to best establish identification.
Figure 1. Franklin Institute Online welcome page (http://www.fi.edu/tfi/)
12 Jones
The Franklin Institute Online

(http://sln.fi.edu/tfi/)
The Franklin Institute Online, the online arm of The Franklin Institute in Philadelphia,
borrows heavily from its physical-space counterpart for its virtual architecture and
design; thereby, blending the physical space with the virtual site. As has already been
mentioned, a tri-colored graphic based on its building façade serves as the central point
of its Welcome page (see Figure 1) (http://sln.fi.edu/tfi/welcome.html). It should be noted
that a smaller version of this building façade image map is located on the upper left-hand
corner of each of the site’s pages, giving users an easy way to reconnect to the central
tripartite organization of the site.
From there, users may click on one of three wings of the building to “Learn,” “Visit,” or
“Explore” the site.
As one might expect, the “Visit” wing is full of information about the physical-space
Institute: hours of operation, ticketing, special events, and information on the specific
exhibits. Additionally, there are links for visitors traveling in groups or from outside the
area, which will take them to tourist information beyond the Institute itself. All of this
information demonstrates the Institute’s goodwill toward its audience. Here, too,
invitations to join the museum through membership are frequent, but virtual site users
are also invited to share their memories of “the Heart,” a fifty-year old exhibit that is
currently closed for renovation (until October 2004). Using a simple form, users can share
their memories of visiting this exhibit over the years (http://sln.fi.edu/biosci/memory/;
links to this “Memory Box” are also available through the Heart’s online exhibit as well).
Users can also read remembrances of other contributors. Such invitations allow virtual
center users to feel a part of the center, and that sense of belonging, of ownership, leads
to identification.
Figure 2. Franklin Institute “Explore” page (http://sln.fi.edu/exploreF.html)
The “Explore” page, too, (see Figure 2) features recurring and frequent connections with
the Institute’s physical space, with links to five-day weather forecast for the area, details
about the Exhibit Halls, and even a Web cam showing live shots of the surrounding
Philadelphia skyline. The “Explore” page also invites visitors to the “‘inQuiry Attic’
[which] offers an online exploration of . . . a century’s worth of scientific instruments”
collected by The Franklin Institute. There, users are invited to “Step into the Attic and
explore our treasures” (http://sln.fi.edu/qa98/atticindex.html). This use of the term
“attic” quite palpably situates virtual site users in a common physical-space area to
rummage through previously exhibited artifacts and information.
The borrowing from building architecture to organize the center is carried throughout the
site. Each of the three main pages: “Learn,” “Visit,” and “Explore” uses the same
arrangement with a larger center panel surrounded on three sides by eight smaller
rectangular panels, each with a linked graphic to another part of the site. This arrange-
ment could loosely be seen as a blueprint drawing of rooms in a building, thereby
continuing the architectural theme of the site, and its repetition throughout the site
demonstrates good sense. Central to each of these pages is a search opportunity, and
the smaller version of the building façade image map, which allows users ready access
to the central organization of the site. Unfortunately, below this arrangement of rect-
angles are a series of boxes with links to additional information. Falling below the primary
grouping of rectangles, and below or nearly below the original screen view (that which
is visible without scrolling downward) in many browsers, these boxes are seen more as
an afterthought to the page’s primary arrangement, and materials there may frequently
go unseen.
Common to all three divisions of the site, in addition to the architectural features
discussed above, are the links to information for teachers and to interactive materials.
While teachers seem to be the primary audience for the “Learn” page, there is information
throughout the entire site that would be useful for teachers. Links are available to field
trip information, teachers’ guides to exhibits and other activities, correlative materials to
state standards in science, as well as professional development opportunities. In fact,
teachers seem to be the primary audience throughout The Franklin Institute Online’s
organizational architecture. While site redundancy, making frequently sought after
information readily available at various portals of entry, is appropriate, overall, The
Franklin Institute Online seems to be designed primarily for educator access, to prepare
for physical-space visits or to share online exhibits with students, as opposed to
engaging students working on their own. While the site itself is attractive if not a bit box-
ish, its colorful, sometimes cartoonish graphics might fail to engage adolescents seeking
to explore a virtual science center. Furthermore, while there are seven online exhibits,
links to which are scattered about the site, or available centrally on a page (http://
sln.fi.edu/tfi/virtual/vir-summ.html) that can be found only by using the search function
for “online exhibits,” the overall site of The Franklin Institute Online seems primarily
intended to enhance physical-space visits, demonstrating goodwill to those users, and
particularly toward teachers of science.
14 Jones
Figure 3. Science Museum welcome page (http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/)
Science Museum (UK)

(http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk)
Although not in its site design, the virtual site of London’s Science Museum (see Figure
3) makes strong connections with its physical counterpart as well. Rather than relying
on the metaphor of building architecture, geometric arrangement, or graphics like The
Franklin Institute Online, the virtual architecture of the London’s Science Museum
Welcome page relies much more on text, giving the Welcome page a sparser and
potentially less engaging appearance. In fact, most of the textual links in the main content
area of the Science Museum’s Welcome pages seem primarily to be an advertisement for
the physical-space center, featuring only brief online components to entice users to visit
the physical-space center. For example, the site’s Welcome page is primarily a World
Wide Web outreach site for the physical-space center’s exhibit, complete with floor plan,
ticket information, calendar of upcoming events, merchandise, timetable for an IMAX
movie, Top Speed, and photographs of some of the exhibits. It should be added that there
are, however, several online activities including a clip from a movie shown at the museum,
and a game, again intended to connect to the physical-space exhibit.
Another example of their use of virtual center as advertisement for their physical-space
center is related to the “Science of Sport” exhibit (see Figure 4). The descriptive text reads
as follows: “Science of Sport explains the science behind sport and encourages children
(and adults!) to get themselves interacting with our state-of-the-art exhibits.’ Instead of
looking at displays, you’ll actually be in them, taking part in races, games and quizzes
to test your skills and knowledge of sport! And while you’re playing, you’re learning
too!” (http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/exhibitions/sport/site/index.asp). Obvious
efforts to bridge the generations and to ensure visitors of the opportunities for
interactivity are clear, thereby engaging its physical-space audience.
Figure 4. Science Museum “Science of Sport” site (http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/

exhibitions/sport/site/index.asp)
As another way to engage its audience and demonstrate its goodwill toward that
audience, the virtual site advertises “free” admission to the “Science of Sport” exhibit
for the cost of one chocolate Easter egg the day after Easter weekend. As the site explains:
The amnesty - which is supported by the British Dietetic Association and Sport
England - is designed to offer all young people the chance to take part in the
hands on exhibition and learn about the importance of balancing diet and
exercise. Children will be able to try a number of specially designed activities,
from running on a treadmill while wearing a specially designed “fat pack,” to
measuring their fat levels using a body mass indicator.
Clearly, caring enough about children’s physical health and fitness demonstrates good
character, good sense, and goodwill, but the benefits are to be reaped by visitors to the
physical-space center. This initial seeming imbalance of physical-space activities over virtual
ones leaves the Web user feeling a bit overlooked in favor of the physical-space visitor.
However, by exploring the site menu on the left hand side of the Welcome page, and also
across the top, users find a wealth of virtual materials rife with good sense and goodwill.
At the “Exhibitions online” page, users will find links to virtual “exhibitions and
interactives” as diverse as “Exploring Leonardo,” which looks at Leonardo da Vinci as
a “scientist, inventor, and artist” (http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/on-line/leonardo/
LeoHomePage.asp), to “Apollo 10” (http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/on-line/apollo10/
index.asp), which, in addition to telling about the Apollo space program, offers users an
opportunity to design a rocket, which they will later launch to an authentic sounding
audio countdown. “Interactives” such as these are extremely sophisticated, and do an
excellent job of engaging the user in a rich multimedia learning experience. Furthermore,
the breadth, depth, and sophistication of the materials available demonstrate the Science
16 Jones
Figure 5. Science Museum “Launchpad” comments (http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/

on-line/launchpad/3XX.asp)
Museum’s good sense and goodwill toward the virtual center user. Most importantly,
these opportunities for interaction allow users to identify with the museum by becoming
“owners” in their own exploration and knowledge making.
This demonstration of goodwill is continued on the “Learn & Teach” page (http://
www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/education/index.asp), where links are available for differ-
ent audience types, such as “teachers,” “adults,” “students,” and “families.” At the
“teacher’s” link, there are, in addition to information and ancillary materials to support
a physical-space museum field trip, curricular guides and activity sheets, searchable by
age or type of material. The “students” and “families” sites are designed with virtual
users in mind with links to fun activities as well as material to be used in school projects.
While all of these sites mention activities available at the physical-space Science
Museum, there is much for the virtual center user here. One other group of learners who
appears to be the subject of greater goodwill here are adult learners, rating their own site
and activities. Clearly, the Science Museum does an excellent job of demonstrating its
goodwill toward the virtual center users who may never enter its physical-space walls.
One other way that the virtual site of the Science Museum establishes identification with
its virtual users is through its frequent use of phrases like “let’s talk,” “what do you
think?” or “tell us what you think.” Through email links and invitations to participate in
online debates (http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/lets_talk/debate.asp) about ques-
tions such as “Telepathy: Fact or Fraud” and “Should we be collecting objects from the
wreck of the Titanic, or should we leave the dead to rest?,” not only are virtual users
invited to participate in these moderated online discussions, but also each discussion
is accompanied with some background material to contextualize the debate. One more
accommodation that the virtual site of the Science Center makes for its virtual users is
the use of scalable fonts on its pages, allowing users to change the size of the page’s
font within their Web browser. This demonstrates goodwill toward those with visual
impairments, but also for users with a variety of browsers. Again, users have a choice
— and an opportunity to interact with the site to make it theirs. As was mentioned
previously — making a site theirs allows users to identify with that site.
In addition to requesting participation from virtual users, the site includes audio
feedback from museum visitors, accompanied by the speakers’ photographs (Figure 5)
(http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/on-line/launchpad/3XX.asp). The use of these
faces and voices makes human other center visitors, thereby helping to establish
identification between the virtual users and the physical-space visitors.
While at first glance the Science Museum would seem to suffer from the same imbalance
favoring physical-space visitors over virtual users noted about The Franklin Institute
Online, a closer examination reveals a wealth of opportunities and interactivity for virtual
users of many ages and interest levels. The designers of the virtual site for the Science
Museum have combined the goals of using the WWW to demonstrate their good sense and
goodwill for both their potential physical-space visitors, and their virtual users quite well.
Exploratorium
(http://www.exploratorium.edu)
While both The Franklin Institute Online and the main page of the virtual site of the
Science Museum (UK) utilize the Web to offer enticement and easy access to their
physical-space visitors, the Exploratorium’s virtual center has much more to offer the
Web user from the outset (see Figure 6).
Figure 6. Exploratorium Welcome Page (http://www.exploratorium.edu)
18 Jones
While there are links to information that would attract and inform visitors to/of the
physical-space, including Web cams showing exhibits and the surrounding skyline
through its “Roof Cam” (in real time during museum/daylight hours), similar to the one
at The Franklin Institute Online, these physical-space reminders are not the primary
focus of the Exploratorium’s virtual science center.
At first glance, the user is met with a riot of colors, images, and texts, and the
hypertextuality of the center is visually conveyed, particularly as compared to the
linearity of the Science Museum’s opening page. The Exploratorium’s site is divided into
five major categories: “Explore,” “Educate,” “Visit,” “Partner,” and “Shop.” Common to
all of the pages are their “screen size” format, search function, site map link, and an
invitation to “Get Involved” in some way, whether through becoming a member, a
volunteer, a donor, or simply registering for a newsletter.
As would be expected, the “Visit” link takes potential physical-space visitors to not only
the necessary visitor information, such as upcoming events, hours, admission fees,
maps, and etcetera.; it also provides would-be visitors a sampling of exhibits available
in the physical-space center. As the name would imply here too, the “Shop” link takes
users to a store, but this time a fairly sophisticated online store, where a wide variety of
educational toys and gifts, as well as publications and other educational materials can
be purchased. While the opportunity to purchase items can be seen as a for-profit motive
for the center, most users realize that non-profit organizations must support their
operations. Furthermore, making quality science-related items available to virtual center
users demonstrates goodwill toward that audience. (E-commerce plays an interesting
role in virtual science centers, particularly as it relates to museum shops. All of the sites
related to physical-space museums and centers offer virtual users an opportunity to shop
online. The Franklin Institute Online’s has a limited store with most of its products
connected closely with the exhibits of the physical-space center, little more than
advertisements for the physical-space center, but the Exploratorium and Science
Figure 7. Exploratorium “Educate” (http://www.exploratorium.edu/educate/

index.html)
Museum stores are much larger, offering a wide variety of science-related toys, clothing,
publications, etc. On one hand this availability may seem at cross-purposes to a non-
profit, caring, like-minded institution; however, if the centers’ mission is to engage users
in science education, then the stores, which make one-stop shopping for ancillary
materials available do seem like an act of goodwill.)
As was noted previously about opportunities to become a member of The Franklin
Institute Online, evidence of and opportunities to “partner” with the Exploratorium
demonstrate goodwill toward its audience by offering users “ownership” of the center
— and in turn their learning there. Furthermore, by sharing information about other
partnering institutions, agencies, and organizations, the ethos of the center is bolstered
by its associations there.
The two most notable sub-sites in Exploratorium are “Explore” and “Educate” (see
Figures 7 and 8). The “Explore” link takes users to a variety of highly interactive mini-
sites on topics as diverse as earthquakes to frogs to the origin of languages. A separate
menu at the “Explore” site organizes the material differently, taking users to online
activities, exhibitions, Web casts, and other hands-on activities for the virtual user.
Clearly, the Exploratorium’s virtual science center demonstrates its goodwill toward its
virtual audience by offering so many accommodations for those who may never set foot
inside their physical-space.
Exploratorium’s goodwill toward its educator audience is clear in the amount and breadth
of materials intended for teachers under the “Educate” category: materials to enhance
class visits to the physical site, but also a variety of learning tools, including directions
for hands-on activities, links to Web casts, and etcetera. In addition to the information
they can receive there, teachers have the opportunity to participate in the “Educate” site
by subscribing to an educator’s newsletter and to contribute by sharing worthwhile
educational Web sites (outside of the Exploratorium’s site) to become part of a monthly
Figure 8. Exploratorium “Explore” (http://www.exploratorium.edu/explore/

index.html)
20 Jones
feature, “Ten Cool Sites” (http://www.exploratorium.edu/learning_studio/

sciencesites.html). There, too, former “cool sites” are archived, accessible by topic.
Melding the definitions of museum as collection and museum as learning environment,
one collection that the Exploratorium makes available under its “Educate” category is
their “Digital Assets Collection:” over 3,000 “digitized museum materials related to
interactive exhibits and scientific phenomena, including images, educational activities,
PDFs, QuickTime movies, and audio files . . . for educational use” (http://
www.exploratorium.edu/educate/edam/index.html). The availability of this digital collec-
tion with free access for educational uses, as with the many other materials available for
educators, creates strong identification between educator-users and the virtual center.
That the Exploratorium’s virtual science center is a step above other such centers in
establishing identification with its virtual audience is not surprising. Writing about the
founding of the physical-space Exploratorium, Kathleen McLean (1999) describes it as:
a new kind of museum altogether, born from the philosophies of self-directed

learning, interactivity, and individual discovery that were growing out of a
burgeoning educational reform movement. At the heart of the new Exploratorium
— “ A Museum of Science, Art, and Human Perception” — was a fundamental
mission to empower the public and “bridge the gap between the experts and the
laymen” with exhibits and experiments that visitors could activate on their own.
(p. 90)
Figure 9. Leonardo: Interactive Virtual Science Museum (http://www.ba.infn.it/~zito/

museo/leonardoen.html)
The virtual site of the Exploratorium is one more way in which they seek to “empower
the public . . . with exhibits and experiments that visitors could activate on their own,”
and in empowering the public they are also successful in establishing identification with
its users, thereby creating regular users.
Leonardo: Interactive Virtual Science

Museum (http://www.ba.infn.it/~zito/
museo/leonardoen.html)
Leonardo: Interactive Virtual Science Museum is, to use Maria de Lourdes Horta’s
phrase, “A museum without walls and without objects, a true virtual museum” (cited in
Weil, 1999, p. 236). Unlike the three virtual centers previously examined, Leonardo has
no physical-space museum related to it. In truth, Leonardo is little more than a series
of over 200 textual links to sites related to scientific concepts; primarily physics (see
Figure 8). There are no visually engaging images (save one of da Vinci) or even a spatial
arrangement on the page that draws readers into its textual density. However, despite its
sparseness, this site is a virtual science center representative of substantial Web
searching, and through its good sense it makes some surprising efforts to demonstrate
its goodwill toward its audience.
First of all, the site is offered in both English and Italian, and accommodations are made
in different ways throughout the site for translation. In addition, the designer has created
a series of alphabetic codes that give users additional information about each linked site
before going to the site itself. This coding allows users to preview each site without
taking time to open each, many of which might take a long time to do so because of their
interactive nature (frequently Java applets). Care is taken to note any broken links as well,
further demonstrating the site creator’s goodwill for its audience. Furthermore, this site
actually features two different pages — one with the links arranged by date of acquisition
(to the site), and the other arranged by topics to better enable users to access the
appropriate linked material. It is in the complexity of the topics covered at the site that
also demonstrates goodwill, but endeavoring to make available more comprehensible
presentations of particularly dense material. By focusing on potentially less engaging
topics and offering the materials is a less than engaging “package,” than the other three
virtual science centers discussed here, Leonardo’s designer(s) lose points in appeal, but
win points in the efforts made to help its users better understand difficult concepts.
One other benefit of looking at the Leonardo site is that, because of its organizational
simplicity, relying on the overall difficulty of its content and the possible sophistication
of its constituent sites from which to draw its own brand of sophistication, one is
reminded how easily such a site can be created. Certainly, that the site is multilingual is
no easy feat, neither is its availability in two different organizational hierarchies (order
of acquisition and subject matter) and coding system; however, its overall concept of
providing a list of links to other sites is something that educators can do to create their
22 Jones
own “virtual science center,” by organizing the virtual exhibits of others (to whom credit
would be given of course).
Several Final Caveats

Before concluding that virtual science center designers should employ all of the methods
to establish identification with their audiences, and that educators using those sites
should use only those that do, several caveats need to be stated. Balance is an important
concept to remember — balance in catering to one’s audience, avoiding unduly focusing
on one constituency to the exclusion of another, while at the same time not trying to be
everything to every user. Balance, too, in content choice: offering what is scientifically
relevant, what users need, what will attract users, and what users are interested in.
Care must be taken by museum site designers to achieve a balance between sophisticated
content and possibly less than sophisticated site visitors and their systems. Site
sophistication through the use of graphics and images, or audio, video, and Flash files
that are large or that may require special plug-ins is another aspect of virtual science
center design that can contribute in both positive and negative ways to the establishment
of identification. Within the architecture of these sites, photographs are a common
method by which a virtual center can exhibit its holdings, both photographs and artifacts.
The inclusion of photographs is an obvious way to establish identification between a
center’s audience and its subject, and photographs are one of a virtual science center’s
best ways of conveying a sense of their presence to site visitors, and thereby establish-
ing identification with their audience. However, in an online exhibition, photographs can
have both positive and negative effects on building identification. While photographs
can provide an important bridge across the impersonality of cyberspace, the additional
drag that multiple image files place on pages’ loading speed can sometimes irritate or
confuse site visitors, or even overtax certain older systems’ capacities. Care must be
taken to reduce, as much as possible, the size of image files, without unduly sacrificing
visual quality. In such cases where the designer determines that the contribution that
an image makes to the page is worth the extra loading time, then the designer would be
wise to add a notice to advise site visitors about possibly slow loading times.
The same consideration would apply for files — video, audio, Shockwave, and applets
— that require special plug-ins or programs that are not widely available on most,
particularly older computer systems. Movie clips like the one available at the Science
Museum’s virtual site, and Flash movies that launch automatically at The Franklin
Institute Online are certainly engaging, but encountered on older or ill-equipped
hardware, they can result in frustration rather than engagement. Any obstacles that
stand between the Web exhibit and its audience can hinder identification, prompting
them to “question how welcome he or she is” (Anderson, 1999, p. 142), so designers must
consciously consider whether such large, slow loading files, some which may even
necessitate the addition of less common system features, add sufficiently to the site to
justify their inclusion. Ironically, the very means by which interactivity can be infused
into a site can also hinder users from developing identification. One way to handle this
possible obstacle is to make mention of special system requirements at the beginning of

the Web exhibit, or to use software that searches users’ systems, notifying them of
needed downloads, or even automatically launching those downloads. On one hand, in
order to support access, obtaining the appropriate application must be simple and free;
but on the other hand, monitoring and particularly auto-launching can be seen as
intrusive, thereby destroying any goodwill established by easy and ready access.
Finally, while the concept of identification has been tested in disciplines such as
communications and English, and even in our own interpersonal relationships (e.g., we
are best persuaded by those who are most like us or who seem to have our best interests
at heart), studies of visitors’ perception/interpretation of “goodwill” through user
evaluation and monitoring would be an important verifying step in the formal study of
virtual science center design. Such studies would help determine that all important
balance point mentioned at the outset of these caveats.
Conclusion
Here are a few final words of advice about utilizing/testing identification to develop user-
loyalty and as a tool of persuasion. As a final act of goodwill, checklists follow to help
each group follow that advice:
• To designers, know your audience — their interests and needs — and meet those
while demonstrating your center’s credibility. By doing so, users will return to the
center over and over, identifying with this site, trusting it to be accessible, credible,
and comprehensible.
• To educators using virtual science centers in their classrooms — make your and
your students’ interests and needs known — become a part of the centers you use.
Carefully evaluate the sites you use with your students, as you do with all other
educational materials, so that students are exposed to the most engaging resources
available, so that they can identify with those sites, becoming independent,
questioning users themselves.
Checklist for Virtual Science Center Web Designers
Considerations that Demonstrate Center’s Credibility (Ethos)
• Make clear any relationship(s) with physical-space institutions (e.g., museums,

educational institutions)
24 Jones
• Note partnerships with other institutions, agencies, and/or organizations [e.g.,

educational, AAM (American Association of Museums), ASTC (American Sci-
ence-Technology Centers)]
• Be visible, proactive partners with educational institutions
• Explain collection and research processes
• Identify curators, researchers, and etcetera and their associations
• Document sources, links, and etcetera
• Cover “hot” or controversial topics, without compromising research standards
• Employ as sophisticated Web technologies as can be well-maintained
Considerations that Demonstrate Goodwill Toward One’s Audience
• Offer a balance of resources for physical-space and virtual visitors

• Accommodate audience diversity with a variety of topics, each of which is likely
to interest particular contingent(s) in that audience
• Create a visually organized and appealing site
• Provide access to resources in a variety of hierarchies (e.g., “user-type,” subject,
resource type)
• Provide search capabilities
Establishing Identification with Users Will
• Create supportive learning environment

• Enhance understanding of difficult or unfamiliar concepts
• Create loyal users
Checklist for Educators Teaching with Virtual Science

Centers
Evaluate the Center’s Credibility (Ethos)
• Who created and maintains the site? What is their reputation and training?
• Are the references, sources, and researchers made known?
• Is the site exemplary of the scientific process?

• Are the external links to credible sites as well?
• Is contact information made clear?
Evaluate the Center’s Goodwill Toward You and Your Students as an

Audience
• Does the site try to address the interests of you and your students?
• Is the overall site or sub-site age appropriate for your students?
• Are the topics and/or approaches to those topics of interest to your students?
• Does the site try to serve the needs of you and your students?
• Are there curricular materials made available on the site?
• Are these materials connected to local/state curricula/standards, and etcet-
era?
• What efforts are there made to help you use the site?
• “Searchability”
• Variety of menus based on interest groups, topics, and etcetera
• Mailings sent through schools, educational organizations, or center newslet-
ters (virtual or “snail mail”)
• Does the center offer professional development opportunities in connection with
science education?
Ways to Use Virtual Science Centers to Best Fit Your Situation
• Access curricular materials

• Prepare for field trip
• Lead students on “virtual field trip” from center to center
• Create your own virtual science center through links on a simple Web page
• Done for your students, you have a resource that is ultimately more tailored
to their needs.
Done with or by your students, you have provided a learning opportunity that is
unsurpassed in fostering knowledge-production.
26 Jones
References
Anderson, M.L. (1999). Museums of the future: The impact of technology on museum
practices. Daedalus, 128(3), 129-162.
Bolter, J.D. (2001). Writing space: Computers, hypertext, and the remediation of print
(2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bolter, J.D., & Grusin, R. (2000). Remediation: Understanding new media. Cambridge,
MA: MIT.
Burke, K. (1950). A rhetoric of motives. New York: Prentice-Hall.
Burke, K. (1967). Rhetoric—Old and new. In M. Steinmann, Jr. (Ed.), New rhetorics (pp.
69-76). New York: Scribners (originally published in 1950/1957).
Cherry, R.D. (1994). Ethos versus persona: Self-representation in written discourse. In
P. Elbow (Ed.), Landmark essays on voice and writing (pp. 85-106). Davis:
Hermagoras (original work published in 1988).
Crowley, S. (1994). Ancient rhetoric for contemporary students. New York: Macmillan.
Exploratorium: The Museum. (n.d.). Retrieved March 15, 2004, from http://
www.exploratorium.edu
The Franklin Institute Online. (n.d.). Retrieved March 15, 2004, from http://www.fi.edu/
tfi/
Galluzzi, P. (2000). New technologies and the objects of science: Reflections on the use
of multimedia. In S. Lindquist, M. Hedin, & U. Larsson (Eds.), Museums of modern
science (pp. 107-116). USA: Science History Publications.
Hooper-Greenhill, E. (1995). Museum, message, media. London: Routledge.
Koster, E.H. (1999). In search of relevance: Science centers as innovators in the evolution
of museums. Daedalus, 128(3), 277-296.
Leonardo: Interactive Virtual Science Center. (n.d.). Retrieved March 15, 2004, from
http://www.ba.infn.it/~zito/museo/leonardoen.html
McLean, K. (1999). Museum exhibitions and the dynamics of dialogue. Daedalus, 128
(3), 83-107.
Pitman, B. (1999). Muses, museums, and memories. Daedalus,128(3), 1-31.
Science Museum. (n.d.). Retrieved March 15, 2004, from http://www.science
museum.org.uk/
Sipiora, P. (1994). Ethical argumentation in Darwin’s origin of species. In J.S. Baumlin
& T. F. Baumlin (Eds.), Ethos: New essays in rhetorical and critical theory (pp.
265-292). Dallas: Southern Methodist UP.
Sirefman, S. (1999). Formed and forming: Contemporary museum architecture. Daedalus,
128(3), 297-320.
Skramstad, H. (1999). An agenda for American museums in the twenty-first century.
Daedalus, 128(3), 109-128.
Wagensberg, J. (2000). In favor of scientific knowledge: The new museums. In S.

Lindquist, M. Hedin, & U. Larsson (Eds.), Museums of modern science (pp. 129-
183). USA: Science History Publications.
Weil, S.E. (1999). From being about something to being for somebody: The ongoing
transformation of the American museum. Daedalus, 128(3), 229-258.
Weinberg, J., & Rina, E. (1995). The Holocaust Museum in Washington. New York: Rizzoli.
28 Goldman and Dierking
Chapter II
Free-Choice Learning
Research and the
Virtual Science Center:
Establishing a
Research Agenda
Kathryn Haley Goldman, Institute for Learning Innovation, USA
Lynn D. Dierking, Institute for Learning Innovation, USA
Abstract
Societies are in the midst of change, witnessing an explosion in out-of-school learning.
From the proliferation of educational programming through film, television, museums
and science centers, there are more opportunities for free-choice learning, self-
directed and voluntary, than ever before. However, most virtual learning research is
focused on classroom-based practices with little research on how learning occurs
virtually. This chapter describes an appropriate research agenda, suggesting some of
the research questions of highest priority. Authors suggest that models such as the
Contextual Model of Learning are useful tools to understand the virtual science center
experience and frame a research agenda for the future. Better understanding the nature
of such virtual experiences and the factors that contribute to learning online will
enable the field to better design such science centers, as well as begin to build a body
of knowledge about how people in the 21st century engage in free-choice learning
online.
Free-Choice Learning Research and the Virtual Science Center 29
Introduction
Globally, societies are witnessing a virtual explosion in out-of-school learning. From the
proliferation of educational programming through film and television, museums and
science centers, there are more opportunities for self-directed learning than ever before.
In a typical day, an individual might surf the Internet to track down a book in a local library,
attend a play or a book discussion group, watch a nature documentary on television or
interact with exhibitions at the local science center. All of these events are free-choice
learning1 experiences — self-directed, voluntary, and rather than following a set curricu-
lum, are guided by the individual learner’s needs and interests.
The rise of the Internet in particular is fanning the flames of free-choice learning.
Individuals all over the world are increasingly seeing learning in a broader sense — not
simply something that occurs in the classroom or even in a place per se, but an activity
that one can engage in virtually as well. Increasingly, these learners understand learning
is the way individuals make meaning of, and survive in their world and they are
empowered to pursue learning in their own ways. Traditionally, museums and science
centers have been great places for free-choice learning, however, with the virtual
explosion of new media, these institutions are poised to become an even greater resource.
Currently, the majority of virtual learning research is focused on classroom-based
practices, not free-choice learning situations. Consequently, there is very little research
on how learning occurs at places such as virtual science centers and therefore our ability
to know how to best design such centers is limited. Research in this area is critical, since
the learning potential of virtual science centers is enormous. The virtual nature of these
science centers enables centers to break free of geographic, physical and time con-
straints, reaching an even greater share of the public, thus engaging them in science, and
hopefully increasing science and technology awareness and literacy.
This lack of research exists for several reasons, including most significantly the
methodological obstacles in conducting research on “non-captive audiences” in virtual
environments. The evaluation and research that does exist tends to focus disproportion-
ately on usability issues, such as reduction of system-critical errors and ease of
navigation. This focus on usability is important and contributes to the ease with which
users can access the resources of virtual centers, but unfortunately it also obscures
larger, more critical issues at stake. For instance understanding how, why and to what
end people use virtual science centers would help designers and “curators” of such sites
better select, organize and present e-learning resources and activities. Understanding
the impact of such experiences can also provide insights into how best to position this
resource in relationship to the physical science center, other museum Web sites and
other free-choice learning resources (books, magazines, television). It is akin to concen-
trating solely on whether the door of your science center is unlocked, without paying
attention to how visitors are using the resource, whether it could be improved, and
whether they are having enjoyable and meaningful experiences.
There is an even more important need for research in this area though. The existence of
learning potential in no way suggests that this potential has been realized. Thus, on a
more practical level, better understanding of the nature of the virtual science center
experience and the factors that contribute to learning online will enable the field to use
virtual museums to engage and inform the public in more meaningful and effective ways.
In this chapter we will describe what we feel would be an appropriate research agenda
in this area, suggesting some of the research interests and questions that we feel are of
highest priority. It is critical that practitioners in this area be aware of both the issues at
stake and the research conducted thus far, in order to enhance the impact of virtual
science centers and ensuring that they do not become flat de-contextualized versions of
the physical science center.
Initiating a Research Agenda

It is one thing to say that research in this area is critical, quite another to decide what
models or frameworks could best guide such research and what research interests and
questions we feel are of the highest priority and will result in the most usefulness for
designers and curators. We propose that one place to start would be to build on
established research in the free-choice learning arena. Thirteen years ago John Falk and
Lynn Dierking formulated a framework for thinking about learning that tried to accom-
modate much of the diversity and complexity surrounding learning, a framework that at
the time was called the Interactive Experience Model. More recently they built upon and
refined this model, recasting it as the Contextual Model of Learning. This model posits
that there are hundreds of factors fundamental to science center learning experiences.
Among those hundreds, 12 critical suites of factors, clustered into the three contexts of
importance in these settings (Personal, Physical & Sociocultural), have emerged through
research (cf., Falk & Dierking, 2000), as those which individually and collectively
influence the meaning-making process of visitors to free-choice learning settings like
museums and science centers. No one factor is dominant; indeed the interaction of these
factors is unique to every individual. This model has proven to be a convenient way to
think about learning: as a process/product being constructed over time as people move
through their sociocultural and physical worlds. Over time meaning is built-up, layer
upon layer. However, this model does not quite capture the true dynamism of the process,
since even the layers themselves are not static or necessarily even permanent. All the
layers, particularly those laid down earliest, interact and directly influence the shape and
form of future layers; the learners both form and are formed by their environments. For
convenience, we have distinguished three separate contexts, but it is important to keep
in mind that these contexts are not really separate, or even separable.
The twelve suites of factors identified in the Model are:
Personal Context
1. Motivation and expectations
2. Prior knowledge and experience
3. Prior interests and beliefs
4. Choice and control
Sociocultural Context
5. Within group social mediation
6. Facilitated mediation by others
7. Cultural background and upbringing
Physical Context
8. Advance organizers
9. Orientation to the physical space
10. Architecture and large-scale environment
11. Design of exhibits and content of labels
12. Subsequent reinforcing events and experiences outside the museum
The Institute for Learning Innovation, established in 1986 as a not-for-profit learning

research and development organization, has been an international leader in investigating
free-choice learning, developing and applying innovative models for learning such as the
Contextual Model of Learning, and understanding new media and its potential use in
these innovative approaches to learning. Institute researchers, and other researchers as
well, have used this model to frame recent research on learning in and from museums (Falk
& Storksdieck, in revision). It has also served as a useful tool for practitioners as they
attempt to design free-choice learning experiences that take into account these charac-
teristics. For instance, in the design and redesign of exhibitions and programs, the model
has been a useful prism with which to examine these offerings from multiple viewpoints,
in order to address the visitor experience as completely as possible.
These factors have been shown to be robust and to validly describe the nature of learning
within the physical science center. For instance, factors related to choice and control
have emerged as critical variables, with research demonstrating that learning is maximized
when visitors have choices about what, when, how and with whom to learn — in other
words, learning is enhanced when the learner feels in control of his/her learning. This
research has been used to effectively influence practice with successful science centers
working to incorporate aspects of visitor choice and control into their exhibitions and
programming.
Just as these factors contribute to and influence the visitor experience in physical science
centers, it is logical to think that they, and perhaps other factors, play a role in virtual
science centers as well, albeit likely in different ways, and therefore that this model could
form an effective foundation for a research agenda in this area. For example, choice
(visitors making choices about what they see and do based on their interests, attitudes
and prior experiences) and control (visitors’ actual and perceived control over the
experience) are factors that greatly influence a physical visit to a physical science center,
and are likely to influence virtual visitors. Yet the factors of choice and control in virtual
settings may also encompass issues of access to software, plug-ins and download times.
In addition, it is highly possible that some of the twelve suites of factors are not as critical
to a virtual environment or that there are other suites of variables that emerge as important
specifically to understanding learning in virtual environments.
It would be impossible to comprehensively describe all of the contextual factors related

to on-line learning that might be important to investigate in this one chapter. Therefore
we have chosen to focus on specific factors within the Contextual Model of Learning that
may have different implications in the virtual world and thus, make sense to investigate
and incorporate into an online learning research agenda. These issues include items such
as motivation for visiting, choice and control within the visit, the social interaction that
surrounds the visit, wayfinding, and concurrent and subsequent events that reinforce
the virtual visit.
Personal Context
Motivation and Expectations
Museum learning researchers have documented a variety of motivations that visitors

have described for visiting physical science centers (Rosenfeld, 1980; Moussouri, 1997;
Falk, Moussouri, & Coulson, 1998; Ellenbogen, 2003). This research suggests that the
motivation and expectations of any group of visitors is likely to include one of these
factors or to be composed of some combination of these motivations:
1. Fun/entertainment/recreation
2. As a social activity
3. For general educational purposes
4. As a life cycle event, whether through personal connection or as from a sense of
duty (my mother always took me here, so I will take my children)
5. As a “site” to be seen while on vacation or having visitors
6. For specific content related to the Science Center or a particular exhibition
7. For practical reasons (too cold to take the children to the park)
Preliminary research indicates that the motivations and expectations for virtual visits are
quite different than they are for physical science center visits (Haley Goldman, &
Schaller, 2004). For the most part, visitors do not visit virtual science museums as a life
cycle event, certainly not as a place to take out-of-town visitors or while on vacation —
virtual museums lack a sense of place. And although a virtual visit might be undertaken
for practical reasons, such as it being too cold outside to take the children to the park,
this motivation is rarely reported. In addition, visiting a virtual institution for social
reasons is rarely reported.
The most popular motivations for virtual visitors have been characterized as:
• Gathering information for an upcoming visit to the physical site

• Engaging in very casual browsing
• In search of specific content information (self-motivated research)
• In search of specific content information (assigned research such as a school or
job assignment)
(Bowen, 1999; Sarraf, 1999; Chadwick et al., 2000; Kravchyna & Hastings, 2002; Schaller
et al., 2002; Ockuly, 2003; Haley Goldman, & Schaller, 2004).
The multiple studies confirm the findings, each study slightly differing due to the
phrasing of the questions. Kravchyna and Hastings (2002) for instance asked, “What is
the purpose of your visit?” but framed each possible answer in terms of information-
seeking: “To find information about recent exhibits, to find information about special
events in the museum, to find additional materials for the research needs, to find
information on how to contact museum staff.” Chadwick et al. (2000), Schaller et al. (2002),
and Ockuly (2003), developed a wider variety of motivations, including “to learn about
art for personal enrichment” and “personal growth.” Bowen (1999) includes “it’s fun and
interesting” as one of the three main motivators.
These motivations are logical when situated in the larger context of how people
nationwide are using the Internet today. The latest report from the Pew Internet and
American Life Project (Madden, 2003) details that 26 million Americans surf the Internet
just for fun or to pass the time per day, 22 million do research for their job, 22 million look
for information on a hobby or interest, 22 million to “answer a question” and 12 million
do research for school or training. The above uses of the Internet rank as some of the
most popular activities to do online — only getting news and using e-mail rank higher.
These numbers emphasize that the motivations of the general Internet visitor are the same
as the virtual museum-goers — fun and information seeking.
We do not currently know in what combinations these motivations are “bundled” and
in what ways these motivations, either individually or collectively, influence the expec-
tations and outcomes of these experiences. In research using this motivational framework
in physical visits, Falk, Moussouri, and Coulson (1998) found that these motivations did
bundle together, that fun and learning were not necessarily independent variables
(someone could be visiting both for educational and entertainment reasons) and that
these motivations strongly influenced the learning that resulted from physical visits.
There is no reason to believe that similar processes are not in action in virtual visits but
currently we have no idea whether and in what ways motivations and expectations
influence online learning. This certainly is an area worthy of investigation.
One other important variable to add to the mix is the interaction of motivation and
expectation with a virtual visitor’s prior knowledge and understanding of the information
they seek. Currently most virtual science centers contain content designed as “one size
fits all” and there has been little experimentation with offering information and Web-
based interactives at different levels, other than at the most gross level (e.g., a section
for adults and one for children). This is also an area worth investigating.
As revealed by the number of research and information-based motivations above,

content is still king in the world of choices on the Internet. Quite a few history and natural
history museums design portions of their site to interest the amateur or professional
researcher. This emphasis on collections information can be a disadvantage for the
science center, which traditionally does not have extensive collections and instead tends
to emphasize content facilitated through interactives. Some content matter can be
adapted for the Web and some are even improved via that medium, for instance, flat panel
displays of cross-sections are more intuitive and dynamic when shown on an animated
Web site. However, interactives that the visitor uses their whole body to engage with
might suffer by being translated to the flat screen. We know little about the effects of the
loss of physicality, also an area that could benefit from a research focus. However, we
do know that video games have found creative ways to incorporate elements of
physicality into the experience of playing. For years, game players have been able to use
alternatives to joysticks, such as elements that point at the screen. More recent
applications include items such as Dance Revolution, a game where visitors mimic the
dance moves shown onscreen on a specialized mat, with the moves becoming more and
more complex. This type of game has proved to be a creative way of incorporating
physicality into the experience and has been very popular with a wide range of ages.
Another potentially rich research focus could be investigating the novelty and “fun”
elements of the experience, although now that the sense of the Web as a new frontier has
faded and commercialism has grown, some Web surfers are becoming disenchanted with
Web sites as a place to have fun. The exuberance is gone, claims The New York Times,
stating “the toy box has turned into a tool box” (Guernsey, 2002). Following up on this
assertion to see whether this is indeed the case with virtual science centers and other
free-choice learning Web sites would be very useful for designers and educators alike.
Perhaps virtual science centers could position themselves as places where fun can still
be found online.
Choice and Control
Issues of choice and control are complex in both physical and virtual sites. As Falk &
Dierking state in their book, Learning from Museums, “Learning is at its peak when the
individual can exercise choice over what and when they learn and feel that they control
their own learning.” There has been much rhetoric that the Internet can provide
boundless choices and absolute user control, however, the actual choice and control
factors are significantly more nuanced. Even mundane things, such as dial-up speed and
the availability of plug-ins, may influence the virtual visitor’s perception of their own
choice and control. If the visitor has a slow connection speed and the content takes a
long time to download, they may feel frustrated, and not in control of the experience at
all.
Since their development, plug-ins have been a “hot button” issue for teachers and
schools. Although the issue has not been at the forefront of discussions in the Internet
museum community recently, teachers using interactive Web-based museum resources
still report difficulties in using even basic plug-ins, such as Flash, in classroom settings,
due to school restrictions on software (Haley Goldman, 2003). Such technical difficulties
can also lead to frustration and alter the perception of control during a virtual visit.
Although museum Web designers frequently tout the possibilities of using Flash, new
research has indicated that visitors have no strong preference for flash-based museum
sites over the same site in HTML (Schaller et al., 2004).
Some of the most intriguing issues of choice and control online can be found grouped
under the umbrella issue of easier opt-out or lack of opportunity costs in virtual visits.
There is considerable investment of effort, time and money (“opportunity costs”) in the
traditional physical museum visit. Visitors must know the hours of operation, find the
science center and parking, generally pay to enter, and then figure out how to accom-
modate their other needs, such as food and restroom breaks. Typical science center visits
average approximately two hours, not including the time spent planning the visit and
traveling to the institution. These opportunity costs influence the visit in a variety of
ways; much of the research in physical sites has actually not taken into account the
influence these costs are likely have on the typical visit. For instance, the time spent in
an institution is partially a function of an informal cost-benefit analysis carried out by
one or more of the group members, calculating “how much time should we be spending
here at this center, based on the trouble and money it took to get us here?”
By contrast, a virtual visitor is unlikely to have invested anywhere near the same amount
of time and effort in their visit. For instance, unlike the visitor who is planning their outfit
for the new exhibition opening, the virtual visitor can view the Science Center in their
pajamas, at any time of day or night. The opportunity costs for a virtual visit are much
less — one only needs to have a computer and an Internet connection.
The trade-off in comparative lack opportunity costs in virtual visiting result in substan-
tial impacts. Among these are:
• Shorter visit time;

• Lack of “wait time”;
• Ability to visit more frequently;
• Ability to visit at the time of the visitor’s choice;
• Ability to visit science centers that are not geographically convenient; and,
• Ability to visit related/unrelated sites within the same session.
Shorter visit time: Virtual visits are significantly shorter than physical science center
visits. The average physical visit to a science center is two hours, whereas the average
virtual visit is generally under 12 minutes (Jensen, 1999; Semper et al., 2000). This
difference has potentially serious impacts on meaning-making, because visitors who
stay for such a short period of time are unable to significantly interact with the content
or interactive experiences provided. Therefore, unless the visitor was visiting to gather
very specific information that was easily found on the site such as institution hours or
directions or a specific fact, it is less likely that the virtual visit itself will be memorable
and result in meaningful impact. However, this is only a supposition which further
research could affirm or negate.
Lack of “wait time”: Early museum Web site research suggested that half of all visitors
who arrive at a home page leave after viewing only the home page. This can be interpreted
in two ways. Either as we suggested earlier, the visitor was able to get exactly what they
were interested in, perhaps the institution’s opening hours, and therefore was satisfied,
or for whatever reason they were unsatisfied and left immediately (Jensen, 1999).
Although we have seen exceptions, generally once someone has made a commitment to
visit a physical institution and enters the front door, they continue with their visit.
Physical elements encourage the visitor to continue, such as glimpses of possibly
interesting items just around the corner. This is not true of virtual institutions. Virtual
science center designers must address home page design with an eye to inviting visitors
to continue to click further into the Web site. Applied research that tests how best to do
this would be extremely useful. This poses an interesting question for virtual science
museums — can we get visitors to increase their visit time by increasing their investment
in the visit?
Ability to visit more frequently: Due to the lack of opportunity costs, virtual visitors are
able to make more frequent visits than they would to a physical science center location.
This advantage has made the Internet invaluable for free-choice learning researchers,
whether they are schoolchildren working on a report who need to make repeated visits
for their research or hobbyists who bookmark a site so they may continue to access an
institution’s information or collections in an on-going manner, or professional research-
ers who are able to electronically access data and other information once only accessed
by searching archives or behind-the-scenes collections. Anecdotal evidence shows the
development of the Internet has increased hobbyist use of institutions. We might then
speculate that this ability increases the user’s connection or attachment to the institu-
tion. There is little research that has been conducted yet to understand how repeat
visitation changes the way visitors use virtual sites, or the impact that has on both
institutions and visitors.
Ability to visit at the time of the visitor’s choice: As virtual science centers are available
24 hours a day, seven days a week, any visitor with Internet access has the choice of
exactly when to visit. One would hypothesize that it is this instant access at inconvenient
hours that subtly defines the motivations of the visitors that attend. Free-choice learners,
whether they are schoolchildren, teachers, or hobbyists with day jobs, have limited time
to actually visit the physical museum in order to satisfy their needs for particular content
or interactive experiences. However, if they are able to fulfill those needs on their own
schedule, regardless of time of day, then increasing numbers of them will take advantage
of the resources within virtual science center. Does the ever-present ability to visit
increase the visitor’s sense of control? Or does the lack of constraints in visiting increase
the visitor’s expectations of all possible content available at any moment? One possible
simple study could involve surveying visitors about their expectations of the breadth
and depth of the online offerings. This is an area of great research potential; we know
little about how free-choice learners perceive their online experiences.
Ability to visit science centers that are not geographically convenient: This is another
of the much–heralded advantages of the Internet; it has mixed implications for the virtual
science center. Virtual visitors are frequently from distant and even international sites.
Some of these visitors are undoubtedly canvassing the site for information about an
upcoming visit, but many may be visitors that would have no way of attending the
institution other than virtually. However, those in search of particular content and/or
interactive experiences have choices they may not have in the physical world. If the
opportunity costs for visiting any institution in the world are equal, then science centers
are no longer competing with other science learning resources or leisure-time choices in
their own town, but instead are competing with all other such institutions worldwide. A
discussion of the laws of gravity, for instance, might be found on thousands of Web sites
worldwide. What makes the design, presentation or approach of the laws of gravity at
one site different from any other? Does the use of search engines as one of the primary
methods of finding virtual museums negate any “home field” advantages local virtual
science centers might have? What are the configurations of use by visitors? Are they
connecting a variety of experiences from sites or do they form an attachment to a
particular virtual institution, which becomes their own “local” site? These are all
unanswered questions. These questions are sometimes addressed via analysis of log
files. It might prove interesting to conduct a study in the reverse fashion, such as where
one would track all of the Internet resources used by an 8th grade during a science project
and question the students about their Internet resource choices. A study of this type
would help practitioners understand how to differentiate their virtual science museum
from others.
Sociocultural Context
Within Group Social Mediation
Investigators over the years have documented the highly social nature of visits to
physical science centers (Falk & Dierking, 2000). Visitors view their visits as not only a
chance to learn, but a chance to interact with family members and friends; in fact this may
be their primary motivation in visiting and important social learning outcomes, such as
learning about family members and how to learn collaboratively, are important outcomes
of physical visits. This within-group social mediation is not only key for visit satisfaction,
but plays a strong role in meaning-making for individuals (Dierking, 1987; Borun,
Chambers, & Cleghorn, 1996; Borun & Dritsas 1997; Borun, Dritsas, Johnson, Peter,
Wagner, & Fadigan, 1998; Crowley & Callanan, 1998; Crowley, Galco, Jacobs, & Russo,
2000; Schauble & Gleason, 2000; Luke, Coles, & Falk, 1998; Dierking & Anderson, 1998).
Currently it appears that virtual visits are far more likely to be made alone than visits to
physical science centers (Haley Goldman & Schaller, 2004; Semper et al., 2000). There
are notable exceptions to this, such as the growing use of the Internet in classrooms,
whether for Web casts and virtual field trips, or as an electronic content resource. Family
groups use the Internet to conduct research for homework and reports. Yet for the most
part, the Internet remains primarily a solitary experience.
When a pair or group of people, either schoolchildren or co-workers, make a virtual visit
together, it differs from a group making a physical visit in other key ways. In a visit to
a physical science center, group members gather and split away, look at two different
displays simultaneously and generally interact as if they were molecules, joining
together, moving in one direction, then splitting and going elsewhere, then rejoining, in
a frequent pattern. A group can walk through the same exhibition hall, more or less
together, and yet see entirely different pieces of the hall based on their particular interests
and pace. And they will continue to talk about their experience with each other as they
explore the center. This allows individuals, even children, to control aspects of the visit
by choosing what to focus their attention on.
By contrast, the virtual visit takes place in a flat, non-surrounding medium — the screen.
Groups of virtual visitors generally choose one person, the person in control of the
mouse, as the driver in the driver’s seat. The visitors may discuss the content and make
choices together. They may even choose to look at different aspects of the same screen.
(Research into gaze-tracking suggests that individuals viewing the same object, such as
a painting, see completely different paintings, as their attention focuses on different
aspects of the same object.) Gaze-tracking not withstanding, it is still fundamentally only
one person who is controlling what the others view. This means the details of the visit
and the pacing is regulated for everyone by one person. Knowing how this impacts the
visit might allow designers to change the experience so that it is engaging for those who
are not in the driver’s seat — or possibly develop sites that allow multiple person
interaction, much like a multi-player game does.
Considerable research has been conducted into how students interact and collaborate
while using school-assigned hypermedia or through distance learning. Unfortunately,
this research is not easily applicable to free-choice learning situations, and little has been
conducted solely within the virtual free-choice learning realm. There is tremendous
potential for research in this area. For example, due to the distributed nature of the
medium, whole new methods of interacting socially have developed within virtual visits.
Take, for instance, the possibility of the “telephone visit,” which currently we have little
evidence either of its frequency or what the implications of such interactions might be.
As an example, Harry calls his sister Eve, to tell her about this great science Web site he
is viewing online. Eve pulls up the site on her computer and the two of them continue to
explore the site, separately yet together. Each is in control of what they are viewing at
the moment, yet they also are able to converse and “see” what the other individual is
seeing, very different than if Harry merely sent Eve a link to the site, and they both viewed
it separately. The telephone visit is actually in many ways more similar to a visit in a
physical science center than if Eve and Harry were sitting side-by-side, yet only one of
them in control. The social interaction between the two likely increases the length of time
of the visit, as well as enriches the meaning-making possible via conversation.
More commonly, users refer their friends and colleague to virtual science centers. Word
of mouth is a critical element in drawing visitors, whether to a physical or a virtual site.
Several museums and science centers have incorporated electronic postcards into their
sites. Other sites, such as the Lemelson Center’s Invention at Play site, have developed
small Web-based interactives, which one can then e-mail to friends. Although anecdotal
information suggests this “referral” form of interaction is quite popular, there is little
usage or impact data available to suggest the scope or nature of the interaction. Efforts
to investigate such social configurations as “telephone visits” and referrals and their
impacts on online learning are wide open to research possibilities.
Despite the lack of research, it is not unreasonable to hypothesize that the opportunity
for changing social configurations online can provide opportunities for virtual science
centers to take on new roles. For example, increased contact between visitors with other
visitors, as well as visitors with staff, not only from e-mail, but from newsletters, forums,
guest books, discussion mailing lists, bulletin boards and online surveys, pushes such
virtual institutions into the role of gathering place and community center. This is also an
area rich with research possibilities.
Facilitated Mediation by Others
The other type of social interaction that occurs during physical science center visits is
visitor interaction with staff and volunteers. This can take the form of a guided tour, an
on-the-spot lab demonstration, a facilitator demonstrating an interactive, a live perfor-
mance or theatre piece, to name a few methods. On first glance, it would appear that the
Internet would be a poor place to integrate facilitated mediation by staff or volunteers.
Yet the research and developments in this field, both for the Internet in general and for
museums and science centers specifically, indicates a wide variety of opportunities in
use and others in development. One hopes that as the Internet medium continues to
develop, designers and educators will remember one of the greatest strengths of the
Internet, as well as its original application — the ability to communicate.
Developments to increase facilitated communication include methods such as Web casts
and virtual field trips that are “broadcast” online, robots and museum wearables that
allow co-visiting, and virtual avatars that can explore physical or virtual space and add
personalized interpretation. Science centers and other free-choice learning institutions
have used these communication formats alone and in concert. Each type has benefits and
drawbacks.
One could even argue that communication between institution staff and the public has
actually increased since the development of the Internet. For example, the ability to send
e-mail queries and correspondence has allowed visitors access to staff that previously
remained behind the scenes and more difficult to contact (Gaia, 2001). Building on the
ability for increased communication, some institutions have incorporated methods of
both asynchronous and real-time communication between staff and visitors.
Real-time contact, of course, must be scheduled in advance. Such real-time contact may
include purely “chat events” or something closer to Web casts where institutions are
generally able to “broadcast” live over the Internet, and users may communicate via
telephone (Jacobson & Swiader, 2003) or via e-mail (Steinbach, 2001). Like a television
show with some surrounding interactive features, a Web cast is generally a live
“broadcast” over the Internet, allowing a tour or demonstration for all those interested
and online at that time. The Exploratorium offers the ability to communicate with staff via
e-mail both before and during the actual Web cast, and then archives past Web casts for
virtual visitors to view later. On an experimental basis, they even have explored physical
visitors interacting with virtual visitors in real time. One might hypothesize that the
impact of this type of programming could be very similar to attending programming in
person at the institution. As of yet we have little research to compare the audience
distribution, usage, or learning generated from such programs, nor do we understand the
economic implications of staffing and other costs. These efforts represent fruitful areas
for research that have very direct impact for professionals making cost-benefit program
decisions.
Virtual field trips represent another way that institutions are trying to provide facilitated
experiences for virtual visitors. In these cases, a physically distant school group might
have a virtual tour at a pre-arranged time with science center staff members as facilitators.
Virtual field trips also have the benefit of the possibility of two-way communication,
allowing students to ask questions or educators to tailor the material to the group’s
needs. Students are able to virtually visit places they would not be able to otherwise, such
as the Liberty Science Centers’ Live From: Cardiac Classroom (Recipient of the Associa-
tion of Science-Technology Center’s 2002 Innovation Award) and the Museum of
Science and Industry’s Live at the Heart project. In these visits, students are able to view
open heart surgery, while asking questions and talking to the surgeons after they perform
the surgery. In the Jason Project, students are able to work with scientists in diverse
environments such as rainforests and wetlands. Although there are some opportunities
for home-schooling individuals, currently both of these projects are run through
schools. They highlight the possibilities of the Internet as a science learning resource,
but are unavailable to the average Internet browser. Participants in these virtual field trips
find them highly memorable — how can this type of experience be shared with the general
public? New projects are in development that may provide the opportunity to research
such experiences. Indiana State Museum is currently planning a program of virtual field
trips aimed at community groups and families, hosted at libraries and other like organi-
zations. The Institute will be involved with assessing this effort.
Some co-visiting experiments have dealt directly with the issue of social interaction by
focusing specifically on the relationship between the physical and virtual site and
encouraging the distant visitor to make a journey to the location some time after his virtual
visit, in order to continue a relationship with the physical museum. These institutions
have pioneered different methods of “co-visiting,” primarily through physical robots
(Goebel & Hoffmann, 2003; Giannoulis et al., 2001) or museum wearables (Chalmers &
Galani, 2002; Sparacino, 2002). In the case of the robots, they are equipped with a camera,
microphone and speakers and then are connected to the Internet. Virtual visitors connect
with the robot over the Internet and then are able to literally visit the physical location,
not only viewing the exhibition or event, but also participating and influencing the
outcomes at hand. These robots do allow mediated communication between those
present in the institution and those who are connected online. Little research has been
conducted to understand the impacts of such visits. For instance, does the novelty of
the co-visiting experience increase or detract from the content matter of the exhibition
or event? Do visitors spend more time due to the novelty of the equipment? Does the
initial effort to become oriented to the equipment interfere with the learning process? One
pilot project, The Virtual Gorilla Project , discovered that its proposed virtual reality
headsets involved too much time and material costs to overcome the novelty factor,
causing radical changes in the project’s hardware approach. Research such as this can
allow professionals to make more informed choices about designing experiences.
Museum wearables are similarly a camera, microphone and speakers, connected to the
Internet, but worn by an actual individual visiting the physical site. This allows a
geographically distant group to visit an institution jointly, provided one of the members
of the group can be at the physical site with the appropriate equipment. The drawbacks
to this approach are that the virtual experience is dictated by the constraints of the
physical site — the exhibition available, the equipment available, the institution being
open, and etcetera. Researchers at the Institute (Kate Haley Goldman, Martin Storksdieck,
& Lynn Dierking) have just begun working on a European Commission-funded project
called CONNECT [Designing the Laboratory of Tomorrow by using Advanced Tech-
nologies to Connect Formal and Informal (Free-Choice) Learning Environments]. This
project aims to integrate virtual field trips, museum wearables and online content from
science centers and museums across the continent within a “virtual science theme park”
that would provide access to real-time and archived events. One of the aspects of the
project we intend to investigate is whether it is possible to integrate social aspects into
such virtual trips and the role that they may play in student meaning-making.
Other institutions have experimented with creating virtual personas to facilitate the
visitor’s experience. The best of these software agents can accommodate user interests
and preferences and enhance the user interface. [The worse of them, such as the
Microsoft paperclip, merely annoy and interfere (Economist, March 24, 2001).] The
agents may take the form of digital animations with dialogue-based interactions built in,
equipped with a knowledge base that allows them to greet users, answer questions
appropriately and provide customized information (Almeida & Yokoi, 2003). It is still not
clear how this form of social interaction influences learning, but it is clear from evaluation
studies that users prefer animations which have as many human-like characteristics as
possible. As argued by Bertoletti et al. (2001), a primary benefit to these agents is their
ability to compensate for user unfamiliarity with the site, thus enhancing navigation and
operation. In addition, the personalization features of these agents allow them rich
records of user actions, providing useful evaluation and research data on the system and
great potential to be “intelligent systems” that would remember the visitor on a return
trip and help him or her extend the previous visit. One of the more unique uses of virtual
personas was developed to help provide historical, cultural and social context for works
of art (Iurgel, 2003). Project Art-E-Fact is a collaboration of several institutions in four
European countries. The user interacts with multiple personality-laden personas, who
help provide context by their interaction with each other and the user. Using software
agents in this format is much more akin to museum theatre than to a guided tour.
This interaction with virtual characters taken to the natural extreme has led to the
development of role-playing activities, which educate virtual visitors through a game-
like situation. Examples include the Brookfield Zoo’s In Search of the Ways of Knowing
Trail, where virtual visitors learn about an ecosystem by interacting with animated
characters as they journey through an African forest. Other developers have experi-
mented directly with adapting established gaming technology to provide virtual immersive
educational environments (Calef et al., 2002). In the Virtual Leonardo project, visitors are
able to direct their software agents to interact with other visitor’s agents in the multi-user
virtual museum. This virtual social interaction suggests many questions — how does the
virtual nature of the experience change the interaction? Are visitors more likely to interact
with strangers in a virtual environment than they would be in at a physical science center?
This could be an effective method to engage visitors who might not typically make use
of explainer staff at a physical science center. Clearly virtual facilitation would be an
interesting area of research in this domain.
As institutions struggle to provide more content and more interactive experiences for
their virtual visitors, they must make choices on how to deal with several issues, such
as real-time or asynchronous communication. Is this process dependent on someone in
the physical science center, so that timing may be limited? Does this process provide
communication with actual humans or is the connection with a virtual human? Are the
resources available to the general public, or are they primarily targeted for schools? Each
of these decisions on how to provide a communication-rich experience has benefits and
limitations in terms of the strength of connection, dependency on the physical site and
the restriction of the audience.
Due to the advantages and limitations of each of these types of interaction, several
institutions, such as the Exploratorium, are making use of more than one format of
communication. There are several projects that have taken the next step, creating a multi-
purpose platform, allowing a user to access content, interactives and other features of
multiple institutions. One of the larger of these collaborations, TryScience.org, has
contributions from over 622 science centers and museums. TryScience incorporates Web
cams, interactive activities, and online experiments. Although full visitor evaluation on
the site remains to be done, visitor stay time is approximately five minutes per session,
longer than it would be to the average individual site (Friedman & Marshall, 2004).
Aspects of the CONNECT project described earlier will be similar to TryScience and one
aspect of our research will be to investigate how students (and their families) make use
of the resources within the virtual science theme park and to what end.
Physical Context
The physical context of virtual and physical visiting is entirely different. Although each
set of visitors must find their way to the site and navigate within it, currently virtual
visitors are less active physically during the visit, unable to move their bodies through
the actual space, and unable to use their full range of sensory functions. Though the page
may be interactive, so that the virtual visitor is providing input and interacting in
meaningful ways, it is not a whole-body experience as interaction is within a science
center. In addition, the presentation of the environment is restricted to the screen, not
an immersive experience one would have within a physical science center. There can be
no sense of impressive areas’ monumental space, such as entrance to some science
centers, or the conception of scale of the exhibitions.
Site Usability
Usability of a site is clearly a key element of any virtual visit. Due to the low opportunity
costs incurred when making a virtual visit, any sort of difficulty in interacting with the
site motivates the visitor to fulfill their needs and interests elsewhere. There is no doubt
that it is critical to conduct usability research for free-choice learning sites. However, as
we suggested in the opening of this chapter, the focus on usability obscures larger, more
critical issues at stake, such as whether visitors are interacting with the content in
effective and meaningful ways and what meaning they are making of these interactions.
Usability issues, primarily the roles of orientation and design, clearly are one of the
physical context factors of the Contextual Model of Learning, however, since this is an
area in which much of the current research and evaluation has been conducted we feel
there are more profitable areas of research to investigate.
Orientation and Wayfinding in the Space
When visiting a physical science center, the visitor is surrounded by signs, displays and
other information, from which they take cues and make sense of the environment. Each
center tends to be unique in the ways in which they provide information to their visitors.
Web sites, for better or worse, even science center Web sites, are far more standardized.
One can expect to find similar organizing principles, not only in other science center sites,
but also in commercial sites. This may actually make someone who is an Internet user but
a novice science center visitor more comfortable, as they can become quickly familiar with
science center Web sites. Though there is a potential downside; if virtual science centers
look so similar to other sites this can downplay their individuality and the resources they
have to offer. Research into the ways that people perceive their use of science center Web
sites as compared to commercial sites would be interesting. For instance, we could
hypothesize that individuals who do not generally make visits to physical science
centers but are proficient on the Internet would feel more comfortable making a virtual
visit than a physical visit. In addition, we might hypothesize that they would have a better
chance at a meaningful interaction with the site, since they were not as concerned with
issues of orientation and familiarity. But as there is little research into this field, these
remain largely unsubstantiated hypotheses.
One interesting aspect of online visits is the sheer number of visitors that do not walk
in the “front door,” even after a short visit to check the site out. The fear of the museum
professional is that a virtual visitor could get lost and lose interest more easily and leave,
without ever discovering the richness of the information and experience provided
(Nordbotten, 2000). In looking at log-files over a three-year period, Nordbotten (2000)
found that 85% of the virtual visits were started from a search engine request and of those
76% started at a detail page, rather than the home page. This study found that visits
starting at this level were significantly shorter than sessions begun at an exhibition home
page. Semper et al. (2000) found that at least 40% of the visitors to the Science Learning
Network arrived to the virtual site via a search engine. In addition to the use of a search
engine, visitors can access detail pages directly (without visiting the institution’s home
page) via referral links from other sites or persons, or as a repeat visitor using a bookmark
to get back to a specific page. This ability for fluid connections among sites is another
ideal research opportunity. For instance, do virtual visitors who enter via a “side-door”
distinguish where the visit begins and ends?
Subsequent Reinforcing Events and Experiences Outside

the Museum
Learning does not have an on-off switch. People constantly take in new information and
experiences and integrate those experiences into their lives, whether they are at a grocery
store or at a science center. The experience a visitor has at a science center, whether
virtual or physical, continues after the visit in a variety of ways. Virtual visiting means
that one can visit multiple museums and science centers, or even one science center and
multiple other sites, within the same session. For the most part, physical science center
visitors do not have that opportunity (there are a few cities, such as San Francisco,
Washington, D.C., St. Louis and Los Angeles, in which science museums, science
centers and aquariums are grouped within close proximity, allowing for joint visitation,
but these are rare). This ability to make connections among sites, comparing and
contrasting a variety of visits, is an ideal research opportunity in which to investigate
how visitors connect their free-choice science learning experiences.
Take for example a hypothetical Internet session by Steven. Steven is going online to plan
his trip to London, and is curious about what he might see there. He checks out possible
timing and fares of flights, and then moves on to find out what the hours at the
Buckingham Palace are, if there are any special programs at the Natural History Museum,
where he can get theater tickets, the latest gossip on the royal family and what’s on exhibit
at the Tate Modern. Visiting the Tate reminds him of other museums that have more than
one location, so he decides to check out the Guggenheim site. After about 27 minutes
online, Steven shuts the computer down. During those 27 minutes, Steven has not only
visited three museums, but numerous other sites. These visits are all connected by
Steven’s agenda at this moment; he has immediately placed them within a particular
context, though it may be a shifting context, within his life. The fact that these three
visits are together within a single session suggests that they have a relationship within
a contextual framework. What research on virtual visits has been conducted has only
focused on the visit to a single institution. There is a distinct need for research that
takes into account the relationships between sites visited and the impact of visiting
multiple sites.
Conclusion
As suggested throughout this chapter, the majority of virtual learning research is
focused on classroom-based practices, rather than free-choice learning situations. There
is very little research on how learning occurs at places such as virtual science centers
and what learning results from these visitor interactions. Yet, research in this area is
critical — clearly the learning potential of virtual science centers is enormous and to date
has not been realized. Better understanding the nature of the virtual science center
experience and the factors that contribute to learning online will enable the field to better
design virtual science centers that effectively communicate to the public, as well as begin
to build a body of knowledge about how people in the 21st century engage in free-choice
learning online.
Models such as the Contextual Model of Learning are useful tools, because it is through
comparison to the wealth of material on learning in science centers that we will be able
to identify gaps in understanding about the virtual science center and thus frame a
research agenda for the future. Practitioners can use this model to examine virtual
experiences and think more deeply about how these experiences can be designed to
enhance learning. Research progress has been made in some arenas. For instance, we
know that virtual visitors are generally in search of content and enjoyable experiences,
rather than using virtual museums for the purpose of social engagement. However, as
we pointed out in the sociocultural section of this chapter, that could all change as virtual
science centers and museums increasingly assume the role of gathering place and
community center. We know that the lack of “opportunity costs” for virtual visits
dramatically changes the nature of the virtual visit; allowing more frequent access but
generally resulting in shorter visits. Other factors, even ones heavily investigated in the
distance learning field like choice and control, have been neglected in the free-choice
learning arena. Choice and control are factors that greatly influence a physical visit to
a physical science center, and are likely to influence virtual visitors. Yet the factors of
choice and control in virtual settings may also encompass issues of access to software,
plug-ins and download times. And there are fascinating developments going on in the
area of visitor interaction with facilitators, either real or virtual. As these technologies
are more effectively and seamlessly integrated into the activities of institutions, it will
be important to have a research agenda in place to investigate these efforts and a plan
for how these findings can influence practice. Only then will we be able to both improve
practice and inform the field of the value of such virtual experiences.
References
Adelman, L., & Dierking, L.D. (2000). Girls at the center. Technical report. Annapolis,
MD: Institute for Learning Innovation.
Adelman, L., Dierking, L.D., & Adams, M. (1999). Girls at the center, 1999. Technical
report. Annapolis, MD: Institute for Learning Innovation.
Almeida, P., & Yokoi, S. (2003). Interactive character as a virtual tour guide to an online
museum exhibition. In Museums and the Web, Selected Papers from Museums and
the Web 2003. Pittsburgh, PA: Archives & Museum Informatics.
Argyros, A. et al. (2001). Enhancing museum visitor access through robotic avatars
connected to the Web. In Museums and the Web, Selected Papers from Museums
and the Web 2001. Pittsburgh, PA: Archives & Museum Informatics.
Artz, K., Bartow-Melia, A., Glassman, B., & McCray, K. (1999). Intergenerational
experiences and the OurStory Program: History through children’s literature
program. Evaluative survey report. Washington, D.C.: National Museum of Ameri-
can History.
Bernier, R. (2002). The uses of virtual museums: The French viewpoint. Museums and
the Web Annual Conference, Boston. Archives & Museum Informatics.
Bertoletti, A. C. et al. (2001). Providing personal assistance in the SAGRES Virtual
Museum. In Museums and the Web, Selected Papers from Museums and the Web
2001. Pittsburgh, PA: Archives & Museum Informatics.
Borun, M., & Dritsas, J. (1997). Developing family-friendly exhibits. Curator, 40(3), 178-
96.
Borun, M., Chambers, M. & Cleghorn, A. (1996). Families are learning in science
museums. Curator, 39(2), 123-38.
Borun, M., Dritsas, J., Johnson, J.I., Peter, N., Wagner, K., Fadigan, K., Jangaard, A.,
Stroup, E., & Wenger, A. (1998). Family learning in museums: The PISEC
perspective. Philadelphia: The Franklin Institute.
Bowen, J. (Ed.). (1999). Time for renovations: A survey of museum Web sites. In Museums
and the Web, Selected Papers from Museums and the Web 1999. Pittsburgh, PA:
Archives & Museum Informatics.
Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Buchner, K., Dierking, L.D., & Soren, B. (1999). The story in history summative evalu-
ation. National Museum of American History, Washington, DC. Technical report.
Annapolis, MD: Institute for Learning Innovation.
Calef, C. et al. (2002). Making it realtime: Exploring the use of optimized realtime
environments for historical simulation and education. In Museums and the Web,
Selected Papers from Museums and the Web 2002. Pittsburgh, PA: Archives &
Museum Informatics.
Calvin, W.H. (1997). How brains think. New York: BasicBooks.
Chadwick, J. (1998). Public utilization of museum-based World Wide Web Sites. (unpub-
lished Ph.D. Dissertation). University of New Mexico.
Chadwick, J., Falk, J.H., & O’Ryan, B. (2000). Assessing institutional Web sites. Council
on Library and Information Resources. Retrieved on February 6, 2004, from http:/
/www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub88/appendix2.html
Chalmers, M., & Galani, A. (2002). Can you see me? Exploring co-visiting between
physical and virtual visitors. In Museums and the Web, Selected Papers from
Museums and the Web 2002. Pittsburgh, PA: Archives & Museum Informatics.
Crowley, K., & Callanan, M. (1998). Describing and supporting collaborative scientific
thinking in parent-child interactions. Journal of Museum Education, 23 (1), 12-17.
Crowley, K., Callanan, M., Lipson, J.L., Galco, J., Topping, K., & Shrager, J. (n.d.). Shared
scientific thinking in everyday parent-child activity (in review).
Crowley, K., Galco, J., Jacobs, M., & Russo, S.R. (2000). Explanatoids, fossils and family
conversations. (paper presented as part of a set, Museum Learning Collaborative:
Studies of Learning from Museums, at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, New Orleans).
Dierking, L.D. (1987). Parent-child interactions in a free choice learning setting: An
examination of attention-directing behaviors. Unpublished PhD dissertation.
University of Florida.
Dierking, L.D., & Anderson, D. (1998). Summative evaluation of World We Create,
Louisville Science Center, Louisville, KY. Technical report. Annapolis, MD:
Institute for Learning Innovation.
Ellenbogen, K.M. (2003). From dioramas to the dinner table: An ethnographic case study
of the role of science museums in family life. Dissertation Abstracts International,
64 (03), 846A (University Microfilms No. AAT30-85758).
Falk, J.H. (2001). Free-choice science learning: Framing the issues. In J.H. Falk (ed.), Free-
Choice Science Education: How We Learn Science Outside of School. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Falk, J.H., & Dierking, L.D. (1992). The museum experience. Washington, DC: Whalesback
Books.
Falk, J.H., & Dierking, L.D. (1998, May/June). Free-Choice learning: An alternative term
to informal learning? Informal Learning Environments Research Newsletter.
Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
Falk, J.H., & Dierking, L.D. (2000). Learning from museums. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira
Press.
Falk, J.H., & Dierking, L.D. (2002). Lessons without limit: How free-choice learning is
transforming education. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
Falk, J.H., & Storksdieck, M. (in revision). A multi-factor investigation of a science center
exhibition. Science Education.
Falk, J.H., Moussouri, T., & Coulson, D. (1998). The effect of visitors’ agendas on
museum learning. Curator, 41(2), 106-120.
Friedman, A., & Marshall, E. (2004). TryScience: Virtual synergy. Museum News, 83(2),
9-10
Gaia, G. (2001). Towards a virtual community. In Museums and the Web, Selected Papers
from Museums and the Web 2001. Pittsburgh, PA: Archives & Museum Informatics.
Giannoulis, G. et al. (2001). Enhancing museum visitor access through robotic avatars
connected to the Web. In Museums on the Web. Pittsburgh, PA: Archives &
Museum Informatics.
Goebel, S., & Hoffmann, A. (2003). Designing collaborative group experience for muse-
ums with Telebuddy. In Museums and the Web, Selected Papers from Museums and
the Web 2003. Pittsburgh, Archives & Museum Informatics.
Guernsey, L. (2002, March 28). As the Web matures, fun is hard to find. The New York
Times, pg. E1-E5
Haley Goldman, K. (2003). Atlanta History Center distance learning front-end report.
Technical report. Annapolis, MD: Institute for Learning Innovation.
Haley Goldman, K., & Schaller, D. (2004). Exploring motivational factors and visitor
satisfaction in on-line museum visits. In Museums and the Web, Selected Papers
from Museums and the Web 2004. Pittsburgh, PA: Archives & Museum Informatics.
Hay, K. E., Crozier, J., & Barnett, M. (2000). The Virtual Gorilla Project. Paper presented
at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New
Orleans, LA.
Hudson, J., & Nelson, K. (1983). Effects of script structure on children’s story recall.
Developmental Psychology, 19, 525-635.
Iurgel, I. (2003). Experiencing art on the Web with virtual companions. In Museums and
the Web, Selected Papers from Museums and the Web 2003. Pittsburgh, PA:
Jacobson, G., & Swiader, L. (2003). Integrating real time communications applications in
a museum’s Website. In Museums and the Web, Selected Papers from Museums and
the Web 2003. Pittsburgh, PA: Archives & Museum Informatics.
Jensen, J. (1999). Goals, server logs and other arcane lore: An evaluation of 2 Canadian
Websites. Presentation at the 1999 Annual Visitor Studies Conference, Chicago.
Johnston, D.J. (1999). Assessing the visiting public’s perceptions of the outcomes of
their visit to interactive science and technology centres. PhD dissertation. Curtin
University of Technology
Koster, E.H. (1999). In search of relevance: Science centers as innovators in the evolution
of museums. Daedalus, 128(3), 277-296.
Kravchyna, V., & Hastings, S.K. (2002, February). Informational value of museum Web
sites. First Monday, 7(2). Retrieved February 9, 2004, from http://www.firstmonday.
org/issues/issue7_2/kravchyna/index.html
Luke, J., & Dierking, L.D. (1999). Tripod. Technical report. Annapolis, MD: Institute for
Learning Innovation.
Luke, J., Coles, U., & Falk, J.H. (1998). Summative evaluation of DNA Zone, St. Louis
Science Center, St. Louis, MO. Technical report. Annapolis, MD: Institute for
Learning Innovation.
Madden, M. (2003). America’s online pursuits: The changing picture of who’s online
and what they do. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project.
Milekic, S. (2003). The more you look the more you get: Intention-based interface using
gaze-tracking. In Museums and the Web, Selected Papers from Museums and the
Web 2003. Pittsburgh, PA: Archives & Museum Informatics..
Miltiadou, M., & Savenye, W.C. (2003). Applying social cognitive constructs of moti-
vation to enhance student success in online distance education. Educational
Technology Review, 11(1).
Moussouri, T. (1997). Family agendas and family learning in hands-on science muse-
ums. Unpublished dissertation. University of Leicester, UK.
Nelson, K., & Brown, A.L. (1978). The semantic-episodic distinction in memory devel-
opment. In P.A. Ornstein (Ed.), Memory development in children (pp. 233-41).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Nordbotten, J. (Ed.). (2000). Entering through the side door: A usage analysis of a Web
presentation. In Museums and the Web, Selected Papers from Museums and the
Web 2000. Pittsburgh, PA: Archives & Museum Informatics.
Ockuly, J. (2003). What clicks? An interim report on audience research. In Museums and
the Web, Selected Papers from Museums and the Web 2003. Pittsburgh, PA:
Pintrich, P., & Schunk, D. (1996). Motivation in education: Theory, research & appli-
cations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Rosenfeld, S.B. (1980). Informal learning in zoos: Naturalistic studies of family groups.
Dissertation Abstracts International, 41(07). (University Microfilms No. AAT80-
29566).
Rountree, J. et al. (2002). Learning to look: Real and virtual artifacts. Educational
Technology and Society, 5(1), 129-134.
Ruohotie, P., & Nokelainen, P. (2003). Practical considerations of motivation and
computer-supported collaborative learning. In T. Varis, T. Utsumi, & W. R. Klemm
(Eds.), Global peace through the global university system. Hameenlinna, Finland:
University of Tampere.
Sarraf, S. (1999). A survey of museums on the Web: Who uses museum websites?
Curator, 42(3).
Schaller, D.T., Allison-Bunnell, S., Borun, M., & Chambers, M.B. (2002). How do you like
to learn? Comparing user preferences and visit length of educational Web sites. In
Museums and the Web, Selected Papers from Museums and the Web 2002.
Pittsburgh, PA: Archives & Museum Informatics.
Schauble, L., & Gleason, M. (2000). What do adults need to effectively assist children’s
learning? Paper presented as part of a set, Museum Learning Collaborative:
Studies of Learning from Museums, at the Annual Meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, New Orleans.
Semper, R. J. et al. (Eds.). (2000). Who’s out there? A pilot user study of educational Web
resources by the Science Learning Network. In Museums and the Web, Selected
Papers from Museums and the Web 2000. Pittsburgh, PA: Archives & Museum
Informatics.
Son of paperclip. (2001, March 24). Economist.
Sparacino, F. (2002). The Museum Wearable: Real-Time Sensor-Driven Understanding
of Visitors’ Interests for Personalized Visually-Augmented Museum Experiences.
In Museums and the Web, Selected Papers from Museums and the Web 2002.
Pittsburgh, PA: Archives & Museum Informatics.
Steinbach, L. (2001). Using interactive broadband multicasting in a museum lifelong

learning program. Paper presented at the Museums and the Web Annual Confer-
ence, Pittsburgh.
Sylwester, R. (1995). In celebration of neurons. Alexandria, VA: Association for Super-
vision and Curriculum Development.
Endnote
1
The Institute for Learning Innovation has been advocating free-choice learning as
a preferred alternative to informal learning to describe the learning that occurs from
experiences in science centers. Free-choice learning is self-directed, voluntary, and
rather than following a set curriculum, is guided by the individual learner’s needs
and interests. This term focuses on the characteristics of the learning rather than
defining it by where it occurs. This would seem essential when discussing learning
from virtual centers, free of geographic, physical and time constraints [See, for
instance, Falk & Dierking (1998). Free-Choice learning: An alternative term to
informal learning? Informal Learning Environments Research Newsletter.
Washngton, D.C.: American Educational Research Association; Falk, J.H. (2001).
Free-choice science learning: Framing the issues. In J.H. Falk (ed.), Free-Choice
Science Education: How We Learn Science Outside of School. New York: Teachers
College Press; Johnston, D.J. (1999). Assessing the Visiting Public’s Perceptions
of the Outcomes of their Visit to Interactive Science and Technology Centres.
(Ph.D. Dissertation). Curtin University of Technology; Falk & Dierking (2000); Falk
(1999)].
Contextualized Virtual Science Centers 51
Chapter III
Contextualized Virtual
Science Centers
Andreas Zimmermann,
Fraunhofer-Institute for Applied Information Technology, Germany
Andreas Lorenz,
Marcus Specht,
Abstract
Today it is not enough just to supply content without the consideration of the recipient,
his/her current task and situation. Therefore the time, the location, the particular
technical limitations, and the modality and style of reception are important parameters
for contextualized interactions and information delivery. Context-sensitive content
and information processing are especially assets for the generation of added value in
information delivery. This chapter describes how contextualization can be performed
in virtual science centers. The demand for context-sensitive functionalities constitutes
a crucial challenge for application developers, system integrators and
product designers. This chapter furthermore offers a potentially substantive approach
for development and maintenance of context-sensitive systems and services by adapting
information brokering techniques.
52 Zimmermann, Lorenz and Specht
Introduction
Given the affordances of the World Wide Web, one of its true instructional applications
of high potential are online simulations of science experiments and phenomena. Thus far
in the evolution of the Web this has surfaced in the form of virtual science museums:
Web sites that offer vicarious science experiences using Web technologies. Most of
these sites are the online presence for actual museums located around the world (such
as http://www.science.edu.sg/ssc/index.jsp, http://www.deutsches-museum.de/e_
index.htm), but it is their specific orientation to science that can make them especially
invaluable for, for example, a classroom.
Virtual science centers encompass hands-on exhibits, lab spaces, science fairs, and
communication spaces in a multi-user setting. These will include interactive interfaces
to simulations and visualizations created to communicate key concepts in science and
technology to an increasingly diverse audience. For example, the Chabot Virtual Space
& Science Centre (http://www.chabotspace.org/vsc/) explains the physical constraints
for a Lunar Lander and lets the visitor experience the behavior of the Lander in an online
simulation. Virtual science centers make science information readily available to anyone
with access to the Internet, like a family exploring exhibits from their home computer, or
a group of students operating telescopes from their classroom. Integrated portals (like
the European Collaborative for Science, Industry and Technology homepage: http://
ecsite.ballou.be/new/index.asp) provide access to innumerable virtual exhibitions for
multiple topics.
For the flexible use of information about exhibits of a virtual science center we propose
a centralized model around a domain ontology that is described in a software tool for
information brokering. We think that the proposed model is a very flexible way to reuse
existing information and support curators and exhibition experts in the design of a variety
of personalized experiences ranging from virtual exhibitions, virtual science museums to
virtual science centers. In such scenarios, the authoring, meta-tagging and distribution
of this valuable information on exhibits is a non-trivial task.
A variety of guidance or information systems have been developed in the last few years
for the support of a museum visit or for the preparation of such a visit. In most cases the
authenticity and the possibility to contextualize the information presentation to the
current position or situation of a user were seen as a central issue (Shilit et al., 1994; Dey
& Abowd, 2000). Classic information systems in electronic space (like e-learning
applications) and physical space (such as museum guides, city guides, navigation
systems) have a common information filtering process (cf., Figure 1). The user, while
interacting with his/her device, provides information (implicitly or explicitly expressed)
to the application, which recognizes the changed parameters due to the interaction. The
incoming information is used for maintaining the personal profile of the user, which
determines the filtering process for relevant information. Furthermore, the filtering
process is influenced by domain-dependent knowledge inside the application. Only the
information provided by the Content-Management System that passed the filters is
finally handed over to the internal presentation engine for being delivered to the
(information-) consumer.
Figure 1. Classic approach covering information filtering inside the application
Personalization Techniques for Virtual Exhibitions
For museums and exhibitions, generally the individual visitor’s level of factual, general
and domain-specific knowledge is a valuable source for adaptive operations. The
visitor’s experience describes how familiar s/he is with the structure of the information
space and how easy s/he can navigate in it. Possible indicators for knowledge and
expertise are the type of information the visitor requests or the frequency of usage. The
interaction engine records all interactions of the visitor with the system in an individual
user model. For each page of a virtual exhibition, the current information unit is assigned
with the corresponding knowledge and expertise state of the visitor (e.g., “learned,” “not
completed,” “unknown,” etc.). During the course, the corresponding unit is marked as
visited in the user model. An assessment of these indicators and the conclusion, that one
specific visitor might not need further support, still remains a non-trivial task.
Being aware of the visitor’s interests and disinterests is another important prerequisite
for the content adaptation. The interests configure filters for the information presented
to the visitor. One opportunity to identify interests relies on explicit feedback: After
closing one information unit, visitors can either rate the unit as “interesting” or “not
interesting,” request additional information about the current story, or let the system
know that they already knew the content. Additionally, the interaction engine covers the
observation of the online visitor’s browsing behavior (implicit feedback). By positive
feedback (e.g., following a recommended link) and analyzing the time (e.g., time the user
spent while reading the page), interest in the associated information is expressed;
whereas concluding disinterest from browsing behavior remains an unsolved problem.
Another prominent and often implemented opportunity is the adaptation to user
preferences, like language, colors, modality of interaction, and etcetera. If the user does
not inform the online application directly about such parameters, individual preferences
cannot be deduced automatically by the system. On the other hand, usage habits own
a longer-term sense and can be obtained by an analysis of the interaction history.
The identified features related to the current individual visitor influence the information
selection process, for example, a qualified visitor can be provided with more detailed and
deep information while a novice can receive additional explanations. Beside adaptive
presentation of content regarding knowledge, interest and preferences, Brusilovsky
(1996) defines adaptive navigation support to help visitors to find their paths through
the information space. With the simplest technology, direct guidance recommends the
next “best place” to visit according the visitor’s interests or level of knowledge — in turn,
adaptive hiding restrict the navigation space, for example, by hiding links to “not
interesting” pages. To avoid “follow me or no help” problems, adaptive ordering can
be used to sort all links of a particular page according to the user profile. To support the
visitor’s decision of what link to follow, adaptive annotation augments links with some
form of comments giving a look forward to what is behind the annotated link.
Structuring the Information Domain
A central issue in context-aware information selection and presentation is to structure

an information domain not only appropriate from an information engineer’s point of view
but also from the user’s viewpoint. Especially for designing personalized information
services the intuitiveness of the information structure is essential for the successful
application of user modeling and personalization methods. Usually, applications for non-
virtual information systems have several models in common, such as Location Model,
Augmentation Model, Domain Model and User Model. For illustration, we will briefly
describe the models we have developed for our applications for personalized presenta-
tion of multimedia information at the Fraunhofer Institute for Applied Information
Technologies (Fraunhofer FIT).
The World Model (Space Model, Location Model) describes the physical environment
the user moves through while interacting with the system (Goßmann & Specht, 2001). For
this environment, the space model contains the geometric information of the exhibition
space and its objects. The geometric information can be formulated as a floor plan
illustrating positions, size and shape of objects, doors and windows, or physical barriers
the visitor cannot get over. More conceivable, the world model of the LISTEN-project
(a system for an immersive audio augmented environment applied in the art exhibition
domain) is a detailed VR-based geometric model. It is described as a geometric scene
graph and can be tested and prototyped in a CAVE system (Eckel, 2001). Through a
wireless motion-tracked headphone the virtual space can be explored in real space with
virtual audio content displayed.
The Augmentation Layer on top of the World Model defines virtual areas like zones,
segments, and triggers within the world model. Additionally, virtual objects (e.g., sound
sources or switches) are placed in the environment. By defining zones and segments, the
visitor’s location and focus obtain valuable meanings in correlation to physical objects.
The augmentation layer filters the position and motion of the user by dividing the
dimensions the user moves through into meaningful constraints and deriving continu-
ous parameters. Switches and triggers contain active information or sound objects the
users of the system interact with.
The Domain Model holds information about sound objects and other hypermedia objects
connected to the physical space via the augmentation layer by using metadata. The
domain model builds up a virtual acoustic space, in which the location of virtual sound
sources and spaces are defined. Stopping in front of an exhibit generates audio
information about the art piece. Moving the head and body activates a further audio
source, where music deepens the visitor’s impressions, or the voice of a commentator
talks about the artist or describes the period the painting originates from.
The User Model contains knowledge and profile information about the system’s users.
While the user moves in physical space events are sent to the user model, which is
continuously refined. The user model stores knowledge about the visitor like prefer-
ences, interests in arts, and the history of the visit. In combination with the visitor’s
spatial position (delivered by the tracking system), the content of the user model strongly
influences the presentation of information according to the current visitor’s context (cf.,
Zimmermann et al., 2003).
The knowledge base described by the number of models needs to be represented in a
computer-accessible manner. Furthermore, curators who know best about the artifacts
in the exhibition usually are non-experts in computer science, databases and program-
ming. Both problems can be addressed by using information brokering technologies
mediating between the curator and the computer system. In this chapter we will therefore
focus on the value of information brokering for authoring and managing the huge amount
of information pieces in different media types in virtual science centers.
Information Brokering
Information brokering is a value adding process of mediation between information
demands and information offers. The added value emerges from the understanding of the
domain complexity and the definition of a useful vocabulary. Additional structures and
interpretation rules (implicit and explicit) in information exchange simplify the processing
and comprehension of exchanged information. Figure 2 illustrates the interrelation
between data, information, and knowledge.
Three roles participate in the information brokering process: the provider offers infor-
mation, the consumer demands information and the broker mediates between the two.
The quality of the information brokering process depends to a great extent on the
knowledge available to the broker. Knowledge about available sources, the domain,
consumers and other brokers is needed. Source knowledge is created in the domain
representation or maintenance processes and describes the quality of sources and how
they can be accessed. Domain Knowledge is about the contents of the brokering domain
and should reflect the provider’s understanding of the domain as well as the consumers’
perception of the domain. Consumer Knowledge is created in the consumer-oriented
process and describes the consumer and his concrete information need. Consumer
knowledge has to map onto domain knowledge to fulfill the information need. To ensure
Figure 2. From data to information and knowledge
Figure 3. Roles, tasks, and domain models
an optimal service to consumers, they should be served by the best broker according to
their information need. This assignment task depends on the availability of Expertise
Knowledge about different brokers.
Information brokering processes make use of and create a number of information items
that describe single units of information (cf., Klemke & Koenemann, 1999). As Klemke
(2002) has defined, each information item is an instantiation of a concept, which describes
the structure of the brokered items. In order to organize information items, categories
describe fundamental principles or ideas. In many cases, these categories define
hierarchical trees. In Figure 2, conceptualization and categorization is illustrated as a
procedure for the concretion of raw data.
For authoring valuable information on exhibits and distributing demanded information
among visitors in an efficient way, a brokering tool can be understood as a service
mediating information items between a Content-Management System (CMS) — main-
tained by the exhibition’s operating company — and the visitor’s personal display. Using
such a brokerage development and management environment [like the Broker’s Lounge
Figure 4. The information broker mediates between the application and the content-
management system
(Jarke, Klemke & Nick, 2001) developed at Fraunhofer FIT], a large variety of scenarios
within the general framework of Figure 2 and Figure 3 can be quickly developed, and
efficiently and flexibly executed.
For a virtual science center application, the brokering tool can be understood as a server
mediating information items between the exhibition’s curator and the external application
interacting with the visitor. In the role of the information provider, the curator provides
the domain knowledge, specifies the context parameters and authors the information
items. From the information broker’s point of view, the information is consumed by the
visitor’s application, e.g., a browser, although it finally passes the information to the
visitor as the real consumer. In its role of the information consumer, this application
defines an interest model regarding to the context parameters like the visitor’s location,
preferences, interests, and history of already visited objects.
As illustrated in Figure 4, the interaction engine inside the application observes the
changed parameters and delivers the information to the brokering software. In contrast
to the schema in Figure 2, the information filtering process was outsourced, directly
returning the relevant information back to the presentation engine. In information
brokering terminology, the application builds an information model and, triggered by
events, inquires the broker. Thus, the system logic concerning information filtering
becomes independent from the overall application logic. Moreover, the ontology
representing the domain knowledge and the information items can be authored indepen-
dently of the application-internal intelligence. The next section provides an outline of the
definition of information items we had applied in our LISTEN project (Unnützer, 2001) for
the Kunstmuseum Bonn (Museum of Art at Bonn, Germany). It also illustrates a
hierarchical tree to categorize them.
Modeling Information Items
As described, information-brokering processes create and make use of a number of

information items that are instantiations of concepts describing the structure of the
brokered items. In order to organize information items, categories describe fundamental
principles or ideas. In case of a virtual exhibition, the use of a central management
component for all information items facilitates the management of items composed of text,
sound, graphics, movies and other hypermedia items like interactive flash components.
In recent projects developing guiding systems and electronic art guides, the structuring
and internal representation of information appeared to be a central issue for delivering
the right information at the right time to a specific user. Even more, for the personalization
of presentations and the contextualized delivery of information pieces, the underlying
structure of the represented information occurred to be core part of the work. Neverthe-
less there was a trade off between the efforts of authoring information items into a highly
enriched information representation and the daily work of curators and information
providers for museum environments.
To find the right balance between user efforts for authoring and creating museum
information and metadata in previous projects we often used an object-oriented ap-
proach, where the main entities were the art objects as such. This led us to typical
presentation and structuring of information like those found in art databases and
information systems of virtual science centers or museums.
By detailed user needs analysis of museum visitors and by the analysis of human guides
we realized that the event character of museum visits in most cases is much more
important than plain information about the art object as such. The presentation of data
about artworks is just one style of presentation that can be appropriate, but in practice
is rarely used by human guides. Furthermore, through our work with museum curators
and artists in the LISTEN workshops we elicited different strategies and methodologies
to structure information items and how to combine those information items in a highly
flexible way for different users.
The main entities for generating presentations are therefore not the artworks as such, but
the parts or chunks of a presentation that can come from a diversity of sources and use
a variety of stylistic means to make the museum visit an interactive experience.
Therefore, for creating interactive audio augmented spaces we decided to choose the
sound item as the main entity. Sound items can be classified in a category system with
several dimensions describing the sound items technically and from a stylistic point of
view. An overview of the dimensions can be seen in Figure 5. This figure illustrates the
domain model inside the graphical interface of the information-brokering tool, organized
as a tree, and a list of information items of the LISTEN project. The single sound items
are independent episodes or chunks of presentation that can be combined flexibly
because they contribute to a variety of art objects.
We designed the domain ontology (metadata) for the exhibition to allow for the
description of small information items on a variety of dimensions allowing for the
connection and the individualized sequencing and presentation of these items. Besides
the simple classification of the information items in a tree structure, the information-
brokering tool allows for classification of sound items into multiple categories.
Figure 5. Screenshot of the domain-ontology for the Macke Exhibition
The domain ontology contains:
• technical descriptions of the sound items such as length of item, type (music,
speech, sound effects),
• classifications concerning the relation to the physical space objects (art objects
to which an item contributes, physical area zones or focuses to which they are
connected),
• classifications about phases of work, image genre, or art technical aspects,
• classifications about the preferred target group like the stereotypical listeners for
such a sound item, or the emotional impacts or dramaturgy.
In particular, speech sound items could be further classified into subcategories like
Citation, Collage, Diary, Letter, Newspaper and others to describe their style of presen-
tation. As described above, the multidimensional classification of the sound items allows
for a variety of sequences and presentation styles even combining sound items on
several channels, that is, typically music, effects, and speech. An enormous advantage
of the description in such a way is that the curator of an interactive experience is not
forced to design a complete sequence of information presentation but can combine his/
her resources in a collage style or define sequencing rules on the level of possible
connection categories and not for single sound items.
In the LISTEN application, the visitor’s position and orientation are observed by a
tracking system and interpreted within the context of a virtual environment, which
connects the real world objects with virtual objects. Since the museum’s visitors are
mobile in physical space, their spatial positions are translated into virtual positions in
the electronic space relative to virtual objects. The virtual environment enables the
definition of virtual sound sources and the segmentation of the physical space into
virtual zones. Depending on the visitor’s location, preferences and so forth, combina-
tions of categories are dynamically selected in order to pre-filter the information items.
The next section illustrates how this solution can be adapted to an electronic museum.
Contextualization of
Virtual science centers popularize science and technology among the online public
through virtual science museums and exhibitions. In contrast to other museums, which
usually host art collections or historical artifacts, virtual science centers display
scientific artifacts with emphasis on interactivity (Orfinger, 1998). The interactivity
(even simple controlling episodes like in http://www.deutsches-museum.de/mum/
bildshow/index1.htm) enables online users to immerse into an online visit of an exhibi-
tion. The consideration of the personal preferences, interests, and knowledge forms the
basis for adaptive information selection and presentation. To create immersive environ-
ments for the online visitor, we describe our approach to enhance personalization by
considering context parameters and even the visitor’s personal style of interaction.
Adaptation of the Existing Approach
In order to transfer our information brokering solution to the domain of a virtual science
center, we have to map the physical space to an electronic space (cf., Honeyman, 1998).
Without much doubt, the physical environment can be described for virtual reality
technology. In such a VR-Environment, the visitor moves through and is tracked as
though s/he is moving physically (Tramberend, 1999). In this case, the approach works
unchanged because the application receives the same events from the interaction with
its users and falls back on the same presentation strategies. Since this approach is not
applicable for Web-based systems, and the visitor needs to be equipped with VR-
hardware (like glasses, gloves, etc.), we follow an overlay model approach for context-
aware information systems as introduced by Gross and Specht (2001). This methodology
enables us to apply and reuse the algorithm for information filtering described in the
previous section within other domains. Thus, the three concepts tracking, modeling of
the information items, and domain modeling must be adapted or extended.
As described in the last section, the domain model connects the objects to categories.
If the user enters the zone connected with a certain domain object, the category
associated with this object is selected, in order to filter information items according to
the user’s preferences and position. In information brokering terminology, the applica-
tion builds an information model and inquires the broker triggered by events. In a virtual
science center application, the tracking system would deliver the current URI as position
and the selected objects (e.g., text links, images, or clicks on maps) as a kind of the
visitor’s movement. Here, an event is fired when the user visits any Web source that is
connected with a category of the broker’s domain model.
Currently, the information broker falls back on a set of audio pieces (e.g., spoken text,
music, effects) and returns the best matching item according to the inquired interest
model of the user. In the domain of a virtual science center, the curator may probably
extend this set of information items by any kind of interactive components, multimedia
presentations, text fragments or links to Web pages. Therefore, the broker’s domain
model must be extended also to adequately reflect the changed information architecture.
New categories have to be added and the metadata description has to be augmented,
which can easily be accomplished with the assistance of the information-brokering tool.
As a result, the system provides additional features for the specification of preferences
to the users (e.g., users can turn off streamed video presentations) and thereby the user
model is extended at the same time.
In contrast to the fixed sound installation in the real world LISTEN environment, a virtual
science center has to take into account the abilities and features of the visitor’s particular
environment, that is, the Web browser. The user’s specific settings can be initially
inquired and automatically preset the information brokering tool. Based on known
environmental properties the information items are filtered in advance and presented in
an appropriate format. The ontology model of the information-brokering tool has to be
adapted in a suitable way.
The mentioned extensions of the information-brokering tool do not affect its capability
of filtering information items that best fits the user’s context. The overlay model enables
the retention of the presented concepts no matter whether the user moves in physical
or in electronic space. The next section shows how the information presentation in a
virtual science center can be further personalized and adapted to the visitor’s needs and
behavior. By means of a user model additional filters can be triggered or refined.
Personalization
A Web museum environment offers the ability to adapt the order of the presented exhibits
and the attached information to the visitor’s profile and position within the exhibition.
In order to provide a personalized adaptation of the environment according to the
visitor’s context (i.e., interests, preferences and “motion”), the system has to build-up
and maintain a user model. To give an idea of the personalization process, we will firstly
introduce the approach we have applied to several context-aware applications.
Sensor data and metadata are an important data resource in user modeling and adaptive
systems. A growing number of data sources about a user allow for more valid inferences
and much more contextualized interactions between users and adaptive systems. The
enrichment of information items with significant metadata enables the customization of
information offers. By requesting user preferences, different user profiles can be built-
up to facilitate the information filtering according to the user’s needs. Besides informa-
Figure 6. Context-aware architecture of the LISTEN System
tion presentation, the system can provide recommendations to the visitor regarding to
his/her context. On the basis of meaningful user profiles several adaptive strategies can
be applied to guide the visitor of the Web museum on a specific (strictly predefined or
context-aware adapted) tour.
In virtual science centers users automatically navigate an information space designed
as a complement or extension of the real space. The selection, presentation and
adaptation of the content of this information space take into account the user’s current
context. For the flexible and easy combination of the appropriate content and the current
context, we chose to provide a centralized Java-based context and user modeling server.
In addition, we use XML as the modeling language, which allows for an intuitive design,
definition and configuration of the system components. Since this design tool will be
used in various follow-up projects, we introduced a new model for the design of context-
aware systems (cf., Figure 6).
In the preceding section we have illustrated the general approach for adaptive informa-
tion presentation: observing the interaction, analyzing the data stream to gain knowl-
edge, determining the information piece to be presented, and finally rendering this
information appropriate to the user’s device. This approach is true for both virtual
science centers and real world exhibitions. Therefore, our personalization approach of
virtual science centers is divided into four concrete steps: information collection,
modeling, controlling and rendering. Each step fulfils a certain role within the user
modeling process. The next subsections describe these modules in more detail.
Information Collection
A virtual science center has to consider the abilities and features of the user’s particular
environment (e.g., Web browser). Therefore, a network of sensors is placed in the
environment and connected to variable parameters of the domain. These sensors are
used for recognizing changes within the environment and especially for the perception
of the user’s interaction with this environment. An observation module receives all
incoming events sent by the Web server. These event descriptions are pushed into a
database. Thus, an event history for every visitor is saved and an implicit user profile
is recorded.
Modeling
In a second step, the incoming sensor values are interpreted by several algorithms (e.g.,
machine learning or data mining algorithms) based on different models (e.g., overlay,
statistic, etc.). Thus, semantically enriched information is extracted and more significant
knowledge is gained relating to the user’s behavior.
In our user modeling approach for a museum environment we chose to employ our above
mentioned adapted information-brokering tool for modeling user preferences. Parts of
the domain model of the museum environment are mapped to an ontology model (as
shown in Figure 3). The users specify their preferences by simply selecting topics s/he
is interested in from the displayed categories. From these requests, different visitor
profiles can be built-up, which are stored within the tool. Based on these user selections
and on significant metadata describing information items the personalization process
performs a pre-selection and filtering of information offers and customization according
to the users’ needs (cf., Pazzani & Billsus, 1997).
Furthermore, we chose to employ stereotypes to define the user’s observation type,
which is common in adaptive systems (cf., Rich, 1989). In contrast to Oppermann and
Specht (2000), the user’s classification into one stereotype is done manually by the user
and cannot be changed automatically during runtime. Additionally, the personalization
engine is not yet able to perform an automated clustering and derivation of new
stereotypes.
Controlling
In a third step, a controlling component is necessary to decide what consequences must

be taken if certain conditions in the user’s context and in the individual user model
configuration appear together. Based on these information sources, the control compo-
nent assembles a sequence of commands in order to adjust certain variable properties
of the environment. Different sequences of commands lead to different kinds of infor-
mation presentation. Meaningful user profiles accurately document the visitors’ activity
within the virtual science center and can be exploited to adapt the environment in order
to support the user or to provide personalized information. In our approach an XML-
configurable rule-system controls the presentation of the scenery of a virtual science
center. First, a pre-filtering of information items is performed based on the user’s current
Web location and focus. From this list the best-suited information item is selected
referring to the user’s history, stereotype and interests.
Rendering
Rendering means handling the connection back to the domain. This engine translates the
assembled sequence of domain-independent commands into domain-dependent com-
mands changing variable parameters of the domain (i.e., content of a HTML page)
according to the user’s behavior. Thus, the decisions taken by the controlling compo-
nent are mapped to real world actions.
Contextualized Delivery and Information Logistic
Mainly the user’s location in the information space describes the user’s current context.
In a virtual science museum the options for user support are manifold. The user’s
movements in the virtual world can be tracked and connected to the domain ontology,
in order to learn about user’s interests. Based on current context parameters available
from the augmentation model these movements trigger information requests to the
information broker. Such triggers can be the user visiting any Web source that is
connected with a category of the broker’s domain model or the user entering the virtual
zone connected with a certain domain object. By automatically selecting the category
associated with this object, information items are filtered according to the user’s
preferences and position.
In a virtual science center the basis for every kind of adaptation is the presentation of
the content with some associated information. Besides the decision of which item is to
be shown, the options for modifying their presentation are manifold and with combina-
tions of these possibilities, a wide range of adaptability is already accomplished. Besides
the selection of which item is to be displayed, other dimensions influence the presenta-
tion: for instance when, with which character (e.g., motion, blinking, …), at which
position, and for how long an item is displayed.
Adaptation of the Space Model
In a virtual science center, users enter and leave zones and regions in virtual space. With
growing interest and knowledge users tend to navigate through the Web site more
quickly. The structure of the Web site (i.e., the space model) may easily and appropriately
be adapted to the user’s needs
Adaptation to the Social Context
If a group of users is spatially and temporal similar (e.g., two users being on the same Web
page at the same time and having similar interest), they may obtain similar information
or may be brought together for a chat. Through building such clusters of people, for
example a subsequent discussion about seen objects is possible (cf., Zimmermann,
Lorenz & Specht, 2002).
Adaptation to the Level of Immergence
Within a virtual environment interest in objects may be expressed by the time a user’s
focus lingers on these objects. The level of interest corresponds to the complexity, the
amount, and the style of already received information about one object and is transferred
to succeeding objects. If one of these objects complies with the user’s interests, the
presentation style directly steps into the right level of interest, and information items are
displayed that are classified on the adequate information depth and style.
Adaptation to Movement and Perception Styles
Several kinds of common behavior can be identified with people “moving” through the
environment (e.g., clockwise in real museums). Attractor cues (e.g., sounds, blinking or
marked links, …) emitted from different sources are used to draw the user’s attention on
certain objects of the environment. Thus, entire tours through the virtual science center
can be recommended. The selection and dynamic adaptation of tour recommendations
can be adjusted to the user’s stereotypical type of movement and his/her preferred
perception style.
Conclusion
Information brokers mediate between information demands and information offers. The
information items to be brokered in a virtual science museum are hypermedia pieces. The
use of an information-brokering tool facilitates the management and distribution of a
huge amount of information within this domain. Through mapping domain properties to
an ontology model we benefit from a better understanding of the domain’s complexity.
In addition, the ontology model in combination with the enrichment of information items
with metadata descriptions enables a personalized presentation of multi-media information.
The tools and strategies described in this chapter enable service providers to classify
content according to important context parameters and set up the relationship between
certain events in the visitor’s context and the delivery of content. For that purpose,
Fraunhofer FIT is working on a context toolkit that allows an easy management of context
data, and the abstraction, generalization and combination of context parameters. In this
contribution we present a concept for reusing our experience, which we have gained
during the application of the information-brokering tool within audio-augmented envi-
ronments, in the context of a virtual museum. We followed a modeling approach building
on and extending the following three aspects: tracking, information item modeling and
domain modeling. The information-brokering tool supports the adaptation of these three
concepts, so that applications like an electronic museum or a virtual science center takes
advantage of the benefits.
References
Brusilovsky, B. (1996). Methods and techniques of adaptive hypermedia. User Modeling
and User-Adapted Interaction, 6 (2-3), 87-129.
Dey, A.K., & Abowd, G.D. (2000). Towards a better understanding of context and
context-awareness. In The 2000 Conference on Human Factors in Computing
Systems (CHI 2000): Workshop on The What, Who, Where, When, and How of
Context-Awareness. Hague, The Netherlands.
Eckel, G. (2001). Immersive audio-augmented environments. In Proceedings of the 8th
Biennial Symposium on Arts and Technology, Connecticut College, New London,
Connecticut.
Goßmann, J., & Specht, M. (2001). Location models for augmented environments. In the
Workshop Proceedings of Location Modeling for Ubiquitous Computing, At-
lanta, Georgia (pp. 94-99).
Gross, T., & Specht, M. (2001). Awareness in context-aware information systems. In H.
Oberquelle, R. Oppermann & J. Krause (Eds.), Mensch & Computer – 1.
Fachübergreifende Konferenz (pp. 173-182). Germany: Bad Honnef.
Honeyman, B. (1998). Real vs virtual visits: Issues for science centers. In Australasian
Science & Technology Exhibitors Network, Canberra.
Jarke, M., Klemke, R., & Nick, A. (2001). Broker’s lounge: An environment for multi-
dimensional user-adaptive knowledge management. In HICSS-34: 34th Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences, Maui, Hawaii.
Klemke, R. (2002). Modeling context in information brokering processes. PhD Thesis.
RWTH Aachen, Germany.
Klemke, R., & Koenemann, J. (1999). Supporting information brokers with an
organisational memory. In 5. Deutsche Tagung Wissensbasierte Systeme - Bilanz
und Perspektiven, Workshop Wissensmanagement und Organisational Memory.
Würzburg, Germany.
Oppermann, R., & Specht, M. (2000). A context-sensitive nomadic information system
as an exhibition guide. In Proceedings of the Handheld and Ubiquitous Comput-
ing Second International Symposium (pp. 127-142). Bristol.
Orfinger, B. (1998). Virtual science museums as learning environments: Interactions for
education. In The Informal Learning Review (pp. 1-10). Washington, DC: Informal
Learning Experiences.
Pazzani, M.J., & Billsus, D. (1997). Learning and revising user profiles: The identification
of interesting Web sites. Machine Learning, 27, 313-331.
Rich, E. (1989). Stereotypes and user modeling. In A. Kobsa, & W. Wahlster (Eds.), User
Models in Dialog Systems (pp. 35-51). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Shilit, B.N., Adams, N.I., & Want, R. (1994). Context-aware computing applications. In
Proceedings of the Workshop on Mobile Computing Systems and Applications
(pp. 85-90). Santa Cruz, CA: IEEE Computer Society.
Tramberend, H. (1999). Avango: A distributed virtual reality framework. In IEEE Virtual

Reality Conference, Houston, Texas.
Unnützer, P. (2001). LISTEN im Kunstmuseum Bonn. KUNSTFORUM International,
155, 469-470.
Zimmermann, A., Lorenz, A., & Specht, M. (2002). Reasoning from contexts. In N. Henze
(Ed.), Personalization for the Mobile World: Workshop Proceedings on Adaptivity
and User Modeling in Interactive Systems (ABIS) (pp. 114-120). Hannover,
Germany.
Zimmermann, A., Lorenz, A., & Specht, M. (2003). User modeling in adaptive audio-
augmented museum environments. In P. Brusilowsky, A. Corbett, & F. de Rosis
(Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on User Modeling,
Johnstown, Pennsylvania (pp. 403-407). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
68 Bevan
Chapter IV
Starting With What

We Know:
A CILS Framework
for Moving from
Physical to Virtual Science
Learning Environments
Bronwyn Bevan, Exploratorium, USA
Abstract
This chapter examines attributes of learning in informal environments, using a
research framework developed by the Center for Informal Learning and Schools. It
considers how essential characteristics of learning within science centers can translate
and apply to learning in Web-based informal learning environments. It argues that in
designing virtual environments, informal science institutions need to build on their
particular strengths and pedagogical design principles in order to fill an educational
niche in the Web landscape, and not compete with commercial or even K-12 educational
agencies similarly engaged in the development of online learning environments.
Introduction
Cultural institutions — historical societies, art museums, zoos, botanic gardens, science
museums, and science centers, for example — offer their communities unique sets of
Starting With What We Know: A CILS Framework 69
subject-matter resources and expertise. They are adept at designing environments that
can engage learners at all age levels and prior knowledge. They know something about
sparking curiosity and more deeply drawing visitors into the subject matter.
Yet, much of this knowledge is unanalyzed and unarticulated among educator practitio-
ners in these institutions. As cultural institutions move from the development and
mediation of exhibit environments to the development of print or Web-based learning
tools and environments, it is important that they start from who they are and what they
are (Bevan & Wanner, 2003). They need to build from their unique approaches, pedagogies,
and collections in order to be the best that they can be, and also to avoid competing with
commercial or even K-12 entities on terms that are not their own.
At the Center for Informal Learning and Schools, a U.S. National Science Foundation-
funded initiative1 to strengthen K-12 science education through the generation of new
leaders and knowledge in the domain of informal learning, we focus our work with
practitioners on deepening their understanding of the environments that they work in
and the underlying pedagogical principles that inform those environments. We do this
through series of institutes that meet over a two-year period to create shared experiences
involving learning science through the exhibit collections, as well as promoting group
discourse around a number of ideas and thinkers concerned with science teaching and
learning.
CILS is a partnership of the Exploratorium, King’s College London, and the University
of California Santa Cruz. Since its inception in 2002, CILS has worked with over 100
museum educators, has enrolled two dozen graduate students, and has launched a dozen
studies investigating informal learning institutions and opportunities. The purpose of
CILS is to strengthen alliances between informal and formal systems of education. These
alliances can be leveraged to enhance and expand student interest and understanding
of the subject matter taught in schools. They also can ensure that the wealth of cultural
resources housed in museums are made accessible to, and shape experiences of,
audiences from socio-economic groups who traditionally do not visit museums.
CILS has begun to articulate areas of knowledge informal educators require in order to
form effective alliances with schools. We have also developed a research framework for
asking questions of these environments and alliances. Drawing on these two areas of
focus — on practice and research — this chapter will examine, from a practitioner point
of view, some of the particular attributes of learning environments of cultural institutions
and their implications for the design of virtual environments, particularly for school
audiences.
Looking at Cultural Institutions

While schools, too, are cultural institutions, within this chapter the use of the term
“cultural institutions” refers to institutions and organizations that collect, curate, and
program public learning environments for visitors of all ages and backgrounds. These
include museums, historical societies, botanic gardens, nature centers, science centers,
zoos, etc. I use the shorthand “museums” for “cultural institutions” interchangeably
70 Bevan
throughout this article, because I also seek to avoid the word “informal” and therefore
do not want to use the even shorter term “ISI,” for informal science institution.
The experiences that many museums aim to promote, as Hein (1998) points out, are not
unique to cultural institutions, but fall within a range of educational designs reflective
of theories of knowledge and theories of learning. While some museums may follow
didactic theories of education, most science centers, as well as growing numbers of other
types of cultural institutions, attempt to create discovery-based or constructivist
learning experiences consonant with Dewey’s progressive theories of education (Hein,
2004) and found in progressive K-12 schools around the globe. By situating museum-
based learning on the progressive end of the continuum of learning experiences, we can
begin to dispel the formal/informal dichotomy that operates to separate, indeed marginalize,
museum-based learning from other types of learning, notably school-based learning. In
the U.S., this marginalization adversely affects public funding and utilization of cultural
institutions, and results in an imbalance in equity and access issues relating to families
and individuals who have the capacity and cultural traditions to draw upon the wealth
of cultural resources in a community and those who do not.
Situating museum-based learning in this way also provides museum educators with a
firmer grounding, and a more robust research base, upon which to make design decisions,
and to find ways to better integrate the museum experience into experiences outside of
the museum, including K-12 learning.
Learning in Cultural Institutions
We learn — accrue and assimilate knowledge and experience — at least from the moment
we first open our eyes. Our environments, from the beginning, are curated by our socio-
economic circumstances as well as by the interventions of those expert adults, our
parents and other family figures. Rogoff et al. (2003) point out that from the earliest
stages, children learn through active observation and listening. Proficiency in at least
one spoken language is generally developed before much formal schooling takes place,
and usually without direct instruction by an adult. What might casually be called
“informal” learning — in that it occurs outside of school walls or without direct, formal
instruction — Rogoff et al. call intent participation, meaning that children learn by
keenly or intently observing and listening, and with the intention of joining, engaging
in, or adopting the actions or skills they observe of others. This mode of learning (not
limited to children) can be clearly witnessed at home or on the playground. It is seen less
often in classrooms where, at least traditionally, children learn subject matter through
direct and usually de-contextualized, or abstract, representations of knowledge. A key
attribute of intent participation is that the learner is motivated to observe, listen, and learn
because she intends to engage in the activities she is observing.
At school we participate in the process of learning a range of agreed-upon subject matter,
ideas, processes, and social conventions. In these settings, expert adults (teachers)
supervise the successful acquisition or development of new knowledge and understand-
ing. In most cases, the learners have little choice about what they are supposed to learn.
However, they have a great deal of control over what they choose to learn, by either
agreeing to or resisting participation. Motivating students to learn, particularly at the
higher grade levels, is of primary concern to teachers, and increasing concern to the
education reform community. To engage students in school learning — cognitively,
emotionally, and behaviorally — school reformers advocate for learning experiences that
are seen by students as authentic (relevant), realizable, and that capture the imagination
(NRC, 2004).
An evolving vision for school learning is one that provides students with a range of
experiences —gained through listening, reading, researching, designing, collaborating,
building, and experimenting — both individually and socially constructed. Different
contexts for learning — classrooms, homes, museums, Web environments and television
— can also support and contextualize student knowledge, interest, and motivation to
learn that, it is posited, can create a readiness or capacity to learn in schools.
While there are many highly functioning schools, teachers and students, this particular
moment in history — with the advent of the information age as well as advances in the
cognitive sciences — poses particularly challenging problems and questions to the
school community, having to do with what people need to know and understand, and the
most effective ways of achieving those goals. Osborne (2004) explores this question as
it regards science education, arguing that in addition to the stuff of science (content
knowledge) it is increasingly important for students to understand the nature of science
and the processes of science in order to achieve a scientifically literate citizenry
(consumers and producers of science and the products of science).
In cultural institutions, communities have access to a range of rich resources, experi-
ences, and expertise usually pertaining to specific disciplines (e.g., physical science,
modern art, natural history). These institutions provide highly formalized learning
environments, designed through an elaborate process of research, prototype, design,
test, and feedback. Over the past half-century, many cultural institutions have sought
to redefine themselves from the formal collection and taxonomies of artifacts (still critical
in terms of curation and collection, but seen less relevant to engaging learning) into
places that celebrate the subject matter, and draw visitors into the associated human
experience of either the subject matter or the study of it (as with natural history museums)
(Bevan, 2002). They thus attempt to capture the imagination and to make the material
relevant to a broad range of visitors.
In addition to supporting the assimilation of a body of knowledge, museums can impart
insights into the discipline or medium — kinesthetic, tangible, and evocative experiences
that can provide a starting place for deeper inquiries, including traditional academic
study and the development of expertise. Entering a room filled floor to ceiling with beetle
specimens provides the visitor, at once, with a glimpse into the world not only of beetles,
but also of the study of beetles. Indeed, Crowley & Callanan (1998) maintain that the most
important learning outcome from children’s visits to museums, specifically science
museums, may be the opportunities to engage in the core processes of science — asking
questions, considering evidence, describing results — rather than learning and retaining
sets of facts.
The attributes of learning and of instructional design that we will describe here are not
exclusive to cultural institutions, and cross many contexts. Yet, the context for learning
can play a critical role in one’s interest, motivation, participation, and meaning-making.
Some contexts are alienating and might shut down willingness to learn; some are
72 Bevan
inclusive and encouraging of intellectual community. And different people respond

differently, although through the study of culturally and linguistically diverse class-
rooms, patterns of behavior, comfort, and participation may begin to emerge that suggest
that specific contexts and structures for participation may encourage more or less
motivation and engagement (Lee, 2001).
The next section will look at ways in which cultural institutions design learning
experiences to motivate and engage learners. We do this to extrapolate to virtual
environments and the role they can play in enhancing formal K-12 science.
Frames For Consideration

The Center for Informal Learning and Schools (CILS) has developed a research framework
that identifies four themes for investigation of CILS questions. They are:
1. Learning environments and their designs

2. Means and structures of participation
3. Explanation, communication, and discourse
4. Systems and structures that support alliances between K-12 and cultural institu-
tions
This framework overlaps with aspects of the framework developed earlier by the Museum
Learning Collaborative (Schauble et al., 1997), which is foundational to the work of CILS.
The Museum Learning Collaborative framework was based strongly on socio-cultural
theory whereas the CILS framework draws on a wider range of theoretical perspectives,
as represented by the CILS faculty. These include research and scholarship in develop-
mental psychology, science education, the natural sciences, and museum education.
Many of these perspectives are, however, strongly influenced by socio-cultural theory.
The Museum Learning Collaborative (MLC) identified three research themes: learning
and learning environments; interpretation, meaning, and explanation; and identity,
motivation, and interest. We see these themes as being different (but consonant) with
the CILS themes. They are consonant in that the focus on learning and learning
environments are shared (Theme 1), as is the interest in interpretation, meaning and
explanation (Theme 3). The MLC theme of “learning and learning environments” has been
resolved by CILS into two themes of “learning environments and their design” (Theme
1) and “means and structures of participation in informal learning” (Theme 2). Motiva-
tion, identity, and interest feature in both of these CILS themes.
Because of the CILS focus on schools, we have, additionally, a research interest in the
systems and structures that support informal learning institutions and opportunities and
their connections with schools.
This section will consider — from the practitioner perspective — some of the salient features
of learning in informal settings using the CILS framework as a thematic guide for analysis.
To do this, the paper will refer to science centers, and more specifically to the case of the
Exploratorium. The Exploratorium was founded in 1969 and pioneered, with others, the
design of interactive science learning environments.
It is interesting to note that the original Exploratorium exhibit collection was largely a
direct three-dimensional translation of a school physical sciences curriculum. Exhibits
were organized around physics topics, themes, and activities found in the Elementary
Science Study (ESS) kits, produced by Education Development Center in the 1960s.
Topics included Light & Color, Sound & Hearing, and Electricity & Magnetism. ESS took
an interdisciplinary approach to science learning, particularly through integrating, to
varying degrees, aesthetics and the arts. The exhibits thus built upon sound principles
of progressive classroom curriculum and instruction, but translated them to a three-
dimensional public learning environment, facilitated not by classroom teachers but by
museum educators and docents.
Capturing the Imagination: Learning Environments and

Their Designs
The design and spatial, as well as thematic, organization of the environment and/or
collections is a form of explanation and/or narrative that conveys the meaning of the
subject matter to the visitors. It is a physical manifestation of the ways in which the
museum thinks about and understands its own collections, and in particular how it relates
to the public, and vice versa.
Insights into the subject matter. A critical design element is the identification of
compelling subject matter and the development of innovative perspectives on the topic.
Indeed experiences of exhibitions that fall flat, despite the bells and whistles, may relate
to a lack of insight into the core of the subject matter and what it has to engage our interest
— how it resonates with human experience and thus makes a personal appeal to the visitor.
For example, an exhibition that the Exploratorium held in the 1990s, on medical imaging,
approached the subject through the lens of how popular culture, dating back centuries,
used current technologies — from Renaissance wax anatomical figures to fetal ultra-
sound images on late 20th century automobile billboards — to shape conceptions about
our bodies and human life. This award winning show shifted the focus from simply
showcasing a range of medical imaging technologies, to pushing visitors to think about
the relationships between the imaging and imagining of our bodies, and the social,
historical and ethical implications of this relationship.
Additionally, museums build on insight into their subject matter to design generative
exhibits that can engage at multiple levels of experience. These exhibits — not designed
solely for novice or expert — offer opportunities for people, over time, to get to deeper
levels of understanding. They become like great books — always offering new insights
and experiences, depending on the times in life one reads them.
Personal. Ultimately, the museum experience aims to resonate with the individual, to
trigger curiosity, wonder, and interest — to help the learner along a path toward long-
term (life-long) engagement with the subject-matter. Our success stories often relate to
74 Bevan
Figure 1. ‘Sun Painting’ exhibit; Photo by Susan Schwartzenberg
evidence from later times that people continued to think about or study the subject matter
encountered in cultural institutions.
A key to developing a personal connection is to stimulate a person’s curiosity or wonder,
and to do this in playful (not intimidating) ways. A classic example of engaging visitors
through a visceral aesthetic experience is a long-time centerpiece of our light and color
collection: Sun Painting, by artist Bob Miller. The Sun Painting is a shifting, colorful
panel that reflects sunlight coming into the building through a shaft and filtered through
an array of prisms. Clouds in the sky and visitors manipulating the prisms change the
splashes of light and color on the billboard-sized panel. The beauty of the colors, the
delight in being able to play with sunlight to create a painting, and the science of
refraction draws the visitor into the collections where they can engage in more sustained
inquiries into prisms, light, and color.
Many exhibits use the counterintuitive or odd juxtapositions to puzzle the passer-by and
provoke their curiosity. Why do things behave unexpectedly? A classic example is the
Touch the Spring exhibit. Visitors see a spring sitting inside a box and are asked to touch
it. When they reach for it, they find it is not there. What is going on? By groping around
in the box, visitors will find that the spring is lodged upside down in the front of the box,
and concave mirrors are used to project an incredibly realistic image standing in the space
of the box. This firsthand experience draws visitors into thinking and further explorations
of mirrors, images, and light.
Finally, by connecting phenomena with their real world contexts or applications, exhibits
seek to situate the science within a commonplace frame of reference. At the Exploratorium
we have a number of exhibits — dealing with complexity, resonance, vibration, or patterns
that use sand as their central medium. Almost everybody has walked on sand, whether
in a sandbox or at the beach. We all marvel at the natural contours of sandy landscapes,
and when one encounters sand, it is difficult not to mold it, carve it, trickle it into new
shapes. The experience, prior and current, of sand is a way into looking at the effects of
a vibrating drum. It is a way into thinking about complexity. It is a way into thinking about
fluid motion. It is not intimidating. It reinforces the idea that science is all around us, and
not confined to textbooks, classrooms, or even science museums.
Encouraging Active Learning: Means and Structures of

Participation
Participating in learning in cultural institutions is both personal and social in nature. As

Duensing (2004) points out, the nature of the social space varies with the cultural context.
In Mexico City, Exploratorium exhibits have more space between them to allow for larger
family groups. More manipulatives, as adjuncts to exhibits, were incorporated into
exhibits had been in Brazil. Each museum considers its dominant culture or cultures when
designing spaces for participation. Here we want to discuss facets of participation in the
U.S. that include the role of observation and the relationships of experts and novices in
collaborative learning arrangements.
Observation. Rogoff et al. point out that observation is a part of participation (Rogoff,
2002). Observing provides ideas and models for participation and can motivate people
to engage more deeply. Museum environments are designed for observation of objects,
people interacting with the objects, and the people interacting with each other. (Class-
rooms, on the other hand, are typically designed for students to observe the teacher, and
not each other.)
To encourage observation and participation, museums create a visual horizon that allows
people to see where they are coming from and where they might go next. Semper (1998)
likens a museum environment like the Exploratorium’s to a working town, with different
neighborhoods (the biology neighborhood, the electricity neighborhood, etc.), piazza-
like gathering and observing spaces, avenues for passage, and a visible infrastructure
like power, pipes, and signage. In such a setting, groups assemble and disassemble —
this populated environment offers a wide variety of choices for interaction, as well as
models for interaction. Because most visitors are actively engaging with exhibits, other
visitors can observe them engaged in this meaningful activity — see smiles of delight,
watch as people beckon their friends over to “try this,” and watch as some visitors
become deeply engaged in an activity that clearly has the power to fascinate. It is common
to see visitors watching other visitors at exhibits, and then go up behind them and
replicate the actions that they have observed. This is as true of adults watching children
as of children watching adults.
Experts and novices in collaborative learning. Museum visitors often attend in mixed-
aged groups, and take different roles in the process of noticing, manipulating, and
discussing objects or exhibits in the cultural institution. At any given exhibit, a different
person in the group may be the “expert” (who knows the content or knows the idea, or
knows the exhibit) at a given moment.
To encourage interactions, exhibits are often designed to allow for several users to
engage at once, and in some cases may require more than one user for the exhibit to fulfill
its purpose. For example, with Resonant Pendulum the visitor swings a small magnet onto
a steel collar attached to a 300-lb. pendulum hung from the ceiling. Because of the weak
magnet, the visitor learns that only by pulling in time with the swing of the pendulum (in
resonance), can the pendulum be moved. Two magnets are tied to the fence at 90 degrees
to each other so the users, if they cooperate, can alter the pattern in which the pendulum
swings (circle, ellipse, line, etc.). Visitors need to discuss strategies to get this exhibit
to work easily, thus building a sense of learning as a social endeavor.
76 Bevan
As Crowley and Callanan (1998) point out, museums provide children settings where they
can learn in ways that allow children and adults to equally control what they pay attention
to, how they engage and learn, and when the learning is done (and they can move on to
a new exhibit). Through the process of shared engagement and discussion, through
articulating what they are thinking and finding, children are more likely to remember what
they have learned and to have more powerful learning experiences than if they were
learning in isolation. The social environment thus affords particular opportunities for
children to develop experience and knowledge.
Expertise may sometimes exist outside of the immediate family or social group. People in
cultural institutions observe other people in the process of observing, reading, interact-
ing with the collections. They may become interested in objects by virtue of noticing
other people’s interests, or overhearing other peoples’ conversations, including those
led by trained museum educators.
Developing Understanding: Explanation, Communication

and Discourse
Explanation refers both to the explicit descriptions of how and why things occur — which
may be found in exhibit labels, in conversations with or presentations by museum
docents, in audio or tour guides, or in conversations among visitor groups — as well as
the implicit messages and meanings conveyed by the ways in which the subject-matter
is presented.
As both the MLC and the CILS research frameworks note, research has begun to tie the
learning of science to the nature of the discourse, both in and out of classrooms.
Language is seen as an essential tool for creating scientific explanations, arguments,
narratives, metaphors, and analogies. While constructing and communicating (i.e.,
explaining) their ideas or understandings about what they encounter, visitors externalize,
clarify, and restructure their knowledge.
Contextualization. An important part of the implicit explanation of the subject matter
relates to how the phenomena are presented from a disciplinary point of view. To generate
a broader frame of reference, as well as to provide a gestalt for the subject matter,
contextualization helps visitors understand the nature of the discipline and how it is
investigated and developed.
In school settings subject matter, and perhaps science in particular, is presented as so
many bricks of knowledge (Osborne, 2000). Few school students gain an understanding
of the whole, either as a discipline or as an endeavor. Museums have time and space to
give visitors a more holistic sense of the subject matter. For instance, the Seeing
collection at the Exploratorium raises big questions about the human experience of seeing
— In what ways is seeing a subjective activity? How do we actively construct under-
standing from what we see and notice? How do we interpret the physical phenomenon
of light into mental and visual images? — and in so doing, relates the science of optics,
cognition, visual perception as parts of an integrated, daily experience.
Science museums can also foster an understanding of how phenomena operate under
different conditions and in relationship to one another. One way to do this is through
redundancy, providing multiple entry points for visitors, and multiple modes of represen-
tation of the phenomena. Redundancy provides the possibility of multiple perspectives
on the same phenomenon. It reveals different aspects and behaviors of the phenomena.
It opens broader vistas for understanding. Rather than encouraging narrow
conceptualizations, visitors are able to develop more complex understandings, and begin
to make connections among phenomena or behaviors of phenomena.
Redundancy also tends toward the use of different media — video, audio, hands-on
demonstrations, mediated discussions, open-ended investigations — to provide a range
of visitors (different ages and levels of prior knowledge) with multiple ways of knowing
and seeing.
For example, one can learn about resonance through a number of different exhibits at the
Exploratorium. Some, like Bells, provide direct hands-on experiences with aesthetically
compelling materials. Bells consists of two metal plates which vibrate when they are
stroked along their edges with a rosined bow. When each plate vibrates at a specific tone,
sand bounces on the vibrating regions of the plates and collects in those areas where
there is no vibration, forming intricate, beautiful patterns.
Pipes of Pan, on the other hand, provides visitors with an aural encounter with
resonance. This exhibit demonstrates how tubes of varying length act to select and
amplify sound waves of different frequencies. Ten glass tubes of different length filter
out specific tones from the ambient noise of the museum. Each pipe is resonant at a certain
frequency, which is determined by its length. If you listen to each pipe in turn, from longer
to shorter, you will hear a progression from low-pitched tones to higher ones.
The process of encountering the same or related phenomena in a range of forms (such
as finding waves in sound as well as in light, in water and in sand) conveys the message
to the visitor that learning and scientific investigation itself is a process of repeated
encounters with the phenomenon. Cultural institutions thus send an important message
to their audiences when they present material through the accretion of relevant encoun-
Figure 2. ‘Bells’ exhibit; Photo by Susan Schwartzenberg
78 Bevan
ters and experiences. Returning to Crowley and Callanan’s point (1998) — they can lead
visitors into the heart of the matter.
Integrating Into Educational Infrastructure:

Systems and Structures Supporting Informal Learning
CILS’s questions about structures to support stronger integration of the resources and
learning opportunities of cultural institutions into the K-12 system of learning focus
largely on funding and policy issues — on how these resources are in fact used, what
drives their use and what impedes their use.
Programs designed to support K-12 science — particularly teacher development pro-
grams and field trips — are designed primarily to support/boost the teaching and learning
as envisioned by the school system. That is, they address common curriculum foci,
standards, and assessment. They develop teacher and student content knowledge, as
well as understanding and relationships with the nature of science and science process
skills.
In general, work of museums to support schools or other systems is programmatic and
not object-based. In other words, it is the interpretation and facilitation of the use of the
collections, and not the collections themselves. The Exploratorium experimented with
one large-scale exhibition project where a set of exhibits was designed according to the
latest California state science framework themes. While overall there was mixed response
to the exhibition, the constraints of the school curriculum did not match the goals of the
public environment.
However, museums have the resources upon which to build significant programs that can
provide direct and personal experiences with science to nurture interest and engagement
with the subject matter (in addition to skill or knowledge levels).
Museums can work well at two levels that schools struggle with — the novice level and
the expert level. Both for elementary teachers with little science background, and for
students who are unengaged in science, museums can provide programs that motivate
inquiry, interest, and the development of self-conceptions as successful science learn-
ers. In addition, museums can offer advanced science content experiences for high
school teachers as well as for students whose interest in science extends beyond what
is offered by schools.
Science museums — dedicated to the discipline of science and to science learning — can
provide teachers with content-rich immersions. Here their conversations with colleagues
are about science and the teaching of science, and emanate from the doing of science and
science investigations. Whereas within the school and classroom environment, much of
teacher talk has by necessity to do with administrative and student issues. That is,
museums can serve as an oasis for teachers, to rekindle and rejuvenate their passion for
their subject matter. They also can use these environments to more deeply engage in
thinking about and reflecting on the nature of science — and the importance of
understanding the epistemological aspects of science for both themselves and their
students.
Summary
Using the CILS Research Framework as a way of identifying attributes of learning in

cultural institutions that we need to attend to when building learning experiences for the
virtual world, we thus identify the following parameters:
1. Learning designs and environments that provide compelling human perspectives

on the subject matter and that do so in ways that viscerally and/or aesthetically
stimulate the learner’s curiosity and interest.
2. Participation structures and social environments that allow learners to browse,
to enter and participate at varying levels of active engagement and expertise.
3. Explanatory structures that allow learners to build understanding together,
engage in discourse, and that contextualize the subject matter within a broader
epistemological framework.
4. Systemic structures and avenues that suggest ways that the resources can be
mapped into supporting, and enriching, a broader educational framework.
In the next section, we will explore how two Exploratorium Web sites — Origins and Global
Climate Change — reflect these design principles, and look at new design and learning
opportunities afforded by the Web environment. Note that both of these Web sites were
developed as a learning environment unto itself — that is, not as an extension of a pubic
floor experience.
Into the Web Environment

When the Exploratorium launched its Web site in 1993 it was among the first of several
hundred Web sites in the world, and one of only a handful that were operated by cultural
institutions. Like the cavernous building that beckoned to a mixed group of scientists,
artists, and educators who created the Exploratorium, the Internet was viewed as a place
of huge possibility — one that had as much potential for active engagement as the
physical exhibit floor. It was also imagined that, as with the early Exploratorium, visitors
were as likely to stumble into the virtual space as they were to seek it out specifically for
science content and learning. The space was therefore developed to be playful, to catch
the eye and the whimsy of the accidental visitor.
The Web site was developed for the remote audience, not as a marketing tool but as a
learning space. Only recently have we begun to also explore its potential to extend the
physical visit to the museum in San Francisco.
Like the museum floor, the Exploratorium Web site is a convergence of ideas and
experiences. But there are also many differences.
80 Bevan
For one thing, Web visitors usually visit alone; that is, they are not sitting at the computer
with friends or family. They are not engaged in discussion and discourse. They also
cannot “see” fellow visitors engaged in learning. So the experience is by definition not
a physically social one — yet to the extent to which the Web learner engages with the
ideas and products of society, it may be extremely social in other dimensions.
Another striking difference is that although Web learners are visiting a carefully curated
and designed environment, it is logistically easy and by nature quite likely that visitors
can, with a click, depart for entirely different environments and subject matter. That is,
one can move quickly from the Exploratorium site to a news site, a shopping site, or any
other site on the Web. Entrances and exits can be both quick and unanticipated. Not only
can the visitor bypass the gift store near the exit, but they can also remain unaware of
entire rooms of knowledge and content just around the corner.
Finally, the Web site is a less sensory experience — there are few sounds, no smells, no
touch — and thus the experience becomes primarily visual and intellectual. It is
fundamentally text dependent, and requires a kind of verbal and graphical literacy that
the physical museum does not — it therefore is less prepared to engage younger
audiences, or visitors who do not read English. It thus targets, perhaps, a more literate
and sophisticated audience than the physical environment. It goes without saying that
it is therefore socially somewhat exclusive. On the other hand, our Web site currently
reaches 18 million people annually, while our physical building only receives about
500,000 per year.
Given these differences, how do we — as cultural institutions — design for engaging
Web experiences, building on what we know about developing engaging public floor
experiences and about engaging science learning? How do we motivate inquiry and
learning in the virtual environment? How do the opportunities provided by the Web
support the goals of schools for student and teacher learning? Two Web sites will serve
as reference points for investigating these questions.
Inroads and Insights to People and Places: Origins
The Live@ Exploratorium: Origins Web site (www.exploratorium.edu/origins) was

developed to explore and communicate cutting edge science related to origins of matter,
the universe, Earth, and life on Earth.
Rather than simply telling the story of the science and the current scientific research, the
project is conceptualized as a series of virtual expeditions, or field trips, to remote places
where fundamental research is being performed in particle physics, cosmology and
biology. Sites include a rain forest research station in Las Cuevas, Belize operated by the
Natural History Museum in London; McMurdo Station, Antarctica; and an underground
particle accelerator at CERN in Geneva, Switzerland.
A total of six research institutions are featured with interactive elements, video clips,
articles, images, and live webcasts that enable users to virtually tour the facilities and
provide a window into the world of the research as it unfolds. As of 2004, Origins has
been visited by over 3 million people.
Figure 3. The “Origins” fronts page includes a selection of clickable animations for
each of the six primary locations, enabling visitors to the site to get a sense of the
research locations before entering the full site.
Learning design. It is difficult for a visitor to experience current science research and get
a sense of the enterprise, the endeavor, and the science itself — what the questions are
and why they matter; who the people are and what they do; the instrumentation; the
implications; the connections with what we know and don’t know.
Origins takes two particular, innovative perspectives on the challenge of communicating
current scientific research — that of place, and that of the human endeavor of scientific
research — who are the people doing this work, and what drives them? How do they live
and what tools do they use? What do they worry about and what do they dream about?
To enhance the sense of “placeness” of the six research locations — to fully realize the
metaphor of the field trip — the Web site is designed to create a sensory experience
through an extensive collection of visual images (taken by photographic artists). These
images include the broad landscape of the site — through aerial photos, manipulate-able
360-degree views of the facilities, and maps highlighting the scientific instrumentation
and laboratories. They also include peeks into the nooks and crannies, the behind the
scenes, close ups on a scientist’s hand holding a beetle, or on the scribbled notes in a
field notebook.
These images create an aesthetic and textural sense of place that is then organized into
structures that underscore the humanness of the endeavor. Images on the Cold Spring
Harbor site are organized like Polaroids pinned to a bulletin board, each a snapshot
memory of a trip abroad. Clicking on an image takes the visitor to an interview, a quote,
some insight into the science or the scientific discussions taking place at Cold Spring
Harbor.
82 Bevan
Building on another human metaphor, the Las Cuevas images and text are situated in a
lined notebook that includes hand scribbled side notes, and links and references to other
“pages” in the book. In all of these and other constructs, the human beings engaged in
the work, or their scientific forebears, are highlighted, interviewed, photographed, and
quoted. We meet scientists and technicians, cooks, and guides.
Like an exhibit floor, this approach to the material and the Web site creates a populated
landscape of choices, objects, faces, and ideas. It allows visitors first-hand, if virtual,
encounters with a rich tableau of science and scientists and a variety of scientific
activities. It creates contexts for understanding how different experiments or research
teams interrelate, and what the meaning of their work may be. In some ways it is less
playful or whimsical than the museum floor experience — geared as it is to a highly literate,
older audience. (Although whimsy is highlighted as it is encountered.) Yet it affords a
fundamentally personal journey, driven by what intrigues the visitor, which may be one
of the fortunate confluences of Internet-based learning and museum-based learning.
Participation structures. The Web is uniquely suited, through its variety of media-
based entry points, to make the journey into a complex environment (such as cutting edge
scientific research) a compelling one. The mix of text, photos, video clips, sound, layered
images, branching data sets, and Web design tools that can show movement, time, and
dimension, creates a huge number of possibilities for how to approach the subject matter,
and (in this case) the place, ideas, and tools surrounding the research. Unbounded by
the temporal or spatial constraints of the museum visit, these resources, interviews and
“field trips” are available for personalized, directed, or exhaustive Web visits that can
unfold over time in ways that a museum visit could never provide for.
In a rich Web site like Origins, where there are scores of layers of information and images,
the subjective feeling of being able to meander along pathways of one’s own choosing,
creates a sense of infinite choice and the feeling of personalizing one’s journey — of
following one’s own interests and looking more deeply into the thing that catches one’s
eye. This sense of choice, as well as sudden encounters with new ideas and images,
parallels the personal experiences one has on the museum floor in choosing pathways
and engaging directly with phenomena.
But unlike the museum experience, this journey is undertaken alone, albeit in collabora-
tion (or complicity) with the Web site curators, educators and developers. This is a
difficult transition for museum educators — steeped in a social environment and culture
designed to support social interactions — to grapple with. To experiment with social
interactions and different kinds of participation structures for Internet visitors, the
Origins team soon began to experiment with how emergent webcast technologies could
be used to create more discussion and collaboration among visitors.
Over the course of the project, the team developed over a hundred live webcast
components that connected remote scientists at the research labs with live Exploratorium
visitor audiences as well as with live Internet audiences. While visitors were less able
to interact with each other, they were able to interact directly with scientists at the
research sites and at the Exploratorium, through e-mailing questions and observations
— and indirectly by following up with questions and comments from previous visitors.
These webcasts — a form of broadcasting over the Internet that can be watched live or
later retrieved on demand — enabled remote audiences to connect in real time to
scientists and activities as they were happening. Mediated by Exploratorium scientists,

working before a live audience in the museum’s webcast studio facility, these 30- to 60-
minute programs allowed for time-based material to be introduced to both remote viewers
and studio audiences.
Examples of the most compelling live time-based events were the unveiling of a new
Hubble image, looking inside a bat researcher’s bag after a day of collecting, and speaking
with scientists at CERN after they announced that they had produced anti-matter. Many
such events lose some of their luster when re-packaged into exhibition or magazine/Web
site-like entities. They lose their 3-D-ness and they also lose the essential connections
to the people involved in the science: the person holding his breath before opening the
bag of bats.
Webcasts also were structured so that Exploratorium science educators could build and
demonstrate, on the museum floor, 3-D models of various events, thus providing visitors
with opportunities to conceptualize the location of the Hubble in relationship to the earth
and the moon by having educators, holding tennis balls, stand at a distance to one
another that represented the distances between the telescope, Earth, and Moon.
Audiences were able to predict and direct where the scientists would stand before they
moved into position, showing how close the Hubble is in relationship to Earth.
Thus Origins experimented with ways to mix novices and experts, learners and teachers,
through a variety of live interactions. The archival value of these interactions is not clear
– in some cases, such as the unveiling of the Hubble, later visitors might be interested
in viewing the dated material. In some cases, the webcasts served to create an historical
record — interviews with scientists and others engaged in the process of discovery. One
day in the future, these video archives may prove a valuable piece of history. But, from
the point of view of designing engaging learning experiences, their real value was in the
live, unexpected, and interactive format. They allowed people to interact with other
people interested in the science, and they also allowed people to interact with significant
scientific events in real-time.
Such encounters, like chat rooms, and to a lesser degree bulletin boards, begin to suggest
active social engagement that allows people to develop new questions or insights not
only from the material presented by the museum, but from the ways in which others are
engaging with and interpreting that material.
Explanatory structures. To encourage visitors to engage with the material, the site seeks
to develop explanatory and narrative structures that establish the broader framework into
which the individual stories and insights fit. It organizes the material, first, by research
site/topic, and, second, by cross-cutting themes of people, places, tools, and ideas. The
sites are indexed in ways that will bring them up quickly in a Google search on the specific
topic. But it is also anticipated that people who find their way there more serendipitously
will be drawn in by the stories of the places and people.
The site index is organized to provide visitors with a kind of visual horizon within which
they can develop their own pathway. It allows them to “see” what the site has to offer
in terms of people to meet, tools to learn about and representations of the science to be
explored. It presents the stories as layered landscapes of people and ideas — vertically,
by research enterprise, and horizontally, by human endeavor. It thus creates a context
that both makes connections and illuminates pathways.
84 Bevan
Figure 4. Site index for Origins allows visitors to navigate either by research location
or by topic area. For example visitors to the site may “tour” all of the tools across
research locations sampling those used for collecting particle data and those used for
sampling biodiversity. Or a visitor may examine each of the locations as a unit. Clicking
on an image takes you directly to the that section of the sub-site.
Once you choose a starting point, your path takes you to pages with a plethora of links
to new stories and people and questions. One story leads to another story. For example
when we click on the question “Why are there so many living things?” in the Las Cuevas
site, we meet botanist Nancy Garwood. By clicking on her name, we encounter images
of her work in the rain forest, which leads us to links back to London’s Natural History
Museum where further research is conducted on the collected specimens. Whole new
worlds of visual images and places — from the collection, study, and preservation
perspective — are opened up.
The narrative in Origins is about the interlinked activities that together make up scientific
process, endeavor, and discovery. That the activities are driven by human passion to
know and understand, by human obsession with the minute and the cosmological, is at
the heart of the narrative. This provides the context for further exploring the science that
the site details.
The looped nature of the narratives serves in its own way as a pedagogical redundancy.
While specific ideas may not be encountered in many forms, in the way that science
phenomena are on the museum floor, aspects of the scientific enterprise as a human one
are repeatedly revisited. This is done through the complex layering of information and
insight — through the branching and looping of the Web site, and through the narrative
construct, as described above, of organizing the material in terms of location as well as
people, tools, and ideas.
Systemic structures. Origins experimented with ways of connecting the science

research Web resources to the school system, although it did not develop Web resources
specifically for this audience. However, for each research institution, the team developed
targeted webcasts for specific classroom groups from middle schools or high schools.
Classrooms attended these live webcasts as part of a field trip to the museum and
interacted beforehand in a special program warm-up. They would then join the live studio
audience at the museum during broadcast and have more opportunities to converse with
and question scientists at the remote location during the webcast. Teachers would
prepare students beforehand by using the Web site or project representatives would visit
the classroom.
In research we conducted on the outcomes of these experiments, we found that the nature
of the live webcast — where many events, some technological, some human — inter-
vened to delay, repurpose, or redirect the transmissions, did not match well with the
nature of the K-12 classroom, where teachers have plans and goals for their students. For
example, in one case a class was prepared to interact with and ask questions of a particular
scientist in Belize. However, due to technical difficulties, the webcast had to be
conducted in a one-way stream from Belize to the Exploratorium and the Internet.
This was an important learning experience for us, and has redirected our examination of
the material for K-12 audiences away from webcasts (as a live event) and toward webcasts
as archived resource material along with other Web site resources. The live event of the
webcast is inherently opportunistic and open-ended, and cannot easily be slotted into
a prescribed curriculum.
On the other hand, when the technology worked — as with our webcasts of a scientist
at the Licancabur Volcano in Chile — the webcast allowed students opportunities, and
a sense of excitement — seeing, hearing, and talking with somebody who they had
previously only read about — that traditional means of communication (letters, books)
would not. In the Chilean instance, a collaboration with a professional development
program called Project ARISE focusing on “research at the extremes,” students were able
to interact directly with a scientist whose work they had been studying for two years.
In addition to these interactions, Exploratorium science educators developed a series of
teacher professional development workshops for Project ARISE, building on the science
from Origins to support the program and its teachers.
This connection between schools and science research, and the mediating role that
places like the Exploratorium can play, is an area we continue to grapple with. For the Mars
Rover Web site, we developed a series of hands-on classroom activities to support
teacher use of the resource. We intend to do the same, post-hoc, for Origins.
The other system that the Web site may allow cultural institutions to tap into is the system
of scientific conferences. The Exploratorium has had some experience webcasting
conferences and meetings from Cold Spring Harbor, and has expanded this way of
connecting a system of scientific enterprise — through conferences such as the annual
American Association for the Advancement of Science, or the American Geophysicists
Union annual meeting.
86 Bevan
Interpreting Current Research:

Global Climate Change Research Explorer
The Exploratorium’s Global Climate Change Web site (www.exploratorium.edu/cli-

mate) offers another approach to science learning in a Web environment by exploring the
potential of using the Web to provide access to and insight into the world of research
through a very current and somewhat (in the U.S.) politically controversial topic: global
climate change.
The study of the phenomenon of global climate change involves a variety of scientific
disciplines. Data featured on the site are organized into four research areas: Atmosphere,
Hydrosphere, Cryosphere, and Biosphere. Data are mostly short-term or near real-time
— meaning constantly current — with some long-term data where available. The data
come from a variety of institutions, including the Massachusetts Institute of Technol-
ogy, University of Wisconsin, Florida State University, Boston University, the National
Science Foundation, NASA, and the National Weather Service.
Deep linking to data ensures regular updates of the site. Each data set is accompanied
by analysis and commentary about the data collection methodologies and the implica-
tions for climate change. A comprehensive selection of links allows visitors to access
the source of data and search in areas of interest.
Figure 5. Home page of the Global Climate Change Research Explorer. Animation
displays the variety of data accessible through the site. In this example the cryosphere
is shown.
The Global Climate Change Web site allowed the Exploratorium to experiment with the
mediation of complex, text-heavy, value-laden science by bringing to bear pedagogical
approaches inherent in the museum floor. These principles include both isolating (in the
instantiation of one exhibit or one visual graph) and contextualizing (within an exhibit
collection or a Web page) the phenomena. They also include building visual represen-
tations of complex ideas, and providing accessible explanatory texts to support learners.
Learning design. The Global Climate Change Web site approaches the subject of
global climate change in two ways. First, it provides visitors with first-hand experiences
with the data themselves. Second, it stresses the inter-relatedness and complexity of the
data, measures, and interpretations — and how scientists accrue these different data to
suggest trends and probabilities. It thus provides Web visitors with experiences (the
data) that provide a context for understanding the dilemmas facing scientists. In so doing,
it provides insights into the scientific process of trying to understand a complex
phenomenon.
Understanding global climate change involves examining and interpreting a wide range
of data sets within many different disciplines. In addition to an introductory text, the site
is divided into five sections — one for each of the four “spheres” (hydro, atmo, bio, and
cryo), and one that focuses on overall effects of changes in these spheres.
In each section, visitors can explore data collected in the study of one of these spheres.
The site represents this complex array of data through a series of images, graphs, charts,
and maps, accompanied by explanatory texts. This highly visual environment is de-
signed, like an exhibit floor, to offer the visitor a variety of visual prompts and choices
that effectively break down the complexities of this topic into bite-sized pieces. Links lead
to more detailed descriptions and data, as well as to other research domains found on the
site.
Like scientists engaged in understanding global climate change, visitors soon under-
stand that the science is highly inter-related. For example, data in the biosphere section
show how coral systems are being impacted by increased seawater temperatures, which
are represented in data found in the hydrosphere section. In the cryosphere section, data
exploring decreasing ice mass is linked to changes in water levels explored in the
hydrosphere section. The visitor comes to understand that in a complex system like
climate, evidence must be assembled slowly and carefully, and pieced together to form
a picture of the whole.
Participatory structures. The site is developed in ways that allow for wide-ranging
navigation and an egalitarian approach to what is important to notice or know. Like a
browser in a library or in a museum, visitors to the Global Climate Change site are
confronted with a large number of possibilities and choices, indexed in ways that allow
personal interests or proclivities to control the learning. No one “sphere” is deemed more
important to examine than another. No one piece of data takes precedence over another.
Although each page has an explanatory text that provides an overview to the data, the
text does not dominate the page, but is placed in a column on the left-hand side. The
dominant images are the colorful series of visual representations of the data. The learner
can decide where to start — with images and data, or with context and narrative. Drawn
to an image, caption, or headline, visitors can click on screen items and go deeper into
the subject matter. Or they can go back. Information is layered in ways that inquiry-rich
88 Bevan
Figure 6. The e-mail form for submitting questions about one of the atmospheric data
sets
exhibits might be layered, with ever deepening possibilities. As new questions are raised,
new links lead to new answers or consideration of the questions.
Although they can’t observe the learning of others, the materials are organized in ways
that allow the visitor to observe the many different directions that science and scientists
themselves are taking in order to better understand the science of climate change. They
can observe on the Hydrosphere page, for example, that there is being data collected on
sea temperatures, sea currents, and precipitation. And that this relates to the data being
collected in the Cryosphere related to ice on the earth’s surface, and measurements of
glacier growth or decline.
Thus, there may be something about the Web environment that allows visitors not to
participate with their peer and family groups, as a museum environment does, but rather
with an enterprise, such as scientific research. Museums also seek to do this in their
physical spaces, but the Web may be more effective in engaging people socially with the
social and cultural products and processes of a field or discipline.
There is also a mediated environment for posing questions, where visitors can ask
questions about a specific data set, and get responses from Exploratorium staff, who
consult with science advisors, as required.
Explanatory structures. The Web site is structured to not only share or explain the
process of scientists grappling with complex questions and systems, but in fact to allow
visitors to engage in that process themselves in order to better understand both the
science and the scientific investigation of global climate change. In essence, the Web
site is structured to support a visitor’s trajectory through the processes of starting from
curiosity or a question, moving to the selection and examination (although not the
collection) of data, to considering (through mediation provided by texts as well as the
data) the evidence, to thinking about predictions — how one would make them, what they
might be.
Within this overarching explanatory framework, the Global Climate Change Web site
seeks to make the complexities manageable, as well as compelling. The site has an
extensive six pages of text introducing the visitor to the big picture, and the questions
that are being asked. The Exploratorium’s decades of experience making science,
including scientific research, accessible and digestible mean that even in the more formal
and didactic narratives, the tone and the terms are carefully made accessible to audiences
of many ages and levels of prior knowledge. Each page has a glossary section (which can
be printed in toto) that gives definitions for words ranging from anomaly to phenology.
Each of the four “sphere” sections is organized into “what we know” and “what we don’t
know.” The “what we know” section is the data, presented in visual as well as textual form.
The “what we don’t know” is generally text that considers the evidence (from the what
we know part) and the uncertainties that confront the scientific community, as well as
the society in general, in interpreting the data.
The narrative thus allows the learner to experience and consider the processes of science
— of trying to make sense of a mass of data, from a variety of sources, to consider the
uncertainties, and to think about what types of predictions are possible. A section called
Global Effects looks at the results of the data in the four “spheres” and explores how
scientists go about predicting global climate change.
The site also reinforces an understanding of science as data-driven. By taking different
looks at different elements — not only at the cryosphere and the biosphere, but also at
the golden toad and the polar bear — scientists piece together their best understanding,
explanations, and predictions of the world they are investigating.
Systemic structures. There were no specific efforts to link this site to K-12 science
education. However, in online user surveys, 44% of respondents stated that they were
teachers, professional developers, or students.
The site is so data rich that it can serve as a dynamic (albeit upper grades) textbook for
studies of the environment, as well as of specific topics or subjects.
Like with Origins, we have assembled a team of staff to think about ways in which we can
make these resources accessible and used by school audiences.
Conclusion
This examination of two Exploratorium Web sites, Origins and Global Climate Change,
point out perhaps that many of our approaches to the learning design — which
fundamentally involve humanizing science and the process of science (whether it means
using common materials like sand in exhibits or putting faces and names to the
researchers exploring the ends of the earth) — can cross the boundaries between
physical and virtual. While the hands-on nature of the presentation is slightly different,
in that it is not tactile, clearly it can be hands-on, including use of online exhibits where
people can manipulate variables with keystrokes instead of with buttons or levers.
90 Bevan
While Web-based participation structures are by definition less social in nature — in that
it is currently much more common to travel alone when visiting Web sites than it is when
visiting museums — they need not be any less learner-driven. Indeed the choices are
manifestly greater with the Web’s ability to link to a myriad other ideas or places. Rather
than building on local social groupings, the Web may offer a greater connection between
the learner and the designer or the learner and the cultural products of science and
scientists — creating new inroads and insights into the world of science that is different
than what can be provided in a museum, but perhaps no less important. In time, talk of
networked learners and distributed learning environments may become more real than
projected, and may even begin to reach across the socio-economic ranks to include a
broad array of learners.
Explanations offered through Web-based media can go far deeper and far wider than what
can commonly be offered in physical environments. The explosion of space and time, in
that the learner can spend hours and hours — in one sitting or stretched over multiple
visits — interacting with enormous quantities of ideas and people is substantially
different, and is an important way in which people learn, augmenting the vital socially
dynamic relationships that people have learning with other people in shared physical
environments and discourse. Because they are predominantly text-dependent, these
sites currently operate best for more advanced learners, more literate learners, and, in
these two cases, English language speakers. However, there is much work underway to
explore how to expand Web-based explanatory structures to be compelling and non-text
dependent, and there are plenty of examples of powerful Web sites that do this —
although perhaps not so many that do this in science and get to core science content or
process domains.
As explored above, the connection of the Web resources into systemic structures
continues to challenge us. Is it enough to build it and let them (whoever “them” may be)
come? This is of great interest to the Center for Informal Learning and Schools. Many
cultural institutions have been built by the ideas and work of groups of creative, rather
iconoclastic and independent thinkers. This may (or may not) be truer for the younger
field of science centers. It may be especially true for new media designers working in
science centers! For many of these thinkers and designers, schools represent a stifling
approach to learning. Thus, engaging them in designing for school audiences and uses
is not easy. On the other hand, as I hope this chapter begins to suggest, the learning
designs that these creative iconoclasts can build in the Web environment may be
tremendously powerful learning tools — especially for kids who don’t come to museums,
and who might not naturally seek out science resources on the Web. With the iconoclasm
often comes a sense of egalitarianism, but schools — despite the fact that they are our
communities’ most ubiquitous and democratic institutions — fail to be perceived as such
by most of us.
Schools are an important audience for cultural institutions (Delacote, 2003). Working
with schools is one way in which a museum can pay attention to issues of access and
equity for its community’s citizenry. It may be the beginning of a long-term relationship
with future adults. It may support the nature of how schools think about and present
knowledge and experience related to the field (Bevan, 2002). For these reasons, thinking
about how schools use our resources is important for cultural institutions to grapple with,
including the use of Web resources.
Like museums, which are designed for public audiences, these Web resources may be
designed for the general public of all ages, but we may need to think about specific ways
in which to adapt or mediate the virtual environments so that they can be accessed and
used by school audiences (teachers and students).
It is useful to think about the special tools, guides, and docents that many museums
provide for field trip visitors. These facilitators seek to augment and/or focus the museum
experience in ways that can reinforce school learning goals.
In addition to better understanding how the field trip is incorporated into the school
experience — what attributes of engaging with scientific phenomena, the process of
inquiry, and learning science support the content goals of schools, and how? — we need
to examine how virtual resources, designed by museums, can similarly move beyond the
straight content goals of many K-12 and commercial Web resources to examine how we
can support student understanding of the nature and processes of science, and build
motivation to learn more about science. By building on what we do best — which includes
but goes beyond science content knowledge and encompasses developing understand-
ings of the epistemology and nature of the subject matter — cultural institutions can play
an important role and fill a niche in supporting science learning in K-12 and beyond.
References
Bevan, B. (2002). Windows onto worlds. In J. Amdur-Spitz & M. Thom (Eds.), Urban
network: Museums embracing communities. Chicago: The Field Museum.
Bevan, B., & Wanner, N. (2003). Science centre on a screen. International Journal of
Technology Management, 25(5), 371-380.
Crowley, K., & Callanan, M.A. (1998). Identifying and supporting shared scientific
reasoning in parent-child interactions. Journal of Museum Education, 23, 12-17.
Delacote, G. (2003). Apoptosis: The way for science centres to thrive. International
Journal of Technology Management, 25(5), 371-380.
Duensing, S. (2004). Culture matters: Informal science centers and cultural contexts. In
Learning in places: The informal education reader. New York: Peter Lang
Publishers.
Hein, G. (1998). Learning in the museum. London: Routledge.
Hein, G. (in press). John Dewey and museums. Curator.
Lee, C. (2001). Is October Brown Chinese? A cultural modeling activity system for
underachieving students. American Educational Research Journal, 38(1), 97-
141.
National Research Council and the Institute of Medicine. (2004). Engaging schools:
Fostering high school students’ motivation to learn. Committee on Increasing
High School Students’ Engagement and Motivation to Learn. Board on Children
Youth, and Families, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education.
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
92 Bevan
Osborne, J. (2000). Science for citizenship. In M. Monk & J. Osborne (Eds.), Good
practices in science teaching: What research has to say. Buckingham, UK: Open
University Press.
Osborne, J. (2004). What “Ideas-about-Science” should be taught in school science? A
Delphi study of the expert community. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
40, 692-720.
Rogoff, B., Paradise, R., Mejia Arauz, R., Correa-Chavez, M., & Angelillo, C. (2003).
Firsthand learning through intent participation. Annual Review of Psychology.
Schauble, L., Leinhardt, G., & Martin, L. (1997). A framework for organizing a cumulative
research agenda in informal learning contexts. Journal of Museum Education,
22(2&3).
Semper, R.J. (1996). The importance of place. In About learning: A field guide for
museums (pp. 3-8). Association of Science-Technology Centers Newsletter. Wash-
ington, DC: ASTC.
Endnote
1
CILS is funded through the U.S. National Science Foundation as one of 13 Centers
for Learning and Teaching, each of which is funded to address some critical aspect
of the national education infrastructure in K-12 science and mathematics. CILS is
the only center to focus on informal learning. Other centers focus on issues such
as student assessment, rural education, equity in education, mathematics curricu-
lum, technology integration, etc.
Weaving Science Webs: E-Learning and Virtual Science Centers 93
Chapter V
Weaving Science Webs:

E-Learning and
Susan Hazan, Israel Museum, Jerusalem
Abstract
Drawing on Bruno Latour, this chapter argues that science and technology need to be
replaced into social context dissolving the artificial boundaries between art, culture
and science inscribed in institutional activities.
Introduction
Through a series of projects from museums and over online architectures, this chapter
explores innovative systems that harvest data across electronic highways, online
collaborations between museums and their public, the production of bottom-up narra-
tives that invigorate community knowledge and novel ways to simulate and visualise
science discourse.
In these examples science and art work together to produce meaningful narratives,
replacing them back into their social context, and dissolving the familiar dichotomy
inscribed in the rationalizing project of modernity. Combining the weft and warp of culture
and science into interwoven discourses no longer results in our intellectual life being out
of kilter as these discourses become one and the same.
94 Hazan
Science is feasible when the variables are few and can be enumerated; when their
combinations are distinct and clear. We are tending toward the condition of
science and aspiring to do it. The artist works out his own formulas; the interest
of science lies in the art of making science. Paul Valéry (1871-1945)
History, ethnography, art and anthropology museums weave stories around social and
cultural narratives and lead us to compare our own narratives with those on display, and
in doing so distance ourselves from, or connect with specific threads that bind geo-
graphically and temporally distanced cultures. While these kinds of exhibitions serve to
reaffirm our own histories and social affiliations, these cultural mappings are not the only
kinds of knowledge that inflect the meta-narratives of society. Science museums on the
other hand, like their sister institutions, the university-based, science faculties are
concerned with the systematized knowledge of the physical or natural world and in doing
so purport to display finite knowledge, knowledge that can be demonstrated through
controlled experimentation. This separation may be seen as artificial, as all of scientific
practice is articulated in social space and their ramifications culturally inflected.
Bruno Latour (1993) re-places science and technology into its social context, blurring the
boundaries between nature and science, between human and thing, while dissolving the
familiar dichotomy inscribed in the rationalizing project of modernity. The webs woven
across science channels, science museums and natural history museums, as well across
the Internet all work together to construct the rational and empirical knowledge base of
scientific discourse. While scientifically determined projects tend to be seen as distilled
from anything as serendipitous as culture, this chapter will argue that they do in fact
construct a wealth of culturally invigorated narratives. In an investigation of the social
and cultural messages inscribed in these practices and conventions, it becomes clear that
these kinds of narratives impact the ways we think about our lives and our environment
and serve to transform society no less than the cultural variety.
Weaving Science Webs is divided into four sections. The first section, Locating Science,
Locating Culture, draws on Bruno Latour’s assessment of the “Modern Constitution,”
and the dichotomy between nature and culture to problematize the practices that
artificially separate science from culture. These practices are reflected not only in the
traditional articulation of these discourses in schools, (science lessons, art classes, etc.)
and over the media, (history channels, science channels, and art magazines, etc.), but are
also firmly entrenched in the ways that museums have traditionally located science and
culture. Institutional articulations of these discourses are not only represented through
separate display strategies in the gallery, they also have become arbitrarily divided into
separate physical buildings; the science museum, natural history museum as distinct
from the social history museum and the art museum.
The second section, Interacting with Science, describes the body “as source of
experimental knowledge” (Barry, 1998, p. 99) observing Frank Oppenheimer’s significant
contribution to the display of science and the pedagogic activities he instituted in the
Exploratorium in San Francisco. This section also introduces two specific exhibitions
from the Natural History Museum and Science Museum in London that are as much about
art as they are of science. The third section moves Beyond the Museum Walls to explore
how the Internet has extended and enabled museums to move beyond their traditional,
physical constraints, and discussing the Moving Here Web site and the Exploratorium
online. As illustrated in these projects there are now numerous new opportunities for
museums to extend themselves online through:
• innovative systems that harvest data across electronic highways;

• online collaborations between museums and their public;
• production of bottom-up narratives that invigorate community knowledge; and
• novel ways to simulate and visualise science discourse.
Through four case studies, Virtual FishTank, Walking with Woodlice, Country Cures
and Journey North, the fourth and last section, Real (Time) Collaborations investi-
gates synchronous and asynchronous interactions over science Web sites. The projects
illustrate how Internet architectures articulate and greatly enable large-scale collabora-
tions as they disseminate them across electronic networks. In the same way that the
culturally invigorated, gallery-based, interactive displays demonstrate culturally deter-
mined narratives, the online activities illustrate that scientific discourses when hosted
and disseminated by science and natural history institutions are also confidently
engaging with artistic and cultural discourse. As Oppenheimer had expressed in his
philosophy, and demonstrated in his practice, “science has an aesthetic dimension” and
art and science are united in the human quest for understanding (sic. in Hein, 1990, p. xvi;
quoted in Barry, 1998, p. 103). These brief descriptions of museum activities serve to
demonstrate how cultural messages are inscribed in scientific discourse and directed in
meta-narratives across society. As these discourse are read together as the weft and the
warp of the science web, the artificial boundaries between science and art are blurred and
visitors may discover not only instructive scientific narratives but also golden oppor-
tunities to reset their cultural compass.
Locating Science, Locating Culture

The Modern Constitution, according to Latour (1993) has divided nature and culture, and
with this separation, the knowledge and discourses that flow from language, society, and
the arts have been detached from empirical scientific practice and theory; the same
universally recognised systems that are embedded in the disciplines of academic practice
that separate universities into different faculties. Museums have similarly maintained the
status quo, keeping these two kinds of knowledge mostly distinct. This distinction is
evident not only in their display of science and arts objects separated in different kinds
of exhibitions, but also in the meta-narrative of these disciplines reflected in the
institutional taxonomies of the institutions themselves; where science museums, and
natural history museums are thought of as producing very different kinds of expectations
and experiences from those of art and social history museums.
96 Hazan
According to Latour, the distinction between scientific objects and the cultural objects
of social discourse is historically rooted in the seventeenth century practice of demon-
strating scientific proposals in the laboratory. “The facts are produced and represented
in the laboratory, in scientific writings; they are recognized and vouched for by the
nascent community of witnesses. Scientists are scrupulous representative of the facts”
(Latour, 1992, p. 28). It was there, and then that the mute, inanimate or inhuman objects
were given voice at a time when impartial scientific experiments gave rise to new forms
of knowledge. “Yet the scientists declare,” according to Latour “that they themselves
are not speaking; rather, facts speak for themselves. These mute entities are then capable
of speaking, writing, signifying within the artificial chamber of the laboratory or inside
the even more rarefied chamber of the vacuum pump” (Latour, 1992, p. 29).
Latour is referring here to Robert Boyle’s air pump. Boyle, as a member of the Royal
Society of the English Restoration of the Experimental Way of Life, and known as the
father of chemistry, conducted his experiment in the public laboratory where the practice
of witnessing was the prerogative of a special community; clerics and lawyers. Donna
Haraway points out that “these privileged zones of ‘objective’ reality were never the
prevail of women, who were understood as ‘covered’ persons, subsumed under their
husbands or fathers, women could not have the necessary honour at stake” (Haraway,
1997, p. 27). Subsequently, according to Haraway, as empirical science began to emerge,
the modest, self-visible, transparent, non-polluting gentleman, she argues, could have
never have been a woman.
Donna Haraway challenges situated knowledge as constructed in the Boyle laboratory
through a feminist critique, and actor-network theory, (Haraway, 1991, 1997; Latour,
1996) and in her Manifesto (Haraway, 1991, pp. 149-181) describes the cyborg, the hybrid
of organism and machine that resists the historical separation that has been set up
between nature and culture. Like Haraway, Latour recognizes how “our intellectual life
is out of kilter. Epistemologies, the social sciences, the science of texts, all have their
privileged vantage points provided that they remain separate” (Latour, 1993, p. 5). Once
divided artificially, scientific practice that has been separated from cultural discourse
becomes detruncated and problematic. “Half of our politics is constructed in science and
technology,” Latour reminds us, while “the other half of Nature is constructed in
societies. Let us patch the two back together and the political task can begin again”
(Latour, 1992, p. 144).
The narratives that museums present to their audiences are first and formally separated
by their location in totally different physical spaces. Visitors either pop in to their local
science museum to explore the latest developments in genetics or biodiversity, and
the natural history museum to measure themselves against dinosaurs. It is unusual
to find a preference for artistic intervention in these kinds of locations although there
are several, welcome exceptions that bring both kinds of discourse together under
one roof.
Interacting with Science

In the summer of 2003 the Natural History Museum in London opened CleanRooms, billed
as a temporary exhibition where Art Meets Biotechnology featured a collection of
artworks and performances that illustrated the ethical issues of biotechnology. In a video
installation called Silvers Alter, Gina Czarnecki presented a series of life-size human
figures and visitors were asked to select and create new beings from the people they
encountered on the screen in front of them. After getting to know the screen people
through the biographies presented, using the “human-menu,” visitors made their
selections and were encouraged to activate their choice to create a new generation of
virtual people. The process took place through an innovative interface triggered by
sensors under the carpet and visitors determinately walked across the carpet, they were
able to see the fruits of their action materialise before them on the giant screen in the
darkened room (http://www.nhm.ac.uk/cleanrooms/crhome.htm). Interacting with the
installation, this artistic gesture offered novel ways to think about human relationships
and through the creative and empowering visualisation enabled visitors to enter into
dialogue, not only with the scientific processes of procreation, but also with the cultural
and social implications resulting from their own symbolic intervention.
Interactivity, granted by this kind of symbolic intervention, according to Andrew Barry,
can be of particular significance in the museum of science “drawing together concerns
with, for example, both public ‘participation,’ ‘empowerment,’ and ‘accountability’ and
with more specific questions and anxieties about the proper way to bridge the gulf
between popular culture and the esoteric world of science and technology” (Barry, 1998,
p. 98). Barry argues from the political anatomy of the museum visitor (Foucault, 1979,
p.138; in Barry, 1998, p. 99) “not only in relation to the development of communications
theory and technology […] but also in relation to a rather more longstanding concern with
the body as a source of experimental knowledge” (p. 99). Barry reminds us how the
incorporation of interactives in the gallery was not intrinsically new, particularly in the
context of the science museum. He describes how, in 1969, the nuclear physicist Frank
Oppenheimer, who had been blacklisted from practicing as a scientist by the House Un-
American Activities Committee had established the Exploratorium in San Francisco as
an alternative to the traditional science museum (1998, p. 102). Empowering visitors in
this way through “interactive pedagogic technique” (Hein, 1990) could turn visitors into
active participants rather than passive observers. This was the political and intellectual
message inscribed in the Exploratorium, and expressed by Oppenheimer as “the whole
point of the Exploratorium [...] to make it possible for people to believe that they can
understand the world around them. I think a lot of people have given up trying to
comprehend things, and when they give up with the physical world they give up with the
social and political world as well” (Oppenheimer, quoted in Hein, 1990, p. xv).
It is not only the public who interacts with science in the science museum — sometimes
it is the artist who instigates the dialogue between art and science. In the Digitopolis
Gallery at the Wellcome Wing at the Science Museum in London, several artistic
interventions are included in the narrative including Gary Hill’s video projection HanD
HearD — Variation, (2001) presented on seven projectors from DVD players. According
to the Science Museum Web site, visitors will discover “intriguing art-pieces, poetry and
98 Hazan
opportunities for you to have your say on the technology affecting your life” (http://
www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/on-line/wellcome-wing/digitopolis/about.asp). Thinking
about science through Valéry’s “artistic formulas” opens up not only new ways to
interpret the rigor of scientific practice but also articulates scientific discourse across
cultural and social spaces.
In May 2004, The Science Museum in London invited visitors to the Dana Centre to come
to the museum and engage in an evening focusing on genetic testing in embryos to
discuss whether we should …“be able to select for certain genetic characteristics in our
children? Or is this a step too far?” (http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/).
Where does science end and culture begin? Well, in fact it doesn’t and with this
provocative invitation the public is already beginning to understand how our personal
and social lives are impacted by genetic testing and what could be described as a purely
scientific process. When experts in the museum enter into dialogue with the public over
critical issues such as whether to treat a defective gene or even to abort a genetically
impaired foetus, scientific processes may be mobilized to illustrate how we see ourselves,
our [genetically produced] flaws and the imperfections of others. Clearly it is artificial and
arbitrary to try and detach science from culture and to objectify scientific practice as the
exclusive domain of scientists. Reinserting these narratives back into culturally directed
social discourse can only produce richer interpretations and a fuller understanding of
scientific practice.
Latour notes “[…] but when we find ourselves invaded by frozen embryos, expert
systems, digital machines, sensor-equipped robots, hybrid corn, data-banks, psychotro-
pic drugs, whales outfitted with radar sounding devices, gene synthesizers, audience
analyzers, and so on, when our daily life newspapers display all those monsters on page
after page, and when none of these chimera can be properly on the object side or the
subject side, or even in between, something has to be done” (Latour, 1992, p. 49). A lot
is already being done in science museums and natural history museums around the world,
as well as through their online surrogates in the virtual museum.
Beyond the Museum Walls

The Internet has opened new highways to disseminate cultural and social discourses and
in doing so offer new forms of links, nodes, networks, and paths that Barthes described
as ideal textuality in S/Z, An Essay (1975), a textuality that George Landow likens to
hypertext denoting “an information medium that links verbal and nonverbal information”
(Landow, 1997, p. 4). Across this ideal textuality, where once the written text privileged
discourse, now science and natural history museums promote and disseminate their own
narratives across electronic highways, and in doing so enthusiastically take up the tools
available to them; online databases, VRML, (virtual reality modelling language), environ-
ments, Flash animations, QuickTime VR and Web casting.
As museums develop their activities online, they not only extend their mandate they also
offer novel opportunities for remote visitors to take on an active role. This echoes
Oppenheimer’s philosophy about knowing the world through experimentation and
potentially sets up new relationships about the ownership of knowledge that is the
legacy of museum tradition. (For debates of museum and the making of knowledge see,
for example, Bennett 1995, 1998; Fahy, 2001; Hooper-Greenhill, 2001; Knorr Cetina, 1999;
Macdonald, 1998.) Through the active collaborations and contributions of remote
visitors, the authorship and mediation of knowledge is subtly shifted. This demands new
adaptations by the museum as gatekeepers not only of tangible collections but also of
the institutional knowledge systems that has been inscribed in the objects. While
traditionally it has been the museum that actively collects, collates and categorises not
only collections but knowledge on behalf of the public, new online interactions may
reverse the traditional creator and receiver of institutional knowledge in novel scenarios.
The intertextuality of the museum now freely disseminates educational scenarios,
inspired and authored by museums. (See, for example, Best Museum Web Site Supporting
Educational Use, http://www.archimuse.com/mw2004/best/educational.html.) These
creative architectures are opening up new opportunities both for institutions and visitors
to think about the role of the museum and the articulation of scientific and cultural
knowledge and social experience.
The projects described below in fact illustrate new kinds of relationships where museums
inspire remote visitors to take on an active role. In new symbiotic relationships the public
is encouraged to contribute their own experiences to common narratives, or their own
scientific findings to community-based, scientific collaborations. Looking at online
activities from natural history and science museums that extend the museum mandate
across communities, this chapter will explore how these kinds of narratives inflect the way
we think about ourselves and the world around us. As science museums weave their webs
across culture, art and aesthetic creativity, we begin to make connections between bio-
diversity and an understanding of cultural diversity and, as we consider genetic engineer-
ing processes, we then take into consideration the socially inflected implications.
When artistic practice is almost exclusively exhibited in the art museum and pure science
the prerogative of the science realm, there is little opportunity to contest the status quo
and to bring both science and culture together into social discourse especially where
knowledge is under the institutional management of an academically orientated museum
(see Bennett, 1995, 1998). Now that new Web-based applications are appearing and
evolving online, museums are taking up these opportunities and turning them to
formulate new kinds of narratives — those that are not disseminated to the public but
intrinsically emanate from the public. Connecting people across cyberspace from
different cultural backgrounds, these networks enable remote visitors an opportunity to
exchange ideas and stories and to explore whatever they wish from the comfort of their
armchair — may it be flint arrowheads, Van Gogh sunflowers, or wood lice. These
networks already span the globe, slip silently across geographical and cultural bound-
aries, and are available 24 hours a day at the click of the mouse.
The traditional mandate of the museum is to preserve, display and interpret extraordinary
objects. The online variety becomes a space where people can contribute their own
knowledge, data or experiences — even their own interpretations. A virtual network does
not intend however to displace the museum when it comes to the singular and extraor-
dinary objects, but it can be instrumental in collecting digital artefacts or scientific data,
give meaning to them and thus building on and enriching shared knowledge and
community narratives. Reversing the traditional relationship of museum and visitor,
100 Hazan
museums can build horizontal fraternities allowing leadership to shift from one partici-
pant to the next where the relationship is predicated on the offering (and accepting) of
each other’s interpretations, experiences and histories. This becomes a space that can
be accessed by all, and while museums have traditionally taken the lead in producing
knowledge, and with it the institutional narratives, the Internet is a space where new
relationships may unfold with the remote visitor, with his or her own role to play, and his
or her own narratives to contribute.
When it comes to the sharing of what we understand as cultural narratives, museums are
already drawing from their online constituencies as resources for different kinds of
explorations and participatory activities. Moving Here, a partnership of 30 heritage
institutions across the UK, explores records and collates why Caribbean, Irish, Jewish,
and South Asians came to England over the last two centuries (Moving Here, http://
www.movinghere.org.uk/). Via an intuitively designed Web-based interface this evolv-
ing fraternity reverses the role of curated and curate. Moving Here grants everyone (at
least those who have themselves journeyed to the UK with a story to share) an
opportunity to contribute his or her own narrative. The idea that this is a space for anyone
to participate in is reiterated by the invitation — “Your life is history. Your experiences
are history. Your story is history.”
Benedict Anderson (1991) describes three institutions that contribute to the formulation
of the national imagination: the map, the census and the museum. Each one enables the
citizen to imagine the parameters of his or her nation, and each institution, in their own
way, sanctions a national history. In projects such as Moving Here, new narratives are
formed as they filter up from the field from the community — it then falls to the institutions
to organize and make sense out of the new knowledge and to represent these narratives
coherently to the public. Moving Here opens up many questions about who may
participate in the narration of history, who might be authorized to document the national
narrative[s], and who would be responsible for compiling them for the national memory.
Museums, libraries and archives, the acknowledged compilers and preservers of national
narratives for society will need to embrace these new kinds of authorship. Distributed
authorship is becoming more ubiquitous online with blogs and personal homepages are
all predicated on individual agency without being subject to local or international law,
ethical codes, or other critical mechanisms as is evident in professional journalism. All
these kinds of narratives reflect a more flexible presentation of history and with them new
opportunities for individuals to author micro-histories and narratives bypassing insti-
tutions. Like histories, knowledge is potentially a valuable and powerful commodity,
especially once it is free from the restrictions of the traditional tethering of institutions
like archives, libraries and museums.
Building on the Oppenheimer tradition, in 1993, the Exploratorium was one of the first
science museums to go online with a comprehensive Internet presence. Clicking on the
Exploratorium Web site reveals their focus, described as “investigating the science
behind the ordinary subjects and experiences of people’s lives. The topics themselves
provide ‘hooks’ that get people excited about science. Then, when we investigate these
topics, we can also look at the historical and social issues surrounding them, thus
providing a context for scientific exploration” (http://www.exploratorium.edu).
One of the goals of the online museum is to provide an extension of the gallery floor and,
according to the Exploratorium, does not in any way claim to displace the physical
experience. The staff describes these activities as “‘real’ experiences for our online
audience, not ‘virtual exhibits.’” Internet access therefore offers surfers entrance to the
museum at a click of a mouse and remote visitors can now access the exhibitions at home
and in school from the comfort of their chair all over the world.
One of the earlier online demonstrations was The Cow’s Eye Dissection (Hazan, 1995),
which according to the museum “for many years it has helped people satisfy their
curiosity about what is inside an eye. The material presented to the public is meant not
to replace the act of dissecting a cow’s eye, but rather to enhance the experience.” (http:/
/www.exploratorium.edu/learning_studio/cow_eye/index.html). Clearly the virtual, blood-
less activity is sufficiently persuasive to provide for an exchange of scientific knowledge
without the necessity for corporeal interaction. In fact avoiding the physical vivisection
of the real thing may possibly be seen as a highly preferable in this case for most students
who might have a loathing of dissections.
If we are to believe the SimSuite promotional material, the practice of simulating surgical
operations is gradually displacing not just experimentation on laboratory animals,
interns honing their theoretical knowledge on unknowing patients, or even on the
experience gained from operating on cadavers but represents a major revolution — a
computerised and totally bloodless simulation. According to their Web site:
SimSuite® Centers feature Simantha™, a state-of-the-art tactile-force-feel simu-

lator, which produces distinct and unique experiences for each user. Their
experience is affected by response time, actions and decision-making abilities
in real-time interventional cases. The realistic clinical environment also includes
other visual and tactile elements that contribute to suspending the user’s
disbelief and enhance the opportunity for learning (http://www.simsuiteed.com).
Not only do these simulations appear to be instructive, efficient, and persuasive, but
unlike the carbon variety, the patients of the surgical interventions would be instantly
retrievable after failed surgery, and presumably highly advantageous with a view to
market potential when, in addition to all this saving of in viva or post mortem experimen-
tation, Simantha™ is limitlessly cloneable
For those students, however, who do choose to forgo the virtual, bovine experience for
the real thing they will find instructions on the Exploratorium site to be able to order a
cow’s eyes at a butcher shop or be directed how to purchase one directly from a
slaughterhouse. (Further information is available online with the recommendation to “try
to get eyes with the muscles and fat still attached. If possible pick up the cow’s eyes the
day of the dissection; eyes are easier to cut when they are fresh.”). One would think that
the availability of the virtual experience in itself would more than justify the entire project
of an online museum of this nature, but it seems that some students of biology would still
privilege the real over the virtual.
The Exploratorium in San Francisco promotes itself as is a museum of science, art, and
human perception and is proud of their over 650 interactive “hands on” exhibits.
According to Web site information from June 1997, each year more than 660,000 visitors
come to the Exploratorium, over 67,000 children come on field trips, and more than 500
teachers attend professional development programs which focus on inquiry-based
102 Hazan
teaching and learning in the K-12 classroom. Today (summer 2004), the Web site boasts
over 15,000 Web pages exploring hundreds of different topics, including instructions for
over 500 simple experiments, many sound and video files, exploring hundreds of different
topics and currently serving fifteen million visitors a year (nearly thirty times the number
of visitors who come to the museum in San Francisco). One wonders why they don’t
simply close up their physical site and promote themselves exclusively online, but, as
the cow’s eye dissection proves, it seems that people, wherever they are, still seem to
prefer the real over the physical.
Real (Time) Collaborations

Computer mediated communication (CMC) takes place both across synchronic and
asynchronic architectures. Synchronic activities (which may be between person and
machine or between person to person over electronic networks) take place in real time,
(i.e., all participants are communicating in a shared space simultaneously) and in this kind
of conversation, participants need to be identified in some way. Often, performing
identity may be less than straightforward, with surfers invoking a “handle” or purported
name commonly used across IRC (Internet relay chat) discussion. In an online VRML
environment players may choose to present themselves with a realistic name or an
accurate textual or visual representation of the person or, in certain spaces, players may
be represented by an avatar. The promotion of self through an assumed name is often
confusing — both for the chatter and the chatee and neither can truly know whether the
person they are relating to on the “other side” is really the person he, she or it claims to
be. Sherry Turkle explored these alternative models of identity in her book Life on the
Screen, in her discussion of MUDs (Multiple User Dimension, Multiple User Dungeon,
or Multiple User Dialogue). In MUDs, players soon discover that the presentation of self
is a flexible negotiation and that the idea that they are a unified self is simply fiction. This
is not a space that necessarily inspires trust, but museums, whose institutional mandate
do inspire a sense of trust may appear more attractive for users who wish to seek out a
social or culturally directed narrative when hosted by a publicly funded institution with
a tradition of integrity.
Virtual FishTank™
None of this is particularly relevant however when your avatar happens to be a fish.
Virtual FishTank™ introduces a 3-D, real-time, interactive environment delivered
directly into the museum. Virtual FishTank was developed by Nearlife, Inc. (http:/
www.nearlife.com) and by the MIT Media Lab (http://www.media.mit.edu/) primarily for
the Museum of Science, Boston (htp://www.mos.org), and more recently with tank access
at the St. Louis Science Center (http://www.slsc.org/). Both in the Boston Museum of
Science or St. Louis Center, visitors can create their own designer fish, in a specially
constructed interactive kiosk, save them and then release them into the Museum tanks.
Figure 1. Virtual FishTank™
The Boston Museum of Science describes the activity…
As visitors venture inside The Virtual FishTank, they are immersed in a 2,200-
square-foot virtual undersea world. Lights shimmer on the waves of perforated
metal above as if sunlight were hitting the water’s surface. Bright blue gravel
covers the virtual ocean floor spilling out onto a carpet of deep sea blue. Twelve
large projection screens form windows (each measuring 12 square feet) into a
spectacular 400-square-foot central tank, populated by nearly 100 bold-colored,
cartoon-like, mechanical fish. The windows are edged in metal plate riveted
together with nuts and bolts, simulating a wall built to hold back the aquatic
environment. The sounds of waves, water dripping, bubbles, and fish swimming
by and being gobbled up by predators infuse the exhibition space.
(http://www.mos.org/exhibits/current_exhibits/virtualFishTank/
vft_walkthrough.html) © Nearlife Inc.
Illustrating complex biological behaviour becomes a lot more immediate and a lot more
enjoyable through the Virtual FishTank, but the social aspect of taking part in a shared
activity also greatly contributes to the pleasure of the activity. In the same way as your
own fish is designed, formed and released into the aquarium through the gurgling pipes
among all the other fish, it is tempting to make a connection between the aquatic world
Figure 2. Fish building kiosk, © St. Louis Science Center
104 Hazan
Figure 3. © Nearlife Inc.
and the world around those visitors who participate in the activity together. Apart from
the fun side of things, there is meaningful engagement in this activity where visitors learn
how complex patterns can emerge from individual interactions among simple objects. In
Boston, visitors can “dive deeper” into six stations that demonstrate to visitors other
implementations of the phenomena they have observed in the central tank. Through
reiterating the rules they learned from the fish tank, visitors may also understand how
other complex systems work, such as insect colonies, highway traffic, and market
economies and to go on to make connections from the world of science to the world of
culture — breaching the artificial divide that can no longer be maintained as separate.
While not every visitor might be able to go to Boston to dive into this undersea world
and while others may not be able to even set foot in the United States for the whole of
their lifetime, remote visitors may still access the tanks via the Web version. The Web
Figure 4. Screen grab of the online aquarium © Nearlife Inc.
version of The Virtual FishTank purports to turn your computer into an aquarium. This
requires that visitors first log on to the Virtual FishTank and once connected to the
digitally, enhanced aquatic system may do a number of things including:
• Launch your fish into a Personal Tank on your own computer and see how they
behave.
• Send your fish to the Museum of Science FishTank and receive reports on their
life stories.
Forging the connection to the physical museum across the invisible science web the
activity extends into another a further dimension. Fish-makers who may wish to follow
the fate of their newly built fish may also:
• Come to the Museum, retrieve and release your fish, and watch them interact with
other cyberspecies in The Virtual FishTank.
• Build a fish at the Museum of Science and send it to your home PC.
Sharing both fish and a pleasurable moment, this project breaches the walls of both
institutions as newly created fish are propelled from one museum to the other - users can
send fish to either destination in Boston or St. Louis — albeit some 1,179 miles apart as
the crow flies but a mere second’s swim across cyberspace. The sense of the porous
museum wall is further inferred by the fact that you can take part in this activity from the
comfort of your own home or school, making connections beyond the previously
impermeable walls of the museum. The activity is further extended when the fish data
(identified by the user’s unique login details and fish name) is gathered and collated on
the backend database. Subsequent interrogation of this data, the fish’s life story
(recorded depth data, food eating events, etc.) may be retrieved by visitors in the form
of a graph as he or she follows the life cycle of his personal fish. Not only is this a charming
and playful way to engage in what would otherwise be a complicated process for young
children and adults to grasp, but this also reiterates the sense of being part of a biosphere,
albeit an aquatic one, but one that is not too dissimilar to the one we all live in.
Walking with Woodlice
Obliquely referring to our prioritising of some creatures over others, the Natural History
Museum, London, asks their Web visitors — “why woodlice? You may think that once
you’ve seen one woodlouse, you’ve seen them all.” The museum urges young scientists
to search at home in order to help the museum-based scientist find out how many different
kinds of woodlice live in their neighbourhood. Out of the 37 species of woodlice in the
UK, remote visitors are requested to identify their very own woodlice using a printable
key and to send in their results to the museum. The Museum explains how “scientists
106 Hazan
Figure 5. Screenshot of the Walking with Woodlice key, © Natural History Museum
still don’t know everything about woodlice — and this is where you can help” (http://
www.nhm.ac.uk/interactive/woodlice). Walking with Woodlice, inspired by the BBC
series (at least nominally), Walking with Dinosaurs, aims to get children to take part in
a nation-wide scientific study to use the Internet to share scientific information, to
develop their scientific skills through challenging the online results, and in doing so
nurture an enthusiasm for bio-diversity.
Young scientists of biodiversity are requested to find out:
• Where do woodlice live?

• How many different kinds of woodlice live near you?
• Which are the most widespread UK woodlice?
• Do different kinds of woodlice live in different place?
Once the study area has been chosen students are required to collect woodlice, and using
the key identify the species they have found.
Following the [virtual] woodlice around the online questionnaire, participants are
instructed how to identify the woodlice they find then in their own homes, schools and
gardens and to upload the results on an especially designed Web interface. The results
in turn need to be interpreted and the questions asked are provocative. Terms such as
biodiversity, taxonomy and systematics are explained online and students are encour-
aged to interrogate the data that had been gathered from 2001-2004.
The lessons learned on biodiversity not only serve to understand the meaning of the term
but the museum also reminds students how the miniature life they discover in their own
homes demonstrate the principles of biodiversity without having to visit far away
lands….” The mention of biodiversity commonly conjures up images of steaming tropical
forests, and these are without doubt some of the most diverse areas on the planet,”
instructs the museum, “but did you know that the UK is also an area rich in biodiversity?”
(http://www.nhm.ac.uk/interactive/woodlice/biodiversity.html).
Bringing scientific narratives close to home not only allows for active participation on
the part of every single one of us — after all we all have woodlice wandering around our
homes — but also serves to focus on the potential of even the smallest of creatures.
Although unable to compete with the mega-stars of the animal kingdom (the dinosaurs)
in science channel television programs and museum exhibits, the un-trendy woodlouse,
for all of its modesty is still able to teach children not only a good lesson in biodiversity
but also to help us recognize the potential of all creatures, large and small.
Country Cures
Reaching out in a similar way to the community to gather diverse data, the Natural History
Museum also gathers information on herbal remedies, “not those from ancient books or
old scientific journals, but those kept alive by word of mouth between generations”
according to the Country Cures Web site (http://internt.nhm.ac.uk/cgi-bin/
country_cures). Visitors to Country Cures learn about home remedies that keep gnats
away — as long as the person is prepared to carry a sprig of basil (Ocimum basilicum),
which evidently when eaten produces a foul smelling sweat that insects don’t like in the
least. This particular contributor, from Glamorgan, also claims that basil has been
traditionally used to keep away mosquitoes as well.
The plants and shrubs that produce these home remedies are available to visitors who
may wish to visit the wildlife garden that is open to the public each day from April until
the end of October, from 12.00 to 17.00 (http://www.nhm.ac.uk/museum/garden/index.html).
Visitors who may not be able to come into the urban garden in the heart of London may
access the garden through the Web site — and view a series of photographs taken at
weekly intervals over a period of two years. The site also demonstrates the seasonal
factors that affect the garden — the length of light and dark hours over the different
seasons and the maximum and minimum temperature of any given day. For visitors who
do not have their own garden, this is a delightful opportunity to follow the waxing and
waning of nature and, even if remote visitors are unable to take pleasure in the smells that
waft up from the herbs and flowers, they still may gather a wealth of knowledge about
garden life.
Journey North
The examples of public institutions extending activities to draw in their online constitu-
ents into new opportunities for community participation still replicates the traditional
educator/educated scenario to a certain extent, but they also illustrate the potential to
extend the new paradigm as remote visitors take on all kinds of roles, including the full
authorship of the project. Journey North is a project that engages students in a study
of wildlife migration and seasonal change across North America. According to the Web
site, “students track the coming of spring through the migration patterns of monarch
butterflies, bald eagles, robins, hummingbirds, manatees, whooping cranes — and other
birds and mammals, the budding of plants, changing sunlight and other natural events.
(http://www.learner.org/jnorth).
108 Hazan
Now in its 10th season, a project such as this was not possible before the Internet as it
is built on and is disseminated across the electronic networks that connect geographi-
cally distant classrooms. The thousands of participants in this science education
program tracks migration and seasonal changes and share their own observations with
others up and down the country. Journey North’s spring program begins each year
around Groundhog Day (February 2nd) when about a dozen different migrations and signs
of spring are first apparent. Today, over 11,000 schools, representing more than 490,000
students, are participating in the 2004 Journey North Program from all 50 U.S. States and
seven Canadian Provinces.
Journey North, an independent 501(c)3 organization based in Washington, D.C. was
established in 1991 with a grant from the Annenberg Foundation to the Corporation for
Public Broadcasting. While this is obviously not a museum-based project, it is an
impressive one that contributes vital threads to the webs of media and communications
that serve to improve math and science education for the nation’s 44 million school
children. According to the Journey North website, collaborating in this way students are
brought together across 17 time zones, four states, two continents and two countries.
In the same ways that museums reach out to their public, Journey North not only
produces a rich data set of vital material on the migration habits of many kinds of species
but also represents an inspirational project that encourages community participation and
instigates network collaboration.
Conclusion
Weaving science webs has looked at several innovative systems that harvest data across
electronic highways, subtly shifting the traditional role between museums and their
public through online collaborations between the institutions and their geographically
dispersed audiences. The production of bottom-up narratives in this way invigorates
collective knowledge and establishes a sense of community through collaboration and
the public sharing of micro-experiences. The novel ways that serve to simulate and
visualise science discourse also open up new possibilities for formal and informal learning
scenarios, where the public become agents of the production of knowledge and add a
further dimension to institutional activities that now extend beyond the museum walls.
The in-house exhibitions described here in the Science Museum, the Natural History
Museum and the Exploratorium not only activate the visitors through these kinds of
gallery-based interactions but also illustrate how art and culture may be reinserted into
the realm of science. In this way, science and art work together to produce meaningful
narratives, replacing them back into their social context, and dissolving the familiar
dichotomy inscribed in the rationalizing project of modernity. Combining the weft and
warp of culture and science into interwoven discourses no longer results in our
intellectual life being out of kilter as these discourses become one and the same.
Embedded in archaic mythologies, these combined narratives and discourses reinforce
narratives of kinship, national configurations and cultural affiliations, and through the
telling of stories, whether these stories are the rational science based wefts, or culturally
directed warps; they all impact and enrich our world both directly and indirectly.
References
Anderson, B. (1991). Imagined communities. London: Verso
Barry, A. (1998). On interactivity: consumers, citizens and culture. In S. Macdonald (Ed.),
The politics of display, museums, science, culture. London; New York: Routledge.
Barthes, R. (1975). S/Z: An essay. New York: Hill and Wang.
Barthes, R. (1977). The death of the author. In Image, Music, Text. Essays selected and
translated by Stephen Heath. London: Fontana.
Bennett, T. (1995). The Birth of the museum. London; New York: Routledge.
Bennett, T. (1998). Culture: A reformer’s science. London: Sage Publications.
Fahy, A. (2001). New technologies for museum communication. In E. Hooper-Greenhill
(Ed.), Museum: Media: Message. London: Routledge.
Foucault, M. (1979). Discipline and punish. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Haraway, D.J. (1991). Simians, cyborgs, and women: The reinvention of nature. London:
Free Association.
Haraway, D.J. (1997). Modest_Witness@Second_Millenium. Female_Man_
Meets_Oncomouse: Feminism and technoscience. New York: Routledge.
Hazan, S. (1995). Museums and art on the Internet. In D. Bearman & J. Trant (Eds.),
Conference Proceedings, Hands on Hypermedia & Interactivity in Museum,
ICHIM ’95 - MCN ’95. Pittsburgh, PA: Archives & Museum Informatics.
Hein, H. (1990). The Exploratorium: The museum as laboratory. Washington, DC:
Smithsonian Institution Press.
Hooper-Greenhill, E. (2001). Museums and communication: An introductory essay. In E.
Hooper-Greenhill (Ed.), Museum: Media: Message. London: Routledge.
Knorr Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Landow, G.P. (1997). Hypertext 2.0: The convergence of contemporary critical theory
and technology (2 nd ed.). Baltimore; London: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Latour, B. (1993). We have never been modern (C. Porter, trans.). New York; London:
Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Latour, B. (1996). Aramis, or, The love of technology (C. Porter, trans.). Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Macdonald, S. (1998). Exhibitions of power and powers of exhibitions: An introduction
to the politics of display. In S. Macdonald (Ed.), The politics of display: Museums,
science, culture. London: Routledge.
Turkle, S. (1995). Life on the screen: Identity in the age of the Internet. New York: Simon
& Schuster.
Valéry, P. (1970). Analects. Moralités. In J. Matthews (Eds.), Collected works (vol. 14).
(Original work published 1932).
110 Hill, Hannafin and Domizi
Chapter VI
Resource-Based
Learning and
Informal Learning
Environments:
Prospects and Challenges
Janette R. Hill, University of Georgia, USA
Michael J. Hannafin, University of Georgia, USA
Denise P. Domizi, University of Georgia, USA
Abstract
Recent changes in the role of resources have not only transformed how we think about
resources, they have distributed production of and access to digital resources while
altering fundamentally how, when, and for what purposes resources are created and
used. The metamorphosis has been propelled by the exponential growth of information
systems such as the Internet and the Web, and the ubiquitous presence of enabling
technologies in classrooms, libraries, museums, homes, businesses, and communities.
These changes portend exciting educational opportunities, particularly in resource-
rich environments such as science centers and museums. In this chapter we explore RBL
and ILEs, providing examples of how an RBL approach might be implemented in an ILE
and describing the opportunities and challenges associated with such an endeavor.
Resource-Based Learning and Informal Learning Environments 111
Introduction
During recent years, the definition, role and uses of resources have undergone a
metamorphosis. The changes have transformed how we think about resources, the
distributed production of and access to digital resources, and how, when, and for what
purposes we create and use them. The metamorphosis has been propelled by the
exponential growth of information systems such as the Internet and the Web, and the
ubiquitous presence of enabling technologies in classrooms, libraries, museums, homes,
businesses, and communities.
While increasing the numbers of and access to resources is energizing, realizing the
educational potential of these breakthroughs may prove daunting. This is particularly
true in formal learning settings (i.e., school), where current practices do not emphasize
optimizing available resources or preparing individuals to learn in resource-rich environ-
ments. Informal learning environments, in contrast, offer considerable promise for
resource-based learning (RBL). Science museums and centers, for example, provide a
variety of resources to investigate, as well as learning from and with, as visitors explore
exhibits. Informal environments offer freedom not available in formal environments,
where instruction usually focuses on established curriculum goals, sequences, re-
sources, and activities. Informal learning environments provide an opportunity to exploit
resource-based learning alternatives, expanding both the materials and methods used in
teaching and learning.
The purpose of this chapter is to provide an overview of resource-based learning (RBL)
and its applications within informal learning environments (ILEs). We begin by providing
an overview of resource-based learning, describing RBL components, what they are and
how they work. Next, we discuss RBL examples in science centers/museums. Finally, we
describe both opportunities and challenges associated with RBL in informal learning
environments.
Overview of Resource-Based Learning

Resource-based learning “…involves the reuse of available assets to support varied
learning needs” (Beswick 1990). Several factors make resource-based learning (RBL)
viable: 1) increased access to resources (print, electronic, people) in a variety of contexts
not previously available; 2) resources are increasingly flexible in their manipulation and
use; and 3) economic realities dictate that resources become more readily available,
manipulable, and shareable across a variety of contexts and purposes.
Increased Access
The raw amount of information we are exposed to on a daily basis increases exponentially.
Recently, researchers at the University of California-Berkeley estimated that information
grew 30% annually between 1999 and 2003. According to Lyman & Varian (2003), the
volume of information on the Web alone is 170 terabytes — 17 times the volume of
collections at the Library of Congress — a tripling of information since 1999 when the
last survey was conducted.
We also have significantly greater access to information. We interact face-to-face, on
the phone and via computer-based technologies such as e-mail and Instant Messenger®.
We obtain a multitude of print-based resources, ranging from books to magazines to
newspapers. We acquire seemingly unlimited amounts of electronic information — some
traditional (i.e., books, newspapers), many non-traditional (e.g., video clips, sound
bytes). According to Lyman and Varian (2003), the telephone and Web have now become
leading technologies for accessing and sharing information.
Another profound change related to increased access are the multitude of perspectives
those resources represent. We are no longer limited to local town newspapers or
newscasts for our information. We obtain news broadcasts from around the globe (e.g.,
Channel Africa, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation), newspapers from any number
of groups (e.g., The Times (London), the New York Times), books in almost any language
imaginable — all with the point and click of a mouse and an Internet connection.
Resources are seemingly limitless in scope and depth.
Flexible Manipulation and Use
In addition to exponential increases in the number and type of resources, we can now
manipulate and use resources in ways heretofore unimaginable. The technology of
learning objects (see Wiley, 2000) has provided new ways of thinking about the very
fabric of resources. What was once an entire video is now a series of clips that can be
split apart and used in multiple ways. A book is now a collection of words, charts, figures
and images that can be used as a whole or as individual objects.
Use is also influenced by the capacity to identify resources as something other than
intact, “whole” units. The capacity of a resource to be broken down into its component
parts allows users to appropriate individual pieces for their own purposes. For example,
an individual Web page containing images, video and text provides a multitude of
individual resources for the individual user. The very fibers of the fabric are now
moveable and malleable, enabling meaningful uses in similar or entirely different con-
texts.
Economic Realities
Learning initiatives of all types and contexts have experienced radical budgetary
constraints in the last 20 years (NEA, 2004). If ever a surplus of supplies and resources
existed (many would argue there never was, but might at least agree that things were
better at the end of the 20th century), it certainly does not exist today. Increasingly,
teachers need to buy their own supplies and fund their own copying. Science centers and
museums face similar constraints with reductions in funding for displays and supplies.
Budgetary restrictions in all educational sectors demand that resources become more
readily available and shareable. Further, availability needs to be ensured across a variety
of contexts to enable resource use for a variety of purposes. Resource-based learning,
particularly in digital environments, offers considerable promise, enabling educators in
a variety of contexts to provide access to an ever-expanding library of digital resources.
Components of
Resource-Based Learning
Resource-based learning (RBL) features four basic components: enabling contexts,
resources, tools, and scaffolds. Taken together, these components enable educators to
create and implement learning environments of considerable diversity and flexibility.
Table 1 provides an overview of key characteristics. Each of the components will be
briefly described in this section [for a more in-depth description, see Hill & Hannafin
(2001)].
Enabling Contexts
Enabling contexts supply the situation or problem that orients learners to a need or
problem, such as recognizing or generating problems and framing their learning needs.
By creating an enabling context, meaningful learning can occur with and through the
resources provided or obtained (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989). Enabling contexts can
be imposed, induced or generated. Imposed contexts — frequently specific problem
statements or questions — clarify expectations explicitly and guide teacher and student
strategies implicitly. Teachers may use state-mandated objectives; science centers may
adopt standards established by nationally recognized organizations (e.g., National
Science Teachers Association).
Table 1. Components and characteristics of RBL
RBL Components Key Characteristics

Enabling contexts Imposed: teacher/curator or external agency
determines goal
Induced: learner or learner and
teacher/curator determine goal
Resources People, things or ideas that support the
learning process
Tools Objects used to help facilitate the learning
process. Range from processing to
organization to communication tools.
Scaffolds Support that is faded over time. Includes
conceptual, metacognitive, procedural and
strategic scaffolds.
Induced contexts introduce a domain where problems or issues are situated, but not
specific problems to be addressed. A typical scenario enables multiple problems or
issues to be generated or studied based on different assumptions, topical relevance, and
the context of use. For example, a science center might situate learning about electricity
by providing a story for the user of the Web site to help guide building understanding.
In generated contexts, specific problem contexts are not provided; rather, the learner
establishes an interpretive context based on his or her unique needs and circumstances.
In a generated context, the user of the science center Web site becomes responsible for
situating the electricity information in their environment. Similar to induced contexts, the
learner activates relevant knowledge, skill, and experience to guide their activities as they
define and evolve new circumstances.
Resources
Resources are “raw materials” that support learning, such as electronic databases, print
textbooks, video, images, original source documents, and humans. Resources may be
provided by a more knowledgeable other (e.g., a teacher, a curator) to assist others in
extending or broadening knowledge or understanding. Resources may also be gathered
by the learner as questions and/or needs arise.
Exhibits might include multiple resources, ranging from historic artifacts, to manipulables,
to video, to detailed explanations of the objects being viewed. Electronic resources,
physical or virtual, are often included as well. They provide a theoretically unlimited
library of RBL source materials supporting different educational goals. Given varying
contexts of use, the utility of a resource may change dramatically from situation to
situation. The Web, for example, enables access to millions of source documents, but
their integrity and usefulness is judged by the individual and in accordance with the
context of use. As resources become both increasingly relevant to the learner’s need and
accessible, they assume greater utility.
Tools
Tools enable learners to engage and manipulate both resources and ideas. Tool uses vary
with the enabling contexts and user intentions; the same tool can support different
activities and functions. Eight types of tools are used in RBL: processing, seeking,
collection, organization, integration, generation, manipulation, and communication.
Processing tools help students to manage the cognitive demands associated with RBL.
Processing tools, such as self-directed learning systems, for example, enable learners to
work with ideas, extending their cognitive abilities and reducing the need to “remember”
or engage in unnecessary mental manipulation [see Jonassen & Reeves (1996) for a
discussion of cognitive tools].
Seeking tools (e.g., keyword searches, topical indexes, search engines, etc.) help to
locate and access resources. Popular search tools like Google® (www.google.com)
identify the location of and direct access to a variety of Web-based resources. Seeking
tools can also be specific to a particular context. For example, the State of Georgia has
created GALILEO, an extensive database of search engines and electronic resources
available through libraries via the Web. GALILEO users have access to traditional
resources (e.g., academic journals) as well as other resources (e.g., multimedia)
(www.galileo.usg.edu).
Collection tools, ranging from paper-based worksheets to high-end PDAs, aid in
amassing resources and data for closer study. Learners might use collection tools as they
explore a learning space or after completing a tour. Organization tools are used to
represent and define relationships among ideas, concepts, or “nodes.” Like collection
tools, organization tools range from electronic to non-electronic devices. Concept
mapping tools (e.g., Inspiration®, www.inspiration.com) are powerful devices that
enable users to demonstrate relationships and links between and amongst ideas.
Integration tools help learners to relate new with existing knowledge, which helps to both
organize and integrate ideas. Integration tools might range from a word processing
program to a Web page. The depth and breadth of what is represented by a single tool
or set of tools vary according to the needs and abilities of the user. Generating tools, as
simple as a Web page or as sophisticated as a modeling tool (e.g., SimCity® or
SimEarth®), help learners to create “objects” of understanding. Manipulation tools,
which also range in their complexity, are used to test or explore beliefs and theories-in-
action. The Virtual Solar System®, for example, enables learners to hypothesize, con-
struct, test and reconstruct a solar system as they test their beliefs related to the
relationships between and among objects in the solar system (lpsl.coe.uga.edu/live/
vss).
Finally, communication tools support efforts to initiate or sustain exchanges among
learners, teachers, and experts. Asynchronous tools such as e-mail and listservs enable
fast and easy access. Higher-end synchronous communication tools such as
videoconferencing enable access to people “down the hall” through “down under.”
Scaffolding
Scaffolding — support provided to assist learners initially and subsequently faded (see
Vygotsky, 1980) — varies with problem(s) encountered and the demands of the enabling
context. Four types of scaffolding are useful in ILEs: conceptual, metacognitive,
procedural and strategic.
Conceptual scaffolds guide learners in what to consider, identifying knowledge related
to a problem or making organization readily apparent. Worksheets have traditionally
been used in formal and informal learning settings to help guide students as they explore
a new concept or topic. Conceptual scaffolding might be extended through communica-
tion tools in the form of leading questions or scenarios that set a context for the learners
on a Web site. Problem-based learning makes considerable use of conceptual scaffolding
to help guide learners as they explore new areas and build understanding [see Knowlton
& Sharp (2003) for a collection of articles related to problem-based learning].
Metacognitive scaffolds support the underlying cognitive demands in RBL, helping
learners to initiate, compare, and revise their approaches. Scenarios or cases are often
used to focus and guide the learner as they explore and attempt to understand. Scenarios
or cases can present ideas for learners to consider as well as checkpoints where learners
examine their understanding, seeking to uncover what they do and do not know or
understand (see Kolodner, 1993; Kolodner, 1993/1994).
Procedural scaffolding aids the learner while navigating and emphasizes how to utilize
a learning environment’s features and functions. WebQuests, for example, use proce-
dural scaffold extensively and have been used in a variety of contexts and content areas.
According to Bernie Dodge, the primary creator, “WebQuests are designed to use
learners’ time well, to focus on using information rather than looking for it, and to support
learners’ thinking at the levels of analysis, synthesis and evaluation” (Dodge, n.d.). By
focusing on how to, procedural scaffolds free up cognitive resources for other important
learning activities (e.g., problem solving, higher-order thinking).
Finally, strategic scaffold provide ways to analyze, plan, and respond, such as identify-
ing and selecting information, evaluating resources, and integrating knowledge and
experience. Several models have been particularly useful in selecting and evaluating
resources. Alexander & Tate (1999), for example, proposed several techniques for
evaluating Web pages ranging from advocacy to informational Web pages (see
www2.widener.edu/Wolfgram-Memorial-Library/webevaluation/webeval.htm for sev-
eral online resources). The I-Search process (Joyce & Tallman, 1997) strategic scaffold-
ing focuses on integrating knowledge and experience. I-Search enables learners to select
a topic of personal interest, then guides through the process of finding and using
information and developing a final product.
Resource-Based Learning in
Science Centers and Museums
Informal learning environments are provided in a variety of settings and ways. Examples
can be found in everyday environments, ranging from learning about economics in the
grocery store to exploring physics on the playground. Informal learning also occurs in
more formal settings such as science centers and museums (Borun, Chambers, &
Cleghorn, 1996; Paris, 2000). While many science centers strive to engage their visitors
through interactive multimedia, they sometimes emphasize “bells and whistles” over the
inherent educational value of their holdings and exhibits (Aldrich, Rogers & Scaife, 1998;
Cairncross & Mannion, 2001). Resource-based learning, properly implemented, encour-
ages visitors to explore beyond the scope of traditional material or exhibits, challenging
them to question, pose “what-if” scenarios, and seek answers with available resources.
Given the vast array of resources available to science centers and museums, they are
natural environments for RBL approaches. In this section, we describe several informal
science and museum settings in which RBL has been implemented (see Table 2 for a
summary of how the museums and exhibits exemplify RBL components). The Lemelson
Center provides an example of how learning science can happen through virtual play. The
Smithsonian Institute and the Seeing Exhibit exemplify how blended approaches to
Table 2. Examples of use of RBL components in museums and exhibits

Museum/ Enabling
Resources Tools Scaffolding
Exhibit Context
Lemelson Several, Examples of Sketchpads, Help buttons,

Center for the including puzzle inventions, print- “hardware” for stories, guiding
Study of blocks and based building mazes and integrating
Invention and building mazes information questions
Innovation/
Invention at
Play
Smithsonian Several, Multiple, print Several, Several,

Institute dependent upon and electronic dependent upon dependent upon
specific exhibit specific exhibit specific exhibit
Exploratorium/ How do we see Field trip Worksheets with Guiding and

Seeing the world? pathways, pathways for integrating
companion Web processing, questions
site collecting,
organizing and
integrating
National How do we Multiple Search, Lesson plans,

Geographic understand a electronic manipulation scenarios
Education culture? resources and generation
Guide tools
learning (face-to-face and online) can extend and enhance the user’s experience. Finally,
the National Geographic Education Guide demonstrates how a completely online
experience can support and enhance the learning of science.
Invention at Play: Lemelson Center for the Study of

Invention and Innovation (www.inventionatplay.org)
Science centers and museums are often associated with “playtime.” This does not,
however, suggest that learning does not occur. Indeed, researchers suggest that children
can, and often do, learn through play (see Rieber, 1996). Invention at Play incorporates
play into all its exhibits. There is an extensive traveling physical exhibit, but for those who
cannot go to the places where the exhibit will be displayed, the virtual center provides
several opportunities for exploring science concepts.
One of the hallmarks of this center is the unique nature of the contexts in which the learner
is placed for exploring science concepts. Problem solving skills are centered within the
context of a puzzle. Learners are challenged with creating a bird, boat or man by putting
together various puzzle blocks. As stated on the site: Many inventors can see patterns
that aren’t obvious to others. Changing or manipulating patterns is one way to
generate new ideas.
Resources and tools on the Invention at Play site vary depending on the science
concepts being explored. Examples of creations from inventors are provided to assist
learners in extending their understanding of how invention occurs. Several print-based
resources are linked to the site to assist with extending the use of the online center.
Tools range from general idea capturing sketchpads to specific pieces of “hardware”
(e.g., pipes, hammers, springs and sockets) for “tinkering” to get a ball into a cup.
According to the site: Exploratory play is about asking questions: “What happens when
I do this?” “What if I did it this way?” Experimenting with materials and pushing their
limits encourages us to consider a wide range of possibilities when problem-solving.
Playing around with objects and ideas helps us see that there may be more than one
solution.
Invention at Play provides several forms of scaffolding as the learner works with various
experiments. When interacting with the puzzle blocks, learners can get assistance by
clicking on a “help” button. The shapes are then outlined in the empty form (e.g., boat)
so the learner can see where the pieces fit. Additional scaffolding is found in some of the
resources, such as the stories by inventors and guides for the exhibit.
Smithsonian Institute: Science and Technology

(www.si.edu/science_and_technology/)
The Smithsonian Institute has hundreds of online exhibits related to science and
technology that allow for learning and exploration to co-exist. Each exhibit is indexed by
main fields in science (Animals, Astronomy, Aviation and Transportation, Computers
and Communications, Ecology and Environment, Evolution and Paleontology, Geology,
Health and Human Sciences, Industry, Machines and Electricity, Marine, and Plants),
enabling access to almost anything one might be seeking for exploration related to
science and technology. Within each of the main science fields, further contextual
information is provided for specific areas. For example, in the Animal exhibits, visitors
are taken around the planet to explore a variety of animal species, ranging from turtles
in the Galapagos to camels in the Australian Outback to frogs in North America.
Resources within the overall Smithsonian Institute are extensive, enabling educators,
families and students to find information related to specific topics from the museum (see
http://smithsonianeducation.org). Resources within each exhibit are just as far ranging
as the contexts in which the individual exhibit is centered. Print-based worksheets and
vocabulary lists are available to guide initial exploration of many areas. In the Astronomy
exhibits, learners can view pictures of stars in far-away galaxies or listen to Neil
Armstrong, Michael Collins and Buzz Aldrin reflect on their Apollo 11 mission to the
moon. In the Marine exhibits, extensive databases of fish to floor plans to enable virtual
exploration of physical exhibits are amongst the resources made available to learners.
Tools range from traditional to more interactive materials. Worksheets can be printed;
a “Polar Pairs” matching game in the Artic Wildlife virtual exhibit can be played multiple
times; and a message board enables visitors of Ocean Planet to share information with
other learners. In an exhibit titled, Mirror Molecules, learners are provided with direc-
tions for experiments so they can learn about molecules — how they are formed and
shaped.
Scaffolding in this museum is enabled by various means. Online tools are used to some
extent (e.g., the discussion board described earlier) to provide access to others. Step-by-
step procedures are provided in some exhibits (e.g., how to conduct experiments) to
assist learners with exploring concepts. Extensive explanations of concepts are also
obtainable so that more advanced learners can extend their understanding. For example,
in the Resource Guide to Paleoanthropology, advanced users can get detailed informa-
tion on the overall process of evolution as well as the process of human evolution.
The Seeing Exhibit at San Francisco’s Exploratorium

(www.exploratorium.edu/seeing/index.html)
The Seeing Exhibit at San Francisco’s Exploratorium incorporates a strong tie between
the resources in its physical exhibit hall and those in its accompanying online virtual
exhibits. The collection’s exhibits are grouped according to the phenomenon they
illustrate: light and the eye, seeing in context, seeing and attention, interpreting images,
seeing color, and seeing motion. The purpose of the collection is to illustrate the many
aspects of visual perception. In the “seeing in context” exhibit, for example, an eye-
tracker monitors the movements of a visitor’s eyes as they pore over an image. This
illustrates not only where on an image an individual concentrates, but how individuals
search the same image in a completely different manner.
The exhibit induces a context by asking, “How do we see the world?” from both a
biological perspective (how our eyes and brain interpret light) and a subjective perspec-
tive (the way our own identity shapes our interpretation of what we see). Additional
imposed contexts are provided to teachers through Field Trip pathways. Open pathways
suggest creative ways to engage students, and guided pathways provide a specific
course for the students to follow by giving them “big questions” to consider, such as
“Is it possible to look at something and not see it?”
The companion Web site (www.exploratorium.edu/seeing) serves as an additional
resource that includes exhibits and interactions demonstrating principles of seeing, and
provides links to other Web sites containing additional relevant information. The
fieldtrip pathways include worksheets that serve as both resource and as a variety of
tools. By asking guiding questions and allowing for different interpretations per both a
biological and subjective perspective, the worksheets can function as a processing,
collecting, organizing, and integrating tool.
The exhibits, especially those containing field trip pathways, offer conceptual scaffold-
ing by suggesting what to look for and consider. The information and smaller “guiding
questions” contained in the pathways help students to interpret, interact with, and
process the information they encounter at each exhibit, while allowing for free explora-
tion. These metacognitive scaffolds can be extremely helpful to students who are asked
to think using an unfamiliar process or new perspective. Once they finish their visit,
students are asked an “integrating question.” This question helps them to synthesize
and internalize what they have learned and draw conclusions based on their own life
experiences beyond the exhibit.
National Geographic Education Guide

(www.nationalgeographic.com/education/)
National Geographic’s Web site offers a rich array of resources with a large area of their
Web site dedicated to both children and educators. The content ranges from online
adventures and homework help for kids, to lesson plans and a community resource for
teachers.
The Web site offers both exploratory and guided contexts. Each lesson plan, targeted
to teachers, introduces an imposed enabling context by giving an overview of the lesson,
materials required, student objectives, and a suggested procedure. For example, in Two
Ancient Cities — Machu Picchu and Chichén Itzá, students in grades 9-12 are asked to
compare the two civilizations by researching “the surrounding geography, the main
structures and their purposes, the inhabitants, the building materials, the general layout,
and any other revealing information or artifacts from the city.” Students are then asked
how the culture and geography of each city influenced their inhabitants’ lives. The site
also offers a range of induced enabling contexts. Visitors are invited to explore dynamic
maps, atlases, and over 100 online adventures.
The resources of the National Geographic Web site are many. In addition to both dynamic
and printable maps, the site has articles, photos, and games (for both in the classroom
and for children at home), lesson plans, science experiments, and crafts. A “homework
help” section offers pictures, maps, and information on subjects including animals,
history/culture, maps/geography, photos/art, places, and science/nature. A click on
Alaska in the “places” section leads to an invitation to explore “Alaska’s land, wildlife,
history, and people.” This section also includes a travel guide, a discussion forum,
resources, and links.
The site offers an assortment of tools to help engage and guide, including extensive
seeking tools. Educators can search for educational materials by subject (geography,
science, social studies, reading/writing), resource type (lesson plans, books/workbooks,
kits/overheads, maps/globes/atlases, online adventures, videos, software), grade (K-12),
or keyword. There is also a one-stop search for more popular subjects.
In one interactive feature, as visitors learn about natural disasters, they are asked to
predict when and where natural disasters will occur, and to generate their own natural-
hazard map based on their knowledge of plate tectonics, historic earthquakes, and
volcanoes. This generating tool helps visitors to both integrate and organize their new
knowledge of natural disasters into a product. In a less structured activity, visitors learn
about great moments in architectural and engineering history (for example, Stonehenge,
the Panama Canal, the Pyramids of Giza) and are then asked to design a theme park
devoted to these great achievements using anything from modeling clay to pictures
pasted on a sketch board to computer modeling.
The site offers scaffolding at several levels. The lesson plans provide conceptual and
metacognitive scaffolding for both the teachers and the students by supplying a
contextual overview of the problem and leading questions or scenarios that help guide
the learners through the experience. In Crack the Code, for example, first-graders
learning about latitude and longitude are presented with a scenario where they must
decode a clue based on latitude and longitude to find thieves who stole “armfuls of
priceless maps” from the Royal Geographical Society in London. Once they have an
understanding of latitude and longitude through the scenario and find the thieves, the
site offers lesson extensions based on age and understanding. The lesson plans also
offer procedural scaffolding for the teachers through suggested procedures for how to
facilitate the lesson.
Opportunities and Challenges with RBL

RBL creates opportunities for ILEs heretofore unavailable, optimizing the affordances of
available and future technologies across a range of diverse settings. While increased
availability and access to resources are necessary for RBL, they are not, by themselves,
sufficient to promote effective learning. Unprecedented opportunities abound, but
formidable challenges loom.
Opportunities
RBL enables access to a multitude of perspectives on a given phenomena. One of the

most compelling characteristics of RBL is the ability to view a variety of resources from
a potentially unlimited number and range of perspectives. This is currently apparent in
how textbooks are used in formal learning settings, but the explosion of digital resources
and the capacity to access and use them has increased dramatically. Textbooks are often
written from a particular perspective to promote a specific view of events or processes.
Digital resources may also be written from a particular perspective, but ready access and
easy cross-referencing enable extended access to more resources in online science
centers and museums — and, therefore, multiple perspectives.
Increased access also has implications for use in online science centers and museums.
RBL places more control (and responsibility) in the hands of the end-users — instructors
and/or individual learner — increasing the flexibility of the resource and expanding its
potential utility to events and activities beyond the immediate context of its creation. This
portends unprecedented opportunities to re-use and re-purpose available resources,
and to redefine their meaning as the context of use changes.
RBL can be implemented in a variety of contexts. RBL approaches change both the nature
and also the role of traditional resources (i.e., instructor, book, articles), as well as the
contexts in which they are used. RBL frameworks can be applied in multiple contexts,
ranging from formal to informal, electronic to physical, specific to distributed locations,
and at particular through unlimited dates and times. While access to multiple resources
may be difficult in a specific set of circumstances, in most online environments access
can be enabled in several others simultaneously. It is important to note that the number
of resources used in an online science center or museum may not be as significant as the
variety of sources. This creates unique opportunities for diverse resources to be re-
purposed and used across environments.
RBL facilitates learner-centered approaches. While RBL tends to focus on individual

approaches to learning versus teacher or large group approaches to learning, it is not
inherently limited to one-to-one interactions. Learners (individually, in small groups, or
classes) can access a multitude of electronic, print and physical sources to assist with
their learning in an RBL context within an online science center or museum. While the
individual needs may be addressed, it does not necessarily follow that student work is
isolated or without guidance. Learners may receive guidance or direction from an
instructor, use the same resources identified by their colleagues, or consult with a more
expert peer [e.g., scientist who is connected into the online science center or museum via
Internet communication technologies (e-mail, discussion board)] as they focus their
goals and seek resources needed to attain them. The key RBL focus is what the individual
learner needs to facilitate growth in knowledge and understanding, not simply the group
size or ratio; thus, learner-centered approaches are not only supported but encouraged
through RBL.
RBL cultivates transferable 21st century knowledge and skills. The knowledge and skill
needs of 21st century learners are different from those of generations past. With the
explosion of knowledge, resources, and challenges, learners need more strategic ap-
proaches to identifying what is important and the depth of knowledge or skill needed in
different contexts. Increasingly, learners need to discriminate when “knowing that”
versus “understanding why” is appropriate or necessary. Given the prevalence of
inaccurate, questionable, and contradictory evidence, assertions and propaganda ex-
pands geometrically. It is no longer sufficient for learners to simply master what they
encounter; they also need to demonstrate greater critical thinking, problem solving,
reflection, and self-direction than past generations. The use of open questions provided
in National Geographic Education Guide, for example, stimulate an investigation rather
than simple answer-seeking and engages the user in critical examination, reflection, and
manipulation of multiple resources, thereby cultivating needed information seeking and
evaluation skills. Similarly, children investigating the Kid Club’s Ancient Egypt Exhibit
are scaffolded in the use of tools as they seek and evaluate clues, helping to hone promote
greater facility with increasingly pervasive digital tools. In effect, 21st century strategic
knowledge and skill are both prerequisite to and cultivated by RBL.
Challenges
Standards are not available, used, or applied consistently. Several groups continue to
create and refine standards and technologies for Internet-based resources [e.g., World
Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Internet Society (ISOC), Sharable Content Object Refer-
ence Model (SCORM)]. This has great promise for the growth of RBL in a cross-platform
environment. Yet, the standards and codes used to “tag” resources for subsequent
access and use are still emerging. Those developed have not been consistently adhered
to across developers or users. Supporting innovative creation is important, but estab-
lishing and maintaining consistent standards and structures is essential for the
sustainability and growth of resource use. It is essential that we achieve and implement
a needed balance so that RBL approaches can be extended within online science centers
and museums.
The importance of context is not well-understood. It is important to recognize the role

of context in any learning interaction or event (Shambaugh & Magliaro, 1996). Within the
RBL framework, context specifies where the learning occurs (physical or virtual), the
perceptions of meaning and understanding shared by users, and the situational referents
of learning and performing. The learners, instructors, and values of a given culture all
contribute to how contexts are interpreted and acted upon. The opportunity for even
more diverse contexts is enabled when working in an online science center or museum.
To assist learners and users of these sites, we need to better understand how RBL works
in different settings with diverse domains and participants — how resource meaning is
(or can be) redefined, how the values and mores of a given culture help or hinder different
uses, and how to scaffold differently based on specific situational needs.
Resources remain largely unregulated. Recent legislation has called for restricted
access to some Web-based resources in certain contexts (e.g., schools and public
libraries). The genesis of the resources themselves remains largely unknown and
unregulated on the Web and in other formats (e.g., video, print, people); likewise, content
sharing remains unregulated. As perhaps the most democratic of forums, the Internet has
enabled unprecedented access to all forms of resources independent of location, time,
gate-keeping, and the like. This is exciting, yet not without challenges, particularly in
terms of resource integrity, reliability, and access. When RBL applications define
boundaries (i.e., pools of images, “approved” URLs, etc.), greater control is afforded but
the organic capacity to grow through use and spontaneously inquire based on emerging
interest is constrained. This can be particularly troublesome for RBL approaches in
online science centers or museums, where the use of resources can be very dynamic and
ever changing. It is vital that we find both structural (e.g., directories of “approved”
images, better inquiry tools and user scaffolding) as well as human solutions (e.g.,
developing critical thinking, information literacy, and evaluation skills).
Directed approaches continue to dominate teaching and learning practices. Despite
long-term discussions and research related to the value of learner-centered approaches,
instructor-centered models dominate learning contexts at all levels. Direct approaches
to learning are efficient for reaching large populations of learners who share the same
learning expectations or requirements, but are largely ineffective and inappropriate when
learning needs, rate, and/or goals vary. Online science centers and museums provide
unprecedented opportunities for learner-centered exploration, which can lead to accom-
plishing individual learning needs and/or goals, and at a pace that works best for the
individual learner. While the continued need for directed approaches to harness tech-
nology for defined needs remains undisputable, we also need to emancipate and unleash
individuals to support unique intentions and needs of individual learners to meet their
purposes (Hannafin, Hill, & Glazer, in press; Hannafin & Land, 2000).
Conclusion
The potential of resource-based learning for instruction and learning is considerable.
Whereas conventional instructional approaches address known learning goals using
well-organized sequences, resources, and activities, methods for supporting context-

specific, user-centered learning have been slower to develop. Increasingly, individuals
evaluate vast numbers of digital resources located in expanding information repositories.
Tools and search engines typically (but in most cases only generally) help to locate
potential resources; they do not help an individual to determine meaning or relevance.
Individuals must recognize and clarify learning needs, develop strategies to address
these needs, locate and access resources, evaluate their veracity and utility, modify
approaches based on learning progress, and otherwise manage their teaching or learning.
RBL enables teachers and learners to take advantage of the information systems we now
have available, expanding the resources they use to enhance the teaching and learning
process.
References
Aldrich, F., Rogers, Y., & Scaife, M. (1998). Getting to grips with “interactivity:” Helping
teachers assess the educational value of CD-ROMS. British Journal of Educa-
tional Technology, 29(4), 321-332.
Alexander, J., & Tate, M.A. (1999). Web wisdom: How to evaluate and create information
quality on the Web. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Beswick, N. (1990). Resource-base learning. London: Heinemann.
Borun, M., Chambers, M., & Cleghorn, A. (1996). Families are learning in science
museums. Curator, 39(2), 124-138.
Brown, S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989) Situated cognition and the culture of learning.
Educational Researcher, 17, 32-41.
Cairncross, S., & Mannion, M. (2001). Interactive multimedia and learning: Realizing the
benefits. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 38(2), 156-164.
Dodge, B. (n.d.). Webquest. Retrieved April 6, 2004, from http://webquest.sdsu.edu/
Exploratorium. (2001). Electronic guidebook forum. Report from Electronic Guidebook
Forum, San Francisco. Retrieved March 27, 2004, from http://www.
exploratorium.edu/guidebook
Hannafin, M.J., & Land, S. (2000). Technology and student-centered learning in higher
education: Issues and practices. Journal of Computing in Higher Education,
12(2), 3-30.
Hannafin, M.J., Hill, J.R., & Glazer, E. (in press). Designing grounded learning environ-
ments: The value of multiple perspectives in design practice. In G. Anglin (Ed.),
Critical issues in instructional technology. Englewood Cliffs, CO: Libraries
Unlimited.
Hill, J.R., & Hannafin, M.J. (2001). Teaching and learning in digital environments: The
resurgence of resource-based learning environments. Educational Technology
Research and Development, 49(3), 37 - 52.
Jonassen, D. H., & Reeves, T.C. (1996). Learning with technology: Using computers as
cognitive tools. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational
communications and technology (pp. 693-719). New York: Simon & Schuster
Macmillan.
Joyce, M.Z., & Tallman, J.I. (1997). Making the writing and research connections with
the I-Search process. Neal-Schuman.
Knowlton, D.S., & Sharp, D. (Eds.). (2003). Problem-based learning in the information
age: New directions for teaching and learning. New York: Jossey-Bass.
Kolodner, J.L. (1993). Case-based reasoning. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.
Kolodner, J.L. (Ed.). (1993/1994). Goal-based scenarios. The Journal of the Learning
Sciences (Special Issue), 3(4).
Lyman, P., & Varian, H.R. (2003). How much information. Retrieved March 27, 2004, from
http://www.sims.berkeley.edu/how-much-info-2003
NEA. (2004). No child left behind?: The funding gap in ESEA and other federal
education programs. Retrieved March 27, 2004, from http://www.nea.org/esea/
images/funding-gap.pdf
Paris, S.G. (2000, January). Multiple perspectives on children’s object-centered learn-
ing. Retrieved March 27, 2004 from http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/tcw/events_000121w/
1.htm
Rieber, L.P. (1996). Seriously considering play: Designing interactive learning environ-
ments based on the blending of microworlds, simulations, and games. Educational
Technology Research & Development, 44(2), 43-58
Shambaugh, R.N., & Magliaro, S.G. (1997). Mastering the possibilities: A process
approach to instructional design. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1980). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological
processes. Boston: Harvard University Press.
Wiley, D. (Ed.). (2000). The instructional use of learning objects: Online version.
Retrieved March 27, 2004, from http://reusability.org/read/
Section II
Design Considerations
Practical Suggestions for Interactive Science Web Sites 127
Chapter VII
Interactivity
Techniques:
Practical Suggestions
for Interactive Science
Web Sites
Michael Douma, Institute for Dynamic Educational Advancement, USA
Horace Dediu, Handheld Media, USA
Abstract
This chapter shares our observations, research, and experience with creating
interactivity. We explore useful techniques for creating interactive science-oriented
online displays, and describe a series of occasions and methods for making exhibits
interactive. For each technique, the design issue is described, the methods for addressing
the issue are summarized, and there is a discussion of the approach. We explore what
kinds of interactivity have proven to work well online, and, perhaps more importantly,
what does not work. Generally, technical solutions are prescriptive rather than
descriptive, leaving the actual implementation up to the programmers involved in the
project.
128 Douma and Dediu
Introduction
The modern Web browser allows visitors to interact and explore. Over the last decade, a
number of techniques have evolved to convey scientific information, and engage visitors.
At time of writing, the Internet has become commonplace, and most museums are
committing resources to online exhibits. The Internet is so pervasive, that major
museums, such as the U.S.’s Smithsonian, have twice the number of virtual visitors than
in-person visitors (McMillan, 2004). It is likely that this trend in museum attendance will
continue, with more and more content accessed online. It therefore behoves the curator
to consider the quality of their online presentations, and make the best use of interactivity
to teach and engage visitors.
This chapter is based on experience garnered over the last five years with the WebExhibits
online museum of science and art exhibits. This site receives over 24 million page views
per year from 8 million visitors (webexhibits.org). For comparison, in 2004, WebExhibits
had slightly less online traffic than the Exploratorium, and slightly more than the London
Science Museum, the Ontario Science Center, or the Museum of Science in Boston. Over
the last two years, while online science museums overall have drawn a smaller fraction
of Internet users, WebExhibits’ traffic ranking is increasing(Alexa Data Services, 2004).
We periodically add new exhibits, and make extensive use of interactive technologies.
This chapter shares our observations, research, and experience (Douma & Henchman,
2000a, 2000b). We explore useful techniques for creating interactive science-oriented
online displays, and describe a series of occasions and methods for making exhibits
interactive. For each technique, the design issue is described, the methods for address-
ing the issue are summarized, and there is a discussion of the approach. We explore what
kinds of interactivity have proven to work well online, and, perhaps more importantly,
what we have learned does not work well. Generally, technical solutions are prescriptive
rather than descriptive, leaving the actual implementation up to the programmers
involved in the project. This is due to the multitude of tools available to designers, none
of which is necessarily ideal.
Comparing Data or Images

Data analysis is fundamental to the scientific process. The e-learning environment can
allow students to make their own discoveries, and thus participate in the process of
discovery. Good e-learning designs are often based on constructivist and learner-
centered principles which put the student in control, encourage the student to look at
issues from multiple perspectives, and create his own meaning (Wilson & Lowry, 2000).
Science inquiry is central to scientific literacy, and has been shown to help students gain
skills like questioning, explaining, and making predictions (Songer, Lee, & Kam, 2002;
Songer, Lee, & McDonald, 2003). Research shows that this type of inquiry process and
support has a strong impact on students’ understanding of scientific concepts and
content (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000).
A virtual science center should provide students and visitors with opportunities to
engage with science by doing — not just reading — and thereby increase their
understanding of how science works, and how it is connected to other social science
disciplines. In that spirit, the following are techniques for promoting inquiry.
Virtual Devices and Experiences
Consider the need to explain how a process works by devising a virtual experience for
visitors. For example, create a working model of an automobile engine that visitors can take
apart, or let visitors perform dissections. Virtual experiences are particularly appropriate
for processes, such as flying a jet aircraft or performing a bypass surgery, that visitors
would find it extremely difficult to do in real life. Simple drag-and-drop actions are
Figure 1. Virtual devices and experiences
A. Panda habitat (National Zoo)
B. Color saturation and brightness (WebExhibits)
C. Knee surgery (Ed Heads)
D. Gravity effects (Smithsonian Lemelson)
E. Flight of swallow (style.org)
F. Perspective (rotating cube)

(WebExhibits)
G. Ocean wave periods and

amplitudes (National Geographic)
(Volvo Ocean Race)
H. Ocean waves (right)

(Pearson / Prentice Hall)
130 Douma and Dediu
surprisingly engaging when the visitor is picking up tools, sawing and cementing, and
hearing sound effects immersing them in the procedure (Bort & Wheatley, 2003).
Do not require visitors to do steps just for the sake of interactivity (like turning on the
lights or opening doors). Interactivity should always be purposeful, not decorative. Do
not add extra animations, or require visitors to drag unnecessarily (e.g., “drag a specimen
to the microscope to see details”). It is generally better to indicate “point” than to “click,”
and “drag” only when necessary. For example, a good instruction is, “point at a specimen
to see details.” Superfluous interactivity leads to boredom quickly.
Interactive games and quizzes that test the visitor’s understanding are sometimes
desirable, but such games and the quizzes should be optional, lest visitors be annoyed
or put off if they perform badly.
The only exception to the principle of simplicity is when designing for young children,
who often find clicking and dragging to be entertaining, and may enjoy superfluous
animations. For example, “drag fruits into a blender to make a smoothie.”
Comparing Views
Consider the need to compare views of the same item, or from the same viewing angle.
For example, compare X-ray and normal views of a human body or a flower; or simulate
views of color blindness. To compare views, superimpose the set of images, and allow
the visitor to make comparisons. This can be accomplished with three methods:
Method 1: Swapping. Provide buttons next to an image that allow visitors to

swap the images. For example, the buttons could be marked “X-ray” and
“Regular.” Use the indication: “Point at a view.”
Method 2: Spyglass. Have a movable window that visitors can move around a
scene. The visitor can drag the spyglass, showing and hiding the alternate view
(Douma & Henchman, 2000a). Use the indication: “Drag the spyglass.” Imple-
mentation: Mask the top image, and move the mask in the opposite direction of
the cursor. Versions of this technique have variously been called the spotlight,
toolglass, magic lens, looking glass, or x-scope (where x is the name of what
is revealed, like “bone-scope” or “pollution-scope”) (Bier et al., 1993). This
approach can also be used to reveal translations, or permutations of a scene
(Goldstein et al., 1997). For example, in a view of cities on a map, a movable filter
could reveal which cities have high population densities (Fishkin & Stone, 1995).
Method 3: Slider. Provide a knob that visitors can slide back and forth. The knob
should be graphically dominant so that it is obvious to the visitor that they
should move it. To further indicate that the figure is interactive, some designers
animate a sliding knob for two to five seconds when the page loads. Comparing
two images involves a linear slider; comparing three images involves either two
Figure 2.
A. Color blind simulation (Web Exhibits)
B. Light sources (Web Exhibits)
C. X-ray, infrared, and other views of painting

(Web Exhibits)
D. Comparing audio real time (reverb control)

(Web Exhibits) (Apple Logic Pro 6)
sliders or a three-dimensional slider control. Use the indication: “Adjust the

(attribute).” Implementation: Track the slider position, and vary the alpha
(opacity) of a top layer.
Swapping is generally the easiest to implement, and is best to use if the images are similar.
In common with all predators having binocular vision, humans are especially good at
detecting differences, which are perceived as motion. By swapping different views, it is
immediately obvious to the eye how the two images relate and what is different. The swap
should be immediate, with no flicker in between.
The spyglass is helpful if the images are quite different, or viewers need a reference. For
example, an X-ray can be confusing without the visual image surrounding the spyglass
for reference.
A slider is helpful when it is useful to see in-between views. This is like adjusting the
brightness of a television. For example, compare how a scene would have looked to an
aging artist suffering from cataracts and color blindness. There could be a photograph
of an everyday scene, with a knob on a slider beneath. The visitor moves the knob left
and right, adjusting the scene.
132 Douma and Dediu
Figure 3.
A. Layers in an Incan mummy bundle

(National Geographic)
B. Timeliness (various sources)
C. Painting a painting (WebExhibits)
Viewing a Sequence
Consider the need to display a time-lapse sequence, or a sequence of images. For example,
before and after views of deforestation, stages in a rocket launch, development of an
embryo, a tide flowing into the beach, the erosion of a canyon, a sunrise, steps in a
chemical reaction, a flower opening, an explosive chemical reaction, workers building a
skyscraper, micro-time photography (bullet through glass), or MRI or PET slices of the
brain. Use a timeline to choose a frame in the sequence.
Method 1: Slider. Use a slider with a knob to choose a point in time. The track
for the slider should have markings to indicate that there are discrete steps. Use
the indication: “Move knob to view (event).”
Method 2: Filmstrip. Display a strip of thumbnails, like a sequence of film. The

visitor points at the thumbnail and sees the larger frame. Use the indication:
“Point at a view.”
This is similar to the previous technique, but the relationship between the frames is
emphasized. Good interfaces have measurements on them, with a labeled axis. For
example, if exploring a tide, label the axis with times (low tide, medium tide, high tide); if
looking at MRI slices, label the location within the brain. If the sequence is a loop, such
as a repeated dance of a honeybee, a horse running around a track, or a rotating planet,
instead of a linear slider, use a circular slider, and track the knob in a continuous fashion.
Contextual Captions (Qualitative)
Consider the need to label an image with captions while avoiding clutter. There is too
much information to fully label the image without becoming illegible. For example, a group
of people, portions of a painting, anatomy of an insect, taste sensitivity of the tongue,
components of a circuit board. Display contextual information about the region of the
image at which the visitor is pointing.
Method 1: Dynamic caption. Change the caption to correspond to what the

visitor is pointing at. For example, in an illustration of the planets, the visitor
points at Saturn, and the vital statistics of Saturn are displayed. Use the
indication: “Point at a planet.”
Figure 4.
A. Microscopic views of a painting (WebExhibits)
B. Brain anatomy (BBC Science)
C. Excavation of ancient Egypt (Theban Mapping Project)
D. Eye anatomy (National Library of Medicine)
134 Douma and Dediu
Method 2: Contextual pop-ups. Put detail into floating windows. Use the
indication: “Point at a building.”
If there are only a few important regions of the image, delimit the “hot” regions by
outlining — marking them with labels or numbers, or some other means. It must be
obvious where the visitor should point their mouse.
The floating pop-up can be opaque, semi-transparent, or have time-dependent transpar-
ency whereby it fades after five to 10 seconds so you can see what is behind it.
If there is information for dozens (or hundreds) of sub-regions spanning the full image,
it is not necessary to delimit regions because the visitor can point anywhere. This is
especially powerful for annotating images where the interpretation is not obvious (e.g.,
an X-ray of a suitcase, or micrograph of a cancer cell). Implementation: Create an image
map. A simple image map can be created as an html <map>. A more complex mapping
requires creating a bitmap. An algorithm is listed in the Appendix.
Another extension of this technique is to conceive of the contextual information through
a viewing filter. This is similar to the spyglass or toolglass mentioned above. Different
kinds of information are displayed within the toolglass. For example, passing over a map
of China, within the toolglass, color-coding could indicate population density. Note also
that more than one toolglass can be overlapped (Bier et al., 1993). For example, with an
anatomy exhibit, one filter could reveal muscles and another could reveal nerves. In their
overlap, both muscles and nerves are shown.
Animated Keys (Quantitative)
Consider the need to display quantitative information about an image. For example,
carbon dioxide output per country, number of voters per region, elements in minerals,
calories of foods, diets or habitats of species.
Display a fixed key alongside the image, and display or highlight relevant data as the
visitor points at the image.
Method 1: Highlight key. If the values are Boolean (present or not-present),

display a key with names or icons, and highlight the icons on and off as the
visitor points at the image. For example, identify the paints used in a painting.
Display a large painting, and next to it are a series of pigment names (Ultramarine,
Ochre, Charcoal, etc.). As the visitor glides the cursor over the painting, the
pigments in the legend highlight on and off, indicating what paints are used. Use
the indication: “Point at the painting to see what pigments are used.”
Method 2: Dynamic graph. If there are varying amounts, for example, dietary
information about foods. Use the indication: “Point at the foods.” The visitor
points at a series of foods. Animated bars next to the words “fat,” “sugar,” and
“protein” indicate the amounts of different components in the food.
This technique funnels information by showing the visitor only partial selections of the
overall data. Clarity is perceived in simplicity. Traditionally, this would be implemented
in a book by displaying an image, with labels (A, B, C, etc.), and a series of bar or pie
graphs, each labeled A, B, C, and etcetera. In the Web site, the visitor points at the image
and only one graph is displayed. This makes visitors feel less overwhelmed, and also
creates a sense of discovery since visitors need to point at an item to reveal its values.
It also helps visitors compare regions in an image.
The idea is to allow the visitor to call up additional information (details-on-demand) as
their interests guide them. For example, the visitor might expand from a small collection
of objects (e.g., tropical rainforest insects) to reveal more about their variables (e.g.,
habitat or predators). Displaying data on an as-needed basis prevents clutter and allows
more of the variables to be mapped to the visualization (Card, Mackinlay, & Shneiderman,
1999). Having a visitor move among a set of linkages, either moving among Web pages,
or pre-set views of data, is sometimes called a “direct walk” (Card, Pirolli, & Mackinlay,
1994; Furnas, 1997).
Views of Data
Consider the need to have multiple dimensions of data to display without being
confusing. For example, a city map, onto which you want to show the roads, the public
transportation system, population densities, and demographics. Reduce the amount of
data shown to the visitor by offering different views.
Method 1: Predefined views. Provide a series of buttons on the edge of the city
map. The visitor can choose a predefined view, for example, all the roads, or just
the parks. Use the indication: “Point at a view.”
Method 2: Choose your view. Break down the data into simpler categories, such
as streets, highways, demographics, housing density, and etcetera. The visitor
can toggle these categories on and off, to compare what interests him. Use the
indication: “Click on the categories.”
This technique reduces multidimensional data by allowing the visitor to choose only the
dimensions of interest. By displaying less information, the visitor is better able to see
what interests him. Dynamic queries let the visitor change his view in real-time, for
example, movie fans could conduct a real-time search among different movies by
choosing among actors, directors, and other qualities.
The origins of these ideas can be traced to a technique called “worlds within worlds,”
which displays a visual structure of multidimensional data by overloading different axes
and by placing each coordinate system within another (Feiner & Beshers, 1990). Another
technique called “parallel coordinates” explored the notion of choosing subsets of data
(rather than subsets of dimensions) and using the parallel placement of axes in 2-D
(Inselberg, 1997). For example, an interactive graph could simultaneously show the
136 Douma and Dediu
Figure 5.
A. Alligator habitats (National Geographic)
B. Custom map (Museum of Sydney TimeMap)
C. Political results of 2004 Democratic primary

(style.org)
D. Word count (Jonathan J. Harris and Number

27)
amounts of vitamins in different foods, and the visitor could dynamically choose
different subsets of foods. This would immediately convey, for example, how both leafy
greens and milk are high in calcium, but that both milk and eggs are high in protein. It is
often helpful to have several views, and allow a visitor’s actions in one view to affect the
others (brushing).
For additional inspiration for how good visual representations can reveal hidden
structures, while keeping the details understandable (see Tufte, 1990, 1997).
Color Coding
Consider the need to explain the differences between major regions of an image. For
example, a painting is the hand of two artists: who painted what? Which parts of an aircraft
are responsible for lift propulsion, control? The tastes detected by different regions of
the tongue?
Provide a button that color-codes the image into clearly defined regions, so that visitors
can see the major sections. Use strongly contrasting colors, overlaid semi-transparently
(Douma & Henchman, 2000). This technique is related to the previous two techniques,
and is very helpful for identifying regions of an image. It is a way to provide context for
an image.
Interacting with Objects

The previous techniques concern analysis of data or an image. Scientific inquiry also
involves dissecting phenomena into vital components. Many young engineers had their
first tutorial taking apart a motor or a television; so too, a Web site can lend the sense
of taking something apart or understanding how it works. Wherever possible, such a
presentation should not be linear, like a slide show; rather, visitors should be able to
freely interact with objects, and potentially make mistakes.
Independent and Dependent Variables
Consider the need to explain relationship between two variables, where one variable is
dependent on the other variable, and the values are continuous; for example, the speed of
a horse running around a track, the hours of summer daylight at different latitudes, times
in different time zones. Here are three solutions, all detailing the boiling point of water.
Method 1: Show a normal graph, where the x-axis is independent, and the y-axis
is the dependent variable. In the case of boiling water, the x-axis is the height
above sea level, and the y-axis is the boiling point of water.
Method 2: Animate values with an abstracted scale. In this case, the visitor
moves a knob to select different elevations, and another knob animates in real-
time to show the corresponding boiling points.
Method 3: Animate values with a realistic scale. In this case, the visitor moves
a small icon of a person up and down a mountain. In real time, a ruler scale adjusts
to show the current height, an animated thermometer shows the boiling point
of water, and an animated timer shows how the baking time varies for cookies.
138 Douma and Dediu
Figure 6.
A. Latitude vs. length of daylight over the year

(Web Exhibits)
B. Time and atmosphere vs. colors of sunset

(Web Exhibits)
C. Parents genetics vs. childs genetics

(Tech Museum of Innovation)
D. Food vs. taste components

(Web Exhibits)
Although a normal line graph actually shows the most information, with the boiling
points for all elevations shown simultaneously, line graphs are not intuitive for many
visitors. In contrast, an animated figure is much more effective and fun. With Method 3,
the visitor has the sensation of discovery, as if he is personally climbing the mountain
to conduct the experiment. Additionally, you can add contextual information in your
illustration, such as nature of the terrain at different elevations. By coloring the figure,
the visitor better intuits the difference between a desert-like climate below sea level, and
the thin cold air at alpine heights.
Visual examination of graphs helps visitors acquire insight into the complex relations
embodied in a model (Tweedie et al., 1996). This technique helps reduce the number of
dimensions of data you are showing. Rather than show a two-dimensional graph of
elevation versus boiling point, you show only one dimension (elevation), and one boiling
point at a time.
If you have three-dimensional data, such as elevation vs. time vs. temperature of cake
batter, it can be difficult to illustrate. However, by separating elevation, and animating
it, you can display a line graph of time versus batter temperature, and visitors will
understand that it takes longer to bake a cake at high elevations because the batter heats
more slowly.
Modeling and Altering Reality
Consider the need to show dependencies between components, or the key themes in a
system: for example, an ecosystem consists of many species; an orchestra has multiple
instruments; fractals have common arrangement; ocean waves have periodicity; certain
color combinations have more contrast than others; the path of a comet depends on its
speed, trajectory, and the mass of nearby planets. Simulations are opportunities for
learning by doing, and help illustrate abstract, or complex concepts. Simulations are
dynamic and task-driven, allowing visitors to experience a concept (Hanna, Glowacki-
Dudka, & Conceicao-Runlee, 2000). Present a visitor with a model of the system, and allow
them to manipulate it:
Method 1: Multiple instances. The model is a short animation, 5 to 30 seconds

long, and the animation depends on the starting conditions. Either randomly set
the starting conditions each time the model is run (e.g., change the position of
the seed in a fractal attractor), or let the visitor set the starting conditions.
Method 2: Real-time changes. The model is a continuous animation, such as air

flowing through a whistle, and the visitor can adjust parameters in real-time,
such as the position of the air entry and the dimensions of the air chamber.
This is related to the previous technique, but involves more complex systems such as
taking an engine apart. By breaking or modulating a working system, the visitor gains a
strong appreciation for how it works, and how the components interact.
This technique is particularly powerful for basic physical phenomena, such as trajecto-
ries, orbits, and vibrations. Building the mathematical underpinnings into a complex
model, and illustrating the model on a Web site can be very time consuming. However,
it is one of the most effective teaching tools.
Implementation: Note that virtual reality can be simulated. For example, you do not need
to calculate the fluid dynamics of airflow in real-time. Rather, you can have a series of
rendered frames, and recorded sounds, to create the illusion of real-time reality.
140 Douma and Dediu
Interactive Appliances
Consider the need to decide between making generalized tools that all work similarly, and
inventing several unique tools. Add just the controls necessary to yield a functional
information appliance, but do not add unneeded controls (excessive features) or portions
(like gears) that a real appliance might have. Many of the examples discussed earlier in
this chapter, such as animated graphs with moving knobs, are all dedicated information
appliances (Norman, 1999).
Keep the user interface widgets common. For example, always use bright green knobs.
However, the design of your interactive figures should always match the purpose. Again,
only present the minimum complexity to achieve your purpose.
For millennia, tools have been invented to achieve just one purpose. In the digital age,
Jef Raskin first promoted the idea of a simple device designed around the information
needs of a single function in 1978 at Apple Computer. The concept of focusing on a single
function has evolved into a design strategy for interactive tools hoping to break through
the complexity barrier imposed by such general purpose computing devices as the
personal computer (Norman, 1999).
The stopwatch is not useful for telling time, but it is both useful and highly usable for
timing the duration of events. The stopwatch is a highly specialized information
appliance that does one thing — track elapsed time — very well.
Real-Life Experiments
A virtual science center should touch the real world. Consider the need to have visitors
experience a topic first-hand: for example, making butter at home; folding origami animals;
creating a pin-hole camera; or building a small ship out of plastic soda bottles (Wrigley,
2001).
Devise real-life experiences that complement the online exhibit. Provide detailed instruc-
tions, materials, and photographs to explain what to do. The text should be easy to follow,
and convenient to print.
If the experiment is intended for use in a classroom, provide simple instructions that can
be printed for students, and a more detailed version for teachers including additional
notes on implementation and the science concepts being taught.
There is extensive research into experiential learning, but ideas for experiments are
sometimes hard for curators to find. By working with science educators, classroom
activities (with extra background information for teachers) can be incorporated into the
design of the online exhibit. Examples of classroom activities include building and testing
models of sailing vessels, simulating the effects of wind and waves; replicating Galileo’s
experiments; and studying waves by using long strings (Wrigley, 2001).
Figure 7.
A. Media controls (various sources
Gaining Additional Insight and Context

An engaging online exhibit should maintain a sense of realism and narrative. Adding
multimedia, such as commentary from a noted astronomer, can engender realism.
Narrative is sometimes maintained by removing extra information from the core presen-
tation, for example, keeping images as small thumbnails that can be enlarged.
Vignettes and Clips
Consider the need to lend a sense of context and mood. Add a short audio clip, including
a personal recount, or reflection. Include a volume control, play/pause, and restart. The
audio augments the textual content with selected examples. We discourage narrating the
whole exhibit because the visitors become too passive, as if watching television.
Personal comments are invariably more interesting and engaging that factual mono-
logues. A simple phrase like, “we were so surprised at the results of this experiment. It
revolutionized our understanding of the atom,” comes to life if delivered by an engaging
scientist or doctor. Use voice-over to provide context, not to instruct. It can be difficult
to write concise copy for a script. Keep in mind that real dialogue is very colloquial, and
if two speakers are talking, they rarely say more than two sentences without interruption.
The following are some examples of how different media types can effectively lend depth
and interest (Sutcliffe, 2003). Audio clips can illustrate the setting for a story, sound of
rain and storms, sound of skiing, sound of a starting gun, noise of a tornado, echoes in
a cave, sound of snoring. A video can show documentary of a person talking or an
interaction, can reveal body language or subtle movements. If using video to illustrate
a phenomenon, such as an explosion, rocket flight, a dancer twirling, or a storm cloud,
allow the visitor to control the timeline, so they can dissect the action frame by frame,
as described in “Viewing a Sequence” .
142 Douma and Dediu
Zooming In
Consider the need to let visitors zoom into an image. A screen has much lower resolution
than a book, and visitors cannot see enough detail.
Method 1: An enlarge button. An easy method is to put a small “Enlarge” button

next to the image. In current screen displays, zoomed images that fit within 750
pixels wide and 650 pixels high are sufficient.
Method 2: Zoom into and around details. Provide a small thumbnail that the
visitor can click on and see what detail they are examining. Also, let the visitor
pan from within the zoomed view. Implementation: As of 2004, an excellent Flash
software package for creating zooms within a Web page is zoomify from
Zoomify, which allows visitors to quickly zoom into an image by streaming only
the relevant image data. The technology uses a mixture of encoding, avoiding
redundancy in data, data compression, pre-fetching, and streaming to create a
very responsive experience (Zoomify, 2003). We discourage the use of Java
applets.
Zooming is critical, and virtually all images in your exhibit should be displayed relatively
small in line with the text, but have an option of a full-screen view. It is rare that visitors
really need to zoom far into an image, so an enlarge button with one state of zoom will
suffice for most instances.
Organizations concerned with the copyrights of their images can either watermark them
with a faint tint (a watermark with curved lines, and both white and black is virtually
impossible to manually remove), or by slightly warping the zoomed image so that the
high-resolution original cannot be re-assembled.
Three-Dimensional Views
Consider the need to show a 3-D object or scene. Allow the visitor to rotate, spin, or
navigate a 3-D world on screen. If he drags to spin the object, have the object continue
to spin for a few moments, slowing down as if by friction, after the visitor releases the
mouse button.
Method 1: Pre-render. You can make a pre-recorded animation, in the form of

movie clip, or use an interactive 3-D object, such as Quicktime 3-D, or make a 3-
D view in Flash. If using flash, keep in mind that the client does not need to
calculate the 3-D view natively, typically all the views are rendered as bitmaps
or vectors. We discourage special plug-ins other than Quicktime or Flash.
Implementation: Swift3-D offers tools for rendering 3-D objects from LightWave
and other engines as Flash vectors.
Method 2: Real-time graphics. Simple polygons, and images can be manipulated

to appear 3-D. Represent the objects using 3-D points, manipulate them in 3-D
space, and have a rendering engine for display on-screen. An excellent set of
Flash tools is available as Open Source from levitated.net (Tan et al., 2002).
Most three-dimensional objects come to life when animated on-screen. The illusion of
three dimensions is captivating, and visitors will enjoy the virtual reality experience. It
is more interesting to navigate a scene or rotate an object, than to simply see a few
selected views.
Pre-rendering allows you to have highly ornate images, but since you need a frame for
every view, file sizes balloon quickly. Real-time graphics can potentially offer smoother
motion, and also allow more interactivity, and degrees of motion. The Virtual Human
project from the mid-1990s explored building dynamic query and previewing techniques
for rendering voxel images of a human body. The visitor was able to view portions of the
human anatomy to view, and the angle from which to view it. By pre-rendering many
views, the system was able to send to the viewer only the relevant information, only
downloading a small sample of the full dataset; larger selections could then be down-
loaded of the areas that the visitor was interested (North, Shneiderman, & Plaisant, 1996).
Navigating Among Many Items
Consider the need to let a visitor choose among a set of items, such as pages or
thumbnails.
Method 1: Ordered grid. Thumbnails quickly appear disordered, but if you lay
them out with a strictly ordered grid, the eye perceives structure, and they will
appear more manageable.
Method 2: Animated row or column. The thumbnails are arranged in a linear

shape, and the row flows from side to side, showing a subset of the thumbnails,
analogous to a train moving on a track.
Method 3: Cylinder display engine. As the visitor moves or drags the mouse,
a ring of thumbnails rotates about the vertical axis (into the screen). This brings
some thumbnails to the front, while others recede and fade into opacity. Clicking
the images both enlarges the image panel and adjusts its outward radius. Spin
the rotational device using the horizontal position of the mouse. Properties of
the rotational device allow for the precise placement of each image, distance from
center, rotation speed, size, and more.
Method 4: Spherical magnification. As the visitor moves the mouse, individual

elements are displaced and magnified around the edge of a transparent sphere.
144 Douma and Dediu
The system works by defining a reactive object in continual watch of the mouse.
Pressing the mouse button down creates a momentary increase in the amount
of magnification (7x vs. 4x). When the mouse comes within a specified distance
of the object, the object is first pushed away, and then attracted to the mouse
as it draws nearer. In addition, the object is magnified by a sinusoidal relation-
ship to the distance from the mouse. The effect is a reactive field of objects that
appear to be magnified by a lens controlled by the mouse (Tan et al., 2002).
Method 5: Hyperbolic magnification. Similar to spherical magnification, a

hyperbolic browser is inspired by the “Circle Limit IV” woodcut of M.C. Escher.
The hyperbolic tree view was first introduced in modern computing by the
visualization studies at Xerox (Lamping & Rao, 1995), and later commercialized
by Inxight. Using hyperbolic trees, large tree structures are compactly displayed
by projecting a tree onto a hyperbolic plane. The effect of the projection is that
components appear to be diminishing in size and radius exponentially the further
they move from the center of the diagram. The hyperbolic tree is patented by
Inxight, so if your project is distributed in the U.S., you will need to use a type
of the projection that is not patented.
Using an animated series of thumbnails can be eye catching and engaging, but you have
to be careful that the motion is not too computationally intensive and slow on lower-end
machines. Whenever animating motion, try to use physics-based algorithms for motion,
with acceleration, gravity, and friction, so the motion seems more natural. A good source
for basic motion algorithms is Bourge’s Physics for Game Developers (2001).
The notion of zooming can be abstracted from zooming into a photo, to narrowing a data
set (Card, Mackinlay, & Shneiderman, 1999). For example, from a set of all the fundamental
physical elements, visitors can zoom in on the metals, and then zoom in on the heavy
elements.
The User Interface

Much has been written about human-computer interaction, and the importance of the
user interface. Many of these concepts appear throughout this chapter. The following
points touch upon just a few aspects of interfaces. The overall key is to be “user-
centered.” Imagine the experience of several visitors, from young students, to experi-
enced Web visitors, to the elderly. The interface must be immediately obvious for all
cases (Watzman, 2003; Norman, 1990; Nielson, 2000; Constantine & Lockwood, 1999).
Figure 8. Choosing items and designs for icons and buttons
A. Spherical magnification (levitated.net)
B. Zoom controls and page navigation (various sources)
C. Cylinder display (levitated.net)
D. Yin Yu Tang dynamic family tree

(Peabody Essex Museum)
E. Painting zoom (Web Exhibit)
Icons
Consider the need to make icons immediately obvious. Except for a few concepts where
icons are part of our common visual vocabulary, use text labels rather than icons. The
icon or thumbnail can augment the text, but not replace it.
Icons are not useful when they are unfamiliar, and you should not rely on unusual icons
for navigation. There are very few icons that are wholly obvious.
However, for those few concepts where the icons are part of our visual vocabulary,
judicious use of icons can be a helpful part of your navigational scheme. For example,
an arrow icon can help a “continue” or “next” link considerably, augmenting the meaning
146 Douma and Dediu
in a nonverbal way. Similarly, a magnifying glass helps a “zoom” link, and the now
ubiquitous “shopping cart” icon is helpful. If you are spawning new windows for help
screen or magnifying images, an icon made of overlapping squares indicates that a new
window will appear.
Icons should be used when the visual clue augments the textual message. For example,
a department store might pair a tuxedo icon with the word “men’s wear” to suggest formal
attire. Similarly, pairing a small thumbnail with a text label would help visitors choose
among different size atoms, or climates.
Buttons
Consider the need to make buttons immediately obvious. Use a consistent style for all
buttons. Thousands of designs appear around the Internet. Two common styles are to
create a slightly embossed shape, or to have a small thumbnail with a label.
Buttons are objects on the screen that the visitor can click. If the buttons are highly
obvious, it is not necessary to have a mouse-over effect to highlight it. If the buttons
appear subtler, a mouse-over effect can be very helpful to draw the visitor’s attention
to the widget’s interactivity. If there is a default button on the screen, consider drawing
attention with a slow (2-3 second), subtle pulsing, changing the brightness or size.
Knobs
Consider the need to make knobs immediately obvious. Knobs should have consistent
styling. There are many styles of knob, but the best designs are reminiscent of real-life
knobs and switches, are convenient to use, and are reminiscent of other widgets used
in the operating system. Successful styles include brightly colored gumdrops and
embossed blocks.
Sometimes the knob should take the form of an object. For example, the visitor might move
a rocket up and down, to see how the pull of gravity changes with distance from the earth.
In such as case, the knob is not self-evident, and it must be clearly indicated, “drag the
rocket to different heights” or “change the position of the rocket.” Consider using false
color to highlight the icon.
E-Mail or Print This Page
Consider the need to encourage visitors to share your site with others, or archive it. Add
an “e-mail this page” link to every page in the exhibit, allowing visitors to add a brief note.
Append an identifier, such as “?e-mail” to the end of the URL if you want to track how
many hits come from referrals using server logs. Visitors may feel more comfortable using
this feature if you allow them to “preview this e-mail” before sending. Also assure them
the e-mail address will be used for no other use. Similarly, it is helpful to have a “printable
version” of pages with white backgrounds and no fixed margins.
Helping Visitors Find

and Access Information
As the amount of information online continues to mushroom, finding information has
become increasingly complex, and the metaphors for finding information have shifted
from hierarchical structures to searching. Searching has become a critical task for Web
users and for personal computer users
Visitors expect to be offered several ways to find information. In addition to making the
content of your virtual science center available through remote and local search engines,
several other concepts will help visitors find information, and make the exhibit more
relevant to their lives.
Editorial Decisions in Choosing Content
Consider the need to choose what to put online. Designing an effective exhibit is as much
a matter of what you don’t say as what you do say. This is not a matter of dumbing down
the material, but seeking epiphanies. Focus on topics that are hard to explain using only
words alone, but come to life with interactivity and multimedia.
Good interactive exhibit design helps visitors get their minds around a subject by
encouraging active participation. “Visitors do not come to an exhibit to read. They come
to learn and do,” said an exhibit developer at International Spy Museum in Washington,
D.C. A content expert might know the subject inside and out, but that encyclopedic
knowledge can be a problem if not reined in (McMillan, 2004). Extra information should
be placed on secondary pages within the exhibit.
It is often effective to design an exhibit by working backward. Assemble a collection of
ideas for interactive figures and experiences, and then arrange them conceptually.
One method of obtaining content for an exhibit is to adapt the proceedings of an academic
conference. Create an overall conceptual structure to encompass the papers, adapt the
language and figures from presentations, and interlink topics. But be prepared that using
conference proceedings as source material is only a starting point; the material must be
digested to become a coherent and engaging exhibit.
There are different definitions of the term “content,” and different approaches to building
an e-learning module. These include: (1) Information: facts, concepts and procedures to
be learned. (2) Objectives: a collection of learning objectives or strategic goals. (3) Media:
all the text, graphics, videos, and other multimedia assets. (4) Experience: the overall
experience and interactions which the visitor experiences (Allen, 2002).
Site Organization
Consider the need to organize the exhibit. Design the exhibit so that it can be navigated
several different ways, but choose an overall organizational model that fits the subject
148 Douma and Dediu
(Douma & Henchman, 2000a; Baxley, 2000). If the visitors are highly motivated, the
content can be organized from the subject-matter expert’s point of view, often with a
pattern of declaration and elucidation. However, just as mystery novels are more
interesting than textbooks, so too should most exhibits avoid the temptation to be
content-focused. Instead, focus on the experience of a learner, and assume that most
visitors will not take the same path through the site (Allen, 2002).
Method 1: Organize by problem or event. Capture the visitor’s attention with a

series of case studies or situations. Well-devised imbroglios can be fascinating
and anomalies can be intriguing.
Method 2: Organize by conceptual topic. For example, examine various aspects

of a painting, such as perspective, color, and motion. Examine van Gogh’s life
in terms of his family, painting, and illness.
Method 3: Organize by chronology. Use a timeline as the main navigation.

Exhibits of this sort generally have a wide timeline displayed at all times. For
example, explain the stages of embryonic development, the maturation of a
caterpillar, or the evolution of the earth.
Method 4: Organize by structure. For example, explain the workings of the New
York subway by examining all the pipes and tunnels beneath the streets of the
city.
Method 5: Organize by first-person account. For example, tell the story of the
discovery of DNA from the point of view of Watson, Crick, and contemporary
scientists. If possible, augment the narrative with audio clips.
Method 6: Organize hierarchically. Start simple and get more complicated. For
example, if you are explaining how a complex device works, start by explaining
the basic principles and theory that govern the workings of the device. Give
examples of similar, but simpler devices.
Method 7: Organize by pigeonhole. Present numerous little facts, and let the
visitor synthesize them in their own mind, and apply their knowledge to their own
life. Effectively, the whole exhibit is a collection of small sidebars.
Method 8: Organize by question/answer. A combination of Methods 1 and 7 is

used in the common “Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)” format. Focus on
narrow questions, such as “Why are days longer in the summer?” Note, that you
should not ask mandatory questions that require a correct answer, like a quiz.
Visitors prefer to browse your exhibit and pose their own questions.
Maintain a narrative thread to help the visitor grasp the big picture. You are making an
exhibit not an encyclopedia. The difference is that an exhibit has a flow. An encyclopedia
is merely cross-referenced information.
Consider using more than one navigational scheme. For example, an archive of Charles
Darwin’s observations could be organized by subject in a hierarchical table on contents,
or in forward or reverse chronological order.
Adapting Real Exhibits to the Virtual World
Consider the need to adapt a real exhibit into an online exhibit. Rather than adapt the
exhibit as a whole, instead plan on repurposing much of the material into a different
structure. You may augment certain topics online, and skip others. Approaches for
design exceed the scope of this chapter, but exhibits are generally arranged in a
hierarchical manner (chapters, sections, pages), with a layout similar to a magazine. Most
images should be enlargeable, and there should be an emphasis on interactivity rather
than textual content. There can be an appendix to the exhibit with more scholarly
discussions and references.
During the formative years of the Internet, print, radio, and television were quick to adapt
to online publishing. However, museum exhibits, and other in-person experiences, were
harder to adapt to the Web browser. Indeed, online and physical exhibits are very
different media, and physical exhibits rarely translate directly into online exhibits. Many
styles of layouts and presentations were tried in 1998-2002, and by 2002; a number of
successful design motifs had evolved. Some of these ideas are discussed elsewhere in
this book.
Classroom Guides
Consider the need to help teachers use the exhibit in the classroom. Provide an online
teacher’s guide for the material. Depending on the nature of the topic, provide guides
focused on specific age groups and school level. These guides can be Web pages or
printable PDF format.
The guide should include an outline of the curriculum and themes, specific teacher-
focused overview of the sections of the exhibit, and additional sources. It should be
obvious to teachers how they might use the exhibit in their own classroom.
A lesson plan can vary widely in structure, but may include: a summary of major
understandings, essential questions, key knowledge objectives, key skill objectives, a
listing of primary and secondary sources (including portions of the exhibit) and several
suggestions for assessments (assignments and quizzes). For example, in studying the
adventures of Lewis and Clark mapping the Western United States: “Students will take
the role of a tribal chief and write a three-to-five-sentence response to the speech. The
response must include at least one reason to accept or reject what Lewis has written”
(Grove et al., 2003).
150 Douma and Dediu
The major audience for exhibits is often students in a classroom, and the likelihood of
teachers using materials increases dramatically if you provide teacher’s guides. Failing
to produce a teacher’s guide is like failing to advertise a new business, or failing to make
a press release for a scientific breakthrough.
Many teachers lack robust knowledge about science, engineering and technology
(Lewis et al., 1999). Therefore, include professional development resources with the
teacher’s guide to provide additional academic background for those teachers who want
to be brought up to speed on some of the underlying concepts. Professional learning is
critical because teachers must feel confident with the material if they are to teach it well.
Like students, teachers will learn by using the exhibit and related real-life activities you
include. This is sometimes called a dual-purpose curriculum, teaching students and
teachers at the same time (Wrigley, 2001).
Web Browsers are Constraining
Consider the need to overcome the constraints of a Web browser. Browsers have limited
screen space, limited navigational conventions, low resolution, and limited bandwidth.
Expect to compromise and innovate. Producers must massage the content, appearance,
pedagogy, and organization. Rather than be concerned with the shortcomings of the Web
browser, we encourage you to focus on the opportunities it presents. Virtual exhibits
offer an opportunity for interactivity — which is not available in-person — and which
the savvy curator should indulge to the fullest extent possible.
Navigation
Consider the need to let visitors move to neighboring pages. The visitor should have a
sense of the scope of the site, understand how the contents are organized, and where
they are in the site.
In addition to the other navigational tools on the page for chapters, sections, and
etcetera, add previous and next links. Add a small arrow, or angly bracket, such as “>“
or “>>.” These links should be obvious, and placed on the bottom of every page.
If there are several pages in a long series, also add “Page: 1-2-3-4-5-6” links, in which the
current page in the series is visually distinctive. Alternatively, you can label the pages
as a sequence, “First,” “Second,” “Third,” and etcetera, or by name.
Local Search Engine
Consider the need to find content among a sea of hundreds of thousands of pages. Add
a search engine to your site, placing a “Find:” search box on the edge of every page. Also
add a search link to the navigation.
Search engines are only helpful if your site has over a hundred pages, so that common
search terms will yield meaningful hits. If you install a local search engine, you will need
to provide informative page titles, so that the engine returns useful results.
Customize the search results template so that its design is integrated with the rest of the
exhibit. The search engine should do full-text searches, and also let you add keywords
to your own pages to manipulate the rankings within your site. Implementation: At the
time of writing, leading commercial search engines for local servers are Verity Ultraseek
and Google appliance. A common outsourced engine is AtomZ.
Search-Engine Robot and Human Accessibility
Consider the need to make pages accessible and indexable by search engines, and have
URLs that are short enough that visitors can write them down. Keep your URLs short,
and do not use frames. If pages are database driven, do not use a GET query with a
question mark in the URL. Rather, cloak the arguments by using the PATH environment
variable. Add alt tags to important images.
These techniques do not assure high rankings in search engines, but they will ensure
that the pages will be easily accessible to search engines, and easily shared and typed
by visitors.
Dynamic Navigation and Personalization
Consider the need to meet the needs of different visitors. For example, you need a version
of the exhibit for young children, teens, adults, and teachers.
Method 1: Initial interview, or preferences. Ask a few questions of the visitor

at the beginning of the exhibit; for example, “What is your school level?…I am
in elementary school; I am in middle school; I am a teacher.” Depending on the
responses, present appropriate navigation leading the visitor to pages appro-
priate to them.
Method 2: Embed branch points or choices. Present a series of pages, with

questions interspersed within the pages. Answers to the questions affect the
content and navigation on other sections of the site. For example, in a site that
offers movie recommendations, ratings on one page affect the recommended
movie on another page.
If your exhibit contains a lot of content that is only applicable to certain types of visitors,
it is helpful to cater the content to the unique needs of the visitor.
Broadly speaking, there are two ways to implement dynamic navigation, both represent-
ing the content in the site as a tree of nodes or objects. For simple branching, it is generally
152 Douma and Dediu
easier to base the logic on the parent node. For example, if visitors note that they are
female, they could be directed towards women’s issues. However, for complex logic, it
is better to base the logic on the child node. In this case, the site has a user database,
which compiles characteristics about the visitor, and each node has a set of rules (e.g.,
activate this node if the visitor is a woman with cancer and diabetes; or deactivate node
if visitor is a student over the age of 14).
Dynamic Content and Localization
Consider the need to meet the needs of multiple audiences which each need different
versions of the same information, or different translations (localization). For example,
Spanish and English versions of each page, or versions geared towards different
education levels.
Method 1: Static tree. Prepare several versions of the same set of pages, geared
towards different audiences. Create a mirror version of the site for every version.
This is similar to the technique above.
Method 2: Dynamic content. Prepare one set of pages, but embed different
versions of the text in each page. Use a scripting engine and a template system
to dynamically choose the appropriate text to display.
The advantage of the first method (static) is that it does not require any complex
programming. The advantage of the second method (dynamic) is that it is easier to update
the Web site because the layout and the content are separated. Foreign language
versions may not be completed by the translators until the last days of production, so
separating content and layout is critical.
If you are localizing the content, include an option on every page to switch between
languages. Use a small icon of the parent country, if appropriate. If you are creating
different versions for different educational levels, have a brief introductory page where
visitors can identify themselves.
Interactive Encyclopedias and Browseable Databases
Consider the need to make a large amount of data interesting.
Method 1: Provide views. Produce a large series of pages with pre-selected

fields, with a clear layout, and illustrations (if possible). Example: A database of
hundreds of insects, and their traits. For every insect, there are four views with
the most popular data fields — a page each for habitat, anatomy, ecosystem, and
history.
Method 2: Include multimedia. Whenever possible, include in the database

design fields for appropriate audio (clips from famous persons, animal noises),
or visuals (photos of the item or its context).
Method 3: Graph or illustrate the data. For example, in a weather database, rather
than display the temperature, barometric pressure, and wind speed as mere
numbers, create simple graphs or diagrams to illustrate the data. These can be
generated in real-time, or you can pre-generate all possible conditions and
display the appropriate one as an image. Similarly, the habitat of insects can be
illustrated with a map. This is the basis for most geographic information systems,
which display data on a map rather than in tables.
Method 4: Related items. Show connections and provide links to multiple types
of related items. For example, in an insect database, provide links to related
insects in the similar geographical area, insects in the same taxonomic classifi-
cation, competitors, common predators, anthropological history (used in cer-
emonies, as jewelry, etc.), and the alphabetically adjacent.
Method 5. Hierarchical browsing. Using a series of columns, help a visitor

navigate a hierarchical tree. This technique was championed in NeXT’s file
browser, and recently in Apple’s iTunes music browser, in which thousands of
tracks are quickly narrowed down. The visitor clicks on a genre, then an artist,
then an album. In seconds, the visitor reduces data down to a few relevant items.
There are typically two ways to use a database, searching and browsing. Searching is
intended for visitors who want to quickly find something by searching for keywords.
Browsing allows the visitor to wander through the database and discover items they did
not anticipate.
The browsing experience is about visitors’ process of discovery, revealing connections,
and creating their own sets. For example, in Peabody Essex Museum’s ARTscape, after
making an initial query, the search engine presents a set of thumbnails in a results strip
along the bottom of the interface. Visitors scroll through hundreds of results, scanning
the cropped thumbnail representations and rolling over them for titles. When something
is of interest, it can be clicked and loaded in the center of the interface where the title,
date, creator, origin, medium and donor are revealed. This approach can work for any large
classification system. You can also add the capability to “save” or “bookmark” a custom
view, or to email it to a friend (Johnson, 2004).
Web sites vary in their degree of flexibility — ranging from static and fixed presentations
to dynamic database-driven offerings — and their degree of intermediation — ranging
from a high degree of curatorial control over the presentation to giving visitors
uninhibited control. Static presentations generally make it easier to create rich, compel-
ling and immersive interactive content; but in static exhibits, the visitor is strictly an
observer, there is no technological extensibility, no editorial extensibility and very little
154 Douma and Dediu
design flexibility in fixed features. Dynamic features, by contrast, are fluid, flexible and
keep the components (content, presentation and technology) transmutable. But too
much flexibility can be daunting; visitors need some guidance and hand-holding.
One approach to guided browsing is for visitors to select a case, and then searches for
cases with similar attributes (attribute walk). The technique was developed in a system
for searching databases called Rabbit in the 1980s (Card, Mackinlay, & Shneiderman,
1999) and is now often used by stock photography services that let visitors find similar
photos by choosing among attributes of a current photo. Music and book retailers use
attribute walks to find related items by a musician or author. In a science Web site, the
visitors might be exploring minerals and gems, and move from gem to gem first based on
color (more “greens”), by hardness (more “soft” minerals), by crystal type (more
“monoclinic” crystals), and so forth.
Drawing on the Knowledge and

Experience of Visitors
The dynamic and database capabilities of Web servers allow a virtual exhibit to also
encourage a sense of community. However, this must be done carefully. Many ap-
proaches lead to abuse or misuse, including irrelevant and otherwise inappropriate
content.
Visitor-Generated Content
Consider the need to expand your content by drawing on the unique knowledge of your
visitors. Invite visitors to share information about highly specific questions. For
example, “How has the habitat in your community changed over the years?”
Use specific questions about which visitors might have personal knowledge. Although
thought-provoking questions — “What kinds of food might be good to eat in zero-
gravity?” — are excellent teaching tools; in your exhibit, questions should be purely
rhetorical, and not solicit written replies.
However, there are some questions, particularly historical and sociological questions,
for which it is very effective to ask the public. For example, the Victoria & Albert museum
asked, “The famous and the fashionable wore Ossie Clark designs. Were you one of
them? Did you have an Ossie Clark outfit? Why did you buy it? What made it distinct?
Do you have any special memories of wearing it? How do you feel now when you look
back? Share your memories and any scanned photographs you might have by e-
mailing…” Out of several thousand visitors to the online exhibit, 25 visitors sent replies
(none with photos). The museum received several excellent and informative replies,
which they posted online (Durbin, 2004).
Inform visitors that their submissions may be published, and become property of your
museum.
Community Features
Consider the option to create an online community. Although the traditional science
center tends to practice top-down pedagogy, with visitors rarely interacting; the Internet
offers the opportunity to create virtual communities where visitors can correspond with
other visitors. These can be implemented using a range of technologies, including blogs,
forums and guest books, e-mail lists, page comments, ratings, and voting. Generally
speaking, we discourage chat rooms and voting because they offer little value and are
prone to abuse. The community technologies offer various opportunities.
• Blogs: A frequently updated Web log (blog) incrementally adds short postings
over a period of time, arranging the postings in a reverse chronology. An expert
creates the content, and the public has a chance to post comments. This works well
in exhibits based on adventures, such as dispatches from a trip around the world,
or a research project that will have ongoing “discoveries.” A similar approach is
an ask-the-scientist feature, but that tends to receive mostly homework questions
from students.
• Forums: The late 1990s “guest book” evolved into the forum where visitors can
leave comments (postings) on a variety of topics or start their own topics. Forums
are tricky because they only work for a narrow range of visitors and a narrow range
of topics. Too few participants and it is not interesting; too many and it is
overwhelming. Shy participants fail to ignite interesting dialog; ornery participants
quickly mire the conversation with belligerence (Ross, 2003). There is also always
the risk of abuse and free-for-all off-topic postings. The value of a forum is only
in topics where the visitors are potentially more expert than the curators. Avoid any
other use of visitor input otherwise. For layman commentary, redirect comments to
an off-line e-mail address.
• E-mail lists: If your science center is going to be revisiting a topic or theme,
consider establishing a newsletter to keep the public informed of new develop-
ments. Also, as an extension to the teacher’s resources, an e-mail discussion group
will help teachers using the exhibit in their classroom share experiences and ideas
with their virtual colleagues at other schools.
• Page comments: The option to post comments has become a popular feature on
many online magazines and blogs. We have not found these useful in science
exhibits. Similarly, we discourage real-time chat rooms because of the risk of abuse.
• Ratings and voting: Many Web sites seek to gauge public opinion by conducting
a poll; but we suggest that you do not. An online poll, unless by invitation, is prone
to abuse, misrepresentation, bias and sampling errors. A science museum should
not encourage statistically invalid surveys. However, it can be quite successful to
tally ratings for an individual visitor. For example, a visitor can tally their opinion
about greenhouse gasses, and compare their opinion with averages or conclusions
from experts. Likewise, a visitor could calculate their body-mass-index, and com-
pare it with a national average. One method of prompting visitors to ask themselves
questions is described in the next technique.
156 Douma and Dediu
Figure 9.
A. Analysis of a famous map. The visitor analyses

each piece of evidence individually and notes their
opinion. Exhibit keeps a running tally of their opinions
and displays the average on a dial atop every page.
(WebExhibits)
Evaluating Evidence
Consider the need to explain a multi-faceted problem and have visitors evaluate the
evidence, and see how a decision must look at a range of evidence. For example: Is an
ancient map actually a fake? Did a suspect commit a crime?
Encourage visitors to evaluate information and make judgments about something by
measuring it against a standard, determining a criteria for judging merits or ideas,
prioritizing options, recognizing errors in reasoning, and verifying arguments and
hypotheses through reality testing.
Encourage visitors to analyze information. Involve the visitors in recognizing patterns
of organization; classifying objects into categories based on common attributes;
identifying assumptions (suppositions and beliefs) that underlie positions; identifying
central ideas in text, data, or creations; differentiating main ideas from supporting
information; and finding sequences or order in organized information. Visitors should
connect information, by comparing and contrasting objects or events, building argu-
ments, conclusions, or inferences, and providing support for their assumptions (Hanna,
Glowacki-Dudka, & Conceicao-Runlee, 2000).
If exploring unusual defect rates in a production line of a factory, introduce the history
of the factory and the local suppliers, the nature of the quality control, and the limitations
of different kinds of evidence. Explain to the visitor that there are several degrees of
certainty:
• Very certain: There is abundant, compelling evidence... and only one reasonable
interpretation.
• Probably sure: The evidence is very strong, and you can presume an opinion... but
another interpretation might be possible. This can also be called “presumptive
evidence.”
• It proves nothing: The evidence is consistent with the supplier causing defects...
We are speculating, this permissive evidence cannot prove anything.
Present the visitor with a series of pages, on which they are directed to note their opinion
about each piece of evidence, and note how certain they are about their conclusion. For
each piece of evidence, explain the basis for the evidence, and provide an unbiased
explanation of what the evidence means. Alongside every page, show the following
options, under a heading, “What is your analysis?” The visitor can click radio buttons.
This evidence suggests the supplier caused the defects: Yes; Not sure; No; Undecided.
How conclusive is this evidence? Very certain; Somewhat sure; It proves nothing;
Undecided.
As the visitor clicks through the pages, a dial on the top of the page dynamically adjusts.
The dial, labeled “your conclusion” has a range of positions, from “caused” to “unde-
cided” to “didn’t cause.”
On a “your conclusion” page, total the pro and con votes. Some votes are “very certain,”
some are “somewhat sure” and some are “none.” Add the votes, and calculate the overall
determination. Implementation: A sample equation based on arctangent is listed in the
appendix.
Allowing visitors to evaluate the evidence themselves creates an atmosphere of discov-
ery. At the end of the exhibit, also tell visitors what the “experts” have concluded. In any
good story, the experts often have widely differing opinions.
A related version of this technique is to present the visitor with a series of hypotheses,
and the evidence to evaluate them. For example, what disease does a patient suffer from?
What caused the Space Shuttle Columbia to explode in 2003? Why did the dinosaurs
become extinct? For every hypothesis, present the visitor with evidence to review, and
keep track of their replies. After evaluating every hypothesis, the exhibit tells them which
hypothesis they personally think is most probable.
Conclusion
Over the last two decades, many notions for displaying data and information have passed
through phases of theory, exploration, abstraction, and demonstration. Prior to the
1990s, ideas about interaction came from computer science academics using advanced
computers (for the time).
In the mid-1990s, various interactive tools were developed, usually based on CD or
kiosks, which had the data throughput necessary for rich media. Development was
dominated by students, idealists, architects, failed artists, technological visionaries and
brash young entrepreneurs (traditional designers, still reeling from the desktop publish-
ing revolution a decade earlier, were not early adopters). The possibilities of this “new
media” were embraced particularly quickly by the educational and cultural world, and
many generously funded projects began. But these projects were often afflicted by
immature software, and hardware that was not yet good enough for visitors to spend long
158 Douma and Dediu
periods of time learning in front of their computer monitors. Early productions were often
clunky by today’s standards, with inconsistent navigation (circles, squares, left-
handed, right-handed, top, bottom, etc.), and lengthy introductory sequences. After
failing to live up to expectations, both in terms of financial return and educational impact,
much of educational world seemed to have lost its enthusiasm in multimedia and
interactivity by the late 1990s, and a disproportionate amount of innovation was funded
by relatively few organizations, including PBS, National Geographic, and the Smithsonian.
The turn of the century and the growing dot-com bubble introduced the Web into the
lives of everyday people. Web technologies were riddled with flaws, but they were good
enough to be quickly embraced by millions of users. Web design and development
quickly became sought-after professions, and interactive design matured, with an
explosion of projects in the commercial sector. From a design standpoint, interactive
projects began looking very modern by 1999, with navigation bars generally in the same
place as today, and logos placed in the upper left, and conventions becoming conven-
tional. Vector graphics popularized by Macromedia Flash allowed designers to make
animated and interactive content, propelling the educational possibilities, with fast-
loading sites that included music and voiceovers, as well as animated interfaces. By the
time the Internet bubble burst in 2001-2, and many poor ideas were lost to the graveyard
of failed technologies, interactivity techniques had evolved to a point of maturity.
Interactivity is now a mature field, offering tremendous opportunities for e-learning in
science.
Computers capable of real-time visual manipulation are now mainstream and common-
place. The vast majority of online visitors to e-science centers now have browsers
capable of advanced interactivity (in 2004, this was achieved mostly with Macromedia
Flash and Javascript). Network connections and hardware allow ever-faster data trans-
fers, and video will soon be a common component of the online experience.
These technologies have been researched and implemented in many industries, with rich
R&D budgets, and successful techniques have emerged and evolved. This chapter has
provided an overview of many successful interactivity techniques appropriate for
creating interactive science Web sites.
It is not possible to predict the roles that computers and interactivity will have in the
future, but several trends are apparent. In addition to general improvements in speed, and
reductions in cost, displays will attain higher resolutions. Developers in the future may
have to consider large workstations (a monitor), small mobile (a phone) sizes, and other
form factors that may begin appearing in visitors’ living rooms and throughout their lives.
Many opportunities still lay on the horizon. New metaphors and means of visualization
are waiting to be discovered. The nature of the interaction between the visitor and the
Internet may change as newer search technologies (the semantic Web) begin to link
together information. Sometimes an exhibit will be used wholesale, but other times
visitors will use only a portion of an exhibit — like an appliance. Also, mobile devices
are going to be used more in education. Students may use handheld devices for tasks
as varied as data collection in a field, observing sociological data or weather, simulating
predator/prey ecosystems, or viewing reference materials.
References
Alexa Data Services. (2004). Traffic Rank. Amazon.com
Allen, M. (2002). Michael Allen’s guide to e-learning. NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Baxley, R. (2002) Making the Web work. Indianapolis: New Riders.
Bier, E., Stone, M., Pier, K., Buxton, W., & DeRose, T. (1993). Toolglass and magic lenses:
The see-through interface. In Proceedings of the 20th annual Conference on
Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques (pp. 73-80). New York: ACM
Press.
Bort, E., & Wheatley, G. (2003). Virtual knee surgery. Living Children Multimedia
Development. COSI Columbus. Columbus, OH: EdHeads.org.
Bourge, D. (2001). Physics for game developers. CA: O’Reilly & Associates.
Bransford, J.D., Brown, A.L., & Cocking, R.R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain,
mind, experience and school (expanded ed.). Washington, DC: National Academy
Press.
Card, S.K., Mackinlay, J.D., & Shneiderman, B. (1999). Information visualization in
information visualization: Using vision to think. San Francisco: Morgan-
Kaufmann.
Card, S.K., Pirolli, P., & Mackinlay, J.D. (1994). The cost-of-knowledge characteristic
functions. In Proceedings of CHI’94 (pp. 238-244).
Constantine, L., & Lockwood, L. (1999). Software for use. New York: ACM Press
(Addison-Wesley).
Douma, M., & Henchman, M. (2000). Bringing the object to the viewer: Multimedia
techniques for the scientific study of art. In D. Bearman & J. Trant (Eds.), Museums
and the Web 2000: Proceedings. Toronto: Archives & Museum Informatics.
Douma, M. (2000). Lessons learned from WebExhibits.org: Practical suggestions for
good design. In D. Bearman & J. Trant (Eds.), Museums and the Web 2000:
Proceedings. Toronto: Archives & Museum Informatics.
Douma, M., & Henchman, M. (2000). Using multimedia techniques to present and
interpret technical data from Art: Application to Bellini’s Feast of the Gods. In J.
Goupy & J.P. Mohen (Eds.), Art et Chemie la Couleur (pp. 213-217). Actes du
Congre: CNRS.
Durbin, G. (2004). Learning from Amazon and eBay: User-generated material for museum
Web sites. In D. Bearman & J. Trant (Eds.), Museums and the Web 2004: Proceed-
ings. Toronto: Archives & Museum Informatics.
Feiner, S., & Beshers, C. (1990). Worlds within worlds: Metaphors for exploring n-
dimensional virtual worlds. In Proceedings of UIST’90 (pp. 76-83).
Fishkin, K., & Stone, M.C. (1995). Enhanced dynamic queries via movable filters. In
Proceedings of CHI’95 (pp. 415-420).
Furnas, G.W. (1997). Effective view navigation. In Proceedings of CHI’97 (pp. 367-374).
160 Douma and Dediu
Goldstein, M., Juanarena, C., Arend, M., &Bertram, T. (1997). CodeScope. In CD-ROM:
Leonardo da Vinci. Seattle: Corbis.
Grove, T., Bristol, D., McFarland, M., & Meyers, T. (2003). For Educators: Teaching units
& lesson plans: Politics & diplomacy. Lewis & Clark: The National Bicentennial
Exhibition. Missouri Historical Society. Retrieved from http://www.lewis
andclarkexhibit.org/
Hanna, D.E., Glowacki-Dudka, M., & Conceicao-Runlee, S. (2000). 147 practical tips for
teaching online groups: Essentials of Web-based education. Atwood.
Inselberg, A. (1997). Multidimensional detective. In Proceedings of IEEE Information
Visualization’97 (pp. 100-107).
Johnson, B. (2004). Beyond on-line collections: Putting objects to work. In D. Bearman
& J. Trant (Eds.), Museums and the Web 2004: Proceedings. Toronto: Archives &
Museum Informatics.
Lamping, J., & Rao, R. (1995). The hyperbolic browser: A focus+context technique for
visualizing large hierarchies. In Proceedings of CHI’95, ACM Conference on
Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 401-408). New York.
Lewis, L., Parsad, B., Carey, N., Bartfai, N., Farris, E., Smerdon, B., & Green, B. (1999).
Teacher quality: A report on the preparation and qualifications of public school
teachers (NCES 1999-080). Washington, DC: National Center for Education
Statistics.
McMillan, S. (2004, March/April). Visiting the virtual museum. Communication Arts, 46 (1), 58.
Nielsen, J. (2000). Designing Web usability. Indianapolis: New Riders.
Norman, D.A. (1990). The design of everyday things. New York: Doubleday.
Norman, D.A. (1999). The invisible computer: Why good products can fail, the personal
computer is so complex, and information appliances are the solution. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
North, C., Shneiderman, B., & Plaisant, C. (1996). User controlled overviews of an image
library: A case study of the visible human. In Proceedings of ACM Digital
Libraries’96 (pp. 74-82).
Ross, A. (2003). What we can learn from organic online communities? How communities
of practice seed themselves with conflict. In Virtual Communities Conference,
London, June.
Songer, N.B., Lee, H.S., & Kam, R. (2002). Technology-rich inquiry science in urban
Classrooms: What are the barriers to inquiry pedagogy? Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 39(2), 128-150.
Songer, N.B., Lee, H.S., & McDonald, S. (2003). Research towards an expanded under-
standing of inquiry science beyond one idealized standard. Science Education,
87(4), 490-516.
Sutcliffe, A. (2003). Multimedia user interface design. In J. Jacko & A. Sears (Eds.), The
human-computer interaction handbook: Fundamentals, evolving technologies
and emerging applications (pp. 245-262). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Tan, M., Macdonald, J., Rhodes, G., Williams, B., Parker, K., Mulzer, G., Tarbell, J., Lettau,
T., Hooge, J., Peters, K., Hirmes, D., Lifaros, Prudence, P., Kaluzhny, P., & Jokol,
K. (2002). Flash Math Creativity. Birmingham, UK: Friends of ED.
Tufte, E. (1990). Envisioning information. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.
Tufte, E. (1997). Visual explanations:Images and quantities, evidence and narrative.
Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.
Tweedie, L., Spence, R., Dawkes, H., & Su, H. (1996). Externalizing abstract mathematical
models. In Proceedings of CHI’96 (pp. 406-412).
Watzman, S. (2003). Visual design principles for usable interfaces. In J. Jacko & A. Sears
(Eds.), The human-computer interaction handbook: Fundamentals, evolving
technologies and emerging applications (pp. 263-285). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Wilson, B., & Lowry, M. (2000). Constructivist learning happens all the time on the Web.
In E. Burge (Ed.), Learning technologies: Reflective and strategic thinking, new
directions for adult and continuing education. No. 88. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Wrigley, R. (2000, August). Information technology in education: Real perspective on
classroom practice. In Africa Connects. Pretoria, South Africa.
Wrigley, R. (2001). The Odyssey Project: Creating a global community of classes
following journeys around the world while engaged in project based learning. In
8th Annual I*EARN Conference, September, Capetown, South Africa.
Zoomify technology and products white paper. (2003). Santa Cruz: Zoomify.
Appendix
Implementations for most of the techniques in this chapter are left to the programmers.
We provide pseudocode for two techniques for which the algorithms are particularly
challenging.
Creating an Image Map
1. Create the image map. Using Photoshop, create an image map using less than 91
indexed colors; down-sample by 4x; export as a “RAW” image (each pixel has a
value 0-255 as a char).
2. Using perl, shift all the values to exclude special characters (newchar = char(ord(oldchar)+
35) to begin with ascii char hash (35) and end with ascii char tidle (126); use perl to create
code for creating an array in the language you are using, each element in the array
being a row in the image map. For example,
imagemap[4] = “88888888ssssssIIIIImmmXXXX}}}}}ww”
162 Douma and Dediu
3. Write display code. Using your preferred language, calculate the current mouse
position on the image map, dividing by the amount you down-sampled (4). If the
image is 400x400 pixels in size, and the user is pointing at pixel (120,20) , that
corresponds to imagemap(30,5), so the value of that pixel is the 30th char of the fifth
element in the imagemap array (imagemap[5][30]). Display that value, for example, “m.”
4. Use your program to create a table of all values, and their corresponding captions.
Store in an associative array. For example,
captions[ord("m")] = "Albert Einstein, German-American physicist who developed the Special and
General Theories of Relativity"
5. Update code to display the correct captions. These can be displayed in a floating
balloon, or in a fixed-location legend.
Evaluating Evidence
Weighing pro and con evidence is like a balance, and a great technique is to use the
inverse tangent, adjusted with the cube power.
Aggregate all the pro and con votes. Weight “very certain” as 1, “somewhat certain”
as 0.13, and “none” as 0. Calculate the aggregate conclusion:
opinionPro is the weighted sum of the pro votes
opinionCon is the weighted sum of the con votes
m = minimum (1, maximum (opinionNeg, opinionCon))
y = 4 * arctan(opinionPro,opinionCon) / pi - 1
y = -m * ((y * y * y) + y * 2)/3
opinion = y
The value y will now vary from –1 to 1. If both variables are zero set opinion to zero. With
-1 being definitely con, 0 being unsure, and 1 being definitely pro.
From the Physical to the Virtual 163
Chapter VIII
From the Physical

to the Virtual:
Bringing Free-Choice
Science Education Online
Steven Allison-Bunnell, Educational Web Adventures, LLP, USA
David T. Schaller, Educational Web Adventures, LLP, USA
Abstract
This chapter proposes a series of strategies for recreating science center exhibits
online. It argues that while physical and electronic exhibits share certain common
features, electronic science interactives based on physical exhibits must be re-conceived
in terms of the strengths of the electronic medium. Like a televised magic show, digital
media allow any number of special effects that interfere with the immediacy and raw
authenticity of an onsite physical demonstration. This interference is inherent in any
mediated experience. Rather than trying to overcome it, we suggest alternate approaches
that take online users deeper into the scientific concepts underlying the physical
phenomena on exhibit in the physical galleries. We outline several strategies that we
have successfully used to engage user’s imaginations and emotions in online science
activities, to foster motivation, and to provide an initial conceptual framework that
supports the learning process.
164 Allison-Bunnell and Schaller
Introduction: New Interactive

Approaches for New Interactive Media
“Interactive” museum exhibits and “interactive” human-computer systems were both
born in the late 1960s (Hein, 1990). In fact, the earliest usage of the term comes from
computer science and not museums (Oxford English Dictionary). However, first the
Exploratorium in San Francisco, and then its progeny, picked up the term and developed
increasingly sophisticated physical interactive exhibits during the 1970s and 1980s.
Many of the exhibits designed in this period are still canonical in science centers around
the world. During this same time, interactive computing remained mostly a laboratory
curiosity (Apple’s Macintosh, the first personal computer with an interactive graphical
user interface, was introduced in 1984). While many museums began experimenting with
computer-based exhibits during the 1980s, few approached the sophistication and
conceptual scale of their mechanical counterparts in the physical exhibit galleries. Many
electronic interactives were variations on reference guides or trivia quizzes. By the time
powerful desktop computers and sophisticated multimedia authoring tools finally
enabled the production of high-quality electronic interactives in the 1990s, the pedagogi-
cal approach, design philosophy, and construction methods needed for physical science
center exhibits had been articulated and formalized well enough for the Exploratorium to
publish the first in its series of exhibit construction “cookbooks” (Bruman, 1991; Hein,
1990). Electronic exhibits, on the other hand, had no design principles or foundational
best practices of their own. Few educational multimedia producers were (or are today)
formally trained in computer science in general. Information architecture and interface
design have only recently become specialties in their own right, and theories of virtual
reality are still not widely applied to inform or justify design practices. Video games were
(and often still are) seen as the educationally impoverished enemy in the same category
as television, rather than as a model to be emulated (Prensky, 2001; Gee, 2003). But by
the end of the 1990s, exhibit developers began to articulate best practices for electronic
interactives based on watching visitors use them in the museum. These rubrics mostly
focused on eliminating common hardware and software design flaws, rather than
articulating an underlying approach to interaction design, or the process of conceiving
the user’s experience while working with the program (Gammon, 2000).
With the advent and explosive growth of the World Wide Web in the mid-1990s, usability
came to the fore as a widespread concern in the commercial sector, and usability experts
such as Jakob Nielsen have helped codify principles of sound design that make Web-
based materials user-friendly (Nielsen, 2000). After nearly a decade of serious Web
design experience, Web developers now know a lot about how people use Web sites and
what makes them usable. Usability analysis focuses on efficiency and user success at
pre-determined tasks such as information seeking for personal research or completing
an electronic commerce transaction. As we recently observed, these metrics, while
helpful in preventing or remedying basic design problems, do not provide much guidance
in structuring free-choice learning experiences online (Schaller et al., 2004).
While the genre of hands-on museum exhibits has its own underlying paradigm based
in constructivist learning and cognitive science, development of online interactives has
largely been driven by trial and error and focused on technical issues such as the user’s
Web browser platform or working around the limitations of authoring tools and the user’s
Internet connection speed. Indeed, the new medium of online interactives has yet to
consolidate a unique vision and paradigm about its distinctive strengths, weaknesses,
and uses. If a paradigm for online interactives has been in play, it has most likely employed
the same assumptions as those underlying physical interactives. While a natural and
valuable starting point, this will only take us so far given the profound differences
between physical and electronic exhibits.
In an effort to encourage visitation of their physical facilities, museums of all kinds
(especially art museums) have tended to heavily promote their physical exhibits online
by creating virtual tours of existing galleries. And because science museums in particular
know how to build successful physical interactives, the first thought in constructing
online interactives might be to transfer existing physical exhibitry or on-site computer
programs to the Web. This is now more technically feasible than ever; current multimedia
tools such as Macromedia Flash or Shockwave now allow high-quality animation, user
interfaces with sophisticated functionality, and fairly complex simulation engines. The
popularity of video games with simulated 3-D virtual spaces makes recreating even the
exhibit galleries themselves as a literal virtual museum a strong temptation. Duplicating
physical exhibits online is reasonable enough from an institutional point of view in terms
of leveraging existing expertise and resources. Indeed, digital versions of some exhibits,
such as the illustrations of optical illusions pioneered by the Exploratorium, can give the
user a quite similar experience to the physical exhibit (Exploratorium, 1998).
From the standpoint of learning, however, a literal transfer is not likely to be effective for
the majority of existing science center exhibits. Some of the reasons for this are obvious
and others more subtle. For example, in the physical space, the user manipulates a
mechanism and sees or feels the direct chain of cause and effect. Multimedia demonstra-
tions of these sorts of physical phenomena are easy to produce technically, and, on the
surface, appear to duplicate the content of the onsite interactives. But virtual demon-
strations of physical processes, unless they show the user something that cannot be
seen in the physical setting, do not make sense in cyberspace and will not effectively
engage users. In general, simply recreating the exhibit gallery as a virtual space, either
as an organizational principle for the site or as model to walk through, does not
necessarily recreate the experience of being in the real museum gallery, nor does it
necessarily help the user create or elaborate their own mental map of the exhibit content.
Unless the virtual museum recreation shows us something we cannot otherwise see, like
a reconstruction of an ancient archeological site, the sacrifice in ease of navigation is
probably not worth the effort.
With these issues in mind, what new approaches can leverage the strengths of new media
as effectively as onsite interactives utilize the physical environment? This chapter is an
effort to outline the similarities and differences between physical and online interactives,
and to roughly sketch out a conceptual framework for Web-based science interactives
that, while not yet coherent enough to be called a paradigm, can help the medium stand
on its own and continue to gain educational value and effectiveness. Given these
differences, we propose several alternatives to the verbatim transplantation of physical
exhibits to the Web. In our work as educational Web developers, we have experimented
with various methods to engage Web users through imagination and emotion, rather than
the cognitive hooks more traditionally relied on in informal and inquiry-based science
education (Donovan et al., 1999).
We have been inspired by the work of several learning theorists and proponents of digital
learning, including Howard Gardner (1991), Roger Schank (1992), Kieran Egan (1998),
Mark Prensky (2001), and James Paul Gee (2003). We have adopted several of their
concepts to break through the clutter of modern media and connect with users on their
own terms, and we will describe how they can be used. Because Web technology
continues to evolve rapidly, this chapter does not profile case studies that will only
appear quaint in a few years. Neither will we dwell on the nuts and bolts of usability and
interface design. Rather we will frame how we can think about Web-based interactives
as a medium and as a learning experience. We hope that these concepts will be even more
fruitful as the technology matures and user’s access to our efforts expands.
Shared Assumptions,
Strengths, and Weaknesses
We do not mean to imply that the need to articulate a distinct strategy for online science
exhibits is a criticism of physical exhibits. Neither is it a call to replace physical exhibits
with virtual ones. On the contrary, it is clear that the rapid embrace of the Internet by
museums starting in the mid-1990s demonstrates some strong and deep affinities
between the two arenas, which we will describe below. By pointing out these affinities,
we are not ignoring the profound differences in form and function between working
(either as a developer or a user) in physical and virtual spaces. However, for exhibit
developers and informal educators more familiar with physical exhibits, the connections
we outline here form a practical bridge to thinking about electronic interactives. Table
1 summarizes some of the salient shared characteristics of physical and Web interactive
exhibits.
Table 1. Shared characteristics of on-site and Web interactive exhibits
Shared Characteristics of
Physical & Web Interactive Exhibits
1. Constructivist model of learning and cognition.
2. Developers create a non-linear path through a space.
3. Heterogeneous representations carry the message.
4. Free-choice learning context of use.
5. Atmosphere of playful experimentation.
6. Most users and visitors would rather do than read.
7. Atomized information can loose invaluable context.
Constructivist Model of Learning and Cognition
Once controversial, most informal science educators now espouse some form of
constructivist model of learning and teaching. In a nutshell, this model states that people
only learn by actively creating, modifying, and elaborating their picture of how the world
works, and that facts, or pieces of information, have no place (and are therefore not
learned, or retained) outside the context of this picture (Donovan et al., 1999). George
Hein (1998) has articulated this notion for learning in museums, and we have found it
applicable online. Truth be told, our job as Web developers would be far easier if users
would indeed unproblematically receive and understand the information we publish
online as we intended it. However, along with the theoretical considerations that hold
that this does not happen, formal and informal audience feedback during development
and after deployment of numerous projects has disabused us of this assumption. In
reality, Web learners actively construct their understanding of the material they see
online based on their own prior knowledge and picture of the world. It is clear to us that
online learning is only effective if it can successfully engage users on their own terms,
and then motivate them to reconfigure their model of the world to incorporate that new
material. Indeed, it has been argued that regardless of the teaching vehicle, learning has
simply not taken place if this reorientation does not happen (Gee, 2003).
Developers Create a Non-Linear Path Through a Space
Both museums and Web sites not only allow, but also to some extent require, the visitor
to choose a non-linear path through a space laid out by the developers of the exhibit.
There may not be an infinite number of choices, but the user has a lot of control over where
to focus his attention and the order to look at things. Exhibit developers have responded
to such visitor behavior in various ways, sometimes by imposing linearity with a strong
storyline, or in other cases by atomizing the exhibits to the point that many rich
relationships between individual concepts are lost. As we will discuss further, the Web
presents precisely this challenge as well, and there is no single perfect solution to how
to offer clear orientation while still allowing meaningful choices. If anything, orientation
and association are even harder in the virtual space, which is by nature abstract and multi-
dimensional. It is for this reason that many Web designers fall back on literal organiza-
tional metaphors such as the floor plan of the physical building.
Heterogeneous Representations Carry the Message
“Multimedia” (moving and still images, text, and sounds) and “multi-modal” (physical
manipulation along with reading, hearing, and looking) characterize science museum
exhibits and Web interactives equally well. This is likely a major reason why museums
understood and began colonizing the Web as early and as enthusiastically as they did.
This richness is also likely a major contributor to the “Wow” factor of both media. That
is, simply offering the user a novel array of stimuli creates a certain level of engagement.
While a good start, this cannot be relied upon online, where the environment itself is
emotionally cold or neutral.
Free-Choice Learning Context of Use
Museum exhibits are built on the premise that visitors are in the museum mostly by choice,
and that their behavior as free-choice learners is distinct from the compulsory classroom-
learning environment. At the very least, it is well known that visitors vote with their feet
and pass by museum content that disinterests them (Falk & Dierking, 2000). While much
is made of the classroom value of online museum exhibits and other types of interactives,
we strive to design online interactives as free-choice experiences that emphasize or
support engagement, intrinsic satisfaction, personal meaning-making, and self-directed
exploration. It is abundantly clear that Web surfers “vote with their mice,” and will quickly
leave any content behind that does not quickly and fully engage them.
Atmosphere of Playful Experimentation
In keeping with the assumption that physical and online exhibits are free-choice learning
experiences, science museum galleries and their Web sites put a premium on having fun.
Learning should follow from playful (but hopefully concerted) experimentation. Many
successful museum interactives encourage creative play and do not assume a particular
content-based outcome. Although Web usability experts eschew elements such as
animation and music as blocking efficient access to information, we have found these
things to be precisely what gives educational Web sites the fun factor that they need to
engage free-choice learners. We have also seen significant differences between the
information-seeking behaviors of expert and novice users in a subject domain, so it is
clear that many of the choices in development strategy should be driven by an
assessment of the audience (Schaller et al., 2004).
Most Users and Visitors Would Rather Do Than Read
It is a much-lamented truism that museum visitors of all ages are most likely to push the
button or turn the crank before they read the label, if they ever do. Visitors may be lazy,
or just responding to the overwhelmingly non-verbal nature of the museum environment,
along with the strong expectation fostered by the museum itself that it is “hands-on”
rather than didactic. In spite of an early feeling that the Web liberated designers from
the tyranny of page sizes and counts imposed by paper-based publications, we now
recognize that, except at the lowest level of detailed content, brevity of text is just as
crucial, if not more so, to the success of Web exhibits. As we will elaborate below, a virtual
experience should allow the user to do something they cannot easily do in a physical
space.
Atomized Information Can Lose Invaluable Context
While many science museums have galleries organized around such themes as outer
space, engineering, or human cognition, the basic physical principles many exhibits
illustrate are often taken from their original context of the scientific research or technical
problem-solving and displayed in relative isolation (Bradburne, 2000). Such exhibits run
the risk of becoming mechanical factoids, lacking a framework to help the user to know
why they should be interested in the phenomenon, or how to connect it to other
phenomena and processes. This stems at least in part from the non-linear nature of
museums and the Web as well as the limited amount of interpretation offered by short
labels. This concern is even more acute on the Web, where a user may arrive at a page
deep in a site via a search engine, or may bounce from page to page without a strong sense
of how the pieces of the puzzle interlock. The good news is that the Web offers developers
the chance to integrate fundamental principles with broader social and practical context.
This brief and non-comprehensive inventory of the affinities between physical and Web
interactive science exhibits reveals both shared strengths and weaknesses. It means that
while we may need some new tools and approaches for Web interactives, thinking about
interactives on the Web does not mean forgetting everything we know about physical
exhibits. It also means that we have a golden opportunity presented by a new medium to
transcend some challenges that have been hard to deal with in the physical environment.
Challenges of Translating
Physical Exhibits to the Web
Those with deep experience with virtual reality and human-computer interactions might
argue that the differences between physical exhibits and virtual reality mean that there
is an insurmountable incommensurability between these environments, and that it is
therefore futile to suggest moving any aspect of existing physical exhibits online. While
we agree on the theoretical level, in practical terms a science center’s physical exhibits
represent a large investment of human capital and are a significant reservoir of expertise
and content. While virtual exhibits cannot precisely embody physical exhibits, physical
exhibits do embody the identity and vocabulary of the museum’s educational framework.
Rather than starting from scratch, it therefore seems useful to evaluate how some of the
different types of exhibits in a physical science center might or might not be readily
adapted to the Web. If in fact an exhibit might already be suited to an electronic version
(perhaps even because the physical version is less physical than we thought!), we see
no need to go out of our way to reframe it just for the sake of being different. If, on the
other hand, a type of exhibit is fundamentally unsuited for life online, then it is useful to
be aware of that before undertaking the conversion process. There are many ways to
categorize exhibits, and this treatment is not meant to be definitive or exhaustive. It serves
to highlight the issues encountered in thinking about online exhibits, and implies some
Table 2. Science museum exhibit types and their digital potential
Physical exhibit type Electronic version potential
1. Object-centered Authentic objects become part of

reference encyclopedia.
2. Demonstration of a Explain underlying principle instead of

physical principle demonstrating surface phenomenon.
3. Illustration of function Can be equally effective.

of human cognition
4. Mechanical analogy Find new non-mechanical analogy.

for non-mechanical
principle
5. Fun science or Create digitally native opportunities for

hardware-derived creative play.
tricks
6. Showcase exotic Explain underlying operation or

technology encourage innovation.
7. Engage socially Strong opportunity to frame and enable

relevant topical community discussion.
issues
of the strategies that we will develop further below. While above we highlighted the
shared aspects of physical and virtual exhibit spaces, the following comparison of
specific physical and virtual exhibits brings out several essential differences between the
two. After this examination, we offer some general strategies for dealing with these
differences. Table 2 lists several science museum exhibit types and their possible
electronic equivalents.
Object-Centered
Museum: Although most science museums are not as collection-centered as natural

history or art museums, many science centers and museums still exhibit objects of interest
such as geology specimens, models of historically significant inventions like Leonardo’s
flying machine, or exotic hardware such as a space shuttle robot arm. Science museums
also often create immersive environments where the visitor can assume a role like an
astronaut or experience the shaking of an earthquake.
Web: If the object on exhibit is authentic, such as an original space suit or a real
meteorite, a Web site obviously cannot have the immediacy and emotional power of
seeing the real object in person (Pearce, 1992; Allison, 1995). Even as hard as the museum
has to work to certify the authenticity of the objects it exhibits and to hide the mediation
between the visitor and raw reality, a Web site can never pretend to display the object
transparently free of mediation (Allison, 1995). While a museum visitor may feel
transported to some other time and place, the Web user is always aware they are in
cyberspace. That is not to say that objects should not be exhibited online. But the user’s
Figure 1. This role-play game enlists users in Lewis & Clark’s Corps of Discovery,
where they can search the American West for plants, animals, and native peoples.
Instead of relying on low-resolution images of the original artifacts to captivate users,
the game provides a sense of exploration and discovery as well as historical context.
(Courtesy Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, www.history.org/trips, demo at
www.eduweb.com/portfolio/jeffwest)
purpose for looking at objects online will probably be different from the sense of awe and
excitement engendered by seeing the Wright flyer or Apollo command module in person.
Objects online can be framed by deeper interpretation of the object, transforming the
Web site into a reference tool or an interpenetrating narrative that the museum cannot
sustain. As we will discuss below, the sheer emotional impact of seeing an authentic
object in the museum can be recovered on the Web by making the role-playing aspect
of some museum exhibits more central to the activity than the physical exhibit can. While
playing at being an astronaut or an archeologist in physical exhibit spaces is more often
a design conceit than a learning strategy, online role playing games can offer the player
substantive choices and subsequently present the consequences of those choices
(Schank, 1992; Prensky, 2001; Gee, 2003).
Demonstration of a Physical Principle
Museum: A staple science museum exhibit is the demonstration of some basic physical
principle using a mechanical device to instantiate the phenomenon in question. For
instance, most science museums illustrate the Bernoulli effect with a fan that levitates
a lightweight ball in the column of low-pressure air created by the blower (Exploratorium,
1995). Putting philosophical niceties about mediation and the construction of phenom-
ena aside, this exhibit is as close as the museum comes to putting raw reality on display
(Allison, 1995). The exhibit offers the user the chance to form hypotheses about the
phenomenon and experiment to test them. However, written interpretation of these
exhibits is usually brief, and without guidance from a staff explainer or a more knowledge-
able member of the visitor group, most users do not spend enough time or lack the
Figure 2. This simulation lets users safely experiment with bridge types and seismic
safety features to design an earthquake-safe bridge over Oakland Bay. (Courtesy
California Alliance for Jobs, www.newbaybridge.org/classroom)
procedural or subject experience to carry out meaningful experiments that actually lead
to an understanding of the underlying principle (Bradburne, 2000).
Web: As with authentic objects, an electronic version of something like the Bernoulli
blower by itself lacks the immediacy and seemingly unmediated experience that makes
these demonstrations compelling. Whereas in their galleries, museums may succeed in
hiding their role in mediating the visitor’s perception of reality, the Web can never claim
to offer direct access to a physical experience (Allison, 1995). It obviously makes little
sense to create an elaborate digital representation of the Bernoulli blower as a device.
Rather, we need another way to frame the learning goal and the central task of the activity
to focus on the underlying principle or the inquiry process rather than the surface
phenomenon. One thing an electronic interactive can do that the physical exhibit cannot
so easily do is to actually get at the underlying principle more clearly. By showing the
user something that is not readily visible to the unaided senses, digital simulations can
offer powerful insights into otherwise hidden cause and effect. For instance, a molecular-
level model of how moving gasses and fluids create pressure differences could offer a
more cogent explanation than putting one’s hand in the stream of moving air coming from
the blower. To get at the process of investigating the Bernoulli effect, a virtual wind
tunnel could allow the user to design and test a wider range of airfoil shapes than could
be done in the museum. Rather than emphasizing the underlying principle, the wind
tunnel activity focuses on the practice of empirical inquiry. This may be more suitable
to the free-choice learning arena in terms of a skill to be learned through practice rather
than a body of content to be learned through didactic drilling. Electronic simulations are
exceptionally good at creating safe places to explore things that are too dangerous or
expensive to do in the real world, and as such open the door to demonstrating principles
and processes that are off-limits inside the museum (Schank, 1992; Prensky, 2000).
Illustration of Function of Human Cognition
Museum: The Exploratorium was founded around exhibits that illustrate various aspects
of human cognition, such as color perception, persistence of vision, and various optical
illusions. These exhibits are extremely successful and popular because they often
introduce a discrepant event, or an unexpected result, for the visitor to puzzle out. In
principle this surprise motivates the visitor to observe closely and think about what they
see (Rockley, 2001).
Web: This is easily the least problematic and the most obvious type of exhibit to directly
translate to an electronic environment. Digital versions still convey the same message,
perhaps even more clearly because of the opportunity for unlimited repetition and more
focused experimentation. Optical illusions online can offer more information about the
underlying phenomenon because they are not limited by label space. Different variations
of perception are easy to display and juxtapose online, leading the user to a more complete
understanding through repetition (Gee, 2003). And, as the Exploratorium site already
does with its online exhibits, it can help the user follow a path between exhibits based
on similar principles or perceptions by offering relevant links to other exhibits
(Exploratorium, 1995, 1996).
Mechanical Analogy for Non-Mechanical Principle
Museum: Some of the most brilliant science museum exhibits use a mechanical device to
create a physical analogy for a more complex, perhaps not directly visible, principle. For
example, the normal distribution, used in statistics to characterize a group with random
variation, is illustrated by a probability board consisting of an inclined or vertical grid
of pegs. The balls bouncing through the grid stack up in the characteristic bell-shape of
the normal distribution. Unlike the Bernoulli blower, the normal distribution itself is a non-
physical mathematical concept. What creates the “Aha!” moment for museum visitors
is the way the mechanical exhibit makes this abstract idea concrete. The probability board
is particularly effective because it helps show how the curve arises from a series of
independent yet similar events: all balls go in at the top, and if the board is kept stationary,
the curve always ends up in the same place in the grid.
Web: Watching virtual balls roll down a virtual probability board would most certainly
become rather boring after the initial novelty of the animation passes. But if we recognize
that the power of the physical probability board is its power as an analogy that renders
an invisible principle visible, that strategy is excellent for an online demonstration. The
challenge is to find an analogy more suitable for the virtual environment that connects
to a different aspect of the user’s lived experience (Gee, 2003). For instance, people not
well versed in probability often come to believe that coincidences such as having the
same birthday as someone else, or meeting an old friend in an unexpected place, are not
random. So perhaps an online demonstration of probability would incorporate calcula-
tors showing just how often seemingly rare but everyday events might happen, and how
quickly the chances of a coincidence occurring increase with large numbers of concurrent
events. In other cases, an online interactive may actually be more successful if it uses
a more abstract representation that allows a greater deal of user manipulation to
experiment with and build-up and understanding of the principle. For example, science
educators have seen that mechanics can be better taught using very simple visual
representations generated by a specialized computer language that allows the user to
build up a descriptive, rather than algebraic, vocabulary about the cause and effect of
motion (Gee, 2003). Along with providing the experience itself, these approaches give
users a richer set of tools to understand their experience. The physical museum typically
emphasizes the former while attempting to provide the latter through labels.
Fun Science or Hardware-Derived Tricks
Museum: Many science museum exhibits, such as giant soap bubble hoops, are in
essence ingenious tricks that rely on exploiting some physical phenomenon with clever
engineering. These encourage visitors to play and experiment within the parameters of
the exhibit (i.e., “How big a bubble can I make before it pops?”) without always overtly
trying to teach specific content (“Surface tension governs bubble size”). These are
successful at engaging the visitor’s inquisitiveness and willingness to experiment and
help to convey the playful nature of the scientific enterprise.
Web: Electronic interactives can capture this same spirit of play, inquiry, curiosity, and
experimentation but within the electronic domain. It has been argued that this is what
good video games have done for the past ten years, but few educators have taken them
seriously until recently (Gee, 2003; Prensky, 2000). Making music, movies, or art with the
help of the computer are ways to enable that sort of creative play online. The results may
in fact be far more abstract than a physical exhibit, such as exploring or creating a fractal
image, which exists nowhere but in the computer. The activity can, however, create a
similar feeling and sense of engagement and exploration. And the more unique the online
experience is, the greater the sense of awe and wonder will be.
Showcase Exotic Technology
Museum: Even before they were hands-on, early museums of science and industry such
as the Chicago Museum of Science and Industry, the Science Museum in London, and
the Deutsches Museum in Munich, were cathedrals of technology. They offered visitors
the opportunity to see and learn about exotic or impressive technology that the visitor
did not ordinarily see every day (Friedman, 1996). The amount and nature of the
interpretation of the underlying functionality or principles of the equipment were highly
variable. Of course, what counts as impressive and exotic is a constantly moving target
as technology advances. As high technology has become more ubiquitous in the
developed world, some exhibits, such as many using lasers or television equipment, have
shed their technical presentations and become quite play-oriented. They may or may not
offer the chance to observe and form an understanding of cause and effect or the science
behind the device.
Web: Electronic versions can’t replicate the cool factor of a “real” laser or other latest
gadgetry. In a society surrounded by high technology, the original motivations behind
these exhibits need to be assessed and a new rationale developed for online interactives.
Are they about explaining the hardware? A simulation and “how it works” interactive
might be appropriate if the functionality of the device is at the center. As with “fun tricks”
above, if play and curiosity are the primary goal, then the answer might be to create
another venue for playing with electronic objects that may not be physical things. If the
goal is to celebrate and foster the inventive spirit that lead to the innovative hardware
showcased in the museum, then a role-playing game that encourages tinkering and
problem solving in a virtual domain could be effective.
Engage Socially Relevant Topical Issues
Museum: Museums of all genres have felt both internal and external pressure for their
exhibits to have greater social relevance and to engage current issues (Davis & Gurian,
2003). Science museums have undertaken exhibits that venture beyond basic phenomena
into the realm of social policy and decision-making. Subjects such as risk assessment,
global climate change, and genetic engineering have been addressed. In recognition that
these exhibits are topical and subject to becoming dated, most have been developed as
lighter-weight traveling exhibits and many rely more on images and text than objects or
some of the more traditional interactive exhibits about basic phenomena. Still, physical
exhibits of any type are difficult to change as information and societal perceptions and
policies change.
Web: The ability to construct Web sites that can be quickly and easily updated, perhaps
even automatically drawing content from databases, means that the Web is an ideal place
for science museums to contribute to public understanding and discussion of science
and technology policy and the role of science and technology in society. With Web-
based forums and message boards, science museums can create online communities
around these issues that can continue as long as the subject is relevant. Some issues,
such as climate change, would clearly benefit from simulations that help the user to
understand the underlying science better. Issues such as environmental conservation
or public health concerns can be brought alive by role-playing scenarios that are more
about the social landscape than technical details. These experiences allow the user to
discover the challenges and complexities of trying to formulate public policy that
satisfies a diverse array of constituencies.
Table 3. Strategies for effective digital interactives
Challenge Strategy
Overcome the emotional Find new ways to make the affective

coldness of the computer. connection that is lost in virtual space.
• Apply Egan’s Kinds of

Understanding
• Rediscover the Power of

Narrative
Electronic media cannot offer Rethink what counts as “authentic” to

direct access to authentic make up for the heavy mediation of
objects or physical the electronic environment.
phenomena.
• Rely on the relationship of
trust with your visitor
• Replace real phenomena with

real data
• Simulations offer authentic

cause and effect
Very large and small Take advantage of virtual reality to

temporal and spatial scales cross boundaries of time and space.
are hard to grasp.
Web users lack intrinsic Maintain the creativity and

motivation to engage didactic atmosphere of playful
virtual exhibits. experimentation that physical exhibits
establish.
Atomized content is Take the opportunity to add context

disconnected from problems back to the content.
in the subject domain.
Strategies for
Web-Based Science Exhibits
The opportunities and challenges of bringing these exhibit categories online suggest
several general strategies for developing online science interactives that transcend
exhibit type. Since no Web development effort is a one-size-fits-all proposition, we offer
these strategies less as a mandatory checklist than a suite of tools, some of which will
be more appropriate than others for any given project. Table 3 summarizes these
strategies.
Find New Ways to Make the Affective Connection that is

Lost in Virtual Space
Recent educational research has persuasively overturned Bloom’s division between

cognitive and affective domains (Falk & Dierking, 2000; Hein, 1998; Healy, 1994).
Learning simply can’t occur without an affective dimension. As the aphorism suggests,
“People forget what you said, people forget what you did, but people will never forget
Table 4. Egan’s kinds of cognitive understanding (Egan, 1998)
Kind of Age Concerns Examples

Understanding
Somatic Birth Body abilities Walking

to
three Bodily functions
Mythic Three Binary opposites Fantasy stories &

to play
eight (good/evil;
survival/destructi Rhyming & word
on) play
Romantic Eight Limits of reality & Guinness Book of

to experience World Records
fifteen
Heroes Sports and pop stars
Idealism Carl Sagan’s

Cosmos
American Girl dolls
Philosophic Fifteen Systems & Evolution

to schema
twenty Marxism
Conspiracy theories
Ironic Twenty Playful Post-modernism

& up appreciation of
multiple Multiculturalism
perspectives
how you made them feel.” Satisfying the user’s information needs is not enough.
Engaging the user on an affective level is critical, but how?
Tap into Basic Kinds of Understanding
Educational theorist Kieran Egan has outlined five ways, or “kinds of understanding,”
that can serve as effective (and affective) avenues to learning. Each is associated with
particular stages of development from childhood to adulthood, but even those associ-
ated with childhood usually remain important filters throughout adulthood (Egan, 1998).
Table 4 summarizes Egan’s kinds of understanding and the role they play in shaping our
view of how the world works.
According to Egan, the first three phases occur fairly naturally in human development,
while the last two require substantial guidance and support from one’s social milieu to
achieve. They are by no means the only way for human beings to perceive and understand
the world, but have come to be regarded in the Western tradition as valuable cognitive
tools that define a high level of education. Simulations of physical and ecological
processes are an obvious match for Egan’s philosophic understanding, but that ap-
proach must be taken cautiously, since much of a science center’s target audience has
not developed that set of cognitive tools. Many youth and adults interpret the world
Figure 3. This ecosystem management simulation frames the activity in romantic terms,
characterizing the goal (accurately but with dramatic flair) as a struggle against an
invasive exotic grass. The intro animation also employs narrative to establish the
scenario and further evoke in the user an affective response to the content. (Courtesy
the JASON Foundation for Education, www.jason.org)
primarily through mythic and romantic lenses, focusing on individual characteristics

(biggest, oldest, strongest) and actions (greedy, noble, heroic) rather than underlying
traits and large-scale systems. While some systems are sufficiently simple and transpar-
ent to be meaningful to these audiences, the simulation should still present strong
affective hooks that connect with their existing preoccupations and mental frameworks.
For example, an ecosystem restoration interactive might have a simulation engine under
the hood, but the content and presentation would deliberately engage romantic under-
standing through emphases on heroic or extreme aspects of the system and its inhab-
itants. This should not be construed as simply a veneer — the core content and learning
goals must be aligned accordingly for a coherent and appropriate learning experience.
Egan’s schema has helped us with many subjects to find the kernel that our target
audience will naturally find compelling.
Rediscover the Power of Narrative
Perhaps the most recognized method to hook the emotions is narrative. For millennia,
stories have been our primary tool for embodying and transmitting knowledge. Informa-
tion wrapped up in a dramatic, emotionally rich story ensures that the critical meanings
endure through many retellings. However, due to visitor’s non-linear paths through
exhibits, museums at best have employed story concepts rather than actual narratives
onsite. But the online environment offers more possibilities to exploit the value of
storytelling about science.
Narrative can be employed in two complementary ways: introductory movies and

structured goal-based scenarios. Introductory movies for online activities can introduce
the subject in a dramatic fashion (for example, framing the story of reclaiming forest land
from an invasive exotic weed as a campy horror movie). Intro movies can also provide
a conceptual orientation that is crucial for the learning goals to be achieved. This has
proven to be more effective than orientation text panels in exhibits (which visitors often
ignore), since most users will view a short movie sequence as an introductory gateway
to an online activity. Using an intro movie as an advance organizer is distinctly different
from the all-too-familiar and much-maligned Web site splash page Flash animations that
serve only to show off a designer’s flair (Schaller et al., 2004).
Equally valuable is designing the entire activity around a narrative. This strategy
maintains and extends the emotional connections and conceptual frameworks presented
in the introductory movie. The narrative brings context and humanity to the activity,
often in the form of a Goal Based Scenario (the familiar structure of many video games)
which assigns the player a role to play, presents a context, or back-story, and then
challenges the user with a mission that will conclude with a clear sense of success or
failure (Schank, 1992).
Even storytelling can fail to engage if the audience does not identify with the characters,
for it is the characters that channel the emotional content of the story. Such identification
can take center stage when the user becomes a character in the story, although this also
makes it especially critical that the story is clearly framed affectively, giving the user a
strong sense of how to feel about the challenge, the obstacles and the outcome.
Assuming an identity (through an avatar or first-person perspective) is a powerful way
to further invest users in the story and the content. Learning, notes James Paul Gee (2003),
requires the learner to “take on an identity as a scientific thinker, problem solver, or doer,”
gain new powers, and ultimately “sense new powers in themselves.” As a genre of online
interactives, role-playing stories can bridge the gap between novices and a scientific
domain. For example, a role-playing game might tackle the subject of pollution by granting
the user superpowers to see and remedy problems. As users explore, they can practice
their new identity as an ecologist, reflecting on what skills and talents that identity
requires that they already possess as well as the superpowers the role grants them. As
the player develops skill in problem solving, the superpowers that initially drew them into
the game as an exciting hook can fade into the background.
Rethink What Counts as “Authentic” to Make Up for

the Heavy Mediation of the Electronic Environment
The notion of authenticity revolves around two connected ideas: something that is
trustworthy, and something that is genuine or original. Both aspects take social work to
establish and maintain. As discussed above, virtual media present a fundamental
problem for authentic representation. As the “virtual” in virtual reality reminds us, VR
always mediates the user’s experience of the “real” object. Like museum exhibits, the more
“real” an object is online, the more mediation has gone into it in the form of preparing and
rendering models, animations, and etcetera. Thus authenticity in virtual reality is
problematic both in terms of trustworthiness and genuineness.
Rely on the Relationship of Trust with Your Visitor
As graphic design tools have increased our ability to manipulate original images or
generate realistic synthetic images to show things that did not happen, establishing the
credibility and authenticity of images and media on the Web is critical (Bearman & Trant,
1998; Brower, 1998). As respected cultural institutions, museums can certify that the
images they display are accurate or authentic by banking on their authority as reposi-
tories of real knowledge about the world (Allison, 1995; Bearman & Trant, 1998). Web
visitors will tend to trust the accuracy of material they find on a museum Web site.
However, given the inherent mediation of the virtual environment, an online exhibit will
always be a reproduction of the object or phenomenon represented. Thus a key aspect
of authenticity in the museum gallery can never be transferred online.
Replace Real Phenomena with Real Data
The other aspect of authenticity, the genuineness of the experience, requires a much more
dramatic alternative to cope with the fact that we cannot give users direct access to
genuine phenomena online. The strategy we propose is to replace real phenomena with
real data. That is, a major goal of informal science museum education is to provide visitors
with experiences that in some way model the conventional description of the scientific
method: observation, hypothesis formation, experimentation, revision of conclusions.
Interaction with basic physical phenomena is the in-gallery context for visitors to try out
these practices (Hein, 1998). While electronic media can offer user-friendly structures
that embody the inquiry process, the domain of inquiry needs to be different. One
solution is to turn from real phenomena to real data generated by working scientists as
the basis for inquiry. Just a few examples include remote sensing images, astronomical
observations and calculations, and animal tracking records. Many science centers offer
Figure 4. “The Bat Profiler” activity lets users analyze actual field data (such as these
bat call sonograms) through a user-friendly fictional PDA device. (Courtesy the JASON
Foundation for Education, www.jason.org)
on-site displays of real-time data feeds such as weather observations and local earth-
quake activity. These data streams could easily be delivered online with added interpre-
tation and activities for exploring and understanding them.
Instead of claiming to offer unmediated access to the world, this strategy offers access
to real data generated and used by real scientists. Instead of focusing on cognition, as
the physical exhibit does, this is an authentic engagement with another part of the
scientific food chain: the interpretation of data. Non-technically trained users are
connected to and learn to make sense out of material that is at the heart of the modern
scientific enterprise. The challenge is to find or create a visualization that appropriately
represents and explains the underlying patterns in the data. Such visualizations, or
“front-ends” for real data may not look like the tools that practicing scientists have
trained themselves to use. Among other things, most quantitative description needs to
be replaced with qualitative displays that can convey an impressionistic feeling about
the overall pattern and allow for basic comparisons. Whatever the solution, these new
tools make the most of multimedia technologies to allow users to view and manipulate
data in ways impossible without the computer.
Use Simulation to Offer Authentic Cause and Effect
The key feature of a simulation is that it contains a model that is sophisticated enough
to respond to a range of user choices and generate multiple outcomes. A true simulation
relies on a computational or logical decision engine to process user input and produce
a result, often with random variations. Such an engine allows the player to truly explore
combinations of inputs and compare outcomes to various runs of the simulation. It also
allows the user to iteratively alter the system, using as inputs the last output of the model.
This is why a computation engine of some sort is required; a fixed branching tree pointing
to pre-produced outcomes cannot build on its own results and as such cannot demon-
strate emergent properties. In a sense, a computationally driven simulation offers an
authenticity of cause and effect. While every model simplifies the real world based on
certain assumptions, the results follow from the choices the user makes and the nature
of the system, rather than being more narrowly determined by the combinations the
developer of the interactive chooses to include. Ideally, a good simulation allows some
measure of open-ended exploration and discovery.
Along with digitally modeling the principle underlying the superficial phenomenon
illustrated in a physical interactive exhibit, simulations have the potential to model
situations or processes that are too expensive or dangerous to recreate on the exhibit
floor. Or, as described below, it may cross scales of space and time that are otherwise hard
to grasp. One of the greatest virtues of a simulation is that it creates a safe atmosphere
for failure, whether it is the physical danger of failure or the social cost of failure. In the
virtual world, the primary barrier to trying again is not the stigma attached to failure, but
the ease of use of the interface and structure of the activity. Because it is safe to fail, and
hopefully easy to recover in a simulation, players are encouraged to try again, and to
experiment in taking risks that they would not so willingly try in real life (Schank, 1992;
Gee, 2003).
Take Advantage of Virtual Reality to Cross Boundaries

of Time and Space
One of the great challenges of science is grasping scales outside of regular human
experience. The vast sweep of geological time and interstellar distance, and the infini-
tesimally small time and physical scales of molecular interactions and nuclear reactions
all literally boggle our minds. Science museum exhibits frequently create analogies that
calibrate these scales to something we can more readily comprehend. For example,
various physical installations show the relative distances across the solar system scaled
to fit a portion of the museum building or even an entire town (ScienCenter, 2001). Online,
we are free to move across these scales of time and space with a facility that we don’t
have in the physical gallery, although in the confines of the computer screen this can be
disorienting as well. Virtual exhibits can take advantage of this in the same way that
Geographic Information Systems allow the user to change mapping scales to see different
patterns at different levels of scale and to render the otherwise invisible visible.
Maintain the Creativity and Atmosphere of Playful

Experimentation that Physical Exhibits Establish
The Web is on its way to becoming the world’s largest library; it also has potential to
become the world’s communal playground for conversation, collaboration, and experi-
mentation. Science centers can draw on their tradition of innovation to help lead this
effort. This strategy perhaps even goes without saying, given the track record science
Figure 5. Playful experimentation and minimal text allows users to focus on the
challenge of building a fish that can survive on the coral reef. Going beyond this
implementation, a multi-player version would facilitate social interaction as well,
creating a more motivating and playful experience. (Courtesy The John G. Shedd
Aquarium, www.sheddaquarium.org/sea/)
centers have for creating quirky, creative exhibits. However, a few suggestions are still
in order:
a. Resist the urge to be too didactic online just because the medium allows you to have
more words.
b. Keep thinking in terms of activities (things to manipulate) and products (things
that result from the manipulation), such as a geometric pattern, electronic music,
or a movie. These products may be different, but serve the same purpose, as the
creative results of physical exhibits.
c. Don’t neglect the social nature of the Web. Although most people use the Web by
themselves, they do not have to be alone online. Publishing user creations for other
visitors to see creates a pride in ownership of the creators and motivates others to
join in. As the technology advances, multi-player games will become another
means of connecting visitors in playful experimentation in real time. Multi-player
games will also help bring the social nature of the scientific enterprise to the fore,
something that most science museum exhibits, with their emphasis on cognition as
the cornerstone of science, don’t often do.
Take the Opportunity to Add Context Back to the

Content
As we discussed above, both the Web and the exhibit hall can both feel like a collection
of factoids rather than a unified whole. This is less the fault of the designer, and more
a function of the user’s behavior in either virtual or physical space. Here are some options
for helping give a body of online content more coherence.
a. Create linkages between content or activities that might often be isolated in the
exhibit hall. Don’t forget what the Web actually is: an interconnected set of related
nodes. As a virtual science museum grows, it should have a mechanism for cross-
referencing the content online in ways that help users see the relationships
between different exhibits or activities. Amazon.com has pioneered this “What’s
related” or “You might also like” approach to electronic commerce. The Exploratorium
has already done this to some extent with its categorization of online exhibits
(Exploratorium, 1995).
b. Role-playing games offer users scaffolding by setting expectations and laying out
what’s possible in the virtual world (Schank, 1992). The key elements of what Roger
Schank calls a “Goal Based Scenario” include a problem-solving domain or world
to inhabit; a task, or problem to solve; and a role, or identity to assume while solving
the problem. Whereas a typical physical science center exhibit may pose a problem
for the visitor to solve (What’s causing the observed phenomenon?), the exhibit
rarely explores the implications of the setting for solving the problem (What are the
challenges and opportunities of working in the field or in the laboratory?) and the
identity of the visitor (Are you solving the problem as a citizen, a scientist, or a
policy-maker?). These added elements of setting and identity provide much-

needed context, both in terms of adding motivation when there may not be any, and
setting the parameters of the capabilities, expectations, and limitations of the
problem.
Even if you do not want to create a complex role playing game in the mold of a commercial
video game, using the basics of a Goal Based Scenario helps give structure and
sequencing to the inquiry process that can be absent or very difficult to offer in the exhibit
hall. It also helps the developer parse out the informational content for “just in time”
delivery woven into an activity, rather than front-loading an otherwise engaging
interactive with an overly didactic introduction.
Conclusion: Keep the Audience

at the Center when
Re-Conceiving Online Exhibits
In this chapter we explored the relationships between physical and electronic exhibits.
While there are significant differences, development efforts in both areas can draw on
shared expertise and practice. In enumerating several physical science museum exhibit
types and what aspects of them might be successful online, we saw that fundamental
differences between the physical and virtual spaces do require many science museum
exhibits to be reworked for electronic versions. To facilitate this transition, we sketched
out several strategies for creating affective engagement with online exhibits. While these
outlines may seem to imply that moving physical exhibits to the Web will be as easy as
going down the list and assessing an exhibit’s suitability for the Web, and then choosing
a new Web-oriented presentation strategy, we want to strongly urge that any program
to develop exhibits on the Web should take place in a user-centered, top-down
development process.
Along with considerable expertise in designing exhibits, science museums have also
developed extensive experience with audience research and evaluation. In fact, almost
all of the tools we have worked on for evaluating informal learning on the Web are derived
from museum evaluation methodologies (Diamond, 1999; Burrough et al., 2003). There-
fore the idea, while perhaps newer to commercial developers, is in principle well
understood by science museums. But even as they study their visitors, science museums
still struggle to take their visitors seriously as equal partners in the learning enterprise
(Bradburne, 2000). Furthermore, in working with museum clients, we have seen that the
temptation to dive in with an exciting implementation for an activity remains strong. We
have found that following a structured information architecture process that focuses on
the audience helps value the audience’s needs and interests, enables the project to meet
its fundamental goals, and leads to a smoother production phase (Educational Web
Adventures, 2003). Doing so will also ensure that the Web exhibits truly take advantage
of the strengths and fully account for the weaknesses of the Web as a medium. Prior to
production, the first three most important stages of our information architecture process
are as follow.
Key Formative Steps in Information Architecture for

Online Interactives
Identify Needs and Characteristics of the Primary Target Audience
For a long time, science center exhibits appealed to the elusive “general public,”
expecting that visitors of all ages and levels of subject knowledge would get something
out of an interactive exhibit. Because Web surfers expect highly personalized content,
the most successful online projects target their audience more precisely, especially when
the audience doesn’t even have the common experience of stepping foot in the physical
building. Age, subject domain expertise, motivations, and goals are all factors in the
online visitor’s experience (Schaller et al., 2002; Schaller et al., 2004; Haley Goldman &
Schaller, 2004) and must be considered at the outset of project planning. In particular,
graphic design strongly influences what age groups will be attracted to an activity, and
even younger schoolchildren have a very well developed sense of whether something
is for them or “for little kids” (Gilutz & Nielsen, 2002). As described above, Egan’s Kinds
of Understanding help us understand some of the fundamental perspectives of our
audiences without knowing them individually.
Although it can be possible to layer information, and to expect different ages and levels
of expertise to be engaged by a single online interactive, doing so means more explicitly
accounting for those audience segments. As we have discussed elsewhere (Schaller et
al., 2003), activities such as simulations have a great deal of conceptual power, but also
may need to be framed to engage users with a kind of understanding shared by a wider
range of the audience. While a simulation may be perfectly suited to explicate deep,
complex connections between surface phenomena, in Egan’s system such a method
appeals mainly to Philosophic understanding, which most people do not attain until the
teen years, if at all. Therefore to be successful, a simulation aimed at middle school
students or adults without extensive formal education would need to be cast in more
Romantic terms to connect to their primary kind of understanding.
State Learning Goals and Objectives in Terms of Successful Use of the

Activity
Whether they focus on content knowledge, conceptual leaps, behavioral change, skill
development, or other types of learning, the goals and objectives for an activity should
clearly imagine what constitutes successful use, and what kinds of outcomes the
developers hope for. While free-choice learning is highly idiosyncratic, the likelihood of
accomplishing the project goals are far higher when these outcomes are visualized clearly
so they can inform project development. Along with rethinking the nature of a physical
exhibit as it migrates online, the underlying learning objectives for that exhibit may need
to be reconsidered. Some goals, such as creating curiosity and encouraging inquiry

about the world, can easily be retained. Other goals tied more closely to the cognitive
and kinesthetic experiences offered by the physical exhibit space must be recast. While
more abstract representations of principles may seem more didactic, they may in fact
illustrate the underlying principle more clearly.
Define Central Concept or “Big Idea” that Serves as the Focus of the
Entire Learning Experience
Museum exhibit consultant Beverly Serrell advocates framing a “Big Idea” for each
exhibit (Serrell, 1996). The Big Idea distills the conceptual approach and subject
addressed into a single declarative sentence. Choosing and clarifying the Big Idea may
be a simple matter or more arduous if there are competing ideas under discussion, but it
is essential to arrive at a single Big Idea for a coherent and meaningful final activity.
Trying to combine competing topics into one activity will generally result in a convoluted
and flawed activity that confuses users and leads to frustration at best and misinterpre-
tation at worst. Having a Big Idea also helps promote the activity within and without the
organization when brief explanations of various online exhibits are needed.
Define Structure and Function Before Visual Design
Good information architecture always determines how an interactive will work before
deciding what it will look like. The look and feel of an interactive should follow from all
the previous steps. Good visual design for interactives supports the functionality as well
as the aesthetic sensibilities of the target audience.
In sum, we may have come perilously close to stating the obvious with regard to the
similarities and differences between physical and online science center exhibits. Of
course they are different. Of course they require different vocabularies and design
paradigms. Of course you can’t expect to recreate a physical space verbatim. Those
reactions are to be expected for readers who have already assimilated Internet culture and
understand its nascent vocabulary as well as anyone can at this stage in its evolution.
However, we have seen enough reconstructions of physical spaces and interactives
online to be confident that not every science center has fully grappled with the issues
we raise. We do not intend this chapter as an indictment of those efforts. Rather, it is an
invitation to view the next generation of online science exhibits in the same pioneering
spirit of innovation of presentation, playfulness of approach, and clarity of intent that
Frank Oppenheimer and his heirs brought to the Exploratorium and the science center
movement it inspired. As we continue to differentiate further between the nature,
purpose, and function of online versus physical exhibits, we expect that the two genres
of exhibit will further diverge while retaining key family resemblances. Even as distinct
vocabularies and design approaches emerge, we expect them to remain anchored in the
affinities we have outlined. While we may still wish for much in the way of improved
authoring tools, higher bandwidth, and greater user sophistication, we are confident that
after close to a decade of growth and evolution, informal science education online offered
by science centers around the world is ready to realize the full potential of the medium
and the creativity of its professionals. We can only look forward to the results with great
anticipation.
References
Allison, S. (1995). Transplanting a rain forest: Natural history research and public
exhibition at the Smithsonian Institution, 1960-1975. Unpublished Dissertation.
Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.
Bearman, D., & Trant, J. (1998). Authenticity of digital resources. D-Lib Magazine.
Retrieved April 28, 2004, http://www.dlib.org/dlib/june98/06bearman.html
Bradburne, J. (2000). Tracing our routes: Museological strategies for the 21st century. In
B. Schiele & E. Koster (Eds.), Science centers for this century. Sainte-Foy, Quebec:
Editions MultiMondes.
Brower, K. (1998). Photography in the age of falsification. Atlantic Monthly, 281(5), 92-
111.
Bruman, R. (1991). Exploratorium cookbook I: A construction manual for Exploratorium
exhibits (rev. ed.). San Francisco: Exploratorium Press.
Burrough, L., Schaller, D., Beaumont, L., & Cannon, E. (2003). A rolling evaluation gathers
no moss. In D. Bearman & J. Trant (Eds.), Museums and the Web 2003: Selected
papers from an international conference. Pittsburgh, PA: Archives and Museum
Informatics.
Davis, J., & Gurian, E. (2003). Timeliness: A discussion for museums. Curator, 46 (4), 353-
61.
Diamond, J. (1999). Practical evaluation guide: Tools for museums and other informal
educational settings. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press.
Donovan, M.S., Bransford, J.D., & Pelligrino, J.W. (Eds.). (1999). How people learn:
Bridging research and practice. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Educational Web Adventures. (2003). Interactive design for online learning activities.
Unpublished white paper. Retrieved April 28, 2004, from http://www.eduweb.com/
Eduweb_Design_Process.pdf
Egan, K. (1998). The educated mind: How cognitive tools shape our understanding.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Exploratorium. (1995). Exhibit and phenomena cross-reference: Balancing ball. Re-
trieved April 28, 2004, from http://www.exploratorium.edu/xref/exhibits/
balancing_ball.html
Exploratorium. (1996). Depth spinner. Retrieved April 28, 2004, from http://
www.exploratorium.edu/exhibits/depth_spinner/index.html
Exploratorium. (1998). Online exhibits: Seeing. Retrieved April 28, 2004, from http://
www.exploratorium.edu/exhibits/f_exhibits.html
Falk, J.H., & L.D. Dierking. (2000). Learning from museums: Visitor experiences and the
making of meaning. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press.
Friedman, A. (1996, March/April). The evolution of science and technology museums.
Informal Science Review, 14-17.
Gammon, B. (2001). Assessing learning in museum environments: A practical guide for
museum evaluators. Unpublished Report. London: Science Museum.
Gardner, H. (1991). The unschooled mind. New York: Basic Books.
Gee, J.P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New
York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Gilutz, S., & Nielsen, J. (2002). Usability of websites for children: 70 design guidelines.
Fremont: Nielsen Norman Group.
Haley Goldman, K., & Schaller, D.T. (2004). Exploring motivational factors and visitor
satisfaction in on-line museum visits. In D. Bearman & J. Trant (Eds.), Museums and
the Web 2004: Selected papers from an international conference. Toronto:
Archives and Museum Informatics.
Healy, J.M. (1994). Your child’s growing mind: A practical guide to brain development
and learning from birth to adolescence. New York: Doubleday.
Hein, G. (1998). Learning in the Museum. London: Routledge.
Hein, H. (1990). The Exploratorium: The museum as laboratory. Washington:
Jonassen, D., Peck, K., & Wilson, B. (1999). Learning with technology: A constructivist
approach. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
Nielsen, J. (2000). Designing Web usability. Indianapolis: New Riders Publishing.
Oxford English Dictionary. (2nd ed.). (n.d.). Definition of “interactive.”
Pearce, S. (1992). Museums, objects, and collections: A cultural study. Washington:
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital game-based learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Rockley, M.G. (2001). Hypothesis-based learning. Retrieved April 28, 2004, from http:/
/solomon.bond.okstate.edu/thinkchem97/
Schaller, D., & Allison-Bunnell, S. (2003). Practicing what we teach: How learning theory
can guide development of online educational activities. In D. Bearman & J. Trant
(Eds.), Museums and the Web 2003: Selected papers from an international
conference. Pittsburgh, PA: Archives and Museum Informatics.
Schaller, D., Allison-Bunnell, S., Borun, M., & Chambers, M. (2002). How do you like to
learn? Comparing user preferences and visit length of educational Web sites. In D.
Bearman & J. Trant (Eds.), Museums and the Web 2002: Selected papers from an
international conference. Pittsburgh, PA: Archives and Museum Informatics.
Schaller, D., Allison-Bunnell, S., Chow, A., Marty, & Heo, M. (2004). To flash or not to
flash? Usability and user engagement in flash vs. HTML. In D. Bearman & J. Trant
(Eds.), Museums and the Web 2004: Selected papers from an international
conference. Toronto: Archives and Museum Informatics.
Schank, R. (1992). Goal-based scenarios. Technical Report #36. Chicago: Northwestern
University Institute for the Learning Sciences.
ScienCenter. (2001). The Sagan planet walk. Ithaca, New York. Retrieved on April 28,
2004, from http://www.sciencenter.org/saganpw/
Serrell, B. (1996). Exhibit labels: An interpretive approach. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira
Press, Sage Publications.
190 Hoffmann, Göbel, Schneider and Iurgel
Chapter IX
Storytelling-Based
Edutainment
Applications
Anja Hoffmann, ZGDV e.V. - Computer Graphics Center, Darmstadt, Germany
Stefan Göbel, ZGDV e.V. - Computer Graphics Center, Darmstadt, Germany
Oliver Schneider, ZGDV e.V. - Computer Graphics Center, Darmstadt, Germany
Ido Iurgel, ZGDV, ZGDV e.V. - Computer Graphics Center, Darmstadt, Germany
Abstract
Within this chapter, the authors — all members of the Digital Storytelling group at
ZGDV Darmstadt e.V. — provide an overview of the potential of storytelling-based
edutainment applications and approaches for narrative learning applications. This
covers not only online applications, but also off-line edutainment components, as well
as hybrid scenarios combining both types. The chapter is structured into five parts. At
the beginning, a global scenario of edutainment applications for museums is introduced
and key issues concerning the establishment of edutainment applications and the level
of interactivity for online applications are highlighted. These open and relevant issues
are discussed within a technology-oriented, state-of-the art analysis concentrating on
the authoring process, storytelling aspects, dramaturgy and learning issues. Based on
this brief STAR analysis, storytelling methods and concepts, as well as a technical
platform for the establishment of storytelling-based edutainment applications, are
described. The strengths and weaknesses of these approaches are discussed within the
context of the edutainment projects, art-E-fact and DinoHunter Senckenberg. Finally,
the major results are summarized in a short conclusion and further research and
application-driven trends (context: museums) are pointed out.
Storytelling-Based Edutainment Applications 191
Global Scenario of Edutainment

Applications for Museums
The multifaceted scenario of edutainment applications for museums includes key players
and user groups, as well as major components and aspects, for both online applications
within the museums and Web-based scenarios using the museum (Web site) as document
archive or knowledge pool, enabling teachers to enhance lessons through multimedia
content provided by the museum’s archives and collections (see Figure 1).
Some general questions address various needs and aspects of the different user groups
involved in these museum scenarios:
• How to enter content into the exhibition and make it available via interactive
artefacts?
• How to visualize (scientific) background information?
• How to build valuable exhibitions with learning effects?
• Which learning methods are appropriate?
• How is learning interconnected with Gaming/Fun?
• How much technology is appropriate?
• What are the benefits of combining museums with the Web?
• How to measure success of artefacts & exhibitions?
• How to finance artefacts and exhibitions?
• Which business models are appropriate?
Whereas the two first questions concern the authoring process and its outcome (as
input) for run-time systems, such as interactive artefacts or terminal applications, the
subsequent questions are more general in nature, encompassing learning and method-
Figure 1. Multifaceted scenario of edutainment applications for museums
Figure 2. Levels of interactivity within edutainment applications for museums
ological-didactic aspects, as well as marketing- and business-oriented issues. Within

this chapter, we concentrate on the more technical aspects behind these questions and
analyse the benefits of storytelling-based approaches in order to answer these questions
and to make edutainment applications and museum exhibitions more valuable in a broader
sense.
Referring to online edutainment applications and “Web sites with learning components”
from the technical point of view, the most interesting question concerns the level of
interactivity. Göbel & Sauer (2003) provided a short overview of those levels in their
workshop, Combine the Exhibition and Your Web Visitors. Integrated Concepts of
Interactive Digital Media for Museums, presented at Museums and the Web 2003 in
Charlotte, NC:
Whereas plain Web sites providing text, images or further media, such as audio
and video clips, are very popular (low-cost production), enhanced technologi-
cal methods and concepts increase the level of interactivity for users and,
subsequently, the level of experience. Examples of this include interactive tours
or virtual museums providing (more or less detailed) 3-D models of the real
museum, enabling users to wander around and interact with elements, objects,
and artefacts. Peculiarities of these scenarios are guided tours, such as the
Interactive Tour provided by Deutsche Bank in Germany. Hereby, an isometric
chat room is used to improve interactivity and overall experience of the users.
Some virtual museums provide interaction metaphors and experience is focused
on interactive media — others consciously avoid interactivity with objects/
artefacts and interaction is limited to navigation metaphors. Virtual exhibitions
provide Web-based artefacts and users have a direct experience through the
Web site — similar to the experience with “real/physical” artefacts within
museums. Finally, Markus Bader’s “Lux” provides an example of a hybrid
system combining (visitors of) the virtual (Web) with the real (museum),
enabling a bidirectional experience (Bader, 2004).
In summary, an appropriate slogan might be “the more interactivity, the more experience,
the better the learning effect.” Apart from the interactivity aspect, another current trend
concerns stories and storytelling issues as new media for both knowledge transmission
and interactive experience and the learning environment. An example of this trend is
provided by Educational Web Adventures (Eduweb, 2004): “Eduweb’s mission is to
create exciting and effective learning experiences that hit the sweet spot where learning
theory, Web technology, and fun meet.” Underlying methods and concepts for such
storytelling-based edutainment applications and learning environments are discussed
in other sections of this chapter; other aspects, such as Museums as Information
Archives and Knowledge Pools for teachers, pupils and interested people (Museum of
Tolerance, 2004) or Organizing Data Collections and Making Them Accessible through
the Web (Vernon, 2004), are not the focus of this chapter.
Current Research
The following paragraph gives an overview of current research in interactive storytelling.
Many disciplines affect this field and it is largely influenced by traditional forms of
storytelling, such as literature and movies. For the creation of these complex applica-
tions, it is helpful to look at methods and structures coming from, for example, script
writing. This state-of-the art survey concentrates on
• general aspects of storytelling and their application for interactive digital storytelling,
• the authoring process,
• dramaturgy in museums, and
• learning issues.
From our point of view, the most challenging issues encompass the provision of
“appropriate” authoring environments for the different user groups and the integration
or harmonization of interactive storytelling with learning issues.
Interactive Digital Storytelling
Although stories are widely used in game-based learning applications (for example,
Chemicus, Physicus, Klett, 2004), there is still a lack of appropriate integration of story
and instruction: “The instructional design was generally concentrated in an isolated
instructional space that existed independently of the story arc” (Noah, 2004). The result
is that the learning-supportive characteristics of stories are limited because of the
interruption of immersion and engagement. To avoid this limitation, our approach aims
at a full symbiosis of learning and story content.
Possible definitions for story models as the basis for story instances and story
development are:
• Definition: “A Component, which integrates Structure, Content, Context and

Development” (Mellon & Webb, 1997);
Figure 3. Suspense curve based on story models
• Story Models represent narrations in an abstract way to underline the structure of

the story;
• Story Models represent frameworks/templates for story instances.
Most story models are finally based on the simple dramaturgic arc model of Aristotle for
telling linear stories: “Exposition,” “Rising Action to Climax,” and “Denouement.” Other
examples of widespread story models are provided by Syd Field (1988), who extended the
Aristotle Model with regard to its usage for film scripts – hereby, script pages (= film
minutes) are used for temporal structuring. The difference between Hollywood films and
European film productions in terms of the usage of story models for films is very
interesting. To form your own opinion, please compare the Hollywood film “City of
Angels,” directed by Brad Silberling (1998), and the European film “Wings of Desire,”
directed by Wim Wenders (1987). Tobias (1999) provides 20 master plots; the Russian
formalist Vladimir Propp (1998) analysed hundreds of Russian fairy tales and extracted
15 morphological functions/components appearing in all these stories. Further, Propp
defined characters (Dramatis Personae) representing rules within the stories, for example,
an enemy, a hero, a magic agent (helper) or a princess (prize/award). Our integrated
storytelling concepts and first reference examples, such as GEIST, developed at ZGDV
Darmstadt, are primarily based on Propp’s story model and morphological functions.
The application domains for Interactive Storytelling projects range from pure entertain-
ment scenarios (e.g., Façade; OZ ; Mateas, 1997; Mateas & Stern, 2002) to marketing
applications (e.g., interactive kiosk systems) or systems with therapeutic purposes (e.g.,
Carmen’s Bright IDEAS, Marsella, 2003). All of the above-mentioned projects have one
question in common: How can the narrative structure be combined with interaction? User
interaction means an interruption of an ongoing story flow. The challenge is to design
the story somewhere between emergent and predefined.
One of the major results of our comprehensive research in the area of Interactive
Storytelling is the realization that the characteristics of stories foster the design of
engaging and motivating learning environments for several different reasons:
1. Cultural Tradition: Stories are fundamental to culture and human understanding.

They have familiar structures, which are recognizable and can easily be under-
stood. In human tradition, stories were a means for information transmission and
knowledge acquisition, for example, within families and cultural communities.
Today, kids are growing up with fairy tales (and moral education), learning words
with story books and learning about several topics ranging from history to biology
through TV shows, such as the famous French series “Il était une fois...” ( “Once
upon a time…”) (1979). Unfortunately, as a means for the education of adults,
storytelling is being widely lost.
Springer, Kajder, and Borst Brazas (2004) summarize the pedagogical dimensions of
storytelling as follows:
Stories are:
a. Humanistic: A culturally rich and venerated practice, global in relevance; encour-

ages people to value their experiences, both imaginary and real, and it puts us in
touch with ourselves and others. Stories communicate values.
b. Cross-disciplinary: Stories apply to many K-12 subjects, including language arts,
history, social studies, and humanities.
c. Cross-cultural: Narrative structures cut across cultural and geographic spaces
and unite oral, written, and technological literacies.
d. Multi-sensory, multi-modal: They have visual, auditory, kinaesthetic properties.
e. Constructivist: Storytelling is user-centred (learner); tales are created out of an
individual’s knowledge and experience.
f. Learning-directed: “We learn in narrative structures and think in terms of stories.”
2. Emotion and Immersion: Another fact is that stories are structured in a suspenseful
way and foster emotional engagement. Experiencing a good story (e.g., within films
or novels) can cause total immersion in the imaginary world for the recipient,
forgetting time and space. The research results in the area of Affective Computing
show the considerable effects of emotional user interfaces (Picard, 1997). Studies
in neuronal sciences point out the importance of emotional engagement for learning
efforts and motivation (Spitzer, 2002).
3. Support of Basic Functionalities: We can find essential functionalities for learning
environments, such as focusing the learner’s attention, provision of information
and feedback about the learner’s efforts (Gagne, Briggs, & Wagner, 1992). In
addition, stories are not limited to certain topics. That means that any area of
interest can be told in a narrative way. Furthermore, virtual worlds promote a deeper
and active understanding.
4. Core Functions of Cognition: Indeed, according to R. Shank (1995), stories
constitute nothing less than the main building block of intelligence, memory,
creativity, learning, and cognition in general. Educating with stories employs a
most appropriate learning method, because it respects the way the mind truly
works. According to Shank, we adapt to new situations and solve problems by
recurring to already available stories, rearranging and recombining them in an

attempt to cope with new challenges (“Case Based Reasoning”).
These statements totally cover current trends within the “Museums and Web” commu-
nity: Everybody talks about “stories” and “storytelling,” but, as the means of providing
a background story about history, the biography of an author or circumstances of an
artist creating some piece of art, without taking into account underlying storytelling
concepts (e.g., story models) and theory. This fact motivates our daily work in develop-
ing methods and concepts for a storytelling platform as a basis for the wide range of
edutainment applications based on storytelling fundamentals, taking into account the
different needs of various people involved with the authoring process and global
scenario of storytelling-based edutainment applications – with this paper focusing on
edutainment applications for museums.
Authoring Process and Authoring Environment
Authoring of interactive stories is an iterative process, conducted by an interdisciplinary

team consisting of designers, technicians, content providers and other participating
disciplines. Figure 4 describes the multi-step authoring process with the three major
phases brainstorming, preparation and fine-tuning.
All the engines for interactive storytelling are worthless without content. Therefore,
content has to be created and be put into the interactive storytelling environment. There
are lots of authoring environments for interactive presentation available, such as
Macromedia Director and Flash or Blender (Macromedia Director MX, 2004; Flash MX,
2004; Blender 2004), but they do not provide any help in structuring a story or suspense-
rich storytelling. For screenplay scripts the authoring software Dramatica (Dramatica,
2004) can be very helpful, but it does not offer any possibility to write an interactive story.
Figure 4. Authoring process
One of the main problems is that most of the software applications — including computer
games - are only action-driven and most of the current stories are without interaction
(e.g., films and books). If we just look back a few years, we can see that interactive
storytelling had once been very common. Stories were relayed to the recipients by
narrators. Because this had been a life process, the recipients could interact with the
storyteller by asking questions or just being interested (or not). Today, parents often tell
their children fairy tales before they sleep in a similar manner. Before any narrator can
tell a story, he needs to know the story. And because of the possible interactions, he
needs to know more about the story and its world than he can narrate on his own. This
is the main concept of our Authoring Environment for Interactive Storytelling.
As mentioned above, there are three groups: The author, the narrator and the recipient.
The author creates the story and explains it to the narrator. The narrator tells the story
to the recipients. At the end, everybody has his own story world in mind. But if everybody
has done a good job, the recipient’s story world is somewhat the same as the author’s
story world. The better the author has explained the story to the narrator, the better he
in turn is able to narrate the author’s thoughts. Hence, it’s easier for them if they each
know how the other works and what to do to achieve a good result.
In the case of Interactive Storytelling, the role of the narrator is generated by the
storytelling environment. It “knows” about story structure, suspense, immersion and
how to narrate. But, of course, it does not know anything about the author’s content.
With our authoring environment, we primarily address regular book or film authors,
because they are used to writing suspenseful stories. As much as possible, we give them
the environment they are used to, but push them smoothly along toward interaction.
Hence, we divided the authoring process into three parts: Brainstorming, Preparation and
Tuning.
Within the brainstorming process, the author grasps the first ideas for his narrative. The
main aspects are what should be told and how should it be told. Therefore, an abstract
with about five lines is written down. Moreover, the author creates the characters of the
story. Creating the main characters is hard work, because it includes complete CVs and
everything about each character’s life, behaviours, and more. The story’s world is of
great importance: In which era do the characters live, what are the circumstances, in which
part of the world (or universe) do they live? Lots of sources have to be worked through
for a believable and immersive story. Additionally, a first structuring of the narrative
takes place during the brainstorming process: When and why should what happen, and
which result should the story have? Normally, a concise version of the beginning and
the end of the story are written down. The most important points of the story will be
defined (in common stories, they are known as plot points). After that, the ideas for the
missing scenes are noted and ordered, so that the journey through the story is full of
suspense.
Now having an idea about the story, the preparation for the realization begins. The author
has to choose the story model. He has got to decide which kinds of interactions should
be possible (interaction metaphors). Furthermore, the modalities and media used are of
huge importance for the following work. After all preparations are done, the story and
its world can be created. This process depends a lot on the decisions taken before. This
is the time when the storyteller gets prepared by the author. Hence, the whole storytelling
Figure 5. Authoring Environment Keating, Authoring Environment Cyranus
run-time environment and its helpers are fed the author’s content. Similar to other media,
this can’t be done by the author alone. He needs a helping team as, for example, the
director and cameraman for a film or the printer for a book. So, depending on the kind of
presentation, a team of creative people will fulfil the author’s imagined world.
To create these worlds, we use available software as much as possible. For example, for
creating and animating characters and the surrounding world for Virtual/Augmented/
Mixed Reality projects, 3-D software, such as Maya (Alias Maya, 2004), Blender (Blender,
2004) or 3D Studio Max (Discreet 3D Studio Max, 2004), is used. The data is exported as
VRML files, which the render engines can use for presenting the world. However, there
is no authoring software for our interactive storytelling run-time environment. So, we
created Keating with the help of authors, designers and programmers.
Keating is an authoring environment for structuring stories. With Keating, stories can
be edited, combined with some media and verified. It helps during the brainstorming
process and presents the decisions taken there for finishing a suspenseful story
structure. Therefore, it gives different and flexible views of the story model, the story
structure and the content. Via “drag and drop,” structure can be changed or new content
can be included. At each step of the creative process, the StoryEngine can be started to
view and verify the work that has been completed thus far (Schneider, Braun, & Habinger,
2003; Schneider, 2002).
We have tested this tool in some projects and the way it works seems to fit an author’s
needs. Expansions have been undertaken with Cyranus (cf., Iurgel, 2004), which helps
with authoring believable interactive dialogues. For the future, more work will be done
to include an interactive world in the authoring software and to make it understand real
storybooks for a much easier start in creating interactive narratives.
Dramaturgy in Museums
Museums are not only archives for cultural heritage and places for education and
information, but also places for cultural development. Digital media and interactive
exhibits within the museum’s environment are of significant value to increase attractive-
ness and competitive advantage. In the same way, the presence of a museum on the
Internet is of great importance, for example, for art galleries or science centres.
The ordinary presentation of exhibits, such as Web sites full of images and explanations,
doesn’t seem sufficient any more. Besides information, visitors of (virtual) museums and
science centres are seeking entertainment, playful education and convincing experi-
ences. Examples like “One Wright Way” of The Franklin Institute Science Museum
demonstrate how collections could become classrooms with educational activities.
There, students can make their own “Flight Forecasts” and learn more about the flight
pioneers, the Wright brothers (Elinich, 2004). Being part of the story contributes to an
active occupation with the topic. Springer, Kajder, & Borst Brazas (2004) also aim for the
application of digital storytelling to make personal connections to visual art and museum
artefacts in the National Gallery of Art in Chicago. In an interactive CD-ROM application,
contemporary witnesses become the protagonists of a story: One example is a film that
shows youngsters riding kickboards (a Swiss invention and therefore shown at Musée
Suisse) and talking about the vehicles and their social context (Kraemer & Jaggi, 2003).
The examples show that stories are a powerful means to impart knowledge, especially for
museums and science centres. However, none of them are interactive in such a way that
the user might influence the story’s flow and still experience a consistent narration.
Therefore, we aim for interactive storytelling environments in order to improve individual
learning efforts.
Learning Issues
E-learning is one of the current buzzwords in our information society and simultaneously
represents a key area of EU Frameworks or national action lines for science and education.
Recently, a number of approaches, such as notebook university Darmstadt (Notebook,
2004) or various school subject-oriented projects initiated and funded by the German
Ministry for Science and Education (Neue Medien, 2004), have been initiated and carried
out. On the other hand, in addition to those R&D projects, various learning applications,
platforms and products, such as learnexact from Giunti (Learnexact, 2004), have been
launched. Hereby, the amazing and exciting fact is that learning concepts are mostly
limited to
• the usage of multimedia to express and explain content or,

• the usage of constructivist learning concepts, which could be freely interpreted,
and
• the realization of learning applications as hypertext-oriented courses.
Another interesting issue concerns the usage (and benefit?) of 3-D learning environ-
ments or virtual characters as tutors guiding the user through learning applications.
Examples of this are role games, such as the famous Final Fantasy Series (Final Fantasy,
2004) or Tomb Raider (Tomb Raider, 2004) and Doom (Doom, 2004), using the so-called
Figure 6. Learning software: 3-D and string of pearls
“String of Pearls” technique for sub-linear narration (see right half of Figure 6). Further
on, Figure 6 presents “Ritter Rost” as an example of interactive learning software for
languages, “Mathica” (Klett-Heureka, 2004), proposed for pupils (age >= 10 years) using
behaviouristic and cognitivistic learning methods, and “Der Manager im Handelsbetrieb”
(Dekra, 2004), proposed for trainees in the commodities market economy using
constructivistic learning methods.
Based on these approaches and learning examples, we invested research effort into the
development of attractive, interactive and narrative learning software combining
storytelling techniques with learning methods. Our first concepts providing a three-level
concept are described in the following sections.
Storytelling Concepts for

Edutainment Applications
Based on this state-of-the-art analysis, storytelling methods and concepts, as well as a
technical platform for the establishment of storytelling-based edutainment applications,
are described.
The global aim of our approaches developed by the interdisciplinary Digital Storytelling
group at ZGDV Darmstadt is to combine different approaches from the fields of fairy tales,
theatre, film or game-based learning and to establish narrative environments:
• For information & knowledge transmission

• For learning, training & education
• To increase immersion through suspense and suspenseful stories
Thus, taken altogether, some kind of new user interface paradigm in the form of “narrative
user interfaces” has been introduced.
From a technical point of view, the basis for our storytelling-based edutainment
applications is a storytelling platform providing a content layer (for story models, media,
document archives, museum collections, etc.), an authoring environment with various
editors, such as a story editor, scene editor, character or interaction editor, and a run-
time system consisting of a story engine as control unit, as well as a scene engine,
character engines and a rendering platform (scalable from mobile devices to simple Web
sites or workstation screens up to complex physical set-ups for interactive artefacts
within a museum).
Storytelling Run-Time Environment
As already indicated above, in any interactive storytelling application, the balancing act
is between the degree of freedom (emergent stories that evolve from the parametric
description of actions and interactions) and a predefined story plot. It is even more
challenging for the design of interactive learning environments: the learner’s autonomy
must be balanced with the storyline and an instructional goal (Collins, 1996; Jonassen,
1989). How we deal with these problems will be explained in our approaches to an
interactive storytelling environment. Then, we will present our integrated concept for
educational applications.
For creating interactive storytelling projects, we use both a run-time and an authoring
environment developed at the Digital Storytelling group at ZGDV Darmstadt. In order to
follow a user-centred development approach, the user’s needs directly influence the
Figure 7. Narration environment
design of the run-time applications, as well. For example, the API used is very close to
instructions used by directors on a film set. So both the run-time environment and the
authoring environment influence the development process and vice versa. Authoring
does not begin with creating an application for authors, but with building the whole
environment, including the API, the MLs and the overall structure, with their needs in
mind. The storytelling run-time environment consists of several modules for narration,
scene and — for VR, AR and MR applications — character controlling and user behaviour
interpretation. Additionally, a set of mark-up languages and scripts, as well as content
databases, is used.
StoryEngine
The StoryEngine takes care of the narration of the overall story. Hence, it knows about
the story structure and has implemented algorithms for creating suspense within an
immersive form of storytelling. Therefore, it uses a story model provided by the
StoryModelML. We have just developed the descriptions for some types of story-like
presentations as fairy tales, story-driven education and business presentations. Addi-
tionally, some information is needed about suspense. This is done by the SuspenseML,
which describes the storyline and how to combine it with the possible scenes. With this
information, the StoryEngine processes the content interactively with regard to the
user’s preferences. All the user’s interactions influence the kind of storytelling but, of
course, not the story itself. Unlike common computer games, the story will always come
to an end, so the user will experience satisfaction about the presented content.
SceneEngine
The SceneEngine is responsible for setting the scene and controlling the interaction with
the user. A scene is the presentation of some content at a certain time and place. It gets
a context description from the StoryEngine, so the SceneEngine controls which part of
story should be presented at the moment. To have the same interpretation, it uses the
SuspenseML, as well. Additionally, it loads a description about the actual place (stage)
and the SceneScript. For SceneScript, we currently use an extension to the scripting
language Phyton, which is well-known by game developers. It handles the content itself,
the form of its presentation and the manner of interactions. For controlling the following
modules, we specified the DirectionML. This is a non-blocking, asynchronous protocol
with distributed systems and tasks in mind. Again, it has been developed for usage,
which can be controlled by authors who are not programmers.
Integrated Learning Concepts
Our approach to an integrated concept for storytelling-based education purposes

consists of three levels: Story Level, Knowledge Level and Learning Level. At each level,
specific information must be described. In the following paragraph, we will explain what
Figure 8. Learning systems – Linear structures versus story-based 3-level concept
kind of information the author has to include in the design. Figure 8 contrasts our concept
with traditional linear structures of existing learning software, such as a learning platform
provided by Telekom, providing different levels for beginners, advanced and profes-
sional users, but very predefined structures.
Story Level
As described above, an interesting story with suspenseful structure has to be designed

on the story level. As is already known from experiences from (non-linear) script writing
and literature (McKee, 1997; Seger, 1990) we can differentiate between two approaches:
story-driven approach (top-down) and character-driven approach (bottom-up) (Spierling,
Grasbon, Braun, & Iurgel, 2002).
Starting from the top, the author defines the whole storyline, including beginning and
ending of the story, as well as plot points where the story turns, under consideration of
dramaturgical aspects. With knowledge of the whole story, the author can work out
scenes, characters, interactions and dialogue in detail. Using the character-driven
approach, the story evolves from a precise description of the (main) characters. In this
case, authoring for interactive storytelling means a detailed definition of parameters and
rules to control the character’s behaviour. Practically speaking, a combination of both
authoring methods is useful and must be supported by the authoring environment.
During run-time, the data on the Story Level is processed by the StoryEngine and
SceneEngine.
Knowledge Level
The knowledge base consists of modular fragments of information. It contains the

information, which should be transferred and understood by the learner. Actually, the
information is not part of the story, but rather serves as input for the author to develop
an appropriate and consistent story. Therefore, content-related fragments should be
designed for reuse and modification for other application domains. For museums, it is
important to archive content for different presentation media, such as Web sites, onsite
information or brochures.
Learning Level
At the learning level, the author decides about the education goal of the application. The
design of the story depends on a decision as to whether the goal is to initialize general
interest in a topic or achieve deeper knowledge. In any case, the learning part shouldn’t
undermine the power of the story (suspense, engagement, immersion). Educational parts
must be integrated in the storyline. An exemplary situation shall explain a possibility of
how it can be integrated: The learner needs to apply already acquired knowledge, but is
obviously not able. During the following scenes, the necessary information should be
presented in an alternative way so that he has another chance to succeed. In current
(learning) games, the learner risks getting stuck in a similar situation.
Consequently, the learning model has to present how the user will proceed in his learning
process — similar to a story model that presents the procession of the narrative.
Reference Examples
The strengths and weaknesses of these approaches are discussed in the context of the
edutainment projects GEIST (2004), art-E-fact (2004) and DinoHunter Senckenberg.
Our approach to storytelling-based education and edutainment applications is currently
realized in several projects:
• GEIST is an Augmented Reality system to experience historical coherences in the

urban environment with interactive storytelling, funded by the Federal Ministry of
Education and Research (BMBF)
• art-E-fact is an EU-funded project providing a generic platform for art (for both the
creation and presentation of art)
• DinoHunter is an integrated concept in the wide range of museum applications and
is partially implemented in the Senckenberg Museum in Frankfurt (DinoSim
Senckenberg and DinoExplorer Senckenberg).
Hereby, the different projects address both edutainment applications within museums
as tourist sites, as well as scenarios on the Web for museum Web sites, online courses
and education or virtual science centres.
Figure 9. Impressions of the GEIST project
GEIST: Storytelling System for Experiencing History
The GEIST project (GEIST, 2004) represents a mobile outdoor Augmented Reality system
to experience historical coherences in the urban environment with interactive storytelling.
Hence, by telling a story, GEIST motivates the user to go sightseeing in Heidelberg while
also introducing the user to the events that took place during the Thirty Years War. The
users are supported to learn playfully, which awakens their natural interest to learn.
Therefore, GEIST combines interactive storytelling with AR technology. The so-called
“Magic Equipment” has been designed as user-centred input-/output equipment. It
consists of AR glasses headsets for presenting the story. For tracking the user’s position
and view, a combination of GPS (Global Positioning System), a tracker and a video
tracking system was developed. It provides the possibility to track the user’s location
and direction very accurately. Foremost, this equipment is used for displaying the AR
information.
For the GEIST project, we have placed virtual stages around the city of Heidelberg. The
story will be presented upon these stages. The information concerning which stage the
user is on at the moment is provided by the tracking system, which exerts a huge influence
on the kind of presentation from a narrative point of view. In combination with the other
input equipment like magic maps and pointers, the GEIST system can always adjust the
flow of the story presentation to the user’s needs and keep it interesting. A magic book
offers further historical information about the location, the people and the time. Thereby,
users are able to answer questions which may arise independently, satisfying their
developing thirst for knowledge right away.
Altogether, GEIST, as one representative of storytelling-based edutainment approaches,
covers story models, learning and gaming aspects, Virtual Reality/Augmented Reality
technology, location-based services, as well as virtual and physical props. These
features show the great variety of interactive storytelling and storytelling-based
Figure 10. art-E-fact scenario and components of the platform
edutainment applications with a lot of different underlying research disciplines, such as

computer graphics, interaction and communication design, but also history, pedagogy
or artificial intelligence (concerning the dialogue modelling between the virtual charac-
ters and the user or among virtual characters).
art-E-fact: Interactive Edutainment Platform
art-E-fact (art-E-fact, 2004) is an EU-funded project for interactive storytelling in Mixed

Reality. The aim of the project is to offer the user an engaging way to understand and
experience art and art history from a philosophical perspective. The scenario is designed
for a museum site or an exhibition hall. As the focus of the installation, a work of art (e.g.,
Byzantine icons) will be presented.
A group of virtual characters is situated close to the painting. When the visitor enters
the installation, the narration begins and the characters begin a lively discussion. During
the ongoing story, the user has the possibility to interact, for example, by text input via
keyboard. At this moment, the visitor becomes part of the discussion group and can
express his opinion, ask questions or change topics. He can also choose to enjoy the
story passively. Then, one of the characters will take over the role of a non-expert to allow
the visitor a certain degree of identification with the character. In any case, the narration
touches on different areas of interest without massive interruption of the story line
(Iurgel, 2002; Spierling & Iurgel, 2003).
Additionally, the visitor can use physical props to interact with the painting, for example,
using a sponge for replacing layers or a magnifying glass for zooming in/out. Therefore,
a video tracking system for gesture recognition is implemented.
A planned Web-based application will offer the same conversational interactions and
adequate replacements for the interaction possibilities in Mixed Reality.
The art-E-fact approach aims at the transmission of information within an interactive

dialogue with virtual characters and multi-modal interaction possibilities. Each character
is representing a particular perspective on the work of art. The main topic of the story
can be influenced by the user without departing from a consistent storyline. During the
narration, the user will be prompted by the characters from time to time, for example, to
give an answer. If he doesn’t react, they will answer the question during the ongoing
conversation.
art-E-fact is an example of the purposeful use of emotionally involving and personality-
rich virtual humans in edutainment. Here, the information is transmitted in a natural way,
involving emotion, dialogue and social aspects. Indeed, one of the core future issues for
such virtual character-based educational applications will certainly be the guided
establishment of social bounds for the human student with the virtual characters, since
the importance of affective relations with teachers and comrades is a well-established
phenomenon in learning. Accordingly, a learner should be able to establish a kind of
“friendship” with the virtual companions, and feel affection and trust towards the virtual
teacher (cf., Bandura, 1997; Iurgel, 2003).
DinoHunter: Edutainment Applications for Museums
The global aim of DinoHunter is to develop integrated concepts for mobile edutainment
applications and knowledge environments. Typical examples of this are interactive
scenarios for museums, theme parks or various kinds of exhibits and trade fairs. From the
technical point of view, DinoHunter combines computer graphics technology with
interactive storytelling, user interface and user interaction concepts, such as Kids
Innovation or momuna (mobile museum navigator) (Göbel & Sauer, 2003).
From a global perspective, DinoHunter provides integrated concepts for the wide range
of interactive museum (or any other edutainment) applications. The basic principle is to
combine computer graphics technology, such as 3-D Rendering, Virtual and Augmented
Reality or multi-modal interfaces (speech recognition, video recognition, gestures, etc.),
with interactive storytelling approaches established in the field of film, theatre or fairy
tales and further user interface and user interaction concepts. With the support of mobile
devices, location-based services and pedagogic aspects (learning models and con-
cepts), DinoHunter transforms the museum into an interactive learning and gaming
environment.
Hereby, the setting of DinoHunter takes into account the needs and knowledge of
various users and user groups involved in the multi-faceted domain of museum applica-
tions (see Figure 11): individual visitors, families or school classes as visitor groups,
museum guides, scientific, administrative or marketing staff at the museum, or all the
different user groups visiting virtual museums via the museum’s Web site.
Apart from a comprehensive DinoHunter platform providing tools, methods and con-
cepts for all these different user groups, additional case studies and pre-defined
templates help to support:
Figure 11. Global DinoHunter scenario for museums
• Museum staff to archive library data and artefacts and make them available within
digital museum applications.
• Administrative staff to monitor user behaviour and the success of individual
artefacts or parts of exhibitions by measuring the retention period of visitors at
special exhibits.
• Scientific staff to get a visual feedback of their research, providing 3-D reconstruc-
tions of dinosaurs or visualizing appearance and behaviour (such as walking). This
also includes a rapid prototype environment as part of the authoring environment.
• Museum educators to enter digital media, didactic methods and learning models
or any hints leading the visitor to “the most important” artefact.
• Teachers in preparing (and post-processing) the museum visit of a school class.
• Kids/pupils interacting and communicating among one another or sending mes-
sages in order to solve a group-based task associated with a museum’s rally or
game.
Figure 12. DinoSim Senckenberg
Figure 13. DinoSim Senckenberg: Modelling process
• Marketing people to combine the content layer (artefacts, exhibits and digital media
or even access to further repositories) with the museum’s shop or the Web site or
event calendars.
DinoSim Senckenberg
One example of the successful combination of onsite exhibits and online services is the
DinoSim project for the Senckenberg Natural History Museum (Senckenberg, 2004). On
the occasion of its re-opening in November 2003, Senckenberg had a great interest in
improving their exhibition by integrating multimedia systems. In addition to a general
visitor information and navigation system, two kiosk terminals around the most exciting
exhibits (skeletons of T-Rex and Diplodocus) are enhanced by the DinoSim application,
which provides a 3-D real-time simulation and animation of dinosaurs. The primary goal
of DinoSim is to visualize different scientific-related theories about appearance, move-
ments and behaviour of dinosaurs. Visitors can freely navigate around the dinosaurs
within a 3-D environment and can take pictures from their own view (point). These
pictures are then sent by e-mail to the visitor’s e-mail address, where users can then take
advantage of the T-Online Fotoservice (T-Online Fotoservice, 2004) and have T-shirts,
cups or bags printed with their individual dinosaur. The visitor will get his unique
souvenir and, for the museum, the application is part of its comprehensive customer
relationship management.
Figure 13 shows DinoSim’s multi-phase modelling process, starting with real fossils, 3-
D reconstructions by the palaeontologists, the extraction of geometry, appearance and
skeleton, and the animation with Maya software, resulting in a touch screen application
on terminals in front of the T-Rex and Diplodocus in the dinosaur hall of the Senckenberg
Museum.
Figure 14. DinoExplorer Senckenberg
DinoExplorer Senckenberg
DinoExplorer represents a game-oriented application that is available for download on

the Senckenberg Web site. Within a hide-and-seek style game the user can explore the
virtual Senckenberg and its exhibits with the task of finding a particular animal
(Leptictidium). As the user succeeds in finding the Leptictidium, further functionality is
available on a virtual mobile device. For example, users can experience different layers
for the skeleton, inner organs, muscles or possible appearances (colour, structure) of
skins. Further along, the breathing of dinosaurs is presented via 3-D animations.
Figure 14 shows a snapshot of the DinoExplorer Senckenberg hide-and-seek game with
an emulated PDA providing augmented information about the appearance of dinosaurs.
Detailed descriptions about the global DinoHunter scenario, as well as DinoSim,
DinoExplorer and further applications out of the DinoHunter series, are provided in
various publications of the Museums and Web and ICHIM conference series (Sauer et
al., 2004; Göbel & Sauer, 2003a; Sauer & Göbel, 2003b).
A similar approach to DinoSim and DinoExplorer is provided by the Canadian Museum of
Nature (Canadian Museum, 2004), underlining the usage of 3-D computer graphics technol-
ogy to visualize geometry, appearance and behaviour of dinosaurs. Concerning the question,
“What are the uses and benefits of 3-D imaging?,” they list both exhibition enhancement by
virtually displayed artefacts and specimens, as well as benefits in education by enhanced and
animated data, for the provision of dynamic learning experiences.
Conclusion
Finally, the major results are summarized in a short conclusion and further research and
application-driven trends (context: museums) are pointed out.
Within the wide range of museum applications and scenarios, this chapter describes
methods and concepts for the establishment of storytelling-based edutainment applica-
tions. Hereby, the global aim is to combine traditional learning methods and concepts
with dramaturgic and narrative elements in order to improve knowledge transmission, to
increase the user immersion and finally to produce positive learning effects. This is
realized by a storytelling platform, providing a content layer, an authoring environment
with various editors for different user groups (such as storytellers, museum pedagogues
and scientists or teachers), a complex run-time system with different story engines and
a set of player components ranging from online Web sites for simple PC workstations up
to complex physical set-ups and installations for interactive exhibits within museums.
With regard to the integration of storytelling methods and components, such as story
models or story engines and learning methods, a 3-level concept is introduced, providing
a story level, knowledge level and learning level. The practical use and usage of these
concepts are discussed in the context of the reference examples, GEIST, art-E-fact (EU-
funded project concentrating on character-based conversations and Mixed Reality) and
the two DinoHunter applications, DinoSim and DinoExplorer, developed and realized for
the Senckenberg Museum in Frankfurt, Germany. Regarding DinoHunter, first user
studies have shown the great benefit of storytelling and game-based approaches
enhanced by interactive Virtual and Augmented Reality technology: Especially young
visitors — used to computer games and new media — are fascinated by interactive
applications and like this form of playing and learning.
From the research-oriented point of view, further effort will be invested into the field of
integration and harmonization of various story models providing suspense and drama-
turgy with learning models providing learning methods, content and media. Later on,
both the authoring and run-time environment of the storytelling platform for edutainment
applications will be improved in relation to learning aspects, as well as personalization
and individualization. On the other hand, application-driven issues and obstacles affect
the integration of content management systems with edutainment applications or the
necessity (especially for museums) to find appropriate business models financing digital
media, (interactive) museum Web sites, high-end installations or hardware and software
for storytelling-based edutainment applications in general.
References
Alias Maya. (2004). Retrieved June 16, 2004, from http://www.alias.com/eng/products-
services/maya/
art-E-fact. (2004). Generic platform for interactive storytelling in mixed reality. EU-
funded project (IST-2001-37924). Retrieved March 15, 2004, from http://www.art-
e-fact.org
Bader, M. (2004). Retrieved June 16, 2004, from http://www.natural-reality.de/
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Blender.
(2004). Retrieved June 16, 2004 from http://www.blender3d.com/
Campbell, J. (1973). The hero with a thousand faces. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Canadian Museum. (2004). Canadian Museum of Nature, Canada, 3D Imaging Center.

Retrieved March 15, 2004, from http://www.nature.ca/3D/
Collins, A. (1996). Design issues for learning environments. In S. Vosniadou, E.D. Corte,
R. Glaser, & H. Mandl (Eds.), International perspectives on the design of technol-
ogy-supported learning environments (pp. 347-362). Mahway, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Crawford, C. (n.d.). Interactivizing stories. Retrieved March 15, 2004, from http://
www.erasmatazz.com/library/Lilan/interactivizing.html
Crawford, C. (n.d.). Plot versus interactivity. Retrieved March 15, 2004, from http://
www.erasmatazz.com/library/Lilan/plot.html
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Csikszentmihalyi, I.S. (1997). Optimal experience. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Dekra Akademie GmbH. (2004). Der Manager im Handelsbetrieb. Retrieved March 15,
2004, from http://www.dekra-akademie.de/
Discreet 3D Studio Max. (2004). Retrieved June 16, 2004, from http://www.3dmax.com/
Doom. (2004). Retrieved March 15, 2004, from http://www.doom3.com/
Dramatica. (2004). Retrieved June 16, 2004, from http://www.dramatica.com/Eduweb
Educational Web Adventures. (n.d.). Retrieved March 15, 2004, from http://
www.eduweb.com/
Elinich, K. (2004). One Wright way: From collections to classrooms. In D. Bearman, & J.
Trant (Eds.), Museums and the Web 2004: Proceedings. Toronto: Archives &
Museum Informatics.
Feix, A., Hoffmann, A., Osswald, K., & Sauer, S. (2003). DinoHunter: Collaborative
learning experience in museums with interactive storytelling and kids innovation.
In S. Göbel, N. Braun, U. Spierling, J. Dechau, & H. Diener (Eds.), Proceedings of
TIDSE 2003 (pp. 388-393). Darmstadt.
Field, S. (1988). The screenwriter’s workbook. New York: Dell Publishing Company
Final Fantasy. (2004). Final Fantasy Series. Retrieved March 15, 2004, from http://
www.ffonline.com/
Gagne, R.M., Briggs, L.J., & Wager, W.W. (1992). Principles of instructional design.
Fort Worth: HBJ College Publishers.
GEIST. (2004). Project (01IRA12B GEIST) funded by the German Ministry of Science and
Education (BMBF). Retrieved March 15, 2004, from http://www.tourgeist.com
Göbel, S., & Sauer, S. (2003a). Combine the exhibition and your Web-visitors. Integrated
concepts of interactive digital media for museums. In Workshop at Museums and
the Web 2003. Charlotte, NC.
Göbel, S., & Sauer, S. (2003b). DinoHunter: Game based learning experience in museums.
In Proceedings of ICHIM’03, École du Louvre, Paris. CD-ROM. Archives &
Museum Informatics.
Il était une fois... L’homme, France/Japan. (1978). Retrieved March 15, 2004, from http:/
/www.generiquestele.com/details_id-20_n-Il,etait,une,fois,l,homme.htm
Iurgel, I. (2002). Emotional interaction in a hybrid conversation group. In PRICAI-02.

Workshop on Lifelike Animated Agents. Tokyo, Japan. JSPS.
Iurgel, I. (2003). Virtual actors in interactivated storytelling. In IVA 2003 (pp. 254-258).
Iurgel, I. (2004). Narrative dialogues for educational installations. In NILE 2004 (in
press).
Jonassen, D.H. (1989). Hypertext/hypermedia. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Tech-
nology Publications.
Klett-Heureka. (2004). Retrieved March 15, 2004, from http://www.klett-verlag.de/
heureka/
Kraemer, H., & Jaggi, K. (2003). Virtual Transfer Musee Suisse. Unpublished CD-ROM.
Retrieved from http://www.musee-suisse.com
Learnexact. (2004). Retrieved March 15, 2004, from http://www.learnexact.com/
Macromedia Director. (2004). Retrieved June 16, 2004, from http://www.macromedia.com/
software/director/
Macromedia Flash. (2004). Retrieved June 16, 2004, from http://www.macromedia.com/
software/flash/
Marsella, S.C. (2003). Interactive pedagogical drama: Carmen’s bright IDEAS assessed.
In Intelligent virtual agents: Lecture notes in artificial intelligence (LNAI 2792)
(pp. 1-4). Berlin: Springer.
Mateas, M. (1997). An oz-centric review of interactive drama and believable agents.
Technical Report. Pittsburgh PA: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
University.
Mateas, M., & Stern, A. (2003). Integrating plot, character and natural language
processing in the interactive drama façade. In S. Göbel, N. Braun, U. Spierling, J.
Dechau, & H. Diener (Eds.), Proceedings of TIDSE 2003 (pp. 139-151). Darmstadt.
McKee, R. (1997). Story: Substance, structure, style and the principles of screenwriting.
Regan Books.
Museum of Tolerance. (2004). Teachers’ guide Web site. Museum of Tolerance,
New York. Retrieved March 15, 2004, from http://teachers.museumof
tolerance.com/
Noah, D. (2003). An analysis of narrative-based educational software. Retrieved March
15, 2004, from http://naturalhistory.uga.edu/narrative_paper.htm
Notebook. (2004). Notebook University Darmstadt. Retrieved March 15, 2004, from
http://www.nu.tu-darmstadt.de/
Picard, R.W. (1997). Affective computing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Propp, V. (1998). Morphology of the folktale. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Sauer, S., & Göbel, S. (2003). Focus your young visitors: Kids Innovation, Fundamental
changes in digital edutainment. In D. Bearman & J. Trant (Eds.), Museums and the
Web 2003: Selected papers from an international conference (pp. 131-141).
Toronto: Archives and Museums Informatics.
Sauer, S., Osswald, K., Göbel, S., Feix, A., & Zumack, R. (2004). Edutainment environ-
ments. A field report on DinoHunter: Technologies, methods and evaluation
results. In D. Bearman & J. Trant (Eds.), Museums and the Web 2004: Selected
papers from an international conference (pp. 165-172). Toronto: Archives and
Museums Informatics.
Schell, J. (2002). Understanding entertainment: Story and gameplay are one. In J.A.
Jacko,& A. Sears (Eds.), The human-computer interaction handbook: Fundamen-
tals, evolving technologies and emerging applications. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Schneider, O. (2002). Storyworld creation: Authoring for interactive storytelling. In V.
Skala (Ed.), Journal of WSCG (Vol. 10, No. 2). International Conference in Central
Europe on Computer Graphics, Visualization and Computer Vision 2002 (pp. pp.
405-412). Plzen: University of West Bohemia.
Schneider, O., & Braun, N. (2003). Content presentation in augmented spaces by the
narration of interactive scenes. In Proceedings of First Research Workshop on
Augmented Virtual Reality (AVIR). Genf, Switzerland.
Schneider, O., Braun, N., & Habinger, G. (2003). Storylining suspense: An authoring
environment for structuring non-linear interactive narratives. In V. Skala (Ed.),
Journal of WSCG (Vol 11, No. 3). International Conference in Central Europe on
Computer Graphics, Visualization and Computer Vision 2002 (pp. 411-417).
Plzen: University of West Bohemia.
Seger, L. (1990). Creating unforgettable characters. New York: Henry Holt & Company.
Senckenberg. (2004). Retrieved June 16, 2004, from http://www.senckenberg.de/
Shank, R., & Cleary, C. (1995). Engines for education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Spierling, U., & Iurgel, I. (2003). Just talking about art. In Virtual Storytelling. Proceed-
ings Second International Conference, ICVS 2003 (pp. 189-197). (LNCS 2897).
Toulouse, France.
Spierling, U., Grasbon, D., Braun, N., & Iurgel, I. (2002). Setting the scene: Playing digital
director in interactive storytelling and creation. Computers & Graphics, 26 (1), 31-44.
Spitzer, M. (2002). Lernen. Gehirnforschung und die Schule des Lebens. Spektrum
Akademischer Verlag, Heidelberg.
Springer, J., Kajder, K., & Borst Brazas, J. (2004). Digital storytelling at the National
Gallery of Art. In D. Bearman & J. Trant (Eds.), Museums and the Web 2004:
Proceedings. Toronto: Archives & Museum Informatics.
T-Online Fotoservice. (2004). Retrieved June 16, 2004, from http://service.t-online.de/
c/00/01/36/1360.html
Tobias, R.B.(1999). 20 Masterplots. Frankfurt am Main: Zweitausendeins.
Vernon. (2004). Vernon Systems. Auckland, New Zealand. Retrieved March 15, 2004, from
http://www.vernonsystems.com/
Vogler, C. (1998). A writer’s journey. Studio City, CA: Wiese Productions.
Revolutionizing Information Architectures 215
Chapter X
Revolutionizing
Information
Architectures within
Learning-Focused
Web Sites
Ramesh Srinivasan, Harvard University, USA
Abstract
This chapter points to the potential new information architectures hold in the design
of virtual science centers. Science centers are treated as education-focused institutions
and the argument is made that that extending the power of the science center as an
educational platform warrants an answer to the question of how to share knowledge
across the community of visitors without physical co-assembly. Two approaches
toward information design are discussed: community-driven ontologies and social
information filtering agents. These approaches are introduced within the context of
two pieces of previous research and hold great potential when applied to the Web
environment of the science center.
216 Srinivasan
Introduction
Virtual environments have begun to proliferate as complements to physical centers of
learning and exhibition. The presence of these spaces has profoundly impacted the
ability of an individual to learn, reflect, comment, and engage with the cultural, artistic,
scientific, or educational material these institutions offer without physically visiting
them. Literature abounds discussing the implications of the Internet on art museums and
classrooms, and less so with non-formal science centers interested in finding ways to
make science more understandable to the public.
The museum setting is more observational, and reflective, but not integrally related to
the experience of learning in the way of the science center. However, they are connected
by the important discussion between designers, curators and technologists. The
question these parties together are focused on is how to bring new information
technologies to the museum or science center and vice versa.
Already, work is underway to create and design new technological devices for these
institutions, embedded within the “brick and mortar” of the building, or made portable
for a visitor to wear. Fascinatingly, the museum or science center visitor can no longer
be defined as the person who walks into the door of the building, but instead could be
he or she who accesses the appropriate Web site.
The key question surrounding all these issues is one of interaction design: how can
interactive technology be deployed to facilitate dialogue between Web visitors and
physical visitors, curators and visitors, lecturers across the world with both types of
visitors, and etcetera. Dialogue, learning, observation, reflection – in union these terms
point to a new paradigm that is not individualistic, but instead community-focused. Thus,
my design research has focused on the mechanisms by which technology can enable and
sustain community, and how distance can be bridged to create community around the
objects of the museum or science center without the need for physical co-presence.
Hence, the term virtual science center or virtual museum emerges.
There are lessons to be learnt from the classroom and museum that can be applied to the
science center, but there are also fundamental differences. The experience of interacting
with a science center is integrally learning-based, though within an environment of
observation that suggests the typology of a museum. One does not “learn” a painting
or sculpture with the same pedagogical process as he or she does about electricity or
Einstein. This chapter is focused on mechanisms by which the design of virtual science
centers can advance the experience of learning. Learning can be understood as a
construction, a shared activity of discovery and dialogue between the individual
participants (Papert, 1980). Thus, rather than understanding content as created by a
single source, extending the power of the science center as an educational platform
warrants an answer to the question of how to share knowledge across the community of
visitors without physical co-assembly.
Introducing Virtual Science Centers

and the Question of
Information Architecture
Virtual science centers are a new typology that has emerged to focus specifically on the
education of science to a general public. In a sense they are a hybrid of the traditional
museum and the educational environment. While their goals are to provide virtual
visitors with an exposure to objects and knowledge emanating from the physical site (i.e.,
the science museum that administers the sites), they also maintain a focus on how to
educate visitors. Additionally, science centers tend to have a much more hands-on
explorative approach inspired by the first major science center, San Francisco’s
Exploratorium. It is even more critical then that the virtual component of the science
center also maintains the interactive and responsive edge that set science centers apart
as exciting institutions to visit.
(Science centers) are non-formal educational institutions of relatively recent

origins. They have been established primarily for the purpose of popularizing
science and technology to the public and students, thereby contributing to the
enhancement of science literacy levels. Initially, the tasks were performed by
science museums which were, and generally still continue to be, repositories of
scientific artifacts. (Tan et al., 2002)
Visits to virtual science centers have increased dramatically over the last ten years (Tan
et al., 2002), and they have begun to be understood as a phenomenon that warrant
dedicated study and analysis. At the same time, noteworthy research conducted on
digital museums and e-learning remains relevant for virtual science centers.
Discussion of virtual environments for museums, education, and science centers has
begun to reveal itself in publications. One key question that has been largely unanswered
in this literature, however, is related to the design of the information architecture of the
virtual environment that is so important to the visitor’s experience. In this brief chapter,
my discussion will center on two assertions:
1. The argument is made for the strong benefits that focusing on a variety of
relationships between individual pieces of content could provide in revealing the
multiple threads of knowledge and perspective the science center holds.
2. Science centers would do well to provide visitors with the topics, exhibits, and
ideas they may truly be interested in but yet to have been exposed to. This could
potentially provide greater meaning to the experience of the virtual science center
visit by revealing an interesting path to the disorienting deluge of information and
objects the virtual science center makes available. The use of such techniques as
social information filtering agents merit investigation within this scenario.
218 Srinivasan
In the next section, a virtual science center (Boston Museum of Science) is briefly
analyzed. This is followed by an introduction of previous research on community-
generated exhibitions and my current doctoral research on the use of social information
filtering techniques to disseminate cultural and educational material across a distributed
set of Native American reservations. Finally, the chapter closes with some thoughts and
recommendations of how to bridge the gaps between the status quo with the ongoing
findings of my research.
Boston Museum of Science: Dissecting a

State-of-the-Art Virtual Science Center
A pioneer of science education in the Boston area, the Museum of Science has
established strong partnerships with academic, media, and corporate institutions in the
area. There is strong overlap in particular with MIT’s Media Laboratory and different
science-related organizations at Harvard. Perusing through the Museum of Science’s
website (http://www.mos.org) reveals many intersections between these institutions, as
many exhibitions have been created by local university faculty, students, or alumni.
Exhibitions include IMAX movies, notices for local teachers, the life and theories of
Einstein, Costumes of the Lord of the Rings, the History of Computing, and many others.
The virtual component of this museum is notable, particularly because it is built as a
complete analogue of the museum itself. Of course, this is not surprising, but because
the museum is so strongly involved in so many efforts, the Web site at first appears as
a large list without any uniform integration.
More specifically, as Figure 1 demonstrates, the Museum of Science site is set up with
links to top attractions, a selection of a top Science news story (in the news section), calls
to get involved, and administrative information. Navigating through the site, it is easy
Figure 1. A snapshot of the Boston Museum of Science’s main Web page (http://
www.mos.org)
to be awestruck by the amount of incredibly rich content the Museum maintains, but
completely disoriented by the journey. The Virtual Fishtank, created with the coopera-
tion of the MIT Media Laboratory and a local educational technology firm, is an example
of the powerful online exhibitions featured by this virtual science center. Originating from
new ideas in the 1980s about the study of complex systems, where patterns originate from
the synthesis of a set of simple parts, the virtual fishtank was created to provide virtual
visitors to the Museum of Science with the ability to create their own simple element of
a powerful exhibit.
The virtual fishtank also builds on recent research in learning and education.
Constructionist theories of learning are based on the idea that people learn with
particular effectiveness when they are engaged in design and construction
activities. . .In line with recent research, we believe that these design activities
will offer rich opportunities for learning scientific concepts. (www.mos.org/
exhibits/online_exhibits.html)
Thus, each visitor is given the ability to create their own fish and give it a simple
condition-action rule (e.g., if you sense food nearby, follow it), and join existing schools.
The ultimate effect is of viewing an exhibit of a set of these fish and their interrelationships
over time.
Such rich concepts as the virtual fishtank are complemented by incredible exhibits that
have a Web-life such as, “Ancient Egypt: Mummification.” This exhibit allows visitors
to view a 2,500 year old mummy and manipulate its 3-D model. It allows the visitor to learn
about the process of excavating, the mythologies and gods associated with the practice,
and prepares one for the journey to the afterlife.
What becomes clear when experiencing the Museum of Science site is a set of powerful
ideas and experiences that are placed within an ad hoc information architecture. There
are common imageries, appropriate age categories, conceptual ideas, and exhibit statuses
around which more relational architectures can be at least experimented. Instead, the
experience of interacting with the site involves wonderful discoveries and interactive
exhibits, but that are only serendipitously accessed. Whether a specific exhibit is in
“what’s happening,” a subcategory under “exhibits,” or as a table under the main page
is unclear. Another example of this can be found with the divisions between the Current
Science and Technology section, the Virtual Exhibits section, and the lectures section.
Within the virtual exhibits section, one exhibit featured is the “archaeology of the big
dig,” based around Boston’s massive urban infrastructure project. While this is a very
appropriate topic to base a virtual exhibit around, the site would be more powerful if the
exhibit were integrated with content that would also be appropriate within the lectures
and current technology sections. Information related to the current technology used in
the big dig projects as well as lectures by construction engineers and architects could
be integrated into the exhibit, and also placed within the other sub-sections. Essentially,
the approach of providing the site visitor with greater associations between different
pieces of content could add a previously unseen level of fluidity.
220 Srinivasan
Across these discussions, it is clear that there are limited paths by which the rich content
can be accessed, and the discovery of these paths sometimes is quite difficult. How can
the Museum of Science begin to illuminate the intersecting images, ideas, actors, and
stories of the content it places on its web site? This is a critical question that research
into virtual science centers is still yet to answer.
Visitor-Driven Ontologies:
Integrating a Resevoir of
Experiences and Knowledge
The rich reservoir of content within the Museum of Science Web site is in need of an
architecture as flexible as its visitors are varied. In this section, a possible solution is
proposed to the problem of designing for the myriad of mechanisms and architectures
by which knowledge within the science center’s Web site should be organized.
The architecture of community-designed ontology can serve as an effective structure to
describe an interwoven set of knowledge objects. I invoke my previous research, Village
Voice, for this purpose. Designed for a community of distributed Somali refugees (of a
civil war) in the Boston area, Village Voice is a Web portal designed to integrate the
community through a digital medium that could provide voice for common issues the
community faced collectively (Srinivasan, 2002).
Village Voice is built upon the premise that storytelling is fundamental to the sharing of
experience. In cultures throughout the world, story exists to serve a range of purposes
from teaching a moral, contemplating divinity, or preserving history. Stories are clearly
one of the many ways in which we, as humans, present who we are to others (McAdams,
1993).
The Somali refugee community in the Boston area is concentrated amongst a few pockets
in Jamaica Plain, Roxbury, Revere, and Charlestown. The population of this group has
expanded over the last five years, from about 3,000 to 5,000 (Srinivasan, 2002). Refugees
span a variety of ages, however, because of the mercurial nature of some of the programs
that brought Somalis to Boston, a number of families have been broken up in the process.
Refugees today are victims of a civil war that has torn apart these families and decimated
a once thriving culture. This community has dramatically expanded over the last five
years due to the civil war in Somalia, but remains fragmented with little identification of
the common issues and experiences that could unite it.
Additionally, according to many community members, there is a desire to archive their
experiences as they face new challenges in the United States. They wish to find a means
to tell stories to their community, as well as to incoming refugees and others outside of
the community. Traditionally, story has been orally transmitted in Somali culture, so the
use of a medium that records and retells story is new to them.
Thus, there is a reservoir of knowledge and experience across community members being
blocked from communication and in danger of being forgotten. An information system
could potentially create a safe, communicative archive that would assist the community
in identifying the common specific stories related to common contemporary issues while
providing a window into their diaspora authored and designed by the community itself.
With this understanding, I introduced myself to the community as a graduate student
interested in using video to document the experiences of people in the community with
the purpose of creating a community artifact that could serve as a growing archive of their
shared issues, challenges, and experiences as recent immigrants to Boston. Story
creators were identified cutting across gaps of generation and gender, and a number of
simple video stories using basic documentary format were created.
These stories were employed to stimulate the design of a representation, or ontology,
to illustrate the intersecting issues of the community. The goal was to engage the
community in the reflective process of creating an ontology that could articulate the
relationships between relevant community issues. As issues in the community would
change, the community could redesign this representation through future ontology
design meetings. This representation would be more than a static structure with which
to represent community knowledge: when continuously populated with their stories,
ontology becomes a dynamic structure that is used by members to model the evolution
of their community. Thus, ontology becomes a mechanism by which the stories and
artifacts of a community can be represented and exhibited in the landscape of a multimedia
system. In short, it could provide a powerful architecture for the distributed and wide-
ranging content that characterized the Somali refugee diaspora within the Boston area.
Artificial Intelligence pioneers and experts on knowledge representation have focused
on architectures to represent abstract knowledge in the form of stories (Schank, 1990),
common sense (Minsky, 1986), and formal relationships of temporality, space, and
hierarchy (Guha & Lenat, 1990). More specifically to the domain of learning, culture, and
exhibition, there are a number of techniques of dynamic ontology modeling focused on
the representation of pieces of content within a system of cultural heritage. For example,
The Dublin Core metadata project (www.dublincore.org/projects) has attempted on a
large scale to create a new interoperable set of standards to tie distributed content
together by worldwide creators. The successes of this group are truly admirable, and
serve as a first solution in the quest to create cross-reference-able, deeper repositories
of knowledge. Another interesting example is a prototype system developed by Hunter
and Newmarch (1999) to extend metadata models on top of the Dublin Core successes
to audiovisual content present within the State Library of Queensland, Australia. Thus,
the influential models which build on top of the descriptive RDF (resource description
framework) and structural XML include:
1. The CIDOC metadata model is focused on the integration and interchange of media
within the diverse setting of objects of cultural heritage. As opposed to broader
standards in existence (RDF, XML), its ontological approach involves a restriction
to the underlying semantics of database schemata and document structures within
objects of cultural heritage.
2. Funded by the Harmony project, the ABC Model was developed very much to
provide interoperability between different metadata ontologies, and enable com-
munities to begin to develop their own descriptive ontologies. It has become the
222 Srinivasan
emerging standard to resolve some of the issues raised in the RDF/XML discus-
sion, and uses formal logical categories such as situation, temporality, and object
oriented relationships (Lagoze & Hunter, 2001).
Village Voice has taken a much less formal mode in its approach toward the content of
the Somali community. Specifically, it builds on the findings of Concept Mapping
pioneered by Novak and Canas (Novak, 1998). Concept Maps are learner-created
knowledge models where students dissect a topic into its constituent conceptual pieces.
An example of such a map is shown in Figure 2.
In a similar spirit, over several sessions Somali community members met to view the
submitted video pieces and develop a concept map of their own. This involved a great
deal of discussion and an understanding of the community topics that would emerge in
a video and their relationships to each other. At the end of several initial meetings
involving close to one hundred community members, an initial ontology was created, as
shown in Figure 3.
The iterative ontology drives the Village Voice media system’s architecture by enabling
community members to browse through different video submissions based on their
relationship to the topic/s queried. This interface utilized a dynamic collage to show the
relationships between different pieces of content to one another or selected ontology
nodes.
Evaluations of this architecture have demonstrated greater system usage, submission
of content, and general engagement with other community members and issues within
the architecture defined by the community itself. This was compared to standard indexing
techniques of keyword as a control variable and finally to the ad hoc information design
so prevalent in cultural, and educational Web systems (Srinivasan, 2002). There is much
more to the Village Voice story, but the key finding was that the diversity of content and
knowledge within a cultural Web site can be better integrated when the authors
themselves are given power over the relationships and representations within the
Figure 2. An example of a concept map
Figure 3. The collective Somali Community Ontology
system. The result is a Web artifact that creates a truer representation of its knowledge
network – the narratives of a community.
Applying the ideas of Village Voice to virtual science centers reveals the potential to
create multiple concept map-type ontologies to describe different mechanisms of
experiencing knowledge within the site. For example, one concept map could be just
Figure 4. A snapshot of Village Voice’s interface – Each thumbnail is a different video

story within the system. The relative brightness of different pieces indicates the level
of correspondence between the story and the ontology node/s selected.
224 Srinivasan
focused on major historical figures or science gurus featured across the exhibitions of
the museums. Another mapping could be temporally organized, as the discoveries across
exhibits could be experienced based on their epochs rather than the traditional thematic
subject. Virtual science centers and their exhibits maintain a number of interrelations,
some conceptual, some temporal, some related to a nation or part of the world, some
related to a certain type of scientific approach, and much more. What is advocated from
the discussion of Village Voice is the creation of multiple ontologies by the site architect
by which the virtual science center content may be organized. This can be translated into
a wider “web” of paths, trails, and navigational experiences for the site visitor. Ultimately,
I believe, this approach can help generate a deeper learning experience.
Curators and designers of virtual science centers can begin to solicit multiple ontologies
and tether the content of the site to these different architectures. The result could be a
wonderfully diverse set of paths through which the exhilarating lessons of the science
center could be provided.
Tribal Peace: Agents as

Mediation for System Visitors
My current research involves extending the ideas of Village Voice to try to enable the
virtual environment to begin to provide paths through the repository of knowledge that
are particularly meaningful to the specific visitor. The idea of creating a set of ontology
concept maps still involves a discrete set of knowledge architectures, metadata struc-
tures that engender separate but ultimately a limited set of experiences of the virtual
science center. However, when the Web environment can make recommendations that
integrate and compare the interests of all Web visitors then the possibility is raised to
create paths of exploring the site that have not been pre-defined.
This idea has informed the development of Tribal Peace, the centerpiece of my ongoing
research. Tribal Peace is a Web portal designed to integrate 19 Native American
reservations distributed across a fairly large region within Southern California. Lacking
interconnective infrastructure, these reservations have suffered from a lack of knowl-
edge exchange across the critical educational, social, and political issues that tie them
together (Shipek, 1986). Moving from a once centralized set of nations (Kumeyaay,
Luiseno and Cupeno) to decentralized reservations without vibrant knowledge networks
has created a situation in which educational and social problems have risen to the
forefront.
Receiving a Hewlett-Packard Digital Village grant has now provided many reservations
with basic Internet capabilities and computers, but the presence of an infrastructure is
only one small step toward goals of exchange of knowledge and deeper dialogue and
discourse. What is missing is a space that can enable the submissions of different
reservation members to be shared, reflected upon, and framed in terms of collective
priorities.
The situation described here is quite similar to the Somali setting of the previous section
with the difference that there are deeper challenges of greater physical distance and
historical fracture within the Native American communities (Shipek, 1986). Furthermore,
there are concerns raised that a simple archive, while important, would not necessarily
arm community members with critical information that they may truly be seeking. This
question certainly intensifies within a situation where a database would populate with
greater and greater amounts of content.
Within this context, the Tribal Peace system is in the process of creation. Serving as an
archive of video, sound, and image-based content, the system enables community
members to upload and browse content according the community-driven ontology model
described in Village Voice. However, this system is also continuing to extend these ideas
to focus on how to more deeply “guide” a community member within the information
landscape of the system.
With this goal in mind, Tribal Peace is driven by the novel architecture of proactive
intelligent agents normally employed in economically focused contexts. We define
agents as technological entities that attempt to accomplish a task for a user based on an
understanding of the user, the content of the task, and the environment in which it is
situated (other agents, the information being expressed, etc.). Through an interaction
with a respected elder hosting the Web system, reservation members will be guided
through the Tribal Peace system as it makes recommendations on different media pieces
to view and community topics to investigate. The algorithms empowering this engine will
be based on the literature of social information filtering, which makes recommendations
based on a set of evolving user profiles. These ideas have been explored in commercial
setting (such as Amazon.com) and within a number of academic papers (Shardanand &
Figure 5. Tribal Peace’s Manzanita tree-inspired interface, with different selected

community pieces retrieved based on a selected topic. Site visitors can also have pieces
selected for them on the tree without querying a particular topic.
226 Srinivasan
Maes, 1995). By recommending topics or media pieces the reservation member may not
have been exposed but clearly would be interested in, Tribal Peace is designed to
navigate a complex landscape of media through statistical algorithms that can make
intelligent decisions related to otherwise deeply complex social, cultural, or political
material. The potential is held to provide an ever-changing path through the knowledge
of the Web environment to the visitor based on how the visitor’s interests compare to
other science center visitors. Today, the system is being created and used by reservation
members throughout the San Diego County, and holds great promise as a new artifact
of dialogue, archive, and communication across a previously dispersed set of reserva-
tions.
I believe that virtual science centers could benefit from the use of social information
filtering agents. The virtual science center site could monitor all the exhibits, lectures,
and pieces of information the visitor has accessed with various levels of interest. The
level of interest a visitor has in a certain idea, individual, or time period contained within
the site can be ascertained by such simple data as the amount of time online, number of
times accessed, whether any comments were left, and etcetera. These pieces of data could
be used to begin to allow the site to evolve into a more active educator of the site visitor,
recommending new or old exhibits, lectures, ideas, time periods, or other Web sites to
investigate. Essentially, I believe, agents can begin to serve as the teacher or virtual
docent of the virtual science center, actively enabling the experience of exposing the site
visitor to new information in which he or she is likely to be interested.
Providing paths that are unpredictable and previously not accessed yet meaningful to
the Web visitor makes the experience of visiting the virtual science center improvisa-
tional and spontaneous. Different elements of knowledge can be suggested to the visitor
that are individuated and ever-changing, thus adding greater flexibility than the multiple
pre-created profiles featured within Village Voice’s concept mapping metadata architec-
ture. The potential is there for the Web visitor to come to the virtual science center
without any idea of what he or she will be presented with, but reassured that the virtual
science center would make appropriate recommendations.
Conclusion and Future Directions

The state-of-the-art virtual science centers provide visitors with an array of powerful
exhibits. They provide strong interactive components that enable users to experience
scientific dynamics. However, the paths, overall themes, and relationships between
different exhibits and events are clouded and chaotic. There is an overload of information,
exhibitions, and perspectives without a correspondingly flexible set of architectures by
which these can be imbibed. In this chapter, two examples of existing Web-based
environments have been presented as potential enablers of the learning experience from
a repository of community knowledge.
The findings of Village Voice and Tribal Peace can begin to add to the palette of the
information designer of the virtual science center. The two approaches (of social
information filtering agents and concept map-driven ontologies) provide the ability to
create a variety of paths that are all representative of the constituent. They serve as
appropriate mechanisms of organizing and managing knowledge, by considering differ-
ent narratives as “knowledge objects” (Srinivasan, 2004). Village Voice has revealed
some of the potential of community or organization-created ontologies to reveal the
intricacy of a landscape of informational artifacts. Tribal Peace continues to take these
ideas further to bridge distance and historical divides within an architecture that has the
potential to enable reservation members to access the knowledge and narratives that can
satisfy their goals. The next step is for virtual science centers to begin to explore these
approaches.
References
Guha, R. et al. (1990). Building large knowledge based systems. Reading, MA: Addison
Wesley.
Hunter, J., & Newmarch, J. (1999). An indexing, browsing, search and retrieval system
for audiovisual libraries. In Proceedings of Research and Advanced Technology
for Digital Libraries: Third European Conference, ECDL’99 (pp. 76-91). Heidel-
berg: Springer-Verlag.
Lagoze, C., & Hunter, J. (2001). The ABC ontology and model. Journal of Digital
Information, 2(2).
McAdams, D. (1993). The stories we live by. New York: William Morrow & Company.
Minsky, M. (1986). The society of mind. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Novak, J. (1998). The theory underlying concept maps and how to construct them.
Retrieved from http://cmap.coginst.uwf.edu/info/
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York:
Basic Books.
Schank, R. (1990). Tell me a story. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons
Shardanand, U., & Maes, P. (1995). Social information filtering: Algorithms for automat-
ing “word of mouth.” In Proceedings of CHI 1995 (pp. 210-217). Denver, CO.
Shipek, F. (1986). Pushed into the rocks. Lincoln, NE; London: University of Nebraska
Press.
Srinivasan, R. (2002). Village voice: Expressing narrative through community designed
ontologies. Master’s thesis. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technol-
ogy.
Srinivasan, R. (2004). Knowledge architectures for cultural narratives. Journal of Knowl-
edge Management, 8(4), 65-75.
Tan, W.H.L., Subramaniam, R., & Aggarwal, A. (2002). Virtual science centers: A new
genre of learning in Web-based promotion of science education. In Proceedings
of the 36th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.
228 Nordbotten
Chapter XI
From Information
Dissemination to
Information Gathering:
Using Virtual Exhibits
and Content Databases in
E-Learning Centers
Joan C. Nordbotten, University of Bergen, Norway
Abstract
Concurrently, large multimedia databases, termed content databases, are being
created to store and manage digital representations of a museum’s physical collections,
such as scanned images, text documents and videos. These databases can also provide
valuable information and data for use in the development of e-learning centers 1 for
tasks ranging from presentation of information about the museum’s educational
resources to providing a full interactive learning experience for students and casual
information seekers. There are at least three ways an e-learning center can support
learning: first, by providing information on a given set of topics, second, by providing
educational activities to reinforce learning, and third, by supporting information
gathering. In this chapter, we will present and discuss how different e-learning center
architectures support these different forms of learning.
From Information Dissemination to Information Gathering 229
Background Assumptions
and Definitions
Figure 1 shows the three basic components of an e-learning center, the user/learner, the
learning site and the (optional) content database.
The users of a museum e-learning center include anyone who ‘discovers’ the Web site.
The users most commonly thought of during design of an e-learning center include
teachers – who are expected to guide their students in their use of the site – and students
– who are expected to use the site as a learning tool. However, since the site will also be
available to the general public, it is important to consider the needs of interested
information seekers. We can assume that these users are interested in the site topic (most
likely they found the site through a search engine), but will not have other guidance in
the use of the site than that which is given on the site. In order to assure effectiveness,
it is important that the e-learning site is designed for these multiple user types. In the
following, both the student and interested information seeker will be termed a learner.
A database can be generally defined as “a logically coherent collection of related data,
representing some aspect of the real world, that is designed, built, and populated for some
purpose” (Nordbotten, 2000-2004). In a museum2 context, a content database contains
digital representations — scanned images, text documents, videos, and etcetera — of
physical objects in the museum’s collections. In the following, we assume that a content
database contains such representations and that the e-learning site can utilize them.
An e-learning site consists of a set of Web pages that present material intended to
educate its users, the learners. A site’s architecture can be classified according to the
degree of user control over the material that is presented. A basic virtual exhibit presents
topic material as a hyper-linked story that the viewer can navigate, much as one finds in
traditional museum exhibits. An interactive site also presents its topic as a hyper-linked
story but adds a variety of interactive activities aimed at increasing the learning effect
for the learner. An interactive e-learning site is based on the idea of a “hands-on” physical
exhibit, in which experiments can be run and questions answered. Typical for both of
these architectures is that they are museum controlled in the sense that the user is
presented with prepared material that is to be explored within a pre-defined site.
Increasingly, Internet users, both students and casual information seekers, search for
information about a specific topic of individual interest. The topics of these searches
vary widely and many, though well within the interest areas of the museum community,
may not be well covered by existing virtual exhibits. Alternatively, if the topic is popular
Figure 1. E-learning center components
230 Nordbotten
and/or part of a common interest area, it is likely that relevant information can be found
at multiple sources. For example, someone interested in space exploration can find
relevant information from numerous sources 3 including science museums, universities,
and government research centers. A challenge for the museum community would be to
provide multiple-site responses to a user request for information, that is, to support
construction of a virtual “exhibit” on-demand (Nordbotten, 2001).
Current pedagogical practice emphasizes activating the learner and learning by doing,
thus encouraging active exploration of available information and gathering of informa-
tion to address his/her own interest area. We consider three learning models in order of
increasing user initiative, which can be supported by different e-learning center archi-
tectures:
1. Information browsing, in which the learner explores material provided by a museum

through a pre-defined virtual exhibit.
2. Problem solving, in which the learner interactively works through pre-defined,
interactive activities.
3. Information gathering, in which the user searches for information on a self-defined
topic, without concern for the source of the response set.
In the following, we will discuss e-learning site architectures and the information
technology tools needed to support each of the learning models listed above. Each
section will present the primary audience and anticipated use, discuss site structures
through the presentation of examples, and finally present the strengths and the principal
problems of the architecture type as a learning environment.
Note that it is beyond the scope of this chapter to give detailed information on the
implementation tools mentioned. This information can be found in numerous books on
Web site implementation, such as those by Lane and Williams (2002), Lowe and Prince,
(2003) and Murray and Everett-Church (2003).
Information Dissemination:
The Basic Virtual Exhibit
The basic virtual exhibit is one of the most common site architectures on the Web today
and the one most frequently used for e-learning centers. The exhibit presents a topic as
a hyperlinked story, patterned on that of a physical museum exhibit or textbook. As an
e-learning site, the learner can have more information available and greater choice in its
presentation sequence than that which is possible in a physical exhibit.
When using a virtual exhibit as an e-learning environment, the learner is expected to be
a student or an interested information gatherer. He/she is assumed to be looking for
information on the topic of the exhibit and willing to view, explore and read the material
presented. The learner browses through the exhibit by following established links.
Ideally, both a navigation bar and site map are included so that the learner can change
paths to explore alternative sections of the exhibit.
The basic virtual exhibit can be an excellent method for information dissemination, since
the museum/center determines the material presented and guarantees its correctness and
educational quality. A potential problem is that the exhibit is fixed in the sense that the
material and the links used to determine the presentation sequence are pre-defined, thus
reducing the possibility for the user to follow his/her own interests.
Architecture and Implementation
The typical exhibit architecture consists of a core home page with information about the
exhibit and links to separate sub-topic sections. Topic units can be developed indepen-
dently and then attached to the core forming a starburst or tree structure. The embedded
links enable the choice of topic to be viewed, selection of additional in-depth explanatory
material, and/or connection to “outside” (of the parent museum) information sources.
Since the “lost in space” phenomenon is a frequent problem for viewers of even small
sites, a navigation bar and/or site map should be included so that the viewer can re-orient
him/herself (Conklin, 1987; Shneiderman, 1998).
The design of the basic virtual exhibit is analogous to the design of a traditional physical
exhibit and is not unlike the structure of a textbook. Exhibit objects are selected, scanned,
commented using textual and/or audio-visual material, and finally organized using links
for presentation. For large exhibits, material can/should be stored in a content database
to facilitate site maintenance. Smaller exhibits may not make use of the museum’s content
database. Rather, the site will be built using scanned objects that have been stored on
separate file areas and given URLs that can be directly referenced using the html <img>
tag. The current primary implementation language is HTML, frequently enhanced with
FLASH animation, though other implementation tools may also be used.
There are two main architectures for virtual exhibits:
1. Single-tiered exhibits in which objects and information items are presented com-
pletely before continuing with the exhibit presentation.
2. Multi-tiered exhibits that include links within the main story that allow the viewer
to select more detail about individual objects from an underlying information layer,
possibly retrieved from the museum’s content database.
The single-tiered exhibit consists of a, possibly multi-threaded, story in which most links
select the next part of the story. Depending on the topic and available object media,
single-tiered exhibits generally use one of two metaphors:
• The traditional museum exhibit, which relies on presentation of visual/ image

material with accompanying text, or
• The textbook, which presents textual material with some illustrations.
232 Nordbotten
Figure 2. Museum exhibit metaphor (from The Wright Experience™ ©2004)
An example of use of the traditional museum exhibit metaphor can be seen in The Wright
Experience — Preparing for Kitty Hawk at http://www.wrightexperience.com/. This
exhibit first presents the user with brief introductions to a series of videos documenting
various activities from the planning, construction and execution of the centennial
celebration of the first flight by the Wright brothers. Figure 2 shows a screen shot from
the exhibit in which a photo is accompanied by a short text that gives the context and
introduces the video from which the image was taken. In this example, each video clip
contains the compete presentation of its sub-topic.
The San Francisco Exploratorium, at www.exploratorium.org/, has used a textbook
metaphor for their presentation of a set of stories and myths about solar eclipses in an
exhibit titled: Solar Eclipse at http://www.exploratorium.org/eclipse/index.html. Figure
3 gives a screen shot of part of a typical page from this exhibit. In the exhibit, each story
is presented as a single-tiered exhibit on a series of linked pages.
The single-tiered exhibit architecture provides an excellent environment for information
dissemination. For e-learning sites, this helps assure pedagogical and quality control of
the story/message being presented and supports focusing of the presentation to a
particular age and/or interest group. General familiarity with the presentation metaphor
makes these sites “easy” to design and use. An added advantage is ease of implemen-
tation and deployment since well-known tools and technology can be used.
A common problem/mistake made in the implementation of the virtual exhibit is the
inclusion of too much explanatory text for each visual object, such as one would expect
to find in a traditional textbook. The Web is a very visual medium and studies of casual
viewers indicate that they spend less than 30 seconds on a page (Nordbotten, 2000;
Figure 3. Single-tier: Textbook metaphor (reproduced with permission (c)

Exploratorium, www.exploratorium.edu)
Nordbotten & Nordbotten, 2002; Shneiderman, 1989; Yamada, 1995). This is insufficient
time to read lengthy text sections.
Multi-tiered exhibits aim to reduce the information overload that can be triggered by text
quantity in the primary exhibit, by dividing the exhibit into multiple tiers, a primary tier
for an image-based principle narrative with underlying layer(s) of detail that the inter-
ested/curious user can select from various points in the main exhibit. This support
material can be accessed using different strategies, including through the use of:
• Active zones in the display that are used as links to pages with object enlargement
or alternative media presentations.
• Zooming or a “magnifying glass” to highlight detail and/or provide more information.
The Natural History (Natuurhistorisch) Museum in Maastricht has used the multi-tiered
approach in their Virtual tour, at http://www.nhmmaastricht.nl/engels/index.html, of the
museum. The tour consists of a series of images that give the illusion of entering a room
or passing into a further section of the current room. Wandering through the exhibit is
accomplished by clicking on the highlighted rectangle, shown in the screen shot given
in Figure 4a. In this tour, animated object names are used as links to a detailed
presentation, as illustrated in Figure 4b. The detailed page appears “on top” of the
primary page thus supporting orientation within the site.
Supportive detail can also be retrieved using “magnifying glass” technology, where a
window is passed over an image and an enlarged version of the window is shown
234 Nordbotten
Figure 4. A multi-tiered presentation of the Mosasaur dinosaur (reproduced with

permission© Natural History Museum at Maastricht)
Figure 4a. Hot spots for detail and navigation
Figure 4b. Detailed presentation selected from Figure 4a
elsewhere on the user’s screen. This technique is especially effective when the original
image is content rich, as is the case in the screen shot from the Ology/Marine Biology
exhibit at http://www.ology.amnh.org/marinebiology/workthesystem/mangrove.html,
shown in Figure 5. In this case the primary image contains many creatures that are barely
visible. The magnified version also gives the common and scientific name for the central
object within the magnifying glass.
As learning tools, multi-tiered virtual exhibits transfer some control to the user so that
he/she can choose to select added detail for those objects that are most interesting for
him/her, thus helping to tailor the information presented to the information requirement
of the viewer/learner. Multi-tiered exhibits support inclusion of a wealth of information
that can support interested information seekers, while avoiding some of the information
Figure 5. Spiny lobster under a Mangrove tree (from the American Natural History
Museum©)
overload problems for the learner. This is a useful strategy for addressing multiple
audiences from school to university students to interested, casual information seekers.
The main problems of multi-tiered exhibits include the temptation to make increasing use
of multi-media, such as Flash animations and “real” video, which require high bandwidth
for seamless presentation systems. Though presentation software is often free, they still
may not be available to all users. A growing problem is that as the quantity of secondary
support material grows, users can get lost within the site, in the sense that they lose the
flow of the overall story.
Both single and multi-tiered virtual exhibits can provide very good support for the learner
and information gatherer needing an introduction and/or overview to a topic area as well
as supporting those who wish more depth of information. Content and quality of the
information provided are assured and maintained by the information provider. Increas-
ingly, these sites are well advertised and easy to locate. And finally, the technology
required to design and launch interesting and attractive exhibits, as well as to download
them, is readily available to both the provider and information user.
As learning centers, virtual exhibits function well as a source of information but
frequently do not include user activity aimed at reinforcing knowledge about the exhibit
topic. Though suggestions for associated user activity may be included in a teacher area
of the site, these are often off-line activities and may be difficult to find for the learner,
particularly the casual information seeker.
At a certain level, fixed exhibits are a passive information source, well suited to
information dissemination, but where user interaction is limited to selection of pre-
determined topic presentations. There is little support for reinforcement of the informa-
tion content, other than to repeat a sub-topic presentation, often in its entirety.
A technical problem is that the information is commonly kept on a growing number of Web
pages/presentations that may overlap and will become difficult to manage — update,
extend and reuse.
236 Nordbotten
Interactive Exhibits for Active Learning

The current leading pedagogical paradigm is “learning-by-doing” in which the student
builds knowledge and expertise through active participation in development projects.
Techniques to support learner activities abound and range from paper-and-pencil
workbooks, through hands-on experimentation, to Web games and simulations.
An interactive exhibit is one that can adapt its presentations to user input and thereby
support active learning through such interactive activities as games or experiments that
are based on the thematic material of the parent exhibit. Interactive exhibits are similar
in concept to the “hands-on” exhibits found in museums.
Architecture and Implementation
Dynamic Web programming tools4 provide the implementation environment for con-
struction of dynamic exhibits. Figure 6 gives an overview of the system components
necessary to support these exhibits. When the user activates an interactive exhibit, his/
her browser sends a request and receives the exhibit through a Web server from the
application server. The browser presents the exhibit with its audio-visual material and
interactive scripts. During use, the client-side application controls the user interaction
and for some exhibits the whole presentation, while the host machine’s application server
controls such server-side activities as access to a content database.
Exhibit scripts can be developed in Flash™, Java or some other programming language.
Communication with the user is through his/her browser. When a client-side application
is used, it is executed on the client machine, thus saving interaction time between the
client and host machines at the cost of the initial load time. However, when material stored
in a content database is required, a request must be sent from the client system to the
host system’s application server, which converts the request into one or more DB queries
to the available databases, marked C_DB in Figure 6.
Figure 6. Interactive exhibit support
Figure 7. Quiz in a game setting (example from the Mint Museum©)
Games
Perhaps the easiest learning tool to add to an e-learning site is inclusion of a quiz on the
material presented in the virtual exhibit. An interesting example can be found on the Ology
site at http://www.ology.amnh.org/index.html of the American Museum of Natural
History. Here both facts and quiz questions are placed on cards that can be “collected”
and saved on the Museum site, that is, in a learner DB for future reference.
With some added effort from the developer, the quiz can be presented in the form of a
game, encouraging learners of all ages to use the information acquired from the exhibit
so that it can become useful knowledge. Typically the game is formed as a set of questions
about topics that have been presented in the virtual exhibit. The system evaluates the
answer(s) and forms a response commonly consisting of point assignment, a reinforce-
ment answer, and a new question. This cycle of questions and answers repeats until the
game completes. If questions are selected randomly, the game can be replayed with new
questions repeatedly. The success of a game, as a learning tool, lies in its ability to engage
the learner(s).
A good example (for all age groups) “teaches” the discovery and use of rubber for making
balls through a Mesoamerican ball game, at http://www.ballgame.org/ 5. The
Mesoamericans were the first to use rubber to make balls and to use a team ballgame for
conflict resolution. This game uses animation and sound effects, as well as period
costumes and background. The ball is first “batted” between the teams in a manner similar
to volley ball. A question appears with three answer options, two of which are shown
in Figure 7. Answering correctly gives the users’ team a point. Sound effects clearly
signal the quality of the answer, which is enhanced with a textual explanation. (To play,
go to: http://www.ballgame.org/sub_section.asp?section=3&sub_section=2). All of the
material in the above ballgame has been packaged in Flash and sent to the client as a
client-side application. The trade-off is between download time (long) and a high
frequency of interaction between the client and server machines for the question and
answer sets.
238 Nordbotten
Figure 8. Particle acceleration — Simulation game (Reproduced with permission ©

CERN)
Virtual Experiments
Games can also be used to frame simulations that allow the user to explore some physical
phenomena that might otherwise be inaccessible. The idea is to give the user an
understanding through experimentation. An example is the “particle accelerator” at
http://public.web.cern.ch/public/Content/Chapters/Education/OnlineResources/
LHCGame/LHCGame.html, developed by the Education Department of the European
Organization for Nuclear Research, CERN. The goal of this simulation is to get the particle
to accelerate by passing it through magnetic fields that are “charged” by flipping the
batteries. Figure 8 shows a screen shot6 as the positively charged particle is entering the
second negatively charged loop from the right.
A simulation game can be packaged as a client-side application, as the one presented,
or it can utilize data that has been stored in the museum databases. Data generated from
the simulation can be saved onto the user’s machine for local use. In more extensive
simulations, both the status for the simulation and data generated “to-date” can be stored
on the museum site. This would support long term and/or multiple player games or
experiments.
Virtual Projects
Virtual projects are similar in concept to the physical “hands-on” activity that allows the
museum visitor to develop/build something that can be taken home. In the virtual
environment, the user is encouraged to solve a problem by using/collecting objects from
the museum’s content database(s). Frequently, support is provided for adding new
objects, which could include notes taken and/or experiences, created during the project.
The resulting material can then be stored on the museum site for future use and
discussion, for example, in the classroom or with online friends or colleagues.
Interactive exhibits, when used as part of e-learning sites, can enhance learning by
encouraging the learner and interested information seeker to become engaged in
interactive activities that have been selected by his/her own interest, thereby reinforcing
the information acquired from the exhibit. In providing interactive activities, the museum
/science center can guarantee the correctness of the material presented, as well as its
relevance to the theme of the parent exhibit. The technology and expertise for develop-
ment of interactive exhibits are available and ability to access and use this type of site
is increasing, in part through the introduction of IT into the school systems.
A problem with interactive exhibits is that it can be difficult to adjust the system
questions, activities, and responses to the learner’s level of expertise, potentially making
the interaction too difficult or too trivial. To alleviate this, professional educators should
be involved in the design of these sites.
While both the basic and interactive virtual exhibits can provide good support for
learning, they are still fixed sites, in the sense that the learner is “bound” to the material
provided in a single exhibit and to the sequences that have been implemented for topic
presentation. The learner is invited to explore and use the site, but is only infrequently
given the possibility to search for particular information on the site or in the museum’s
content databases. This limits the possibility for the learner to gather or focus on
information about a topic of personal interest (or an assignment given by a teacher).
Information Gathering:
Objective “On-Demand” Exhibits
Increasingly, students and general Internet users search for information about current
and/or personal interests by using one or more of the Internet search engines, much as
one would use an encyclopedia. Often, relevant information exists in one or several
museum exhibits and/or content databases. The problem is to find and retrieve it.
To locate information on the Internet, the information seeker must:
1. Choose one or more search engines.

2. Formulate and submit a query statement of his/her information need.
3. Select potentially relevant sites from a large result list.
4. Evaluate selected sites for “real” relevance.
5. Review and extract (copy) information from the different sources.
6. Compile and integrate the information.
This can be a daunting task unless a real need to learn exists. Happily, a number of
consortiums and research programs have been formed to find ways to ease information
retrieval from the multitude of Internet sites.
240 Nordbotten
Preparing a virtual exhibit for location and retrieval by the Internet search engines can
be accomplished by including html <meta> tags in the site header that specify both the
thematic content description and a set of search keywords. These will be found by the
Internet search engines and used for indexing and retrieval. The advantage is that the
learner/information gatherer will then be more likely to locate museum exhibit material
relevant to his/her information need.
Internet search engines use “crawlers” that retrieve text from html pages to index a site.
Currently, crawlers are not capable of extracting text or features from Flash or visual/
audio exhibits for indexing. In addition, the crawlers cannot access the indexes of content
databases. The result is that search engines are unable to locate video-based sites or
information from content databases. The current work-a-round is to construct an html
“envelope” containing a good description of the multimedia presentation to be used for
indexing the site. In addition, a specific search facility for the database must be provided.
The above strategy only addresses the first two steps on the above search list.
Accessing multiple content databases through their home pages and specific database
search techniques still puts a high burden on the information gatherer in the form of
multiple site and DB accesses with follow-up manual/local information consolidation. It
must be a goal for the information provider community, in this case the museum
community, to provide seamless interfaces to their multiple information resources.
Web Databases: Architecture and Implementation
A Web database is simply one that is accessible from the Internet. In a museum context,
the content database must be assumed to contain multiple media objects, ranging from
text documents through scanned images of physical objects to full multimedia presen-
tations. Ideally, one would want to support user access to the media objects through a
description of the type of information required without concern for the media type (text,
scanned image, streamed media) that was used to represent the information.
Figure 9 presents an extension of the architectural environment given in Figure 6 that
includes the components needed for multiple multimedia database access. The figure can
be explained by following a request for information about a particular topic, for example
Figure 9. Accessing Web databases
North Atlantic Whales7. The request is initiated when a user submits a query containing
the three keywords, in the same way as using a Google search. The user’s browser
sends the request to the Web server for processing by the application server, which
translates the input into one or more DB queries that are sent to relevant DB servers. The
DB servers search for and retrieve relevant data, for example, multiple texts and videos
of (some of) the 18 species of North Atlantic whales from each DB. Each DB server returns
relevant content data to the application server, which packages it for return by the Web
server and display by the browser to the user. If the information includes multimedia
(Flash, audio, video…) presentations, appropriate media player(s) must be retrieved as
part of the client-side application for presentation of the media data.
The DB server uses information from the DB indexes, labeled I_DB in the figure, to locate
the actual data within the content database, labeled C_DB. If the search is to be preformed
on multiple databases, then the indexes for all databases within the scope of the query
need to be searched in order to locate those content databases that contain data relevant
to the user query.
The data within an index database is derived from two primary sources:
• The metadata used to describe each object upon entry into the database and
• The terms and features in the object itself.
Table 1 gives an example of some of the index data that could be assigned to the story
about Eclipses of the sun, illustrated in Figure 3. Note that the metadata elements used
in this example have been selected from the 15 core elements in the Dublin Core Standard
(Hillmann, 2003).
Object features are selected from the object itself. For text objects, the feature set consists
of the most descriptive terms contained in the document. For visual objects — images,
video — automatically extracted features are currently limited to color and texture
distribution and possibly the primary shapes in the image. Semantic description of image
objects is still a predominantly manual task (Hove, 2004).
There are at least three problems in using the above index to search for multimedia data:
1. The search terms given by the user in his/her request for information may not match
exactly the index terms used to describe the DB content.
2. The terms in the controlled vocabulary may not match exactly the terms used by
the creator of the text objects or the descriptive text for image objects.
3. The DB descriptive terms used for one content database are unlikely to match
exactly those used for other content databases covering the same topic.
Therefore, in order to locate the most relevant information, some form of semantic
matching must be made between the terms that the searcher uses to characterize his/her
information requirement and the terms used by the cataloger to index the items in the
database as well as the terms used between the cataloger and the creator of the media
242 Nordbotten
Table 1. Example of index data for a specific text object
DC Metadata element Value Comment
Title The Sun-Eating Dragon and other ways to
think about an eclipse
Creator Noel Wanner
Publisher Exploratorium
Identifier (location) http://www.exploratorium.org/eclipse/dragon.html
Source Solar Eclipse
http://www.exploratorium.org/eclipse/index.html
Description Myths and stories from Greek, Chinese and Given in free/full text
Indian cultures describing eclipses of the sun
Subject (keywords) Eclipse, sun, dragon, myth, mythology … From a controlled
vocabulary or formal
classification scheme
Object features Location
Abandon §2 These search terms may
Dragon Title, §3, … be weighted according to
Eclipse Sub-title, Source, §2, 3, … descriptive importance
Sun Title, §1, 2, 3, …
Sun-Eating Title
Earth image Lower right quadrant (LRQ) above Sun image As seen in Figure 2
Sun image LRQ, below Earth image
objects in the database. Information retrieval systems have long used thesauri as an aid
for interpretation of user queries, thus addressing the 1st of the previous problems.
Current best practice proposals from research and the semantic Web community (Sowa,
2000) advise creation of a set of domain ontologies that all content database providers
use to describe the objects in their database. This addresses the 3rd problem in the above
list by standardizing the values chosen for the metadata elements. However, as seen in
the example in Table 1, the metadata values may not match completely the index terms
selected from the document, the 2nd problem in the above list.
Optimally, the content of the ontology must combine the information in the hierarchic
structure and detail of a domain taxonomy, with the term relationships and descriptions
in a thesaurus, and with the historical development of the common natural language
terminology that information searchers and object creators can be expected to use. This
is a tall order that has not yet been fulfilled, even though many years of research and
development effort have been addressed to the synonym resolution problem in the
context of both database integration (Elmagarmid et al., 1999) and information retrieval
from both text and image databases (Baeza-Yates & Ribeiro-Neto, 1999).
Current Practice for Information Retrieval from Content

Databases
A recent study of 100 museum Web sites, nominated for awards at the 2003 Museum and
Web conference (http://www.archimuse.com/mw2003/) found that only 37 had included
any form for database search facility on their sites (Peacock, 2004). Of these, 20 sites
supported only keyword searches, while 17 provided some supplementary form for
search support. The search support included:
• Keyword search, possibly with keyword selection from a given list of terms
• Browsing/selection from an index of terms or set of thumbnail images
• Selection via a category structure
• Linking to related and/or popular items.
Figure 10. A multi DB index – Hand constructed (reproduced with permission © The
National Museum of Denmark)
244 Nordbotten
Keyword search is known to be difficult for the information gatherer. Without a term list
to choose from, the user is faced with an empty box into which search terms need to be
entered. This assumes that the user has rather detailed knowledge about the database
content and structure, knows which topics and themes are included in the database as
well as the index terms used to describe the data. Often a labeled multiple-box form is given
to the user who is then expected to be able to submit a title, creator name(s), and dates
in addition to one or more descriptive keywords. Adding drop-down term selection lists
can greatly ease the selection of appropriate keywords and fill-in options.
Searching an image database can be eased by the presentation of an index of thumbnail
images, as shown in Figure 10. Here, each image is a link to an enlargement and possible
completion of the thumbnail image with descriptive data about the object presented.
A problem with the thumbnail index is that the number of elements that can be presented
(and thus indexed) are limited by the screen area. This makes it necessary to provide a
category index for the collection. The user must first select a category for his/her area
of interest and can then browse the thumbnails picking items of interest.
The example in Figure 10 shows the index for the “mathematical chamber” of the Kings
Kunstkammer, at http://www.kunstkammer.dk/MathematischeGB/gemach_
mathematischeGB.shtml, which held examples of instruments and inventions. There are
actually nine chambers in the Kings Kunstkammer, at http://www.kunstkammer.dk, each
with its own thumbnail index. Even so, it is a problem to display all of the 250 items in this
relatively small content database. One way to expand the index scope would be to
implement it as a hierarchy of related items or to link to “hidden” (not in the index) items.
Items related by theme, materials, time, creator or any combinations of perspectives can
be displayed with the selected item. An example can be found at the virtual Walker Art
Center at http://collections.walkerart.org/item/object/7440.
Providing Access to Multiple Data Collections
Often information relevant for a user request can be located in the content databases of
multiple museums. Given the widespread use of Google, the user may be unaware of (and
basically uninterested in) the physical locations of the information. Creating seamless
interfaces to multiple information sources is a current, highly active research and
development area. There are a number of approaches:
1. Hand crafting a “traditional” exhibit of objects from multiple sources.

2. Constructing an integration system or layer “on-top” of a specific collection of
participating databases, creating a federated database system.
3. Constructing a multi-database language that can access multiple independent
databases, similar to the Google approach.
Hand crafted integrated databases are only realistic when the size of the data collec-
tions, in number of items to be integrated, is relatively small, for example less than 1,000.
The strategy is to collect links to the items that one wants to include in the virtual,
integrated collection and build an index with this information. Figure 10 shows an
example of this strategy in which the 250 digital copies of items have been collected
(manually) from object descriptions from multiple museums in Denmark (Gundestrup &
Wanning, 2004).
In the current implementation, each image links to an object presentation – enlarged
image with historical data description – that has been stored on the exhibit site. The same
index presentation technique could be used to link directly to the multiple source content
databases, thereby supporting a seamless (for the viewer) interface to the current
locations of the original collection. Unfortunately, this strategy for database integration,
though conceptually easy, does not scale since it is limited by available manual labor.
A federated database approach — portal integration — requires creation of a generic
description — metadata — that can describe all of the databases in the federation, as well
as translations between the generic and local terminology as well as links to the
participating database elements. Referring to the architecture given in Figure 9, the
generic description would cover the data in each local I_DB.
It has been suggested that development and acceptance of metadata and ontological
standards will allow creation of Web portals to multiple independent databases. (Sowa,
2000; Hyvönen et al., 2004). User queries for information would be directed to the portal,
which would then have the linkage and translation data to direct the query on to relevant
database systems. Two elements are required:
1. An agreement on the metadata that must be supplied to describe the content of the
local databases, and
2. An agreement on the controlled vocabulary /ontology to be used for selection of
metadata values.
In the museum world, there are at least three “standard” metadata structures in use:
Dublin Core www.dublincore.org, Mpeg-7 http://archive.dstc.edu.au/mpeg7-ddl/, and
CIDOC CRM http://cidoc.ics.forth.gr/. Each of these standards has been created/
proposed for the needs of a specific community: library, moving pictures, and cultural
heritage institutions, respectively. Each defines a framework for the metadata to be
collected when describing objects. The standards overlap, but are not identical. Their
use creates a problem of searching metadata specified according to different standards.
Defining a general ontology, or controlled vocabulary, has proved very difficult, not least
due to evolving language and cataloging cultures. To reduce the complexity and size of
the task, current proposals are focused on development of domain specific ontologies.
Assuming that agreement can be achieved among a set of information providers as to the
metadata framework and the ontologies to be used, a generic description or integration
schema for the members of the federation can be constructed. Becoming a member of the
federation then requires that the participating museum describe its content database
using the metadata structure and ontology of the integration schema. A prototype for
a portal or integrated schema for several of Finland’s museum databases, MuseumFinland,
is under construction, is located at http://museosuomi.cs.helsinki.fi/ and is described by
Hyvönen et al. (2004) . Once constructed, the generic integration schema can be used to
246 Nordbotten
form the base for development of a single interface for the users to provide a seamless
search to multiple content databases, and thus reduce the information retrieval search
task noted earlier.
The idea of constructing a multi-database language, similar to the Google approach, that
can access multiple independent databases based on a user query, possibly with
synonym definitions was first published almost 20 years ago (Litwin, 1986). The idea is
that the user would express his/her information requirement and give relevant synonyms
to the query search terms. The processing system would then expand the query and
broadcast it to participating database systems. Since little integration work is required,
the number of systems that could be accessed is much higher than in the federated
approach, which is limited to the number of systems willing and able to join the federation.
A slight modification of this idea would be to give the query language processor access
to a generic thesaurus that could map user terminology to the ontologies used for
describing content databases. At this writing, this author is unaware of any prototypes
attempting implementation of this idea.
Information Presentation
For each of the integration strategies mentioned, there is the problem of information
presentation. Most prototypes and systems present query results in a list format of text
and/or image links. The user is then required to link to each referenced system to
determine its real relevance to his/her information need and then to collect and integrate
the retrieved data.
Ideally, the information retrieved should be presented in context with the descriptive
information presented as an exhibit story. For this to be possible, more research on story
construction will be needed. A problem is that much of the metadata recorded today about
museum objects is “administrative,” in the sense that it describes the object context
(creator, location, materials, etc.) rather than the semantic interpretation of the object and
its relationships to other objects. If an exhibit presentation format is to be automatically
developed, more semantic information about the objects in the content databases will
have to be given. Then it will be possible to construct “real” exhibits-on-demand.
Summary and Research Issues

Museums have a vast store of material that can be made available on the Internet. Some
is available through virtual exhibits and more is stored in content databases. Virtual
exhibits are good vehicles for information dissemination, and when they contain
interactive components, can be a good foundation for e-learning systems. However, if
an information gatherer/learner is looking for information that is not adequately covered
by existing exhibits, but is in existing content databases, it can be difficult to find.
A system to support information gathering should have the following components:
1. An interface structure similar to that found in current, familiar search engines, such
as Google.com. Query terms used to describe the information requirement should
be translated into and /or supplemented by synonymous terms that have been used
to describe the data. Current proposals to facilitate this translation include the
construction of domain ontologies that combine the characteristics and data of
taxonomies and thesauri.
2. The system should be able to search at three levels for information that match the
relevance criteria, as determined from the interpretation of the user request:
a. Through the museum’s virtual exhibits.
b. Within the museum’s database(s).
c. Through the combined material from multiple museums.
3. Relevant material should then be returned to the user/requester, either as a set of
links to the information or, preferably, as a system constructed exhibit, that is, an
exhibit-on-demand.
The advantages of such a system would be to give the user/learner control over selection
of information about a topic of interest, expressed in his/her own terms. The system would
then be able to interpret the query and utilize known information retrieval technology.
However, before this type of system becomes a reality:
• Museums must either agree on the structure of the metadata and the ontologies that
they will use to describe their data.
• Integration tools must be developed to mediate the differences between the set of
metadata and ontologies in use.
• It will be necessary to extend the facilities of current indexing techniques to include
feature extraction from multimedia databases.
• Methods for automating database integration and/or multi-database querying
processors must be developed. And finally,
• Presentation techniques must be developed to provide more meaningful result
presentation than the current list structures.
Acknowledgments
This work has been funded in part by the Norwegian National Research Council through
project #148827/530. Sincere thanks are extended to the many students and colleagues
who have participated in discussions and development of the ideas presented in this
248 Nordbotten
chapter while working within the research context of the Virtual Exhibit on Demand
project, http://nordbotten.ifi.uib.no/VirtualMuseum/VMwebSite/VEDweb-site.htm.
References
Baeza-Yates, R., & Ribeiro-Neto, B. (1999). Modern information retrieval. Addison
Wesley.
Conklin, J. (1987). Hypertext: An introduction and survey. IEEE Computer, 20(1), 17-41.
Elmagarmid, A, Rusinkiewicz, M., & Sheth, A. (Eds). (1999). Management of heteroge-
neous and autonomous database systems. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.
Gundestrup, B., & Wanning, T. (2004). The King’s Kunstkammer: Presenting systems of
knowledge on the Web. In D. Bearman & J. Trant (Eds.), Museums and the Web
2004: Proceedings (pp. 79-87). Toronto: Archives & Museum Informatics.
Hillmann, D. (2003). Using Dublin Core. Retrieved from http://dublincore.org/docu-
ments/usageguide
Hove, L.J. (2004). Improving image retrieval with a thesaurus for shapes. Master’s
Thesis. Department of Information and Media Science, University of Bergen.
Retrieved from http://nordbotten.ifi.uib.no/VirtualMuseum/Publications/
LarsJacob/Thesis.pdf
Hyvönen, E., Junnila, M., Kettaula, S., Mäkelä, E., Samppa, S., Salminen, M., Syreeni, A.,
Valo, A., & Viljanen, K. (2004). Finnish Museums on the Semantic Web: The User’s
Perspective on MuseumFinland. In D. Bearman & J. Trant (Eds.), Museums and the
Web 2004: Proceedings (pp. 21-32). Toronto: Archives & Museum Informatics.
Lane, D., & Williams, H.E. (2002). Web database applications with PHP & MySQL.
O’Reilly & Associates.
Litwin, W., & Abdellatif, A. (1986). Multidatabase interoperability. IEEE Computer,
19(12), 10-18.
Lowe, D., & Prince, A. (2003). Murach’s ASP.NET Web programming with VB.NET. Mike
Murach & Associates
Murray, C., & Everett-Church, J. (2003). Macromedia Flash Mx 2004 Game Program-
ming. Portland: Premier Press.
Nordbotten, J. (2000). Entering through the side door: A usage analysis of a Web
presentation. In D. Bearman & J. Trant (Eds.), Museums and the Web 2000:
Proceedings (pp. 145-151). Toronto: Archives & Museum Informatics.
Nordbotten, J. (2000-2004). ADM: Advanced data management. Retrieved from http://
nordbotten.ifi.uib.no/ADM/ADM_text/ADM-frame.htm
Nordbotten, J. (2001). Virtual exhibits on demand. Retrieved from http://
nordbotten.ifi.uib.no/VirtualMuseum/projectDescription.htm
Nordbotten, J., & Nordbotten, S. (2002). Evaluation of user search in a Web-database.

In Proceedings of the Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences,
HICSS-35. CD. IEEE Computer Society.
Peacock, P., Ellis, D., & Doolan, J. (2004). Searching for meaning: Not just records. In
D. Bearman & J. Trant (Eds.), Museums and the Web 2004: Proceedings (pp. 11-
20). Toronto: Archives & Museum Informatics.
Shneiderman, B. (1998). Designing the user interface: Strategies for effective human-
computer interaction (3rd ed). Addison-Wesley.
Shneiderman, B. et al. (1989). Evaluating three museum installations of a hypertext
system. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 40(3), 172-182.
Sowa, J. (2000). Knowledge representation: Logical, philosophical, and computa-
tional foundations. Books Cole Publishing.
Yamada, S. et al. (1995). Development and evaluation of hypermedia for museum
education: Validation of metrics. ACM Transactions of Computer-Human Interac-
tion, 2(4), 284-307.
Exhibit Sites Referenced:

American Natural History Museum. (n.d.). Ology/Marine Biology Exhibit. Retrieved
March 25, 2005, from http://www.ology.amnh.org/marinebiology/workthesystem/
mangrove.html. Created by National Center for Science Literacy, Education &
Technology at the American Museum of Natural History.
CERN. (2004). The LHC game. Retrieved March 25, 2005, from http://public.web.cern.ch/
public/Content/Chapters/Education/OnlineResources/LHCGame/
LHCGame.html
Exploratorium. (1998-99). Solar Eclipse- Stories for the path of totality. Noel Wanner.
The Sun-Eating Dragon. Retrieved March 25, 2005, from http://
www.exploratorium.org/eclipse/dragon.html. Produced in conjunction with
AboveNet Communications, Inc.
International Conference on Museums and Web. (2003). Retrieved March 25, 2005, from
http://www.archimuse.com/mw2003. Archives & Museum Informatics.
Mint Museum of Art. (n.d.). The Mesoamerican ball game. Retrieved March 25, 2005,
from http://www.ballgame.org/main.asp. Produced in conjunction with Interac-
tive Knowledge, Inc.
Museum Finland (2004). Retrieved March 25, 2005 from http://museosuomi.ca.helsinki.fi
National Museum of Denmark. (n.d.). The King’s Kunstkammer. Retrieved March 25,
2005, from http://www.kunstkammer.dk/GBindex.shtml. Produced with the sup-
port of CulturNet Denmark.
Natuurhistorisch Museum Maastricht. (1995-2004). The virtual tour of the museum.
Retrieved March 25, 2005, from http://www.nhmmaastricht.nl/enge
The Wright Experience™. (2004). The Wright Experience in Flight. Retrieved March 25,
2005, from http://www.wrightexperience.com/edu/12_17_03/html/index.htm. Pro-
duced in conjunction with Cognitive Applications, Inc.
250 Nordbotten
Endnotes
1
The term e-learning center is used here to refer to a Web site developed with the
intention to provide educational material to students as well as to information
gatherers from the general public.
2
In this chapter, museums are organizations that collect objects and present them
in context as information to their public. From a data management and information
dissemination point of view, there is no difference between a science and an art
museum/center.
3
Google.com found 32,500 links for the query “space exploration in science muse-
ums.” The list included links to museums, as well as to research institutes, business
and newspaper articles (retrieved February 2004).
4
Programming tools that enable functions to be embedded in a Web exhibit to
support interaction with the user, receiving user input and possibly accessing one
or more databases for construction of new response pages.
5
The ball game was developed by the Mint Museum of Art and Interactive
Knowledge, Inc., and placed in an exhibit on Mesoamerican cultures.
6
CERN developed the version of the simulation shown in Figure 8 in 2000. The
simulation presentation was updated and extended in 2004.
7
An example, developed in the virtual exhibits project (2004), can be found at http:/
/nordbotten.ifi.uib.no/VirtualMuseum/Prototypes/Osdal2/
Challenges in Virtual Environment Design 251
Chapter XII
Challenges in Virtual
Environment Design:
An Architectural Approach
to Virtual Spaces
Renata Piazzalunga,
Information Technology Research Institute, Brazil
Saulo Faria Almeida Barretto,

Information Technology Research Institute, Brazil
Abstract
In this chapter we will discuss some fundamental questions concerning creation and
development of interfaces searching for the best way to promote interaction between
the subject and information/interface. It starts from the fact that the fundamental and
most revolutionary aspect introduced by the Internet is based on its sophisticated
technological mechanisms that enhance substantially the concepts of space, time,
perception, representation, limits, distance, presence, etc. Our everyday practices gain
access to a new realm, cyberspace, which enables us to embrace multiple experiences
where we exist in the propagation of our “Id.” This condition represents a huge
challenge, for example, the necessity to (re)design the image we have from the world
in its physical and virtual spaces. We discuss the imagined trends related to the
conception and development of virtual environments, addressing the issue of virtual
environments in three levels of complexity: realized spaces, possible spaces and
imagined spaces.
252 Piazzalunga and Barretto
Introduction
As a result of the innovations and the potential inherent to this media, the expansion of
the Internet in the 1990s launched a multitude of transformations in the ways of living
of what is now referred to as the information society. Analysis of a social context requires
us to analyze its technological model, which from a contemporary point of view means
presupposing that both technology and society are part of the same system and, thus,
should not be analyzed as isolated entities. As Castells puts it, scientific discovery, and
consequently, the challenging of established paradigms is a process dependent on a
series of imponderable factors, the result of which is intimately linked to how these
factors interact (Castells, 2000).
The observation of the technological context in the information society shows signifi-
cant changes in social organizations and in the fundamental principles related to
conditions of existence, such as, for example, space, time, perception, representation and
presence. All of them are altered in their fundamental aspects when faced with the fact
that sophisticated technological resources, developed from a technology that is imbed-
ded in this society, allow one to conceive of immersive environments, interactive
environments, simulated spaces and so on. There seem to be three essential aspects to
the characterization of this information society context: information technology (IT) as
a technological paradigm, the dynamism with which processes evolve in this context, and
the virtual dimension as a principle for events.
The significance of information technology as a paradigm for the social, economic and
cultural models surpass the idea of a simple change in the productive system of society.
IT is connected to a productive system which is in fact composed of a set of technological
and computational resources that have an intangible good as an object: information. This
means that we have moved from the implicit tangibility of the industrial society, a world
with established limitations, to a fluid and inexhaustible world.
Up until recently, when we simply contributed to industrial society, we saw our physical
abilities being reproduced by gadgets able to replace us in most mechanical tasks.
Nowadays, we participate in simulations of our cognitive capacities by means of
intelligent systems, in a dimension that transcends the physical space of objects and
takes place in virtual space or cyberspace, as suggested by William Gibson’s 1984 book
Neuromancer. In this book, for the first time, the term cyberspace makes reference to “a
physical and multidimensional representation of the abstract world of ‘information.’” “A
place you can visit with your mind, catapulted by technology, while your body is left
behind,” as Alex Antunes, responsible for the book’s preface in its Portuguese version,
adds (Gibson, 2003). Since then, not only the term cyberspace has expanded to a myriad
of connotations, but also many other terms have been used to refer to it. Virtual
environment, virtual space and virtual reality are some of the other terms employed by
specialists when referring to cyberspace.
In this context, things basically take place in a virtual-digital dimension. Commercial
relations, for example, become virtualized. Similarly, human actions become virtualized,
in a way that the concept of presence, inherent to tangible bodies, is altered. Therefore,
computerized intelligent systems simulate human cognitive capacities, from the simplest
ones, like sharing information in public places, such as shopping malls, banks and
supermarkets, to the most complex ones in highly specialized areas such as biotechnol-
ogy and nanotechnology, among others.
The technological model for the information society introduces a condition never seen
before in the history of civilization: a new spatial dimension, cyberspace, that not only
becomes the parameter for the development of socio-cultural processes, but also opens
up the possibility of exploiting new forms of experiencing and thinking within new models
of experimenting in the most diverse fields of our social life.
In the Virtual Dimension: Virtualization, Space and Time
The cyber culture, the virtualization culture, reinvents time and space. Understanding
aspects related to this reinvented time and space necessarily depends upon the virtual
because it is the reference to this domain. In Pierre Lévy’s Becoming Virtual, the author
explores the virtual and contrasts it to other confusing concepts about this theme.
Pierre Lévy’s perspective is significantly influenced by the Bergsonian philosophy and
attests to the differences and congruencies between concepts like real, possible, actual
and virtual. Let us first analyze the difference between virtual and possible. The virtual
is not the possible, as the possible belongs to a pre-determined universe, already
constituted, in which the only thing missing is realization. Therefore, the real is the
complement to the possible because there is a correspondence between their elements
and the only difference is that the possible lacks existence as a condition. An example
that clarifies the relationship between the possible and the real is the transfer process
of a photographic image on to paper. By means of an enlarger, the negative image is
projected on to the photographic paper. In this process, the paper is sensitized and
“impregnated” with the image from the negative. It so happens that the image is already
constituted and pre-determined on the paper, however it has not been developed yet.
When the image is developed on the paper by means of chemical baths, it comes into
existence. The image has left the realm of the possible and has become real, in the
perception of our human vision.
The next pair to be considered involves the virtual and the present. The virtual is not the
opposite of the real, but of the actual. While the real “resembles the possible, the actual
responds to the virtual” (Lévy, 1999). There are no correspondences between the actual
and the virtual, as they are two different ways of being. In other words, the virtual is a
field of indeterminateness or a “problematic complex” that, differently from the realization
of the possible which does not imply a creative process, demands a creative resolution,
established by means of actualization. Therefore, even though actualization is the
solution given to a problem, due to its creative character it does not stop the dynamics
of the problematic complex, but rather, feeds the problematic complex with the new
qualities produced. As an example, let us consider Internet search engines. When we
interact with these systems, each actualization opens a myriad of new relations that not
only solve our problematic complex but also feed it.
Besides the actualization that takes place as a reaction of the virtual to the actual,
virtualization can also be considered as a reaction, only that it works in the reverse
direction to actualization, that is, from the actual to the virtual. While actualization
defines the entity by means of a solution to the problematic complex, virtualization is

where the entity finds its essential consistency. Virtualization is therefore a mutation of
the identity of the object under consideration that, rather than being defined by its
actuality, is defined by its virtuality, that is, the object is still within the problematic realm.
Virtualization “consists in the transition from the actual to the virtual, an exponentiation
of the entity under construction” (Lévy, 1999).
In the virtual, there is yet another important condition which is related to the “not there”
(Serres, 1998). In this domain, the common sense that says in order to have an experience,
one must be there is altered. Therefore, by means of the manifestation of a consciousness,
it is possible, even not being, to assume an existence and to be an experience. As Gibson
foresaw, it is possible to go with your mind and leave your body behind.
The “not there” emerges as a principle to virtualization processes. It implies the de-
materialization and displacement of the virtualized object, that is, “A kind of clutch
mechanism detaches them from conventional physical or geographical space and
temporality of the clock or calendar” (Lévy, 1999). In this way, virtualization frees its
objects from the inertia imposed by the matter. Moreover, it implies fundamental changes
in terms of the condition of space itself, which becomes virtualized instead of materialized
or concrete. This transition from concrete space to virtualized space is very close to what
Merleau-Ponty describes in his Phenomenology of Perception as the transition from
spatialized space to spatializing space: “In the first case, my body and things, their
concrete relationships expressed in such terms as top and bottom, right and left, near and
far, may appear to me as an irreducibly manifold variety, whereas in the second case I
discover a single and indivisible ability to trace out space” (Merleau-Ponty, 1962) 1. The
space in the virtual domain would be similar to the spatializing space where, instead of
being a possible which is realized, already pre-determined by the concreteness of the
physical world, is seen as a field of potential actions to be actualized or virtualized, that
is an entity that can withstand changes in nature.
This analysis can suggest that it is time, or more precisely, duration, and not the space
itself that is the fundamental entity to virtual experiences. Let us analyze the following
excerpt: “Duration is always the location and the environment of differences in kind; it
is even their totality and multiplicity. There are no differences in kind except in duration
— while space is nothing other than the location, the environment, the totality of
differences in degree” (Deleuze, 1988)2. Thus, as in the virtual, space is a field of potential
actions subject to differences of nature, because it can be actualized or virtualized. It is
by means of duration that these differences make their occurrence possible. Unlike
duration, space itself only withstands differences in degree, such as: open/closed,
horizontal/vertical, and built/non-built.
Duration in the Bergsonian sense is the indistinct succession of the qualitative multiplic-
ity of the states of consciousness that interpenetrate each other in constant and
continuous change (Bergson, 2001). That is, it is through our changes of perception, of
our internal differences and anxieties that time, or rather duration, reveals itself. In this
sense, duration corresponds to how our consciousness habitually operates, that is, it is
an integral part of our experience and is, therefore, related to the subjectivity of the human
being. While we exist, the “field structured around potential actions” (Prado Jr., 2003) is
in operation in our consciousness. In order to further our understanding of these
concepts, let us take a look at Phenomenology of Perception. In the chapter on

temporality, Merleau-Ponty holds that “we must understand time as the subject and the
subject as time” (Merleau-Ponty, 1962)3. This image reinforces the fact that we are not
in time, as suggested by the idea of chronological time, where time “passes” outside us,
but rather that we are time because “it has meaning for us only because ‘we are it’”
(Merleau-Ponty, 1962)4.
How Do These Concepts Influence the Design of

Learning Environments?
In the case of virtual environments, the relationship between the subject and virtual
space is established by means of the interface, which exerts influence on the levels of
interaction established by these spaces with their users. When we relate the design of
virtual environments, or more specifically of learning environments, to the set of
complexities that define the features of virtual spaces, the intention is to verify the
intrinsic characteristics that qualify these spaces and extract from them the elements that
can guide the process of creating virtual environments. A field is opened up for new
references to creation based on the principles that constitute these spaces. The moment
we notice that one of the properties of virtual space is to be a field of potential actions
and not a pre-determined field, as in the case of physical spaces; there is a new paradigm
in the conception of design. That is, while we should consider certain actions and
objectives specific to the environment under consideration, we should at the same time
also consider plasticity and the transformation of the system according to each user’s
interactions.
Design cannot be a finished whole, closed to possible interferences created by users. The
environment has to be conceived as a living system in constant transformation that takes
place in time, that is, of the indistinct succession of the various states of consciousness
that “inhabit” these environments. As mentioned above, the sense of existence in the
virtual space is related not to physical presence, but to the manifestations of conscious-
ness that can be identified there. There is, therefore, another important factor to be
considered: virtual environments should be considered as places where the various
consciousnesses that are surfing around can co-exist. These places should therefore
allow the action and the perception of each user to be used as a constituent element and
to be a constructive support to the space.
Thus, based on an approach that considers the dissonances and the congruencies
existing between physical and virtual space, new concepts related to virtual learning
environments can be explored. We believe that virtual environment design should be
treated as an extension of physical reality. The information society brings the experiential
plane to cyberspace and, thus, reveals a dimension of existence where it is no longer
possible to think of a world that is not hybrid. We will first question the new educational
scenarios resulting from this co-existence between physical and virtual spaces. We will
then return to the discussion over the meaning of simulated worlds, where new forms of
building experiences are introduced. Also, within this idea of new meanings, we will
discuss the challenges to the construction of interfaces for learning environments.
New Scenarios of Experience:

Simulation, Interaction,
Immersion and Telepresence
Basically, four concepts or features, that also act as effects around which the experienc-
ing condition in virtual space can be understood, define the conditions for the experi-
ences constructed in virtual spaces: simulation, interaction, immersion and telepresence.
It is always risky to present concepts because we could condition or restrict our
understanding of the subject. In the fertile research field of exploring experiences in
virtual space, running this risk is justifiable for two reasons: the first one has to do with
the fact that these concepts, independently from the many others discussed by research-
ers in the area, are related to essential aspects, to the very nature of the virtual space;
the second one is that, in this paper, these essential aspects are the object of our
investigations.
The focus of the following definition is more conceptual and philosophical than
technological. What is of interest to us in the definition of these concepts is exactly what
they represent in terms of actions that lead to experiences in the virtual domain.
Simulation emerges as a formal representation in the virtual domain of occurrences from
the physical world, such as actions, movements, expressions, places, and etcetera: the
transference of forms, made material in the physical space, to the virtual. Simulation is
the idealization in the virtual of a scenario for the exploration of experiences.
Interaction emerges as a communication between the physical world and the virtual, in
the widest sense of the word communication, meaning to share something with someone.
Hence, it is the reciprocity between actions from the physical to the virtual and from the
virtual to the physical.
Immersion appears as the possibility to penetrate and move in the virtual dimension,
characterizing a relationship between the directions that the body assumes and the
changes in the configuration of the environment as seen by changing points of view.
Lastly, the concept of telepresence, that allows one to be there without the presence of
a tangible body. Telepresence allows one to occupy an existence virtually.
The conception of an existence in virtual space is therefore essentially connected to the
alternation of these concepts that are translated into forms of actions in this space,
producing a reality that is modelled according to our psychic states. Simulation,
interaction, immersion and telepresence create a system of possible actions in virtual
space and, consequently, other concepts such as virtual reality (Furness, 2001), CAVE
or immersive environments become more real. A great project is created: one of a
disembodied world of experiences. This context corroborates Merleau-Ponty’s position:
What counts for the orientation of the spectacle is not my body as it in fact is,
as a thing in objective space, but as a system of possible actions, a virtual body
with its phenomenal ‘place’ defined by its task and situation. My body is
wherever there is something to be done. (Merleau-Ponty, 1962)5
These properties of virtual space create possibilities in which practices normally

inscribed in a spatial domain and apparently dominated by our perception (the physical
world), are extended to a new domain where we experience a multiplicity of experiences.
Our existence is no longer restricted to the carnal body, we also exist as representations
of our “I” immersed in cyberspace, experiencing a new reality.
We can, therefore, think of new scenarios based on the concept of spaces that become
virtual. Experiences in virtual worlds can be simulated that in principle would only be
possible in contexts of total materiality. Through technology, we can expand our
experiences and create artificial worlds filled with meaning.
Simulated Realities and

Augmented Realities
Virtualization not only changes the nature of space, but also extends the meaning of
presence, that is, brings new ways of perceiving and experiencing an experience; and
establishes a new field for experiences. It is fundamental that we understand how this
experience takes place, as our tangible body is not present in this domain.
This field of experience can only be experienced because physical space and virtual space
are interconnected. This interconnection, which allows us to travel between different
spatial domains, extends the field of our sensorial experiences. This extension or
amplification of our experiences to another spatial domain takes place by means of
technological devices attached to our body (Figure 1), extending our sensorial and
Figure 1. Sterlac’s Amplified Body – An interactive performance between the

physiological control of the body and electronic modulation of human functions with
the interface
cognitive capacities. The sensory surfaces of our body are stimulated by means of
interfaces, expanding our existence beyond the physical and concrete space. The
fundamental principle for decoding the concept of experience in cyberspace lies in a
change of perception of the role of the body in the world. That is, the body as suggested
by Merleau-Ponty: “the body no longer conceived as an object of the world, but as our
means of communication with it.” 6
Experience is not, therefore, conditional on the presence of the body, but is a conse-
quence of this body’s capacity to communicate with the world. Consequently, “[I]n the
case of the normal subject, the body is available not only in real situations into which
it is drawn. It can turn aside from the world, apply its activity to stimuli which affect its
sensory surfaces, lend itself to experimentation, and generally speaking take its place in
the realm of the potential” (the virtual) (Merleau-Ponty, 1962) 7.
In cyberspace, all the technology employed extends our body’s communication with the
virtual space and thus situates our experience within this domain. As William Mitchell
suggests, “We are entering an era of electronically extended bodies living at intersection
points of the physical and the virtual worlds” (Mitchell, 1995). Therefore, more than an
anatomical body that moves within a medium, the body is also seen as associated with
souls that either make things important or not for us. Moreover, the body takes into
account our location in a particular context, where we have to deal with things and people
and where we have to face all sorts of events.
There are two groups of devices used to establish communication between our body and
the virtual space. The first group refers to output devices that allow the computer to be
connected to human senses. Some examples are the optical devices known as HMDs
(Head-Mounted Display), which are individual helmets used for stereoscopic vision,
tactile devices or haptic interfaces, hearing devices, and etcetera...
Figure 2. Sterlac’s Virtual Body: An interactive performance between the physical

body and a system of interfaces (virtual body)
The second group refers to input devices that capture movements and actions of the
user’s body in order to produce a representation in virtual space. These devices
“translate” the language used by the body to communicate into cyberspace. Some
examples of input devices are the cinematic devices (position trackers; eye-movement
trackers) that translate the movements performed by the body into computer language,
voice and audio input devices, and etcetera…
The context produced by the information society creates the possibility of acting in
another spatial domain and needs to be considered vis-à-vis the context in its entirety,
that is, this new domain established in the virtual space should be analyzed in terms of
its interaction or its co-existence with the physical space. “With cyberspace, a whole new
space sprouts from the complexity of Earth’s life: a new niche for a domain that is between
two worlds” (Benedikt, 1991).
Hence, the co-existence of spaces in different domains points to a condition where
physical space is not only a means of action but also fundamental to this level in which
occurrences take place between two domains: the physical and the virtual.
This realm, known as augmented reality, is at the crossroads between the physical and
the virtual world. It represents the synthesis and the interaction of the processes
developed both in the physical and in the virtual planes. It is considered to be an
important zone for the fostering of experiences related to the representational and
perceptive processes, thus creating a new condition for the exploration of perceptive and
representational experiences. The era of extended bodies adds the possibility for the user
to live in a world of experiences produced via virtual reality, which incorporates aspects
from the physical world as well as the virtual world (Figure 2).
From a technological point of view, the forms of interaction between the physical and the
virtual spaces, more and more favour the exploration of full experiences in the context of
augmented reality. We already have portable systems, which allow for mobile occur-
rences of augmented reality, such as the one developed by researchers from Columbia
Table 1. A summary of relationships in the virtual dimension
Concepts Physical Dimension Virtual Dimension

Space Spacialized Spacializing
Time Linear, homogeneous space and Duration
time (non-linear, heterogeneous, multi-
dimensional space-time)
Perception Mainly visual Mainly haptic
Presence Tangible Body Intangible Body – Telepresence
(consciousness manifested)
Representation From the physical world Simulation
Communication Emission/Reception of messages Interaction
(person to person) (with computerized systems)
Displacement Local causation Immersion
Objects with defined locations in (non-local causation; intertwining of
space and time space and time
University, Battlefield Augmented Reality System (BARS). Hence, these experiences can
take place independently of fixed infrastructures.
In reality, what this system signals is the fact that our experiencing could be ever more
determined by experiences that take into account not only the domain of the physical
space or the virtual space, but also the overlapping of these two domains in an augmented
reality plane. Very much like cell phones which brought mobility to communication,
wearable AR systems bring mobility to an experiencing that effectively incorporates data
obtained from a physical dimension associated with data obtained from a virtual
dimension. We can ultimately conceive of experiences based on the conditions devel-
oped in an augmented reality context. Furthermore, we can conceive of virtual science
centers that would result from this interaction between the physical and the virtual.
Consequently, a new scenario would be built, based on the construction of a world
composed of inhabitable physical and virtual spaces.
We have thus far discussed a set of conceptual relationships and before going into
directly related questions concerning challenges in building interfaces, we will summa-
rize the concepts and relations presented until now, as shown in the Table 1.
Challenges in Designing Interfaces

With the technological expansion and modification of our individual sensations by
means of interfaces, new ways of being in the space and making space are created. That
is, cyberception occurs, as defined by Roy Ascott: the perception given by the enabled
senses of perceiving in a domain devoid of material things. It is this extension, brought
about by technology, of our cognition and our perception that suggests this perception.
This cyberception is also an essential underlay to representations. Experience or
experiencing in the digital space generates a continuum of configurations and
reconfigurations in this space. Thus, in this domain the perceptive domain is not
restricted to the individual, but rather there is an expansion of each subject’s conscious-
ness in the context of cyberspace, in such a way that the subject’s perceptions are
imprinted there and become a constituent part of this space. Cyberspace is a dynamic and
continuous flow that is updated at each interaction. A fundamental difference between
the physical environment and the virtual environment is that, while in the former the form
assumed is absolutely indifferent to the subject, in the latter the form may assume
qualities derived from the interactions between subject and space.
The dynamic of cyberspace allows for metamorphoses of space depending on the
perceptive subject. Cyberspace allows the possibility of extending the forms of spatial
representation, as well as, and most importantly, the possibility of extending the
sensorial processes. Galofaro (1999) points out that cyberspace allows one to reshape
reality. To do so, the author holds that it is necessary to leave behind our one dimensional
point of view, focused on visual experiences, and recognize that it is being replaced by
a new perception fostered fundamentally by tactile and emotional experiences, which
have a strong realistic connotation, based on corporeal sensations. The tactile dimen-
sion of cyberspace is reached by means of interactivity.
In cyberspace, the subject is at the same time a constituent part of this space and
constitutes his/herself as he/she interacts with it. In this context, space and the subject
could be inseparable and the representation could be evidence of the truth in saying that
the world is within me and I am entirely outside of myself. In the virtual space, constituent
subject and the constituted subject become one. In this condition, we become partici-
pants of the simulation of our own cognitive and perceptive capacities by means of
intelligent systems. We exist as representations of our “Id” immersed in cyberspace and
experiencing a new reality. What we see here is the “Id” as evidence of Merleau-Ponty’s
tacit cogito, that is, as evidence of “an experience of me by myself.” This sort of existence
propitiated by cyberspace makes the giving form to this “experience of me by myself”
possible, where the “Id” is a field, an experience in the face of new possibilities of
situations in a new environment, where new layers of significance are both created and
represented.
If we accept this, it becomes clear that the interaction between the subject and the
environment ought to be a fundamental element in the definition of the configuration of
these spaces. Moreover, in cyberspace, we can think of adaptive and individualized
environments, that is, environments that “respond” to the particular characteristics of
each user. Thus, the great challenge in designing interfaces is to provide environments
that, rather than being defined beforehand, are intelligent systems and that are being
configured during the processes of interaction with each user.
On the other hand, the more open the systems are to user interactions (systems designed
to be built during the processes of interaction with each user), the bigger will be the
possibilities of their (the systems’) adaptability. The feasibility of conceiving an
interface with a higher or lower adaptability depends on, among other things, the
technological resources available. In the specific case of instructional design, the
system’s adaptability seems to be a very significant resource in maximizing both the
motivation and collaboration of users, making the learning process much more effective.
Virtual museums of science function as repositories of scientific knowledge but it is our
observation that interfaces still need to be improved. Although content quality is taken
into account, on most occasions, browsing the pages is unattractive due to their inability
to make us identify with the space in a way that a virtual museum of science deserves.
In making an analogy with the space of a real, physical museum of science, a good example
could be the Ciudad de las Artes y las Ciencias de Valencia, in Spain. Designed by the
architect Santiago Calatrava, this museum is an educational center for the promotion of
science and technology. When we visit this museum, we become involved in the different
atmospheres of the conceived spaces. Equally important as the contents, the configu-
rations of spaces in the specific atmospheres help not only our perception but also our
assimilation of information. Virtual museums of science in our opinion should have such
an appeal, too. That is to say, spaces where information and environment are conceived
as an integrated unit with a language specifically designed according to the qualities
required by these kinds of spaces.
The elements that make up the scenarios presented here must be suitably taken into
account, according to what is to be implemented and the function desired. We will now
discuss three different stages of complexity in the construction of interfaces that vary
according to conceptual and technological possibilities: realized spaces, possible
spaces and imagined spaces. In this way, what is intended is to show how the concepts
presented in this article can be explored with greater or lesser degrees of complexity
according to the purposes and possibilities of each project.
Interfaces: Realized Spaces

The discussion about interfaces as realized spaces can be illustrated by three examples:
one related to an interface devoted to educational aims and the others to typical examples
of contents designed for a virtual museum of science. To insert content into environ-
ments may be seen as a suggestion to create what we call a specific atmosphere to the
conceived space.
Frame of Mind
Frame of Mind8 is an environment aimed at promoting learning via Internet, a Learning

Management System (LMS). The system was configured to serve the specific pedagogi-
cal potential of the Internet. Special emphasis has been given to the design of the learning
environment, considering the adaptation of the content to cyberspace. In the case of the
Frame of Mind, firstly, we have tried to understand the role of an instructional interface
and, then, explore the specific cyberspace mechanisms in dealing with the interaction
between user and environment. This brought the integrated solution (Goodbrand, 1997)
of the different layers that usually compose the development of an instructional design.
From the analysis of other distance education systems; we can say that, in general, the
computational problems receive all the attention from their developers. However, the
design of the graphic interface is rarely treated with the same attention as the computa-
tional modelling. The interface emerges as a mere product of the computational modelling
proposal. The lack of an adequate methodology to conceptualize the graphic interface
not only shatters the possibility of forming a cohesive project unit and, consequently,
of achieving integrated solutions, but also creates a gap between the level of the
computational solutions and the graphic interface proposal, in which, most of the time,
the former is well elaborated while the latter is poorly elaborated.
In reality, this reveals that the interfaces are not considered as such, but simply as screens
or panels that allow the user to activate a program. Apparently, very few researchers
realize what we consider to be the real role of the interface: a source for promoting
sensorial stimulation of individuals. This new vision of interfaces has been our guideline
in terms of the methodology and the conceptualization employed in the creation and
development of our learning environment. We emphasize that the interface has to be
conceptualized as a communicating entity with the individual. That is, designing an
interface does not simply mean to give shape and to arrange information connected to
a software program, but to explore the communication mechanisms established between
a virtual entity, which is revealed via the interface, and an actual entity, the individual
who is interacting with the program.
In the Frame of Mind Project one way to promote such communication mechanisms is the
creation of a dynamic browsing environment based on scenes. In general, the contents
for Internet-based courses are simple transcriptions adapted from the written media
(books, booklets, etc.) to the digital format. Our proposal of presenting the contents by
means of a sequence of scenes has generated a content presentation language that is
inherent to cyberspace. When the content is subdivided into scenes, there are some
benefits, such as: image and text become unified information and, as in the cinema, the
perceptive appeal is in the scene as a whole and not in segregated blocks of texts and
images, it helps reduce the natural expectation generated before long and continuous
texts on the screen, it assists in reminding the user up to where the content was covered,
and it makes easier to keep track of the routes explored by the student.
As the texts are created in scenes, the student is not bombarded with an enormous amount
of information packed into a single screen, instead each student can interact with the
information according to his/her individual processing mechanism. Also, it is important
to highlight the role of the blank spaces purposely left at the end of each text. We
metaphorically call this space the student’s mental space. It works as a simulation of the
time-space relation that the student has to use in order to process the received
information. Figure 3 illustrates an example of the sequence of the scenes.
Another important solution employed in our simulated model for a learning environment
is the subdivision of content into topics and subtopics. Some of the advantages we have
experienced using subdivisions are related to the promotion of different and personal
ways of interaction between students and the system: a) students can access specific
contents related to the course faster and more easily, b) monitoring of the procedures
performed by students is made easier and c) students can easily remember how the course
is structured and, consequently, better understand the relationships among the con-
tents. In the previous figure, the left area shows us an example of a topic and subtopic
structure.
Still related to the simulation and interaction created in the Frame of Mind environment,
there are some topics that present exercise activities connected to the subject of the class.
These exercises are generated in accordance with a procedure that suggests a step-by-
step solution that enables the student to retrace the dynamics of the problem-solving
Figure 3. Example of lecture sequence
Figure 4. Exercise being performed step-by-step
process (Figure 4). Inside the classroom, while the teacher solves a problem, the student
copies it from the blackboard. When it is time to study, the exercise is no more than a figure
and the student has lost the dynamics of how to solve that problem. Therefore, all
exercises were created following a methodology that gives students a better chance of
retracing the problem-solving process.
The Moon: “A Lua”
“A Lua”9 is a site concerned with divulging scientific information about the Moon to
teenagers. This site offers an online, free of charge, distance education course about the
Moon and explores interactive media resources for high school students. It is a very
successful experience in generating a virtual environment about science, based on the
exploration of the graphic quality, along with the many possible forms of interaction
either between users and models of computational simulation or between users and an
online tutor. This site was the winner of the People’s Choice Award for Interactive
Learning at Macromedia’s UCON 2001 in New York.
The site has pages with expository texts, pictures, infographs, 2-D and 3-D simulations,
animations, audio narratives and QTVRs (Quick Time Virtual Reality). On this site, a
group of learners (each in his/her house, workplace, or school) participates in a class
conducted by a tutor in real time and all the student’s progression is tracked by the
system.
In the virtual (and synchronous) class, the teacher conducts the class, controlling the
specific contents displayed on the student’s screen and communicates with them
through texts (chat). The content of the virtual class is comprised by animations, sound
and a tour guided by a 3-D simulator in the system formed by the Moon, the Earth and
the Sun. The site deeply explores the potential of computational simulation in a way to
capture the student’s attention (Figure 5).
An interesting point about this site is that it allows a diverse range of experiments that
the student can reproduce at home, such as the selenoscope (Figure 6), transposing
experiences learned in virtual space to the physical world. In this way, an enhancement
Figure 5. Simulation of a cosmic collision
Figure 6. Guidelines to building a Selenoscope
of interactive processes seems to occur, since the students interact with the system
(virtual space), carry out actions in the physical space instructed by the virtual and
respond to the system after observing the experiences carried out in the concrete world.
The Exploratorium: The Museum of Science, Art and

Human Perception
This virtual museum10, part of the Palace of Fine Arts in San Francisco, California, is a
very good example because besides one of the earliest trials concerning the implemen-
tation of a virtual science museum it also introduces scientific issues in a creative and
varied fashion (Figure 7).
It explores different interactive mechanisms, such as the Web cast, where transmissions
of specific topics via the Internet can be accessed by anyone using the museum’s Web
site with real time presence of experts in the fields under discussion. An example of Web
Figure 7. Main page of Exploratorium
Figure 8. Web cast live transmission of the transit of Venus
cast with this kind of interaction was the transmission of the Venus transit on June 8, 2004,
seen from Greece (Figure 8).
Another example of interactive proposal in this Web site is The Exploratorium Learning
Studio, which receives many requests for help with science fair projects both from
teachers and students. Such strategies found in the Exploratorium are examples of new
references to creation based on the principles of the Web.
A significant aspect in the case of Exploratorium is that the constitution of the idea of
the museum is both physical and virtual. This way of conceiving a museum in the virtual
environment inserts the Exploratorium not only in the Palace of Fine Arts in San Francisco
but also represents it in a way that allows interactions from visitors at any place and at
any moment. What can be seen is that, although the conception of the museum results
from the combination of physical and virtual spaces, there is not an actual integration
between both domains because what the online visitors experience is not integrated and
do not interact with visitors in the physical space. Exploratorium is still a model that splits
and makes distinction between the experiences in both domains; and because of this,
does not fully explore the virtual space as a possibility to enhance the cognitive
experience in the broad sense, that is to say: as a possibility of transformation and
reorganization of experiences outside the established borders (virtual and concrete). The
environment hasn’t been conceived as a living system in constant transformation and
in interaction with different dimensions of space, as we propose in a previous section.
Despite the implementation of many interactive strategies found in the site the interaction
between subject and environment is not taken as a fundamental element to the configu-
ration of these spaces: yet the conception of the interface is on dependence of a
predefined structure by the designer. The influence exerted by the interfaces on the levels
of interaction established by these spaces with their users is limited both by the
technology and the concept of design used.
An example that brings light to this distinction and the determined limits between virtual
space and concrete space in design is the Web site Tactile Dome, an exposition only
configured at the museum’s concrete space that says: “Discover the unseen world of the
Figure 9. Configuration of a Web site from concrete space alone: Tactile Dome
Tactile Dome — an interactive excursion through total darkness, where your sense of
touch becomes your only guide!” (Figure 9).
This saying expresses the up to now dominant concept when designing interfaces
(realized spaces): the lack of a more enlarged exploration of the virtual space merely
understood as an extension of the concrete world. In the information society scenario
instead, they might be thought as a single entity providing a new spatial domain where
experiences can be explored.
Interfaces: Possible Spaces

What are here called possible spaces are resources that are technically and conceptually
already feasible to implement. Examples of such resources are the immersive environ-
ments created by virtual reality, where the resources created building the interface are
enhanced beyond the visual experience. These immersive environments thus allow the
experience of our “Id” in a world of bits.
The widespread use of virtual reality environments offers the possibility of creating
interfaces, where new means of experiencing open up with the use of technological
devices. We define this alternative as a “possibility,” not for technical reasons, because
these are mostly solved, but for financial reasons, as technology still imposes high
development costs. In the near future this aspect will probably be resolved and we will
be able to augment our experiencing in the virtual plane.
Another example of what can be considered as a possible resource to be implemented in
instructional interfaces is the insertion of agents that represent the users’ interactions.
The idea behind these agents is for them to work as a motivational resource for the users
of environments that can now be called interactive, environments that besides exploring
and facilitating interactions also incorporate a type of avatar that becomes an extension
of the person interacting with cyberspace. Every action or, rather every interaction of the
subject in the environment will cause an action on his/her self, represented in cyberspace.
It is thus possible to explore such a resource as a mechanism that is both creative and
alternative, that together with other resources allows an evaluation of both the interface’s
impact on the user and the use of the interface as a motivational element.
Interfaces: Imagined Spaces

At this stage of complexity — that of imagined resources to be incorporated into the
creation of interfaces — we are referring to possibilities still at the stage of technological
and/or conceptual development: that is, resources still under scientific research. One
example would be the possibility of interfaces that adapt to the cognitive capacities of
the user. We are of the opinion that in order to foresee the conceptual and technological
implementation of this resource, one has to study and understand the brain’s mecha-
nisms for cognitive processing.
An aspect that will therefore probably open up future possibilities for the development
of a new model for virtual interfaces is the use of neuroscience and cognitive science
theory. We strongly believe that these fields of knowledge are the key to answers that
will allow us to develop adaptive interfaces that take into account the user’s profile.
These fields of knowledge have had an ever growing presence in the techno-scientific
and artistic circles, as neuroscience focuses on themes such as learning, perception,
language, information processing, as well as philosophical implications, such as inves-
tigating how the visual system acquires knowledge from the outside world through the
brain.
Recent technological advances allow us to see the human brain at work and conse-
quently, reopen the discussion on many cerebral mechanisms, some of them only at an
early stage of understanding, such as consciousness, semantic processing and percep-
tion itself. In this sense, both the tools, as well as the concepts originating in neuro-
science are in the spotlight, moving between different fields of knowledge and serving
as a basis for an attempt at capturing each person’s individuality. In spite of being only
recent, and still at the development stage, these concepts have helped us understand the
cognitive mechanisms and strategies that are sure to be implemented in the next phase
of the digital revolution of man-machine interfaces.
Final Comments
It is important to consider interfaces that are increasingly adaptable personalized,
responding to the interactions of each user. These interfaces should not be considered
as finished projects, but as open doors to a dialog between users and intelligent systems
that transform themselves and are configured according to the actions of each specific
user. Moreover, it is important to create environments that are so adaptable that the
presentation of contents, the language and the type of media (text, image, animation and
video) are subservient to the individual learning style of each user.
As a consequence, there is an ever-growing latent need for an inter-relation between
different fields of knowledge, such as neuroscience, arts, and computer science to
produce environments with interactive characteristics closer to the user’s natural way
of relating - a creation of environments that we call “interactionist” because they enable
the user to experience and perceive him/herself in relation to his/her interactions with and
in the environment.
References
Ascott, R. (1994). The architecture of cyberception. Retrieved March 31, 2004, from
http://www.eff.org/Net_culture/Cyborg_anthropology/cyberception.paper
Benedikt, M. (1991). Cyberspace: First steps. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bergson, H. (2001). A evolução criadora. Lisboa: Edições 70.
Castells, M. (2000). A sociedade em rede. A era da informação: economia, sociedade
e cultura. (Vol. 1). São Paulo: Paz e Terra, 3ª edição.
Deleuze, G. (1988). Bergsonism. New York: Zone Books.
Furness, T.A. (2001). Towards tightly coupled human interfaces. In R.A. Earnshaw, R.
Guedj, A. van Dam & J. Vince (Eds.), Frontiers of human-centred computing:
Online communities and virtual environments. London: Springer-Verlag.
Galofaro, L.A. (1999). Digital Eisenman. An office of the electronic era. Basel: Birkhäuser.
Gibson, W. (2003). Neuromancer. São Paulo: Aleph.
Goodbrand, A. (1997). The art of thinking. SENG693. Trends in software engineering.
Retrieved March 31, 2004, from http://sern.ucalgary.ca/courses/seng/693/W98/
alang/minor.html
Lévy, P. (1998). Becoming virtual: Reality in the digital age. New York: Plenum Press.
Merleau-Ponty, M. (1962). Phenomenology of perception. London: Routledge.
Mitchell, W. (1995). City of bits: Space, place, and the Infobahn. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Prado Jr., B. (1999). A filosofia seminal de Bergson. Retrieved March 31, 2004, from http:/
/members.xoom.virgilio.it/odialetico/filosofia/Bergonseminalhtm
Serres, M. (1998). Atlas. Lisboa: Ed. Instituto Piaget.
Winograd, T. (1995). Environments for software designing. Communications of the
ACM, 38(6), 65-74.
Endnotes
1
Dans le premier cas, mon corps et les choses, leurs relations concretes selon le haut
et le bas, la droite et le gauche, le proche et le lointain peuvent m’apparaître comme
une multiplicité irréductibile, dans le second cas je découvre une capacité unique
et indivisible de décrire l’espace.
2
La division se fait entre la durée, qui tend pour son compte à assumer ou porter
toutes les differences de nature (puisqu’elle est dovée du pouvoir de varier
qualitativement avec soi), et l’espace qui ne présente jamais que des differences
de degré (puisqu’il est homogénéité quantitative).
3
faut comprendre le temps comme sujet et le sujet comme temps.
4
qu‘il n‘a de sens pour nous que parce que nous « les sommes.
5
Ce qui importe pour l’orientation du spectacle, ce n’est pás mon corps tel qu’il est
en fait, comme chose dans l’espace objectif, mais non corps comme système
d’actions possibles, un corps virtuel don’t le lieu phenomenal este défini par sa
tâche et par sa situation. Mon corps est là où il a quelque chose à faire.
6
Non plus comme objet du monde, mais comme moyen de notre communication avec
lui.
Les corps chez le sujet normal n’est pas seulement mobilisable par les situatiòns
réelles qui l’attirent à elles, il peut se détourner du monde, appiquer son activité aux
stimuli qui s’s inscrivent sur ses surfaces sensorielles, se prêter à des experiénces,
et plus généralement se situer dan le virtuel.
7
http://www.npt.umc.br/frameofmind, retrieved March 31, 2004
8
http://www.mamutemidia.com.br/alua/, retrieved March 31, 2004
9
http://www.exploratorium.edu, retrieved September 15, 2004.
272 Filippini-Fantoni, Bowen and Numerico
Chapter XIII
Personalization Issues
for Science Museum
Web Sites and
E-Learning
Silvia Filippini-Fantoni, The University of Paris I Sorbonne University, France
Teresa Numerico, London South Bank University, UK
Abstract
E-learning has the potential to be a very personalized experience and can be tailored
to the individual involved. So far, science museums have yet to tap into this potential
to any great extent, partly due to the relative newness of the technology involved and
partly due to the expense. This chapter covers some of the speculative efforts that may
improve the situation for the future, including the SAGRES project and the Ingenious
Web site, among other examples. It is hoped that this will be helpful to science museums
and centers that are considering the addition of personalization features to their own
Web site. Currently, Web site personalization should be used with caution, but larger
organizations should be considering the potential if they have not already started to
do so.
Personalization Issues for Science Museum Web Sites and E-Learning 273
Background
In the past few years, the number of people visiting museums’ Web sites has gone up
rapidly. As a consequence, museums have to face the significant challenge of creating
virtual environments that are progressively more adapted towards the different needs,
interests and expectations of their heterogeneous users. Increasingly, museums and
science centers are using their Web sites to augment their learning facilities in potentially
innovative ways (Tan et al., 2003). In particular, museums need to provide for differing
online requirements such as teaching, e-learning and research (Hamma, 2004). One of the
solutions available to help is the introduction of personalization techniques (Dolog &
Sintek, 2004) that, by providing differentiated access to information and services
according to the user’s profile, make facilities and applications more relevant and useful
for individual users, thus improving the overall visitor’s experience. Science museums,
by their very technological nature, ought to be at the vanguard of applying new
techniques like personalization.
Developed in the early 1990s in an attempt to try to respond to the different needs and
characteristics of an ever-growing number of Internet users, personalized or adaptive
Web systems have since been exploited in different sectors such as commerce, tourism,
education, finance, culture and health. What distinguishes these systems from the
traditional static Web is the creation of a user model that represents the characteristics
of the user, utilizing them in the creation of content and presentations adapted to different
individuals (Brusilovsky & Maybury, 2002). By so doing, personalization becomes a
useful tool in the selection and filtering of information for the user, facilitating navigation
and increasing the speed of access as well as the likelihood that the user’s search is
successful.
The techniques available to collect information about users, as well as the methods used
to process such information to create user profiles and to provide adapted information,
are varied. A brief description of the different approaches will be presented here before
moving on to illustrate different application examples within the science museum world.
Personalization Techniques
A first important distinction concerning the amount of control the user has on the
adaptation process can be made between customization and personalization.
Customization or adaptability occurs when “the user can configure an interface and
create a profile manually, adding and removing elements in the profile” (Bonnet, 2002).
The control of the look and/or content of the site are explicit and user-driven; that is, the
user is involved actively in the process and has direct control. In personalization or
adaptivity, on the other hand, the user is seen as being passive, or at least somewhat
less in control (Bonnet, 2002). Modifications concerning the content or even the
structure of a Web site are performed automatically by the system based on information
concerning the user stored in the so-called user profile. Such information about the user
is provided either explicitly, by the user themselves, using online registration forms,
questionnaires and reviewing (static profiles) or implicitly by recording the navigational
behavior and/or preferences of each user through dynamic profiling Web technologies
such as cookies1 and Web server log files2 (Eirinaki & Vazirgiannis, 2003).
Once the data concerning the users is collected either implicitly or explicitly, or even in
both ways, as is often the case, appropriate information that matches the users’ need is
determined and delivered. This process usually follows one or more of the following
techniques: content-based filtering, collaborative filtering, rule-based filtering and Web
usage mining.
Content-based systems track user behavior and preferences, recommending items that
are similar to those that users liked in the past (Eirinaki & Vazirgiannis, 2003). Collabo-
rative filtering compares a user’s tastes with those of others in order to develop a picture
of like-minded people. The choice of material is then based on the assumption that this
particular user will value information that like-minded people also enjoyed (Bonnet,
2002). The user’s tastes are either inferred from their previous actions or else measured
directly by asking the user to rate products. Another common technique is rule-based
filtering, which allows Web site administrators to specify rules based on static or
dynamic profiles that are then used to affect the information served to a particular user
(Mobascher et al., 2000).
Last but not least, there is Web usage mining, which relies on the application of statistical
and data-mining methods based on the Web server log data, resulting in a set of useful
patterns that indicate users’ navigational behaviors. The patterns discovered are then
used to provide personalized information to users based on their navigational activity
(Eirinaki & Vazirgiannis, 2003).
The information provided to the user through any of the above techniques can be
adapted at three different levels: content, navigation and presentation (Brusilowsky &
Nejdl, 2004). Adaptive content selection is based mostly on adaptive information
retrieval techniques: “when the user searches for relevant information the system can
adaptively select and prioritize the most relevant items” (Brusilowsky & Nejdl, 2004). By
doing so, the user can obtain results that are more suitable for their knowledge
capabilities. Adaptive navigation support is founded mainly on browsing-based access
to information: “when the user navigates from one item to the other the system can
manipulate the links to guide the user adaptively to most relevant information items”
(Brusilowsky & Nejdl, 2004).
Finally, adaptive presentation is based on adaptive explanation and adaptive presence,
which were largely developed in the context of intelligent systems: “when the user gets
to a particular page the system can present its content adaptively” (Brusilowsky & Nejdl,
2004). The possibilities of content and presentation adaptability are a relevant element
in the reuse of the same resources for different purpose, provided they have been
correctly customized in advance. Considering the high cost of personalization, adapt-
ability of resources can also offer an interesting byproduct in term of reuse of the same
resources in different contexts, provided that their description is correctly defined
through standard metadata applications to allow interoperability of the same service in
different environments.
From the perspective of different platform services, adaptability becomes a strategic

issue. It could be decided to personalize content for the relatively small screen of mobile
devices, for example. Moreover, whereas personalization and adaptability on the Web
is based only on the user, in the case of mobile support there is also the need for
adaptation with regard to the user’s environment (Brusilowsky & Nejdl, 2004).
In a museum visit, taking into account the environment where the service will be used
can make a notable difference to the experience. For example, an explanation of the items
kept in a single room of the exhibition can be offered while the visitor is in that room. There
are some projects exploring these opportunities with special regard to mobile devices
used by museum learning services (Oppermann & Specht, 1999).
Why Use Personalization in Museums?

Even if some of the techniques described in the previous section, especially the more
sophisticated ones, are employed mainly on commercial Web sites, such as Amazon.com,
etc., there is already some awareness of the need for their use in cultural institutions,
museums, science centers, etc. Personalized access to collections, alerts, agendas, tour
proposals and audio guides are just a few examples of the different applications that have
recently been developed by museums all over the world (Bowen & Filippini-Fantoni,
2004). The reasons for such an affirmation are numerous, as personalization can help
museums respond to various and different needs.
First of all, personalization has the advantage of improving the usability of a Web site
by facilitating its navigation and aiding people in finding the desired information. With
some knowledge about the user, the system can give specific guidance in its navigation,
limiting the visitation space appropriately. The system can supply, or even just suggest,
the most important links or content that could be relevant for the user, something that
can help prevent them from becoming lost in a Web site’s potentially intricate hyper-
space.
Accessibility for the disabled (Bowen, 2004), a specific aspect of usability that concen-
trates in widening the number of users, can gain from personalization techniques. The
ability to select the text foreground or background color, size and font, can make
interfaces more easily readable for the partially sighted. A text only view of a Web site
may be easier for such users and also those who are completely blind. For example, the
London Science Museum has an option from the home page for a text only version of the
Web site (www.sciencemuseum.org.uk). The basic content is the same, but the presen-
tation is different. Legislation in the UK, for example, now ensures that learning materials
for students in educational establishments, including those provided by university
science museums, must be covered by an accessibility strategy (HMSO, 2001).
Personalized systems help to recreate the human element that listens to the visitor with
understanding by offering an individual touch; this is another important factor that
contributes to the success of Web personalization in museums. It is a particularly
important element, especially for audio guides, which must offer a certain level of
flexibility in order to adapt the contents to the needs and interests of the users, just like
a real museum guide would do. It also helps online, making the visitors feel comfortable
and oriented in the virtual space, through virtual avatars for example. Studies indicate
that the “social metaphor represented through the presence of personalized animated
characters (similar to real life people) can reduce anxiety associated with the use of
computers” (Bertoletti et al., 2001).
Personalization could also be a useful tool in the creation and development of online
communities for museums (Beler et al., 2004). In fact, thanks to personalized applications
such as alerts, thematic newsletters, customizable calendars and recommendation
systems3 providing tailored content to people with specific interests, museums can
identify homogeneous communities of users with the same concerns and needs. Once
these different online communities have been identified, it is in the museum’s interest to
foster them by developing tools and services that aid them in their functioning, especially
by stimulating communication. This is when personalization can assist once again. In
particular, online forums (Bowen et al., 2003) can benefit from the introduction of
personalizing features such as notification of debates or issues that might be of interest
to the user, information about other users with interests on specified topics (facilitating
the networking between community users), personalized news generation based on
personal interests, etc. These kinds of personalized services can increase the value of
the underlying museum’s “e-community” beyond a social networking environment: “the
website becomes an attractive permanent home base for the individual rather than a
detached place to go online to socialize or network, thus strengthening the relation
between the user and the institution” (Case et al., 2003).
By providing targeted information to users with different profiles and interests, person-
alized systems are much more likely to satisfy the visitor, who, as a consequence, is
stimulated to come back and reuse the system or to encourage other people to try it as
well. This is why personalization is also a fundamental marketing tool for the develop-
ment of visitor fidelity, as well as new audiences.
Personalization and Learning
Besides helping museums to respond to their usability, marketing and accessibility

needs, personalization has much potential when it comes to stimulating learning, as
underlined by Brusilovsky (1994) who, early in the development of the Web, pointed out
how personalization techniques could be an important form of support in education. The
reasons for this are varied. First of all, visitor studies seem to confirm that learning is
encouraged when the information provided is described in terms that the visitor can
understand. Using different terms and concepts, that take into consideration the level
of knowledge, age, education of the user, etc., can therefore improve the overall didactic
experience. This is precisely what happens with personalized applications where the
information delivered to the visitors often changes according to whether they are a child,
an adult, a neophyte or an expert.
Research also indicates that learning is facilitated when the information provided makes
reference to visitors’ “previous knowledge”; that is to say, to what people already know
or to concepts already encountered during navigation or exploration (Falk & Dierking,
1992). This suggests that museums should focus on how to activate visitors’ prior
knowledge if possible. One of the means at their disposal is personalization, which could
open new and effective means for long-term learning by providing adaptive descriptions
of artifacts based on objects or concepts that the visitor has already visited or explored.
This is, for example, the case in projects like ILEX, Hyperaudio, HIPS and the Marble
Museum’s Virtual Guide — see Filippini-Fantoni (2003) for descriptions — that, through
dynamically generated text, provide personalized information taking into consideration
the user’s history. The description of the object being viewed or selected can make use
of comparisons and contrasts to previously viewed objects or concepts. By providing
such coherent and contextualized information, modeled on the user interaction with the
exhibition space as well as with the system itself, such applications have enormous
potential from the learning point of view.
Another mechanism that can be used to justify the use of personalization to stimulate
learning is “subsequent experience” (Falk & Dierking, 1992). A number of researchers
have hypothesized that repetition is the major mechanism for retaining memories over a
long period of time (Brown & Kulick, 1997). This is why, by allowing the visitor to
bookmark objects or concepts of interest during their navigation in the virtual or real
environment and to explore them more in detail subsequently (see later for further
information), personalization can make it possible to further deepen and continue the
learning process from home by creating continuity between the visit and post-visit
experiences.
Last but not least, learning is stimulated when a person can pursue their individual
interests. Researchers distinguish between “situational interest” and “individual inter-
est,” the first being defined as “the stimulus that occurs when one encounters tasks or
environments with a certain degree of uncertainty, challenge or novelty” (Csikszentmihalyi
& Hermanson, 1995). This is, for example, the case for museums where the presence of
incentives like surprise, complexity and ambiguity lead to motivational states that result
in curiosity and exploratory behavior (Csikszentmihalyi & Hermanson, 1995).
However this is not enough to guarantee that the visitor is actually stimulated to learn.
In order for this to happen, museums have to attempt to respond to their visitors’
“individual interests,” that is “their preference for certain topics, subject areas or
activities” (Hidi, 1990), as the pursuit of individual interests is usually associated with
increased knowledge, positive emotions and the intrinsic desire to learn more. Person-
alizing an educational activity in terms of themes, objects or characters of high prior
interest to students should therefore enhance the overall learning experience. Take, for
example, those personalized applications (see later for details) that provide tailor-made
visitor plans with consideration of the individual interests of a single visitor or a group
of visitors. By suggesting artifacts relating to the visitor’s individual curiosity, the visit
is more likely to result in fruitful learning activity.
In conclusion, by providing information at the right level of detail, stimulating subse-
quent experiences and taking into consideration individual interests as well as prior
knowledge, personalization represents an excellent tool for all those educators wishing
to stimulate and facilitate learning. This is why personalization techniques are often
exploited in the creation of formal e-learning applications such as long-distance courses
that are able to adapt to the student’s level of knowledge, cognitive preferences and
interests, etc. For example, see the AHA Project on Adaptive Hypermedia for All
[aha.win.tue.nl] at the Technical University of Eindhoven, The Netherlands, and the

European IST ELENA Project on Enhanced Learning for Evolutive Neural Architec-
tures [www.elena-project.org].
However, personalization can be also applied to more informal e-learning solutions like
the ones that are often available on museums’ Web sites or interactive devices, which,
although not being actual lessons, represent very useful educational experiences that
contribute to increasing the visitor’s knowledge and understanding about a specific
issue. 4
Web Personalization for

Science Museums
Until now, we have discussed more general issues concerning the use of personalization
techniques in museums, focusing in particular on its potential to stimulate and facilitate
the learning experience. In this section we consider some examples of how science
museums in particular are applying these principles online. In fact, even if science
museums are not the only cultural institutions to have experimented with personalization
both online and on-site in the past few years — for a more general description of
personalized applications in museums see Bowen and Filippini-Fantoni (2004) — they are
among the ones that have expressed the strongest interest in these techniques. This is
because science museums and science centers, whose exhibits are designed to promote
playful exploration and discovery of scientific phenomena, have always been relatively
aggressive adopters of information technology and innovative approaches; as a conse-
quence, they have also been more eager to experiment with personalization.
Some museums have been focusing more on the usability and marketing aspects of
personalization privileging applications such as personalized agendas, alerts and news-
letters, which, although having an intrinsic pedagogical value, seem to focus more on
promotion. However, science museums have been among the first to understand the real
value of personalization as a learning tool, concentrating particularly on stimulating
“subsequent experience,” “previous knowledge,” and “individual interest” in such a
way as to explicitly encourage the continuity between the pre-visit, visit and post-visit
experiences.
The first examples of Web personalization in a museum context were developed in the
late 1990s in strict relation with the affirmation of academic research on adaptive
hypermedia. Among them (Bowen & Filippini-Fantoni, 2004) was the SAGRES system
(sagres.mct.purcs.br), developed in 1999 by the Museum of Sciences and Technology
of PUCRS (MCT), Porto Alegre, Brazil.
The SAGRES system (Bertoletti, 1999; Moraes, 1999) is an educational environment that
presents the museum’s content adapted to the user’s characteristics (capacities and
preferences). Based on information provided directly by the user or by the teacher (for
students), the system determines the group of links appropriate to the user(s) and
presents them in a personalized Web page.
The principle behind the project was an attempt to overcome the limitations implicit in
the one fits all approach and to take the user’s individual interests as well as their level
of knowledge into consideration when delivering information, with the aim of improving
the overall learning experience. This is possible through an adaptation process that first
generates a user model, based on information provided by the user5. Once these data
about the user have been collected, the adaptation process can select different types of
documents conforming to the visitor’s model. This results in a dynamically generated
HTML page with links pointing to personalized information: the page is created dynami-
cally during the interaction of the user with the system and presents links to the
documents, as well as connections to the communication mural (where users can interact
with each other), to the document edition, and to the activities the user should perform
(in the case of a group visit).
As well as being designed for individual users, the system is particularly meant for use
in an educational setting. Through SAGRES, teachers are given the opportunity to define
and register their students’ profiles, to accompany them and to evaluate their perfor-
mance during the visit, using reports delivered by the system. At the same time, students
are allowed to interchange ideas with colleagues in their groups and to work on the
activities and subjects determined by the teacher.
Figure 1. The architecture of the SAGRES system
Personalized Virtual Web Spaces

The main aim of the SAGRES project was to facilitate learning through the provision of
information adapted to the level of knowledge and interest of the user. Since then, other
methods have been adopted to guarantee a similar outcome. Various science museums,
for example, provide users with tools that allow them to save images, articles, links, search
results, forum discussion topics, as well as other types of information during navigation
of the Web site. By doing so, the user creates a personal environment within the
museum’s Web site, where they can return, find specific information of interest, and to
which new items can be continuously added. This environment can be further equipped
with other personalized services such as individual agendas or the ability to send
personal e-cards.
Once the page has been created, visitors can log in every time they access the Web site
to find all the information they need. By doing so, the user has the chance not only to
find information of interest more easily, but also and especially to strengthen the learning
process through reuse and repetition. The learning value of these applications for certain
categories of users such as students and teachers is even greater. The personal space
can offer teachers the possibility of suggesting of exhibits for their students to visit and
questions that they would like the students to answer during the exploration. In
response, the students can save links to the exhibits that most interest them, as well as
making short notes both about questions they had at the beginning and about new
questions that arise during the exploration.
One of the most interesting examples of this type of application is provided by the
Ingenious project, undertaken by the National Museum of Science and Industry group
in the United Kingdom and funded by the UK New Opportunities Fund (NOF)
(www.nmsi.ac.uk/nmsipages/nofdigitise.asp). This project, online from mid-2004, aims
at creating a learning environment for the public from the digitized collections of the
Science Museum (London), the National Railway Museum (York) and the National
Museum of Photography, Film and Television (Bradford) in the UK. Users of the
Ingenious Web site (www.ingenious.org.uk) can explore and discover the rich collec-
tions of these museums through 50 narrative topics and over 30,000 images and other
content-rich resources, such as library and object records. In addition visitors are
provided with tools for entering a topical debate and personalizing their experience in the
so called “CREATE” area, where registered users can save images and/or links from the
Figure 2. Ingenious home page
Figure 3. Ingenious electronic cards Figure 4. Ingenious selected hyperlinks
Figure 5. Ingenious saved images
debate areas, read sections and search queries. The users can also send personalized e-
cards of images by e-mail and create a personal Web gallery from their bookmarked
images, including the ability to incorporate personal comments that can be e-mailed to
friends and colleagues.
Figure 2 shows a general shot of the Ingenious home page. The facilities include “My
E-cards” to sent electronic cards (Figure 3), selected hyperlinks (Figure 4), saved images
(Figure 5) and Web galleries (Figure 6).
Even if in the wider picture for Ingenious users, the umbrella group is lifelong learners,
the application can be particularly suitable for older age school children, teachers, and
researchers who could first explore a topic in the “read” or “see” sections of the site, then
use the “save image” and e-card features and gradually progress to Web gallery tools
for creating a personal resource. The Web gallery outcome would be used for a project,
research, shared among a group of subject enthusiasts or a class (for instance).
Community building could follow from this, through the usage of the debate features
available on the site.
Figure 6. Ingenious Web galleries
The Post-Visit Experience

In some cases, personal virtual spaces can also include information about a visitor’s
actual visit to museums, thus creating a direct link between the visit and the post-visit
experience. Personalization is an effective tool for stimulating visitors at home to follow
up on what caught their attention during the exhibition through a museum’s Web site.
For example, the London Science Museum’s “In touch” project allows a record of a
visitor’s interaction with various exhibits in the Wellcome Wing including an eye scan,
voice, face and fingerprint recognition, photo editing, etc., to be recorded using their
fingerprint as an identifier, thus avoiding the need for any physical ticket
(www.sciencemuseumintouch.org.uk). The results are made available as part of a per-
sonal space within the museum’s Web site that can be accessed via the visitor’s first
name and birth date.
Figure 7. “In touch” exhibition screen shots
Figure 8. “In touch” Web pages
Since 2000, when the project was originally implemented, Joe Cutting of the Science
Museum reports that (as of January 2004) more than 400,000 Web pages have been
created, of which around 8% have been accessed at least once. In order to simplify the
system, reduce the operational problems that derive from such a large database, and
increase the percentage of visitors using it, the museum has decided to replace the
fingerprint method (which is not completely reliable in practice) by “an email it to me”
option by the end of 2004. Every time a person wants to save one of the interactions, an
e-mail address will have to be provided. By doing so, there will be no more automatically
generated personal pages for the visitors. However, the museum is considering the
inclusion of a link in the e-mail that would allow the visitors to set up a personal page
if they wish. In this way only those who are really interested will set up a page and the
museum will not have to maintain a huge and largely unused database. Figure 7 shows
two screenshots from the exhibition itself and Figure 8 shows example pages from the
associated Web site.
In a similar manner, the Visite Plus service offered by the Cité des Sciences et de
l’Industrie (www.cite-sciences.fr) in Paris, which has been used on a number of succes-
sive temporary exhibitions, “Le Cerveau Intime,” “Le Canada Vraiment,” and “Opération
Carbone,” allows the visitor to configure a personal profile (with information on
preferred language, disabilities, etc.) on an interactive kiosk placed at the beginning of
the exhibition through a special bar-coded ticket or on a PDA (Personal Digital Assis-
tant). This data can then be used to access adapted information from the different
interactive devices and to play various games and quizzes in the exhibitions. The results
of such interaction, as well as the path followed by the visitor, are automatically saved
by the Visite Plus system on a personal Web page, accessible on the museum’s Web site
after the visit through the number of the bar-coded ticket or PDA. In this way, the visitors
are able to analyze in more depth the subjects that particularly interested them during the
Figure 9. Visite Plus personalized Web site
exhibition (through the provision of additional information) and to compare results of

their interactions with those of other visitors.
The fact that an important part of the content concerning the exhibition is accessible after
the actual visit, at home or in another context, allows the visitor to focus more on
experimentation and discovery while in the museum and to leave the more traditional
didactic aspects for later. The Visite Plus system also offers the possibility of subscrib-
ing to a personalized periodical newsletter that focuses on a series of themes selected
by the visitor at the moment of the registration. Options include selecting from a list of
available subjects or receiving a complete dossier of the exhibition. See Figure 9 for an
example of the view of the exhibit from the personalized Web site. Each square corre-
sponds to a content area in the exhibition. The squares that are in full color represent the
ones that have been accessed during the visit to the exhibition while the white ones
correspond to the ones that have not been visited.
Similar concepts have been introduced and tested in the framework of the Electronic
Guidebook Research Project (www.exploratorium.edu/guidebook), which began in 1998
at the San Francisco Exploratorium in California, in partnership with Hewlett-Packard
Laboratories and the Concord Consortium. This is aimed at developing a roving resource
to enhance a visitor’s experience at the museum (Hsi, 2003). In particular, the purpose
of the project is to investigate how a mobile computing infrastructure enables museum
visitors to create their own “guide” to the Exploratorium, using a personalized interactive
system. This helps in better planning of their visit, getting the most out of it while they
are in the museum and enabling reference back to it once they have returned to their home
or classroom. The guidebook allows users to construct a record of their visit by
bookmarking exhibit content, taking digital pictures from a camera near the exhibit, and
accessing this information later on a personal “MyExploratorium” Web page in the
museum or after their visit (Figure 10).
The project was designed as a proof of concept study to explore potential avenues for
future research and development and therefore was not envisioned to support the
implementation of a fully functional system. Nevertheless, the tests that have been run
so far revealed interesting conclusions. Above all, the visitors liked the idea of being able
Figure 10. MyExploratorium set-up
802.11 Internet
Camera
RFID Beacon Content

Server
URL over infrared
MyExploratorium
ÒPi-stationÓ Exhibit
to bookmark information for later reference. Both teachers and pupils thought this feature
would allow the children to play more during their museum visit, completing related
homework assignments after the visit (Semper & Spasojevic, 2002).
The Pre-Visit Experience

The link between visit and post-visit experience can be also extended to the pre-visit
phase through the implementation of systems that allow visitors to create personalized
tours based on their interests and needs. Most museum visitors, even those who have
not visited before, arrive with expectations about what will happen during the visit. Such
hopes might concern specific subjects of interest that the person wants to explore, the
physical characteristics of the museum, the types of activities that can be undertaken or
the social context in which the exploration takes place (alone, as a family, within a larger
organized group, etc.). All these factors merge to create a visitor’s personal agenda (Falk
& Dierking, 1992). The success of the museum experience is partially defined by how well
it corresponds to the visitor’s personal agenda.
Personalization is a useful tool to create such a correlation because it helps a visitor to
find out what, within the museum, could fit better with their personal agenda or
correspond more to their expectations. This can be done either from home on the
museum’s Web site or directly onsite through interactive devices available in the
museum. Upon completing a profile, where the intending visitor must indicate different
types of information such as how and when they are tentatively planning to visit, with
whom, how long they plan to stay, what sort of interest(s) they have and which language
they understand, the system will be able to provide a personalized plan for the visit that
takes the submitted information into consideration. Personalized museum plans can be
very useful, especially for large museums where visitors are likely to be overwhelmed by
the number of objects or exhibits available for viewing during a single visit. In such a
context, visitors are often disoriented and find it difficult to decide what they want to see
or do. Answering a few very simple questions, or defining a few criteria, can help them
to overcome these limitations, enjoy the visit more fully and learn more easily.
A number of museums are working on developing online and onsite applications based
on these principles. The National Museum of Ethnology in Leiden, the Netherlands
(www.rmv.nl), for example, has developed an onsite facility called “The tour of the world
in 80 questions” that allows children aged 7 to 13 to print out a personalized tour plan
of the museum based on an individual choice of subjects and continents. The tour plan,
which is colorful and easy to understand for children, includes a series of maps that help
locate the objects, a brief description of the artifacts and a list of questions related to the
subjects chosen, which the young visitors need to answer during their museum explo-
ration.
The Cité des Sciences et de L’Industrie in Paris is undertaking a project called
“Navigateur” (Navigator), which will allow visitors to create a personalized tour based
on an individual choice amid a set of criteria which include the context of the visit (alone,
family, group), the language spoken, the particular interests, the time available and the
type of experience desired. Once the visitor has set the criteria that are most relevant for
them and has checked the offerings on the museum interactive plan, the personalized
proposal can be saved on the museum bar-coded ticket, which will be used during the
actual visit, when using different interactive devices throughout the museum, to obtain
further assistance in finding the recommended exhibits or to reset the criteria based on
new interests that might have arisen during exploration. The system will be linked directly
with Visit Plus, thus creating continuity between the pre-visit, actual visit and post-visit
experience, through the use of personalization.
Conclusion
The examples provided here from different science museums all over the world help to
prove the potential role that personalization could play in strengthening the overall
learning process before, during and after the actual visit, in advance through activities
that orient visitors and afterwards through opportunities to continue reflection and
explore related ideas. However, despite the obvious potential benefits that these
applications can bring to the visitor’s experiences, there is still very little evidence that
these systems work in the terms envisaged by their promoters, especially with respect
to learning. This is because, due to their relatively recent nature, most of these projects
have not yet been subjected to thorough evaluations that focus on establishing, among
other things, the long-lasting effects of personalization on the learning process. Until
now, the very few evaluations that have been carried out have focused mainly on whether
people use the systems or not, why they do so, where they encounter most difficulties
and on their usability in general. Despite the fact that further studies are needed in order
to shed light on the effectiveness of personalization as a pedagogical tool, the first
evaluations of these early examples, as well as other similar projects, have given initial
help in indicating various pros and cons related to their use.
The overall feedback concerning the introduction of personalizing applications to audio

guides and virtual environments seems to be reasonably positive: visitors are spending
more time in the virtual and real museum, they access information at the level of detail
desired and appreciate the idea of being able to bookmark information for reference later
(Semper & Spasojevic, 2002). In particular, a study by Cordoba and Lepper (1996) has
evaluated the consequences of personalization with respect to stimulating intrinsic
motivation and learning in a computer-based educational environment. The findings
provide strong evidence that the students for whom the learning contexts had been
personalized, through the incorporation of incidental individualized information about
their backgrounds and interests, displayed better gains in motivation, involvement and
learning than their counterparts for whom the contexts had not been personalized.
However some drawbacks have also emerged 6. First of all, there are the issues related to
the difficulty and expense of implementation and also problems in practical use by
visitors7. So far it seems that only a limited number of visitors take advantage of the
benefits available through personalization, partly because the systems are not imple-
mented in a clear and easy manner and partly because most visitors are either not ready
for technology or not willing to invest time in it. Therefore it is important to remember
that personalization should not be implemented for the sake of it but when and because
it brings added value to the museum for, if not all, a good percentage of visitors. Only
if this occurs can the costs for investment and development be justified.
Some experts have warned against the use of personalization. Nielson (1998) has argued
that personalization is over-rated, saying that good basic Web navigation is much more
important. For example, it is helpful to consider different classes of use in the main home
page, such as physical visitors, the disabled, children, teachers, researchers, groups,
etc., and to give each of these a relevant view of the resources that are available (Bowen
& Bowen, 2000). Such usability issues are certainly important, and relatively cheap to
address with good design, but even Nielson admits that there are special cases were
personalization is useful.
More recently, there have been further questions about the effectiveness of personal-
ization (Festa, 2003; McGovern, 2003), despite the enthusiasm of some. For example, the
costs may be up to four times that of a normal Web site, around a quarter of users may
actually avoid personalized Web sites due to privacy concerns and only 8% are
encouraged to revisit because of personalized facilities (Jupiter Research, 2003). This
compares with 54% who considered fast-loading pages and 52% who rate better
navigation as being important. However, other surveys indicate that personalization can
be effective, for example in the field of downloadable music (Tam & Ho, 2003).
Another issue that needs to be stressed in personalization is related to standardization
procedures and applications. This process is central both for content description and
user profile definition using metadata (Conlan et al., 2002). The description process can
however be very time-consuming and expensive, but if it is pursued properly it allows
the resources to be reused for different purposes and a visitor profile to be created using
various different sources of information following evaluation criteria. Museums are
sometimes not very quick in adopting new technologies but in some cases the slow
perspective allows them to make the most of other institutions’ initial mistakes and thus
to avoid them. Involvement with standards provides a good opportunity to share such
knowledge.
Thus it is recommended for museums to use personalization on Web sites judiciously at

the moment, although science museums with good funding may wish to be more
adventurous. There is a place for personalization in leading-edge Web sites and for
certain innovative facilities like advanced Web support for specific exhibits. It is an area
that museums should certainly consider, but the costs should be weighed against the
benefits. Of course, the costs are likely to decrease as commercial and open source
support improves in this area. At the moment, not insignificant development effort is
needed for such facilities, but in the future they could be increasingly packaged with
standard database-oriented Web support software, such as content management sys-
tems, as understanding of what is useful and not useful is gained from practical
experience. This is certainly an interesting and fast-moving area that should be monitored
by innovative science museums, especially at a national level.
References
Beler, A., Borda, A., Bowen, J. P., & Filippini-Fantoni, S. (2004). The building of online
communities: An approach for learning organizations, with a particular focus on the
museum sector. In J. Hemsley, V. Cappellini, & G. Stanke (Eds.), EVA 2004 London
Conference Proceedings (pp. 2.1-2.15). University College London, The Institute
of Archaeology, UK.
Bertoletti, A.C., & Costa, A.C.R. (1999). Sagres – A virtual museum. In D. Bearman & J.
Trant (Eds.), Proceedings of Museums and the Web 1999. Archives & Museum
Informatics. Retrieved from www.archimuse.com/mw99/papers/bertoletti/
bertoletti.html
Bertoletti, A.C. et al. (2001). Providing personal assistance in the SAGRES virtual
museum. In D. Bearman & J. Trant (Eds.), Proceedings of Museums and the Web
2001, Seattle, Washington, March 14-16. Archives & Museum Informatics. Re-
trieved from www.archimuse.com/mw2001/papers/bertoletti/bertoletti.html
Bonnet, M. (2002, June). Personalization of Web services: Opportunities and challenges.
Ariadne, (28). Retrieved from www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue28/personalization
Bowen, J.P. (2004, January). Cultural heritage online. Ability, 53, 12-14. Retrieved from
www.abilitymagazine.org.uk/features/2004/01/A53_Cover_story.pdf
Bowen, J.P., & Bowen, J.S.M. (2000). The website of the UK Museum of the Year, 1999.
In D. Bearman & J. Trant (Eds.), Proceedings of Museums and the Web 2000.
Minneapolis, Minnesota, April 16-19. Pittsburgh, PA: Archives & Museum
Informatics. Retrieved from www.archimuse.com/mw2000/papers/bowen/
bowen.html
Bowen, J.P., & Filippini-Fantoni, S. (2004). Personalization and the Web from a museum
perspective. In D. Bearman & J. Trant (Eds.), Museums and the Web 2004: Selected
Papers from an International Conference, Arlington, Virginia, March 31-April 3,
(pp. 63-78). Pittsburgh, PA: Archives & Museum Informatics. Retrieved from
www.archimuse.com/mw2004/papers/bowen/bowen.html
Bowen, J.P., Houghton, M., & Bernier, R. (2003). Online museum discussion forums;
What do we have? What do we need? In D. Bearman & J. Trant (Eds.), Proceedings
of MW2003: Museums and the Web 2003, Charlotte, North Carolina, March 19-22.
Pittsburgh, PA: Archives & Museum Informatics. Retrieved from
Brown, R., & Kulick, J. (1997). Flashbulb memories. Cognition, 5, 73-79.
Brusilovsky, P. (1994, August 17). Adaptive hypermedia: An attempt to analyse and
generalize. Workshop held in conjunction with UM’94 4th International Confer-
ence on User Modeling, Hyannis, Cape Cod, Massachusetts. Retrieved from
wwwis.win.tue.nl/ah94/Brusilovsky.html
Brusilovsky, P., & Maybury, M.T. (2002). From adaptive hypermedia to the adaptive
Web. Communications of the ACM, 45(5), 30-33. Retrieved from doi.acm.org/
10.1145/506218.506239
Brusilovsky, P., & Nejdl, W. (2004). Adaptive hypermedia and adaptive Web. In M. Singh
(Ed.), Practical handbook of Internet computing. CRC Press. Retrieved from
www.kbs.uni-hannover.de/Arbeiten/Publikationen/2003/brusilovsky-nejdl.pdf
Case, S., Thint, M., Othani, T., & Hare, S. (2003). Personalisation and Web communities.
BT Technology Journal, 21(1), 91-97.
Conlan, O., Dagger, D., & Wade, V. (2002, September). Towards a standards-based
approach to e-learning personalization using reusable learning objects. In E-Learn
2002, World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare
and Higher Education. Montreal, Canada. Retrieved from www.cs.tcd.ie/
Owen.Conlan/publications/eLearn2002_v1.24_Conlan.pdf
Cordova, D.I., & Lepper, M.R. (1996). Intrinsic motivation and the process of learning:
Beneficial effects of contextualisation, personalization and choice. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 88(4), 715-730.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Hermanson, K. (1995). Intrinsic motivation in museums: What
makes visitors want to learn? Museum News, 74(3), 34-37, 59-61.
Dolog, P., Henze, N., Nejdl, W., & Sintek, M. (2004). Personalization in distributed e-
learning environments. In Proceedings of 13th World Wide Web Conference (pp.
170-179). New York City, IW3C2/ACM. Retrieved from www2004.org/proceed-
ings/docs/2p170.pdf
Eirinaki, M., & Vazirgiannis, M. (2003). Web mining for Web personalization. ACM
Transactions on Internet Technology, 3(1), 1-27. Retrieved from doi.acm.org/
10.1145/643477.643478
Falk, L., & Dierking, L. (1992). The museum experience. Ann Arbor, MI: Whalesback
Books.
Festa, P. (2003, October 14). Report slams web personalization. CNET News.com.
Retrieved from news.com.com/2100-1038_3-5090716.html
Filippini-Fantoni, S. (2003). Museums with a personal touch. In J. Hemsley, V. Cappellini,
& G. Stanke (Eds.), EVA 2003 London Conference Proceedings, University
College London, July 22-26, (pp. 25.1-25.10) (Cf. Beler et al. ref).
Hamma, K. (2004, May). The role of museums in online teaching, learning, and research.
First Monday, 9(5). Retrieved from firstmonday.org/issues/issue9_5/hamma
Hidi, S. (1990). Interest and its contribution as a mental resource for learning. Review of
Educational Research, 60, 549-571.
HMSO. (2001). Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001. UK Government,
Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. Retrieved from www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts2001/
20010010.htm
Hsi, S. (2003). A study of user experiences mediated by nomadic web content in a museum.
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19(3), 308-319.
Jupiter Research. (2003, October 14). Beyond the personalization myth: Cost effective
alternatives to influence intent. Jupiter Media. Retrieved from http://
www.internet.com/corporate/releases/03.10.14-newjupresearch.html
McGovern, G. (2003, October 20). Why personalization hasn’t worked. New Thinking.
Retrieved from www.gerrymcgovern.com/nt/2003/nt_2003_10_20_ personal
ization.htm
Mobascher, B., Cooley, R., & Srivastava, J. (2000). Automatic personalization based on
web usage mining. Communications of the ACM, 43(8), 142-151. Retrieved from
doi.acm.org/10.1145/345124.345169
Moraes, M.C., Bertoletti, A.C., & Costa, A.C.R. (1999). The SAGRES Virtual Museum with
software agents to stimulate the visiting of museums. In P. De Bra & John J. Leggett
(Eds.), Proceedings of WebNet 99: World Conference on the WWW and Internet,
Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, October 24-30, (Vol. 1, pp. 770-775). Charlottesville, VA:
Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
Nielsen, J. (1998, October 4). Personalization is over-rated. Alertbox. Retrieved from
www.useit.com/alertbox/981004.html
Oppermann, R., & Specht, M. (1999). Adaptive information for nomadic activities a
process oriented approach. In Software Ergonomie ’99 (pp. 255-264). Walldorf,
Germany. Stuttgart: Teubner.
Semper, R., & Spasojevic, M. (2002). The electronic guidebook: Using portable devices
and a wireless Web-based network to extend the museum experience. In D. Bearman
& J. Trant (Eds.), Proceedings of Museums and the Web 2001. Boston, April 18-
20. Pittsburgh, PA: Archives & Museum Informatics. Retrieved from
www.archimuse.com/mw2002/papers/semper/semper.html
Tam, K.Y., & Ho, S.Y. (2003). Web personalization: Is it effective? IT Professional, 5(5),
53-57. Retrieved from csdl.computer.org/comp/mags/it/2003/05/f5053abs.htm
Tan, W.L.H., Subramaniam, R., & Aggarwal, A.K. (2003). Virtual science centers: A new
genre of learning in Web-based promotion of science education. In Proceedings
of the 36th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences
(HICSS’03) (Vol. 5, pp. 156-165). IEEE Computer Society.
Endnotes
1
A “cookie” is a small piece of data sent by a website and stored on the client-side
(browser) computer that can be reused later on the server-side (the Web site that
sent the cookie) as unique information concerning a user.
2
A Web server log is a record of each access to a Web server with information such
as the name of the client computer, the date/time and the resource accessed.
3
These applications are currently available on a number of different museums’ Web
sites such as the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the Whitney Museum of American
Art, etc. For a detailed description of these applications (see Bowen & Filippini-
Fantoni, 2004).
4
Please note that the distinction between formal and informal education is used
here in a rather loose sense. Usually, in the educational sector, classrooms are
considered formal learning settings, while museums are considered informal
learning settings. As an alternative, we propose here to use the term formal e-
learning tools in relation to proper courses meant for students who cannot attend
classes; while by informal e-learning tools we refer to online or onsite educational
environments.
5
Note that the acquisition of knowledge about the visitor is done in an explicit way:
information is directly extracted, through the filling of forms, with direct answers
to questionnaires. SAGRES works with two kinds of models: individual model and
group model. The group model is built by the teacher and used by students. The
teacher is responsible for the definition of the students’ characteristics, by the
definition of the group stereotype (subject, knowledge level and language of the
consultation), the activities stereotypes and the classes (name of the students
presented in the group).
6
It is not the intention of this chapter to be negative towards the use of personal-
ization techniques in museums, but to highlight constructively some of the
questions that come to light when the social uses and design problems are
considered.
7
For more detailed information on the problems related to the implementation and
use of personalization techniques see Filippini-Fantoni (2003).
292 Falco, Barbanell, Newman and Dewald
Chapter XIV
E-Learning and Virtual

Science Centers:
Designing Technology
Supported Curriculum
John Falco, Schenectady City School District, USA
Patricia Barbanell, Schenectady City School District, USA
Dianna Newman, State University of New York, USA
Suzanne Dewald, Schenectady City School District, USA
Abstract
A model for partnership with virtual science content providers creates technology-
infused science curriculum using interactive videoconferencing technologies and
supporting Web resources. The model, based on the work of Project VIEW, demonstrates
the viability of videoconferencing and the integration of interactive digital technologies
in K-12 classrooms as means to accessing unique science resources for the classroom
to engage students in dynamic, self-constructed learning. By bringing enriched
content to schools, new structures for pedagogy are emerging that motivate students
to learn more, both with and without teacher assistance, effectively promoting increased
cognitive development. The chapter offers research results confirming the progress of
the model.
E-Learning and Virtual Science Centers 293
Introduction
As science centers throughout the world enter the interactive arena of digital commu-
nications, a need has emerged to design strategies of program development that
seamlessly interface new technologies with existing missions and resources. To facilitate
this process, Project VIEW1 (Virtual Informal Education Web), a collaborative undertak-
ing led by the Schenectady City School District, has bought teachers together with major
centers of science learning to create templates for developing interactive point-to-point
videoconferences with asynchronous Web-based resources that enhance student
learning.
The integration of interactive and digital technologies into programs, delivered by
science centers to K-12 schools, requires new kinds of strategies and tools to create
science resources for classrooms to engage students in dynamic, self-constructed
learning. The development process brought to science centers by Project VIEW enables
them to design interactive, digital delivery systems of instruction that produce evidence
of higher-level student learning and academic performance. In addition, Project VIEW
provides unique resources to students who may not otherwise have access to them.
As centers of science learning increasingly employ innovative models to provide
enriched content to schools through interactive technologies, new structures for
pedagogy are emerging to motivate students to learn more, both with and without teacher
assistance. Not surprisingly, to achieve this transformation, it has been necessary to
change the construct of educational pedagogy and the structure of instructional content.
The end result of this transformation of educational delivery systems has been to
facilitate increased cognitive development among participating students.
Research Background
Underlying the work of VIEW is the premise that one of the most highly effective methods
of achieving enhanced levels of learning in the sciences among students is to conduct
educational pedagogy through interactive, digital technologies. The feasibility of this
premise is validated by the recent International ICT Literacy Panel (2002) that proposes
that, “… Because technology makes the simple tasks easier, it places a greater burden
on higher-level skills.” To attain this higher achievement, Project VIEW has created a
model of content development that employs training and collaborative design tech-
niques that use interactive videoconferencing and Web-based learning to bring together
the needs and missions of diverse yet intersecting educational delivery systems at
science centers and schools.
The theoretical ideas behind Project VIEW began in the 1980s during an era of change
in American education that began to focus on the benefits of integrating technology into
K-12 classrooms (including science classrooms). For example, Ragosta (1982) docu-
mented that, when compared to traditional classroom settings, students learned more
quickly in a Web-based environment.
Elements of the VIEW approach integrating digital resources of science centers into
K-12 education have incorporated basic knowledge gained from Forman (1982), who
recognized that use of computer integration in educational contexts increased students’
motivation to learn. The VIEW Model for E-Learning with science centers is reinforced
by fundamental understandings of how students learn through the use of technology
that were first documented in the findings of the Electronic Learning Laboratory (1982).
These authors reported that computer use (compared with traditional classroom educa-
tion) resulted in increased student attention span, higher levels of student questions in
classroom discussion; and evidence of enhanced active participation in classroom
activities.
Not surprisingly, more recent research continues to substantiate and expand these early
findings. For example, Sandholtz, Ringstaff, & Dwyer (1997) have reported that instruc-
tional technology not only improves performance on standardized tests but also
promotes collaborative, technological, and problem-solving skills.
As Project VIEW has sought to improve access to science centers and laboratories, it
has built on research-based assumptions that have foundation in the work of Mowre-
Popiel, Pollard, & Pollard (1994), who put forward the premise that use of technology
supports philosophies of instruction that perceive each student as a unique learner.
These assumptions have led to emergence of a student-centered pedagogy parallel to
that supported in science education in which technology aids in the transformation of
classrooms into student-centered learning settings.
The work of Schutte (1998) and Weiss (1998) also has been useful to the development
of the VIEW model. These researchers documented that a digitally based, interactive
learning environment results in “authentic” learning which includes promotion of
students’ cognitive growth, fostering of a deeper level of understanding of the informa-
tion being discussed, and providing multiple perspectives on a given subject through
the nature of the interactivity.
It also has been demonstrated that interactive, digital technologies can be used as
effective tools to infuse content-rich resources (such as those offered by science
centers) into curriculum (Schutte, 1998). As a result of digital and real-time videoconference
access to external educational resources, students gain information from outside the
classroom with the teacher acting as facilitator and science center experts serving as
mentors and information sources. Further, Gernstein (2000) found that use of
videoconferencing has results similar to those found for digital resources: students who
participate in videoconferencing are more motivated and interested in the topic at hand,
and are reported to have high levels of achievement in problem-solving and critical
thinking.
At its core, the VIEW model incorporates the expertise of both primary digital and human
resources of science centers into creation of curriculum based on the seamless integra-
tion of video programming and Web-based instructional resources in the classroom. To
accomplish this, VIEW integrates digital technologies in content delivery by combining
laboratory exploration, digital resources from Web portals, and integrated curriculum
into an expansion of traditional classrooms through interaction with real-time resources.
Essential to the development of VIEW programs are pedagogical approaches that include
challenges for student learning which are, in effect, “Mindtools,” described by Jonassen
(1996) — “… computer [i.e., technological] applications that, when used by learners to

represent what they know, necessarily engage them in critical thinking about the content
they are studying.” Thus, VIEW utilizes technology-based learning opportunities —
interactive streaming video Web resources, videoconferencing, and interactive Web
portals — that are designed to result in higher-level learning and complex critical
analysis.
More recently, Pugh (2002) studied teaching elements to document their effect on the
creation of “transformational” experiences in science learning. Pugh’s discussion of
fostering transformative experiences from “artistic crafting of content and modeling and
scaffolding of perception and value” has a resonance in the VIEW model for collaborative
content development with science centers. Further, the development of content from
concepts learned through student-center inquiry is very reminiscent of the inquiry-
based constructivist foundation of VIEW. Not surprisingly, the author’s preliminary
findings support the VIEW experience that such approaches result in higher student
learning and performance.
VIEW’s vision recognizes the critical need to prepare students with a high degree of
literacy that is essential for success in the 21st century information age. To meet this need,
the VIEW model provides a collaborative inquiry-based learning approach, using
technology-facilitated constructivist methodology with innovative educational re-
sources. The underpinning of this methodology is rooted in the work of Jonassen, Carr,
& Yueh (1998):
“When students work with computer technologies, instead of being controlled

by them, they enhance the capabilities of the computer and the computer
enhances their thinking and learning. The result … is that the whole of learning
becomes greater than the sum of its parts.”
The potential application of VIEW’s work is imbedded in a study by the U.S. Department
of Education that has reported the potential of external educational resources in the
United States — that is, 88% of museums have programs that are compatible with K-12
school curriculum (Weiss, 1998). Direct access to these external sites is often not feasible
for most schools because of distance, time and lack of finances. Silverman and Silverman
(1999) note, however, that through the use of technology, students and classrooms can
arrange virtual visits that will yield important increases in both learning and motivation.
Determining Program Content

To reach the goal of making it possible for students to attain high achievement, Project
VIEW has designed a model for program development that creates a learning community
among classroom-based teachers and science center education content providers. VIEW
partnerships aim to create innovative program delivery that brings non-traditional
resources into the science classroom via interactive Web archives and point-to-point
videoconferencing. The development process is structured to author programs that

transform the way in which content is delivered and to create expanded opportunities for
students to construct their own knowledge base. The overall projected outcome of all
projects is increased understanding of the content, resulting in higher academic perfor-
mance and greater affect toward learning.
To reach this outcome, it is necessary to engage in a series of considerations constructed
to ensure that there will be synergy among the partners both in the selection of content
and ultimately in its delivery. These underlying considerations for the selection of
content for VIEW programs include alignment of selection with multiple factors briefly
discussed below.
The Mission of the Science Institution
Program content must be aligned with the institution’s core mission. Such alignment
helps to ensure the basic institutional support necessary for growth or sustainability.
For example, when content was selected for the Buffalo Zoo program, a major consider-
ation was the Zoo’s well-respected gorilla exhibit and the Zoo’s mission to bring
understanding and appreciation of the life of gorillas and the conservation of the species.
By focusing on this aspect of the Zoo’s collection, the program was easily integrated into
the Zoo’s overall priorities. (Supporting materials for the Buffalo Zoo project are found
on the Project VIEW Web portal – http://www.projectview.org.)
The Responsibilities and Goals of the Schools
Alignment with educational content standards is essential for viability in the schools.
If a program offers substance that assists schools in meeting mandated educational
goals, and also supports and expands classroom mission and practice, administrators are
likely to be open to committing valuable resources and classroom time to the program.
Therefore, the selection of study of wetlands for VIEW development was a natural one,
since study of wetland environments and their preservation is imbedded in the NYS and
National Science Standards.
The Content Expertise of the Participating Educators
Teachers and science center professionals work most productively when they are using
their own best skills, talents and abilities. VIEW projects are structured to build upon the
expertise of the participants. Early in the development process, educators recognize that
their best contributions to the project can come through their curriculum-based content
knowledge and classroom experience. Likewise, science specialists from partner science
centers utilize their in-depth knowledge of the materials and their experience interpreting
that to a varied public. Together, the two points of view combine to create a foundation
on which dynamic student-centered learning activities can be designed.
Establishing a Foundation
Many of the multiple components of the Project VIEW development process are not linear
but rather occur in an on-demand constructivist environment, emerging both in real-time
and asynchronously, as needed. To proceed with VIEW Development, it is necessary to
establish a viable foundation on which to build a replicable project.
Capacity and Connectivity of the Science Center and/or

Participating Schools
An underlying element in developing a program foundation is assessment of the ability

among the partners to reliably deliver and/or receive programs. To ensure that the
essential technological capacities are in place, initial activities require a series of
collaborative planning sessions that are conducted to explore technological capacities
before actual program development begins. This helps to establish an infrastructure that
can support the program and allows participants to fully engage with interactive
resources. A key element established at these meetings include the creation of an
informal cooperative network of technology staff of the collaborating partners to assess
technological infrastructure (hardware, software and connectivity) of both the science
center and the schools in order to determine if the existing equipment and connectivity
are sufficient for the program. In addition, a support structure protocol (“road map of
service support options”) among the participating partners also was developed to help
users and program providers determine if they need support from their local technology
specialist, VIEW’s staff of highly skilled support professionals, and/or consultation with
an external technical specialist.
Creation of Collaborating Teacher Teams
To maximize project effectiveness and sustainability, participating teachers are identified

and organized to work in building-based, collaborative teams. The project teams consist
of at least four (4) teachers from at least one (1) school. The teachers are selected so that
they collectively represent at least three (3) different academic areas, ensuring an
interdisciplinary approach to content development.
In reality, these building-based teams form a “Knowledge Community” — that is, an
informal, self-organized network of practitioners reflecting multiple skills and competen-
cies (Sallis & Jones, 2002). The “Community” forms the foundation of sustainability
because the teachers are a working team who not only support each other in the delivery
of replicable curriculum, but also create a community of enthusiastic practitioners who
excite colleagues to join them.
Identification of Collaborating Science Center Teams
To facilitate institutional support and involvement, collaborating science centers also

identify a team that guides the project and seamlessly integrates it into the center’s
content delivery structure. Usually that team (selected by the center) consists of:
• Education staff member(s) who work directly with the teachers to identify and
develop resources which are made available through the Web portal, and content
which is incorporated into the interactive videoconference;
• Curatorial staff who provide content validation and support for identifying and
developing supporting content for the Web portal and for reference use by the
development team;
• Technology staff or a plan for technology support to ensure the sustainable utility
of both the Web portal resources and the interactive videoconference program; and
• Administrative support as needed to ensure that the program and Web resources
are imbedded in the institutional plan and mission.
Pre-Program Orientation of Teachers and/or Science

Center Staff
To assure that all participants are “on the same page” regarding goals and content focus,
pre-development orientation/introduction sessions are conducted. The needs of the
communities of collaborating partners are assessed and a specially tailored orientation
is provided to each team. As needed, that orientation can take the form of either a short
informational session, introduction to Web portal resources, or a half day or full day
technological training introduction.
Designing the Program

Designing the presentation of project content and ensuring that the presentation design
occurs in a useful form for enhancing education delivery are among the central activities
of the development team. There are three main phases to these activities, which for the
most part occur in a sequential time frame.
Phase 1. Content Immersion
A key component of the Project View development model is a constructivist blending of

the knowledge and abilities of participating teams of developers (teachers and science
specialists). To facilitate this process to the greatest degree, VIEW development begins
with content immersion at the collaborating science center where participants receive an
introduction to the resources of the institution. The primary source encounter with the
authentic objects of the science center provides direct experience for the collaborating
partners as they move forward in designing classroom application. Drawing on the
objects and experience that they encounter in the immersion, collaborating participants
in VIEW are encouraged to utilize their unique and diverse expertise as they engage in
“brainstorming” about the educational application of those resources.
The development of the program is accomplished through a constructivist process, while
the goal of the development is to create a program that provides a constructivist learning
environment for students. VIEW has found that this goal can be more easily achieved
when developers create the program through the same (or similar) method in which it will
be delivered.
Phase 2. Content Refining
Within a short period of time (two to six weeks) of the content immersion, participants
come together again for two (2) full-day sessions in which they participate further in a
constructivist process. At these sessions, the partner teams collaboratively review the
content presented during the immersion, examine materials available on the Web portal,
and fine-tune possible content concepts which have been presented to them. They
finalize the content selection for both the interactive videoconference and supporting
Web portal, and align those selections with curriculum and standards (i.e., what students
need to know and be able to do to reach high academic performance).
During this phase of development, teachers and science specialists engage in a
constructivist exploration of the content, including brainstorming about the different
aspects of the information and ways it could be presented to students. The first goal is
for the collaborating partners to agree upon a core focus.
With this accomplished, the development team begins to review the content, to refine
it and to identify central themes. Tangential areas of exploration are tagged for program
enrichment and/or exploratory study. Throughout this process, it is important to
remember Jeffers’ (2000) words:
“Different perspective, interpretations and criticism must be shared and creative

conflicts (that lead to new discourse and new knowledge) must be engendered.”
(p. 29)
It should be noted that specific details of the constructivist process vary with each team
of teachers and science centers, but a template for effective development methodology
is emerging. Key elements of this template include facilitated discussion, by all partici-
pants, of varying points of view about content applicability and presentation; collabo-
rative outlining of videoconference presentation and identification of experiences and
resources needed to support and deliver the content; and self-evaluation of program and
process and self-assignment of specific tasks for independent work.
By the end of the two days of content refinement, an over-all outline of the program
emerges and the stage is set to put together the various pieces of the project.
Independent Development
As a final task at the end of VIEW’s Development Phase 2 (Content Refining), partici-
pants review the work done and identify areas that need to be created to accomplish the
program development. Once the project needs are collaboratively identified, the team
members self-assign the various tasks attached to those needs. The self-selection aligns
with the competencies and interests of each participant. In general, the tasks fall into
three areas:
Authoring Supporting Lessons
Teachers design lessons that can serve as pre- or post-videoconference activities in the
classroom to expand their curriculum while supporting the program that will be presented
by the science center. These lessons typically access portal resources to which the
provider refers during the videoconference. For example, often teachers design science
activities that help students build skills in analyzing what they read and in making
connections to the content of the videoconference being developed by the science
specialists. Teachers working with the National Air and Space Museum designed
activities (available at http://www.projectview.org) for students that access online
material about Wilbur and Orville Wright as a preliminary activity to build understanding
of the invention process. In designing this activity, they interwove digital, online
resources from the institution Web site and other sites into the reading activities.
Identifying Resources for Student and Teacher Use
Librarians and media specialists create digital resource bibliographies and/or Web-
quests to utilize material accessed through the science center Web portal. Choices by
team members have included Web-centered activities that enable students to explore the
science content through multiple resources. In addition, teachers have identified links
that are appropriate for student use in conducting online research.
Designing a Videoconference
In general, science center staff focuses on designing the actual program presentation
based on the collaboratively determined program content. During this process, they
gather and share archival and collective resources with participants, and focus the
videoconference presentation on key concepts that enhance understanding of essential
aspect(s) of the curriculum unit.
Reflection and Completion

Following the Content Immersion, Content Refining, and the independent development
sessions of the VIEW model, the teams are reassembled for a final two days of program
development. During this time, the team conducts a review of their collective efforts
including revisiting their goals and evaluating the results of their independent work
(curriculum, resources, lesson plans, etc.). This allows the team to identify gaps in the
program and to collectively identify and address unmet needs.
In addition, during this time, participating team members often conduct a pre-pilot test
to try out various activities for the program with students in their classrooms. They also
make use of the technology to collaborate with other teachers and with other classrooms.
When engaging in reflection, benchmarks for program excellence are discussed and the
teams review assessment options and rubrics to be sure they measure achievement of
the project content goals. Benchmarks for program excellence may include seamless
curriculum interface (a clearly articulated connection to content standards required in
the classroom); effective use of interactive media (knowledge of and skills in using the
interactive technology as a tool in education); strong use of supporting interactive
technologies (integration of interactive technologies that enhance curriculum delivery
and student learning); and alignment of program content and activities with institu-
tional mission (program fits the collections and purposes of the science center).
Program Piloting
Field-testing of programs is essential to establish the sustainable viability of the content
for school curriculum. It is also important in assessing the effectiveness of program
structure and presentation in communicating with students in a way that has a measur-
able impact on their learning. There are two stages of piloting for the VIEW model.
Piloting – Stage 1 – Participating Program Developers
The first step in ensuring the educational applicability of a program occurs in the
classrooms of the team of teachers who developed the program. After the development
sessions, participating teachers from the team volunteer to pilot the program in their
classrooms. Those pilots include a commitment among all participants to provide
constructive feedback on the effectiveness of the program in the classroom with
students. After responses are gathered, the science centers are charged with retooling
and/or revising programs as needed.
Piloting – Stage 2. VIEW Trainees
The second stage of field-testing takes place in the context of training sessions
conducted by project VIEW staff to prepare teachers to be users and consumers of the
programs that are developed. As teachers learn how to design integrated classroom
modules using interactive video programs and technologies, they are charged with
piloting the programs developed by VIEW collaborations. Their commitment includes
developing integration plans for their classrooms and providing candid responses
regarding the effectiveness and utility in the classroom of the programs. The feedback
is shared with the science centers and the process of improving programs continues.
Research on Outcomes
Increasing evidence gathered by VIEW’s independent evaluator (The Evaluation Con-
sortium at the University at Albany) confirms that the VIEW model of collaborative
development is changing the way that schools and centers of science learning deliver
content. Research results suggest that, as the discrete missions and goals of collabo-
rating teams are merged, VIEW is achieving success by creating a learning environment
that reduces constraints of schoolhouse walls to bring external expertise into the
classroom through interactive technologies.
Data from the project evaluation document that substantive changes are occurring in the
way that participating teachers structure science content for their students. Access to
science centers through interactive digitally based programming is resulting in more
student-based hands-on opportunities for learning as students are able to use data-
based research and analytic synthesis with science center online resources. For example,
students working with scientists at SERC are able to create science experiments based
on interactive learning and collaborative gathering of information.
Lessons Learned Through Practice
VIEW is a constantly emerging model, with a commitment to on-going revision and

expansion of methods and methodologies as the constructivist process moves forward.
Among the more important additions to the VIEW model in the past four years are 1) the
assessment of prior knowledge of technology, and 2) the necessity of a strong technical
support system.
From the beginning, it has become increasingly apparent that teacher knowledge of
interactive technologies is important to the early stages of program development; it
allows participants to function fluidly in the knowledge environment created by technol-

ogy. It also has become clear that it is essential that collaborating partners clearly
understand their roles in the process to ensure that all participants use their best and most
developed talents and skills.
The underpinning of technology-infused programs is the seamless functionality of the
technology. Since neither institution educators nor school-based teachers are technol-
ogy support specialists, it is essential that a well-structured technology support system
be identified at the beginning of projects to facilitate the institutionalization of projects
in the classroom.
Student and Teacher Outcomes
Assessment of classroom related outcomes is an ongoing component of the develop-

ment of VIEW models. The focus of this assessment is on students’ cognitive function-
ing, their interest and motivation in learning, and in teacher interaction with materials.
As noted above, each module developed by VIEW undergoes field-testing in the
classroom as the final stage of development; in addition, as part of the ongoing
documentation of VIEW’s impact, use by non-developer classrooms is also documented
where possible. Following is an overview of preliminary findings pertaining to classroom
use of science related videoconferences as they are integrated into regular, standards-
based curriculum.
• Student Affect: A key catalyst to student learning is motivation and interest in the
topic and the self-perception that learning is taking place. As part of the documen-
tation of the impact of digital resources on student learning, Project VIEW
evaluation seeks to assess the degree to which the external resources provided by
the content providers affects students’ interest and motivation in the topic, the
resources, and future efforts to learn similar materials. Presented in Table 1 and
2 are summary findings, reported by students who participated in science related
videoconferencing as part of their regular classroom curriculum. Each of these
videoconferences utilized VIEW developed curriculum and videoconference pre-
sentations.
• Student Centered Instruction: Students reported a high degree of affective
involvement with the curriculum and the integrated videoconference. An over-
whelming majority of students noted that the program was easy to understand
(97%) and that the material fit in with what they were currently learning in school
(81%). Self-reported perceptions of learning also were documented; 95% of the
students reported that they learned a lot from the program and 93% noted that they
learned more than they would have in an ordinary classroom setting. Increase in
student interest also was impacted by the process; 95% of the students said the
material was interesting, thereby impacting current learning, and 75% reported that
they would like to learn more in the future.
Table 1. Student perceptions of the videoconference2

Outcome % Positive*
The program was easy to understand. 97
I learned a lot from the program. 95
The program was interesting to me. 95
I learned more about the topic through the program than I would have in an 93
ordinary class.
The topic of the program fit in with what I am learning in school right now. 81
I would like to learn more about what I saw or learned during the program. 75
* Percentages are based on combined “Agree” and “Sort of Agree” responses.
Table 2. Student activities during the videoconference3
Statement %
Engaged
Watching the program 96
Answering questions 71
Asking questions 67
Participating in an activity with the presenter(s) 56
Discussing the topic with others 53
Solving a problem with the presenter(s) 32
Each of the nine classrooms was observed by two independent raters who documented
the types of interactions that occurred in the classroom. In addition, each student was
asked to report the types of activities in which he or she was engaged during the process.
As noted in Table 2, students reported being engaged in a diversity of tasks that ranged
from direct instruction to advanced problem solving. At least two thirds of the students
reported being directly involved in guided inquiry during the videoconference process.
This included either asking questions of the instructor or answering questions posed by
the provider or by other students. In addition, over half of the students expanded this
direct questioning methodology to include discussion of why information presented was

true.
Findings by the external observers complimented students’ reports. Observers noted the
majority of students to be actively engaged in watching the videoconference, taking
notes, sharing information with peers during problem solving sessions, and assisting
each other in formulating questions for peer or presenter review. The majority of students
also collaborated with each other on hands-on activities and advanced students were
noted to be assisting students who had difficulties. Observers also reported that those
students who had been noted as at-risk appeared to be more attentive to the presenter
and the material and were involved in the learning process to a deeper degree than when
observed during prior non-videoconference visits.
Concluding Comments
Using interactive videoconference programs and supporting Web-based resources,
VIEW offers a model for making new and innovative integration of science expertise and
collections into curriculum delivery. Science centers that have participated in VIEW are
realigning their content presentation to interface and enhance curriculum in the schools.
The result is a new, emerging reality in classroom pedagogy and a new, exciting extension
of interpretive activities of science centers.
In general, participants in VIEW perceive that interactive educational technologies (such
as point to point videoconferencing and digital archives) serve to benefit schools by
increasing their access to authentic and exceptional resources from scientifically unique
locales.
The VIEW model makes new and innovative use of institutional expertise and collections
while structuring content delivery that can be seamlessly integrated into K-12 curricu-
lum. The multifaceted nature of VIEW seeks to both increase access to videoconferencing
as an educational tool and improve the use of that tool, and has served as a foundation
for initiating comprehensive change in educational technology integration. As content
providers, such as centers of science education, realign their content presentation to
utilize interactive digital resources and communication tools, a new reality is emerging
in education through new and innovative models for use of instructional time.
References
Digital transformation: A framework for literacy. (n.d.). Princeton, NJ: Educational
Testing Service.
Electronic Learning Laboratory. (1982). On task behavior of students during computer
instruction vs. classroom instruction. New York: Teachers College, Columbia
University.
Forman, D. (1982, January). Search of the literature. The Computing Teacher, 37-51.
Jeffers, C.S. (2003). Gallery as nexus. Art Education, 56, 19-24.
Jonassen, D.H. (1996). Mindtools for engaging critical thinking in the classroom (2nd
ed.). Columbus: Prentice Hall.
Jonassen, D.H., Carr, C., & Yueh, H. (1998). Computers as mindtools for engaging learners
in critical thinking. Tech Trends, 43, 24-32.
Mowrer-Popiel, E., Pollard, C., & Pollard, R. (1994). An analysis of the perceptions of
preservice teachers toward technology and its use in the classrooms. Journal of
Instructional Psychology, 21, 131-138.
Newman, D. (2004). Research on how technology enhances standards-based teaching
and learning: Points of VIEW, a Project VIEW collaboration with C-Span.
Albany, NY: University of Albany, State University of New York, Evaluation
Consortium.
Pugh, K.J. (2002). Teaching for transformative experiences in science: An investigation
of the effectiveness of two instructional elements. Teachers College Record, 104,
1101-1137.
Ragosta, M. (1982, Spring). Educational Testing Service Bulletin.
Sallis, E., & Jones, G. (2002). Knowledge management in education: Enhancing learn-
ing & education. London: Kogan Page.
Sandholtz, J.H., Ringstaff, C., & Dwyer, D.C. (1997). Teaching with technology: Creating
student-centered classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press.
Schutte, C. (1998). Videoconferencing: Expanding learning horizons. Media & Methods,
34, 37.
Silverman, S., & Silverman, G. (1999). The educational enterprise zone: Where knowledge
comes from. T. H. E. Journal, 26.
U.S. Department of Education. (1998). True needs, true partners, museums serving
schools: 1998 survey highlights.
Endnotes
1
U.S. Department of Education Technology Innovation Challenge Grant, Project No:
R303A000002
2
Data are based on surveys from 148 students in six classrooms at grade seven, 26
students in one classroom at grade six and 41 students in two classrooms at grade
four; videoconferences were from Buffalo Zoo, SERC, and Cincinnati Zoo spon-
sored programs.
3
Data are based on surveys from 148 seventh grade students and 41 fourth grade
students.
Section III
Case Studies
308 Di Blas, Paolini and Poggi
Chapter XV
A Virtual Museum
Where Students
Can Learn
Nicoletta Di Blas, Politecnico di Milano, Italy
Paolo Paolini, Politecnico di Milano, Italy
Caterina Poggi, Politecnico di Milano, Italy
Abstract
SEE, Shrine Educational Experience, represents an example of how Internet and
multimedia technologies can effectively be exploited to deliver complex scientific and
cultural concepts to middle and high school students. SEE (a project by Politecnico
di Milano and the Israel Museum, Jerusalem) is based on a shared online 3-D
environment, where students from four possibly different countries meet together to
learn, discuss and play, visiting the virtual Israel Museum with a guide. The educational
experience combines online engagement and cooperation to “traditional” off-line
learning activities, spread across six weeks. Data from an extensive two-year-long
evaluation of the project, involving over 1,400 participants from Europe and Israel,
prove the educational effectiveness of this innovative edutainment format.
A Virtual Museum Where Students Can Learn 309
Introduction
SEE — Shrine Educational Experience — is an e-learning project based on a shared online
3-D environment, where students from different countries meet to learn, play, and engage
in a high-level scientific debate about the Dead Sea Scrolls, one of the major archaeologi-
cal discoveries of the 20th Century. The Dead Sea Scrolls were written by a Hebrew
community who lived in the archaeological site of Khirbet Qumran between 170 BC and
68 AD (Roitman 1997). They represent the earliest known version of books from the Bible,
and a precious source to understand the roots of Western civilization.
SEE is the result of cooperation between the Politecnico di Milano and the Israel Museum,
Jerusalem. As part of its educational mission, the Museum wished to make its large body
of knowledge and artefacts upon the Dead Sea Scrolls accessible to the public at large,
and to open issues of scientific research to a broader public, with respect to the small
group of scholars to whom the discussion is usually restricted.
Thanks to Internet technologies, providing simultaneous access to users independently
from their geographical location, (middle and high school) students from all over the
world can visit the virtual Shrine of the Book (Figures 1-2), and take part in discussions,
games, and debates with international experts, discussing state-of-the-art research
about the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Each SEE experience involves four classes of students between 12 and 19 years of age,
located in different geographical areas: they meet, in the online virtual world, four times
(over a period of six to seven weeks). Through the online meetings students get
acquainted with each other, discuss, play, answer quizzes, present their social and
cultural environment, etc. Students, in addition, cooperate off-line, under their teacher’s
supervision, studying background material (based upon interviews with leading inter-
national experts) and carrying on their own homework.
This innovative learning experience aims at four major educational goals:
1. Providing rich, in-depth knowledge about the Dead Sea Scrolls and related issues,
including the scientific methods of philological/archaeological research.
2. Favouring a truly international, cross-cultural approach, where students of differ-
Figure 1. A screenshot of the virtual Shrine Figure 2. The “real” buildings of the Shrine
of the Book, reproducing the wing of the of the Book at the Israel Museum,
Israel Museum where the Scrolls are pre- Jerusalem
served
ent countries can understand/compare their tradition, their background, their

views and beliefs, etc. Developing a better understanding of differences and
respect for the “other” is the underlying goal.
3. Fostering the use of information and communication technologies for educational
purposes, with innovative teaching-learning paradigms.
4. Offering interaction, fun and engagement (i.e., powerful motivators, encouraging
students’ active participation, even in the context of a demanding learning
activity).
A massive field-test evaluation, involving over 1,400 students and teachers between
November 2002 and May 2004, has proved the effectiveness of SEE: the experience
achieves all the main goals (above mentioned) and, in addition, it produces a wide range
of beneficial side-effects and generates an overall strong educational impact.
How the SEE Experience Works
Activities
A SEE experience consists of 4 cooperative sessions (i.e., online meetings in a 3-D virtual
world) spread across 6 weeks, and of several learning activities, that participating classes
(four at a time) perform in the intervals between a session and the next one (Figure 3).
Cooperative sessions are not expressly meant to be a learning moment; they are devoted
to social activities, such as students introducing themselves, discussions upon the
themes of the experience, and games testing the students’ knowledge of content. In order
to be prepared for the sessions, students must study detailed material in advance. For
this “traditional” learning activity, “old fashioned” methods remain the most effective:
Figure 3. Schema of SEE learning activities
students download documents in printable format from SEE Web site, and study them
at home or in the classroom.
The four sessions are organized in order to bring pupils from a basic knowledge of the
Dead Sea Scrolls to a more in-depth analysis of some particular topic of interest. At the
moment of registration, teachers can select from a set of available topics the one they wish
to study in depth. Sample topics are: “Life in a Community,” “Rituals in Qumran,” and
“Canons and the Holy Bible.” Students are then required to do further research on this
topic, investigating its links with aspects of their own environment and searching
through local sources. In the final session they will present in turn to each other the
results of their research.
All the considerations that follow are the result of direct onsite observation of over 70
online cooperative sessions performed during SEE evaluation, between November 2002
and May 2004 (see the third section of this chapter for details). More than 1,400 students
and teachers from over 30 schools in Europe and Israel were involved: in addition to
making the project real, they have been an invaluable source of insights, anecdotes and
information about the actual educational impact of the SEE experience.
What Happens Online
Users in SEE online environment are represented by avatars (Figure 4). Two students per
class connect to the 3-D world, and therefore have an avatar to control: they move around,
see other users, and communicate with them in real-time via chat. The rest of the class
supports them in various ways, either grouped around the two computers or following
the session with the help of a projector, connected to one of the monitors.
During the first session students introduce themselves, their school and their country
to each other (Figures 4-5). Then they are briefly introduced by a “museum guide,” that
Figure 4. Avatars introducing themselves Figure 5. An example of class

in the Shrine virtual environment. The presentation. Before the first session,
boards in the background, once clicked, classes are asked to send a HTML page
activate a pop-up window showing classes’ with a picture and a short self-presentation
presentations
is, a member of the staff (also represented by an avatar), to the historical — geographical
context of the experience. The goal of the first session is to stir the students’ interest and
motivate them to study the first set of documents. The evaluation tests in schools
showed that the engagement of exploring a new virtual world and the excitement of
meeting peers from faraway countries are extremely powerful motivators, able to capture
the students’ interest.
During the second session students enter the museum (Figure 6), where they are shown
pictures of archaeological findings and other historical evidences (Figure 7). Discus-
sions start concerning both the background material and the most interesting issues
surfaced in the session itself. The “museum guide” moderates the discussion, asks
questions (also to test the students’ knowledge) and encourages participants to think
about their own experience related to the issues being raised.
The guide coordinates every cooperative session, directing the activities (Chang, 2002),
stimulating the discussion, assisting students with technical problems, assigning scores
for the games and even assigning penalties for improper behaviour. In order to avoid
waste of time, disorientation, and ineffective interactions, each slot of time in a session
is dedicated to a specific activity: the guide makes sure that everyone knows what to do
and does it. This is crucial for keeping the experience fast-paced and educationally
effective; the guide is also the ultimate referee for the games.
Figure 6. Avatars in the corridor of the Figure 7. A board showing rests of a pool
virtual Shrine of the Book; boards (once for ritual baths at Qumran
clicked) show significant images of objects
preserved in the museum, or of the place
where these were found
Figure 8. An avatar performs an ability Figure 9. Avatars reflect on the answer to

game in the Quiz. If he reaches the top of Quiz Question 1. When their team member
the stairs before his opponent, he earns finishes the ability game, they must counsel
the right to answer the Quiz question first. him about the answer he should choose.
Figure 10. Matching Pairs Game. Avatars Figure 11. The vault space inside the
try to reconstruct meaningful pairs among Shrine of the Book white dome.
the objects found in the labyrinth Discussions of the third and fourth sessions
take place here
The guide awards scores to students depending on their contributions to the discussion.
We could observe that assigning scores highly increases their participation and
commitment to answer as correctly as possible. Classes are paired to form two teams:
competition between them is strong from the very beginning. However, it touches its
highest point in the games (Figures 8-9), where students demonstrate both their
“physical” skill in controlling their avatar and their knowledge of the study material.
Games in fact combine “movement” and “thinking:” despite their ability to move in the
3-D world, students earn no point if they cannot solve the riddles based on the content
they should have studied.
The second session includes one game: a Treasure Hunt, where students are given clues
to identify four particular museum objects among a set of 20 hidden in a labyrinth.
In the third session, the discussion about the topic of interest is followed by two games:
a quiz, based on multiple-choice questions (Figures 8-9), and a matching pairs game,
where students have to identify meaningful associations between couples of objects,
again scattered in a labyrinth (Figure 10).
Finally, the fourth session is entirely devoted to the presentation of the students’
homework: this is definitely, from a cultural point of view, the most intense moment of
the experience. Students have the opportunity to explain their work, confront their views
with the others’, and answer to peers’ critiques with passionate argumentations (Figure
11). The possibility of being confronted with different points of view is always interesting
and valuable: when the discussion is about socio-cultural phenomena (such as aspects
of the students’ everyday life somehow related to the Scrolls’ world), a cross-cultural
approach bringing together people from very different backgrounds becomes intrinsi-
cally informative and enriching.
At the end of the fourth session, the guide announces the final scores — taking into
consideration also the quality of the teams’ homework — and proclaims the winner.
What Happens Off-Line
The effectiveness of a SEE experience from a learning point of view is determined, in large
part, by the involvement of the teachers, especially in supervising the activities
performed by each class in the intervals between a session and the next one.
Teachers are able to transmit their enthusiasm to the students, motivating them to study
and do their homework accurately. When the teacher is not motivated (no matter how
perfectly the technology works, how smart, responsible, hardworking the students are)
the experience will probably be a failure. Well-motivated teachers, on the contrary, are
able to make the best of a SEE experience, even with their most disaffected students.
Class work can be organized in different ways. While 4 th year high school students are
able to organize themselves quite autonomously, middle school kids need more direc-
tions and support from their teachers. In both cases, classes participate as a group, not
as individuals: students split in sub-groups, divide the material among the sub-groups,
and everyone takes charge of one particular task. They know that everyone’s contribu-
tion is important for the team, and therefore they do their part with strong commitment
for the team’s success. Students, moreover, are implicitly taught how to collaborate in
a group (Vygotsky, 1978): very important skills nowadays, when working environments
frequently imply teamwork.
Teachers may decide to act only as supervisors, encouraging the students’ initiative and
personal responsibility; or they may exploit the interest stirred up by the project, either
treating more in-depth the parts of the curricular program more related to the core theme,
or basing lessons, class activities and exercises on the project’s material, or taking
advantage of its multidisciplinary character to involve as many colleagues as possible,
and offering a multi-perspective approach to the subject matter.
Students, on their part, enjoy the game-like approach of the project and the use of
technologies — which in some cases they know even better than their teachers. When
they see the teacher at a loss with technical problems, they take the initiative and try to
find a solution: their responsibility and resourcefulness are stimulated.
The project’s offline activities include: downloading, printing and studying the con-
tents, keeping in touch with remote team members, and collaborating with them to prepare
the research homework.
The peculiar format of contents and the means for asynchronous communication with
other participants are described in detail in the next sections.
What It’s All About
The Interviews: A Dialogic Approach
Detailed content is offered to students in the format of interviews to leading international

experts on subjects like Dead Sea Scrolls, Holy Scriptures, Ancient Literature, Hebrew,
Christian and Middle-East Culture in general. Unlike school textbooks, interviews

provide a faceted, thought-provoking overview of the current state of research at
academic levels, in a readable, straightforward style. Since debate over some issues is
still open, students are startled to find (in the interviews), sometimes, totally conflicting
assertions by different experts. They realize that historical and archaeological researches
are not as linear and problem-free as they appear in history schoolbooks. They become
curious of finding out which is the most convincing hypothesis. Teachers are thrilled to
see how eagerly they engage in further research, investigating the criteria on which each
hypothesis is based.
Interviews are integrated by a rich set of auxiliary material, including summaries, maps,
anthological excerpts from the Scrolls, the Bible, or other sources quoted by the experts
in the interviews, and editorial insets on relevant historical characters, peoples, or
events. These also help integrating the backgrounds of students from different countries
and of different ages.
The Experts’ Forum: Debating with Researchers
If the dialogic format of the interviews gives the flavour of — as a teacher defined it —
“a debate at academic level” reflecting “the state of the art of research,” an even more
exciting opportunity is offered to the students: one or more of the experts interviewed
is available during the experience to answer the participants’ questions about the issues
presented in the interviews, or that emerged during online discussions. Experts commu-
nicate with the classes via a shared online message board provided on SEE Web site,
allowing every user to see public messages and keep track of message threads.
This is a wonderful opportunity for middle and high school students, who would hardly
ever have a chance to reach high-level scholars directly and ask them questions, not to
speak of engaging in a serious discussion with them.
The message board is also the place where discussions started during cooperative
sessions (and cut off at a certain point for lack of time) can be resumed and continued
in a less hectic style. Although extremely stimulating, the chat is often frenetic and
confusing: a sort of forum on the online message board allows users to post their
contribution, somewhat lengthier and deeper than a chat message, possibly after having
thought about it for a while. Even the experts might be involved in the discussions started
online.
The Virtual Museum
Every cooperative session starts either outside or inside the virtual Shrine of the Book.
A SEE experience is a totally new museum experience. Many factors influence a museum
visit, the social aspect being not the least important (Falk & Dierking, 1992). Moreover,
museum visits are far more significant from an educational point of view when preceded
and followed by activities enhancing the comprehension of the objects exposed (Falk &
Dierking, 2000). A SEE experience is a highly social activity, requiring participants to
Figure 12. The Shrine buildings Figure 13. The virtual Shrine – external
environment
Figure 14. Inside the white dome
discuss together, play together, work and learn together. Additionally, all activities are
aimed at enhancing the comprehension of the museum’s content — which would appear
rather enigmatic, even when seen for real, if not accompanied by explanations.
The virtual museum therefore reproduces only those aspects that, in the real Shrine, are
meant to help visitors entering in the “Scrolls world”, recreating the atmosphere of
Qumran. For example, the members of the community who wrote the Scrolls referred to
themselves as “the sons of light,” and to their enemies as “the sons of darkness:” this
opposition is symbolized by the contrast between the white dome and the black basalt
wall, forming the architecture of the Shrine of the Book (Figures 12-14). The white dome
emerges from a pool of water, representing the bathing pools (Figure 7) used by the
inhabitants of Qumran for purification rituals. Furthermore, it is shaped like a lid of the
jars inside which the Scrolls were stored. The corridor (Figure 6) reminds of the caves
where the jars were found, and so on…
Rather than striving to create a perfect virtual reproduction of the “real” museum, SEE
aims at helping students to “get into the atmosphere:” they absorb a great deal of
information almost effortlessly, by simply looking around and talking about what they
see. The engagement of interaction, discussion, and competition stirs their interest in the
subject matter: at the end of the experience, many students — who did not even know
about the Scrolls’ existence before — were fascinated by them, and wished to visit the
real museum.
How We Know It Works
The educational effectiveness of the experience has been assessed through massive on-
field experimentation (Table 1) started in November 2002 and continued through three
different phases.
Figure 15. Orientation of the schools involved
Table 1. Schools involved in SEE Experimentation. Students’ ages ranged from 12 to

18. Computer expertise varied with the kind of schools; however, skilled computer-
users were present in every class.
Phase 1: Nov. -Dec. 2002 Phase 2: Mar.-May 2003 Phase 3: Mar.-May 2004
7 schools in Italy 22 schools in Italy and 9 schools in Europe and
Israel Israel
13 classes 36 classes 20 classes
15 teachers 44 teachers 21 teachers
Over 200 students Over 700 students Nearly 500 students
15 sessions performed 36 sessions performed (each 20 sessions performed (each
one involving 4 classes) one involving 4 classes)
Phase 1 aimed at testing the effectiveness of the technological platform and interaction
dynamics: a restricted number of schools simulated the sessions (with mock-up con-
tents), first within a single class, and then with students of different schools logging in
simultaneously, playing the games and chatting together. Observers in schools wit-
nessed every session, detected problems, and collected comments and suggestions from
students and teachers, on the basis of which several minor adjustments were introduced.
On the whole, however, Phase 1 showed that the experience is definitely engaging:
students enjoyed the interactive and competitive aspects very much, and wished that
sessions were longer.
Phase 2 was an extensive, full-scope testing of the whole educational experience,
assessing contents, subject-related discussions, off-line activities, games, homework,
timing, organizational aspects and coordination with teachers. Observers monitored
each cooperative session in every single school, registering notable aspects on written
reports, and offering assistance to teachers if needed. Questionnaires were sent to
students and teachers after the end of the experience, to evaluate its educational
effectiveness and the users’ satisfaction.
Phase 3 focused especially on the international, cross-cultural value of the experience:
a larger proportion of participants outside Italy were involved, bringing fascinating
multi-perspective contributions to online discussions. Scheduling, instructions for
teachers and the workflow of activities were refined, enabling schools to manage all the
complex organizational issues of the project without the assistance of a person from the
staff physically present in the school. Again, feedback was collected through question-
naires before, during and after the experience, and an accurate analysis of chat flows
disclosed many interesting insights about the educational value of online cross-cultural
cooperation.
Direct Observation
Monitoring cooperative sessions in presence proved a rich and reliable source of

information, necessary to understand and complete questionnaires results. Observers
could easily assess the content’s level of complexity, the effectiveness of interaction
dynamics, and understand the nature of those problems, which caused a generic sense
of frustration in students and teachers, without them being able to explain why.
After witnessing a session, observers had to write an overall evaluation on a report, with
precise feedback concerning interaction, content, and technology.
Many refinements and improvements were made to the experience, basing on the
experience thus accumulated and on the observers’ reports. Their analysis revealed
several interesting aspects; for example, even significant technical problems (such as
users repeatedly disconnecting) did not hinder the students’ enthusiasm if they were
able to take part in the interaction and play at least part of the games. On the other hand,
students get really upset when they are involved in some engaging activity (either game
or discussion) and suddenly they have to stop. They are also disappointed when they
do not get as high scores as they thought they deserve. Observing the users, we realized
that what they really appreciate is the engagement of interaction, the excitement of
competition, and the gratification for the guide’s rewards (for their correct answers or
contributions). Despite technical and organizational problems, when these elements are
present the session is successful.
Students’ Questionnaires
After the end of the second experimental phase, students were asked to fill in a
questionnaire, sent to the teachers via e-mail and then distributed in the classes. 226
questionnaires were filled in and sent back. Some of the questions had a 4-scale
predefined set of answers (such as “a lot, enough, not so much, not at all”); others were
just open questions, to collect opinions and suggestions. We shall focus now on a few
of them:
Q 6: Would you be happy to repeat the SEE experience? 50% of the students declared
themselves very keen on repeating the experience; another 40% said they would
be glad to do it again. Only 1% answered that they wouldn’t. The main reason to
repeat the experience was the intercultural aspect, that is, the “possibility of
meeting other students from different countries and cultures;” the second reason
was the interest in the topic and the third one was the fun of the experience.
Figure 16. Data from students’ questionnaires
Which session did you like best?
60 55
50
40
27
30
20 14 15
10
0
Session 1 Session 21 Session 3 Session 4
Actually, as also the observers had reported, the most appreciated session turned
out to be the fourth one, during which every group presented to the others a
research and discussed it, comparing different cultural points of view.
Q 11 and 12: Which game did you enjoy best? Do you have any suggestions or critiques
about any game? The most appreciated game turned out to be the quiz, that is, the
one in which the rules were the clearest and the “physical” and cultural part most
clearly distinct (while the avatar was performing an ability game, the rest of the class
tried to find the correct answer to the quiz). Students suggested making questions
more difficult: they had studied hard and felt underestimated when questions were
too easy.
Q 17: Which of the 4 sessions did you like best? The outcomes (Figure 16), apart from
confirming the fact that students liked discussing their homework in Session 4, also
show an ever-increasing interest and involvement in the activity, with a climax in
the last meeting that evidently left them, so to speak, with a “good flavour.”
Data concerning the outcomes of the third experimental phase have been compared with
the expectations collected before its beginning.
Expectations on the overall impact of the experience were actually a bit higher than the
final outcomes, although the difference is very slight. This clearly proves that both
students and teachers are eager and ready to exploit innovative educational tools; this
outcome clearly shows that “traditional” e-learning is probably already outdated and
encourages us to keep in this path.
Teachers’ Questionnaires and Focus Groups
Teachers were involved in the design and assessment processes from the very first steps
of the project. Five focus groups were held to choose the cultural topics, structure online
activities, define the format of the background material and of the homework; three
additional focus groups provided precious insights about the project’s educational
impact. Their contribution to the tuning of the project was invaluable.
At the end of the second experimental phase, questionnaires were distributed to all the
teachers who had taken part in the project. 19 questionnaires were filled in and given back
to us. On the whole, scores ranged from “good” to “ very good,” never scoring “very
bad.” About students’ interaction (during the cultural discussions, the games and the
preparation of the homework), teachers would have appreciated more communication
outside online sessions among the schools involved; they suggested that schools
should be helped to keep in touch after the project’s end, possibly meeting in the “real”
world. In the third experimental phase, more attention was devoted to encourage
cooperation among schools.
Teachers found the interaction very engaging and a powerful stimulus for studying;
moreover, the use of new technologies was a good opportunity to couple “diligent”
students with those more apt at interacting in a virtual environment, thus emphasizing
their different skills (Gardner, 1983). Particularly rewarding was the outcome of Question
3 (How do you evaluate the educational impact of the experience?): two teachers judged
the educational impact of the experience “excellent,” eight scored it as “very good,”
another eight as “good;” only one scored it as bad, and none as “very bad.”
The outcomes of the focus groups will be discussed in detail in the next section.
In Which Sense It Works

Teachers were constantly consulted before, during and after every experimental phase.
Their contributions, collected through interviews, personal communications and focus
groups, were illuminating — especially as far as the educational benefits and unexpected
effects of the experience are concerned. A second valuable source of information were
the chat flows, registering students’ conversations, and showing how each one’s remark
stimulated the others’ thoughts and provoked reactions, in a progressing discovery
process.
SEE educational impact was observed on three fronts: 1) Content; 2) Students’ motiva-
tion and attitude; 3) Learning methodologies.
Learning the Content
Teachers particularly appreciated the interview format, enhancing critical thinking and
stimulating students to evaluate the experts’ different contributions, possibly assuming
an opinion of their own. They said: “The interview approach is extremely interesting:
it shows the state-of-the-art of the research, a debate at academic level.”
Quotes from teachers’ statements collected during focus groups are reported in italics
between quotation marks.
The strong interdisciplinary character of the experience was also appreciated. Students
could see how many different disciplines, with their diverse criteria and methods, may
converge on one single issue, each one bringing its special contribution. “Among
teachers, great emphasis was put on the interdisciplinary quality of the project. We
discussed on how to involve as many subjects as possible: Italian Literature, English,
and Religion. It was important for us to involve not only our students, but also our
colleagues. If the class coordinator feels involved in the project, and works in
collaboration with teachers of other subjects, this becomes a real strength. Students
realize that the Experience is multidisciplinary.” In some humanistic high schools,
teachers exploited the interest stirred by SEE introducing new topics related to the
subject: “I slightly modified the curricular program of History, Latin and Greek
Literature, studying in depth the authors which had more to do with the project. We read
Greek excerpts from the Genesis and Josephus Flavius […]; students were very curious
about him, because they knew he had to do with the project.”
Finally, the cross-cultural exchange is one of the most fascinating aspects of the
experience. Students discuss in real-time with peers located in distant countries,
discovering how different their perspectives can be. While Italian students, for instance,
tend to regard the Dead Sea and Jerusalem as remote, almost fabulous places, Israeli
pupils are much more concrete about them, because many have been there: they
described the archaeological site of Qumran, the heat, the rocks, the bathing pools; they
talked about Qumran religious feasts that are still celebrated today; when someone
suggested that the inhabitants of Qumran used to eat fish, they immediately pointed out
that “there is no fish in the Dead Sea.” After studying the Rituals in Qumran, each class
presented its research on a particular rite or feast celebrated in its local area: it was
wonderful to observe the variety of uses and traditions, and to discover how all of them
were originated by the same need for celebrating important events, that is shared by
human communities of all times and places. “The ‘otherness’ element, the meeting with
other countries and cultures, is always stimulating. During the first session, it was
exciting for the students to see themselves and the boys and girls of the other class. They
are right there, and so faraway at the same time…”
Enhancing Students’ Motivation
SEE’s unusual approach, dealing with complex and serious matters in a playful, engaging
way, had strong effects on motivation and attitude: we observed a general increase in
students’ care and attentiveness, the occasion for “bringing out” problematic students
and the improvement of discipline.
Competition, the desire of winning the games, and the engagement of communicating
with peers of different countries, are powerful motivators for studying both the material
and the language in which it is discussed during the sessions: “They realized the
importance of learning English.” “They read the interviews at home, then we discussed
them in class; we inquired on the historical perspective, doing further research on the
different opinions of the experts. I never threatened examinations; nevertheless they
studied with great care to be prepared for the Experience. They probably wouldn’t have
been so committed, without the games’ spur.” It was amazing to see how even very young
students became deeply knowledgeable about “difficult” subjects, such as the history
of Middle East, religious issues, etc. In SEE, interaction drives the content: the thrill of
meeting peers from far away, the impression — given by the 3-D virtual world — of “being
there” with them in a remote country, the desire to win the games, are crucial for arousing
the students’ interest.
Figure 17. Scenes from the experimental phases
Teachers typically chose for experimenting SEE their most motivated, hardworking
students; some teachers instead made a different choice: “We selected our least
motivated students: we thought that, if something could “rescue” them, it would be a
project like this. And we were right.” The innovative teaching-learning style proposed
by SEE offered disaffected students an opportunity to show their commitment: “All of
them participated with enthusiasm. Even two kids with comprehension problems had
studied well and knew everything.”
Of the many different skills pupils possess, only few are evaluated in “traditional” school
activities. A different learning approach gives these ‘hidden talents’ a chance to emerge,
and such abilities are extremely appreciated by the class. Teachers, on their part, are glad
to reward the kids’ keen involvement and commitment: “One of my students had never
been outstanding in Greek; however, being good at using computers (and being the
only guy in a class of girls), he was chosen to play all the games, and to supervise any
activity involving the use of technologies. He worked very seriously and accurately.
I gave him a good mark to reward his active participation in the project.”
Some discipline rules had to be followed during online meetings: no offence was
tolerated, and scores were taken from teams for misbehaviour. Sometimes students, while
cheering for their team, tended to address the opponents via chat in rather unfriendly
terms; when necessary, the guide admonished and punished them, yet, most of the times,
it was the students themselves who urged their classmates to be disciplined, and
restrained each other from reacting to provocations. In classes with discipline problems,
teachers regarded this fact as a huge improvement.
Learning How to Study
There are many ways to organize class activities related to the experience. Once agreed
on few essential guidelines, necessary for coordinating work among different schools,
much is left to the creativity and initiative of the teachers. Without their passionate and
professional work, the SEE experience would never work, no matter how carefully
prepared by the staff. On the whole, the project had two basic effects concerning learning
methodology.
1. All the students of a class felt as a “team,” understanding that they had to
cooperate in order to successfully participate in the experience.
2. Students learnt how to work in groups, autonomously and responsibly (although
with the fundamental supervision and support of the teacher).
The project has a sort of “team spirit building” effect: all the students felt “as one,”
knowing that “each one’s skills were resources for the class. They understood that, by
playing their role well, the whole team would benefit.” “I saw none of the usual jealousy
for those who controlled mouse and keyboard: they stood together, united to win.”
In order to better organize their effort, they usually split in groups, each one taking charge
of a specific part of the study material, sharing their knowledge with the others and
answering the cultural questions during the online experience. While sometimes it was
the teacher who formed the groups and assigned materials, in most cases the kids
organized autonomously and responsibly. “Students worked a lot by themselves. They
really had the idea that this was their project. “
They had to work in group for preparing the homework: they met together after school
hours, doing research, interviewing local experts and even working at the teacher’s
house, who put his/her library at their disposal: “They live in the same neighbourhood
and met in the afternoons to study together, whereas usually they work alone.” Again,
teachers’ supervision played a crucial role: “They worked hard, preparing schemas and
conceptual maps. We worked on two fronts: knowledge and method; we wanted them
to learn not only the contents, but also how to distinguish important information from
secondary aspects.”
On the whole, they learnt how to effectively collaborate in view of a common goal – a very
precious skill in today’s society — and the experience left its mark: “One of my pupils
of last year, who now attends a senior high school with two other ex-students of mine,
came to see me and told me about her new schoolmates. She said: ‘we had to do some
work in groups, and the others are so clumsy! You know, they didn’t do the Scrolls’…”
Conclusion
We are convinced today that the “format” of SEE is effective and applicable to a variety
of subjects (including scientific and technological ones), but also we have derived a
number of “lessons” about what to do and about what not to do. We do not claim that
we have completely understood what happened during the experimentation, but we can
provide the readers with a few (possibly) useful hints:
A. Trying to “reconstruct” a museum (and this was our starting point in 1999, when
the project begun — see the works of Barbieri et al., Di Blas et al.) in 3-D is of little
relevance. A 3-D virtual museum never conveys the magic of “being there” in the
real place, and therefore it can’t emotionally influence the students. 3-D can be
used, however, for recreating the general “atmosphere” (e.g., Jerusalem, the main
architectural features of the Israel Museum, etc.), but success or failure do not
depend upon the quality or faithfulness of the reproduction.
B. Showing, in a virtual world, all the objects on display in the real museum is useless:
a virtual museum cannot be “used” as a real museum (e.g., for a group visit). In order
to emphasize the “objects” (always an important goal for a museum) a different
approach is needed.
C. The “virtual visit” must be compelling, engaging, and fast-paced; we decided that
its main purpose, in our case, was to meet other people “there,” in the virtual
museum.
D. Motivations and interaction dynamics typical of the real world do not always work
properly in the virtual world. The social sense and warmth of being “in a group”
in a real museum is not easily conveyed in a virtual one; the natural engagement
of a guided tour (with a good guide) in a museum is hard to replicate in a virtual one.
On this ground, we have used games and competition as a key factor for creating
engagement, stimulating social interaction, and motivating the students. More-
over, the 3-D environment is not the place where substantial learning happens; yet,
the activities in the virtual environment are tremendous “motivators” for the
learning process, which mostly takes place off-line, in the classrooms.
E. Competition, involving the whole class, in cooperation with another class, acts as
a global strong motivator both for teachers and students: they want to “win.”
Competition builds up a strong feeling of team-ship within the class and produces
long lasting beneficial effects.
F. Games, within the sessions, involve two students per class only, and we were afraid
that the rest of the class would not be involved. As a matter of fact, instead, classes
followed their “champions” playing for them, cheering and trying to help.
G. Interviews have played an important role: their format, their natural way of exposing
difficult problems, their “state-of-the-art” quality, and their mutual inconsistency
(they often contradict each other) have captured the interest of the students and
teachers and stimulated their critical thinking.
H. The discussions, in the 3-D environments, have been alive and vibrant: more than
we expected. The fast pace and the action of the “guide” played a crucial role in
this.
I. Homework was felt as very important: students showed their own specific tradi-
tions and cultural background, illustrating their discoveries — with great satisfac-
tion — to the other classes during the homework’s comparison.
We can ask now, to ourselves and to the readers, two fundamental questions:
A. Does an experience like SEE provide benefits of any kind for a museum?
B. Is SEE applicable to any kind of museum, and to scientific-technical ones in
particular?
As far as the first question is concerned, the answer depends, of course, on what a
museum perceives as its mission: if a museum conceives itself as “objects-holder” and
“objects-displayer” for the public, then an activity such as the one described in this paper
has little to do with it. Many museums, however, are meant to be “culture facilitators or
mediators,” that is, a means through which culture is popularised. The main difference
with respect to universities or research centres is that museums are places where
anybody can go, and interaction with the museum content is at the centre of the
experience: “abstract” knowledge, unrelated to a sort of “physical experience,” is not
appropriate for a museum. Scientific museums in particular consider themselves as a
place where visitors do learn something (rather than simply looking at objects). If the goal
of a museum is to facilitate learning, then we can consider our “format” as a novel way
to achieve its goal.
The second question requires a little bit of thought: gaming, competition, quizzes, etc.,
would certainly work with scientific and/or technological topics; nonetheless, two
crucial factors would be missing: the display of local traditions and culture (we assume
that science and technology are “the same” everywhere) and the consequent discussion,
that create an atmosphere of cross-cultural environment.
Interviews again would work as content’s format, but they should be carefully crafted:
they should present state-of-the-art research, but with terminology and concepts
acceptable to students and teachers. The attitude of teachers could be also a source of
problems: our long experience (since 1996) in introducing technologies in public schools
has shown that teachers of scientific-technological subjects are often afraid of state-of-
the-art content, since they do not understand it, in most cases.
The above said, we are not afraid to take up a new challenge and try to adapt the SEE
format for a science museum: candidates are welcome.
Acknowledgments
We wish to acknowledge the work of all the people who contributed to make SEE a
successful experience (details can be found in www.seequmran.it).
References
Barbieri, T. (2000). Networked virtual environments for the Web: The WebTalk-I and
WebTalk-II Architectures. In Proceedings of IEEE for Computer Multimedia &
Expo 2000 (ICME). New York.
Barbieri, T., & Paolini, P. (2000). Cooperative visits to WWW museum sites a year later:
Evaluating the effect. In D. Bearman & J. Trant (Eds.), Museums and the Web 2000:
Selected Papers. Pittsburgh, PA: Archives and Museum Informatics.
Barbieri, T., & Paolini, P. (2001). Cooperation metaphors for virtual museums. In D.
Bearman & J. Trant (Eds.), Museums and the Web 2001: Selected Papers. Pitts-
burgh, PA: Archives and Museum Informatics.
Barbieri, T. et al. (1999). Visiting a museum together: How to share a visit to a virtual world.
In D. Bearman & J. Trant (Eds.), Museums and the Web 99: Selected Papers (pp.
27-32). Pittsburgh, PA: Archives and Museum Informatics.
Barbieri, T. et al. (2001). From dust to StardDust: A collaborative virtual computer science
museum. In International Cultural Heritage Informatics Meeting: Proceedings
from ICHIM 2001. Milano, Italy.
Bowman, D., Hodges, L., & Bolter, J. (1998). The virtual venue: User-computer interaction
in an information-rich virtual environment. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual
Environments, 7(5), 478493.
Bowman, D., Kruijff, E., LaViola, J., & Poupyrev, I. (2001). An introduction to 3D user
interface design. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 10(1), 96-
108.
Bowman, D., Wineman, J., Hodges, L., & Allison, D. (1999). The educational value of an
information-rich virtual environment. Presence: Teleoperators and virtual envi-
ronments, 8(3), 317-331.
Chang, N. (2002). The roles of the instructor in an electronic classroom. In Proceedings
of ED-Media 2002. Denver, CO: AACE.
Di Blas, N., Paolini, P., & Hazan, S. (2003a) Edutainment in 3D virtual worlds. The SEE
experience. In D. Bearman & J. Trant (Eds.), Museums and the Web 2003: Selected
Papers. Pittsburgh, PA: Archives and Museum Informatics.
Di Blas, N., Paolini, P., & Poggi, C. (2003b). SEE (Shrine Educational Experience): An
online cooperative 3D environment supporting innovative educational activities.
In D. Lassner & C. McNaught (Eds.), Proceedings of ED-Media 2003. Norfolk, VA:
AACE.
Di Blas, N., Paolini, P., & Poggi, C. (2003c). Shared 3D Internet environments for
education: usability, educational, psychological and cognitive issues. In J. Jacko
& C. Stephanidis (Eds.), Human-computer interaction: Theory and practice.
Proceedings of HCI International 2003 (Vol. 1). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Di Blas, N., Paolini, P., & Poggi, C. (2004). Learning by playing: An edutainment 3D
environment for schools. In Proceedings of ED-Media 2004. Lugano, Switzerland.
Falk, J.H., & Dierking, L.D. (1992). The museum experience. Washington, DC: Whalesback
Books.
Falk, J.H., & Dierking, L.D. (2000). Learning from museums: Visitor experiences and the
making of meaning. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic
Books.
Roitman, A. (1997). A day at Qumran: The Dead Sea sect and its scrolls. Jerusalem: The
Israel Museum
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Open Learning Environments 327
Chapter XVI
Open Learning
Environments:
Combining Web-Based
Virtual and Hands-On
Science Centre Learning
Hannu Salmi, Heureka, The Finnish Science Centre, Finland and
University of Dalarna, Sweden
Abstract
This chapter describes the changes in the role of informal learning education in science
centres. It shows by several cases how the rapid development of modern information and
communication technologies after the mid-1990s has influenced the traditional hands-
on exhibitions to move towards open learning environments. The reported experiences
of the different types of Web-based solutions in science canters provide evidence and
practical hints for further development of traditional exhibitions towards open learning
environments. Results underscore the role of intrinsic motivation as the key element for
learning. The prices and other thresholds for using existing ICT-based learning
solutions have decreased considerably, and now the main consideration is whether
there are enough social innovations, that is, are there meaningful content and use for
the innovative technology? To create an open learning environment from the elements
of the exhibition and the Internet is clearly one of the main challenges of science
centres.
328 Salmi
Introduction
Using the Internet has become a common practice in education, both formal and informal,
during the past few years. According to a recent Europe-wide survey (Ilomäki et al., 2004),
searching for knowledge and information as well as surfing freely are the most common
activities. The use of e-mail in education has also become a more common feature
according to a survey among European teachers in 2003. However, other possible
advantages, such as discussions, building knowledge structures using net applications
and tools, making contact with experts or using the net as a publishing forum for pupils,
are very rarely used in formal education. (Ilmomäki et al., 2004).
The strength of science centres’ role in e-learning is the willingness of teachers to exploit
opportunities to get involved easily with free-ware or moderate-price new digital learning
materials which then can create new pedagogical practices. This matters also to indi-
vidual learners in informal education.
New educational software can be divided into two main types (see Collins & Strijker,
2003): 1) Large, complicated systems functioning mainly as distributing databases, and
2) Small digital learning materials, which can be chosen from several sources, and which
can be combined with regard to the situational needs of the learner. The most common
term related to this kind of educational software is “Learning Object” (LO). It began to
be used widely in Europe, especially after several projects partly funded by the EU (see
www.eun.org). The definition of the term is very broad, meaning practically any material,
in digital or non-digital form, to be used for learning, education, teaching, or training
(Duncan 2003). Characteristic features for successful and effective LOs are: 1) easy
access, 2) usability, 3) readiness for use by teachers without extra work, and 4)
pedagogical flexibility (Collins & Strijker 2003).
Although ICT-based applications can provide many opportunities for science centres,
these institutes have not been early adaptors of cutting-edge technologies (Severson
et al., 2003). One reason is that until recently there have been problems with the usability
of these technologies — they have not been user-friendly and are not particularly suited
for mass use such as in exhibitions. However, there are clear signs that the blended
experience of both exhibitions and ICT-based solutions can fulfil a variety of learning-
style needs and would appeal to both formal and informal learning.
The combination of an exhibition and the Internet forms an excellent example of an open
learning environment, a term that has been used in the e-Learning literature since the
mid 1990s, especially in the context of life-long learning and distance education (see, for
example, EURYDICE — the information network on education in Europe:
www.eurydice.org). The open learning environment consists typically of a combination
of real physical environments and ICT-based learning. The model by Falk and Dierking
(1992) describes well the physical, social and personal context inherent in this kind of
situation.
When we consider the role of the Internet in science centres, we have to first define the
place of science centres in informal education. Then, we have to define the role of the
Internet, both in the science centre and in the wider field of education.
Informal Learning and the Internet

Informal education has often been regarded as the opposite of formal education. Even
the names of classic books, Deschooling Society by Ivan Illich (1971) and The Un-
schooled Mind by Howard Gardner (1991), have been provocative. These books also
contain harsh criticism of the failures of schooling which have alienated students from
meaningful learning. Moreover, they argue that learning from informal sources is
effective and motivating. These books have had a significant bearing on education and
research.
In addition to his sharp criticism towards schooling, Illich also proposed new solutions
for learning. The positive ideas for learning are the “Learning Webs”, which consist of
four kinds: 1) Reference Services to Educational Objects; 2) Skill Exchanges; 3) Peer-
Matching; and 4) Reference Services to Educator-at-Large (Illich, 1971). As a matter of
fact, some of Illich’s basic concepts have become reality, for example in the World Wide
Web and e-mail. However, it must be stressed that Illich (1971, p. 115) does not use the
term “network” (preferring “opportunity Web” instead), because “network is often used,
unfortunately, to designate the channels reserved to material selected by others for
indoctrination and entertainment”.
To advance public understanding of science, new forms of education are actively being
sought. A large amount of information, especially about modern phenomena, can be
obtained in a personal way from family, friends, and peer groups. The roles of television,
libraries, magazines and newspapers are also important. More significantly, museums
and science centres have seen increased attendances during the last decade. Most of
these forms of education can be classified as informal learning: either focused on young
people via informal, out-of-school education programmes or as clearly informal learning
occurring totally outside of any educational institutions for young people or adults.
The model in Figure 1 (Salmi, 1993, 2003) forms the basis for the role of Internet learning
related to informal learning. Since the 1990s, informal education has become a widely
accepted and integrated part of school systems (Crane et al., 1994). In recent times,
Figure 1. Informal and formal learning (Salmi, 1993, 2003)
330 Salmi
informal learning has become a more accepted part of educational science, and there are
nowadays considerably more literature and research reports about topics such as
learning via the Internet (Clark & Slotta, 2000). The role of the Internet is a clear example
of a learning source that was originally created for other purposes. The Internet is now
an effective informal learning source, and is commonly used by teachers, students and
other formal learning institutions. In other words, the Internet can be described by the
term ‘out-of school education’, meaning schools using informal learning settings and
sources as a part of their curriculum.
The educational role of science centres, as well as computers and the Internet, has been
regarded as being more or less self evident. However, some classical educational theories
can be detected in the principles underlying science centre education, although few
educators in these institutions have been explicit in their approach.
Computers in Science Centres

The proposed model is extended by the theoretical approach of Hawkey (2002, p. 7), in
which the continuity of “real vs. virtual” is added to the model of “formal vs. informal”
learning.
The model shows the characteristic of the Internet; being both informal and virtual, it has
certain strengths and limits. The main difference between the “new” science centres set
up in Europe in the late 1980s and the “Oppenheimer” model based on physical “hands-
on “ centres in northern America (Hein, 1990), is the wide and open use of audiovisual
and computer technologies. The key element for the new science centres set up at the
beginning of the 1990s was on interactivity. The new computer and audiovisual laser-
disc technologies allowed the provision of large amounts of data to visitors in a totally
new form. The new technology was seen as an attractive tool, and was also itself
fascinating for many visitors — and exhibition planners. Unfortunately, this has led to
some overrated solutions with colourful designs but with practically no content.
Nonetheless, the beginning of the personal computer era was important for science
centres and their audiences. For example, in Finland, in Heureka’s 1985 test exhibition
“Pulssi”, 21 percent of the visitors indicated that it was the first time ever that they had
used a personal-computer by themselves. This percentage stayed high until the begin-
ning of the 1990s, especially among the elderly generation.
However, the Hawkey model does have some weaknesses, especially as the placement
of television in the upper right (formal/virtual) quadrant of Figure 2 raises some
questions: What makes television a “formal” medium as compared to the Internet? At
least the ordinary TV programmes such as documentaries are clearly informal learning
sources according to the nomenclature of learning sources (see Bitgood, 1988; Salmi,
1993, 2003; Crane et al., 1994; Hofstein & Rosenfeld, 1996). Even educational TV
programmes, or related VHS or DVD videos on the TV-screen, fulfil more the definitions
of informal than formal learning. Indeed, television fulfills the definition of “free-choice
learning” (Falk & Dierking, 2002). Furthermore, recent research related to closed societies
indicates clearly that informal learning via Western style television during the Soviet
Figure 2. Persistent dichotomies or blurring boundaries? (Hawkey, 2002, p. 7)
period was the most difficult problem for the KGB (Salmi, 1993; Graf & Roiko-Jokela, 2004)
as well since the Internet is out of reach in otherwise strictly closed and controlled
societies.
The dilemma of virtual and real science centres can be stated very clearly in the following
interview reply by the children’s programme television producer, Mr. Orvo Kontio from
Finland: “When we found an excellent exhibit unit at the science centre exhibition and
started to film it for our television programme, we soon found out that it lost its
effectiveness when seen on television. In addition, when we decided to make rather
passive and least popular exhibit units as a topic for the programme, the reactions of the
audiences (and ourselves as professional television producers) were eager and posi-
tive!” (Salmi, 1991). The weakness of television is that it cannot move the tactile
information that the visitor receives immediately while using a hands-on exhibit. On the
other hand, the visual sense dominates the human brain, and this is capitalised by the
power of television to good effect. Even exhibits rated “below average” might be
impressive on television if the visual component is strong enough and provides impact
for situation motivation, or mediates some new information (Salmi, 1991).
The same dilemma is also present in other screen-based media: video, CD-ROM, DVD,
and the Internet. In some aspects, the Internet as a screen-based learning source can
avoid part of the lack of tactile information because it is at least semi-interactive. If the
Website of a science exhibition contains several options and alternative approaches
instead of the usual way of presentation, it might even compete with the exhibition itself.
Bevan and Wanner (2003) have, as a result of their surveys, presented the main elements
of the relationship between hands-on science exhibitions and the Web: 1) The best Web
solutions have been created in a very similar way to the best exhibits; i.e. as original ideas
by exhibition planners that allow the learner to direct the process, accrete the experiences,
and further his/her own free-choice learning; 2) The main difference is the lack of
physicality of the Web; 3) The exhibits that can be converted most easily and directly
to the Web are those exhibits relating to perception and vision; and 4) The growing
332 Salmi
multimedia capacity of the Web has led science centres (like the Exploratorium) to create
more Web casting experiments related to exhibitions.
However, to produce suitable Web casting material as an alternative to established
broadcasting programmes, professional skills and funding for hardware and software are
needed. The expertise for producing meaningful content remains the main consideration.
Live Discussion and Interaction

A pioneering trans-Atlantic Internet interaction experiment between science centres was
developed and administered by the Minnesota Science Center and Heureka in 1998. This
project allowed students visiting science centres in Europe and the US to communicate
on-line with each other. This was possible during the late afternoon (European time),
when the visitors at Minnesota had arrived at their centre early in the morning. The senior
high school students from Finland were able to communicate in English. The content
matter of the project was fairly easy to finalize because the centres had the same kind of
interactive exhibitions and this provided a context for the discussions. The main topic
was on ancient cultures: students were comparing and reporting facts related to Egyptian
mummies, graves and the everyday lives of ordinary people. Physically, the interaction
and communication via the Internet took place from the science centre exhibitions.
However, the main interest was in the brand-new technology, which did not cause major
problems. This project greatly resembled the experiments with video conferencing a
decade earlier; the situation motivation of people attending the virtual meetings was at
a high level but after the project, it did not create new permanent solutions for virtual
science centres.
Sleep Laboratory:
A Combination of Exhibition, Media,
Television, and the Internet
How can added value for an exhibition be provided via the Internet? It is frequently the
case that the exhibition receives more visibility in the media than in the science centre
itself. An example of this was Illusions — the brain exhibition in 1996 at Heureka which
presented the latest brain research. One of the main attractions of the exhibition was the
Sleep Laboratory. For a period of 200 days, volunteers were sleeping in shifts during the
day time in a quiet, darkened room located in the middle of the exhibition. While the
visitors were able to see these ‘sleepers’ through semi-transparent glass, on-line data
was being displayed by EEG equipment, which registered the different phases between
dozing and REM (rapid eye movement) sleep.
This data, combined with interpretation, provided a great deal of knowledge about the
basic functioning of the brain. Students had an opportunity to do real science research
projects, both at the exhibition and by following the sleep process on the Internet.
Although the main image on the Website was certainly passive — only part of the face
on a pillow, it somehow fascinated Web users. In any case, it was also showing the slow
development and change in the EEG signals on the screen. One of the reasons for the
novelty of the programme was that people very rarely see other people sleeping, either
because of darkness, or because of intimacy and privacy considerations.
The project was administered as part of European Science Week in1996, and it aroused
a great deal of interest in the media. Over a period of three months, several newspapers
and magazines had written articles about the project, and after three television programmes
on European satellite channels were screened, the number of visits to the Heureka Sleep
Website was overwhelming the server!
Evaluation data from schools, students and teachers on the effectiveness and popularity
of this programme indicated that the key element was content matter: the topic was
meaningful for the students. People sleep for one third of their lives, and sleep and dreams
are an essential part of our culture. The history of scientific sleep research is rather short,
although there is a great deal of recorded anecdotal experiences dating back to ancient
history. The evolution of sleep research is directly related to the development of
technology and computers. There are several phenomena that were first recognised
centuries ago but have only become measurable in recent years.
The content of the project supported the curriculum of school education. As an informal
learning source, it gave much-needed information about the various phenomena that was
not available in ordinary text books. According to the evaluation, the most active users
of the Website were the 5th grade students in primary school and the 9th grade students
in high school — the levels where human biology is one of the subjects taught in the
science curricula. In addition, senior high school biology and psychology teachers were
actively contacting the sleep laboratory. According to the survey, senior high school
students (n =180) attending the sleep laboratory during their visit to the centre with
preparatory Web-based material stayed for a noticeably longer time at the exhibition area.
The difference was clear when compared to the control group which used textbook based
materials. As can be seen from Table 1, the intrinsic motivation level of the Web user
group is at a higher level, and the difference is statistically significant (p<.05). However,
there was practically no difference in the situation motivation level. It seems as if that
the sleep laboratory had an effective motivation effect on anyone seeing it ‘live’ at the
exhibition.
Table 1. Intrinsic motivation: Pre- and post-test
Group Score
pre post
Web preparatory 25.7 26.8*
Textbook preparatory 25.2 25.3
334 Salmi
However, the core focus of the project was the real sleep laboratory supported by
additional information from newspapers, television, and other media. This made the
project well-known and people started to access it via the Internet. Although the
evidence from this project comes from the early years of the Internet, it is still relevant
today. When creating a meaningful Web site, it can only become popular outside the
circle of normal active users only by informing people via other media. This is very
important since, although search engines are widely used, the users are usually people
who already have an interest in the topic and have at least some information about the
possible existence of the site.
Bionet
The topic that visitors seems to be very interested in all science centres and cultures
is that relating to the visitor him/herself, i.e., human biology. The rapid developments in
life sciences has made it a necessity to deliver information about more complicated topics
too, and not just focus on the basics of human biology and body, so popular in most of
the science centre exhibitions. In this context, science centre planners face a number
of issues that need to be addressed for the benefit of the public: should we clone human
embryos to cure diseases? Would you choose your child’s genes? Would you eat
genetically modified food? Will new drugs keep you healthy and make you live forever?
The above considerations led eight European science centres and museums to create a
Website called Bionet (http://www.bionetonline.org), which is presented in nine lan-
guages. The site lets visitors explore and debate on the latest discoveries in the life
sciences. Visitors can explore the science in question, look at the ethical issues, compare
the regulatory laws in different countries, play games and express their own opinions.
The concept and content of the Bionet Website was the result of brainstorming sessions
with experts from both research centers and science centres. As a result, the “E-
Exhibition” was structured as a series of “scenarios” (Bandelli, 2003), e.g. challenging
situations which provide access to the following interactive zones: social implications,
ethics, overview of risks, research, toolkit, legal issues, European vs. National view-
points, interviews, glossary, and debates.
The content available on Bionet is comprehensive compared to many other sites. It
provides information for different types of audiences, and this has been documented
exceptionally well in the final report of the project (Bionet, 2004): The site had 119,000
visitors in the first six months starting from November 2002. The average time spent on
the visit was 11 minutes. The most common language of the users was English (24%); 11
percent of the users chose Portuguese and 12 percent Swedish. One of the strengths of
the site was that it caters to the user’s native language. This is extremely important when
the content is both new and complicated. Especially for youngsters, the language barrier
might be the reason for skipping the topic.
Analysis of the amount of visits to the various content hosted on the site of Bionet
does provide evidence of rather content-orientated users: 63 percent of the viewed pages
were content-based; 15 percent was on legal issues, 15 percent was on tools, and 13 %
was on ethics (Bionet, 2004). Video-based content was chosen very rarely (1%). Reasons
for this might be technical: watching video type of file imposes software and bandwidth
constraints on a user’s PC.
When the visits are analysed by scenarios, stem cells was the most frequently (30%)
chosen topic. Another supplementing factor for the content and scenario was the age
of the users. In the voting session, 28 percent of the users were 16-19 years old, and 12
percent of the users were 10-15 years old. The majority of the users were young people.
This might explain why the theme on ageing was not so popular! It seems that the users
are mostly high school and senior high school students. Sixty-seven percent of the
visitors came to the Website directly, 30 percent via search engines, and 3 percent via
links (mostly from science centre sites) (Bionet, 2004).
The feedback for this site has been encouraging for the planners. An evaluation of the
Web pages also indicates that the users of these pages come more often from places other
than science centre Web sites. Many students trying to find the latest information related
to biotechnology have found the Bionet site via search engines. The opportunity to use
it in different languages as well as the platform to compare regulatory issues and views
in different countries have made Bionet a useful tool and resource in European debate.
The project was co-funded by the European Commission.
Though it was conceived of as a temporary project, it became very popular among
audiences and was such a useful tool for science centres that it became a permanent
platform for information and discussion. It is a good example of how the Internet can
provide added value for science centres and their visitors.
The Web element has to be meaningful, and the meaningfulness has two components.
First, the content should be meaningful to the learner. Second, the learning process
should be structured pedagogically in a meaningful way (according to age, prior
knowledge and skills of the learner, and structure of the topic to be taught).
If science canters cannot respond to social change and update themselves, they may
very easily lose their ideological credibility and sources of financial support. Controver-
sial issues (such as gene technology) are all too easily omitted from the list of subjects
covered by science centres, but the Bionet has shown that visitors do rely upon and
respect institutions trying to address these kinds of topics.
Via the Internet, it is possible to react to the rapid developments of science and
technology in a more cost-effective way than by creating huge and static exhibitions.
Unfortunately, Websites too can get out-of-date very quickly by content and design.
This is because the audience has become used to demanding the latest on-line informa-
tion from the Internet. The dilemma is that this non-adequate (or even erroneous)
information can circulate for years linked to many sites which are out of the control of
the original producer of the information. The reliability and validity of Internet informa-
tion are among the most difficult challenges that face informal learning. The Bionet
project succeeded because it combined exhibitions, live happenings, discussions, and
the use of the Internet. This combination was novel and attracted current interest. The
sequel to Bionet is DECIDE - DEliberative CItizens Debates, in European science centres
and museums. Earmarked to run from 2004 to 2007, it will be based on the earlier
experiences and will concentrate more on citizen participation.
336 Salmi
Improving Science Communication

ISCOM (Improving Science Communication) was a three year project from 2000 to 2002,
and was led by ECSITE, the association for European science centres. It sought to
sensitize leading science centres to the potential of new information and communication
technologies for promoting the public understanding of science. The common miscon-
ception was that these institutions, according to their mission and practice, would have
been the very first to apply ICT as an effective tool in their daily functions; however,
regular use of electronic networks was not then widespread in European science centres
and museums. It also appeared evident that the new technologies had been utilised to
maintain the traditional functions and practices, rather than changing them, or creating
new innovative forms (ISCOM Memo, 2001). This critical analysis clearly shows that
science centres have not been among the leading developers either of the technology
or the content of the Internet.
Although the analysis above is harsh, there were some early experiments. One goal was
to create a science communicators’ forum to exchange and diffuse best practices from
science centres/museums. This initiative occurred under the aegis of the Laboratory for
Science Communication Research at the University of Poitiers. Although the main focus
was on the public’s understanding of science, it soon became evident that the use of
Internet and other ICT-based methods are some of the key elements in the discussion
among experts, decision makers and their audiences. The ISCOM project also revealed
a lack of use of the Internet as a means of contact between science centres and their
audiences.
There were several occasions when the Internet was utilised at science centre exhibi-
tions. At Heureka, there was free use of the Internet in the Children’s Gallery in 1995.
The main objective of the exhibition’s Internet station was to give an opportunity to
ordinary visitors to get acquainted with the Internet. The exhibit contained only a short
introduction of the technology involved, and was more focused on the software and
content which characterizes the Internet. The exhibit area became rather popular in the
science centre. It was not only the opportunity to use it free, but for more than 20 percent
of the visitors it was the first time that they had ever stepped inside the world of the World
Wide Web, not to mention the fact that for 1 percent of the visitors it was still — in 1995,
the first time that they had used a personal computer!
Context E-Learning with

Broadband Technologies
CELEBRATE (Context e-Learning with Broadband Technologies) is a project with the
ambitious goal of creating the first Europe-wide demonstrator portal that will provide up
to 500 pilot schools access to high quality Learning Objects and a virtual learning
environment. During the period 2002-2004, it was being funded by the “Cross Programme
Action” of the European Commission’s IST (Information Society Technologies)

programme related to European youth in a digital age.
The principal objective of the initiative was to establish a small number of strategic, large-
scale experiments in learning based on pedagogically sound principles while addressing
operational and scalable technologies, applications and services. The project document
describes it as follows:
CELEBRATE will outline a pedagogy for e-learning in European schools based

on a vision of what ‘content’ (resources + services + communication spaces)
may look like in the future and how this will be created and delivered in online
environments. In particular the project will provide schools with access to a
large-scale demonstrator of an online content repository that includes the
ability to share a critical mass of Learning Objects (LOs) and ‘components’
(understood as combinations of multimedia assets) that can be used to create
LOs. It is intended that CELEBRATE will act as a catalyst for the European e-
learning content industry (the entire value-chain including content owners,
publishers, broadcasters, national school networks and ICT platform vendors).
The project will explore how a LO methodology can be applied to educational
activities and services as well as learning materials. A key aim of the project is
also to investigate how Learning Objects can be handled by a new generation
of Learning Content Management Systems (LCMS) from a variety of different
vendors and to test the interoperability of these systems in a real-life demon-
strator.
CELEBRATE will particularly analyse the extent to which new, more flexible
forms of content development and distribution (based on reusable LOs) impact
upon the learning process and support a new pedagogy for e-learning in schools
based on constructivist learning models. In particular, the project will assess
how the use of LOs encourages the development of key digital age skills such
as collaborative working, creativity, multidisciplinarity, adaptiveness, intercul-
tural communication and problem-solving.
In addition to the different languages used in the European community, different school
systems as well as various national and local curricula constitute formidable challenges
for the development of pan-European learning materials. The funds invested during the
last decade in ICT education has recently led national educational administrators and
also the EU to focus on the results obtained in this field. More than on hardware and
infrastructure, resources have also been focused on teacher training, computer courses,
and further education of publishers.
E-Learning materials produced until recently have been based on practical experiences
from early PC-based and CD-ROM learning materials. There are some excellent examples
of cost-effective and well planned educational materials, but the overall concept in
creating these materials is rather weak. Most of the materials repeat and replicate
conventional didactic models. “ICT has been considered as an “add-on” to traditional
forms of teaching and learning. It also assumes that the concept of the school and the
338 Salmi
role of the teacher will remain essentially unchanged and that pupils will remain basically
consumers of pre-digested resources that have been tightly designed to meet specific
curricular objectives” (de Figuero, 2001).
The CELEBRATE consortium consists of 27 organisations, and is co-ordinated by the
European Schoolnet, a permanent organisation for all European ministries of Education
that has strong experience in e-learning projects in Europe. The evaluation project was
done by five universities in Europe. The main producers were formal education institu-
tions and some leading publishing houses of Europe. In addition, two science centres,
Heureka from Finland, and La Cité des Sciences et de l’Industrie from France supported
CELEBRATE by producing Web-based learning objects (LOs) for use. These science
centres were representing informal learning sources which were not so closely bound to
national curricula.
Ilomäki et al. (2003) have published (in Finnish) a “Handbook for teachers, trainers and
producers”, which defines the main principles of creating Digital LOs. The book also
underlines the principles of constructivist learning theory. It describes the flexible role
of Digital LOs on the Web, and one of the key suggestions was to activate the prior
knowledge of the learners through the supporting of conceptual changes in the learning
process. The components of meaningful learning through digital LOs contain elements
of problem-based learning, which benefits learners.
Research in Learning and Motivation

in Open Learning Environments
Common sense and experience tells us that students are eager to learn in informal
settings. Field trips, school camps, visits to workplaces, museums and science centres,
or even having an art lesson in the school yard, evoke positive memories in students’
minds. The Internet is a new challenge and possibility in this regard. Can the motivating
effects of freedom and physical context be taken advantage of? After all, this is an
important aim of science centre education. Evidence for this was sought in a study
related to CELEBRATE and which was administered at Heureka in 2003.. It was expected
that the study would provide useful indicators about learning in informal settings and
open learning environments. In fact, most studies about motivation orientation have
been conducted in the classroom-learning context.
The following theoretical model with definitions (see Salmi, 1993, 2003) describes
different types of motivation.
A: Extrinsic Motivation
Situation motivation: motivation grows from a new situation. Temporary, external factors
are important. Social relations are often an affecting factor. Entertainment is always a
significant factor.
Typical features:
• short-lasting motivation
• learning is easily disturbed
• learning is orientated to irrelevant subjects
Instrumental motivation: the basis of this motivation is to get a reward and/or to avoid
punishment. The main stimulus is ‘to get things done’ rather than being interested in the
deeper meaning of the subject.
Typical features:
• the goal is often to pass an examination

• the learning of isolated facts, but not common principles
• connections or the theoretical background are less important for the learner
• facts are very quickly forgotten after an examination
B: Intrinsic Motivation
Intrinsic motivation: The basis of this motivation is a real interest in the topic studied.
No other person persuades the learner to learn. The student sees the value of the studies
and forms plans to use the knowledge or skill in the future. Curiosity, exploring and
problem solving are key elements of this motivation.
Typical features:
• a critical and open-minded attitude towards learning

• seeing the connection between isolated facts and the topic area as a whole
• connection between theory and practice
• curiosity, interest, problem-based learning
In particular, this study aims to ascertain 5th graders’ (aged 11 years) experiences of
studying in an informal learning environment at the Heureka Science Centre. The study
also sought to discover what kind of impact an Internet-based pre-lesson before the
actual visit to the science exhibition might have on this experience. Further, it looked at
the different types of motivation the pupils had. As the experiment took place in an open
learning environment, it provided an excellent opportunity to describe and measure the
qualitative differences in each pupil’s situation motivation.
The subjects (n=135) consisted of six comprehensive school classes of 5th graders in the
Greater-Helsinki area. Four of the classes (n=101) participated in the preparatory lesson
and two classes (n=34) did not. The latter two classes formed the the control group for
340 Salmi
the motivation tests. The data was collected using written questionnaires before and
after the visit to the science centre, and also by interviewing 16 pupils immediately after
the visit.
The students had an opportunity to use the Web-sites in the “Open Questions”
exhibition during a school lesson one week before the visit to the science centre. They
were allowed to make their own plans concerning how to visit the exhibition. With the
support of the Website they collected information, created their route through the
exhibition, and structured their own timetable according to their interests and motivation.
The main results confirmed the fact that studying informally in a science centre is very
positive and motivating for 5th grade pupils. The results of the situation motivation test
also confirmed that the students attending the preparatory lesson had much stronger
situation motivation in the science centre visit than the control classes.
The results showed that there were statistically significant (.05) differences between
boys and girls in their motivation in school. Girls’ motivation in school was more intrinsic
whereas the boys’ motivation was more extrinsic. The results also showed that boys are
more dependent on rewards and that they are not ready to put in as much effort into
working at school as the girls.
One very simple but crucial factor showing their interest and motivation was the time
spent in the exhibition: for most of the students who had experienced the preparatory
Internet lesson, one hour was all too short a time, and they would have liked to stay there
for a longer time. On the other hand, the control group did not enjoy the exhibition for
more than 30 minutes on average.
Another aspect that showed the free-choice learning element of the pre-lesson via the
Internet was the structure of the visit. In earlier experiments (see Salmi 1993, 1996, 2003)
the pre-lesson by teacher, textbooks and written materials gave the students a feeling
that they have to explore the exhibition according to the plan given to them by the
authorities. Now they were able to choose the topics themselves based on their own
activity via the Internet. Furthermore, results of the interviews showed that more than
15 percent of the students had visited the pages in their leisure time too. Another
important factor was that the students became interested in the other Web-pages too —
pages that were not specified by either the teacher or the science centre.
Open Learning via

Information Technology
Over the years, science centres have learnt a lot from each other while creating
exhibitions. This open tradition was started by Frank Oppenheimer in the Exploratorium
in the late 1960s, and sharing ideas has been one of the strengths of the science canter
movement (Hein, 1990, Bewan & Wanner, 2003). There have also been some cooperative
projects for creating new solutions for ICT-based learning in science centres: four
European science centres (Heureka, Finland; Deutsches Museum, Germany; at-Bristol,
UK; Ciência Viva, Portugal) have developed interactive exhibitions towards open
learning environments for use also in distance learning via information and communica-
tion technologies. This project called OPEN SCIENCE INFO was supported by the EU-
Minerva programme over the years 2002-2004.
The target audience was school groups, teachers and individual learners. The develop-
ment process was supported by an action research of school groups and observations
of visitors. The research was based on theories in informal learning, out-of-school
education, motivation and usability. The project involved close cooperation with local
schools, and the results are now disseminated both by ECSITE (European science centre
organisation) and ESHA (European Secondary Heads’ Association).
The topics of the exhibitions and Websites were different in each science centre
according to their specialities: Chemistry, human physiology and pharmacy (Deutsches
Museum), Wild Walk – biology and environmental education (atBristol); Hands-on
physics (Ciência Viva), and Open questions – future of science (Heureka). The project
was ambitious and it was known right from the start that, while it might solve some
practical problems related to ICT/ODL education, it would certainly create new ques-
tions, too.
In informal education, and especially in Web-based learning, it is nearly impossible to
create standardised and fully-controlled learning situations. The whole idea of informal
e-learning is that learners can create their own approaches.
The purpose of the survey related to the Open Science Info was to investigate learning
in science centre exhibitions in order to develop the use of the Web. The motivation model
that was used as the theoretical background of the study separates intrinsic, instrumental
and situation motivation. The design of the study was quasi-experimental: it comprised
two different pre-treatment groups with different types of pre-learning, both with and
without the Internet.
Design of the Study

The subjects (n=628) come from four countries (UK, Germany, Portugal, and Finland). In
each of the countries, four classes (n=496) participated in the Internet-based advance
education, and two classes (n=132) did not. The subjects were from secondary school
classes (students aged 13-15).
The classes were tested by 1) the standard intrinsic/instrumental motivation test, 2) a
situation motivation test which measures and compares the exhibition experience, 3) the
ICT habits questionnaire related to the use of computers and the Internet, and 4) the
standardised Raven-test defining the cognitive thinking level of the students.
Tests were administered in autumn 2003 and winter 2004 according to the following
timetable: the pre-test a month before (T1), the post-test a week after (T3), interviews
during the exhibition visit day (T4), and the delayed post-test three months after (T5) the
exhibition visit (Figure 3) The data related to ICT experience and usage habits were
collected during the pre-test. The situation motivation test was administered only after
342 Salmi
Figure 3. Design of the study
time
Motivation test T1
• intrinsic / instrumental
Pre-lesson at school T2
• computer aided
• ”exhibition map”
EXHIBITION VISIT T3
Interviews of randomly selected pupils
Post-test T4
• motivation (intrinsic / instrumental / situation)
• knowledge test
• computer questionnaire
• exhibition questionnaire
Delayed post-test T5 motivation

• cognitive thinking & reasoning (Raven)
the exhibition visit, and the best timing for the cognitive test was during the delayed post-
test.
The Internet pre-lesson treatment group was the most positively motivated towards the
exhibition. The difference from the other groups was statistically significant (p<0.05),
and in addition some long-lasting effects could be observed. Most notably, the com-
ments of this group in the recorded interviews gave added information about the role of
pre-learning. The free-choice element was found to be important: the pupils felt that the
exhibition was more meaningful since they could choose their route in the exhibition
independently.
According to earlier results in the literature, situation motivation is activated when the
outer attractions are strong enough: new settings, strong stimuli, interesting people,
social relations, humour, etc. All this and more are readily available in any science centre.
So this study clearly indicates that situation motivation is effective. Quite apart from
being at the science centre, the pupils were out of school, and it was pleasant to leave
the four walls of the classroom for some enriching settings.
The exhibition itself has such a strong situation motivation effect on pupils that it easily
overshadowed other motivational effects, for example pre-visit lessons. It may be
surmised that the most important benefit to be gained from a visit to a science centre is
the change in the visitor’s easily-aroused situation motivation into intrinsic motivation
and deep-learning strategy. Results indicate that the intrinsic motivation of the Internet
pre-learning groups grew during the project. This is in contrast to the control group,
whose intrinsic motivation actually decreased or stayed at the original level.
Clear differences in the level of overall motivation were evident from the pre-tests
conducted in the different countries. The level of intrinsic motivation was highest in
Portugal, second in the UK, third in Germany, and lowest in Finland. The difference was
statistically significant (.05) between Portugal and Germany, and Finland. However, the
limitations in the number of subjects used in this study do not permit an overall
comparison across the countries, although the school motivation in Finland has been
lower than average in other studies, too.
The meta-results of several earlier studies (see Salmi 2003) show that the level of intrinsic
motivation is highest during the primary school years, second highest in sixth form
students, and lowest in secondary school. In light of this, the present results are
encouraging, although it is not possible to induce intrinsic motivation simply through
external means. Intrinsic motivation is acquired over a long period when the personality
develops, and meaningful learning conditions in both content and context are essential.
However, the fact that the study took place in an open learning environment such as that
which prevails in a science exhibition caused several background variables related to
school and home to be beyond our control. Findings suggest that the students’ situation
motivation can be changed into intrinsic motivation through well-organised programmes
linking schools to the informal learning settings of science centres.
The higher the students scored in the cognitive reasoning test, the stronger was their
intrinsic motivation. However, there was no link between the cognitive level of the
students and the situation motivation. The attitude towards the exhibition was not
especially gender-dominated either, instead, girls in all the countries had a slightly more
positive attitude towards the exhibition, but the difference was not statistically signifi-
cant (.05) except in Portugal.
The hypothesis according to which earlier experience and activities with computers, and
easy access to the Internet should have correlated with motivation and learning proved
unsupported by the empirical data. Only in Finland did the Internet/computer-orientated
students feel that the exhibition visit supported by the Internet pre-lesson was a deep-
learning experience as compared to non-computer orientated students. In other coun-
tries, it seemed that most of the students who had less experience in e-learning or using
the Internet seemed to feel that they had learnt more compared to the others. However,
there was one clear exception: those students who had visited the science centre Website
during their spare time at home, in the library or in some other place between the school
lesson and the exhibition visit, felt that the process was a deep-learning experience.
The survey of Open Science Info contained several uncontrolled factors, such as
different countries and cultures, different types and sizes of exhibitions, and different
content of the Websites. The common characteristic of the Websites was the “bird’s eye
map”, which allowed the students to have an overall vision of the exhibition, and gave
them the opportunity to plan their own route for the visit.
The results strongly indicate the ability of high-school students in the four countries to
independently apply their own learning strategies by using a combination of Web-based
learning and an exhibition. The survey also gave comparative results for the differences
and similarities of using computers and the Internet in different countries.
344 Salmi
Conclusion
The main question of the survey done in this study was whether it is possible to find any
common features and similarities in motivation and Web use. This is significant since
using programmes and approaches such as the linking of schools and science centres
together in meaningful learning initiatives, teenagers’ decreasing motivation for learning
can be minimised. The right cognitive level is important, but the same exhibit units and
exhibitions apply for different students with different motivational and knowledge
backgrounds if the introduction is carried out in the proper pedagogical context. The
meaningful content of the exhibition is the principal factor. The visit to the science centre
supported by Internet-based learning evidently created a worthwhile and valuable
learning experience for the students.
In the CONNECT project 2004-2006, four European science centres (atBristol, UK; Växjö,
Sweden; Heureka, Finland; and Euginides, Greece) are cooperating with universities, ICT
experts, researchers and companies to create a new type of a collaboration involving
schools, science centers and the Internet.. As part of this initiative, the classroom of
tomorrow will be designed using advanced technologies (Williams, D. et al. 2004) so as
to connect the formal and informal environments. An interesting development stage is
the step from virtual reality (VR) to augmented reality (AR), where the latter not only
conjures up virtual reality through special spectacles or a helmet, but also combines the
real environment and the virtual, for example by giving the user of the AR some add-ons
to view the scenery around (see http://hci.rsc.rockwell.com/AugmentedReality). These
technologies already exist, mainly in research laboratories but are likely to enter the
market in due course.
Some existing solutions, such as the “Foot driven navigation interface for a virtual
landscape walking input device” by Barrera, Takahashi &Nakajima (2004), “Drawing,
painting, and sculpting in the air” by Mäkelä & Ilmonen (2004), are undergoing serious
development work by universities and researchers (see http://www.tml.hut.fi/Research/
HELMA/; and http://www.vr2004.org/program/Workshop_BF_Proceeding.pdf). The
applications of the latter project in a science center setting are currently under intense
planning.
The prices and other thresholds for using existing Internet and other ICT-based learning
solutions have dropped considerably in recent years, and now the main consideration
is whether there are enough social innovations, that is, are there meaningful content and
use for the innovative technology? (Collins & Strijker, 2003). This development work has
already started to create new principles for the pedagogical use of educational software.
To create an open learning environment from the elements of the exhibition and the
Internet is clearly one of the main challenges for science centers.
References
Bandelli, A. (2003). ECSITE Newsletter, 54, 7-8. Retrieved from www.bionetonline.org
Barrera, S., Takahashi, H., & Nakajima, M. (2004). Foot driven navigation interface for a
virtual landscape walking input device. In Beyond Wand and Glove. Proceedings
of IEEE VR Workshop (pp. 35-39). Chicago, IL.
Bevan, B., & Wanner, N. (2003). Science on the screen. International Journal of
Technology Management, 25 (5), 427-440.
Bionet. (2004). BIONET final report. An EU-project. Contract HPRP-CT-2001-00008.
Bitgood, S. (1988). A comparison of formal and informal learning. Technical Report No
88-10. Jacksonville, AL: Center for Social Design.
Clark, D., & Slotta, J. (2000). Evaluating media-enhancement and source authority on the
Internet: the knowledge integration environment. International Journal of Sci-
ence Education, 22(8), 859-871.
Collins, B., & Strijker, A. (2003). Re-usable learning objects in context. International
Journal on E-Learning, 2(4), 2-16.
Crane, Y., Nicholson, H., Chen, M., & Bitgood, S. (1994). Informal science learning. What
the research says about television, science museums, and community-based
projects. Dedham, MA: Research Communications Ltd.
Duncan, C. (2003). Conceptions of learning objects: Social and economical issues. In A.
Littlejohn (Ed.), Re-using online resources: A sustainable approach to e-learning.
London: Kogan Page.
Falk, J., & Dierking, L. (1992). The museum experience. Washington, DC: Whalesback
Books.
Falk, J., & Dierking, L. (2002). Lessons without limit. Walnut Creek: AltaMiraPress.
Gardner, H. (1991) The unschooled mind: How children think and how schools should
teach. USA: BasicBooks.
Graf, M., & Roiko-Jokela, H. (2004). Vaarallinen Suomi. Jyväskylä, Finland: Minerva.
Hawkey, R. (2003). The lifelong learning game: Season ticket or free transfer? In
Computers and Education (pp. 5-20).
Hein, H. (1990). The Exploratorium: The museum as laboratory. Washington, DC: The
Smithsonian Institute.
Hofstein, A., & Rosenfeld, S. (1996). Bridging the gap between formal and informal
science learning. Studies in Science Education, 28, 87-112.
Illich, I. (1971). Deschooling society. New York: Harper and Row.
Ilomäki, L. et al. (2004). Opi ja onnistu verkossa – aihiot avuksi. Opetushallitus - The
Finnish Board of Education. Helsinki, Finland: Hakapaino.
Mäkelä, W., & Ilmonen, T. (2004). Drawing, painting, and sculpting in the air. Develop-
ment studies about an immersive free-hand interface for artists. In Beyond Wand
and Glove. Proceedings of the IEEE VR Workshop (pp. 88-89). Chicago, IL.
346 Salmi
Salmi, H. (1991, April). Television as informal learning source. Paper presented in

Colston Symposium, University of Bristol, UK.
Salmi, H. (1993) Science centre education: Motivation and learning in informal
education. Research report 119. University of Helsinki, Department of Teacher
Education.
Salmi, H. (1999, January 6-9). Opportunities for meaningful contents in digital-TV. Paper
presented at the 2nd International Congress on Electronic Media & Citizenship in
Information Society, Helsinki, Finland.
Salmi, H. (2001). Public understanding of science: Universities and science centres. In
Managing University Museums (pp. 151-162). Paris: OECD Publications.
Salmi, H. (2003). Science centres as learning laboratories: Experiences of Heureka, the
Finnish science centre. International Journal of Technology Management, 25(5),
460-475.
Severson, J., Cremer, J., Lee, K., Allison, D., Gelo, S., Edwards, J., Vanderleest, R., Heston,
S., Kearney, J., & Thomas, G. (2003). Exploring virtual history at the National
Museum of American History. In VSMM – Proceedings of the 9th International
Conference on Virtual Systems and Multimedia (p. 10). Quebec, Canada, Oct. 15-
17, 2003.
Williams, D. et al. (2004). A reinspection of HCI evaluation methods. CONNECT Project.
Department of Electronic, Electrical and Computer Engineering, School of Engi-
neering, The University of Birmingham, UK.
Use of Log Analysis and Text Mining for Simple Knowledge Extraction 347
Chapter XVII
Use of Log Analysis and

Text Mining for Simple
Knowledge Extraction:
Case Study of a Science
Center on the Web
Daniel Tan Teck Meng, Singapore Science Centre, Singapore
Abstract
Log analysis of server data has been used to study the Web site of the Singapore Science
Center, which is the largest Web site among all science centers in the world. This has
yielded a wealth of data, which has been useful in assessing the effectiveness of the
content hosted on the site. Additionally, the use of text-mining to structure an effective
query interface for the Science Net database, which is an online repository of over 6,000
questions and answers on science and technology, is assessed. A commentary on the
use of log analysis for virtual science centers is also presented.
348 Tan, Subramaniam and Tan
Introduction
Data archived in the Web logs of servers represent a potentially rich source of
information (Jones et al., 2000; Ren et al., 2002; Zhang, 1999). However, the raw data
recorded on server logs are not of much use. It has to be first cleaned to remove redundant
information such as, for example, sound, graphics, video and image files embedded on
a Web page for which a hit has already been registered, and then stored in a data
warehouse before using appropriate techniques to extract useful information (Joshi et
al., 1999). Log analysis software is needed to unravel the data, and the information mined
can help to evaluate the efficacy of a Web site through the identification of patterns and
trends embedded in the data.
Published studies on the effectiveness of commercially available log analysis software
are rather sparse in the primary reference literature, not surprisingly since the use of such
software may be construed as endorsement of the product. Since such software
represents, to a good extent, the state-of-the-art development in the field, its use can
permit an evaluation of its effectiveness in real life settings. This can help to further
bridge the chasm between theory and practice as well as provide a basis for further
research. It was with this objective that the present study was undertaken.
More specifically, this study aims to use log analysis software to study the access
patterns and trends from data archived in the server logs of the Web site of the Singapore
Science Centre, which is the largest Web site among all science centers in the world. It
is recognized that administrators and stakeholders would need reassurance that invest-
ments in a virtual science center are reaping dividends in the form of increased Web
traffic. Log analysis software aims to contribute towards this. Sophisticated analysis of
data archived in server logs is not the object of this study, and is therefore not addressed
here. Only simple statistical analysis is used, as this is adequate for the needs of most
science centers. An additional objective of this study is to use a commercially available
text-mining software to construct a query interface for information retrieval by users of
the Science Net database on this Web site.
Related Work and Rationale for Study

Science centers are institutions for the popularizing of science and technology among
the masses (Danilov, 1982). The need for people to be cognizant of science and
technology is a given in today’s age of globalization and rapid scientific advances, and
science centers do this in a way that makes people realize the impact of science and
technology in their everyday lives. Commonly, this entails the use of science exhibitions
and various promotional activities. Raising popular science literacy levels of the people
through such initiatives empowers them to make informed decisions as well as become
meaningful participants in science and technology driven nation-building efforts.
The Exploratorium in San Francisco pioneered the science center movement in 1968
(Oppenheimer, 1972; Delacote, 1998) and made a success of it for others to emulate the
concept. In due course, science centers started mushrooming in many parts of the world.
There are more science centers in the Western world, especially in the USA and in
Western Europe, than in other parts of the world. In South-East Asia, the Singapore
Science Center has been the pioneer (Tan & Subramaniam, 1998, 2003a).
With the arrival of the Internet in the 1990s and its phenomenal growth thereafter (Tan
& Subramaniam, 2001), science centers have been compelled to turn to this new media
as a way to enhance their mission objectives further and reach new audiences. In the early
years, the Web content hosted by science centers was more of a static nature and limited
to providing information to the public about their opening hours and educational
programs as well as the hosting of some science-based text resources. Even then, in 1997,
when the virtual science center movement started to pick up momentum, a total of 195.3
million hits were registered by 77 science centers and science museums (Association of
Science-Technology Centers, 1998). With advances in Web-related software technolo-
gies, the offerings of virtual science centers have grown in sophistication, so much so
that this now constitutes a new genre of learning in informal science education (Tan &
Subramaniam, 2003b).
Virtual science centers now host a range of content, including exhibitlets and science
resources (Honeyman, 1998; Jackson, 1996; Orfinger, 1998; Tan & Subramaniam, 2003b).
In fact the Web site of the Association of Science-Technology Centers (http://
www.astc.org) has links to over 200 science centers, science museums and other
institutions of informal science learning.
The challenges faced by science centers in competing for the online attention of surfers,
who have a gamut of options to turn to in cyberspace, means that they need to not only
strategize their range of Web offerings but also configure these in a way such that a
decent measure of customer satisfaction is promoted. Web audiences are different from
visitors entering the gates of these institutions. Whilst in the latter case, visitors will
dwell for a significant length of time to savor the various attractions after having
purchased a ticket, in the case of the former, there is a choice of just clicking away to
another site if the initial experience is not up to expectations. Tools that aid in the study
of online visitor characteristics are thus imperative.
Though log analysis has attracted significant attention (Ren, 2002; Zhang, 1999), it has
not been applied to a number of settings. Applying such tools to virtual science centers
would thus make an interesting case study. By presenting a context for the application
of such tools, a platform is presented to help bridge the divide between theory and
practice. No previous systematic study of a science center Web site using log analysis
has been reported in the literature. However, some mention about the use of log analysis
for studying the Web sites of museums have been reported (Cunliffe et al., 2001;
Heinecke, 1995; Jackson, 1996; Streten, 2000).
It is of interest to note that even with museum Web sites, analyses tend to rely more on
qualitative forms such as user surveys and observational analysis (Peacock, 2002). Log
analysis is generally not used because of the (misplaced) pronounced emphasis on its
deficiencies when used in such settings; this can generally be traced to the discrediting
of “hits” as a means to gauge the popularity and effectiveness of a site (Peacock, 2002).
The Web site of the Singapore Science Center is hosted at http://www.science.edu.sg.
It is the largest among all science centers in the world in terms of number of pages. Rich
knowledge fields abound in this site on many aspects of science and technology. More
specifically, this study aims to look at the following:
1. Analysis of server logs through log analysis software to study user access
patterns and efficacy of the offerings.
2. Analysis of information retrieval using text-mining techniques from the Science
Net database, which is a repository of nearly 6,000 questions and answers on
various aspects of science and technology.
3. A commentary on the importance of log analysis for science centers
The present study is the first systematic research on the use of log analysis software to
study the Web site of a science center.
Mining of Server Logs

Server logs contain a mine of information about activity levels in various parts of the Web
site. Each time a server processes a request from a computer user connected to it, a
transaction record is made in its log. Typically, the log entries would include number of
hits, number of page views, user’s IP address, timestamp, byte size of data transferred
from page, type of browser used in accessing the Web site, volume of activity on each
page, URL of page accessed, referrer status, errors encountered by users, and traversal
patterns (Joshi, 1999). At the Singapore Science Center, a dedicated server is used for
its Web site and this makes it easier to study the Web logs using appropriate software.
At the Singapore Science Center’s Web site, a program called WebTrends (http://
www.netiq.com/webtrends) is used for mining the Web log entries. As the field of log
analysis is still evolving, this commercially available program represents to a good extent
the state-of-the-art in Web log analysis. WebTrends produces detailed profiles of
activities occurring on the server in a format that is easy to comprehend. Filters are
provided to weed out certain entries, which skew the distribution of data or cause
extraneous predispositions.
Figures 1-9 and Tables 1-2 show a range of descriptive statistics from records produced
by WebTrends after mining raw entries from the server log for the year 2001/2002. Though
these statistics are simplistic reports, they do provide a good operational perspective on
the performance of the website.
The data in Figure 1 shows that the site attracts a good number of visitors, a key
consideration in justifying the investment and recurrent expenses on the site. November
is the month with the most number of virtual visits. This could be due to the onset of the
school holidays in Singapore, which frees up more time for surfing by students. The data
also shows that February/March are the months with the least number of visits. With the
academic term well in progress and students pre-occupied with their studies, there is
probably little time for surfing the site — hence, one of the possible causes for the
Figure 1. Number of virtual visits for the year 2001/2002
diminution in Web visits. It needs to be noted that in Singapore, home PC penetration

rate is about 60%, while Internet penetration rate is over 90%.
The data in Figure 2 shows that the home page is the most frequently accessed document.
This is not surprising as the home page is well structured, contains up-to-date informa-
tion on the programs at the Singapore Science Center, and permits easy navigation to
other parts of the site. In updating the Web site, particular attention is often paid to the
home page to ensure that visitors can access any page on the site with minimal difficulty
by starting on the home page.
According to the data in Figure 3, the top entry page has consistently been the home
page. We believe one reason for this is that the URL address is indexed by all search
engines. The top entry page is the first page that a visitor accesses when he enters the
Web site. Usually this is the home page but it can be other pages as well. The former is
an indication that the user has probably bookmarked this page and accessed it directly
through a URL link from his browser. Presumably, the user has endowed the page with
sufficient value for a re-visit.
In Figure 4, the temporal activity as a function of data transfer is depicted. The volume
of data downloaded peaked in mid-December before tailing off in February/March.
Besides the reasons addressed earlier, this also provides an indication that the server
architecture needs to be able to cope with more than the recorded maximum amount of
traffic at all times.
The data in Figure 5 shows that the distribution of activity remained fairly constant
throughout the week, with a peak during mid-week.
The virtual science center appears to be well utilized throughout the day, as there is not
much variation in activity levels over the hours (Figure 6). The peak occurring at 4:00 a.m.
can most likely be attributed to hits from overseas visitors (see Table 2). Data on the peak
activity level is important for Web site administrators as they need to ensure that the
capacity of the server is adequate to meet these demands and, if necessary, to install
upgrades.
Figure 2. Top documents accessed for the year 2001/2002
Figure 3. Top entry pages accessed for the year 2001/2002
Figure 4. Activity level by time increment for the year 2001/2002
Figure 5. Activity level by day of week for the year 2001/2002
Figure 6. Activity level by hour of day
Figure 7. Activity level by visit length for the year 2001/2002
As evidenced in Figure 7, most Web users spend about an hour or less at the site. Longer
duration sessions of up to eight hours are also evident. The latter is especially an
indication that the content on the site is of a compelling nature.
Figure 8 shows the number of page views per visit – this is a numerical measure of the
number of html documents retrieved during a Web session. Most views per visit are for
two pages or less. The maximum number of pages viewed per session is 12.
Analysis of error data can provide insights into the reliability of the site as well as
discover the occurrence of possible systemic problems. Pages not found, as shown in
Figure 9, can translate into user frustration, which may affect re-visits. Disparate links
on the site can also become apparent through a study of such data. Also, error analysis
helps to enhance content delivery and monitor system performance. All this can help to
fine-tune the topology of the Web site. It is thus a good diagnostic tool for use by Web
masters. In an earlier study of museum Web sites, Peacock (2002) has cautioned on the
risk of disenfranchising potential users by pitching the site design beyond the capabili-
ties of the software, network connection or file size. His comments are equally valid for
virtual science centers.
Figure 8. Number of views per visit for the year 2001/2002
Figure 9. Error data for the year 2001/2002
Table 1 encapsulates in a nutshell the salient statistics of the site and also presents a
general overview of the effectiveness of the site. With over 60,000 hits and over 12,000
page views recorded per day, the site is certainly attracting Web traffic, a testimony to
the effectiveness of its range of offerings.
The audience segmentation profile in Table 2 shows that of the top 20 countries
accessing the Web site, the USA ranks first. Ironically, Singapore is quite a distance away
even at number 2 position! This is a good indication that the site is a compelling attraction,
an important factor in reaching out to new audiences as well as a diversity of users.
All the above metrics confer an evaluative dimension as well as useful insights on the
effectiveness of the Web site. The discovery of patterns and relationships through log
analysis allows for improvement of system functionality of the Web site and also helps
to initiate measures for enhancing the quality of experience of surfers. Demonstrable
advantages have been achieved by the Singapore Science Center through an examination
of these profiles, and all these have helped to better position its virtual science center
for attracting online traffic. The macro trends encapsulated in Figures 1-9 and Tables 1-
2 are generally sufficient for science centers to have a good overview of site effective-
ness.
Table 1. General Statistics for the Virtual Science Center for the year 2001/2002
General Statistics
Hits Entire Site (Successful) 18,142,164
Average Per Day 60,473
Home Page 244,826
Page Views Page Views (Impressions) 3,736,565
Document Views 3,217,278
Visits Visits 755,369
Average Visit Length 00:16:48
Median Visit Length N/A
International Visits 53.21%
Visits of Unknown Origin 39.26%
Visits from Singapore 7.51%
Visitors Unique Visitors 240,230
Visitors Who Visited Once 206,436
Visitors Who Visited More Than Once 33,794
Table 2. Visitations by country for the year 2001/2002

Most Active Countries
Countries Visits
1 United States 322,975
2 Singapore 56,736
3 United Kingdom 14,141
4 Japan 12,560
5 Canada 8,975
6 Australia 8,314
7 Hong Kong 2,834
8 Malaysia 2,722
10 Germany 2,079
11 New Zealand (Aotearoa) 1,962
12 Taiwan 1,767
13 Belgium 1,710
14 France 1,395
15 Saudi Arabia 1,232
16 Austria 1,007
17 Spain 947
18 Italy 913
19 Mexico 797
20 GB 729
Total 445,913
We now discuss a few issues in relation to the hit counts extracted through log analysis.
(a) IP addresses – this is used to identify a computer linked to the Internet. Each
computer linked to the Internet has a unique IP address assigned to it. Thus, the
number of IP addresses captured by the server represents the number of unique
visitors accessing the site. Cognizance must, however be borne of some of the
limitations in treating the number of IP addresses as unique visitations. This is due
to the nature of the topological configuration of many Web repositories. For
example, when a user connects to the Internet through dial-up access, he is
assigned a dynamic address – when the same user logs on to the Internet at a
different time, the IP address can be different. This has the effect of increasing the
number of IP addresses captured by the server, even though the number of distinct
users has not increased. Note that in access by cable modem, the IP address is fixed
since there is a dedicated connection to the Internet. Also, when corporate users
link to the Internet through a proxy server, which has a fixed address, the server
records cause an undercounting of the number of IP addresses captured since all
the computers linked have the IP address of the proxy server.
(b) Caching – this is a unique mechanism to speed up the retrieval of commonly
accessed documents by storing them on the proxy server. In this way, network
latency and server load are minimized, all of which help to promote speedier
downloads and effective utilization of spectrum bandwidths. For example, if there
are 100 distinct users accessing a Web site from a corporate network, caching by
the proxy server means that it fetches the page(s) only once and stores it in memory
— this is recorded as just a single hit in the server logs. Moreover, the user’s
browser can also cache recently visited pages — if he revisits a page during the
same session by clicking on the front/back buttons on the monitor screen, the
server log does not record this as an extra hit. Caching thus contributes towards
diminution of the hit counts.
Every user to a Web site leaves an electronic “fingerprint” in the Web log, and an analysis
of user access profiles can thus shed useful information about his motivation for visiting
the site and provides some indication about the quality of his experience. This consti-
tutes a basis for conducting visitor studies in the cyberspace of science centers which,
in turn, can help to fine-tune service delivery levels of the institution.
Text-Mining of the Science Net Section

On the Web site of the Singapore Science Centre, the Science Net is a massive database
containing nearly 6,000 questions and answers on various topics in science and
technology (Tan & Subramaniam, 2003c). The genesis of this science knowledge
repository can be traced to the need for the public to have a service whereby their
scientific queries can be addressed. No proper institutional mechanism currently exists
to service such learning needs of the public on a regular basis. Recognizing this as a
learning opportunity for the public, the Singapore Science Center launched this service
as a Web initiative. Addressing the scientific queries of the public constitutes an
important aspect of furthering the public understanding of science, which is an important
mission objective of science centers.
The global public can post any scientific question on the site and, provided it fulfils
certain criteria — for example, the question has not been answered before, it is not a text
book problem, it is not a homework assignment of a student, and it is not a question which
can be answered by consulting standard text books in the library — the question would
be answered. Constraining the posting of questions within the bounds of these
parameters has been found to be essential in order to ensure that the service is not abused
and that frivolous requests are not received. In this way, the service can cater to the larger
interests of the general public. A battery of over 100 scientists from the National
University of Singapore, the Nanyang Technological University and the Singapore
Science Center, representing a formidable concentration of expertise and resources,
helps to answer the scientific queries. Figure 10 shows a sample page from the Science
Net section.
Since its introduction in 1998, the database of Science Net has expanded tremendously.
Content is organized according to multi-dimensional hierarchies based on subject
interests — six sections and over 70 sub-divisions in science and technology (Table 3).
To ensure that the global public does not post questions which have already been
answered and that are available in the database, text-mining software is available to help
them with their search queries as well as find answers.
Figure 10. Sample page from Science Net
Table 3. Categorizing of questions and answers in Science Net

Section Sub-sections Sub-sections
Computer Science/Information Computer systems Mathematics/Algorithms
Technology/Mathematics Computer vision & machine Network & Communications
Intelligence Programming
Database languages/Computer software
Internet
Robotics/Automation
Security & Encryption
Earth Science Agriculture/Farming Meteorology
Auroras/Northern lights Natural resources
Geology & Geophysics Oceanography/Hydrology
Engineering/Technology/Engineering Acoustics Food Technology

Materials Aviation Industrial/Production
Biotechnology/Bioengineering Engineering
Civil/Structural Engineering
Materials Science/Polymers
Electrical Engineering
Mechanical Engineering
Electronic Engineering
Optical
Engineering/Photography
Life Sciences Animal behavior/Zoology Microbiology
Biochemistry/Biophysics Molecular & Cell Biology
Botany Neuroscience/Vision
Ecology/Environment Pharmacology/Medicine/Disease
General Biology
Physiology
Genetics/Reproduction
Safety/Health
Genomics/Bioinformatics
Systematics/Taxonomy
Human Anatomy
Human Behaviour/Psychology
Marine Biology
Physical Sciences Analytical/Clinical Chemistry Magnetism/Electricity

Fluid Dynamics Mechanics/Waves/Vibrations
General Chemistry
Organic/Theoretical Chemistry
General Physics
High Energy/Particle/Plasma Relativity
Physics Theoretical/Quantum Physics
Lasers/Optics/Photonics
Astronomy & Space Science Astrophysics/Cosmology Milky Way/Galaxies
Comets/Asteroids/Meteors Radio Astronomy
General Astronomy Search for Extra-Terrestrial
Observatories/Telescopes Intelligence
Planetaria/Constellations Space Exploration
Satellites
Solar System
Others Science policies
Tips on passing science
examinations
Etcetera
That the service is well utilized can be seen from data presented in Table 4.
Accessing a question-and-answer of interest in this massive database is a formidable
task to an online visitor. With over 6,000 questions and answers, there needs to be a
convenient mechanism to facilitate easy retrieval of the question-and-answer of interest.
Whilst the stratification of the database according to topics (Table 3) is a useful
mechanism to guide this exploration, a simple query interface will be of great value and
convenience. In this context, text-mining software called Webinator is used. Text-mining
seeks to extract textual information of interest from a repository of documents and present
them in a coherent format. Webinator is a Web crawling and indexing software that also
Table 4. Distribution of questions posted to Science Net by year
Year Number of
questions posted
1998 2,064
1999 3,686
2000 5,664
2001 4,382
2002 3,208
TOTAL 19,004
provides a retrieval interface for Web documents stored in a database (http://

www.thunderstone.com/site/webinator4man/node3.html). Written in the Web script
language called Vortex, Webinator comprises the Texis binary program and three Vortex
scripts which are run by the Texis CGI program on the Web server, and are accessed from
the Web browser. Each of the Vortex scripts has specific functions: one provides the
administrative interface, another provides the site walker and indexer, and a third
provides the search function.
The Texis search engine uses a SQL (Structural Query Language) relational database to
store and search documents. Figure 11 shows the Web query interface of the program.
As can be seen, the query interface allows for judicious strategizing of a search followed
by browsing of the documents returned.
The fill-in field in the query interface requires the input of key words for searching the
Science Net database. This can be done by simply inputting the necessary key words or,
for more complex searches or accurate returns, by activating the available options in
tandem. Pull down menus can be accessed on the next line to identify the disciplinary
database in which the search is to be conducted. The query can also be entered as a
question, for example, “What is the temperature of the Sun?” The Texis program will then
search for “temperature” and “Sun” while ignoring the noise words embedded in the
question. If the proximity option is activated, there is provision to search the database
either by line, sentence, paragraph or page for the occurrence of the keyword(s). By
enabling the concept expansion option, the search can be enlarged to include ontological
equivalents of the keyword – this is done by prefixing a tilde character (~) to the word
or phrase. This is an especially important feature since the lexicographic base for a
Figure 11. Web query interface of Science Net
Figure 12. Extract of a search on the Science Net
number of scientific concepts admits of a plurality of expressions — variants of the same

word can be expressed differently by different persons. The semantic connections that
are established for the keywords then drive the query search.
The design of this schema provides the user with the best search results for a query,
which is necessarily constrained by the retrieval and extraction dynamics of the algorithm
driving the search on the database. Whilst the retrieval step selects the relevant
documents, the extraction step analyses the structure of the data embedded in the
selected documents.
When a search returns a selection of documents with the URL and an extract of the text,
it also indicates the overall quality of the match through a percentage rating (Figure 12).
More precise searching can be done by turning on the “search for similar records” option.
Commonly known as “query by example,” this is a powerful feature of the mining program
to narrow or refine the search field further. Typically, this will take cognizance of the text
within quotation marks as a phrase and the * sign is used as a wild card.
Another powerful feature is the Word Forms availability. This helps to determine the
number of variations of a term in the search query — it could be an exact match, include
plural and possessive forms, or as many forms as can be derived from the root term in the
query.
The effectiveness of the search engine used for mining the Science Net can be traced to
the fact that Texis employs set logic to the search query rather than Boolean logic. This
has the advantage of offering a greater number of functionalities compared to the use of
Boolean operators. When querying using set notation, the elements are bracketed and
separated by commas. For example:
‘-’ (without) – use of this logic symbol in the search query will return entries sans the
item in question
‘+’ (mandatory) – prefixing this symbol to the search word or phrase will retrieve entries
with the item in reference
“@N’ (permute) – prefixing @ to a number will fetch entries including this number of
confluences of the term in reference.
All these help to find answers to questions with a greater degree of precision.
To illustrate the use of the text-mining algorithm, we attempted some simple experiments
that require the finding of answers to a few questions available in the database. Different
versions of the question all produced correct results, thus attesting to the efficacy of the
search algorithm.
Discussion
With the proliferation of online content on the Web, science centers face the challenge
of embracing new paradigms in evaluating the content of their offerings and building an
online community of users. Log analysis contributes toward this as it furnishes a rigorous
approach to test the relevance and effectiveness of their Web attractions. A pro-active
stance by science centers in fine-tuning content on the basis of such studies permits
enhancement of their outreach effectiveness on the Web. Though the use of log analysis
software has yet to catch up with science centers on the Web, the metrics enunciated
earlier do provide a simple basis for assessing site effectiveness and thus the usability,
navigability and visibility of the site.
The use of log analysis techniques to assess the efficacy of the Singapore Science
Centre’s virtual science center has contributed significantly towards strategizing its
range of offerings. Important Web access patterns and trends have been uncovered, and the
analyses have shown that it is a well-utilized site. Data obtained have also been used to
improve the design and functionality of the site as well as improve its information structure.
The practicality of using log analysis has thus been demonstrated. We cite five instances
where the use of log analysis has led to the instituting of pro-active measures to enhance user
needs, thus leading to better decision making for the Singapore Science Center.
1. Traversal patterns extracted from server logs indicate that about 25% of the hits
to the virtual science center are for the Science Net database (Table 5). These hits
come from across the world. It therefore made sense to devote extra effort for this
section as a means to draw further Web traffic to the site. A direct result of this
finding has been that the section is updated almost everyday, and newer versions
of the Webinator software are regularly installed to facilitate the effectiveness of
search queries. Also, hyperlinks have been appended to many of the answers in
order to add further depth to the answers.
2. The traditional offerings in the galleries of science centers are interactive exhibits.
When visitors interact with these exhibits, it contributes towards expanding their
conceptual horizon of a science topic. It is the multi-sensory experience that is
evoked when visitors interact with exhibits that contributes towards learning in
science centers. A direct consequence of this has been the addition of interactive
virtual exhibits (also called exhibitlets) on the Web site. Special attention is devoted
to building a user-friendly interface for learning. Regular surveys of Web logs
indicate that these are popular, as evidenced by their page views and length of
activity sessions, and this has been taken into consideration to populate the site
with more exhibitlets. One reason for the popularity of exhibitlets is the presence
of game elements in their operation — this stems more from the science center
philosophy, which stresses that learning has got to be fun. It needs to be borne
in mind that exhibitlets are expensive to fabricate because it involves inputs from
designers, educators, curators and software specialists. The number of virtual
exhibits on the Web of any science center is thus limited.
3. The increase in number of hits attest to the effectiveness of the resources offered
on the site. This has made it somewhat easier to obtain funding from government
and corporations for some of the Web programs of the Singapore Science Centre
since quantitative data to attest to site efficacy is available, and this is free of
observer or survey bias. Increased number of hits can be correlated with visibility,
which is especially important for corporate sponsors.
4. In view of the dynamic nature of the virtual science center and its effectiveness in
reaching out to the online public, the need for a fulltime Web master and support
staff was recognized. This has greatly contributed towards enhancing the dyna-
mism and vibrancy of the site.
5. Without the information provided by log analysis, the need to resort to regular
upgrades of server hardware and software in order to cater to the growing online
traffic would not have been recognized.
Table 5. Web site statistics of Singapore Science Center for the period from January 1,
2001 to December 31, 2002
Section Total hits Average hits per Total number Average

day of page views number of
page views per
day
Virtual 52,377,282 71,749 10,208,973 13,984
Science Center
Science Net 12,799,165 17,533 2,753,308 3,771
Visitor studies on people coming to science centers are well established in the literature.
The use of structured and validated survey instruments as well as the employment of site
staff to administer these is a common practice. However, this is time-consuming and
subject to questioner bias. In contrast, mining of Web log data residing quiescently on
the server provides a spectrum of information in relation to virtual user access. Discount-
ing the cost of the server and log analysis program, log analysis posts cost advantages
and facilitates the retrieval of a medley of patterns since visitors leave an electronic trail
of their activity, and this is captured by the server. Peacock (2002) has observed that log
data is free of observer and questioner bias, and is thus a cheaper and effective form of
evaluation compared to observation and survey research.
A useful measure of online visitor satisfaction can be gauged from an analysis of pathing.
On the WebTrends program, the entry occurs as “paths through site” attribute. Tracing
the genesis of a visitor’s entry into the site and monitoring his web of explorations before
exiting the site reveals useful data about customer preferences and satisfaction. In
ensuring that the site remains vibrant and dynamic, such evaluations are not only a pre-
requisite but also a practical necessity. It needs to be borne in mind that whilst Web log
transactions are an accurate record of user sessions, they cannot provide indication of
user’s actions, especially those relating to intangible attributes. These are worthy of
further study.
The fixed reporting format adopted by WebTrends is adequate for the needs of most
science centers. Having a Web presence, though necessary for science centers in
today’s networked world, is not sufficient: the site need to draw traffic and contribute
towards realizing the mission objectives of the science center. If the site is not attracting
enough traffic, as benchmarked with pre-determined norms, then it indicates a problem
that needs to be addressed. It could mean that the content on the site is not compelling
enough or that there could be access problems due to the server.
A major contribution of this study has been the demonstration that a number of
parameters can be extracted using data mining techniques to gauge the effectiveness of
the range of offerings hosted in the virtual science center. Previous studies of the virtual
science center by other authors have focused more on hit counts as a measure of site
effectiveness (Honeyman, 1998; Orfinger, 1998). Judging from the scarcity of published
literature related to mining of log entries on the Web sites of science centers, it appears
to be an under-utilized tool to evaluate the effectiveness of their Web sites. Cognizance
of the trends amassed from mining Web log data can help science centers to better
position themselves for attracting cyber traffic and ensuring the effectiveness of this new
initiative for the public understanding of science. Updating of the site with new content
can thus be aligned with the directions uncovered by log analysis.
In summary, the results reported in this paper have significant implications for site
management by Web administrators and the management of science centers
Conclusion
Log analysis is a powerful utility tool for tracking the effectiveness of a virtual science
center. It is expected that the use of such tools will become more prevalent since the
information they extract can provide strategic value to stakeholders and site administra-
tors. Benchmarks for site performance can be crafted using these indicators, and this can
serve as a basis for setting performance indicators. Text-mining of the Science Net
database has also been facilitated through a good query interface.
In the case of the virtual science center in Singapore, mining of log records has been
helpful in strategizing its range of offerings on the Web site, understanding the impact
of the Web site vis-à-vis other competing attractions, and in pro-active positioning of
the site, all of which have been helpful in drawing more online traffic to the Web site. Being
an under-utilized tool among Web-based science centers, it is suggested that this study
has implications for other science centers that wish to track the performance of their Web
sites.
Acknowledgments
We thank Mr. Edwin Teng, Technical Manager at the Singapore Science Centre, for his
assistance in generating statistical profiles from server logs for this study.
References
Association of Science-Technology Centers. (1998). Yearbook of science centers
statistics. Washington, DC: ASTC.
Cunliffe, D., Kriton, E., & Tudhope, D. (2001). Usability evaluation for museum web sites.
Museum Management and Curatorship, 19(3), 227-25.
Danilov, V.J. (1982). Science and technology centers. MA: MIT Press.
Delacote, G. (1998). Putting science in the hands of the public. Science, 280, 252-253.
Heinecke, A. (1995). Evaluation of hypermedia systems in museums. In D. Bearman (Ed.),
Multimedia computing and museums (pp. 67-68). Pittsburgh: Archives and Mu-
seum Informatics.
Honeyman, B. (1998, April). Real vs virtual visits: Issues for science centers. Australasian
Science & Technology Exhibitors Network.
Jackson, R. (1996). The virtual visit: Towards a new concept for the electronic science
center. In Conference on Here and How: Improving the Presentation of Contem-
porary Science and Technology in Museums and Science Centers. London.
Jones, S., Cunningham, S.J., McNab, R., & Boddie, S. (2000). A transaction log analysis
of a digital library. International Journal on Digital Libraries, 3, 152-169.
Joshi, K., Joshi, A., Yesha, Y., & . Krishnapuram, R. (1998). Warehousing and mining
weblogs. In Proceedings of the Workshop in Web Information and Data Manage-
ment (pp. 68-72).
Oppenheimer, F. (1972). The Exploratorium: A playful museum combines perception and
art in science education. American Journal of Physics, 40, 978-984.
education. The Informal Learning Review, 1-10.
Peacock, D. (2002). Statistics, structures and satisfied customers: Using web log data to
improve site performance. In Proceedings of the Museum and the Web Conference.
Ren, K.H., Kwakkelaar, R., Min, T.Y., & Chun, C.L. (2002). Exploring behavior of e-journal
users in science and technology: Transaction log analysis of Elsevier’s ScienceDirect
OnSite in Taiwan. Library & Information Science Research, 24(3), 265-291.
Streten, K. (2000). Honored guests: Towards a visitor-centered web experience. In
Proceedings of Museum and the Web Conference, Minneapolis.
Tan, W.H.L., & Subramaniam, R. (1998). Developing nations need to popularize science.
New Scientist, 2139, 52.
Tan, W.H.L., & Subramaniam, R. (2001). Wiring up the island state. Science, 288, 621-
623.
Tan, W.H.L., & Subramaniam, R. (2003a). Science and technology centers as agents for
promoting science culture in developing nations. International Journal of Tech-
nology Management, 25, 413-426.
Tan, W.H.L., & Subramaniam, R. (2003b). Virtual science centers: Web-based environ-
ments for promotion of non-formal science education. In A.K. Aggarwal (Ed.), Web-
based education: Learning from experience (pp. 308-329). Hershey, PA: Idea
Group Publishing.
Tan, W.H.L., & Subramaniam, R. (2003c). Science Net: A virtual school for the extension
(science) education of the public in Singapore. In C. Cavanaugh (Ed.), Development
and management of virtual schools: Issues and trends (pp. 244-261). Hershey, PA:
Idea Group Publishing.
Zhang, Z. (1999). Evaluating electronic journals and monitoring their usage by means of
WWW server log analysis. Vine, 111, 37-42.
366 Bowen, Angus, Bennett, Borda, Hodges, Filippini-Fantoni and Beler
Chapter XVIII
The Development of
Science Museum
Web Sites:
Case Studies
Jim Angus, National Institutes of Health, USA
Jim Bennett, University of Oxford, UK
Ann Borda, The Science Museum, UK
Andrew Hodges, University of Oxford, UK
Silvia Filippini-Fantoni, The University of Paris I Sorbonne University, France
Alpay Beler, The Science Museum, UK
Abstract
Science museums have embraced the technology of the Web to present their resources
online. The nature of the technology naturally fits with the ethos of science. This chapter
surveys the history, development and features of a number of contrasting pioneering
museum Web sites in the field of science that have been early adopters of the technology.
This includes case studies of Web sites associated with the Natural History Museum of
Los Angeles, the Museum of the History of Science in Oxford, the Science Museum in
London and the completely virtual Alan Turing Home Page. The purpose is to
demonstrate a diverse set of successful scientifically-oriented Web sites related to
science museums and the history of science, giving an insight into Web developments
in this area over the past decade.
The Development of Science Museum Web Sites: Case Studies 367
Introduction
The idea of using computers for education is not new. Seymour Papert (www.papert.com),
an Artificial Intelligence pioneer with Marvin Minski at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology (MIT), first mooted the idea of using computers for learning in the 1960s.
For example, he held a symposium at MIT in 1970 entitled “Teaching Children Thinking,”
proposing that children could learn by teaching computers, developing the Logo
programming language to help in this quest (Papert, 1993, 1999). Of course it then took
some years for computers to become widespread and cheap enough to make such ideas
a reality in everyday life. Papert has continued his interest in learning in the context of
the Web. In 1996 he conducted a tour including locations such as the Smithsonian in
Washington, D.C. and the Boston Computer Museum to promote a book (Papert, 1996).
He has also helped in the development of MaMaMedia, a Web site with over 4.5 million
registered users that provides free activities for children to learn through the playful use
of technology (www.mamamedia.com). This is the type of well-funded e-learning re-
source with which museums are now in competition for their offerings on the Web.
Science museums should, by their nature, be aware of technological developments and
use these appropriately in a timely fashion. As an example, the Science Museum in
London held two exhibitions on the Challenge of the Chip (Maynall, 1980) on micropro-
cessors and This is IT on information technology in the early 1980s. In these exhibitions,
the technology being presented was used to present itself. For example, the Challenge
of the Chip included a PET microcomputer that illustrated the manufacture and workings
of Field Effect Transistors (FET). This was among the earliest examples of using
computers in museum displays, employing the animated computer screen in an educa-
tional context to augment the more traditional static displays. The use of a computer
display meant that the operation of an FET could be illustrated in a dynamic and apt
manner. The PET computer was itself also an appropriate exhibit in the context of the
subject matter being presented. Nowadays, of course, such use of computers in museum
galleries is commonplace, even expected, and is certainly far more sophisticated. In
addition to in-gallery use, computers can now readily be connected via networks; access
through the Internet, normally using the World Wide Web, is an expected mechanism for
disseminating information resources available from museums in general, and perhaps
especially so for science museums (Díaz & del Egido, 1999).
In this chapter we survey science museum Web sites in the context of e-learning. In
particular, we give several personal accounts of specific Web sites and their develop-
ment by people who have been involved directly. Finally, some general conclusions are
drawn.
Survey of Web Sites

The annual Best of the Web competition at the Museums and the Web conference,
established since 1997, includes an explicit section on the “Best Museum Web Site
Supporting Educational Use,” providing a snapshot of the state-of-the-art each year.
For example, in 2004, the Smithsonian National Zoological Park’s online educational
program, Conservation Central (nationalzoo.si.edu/Education/ConservationCentral),
was a finalist. This includes a number of multimedia interactive resources, including, for
example, one that allows Web visitors to design a panda habitat. Nowadays, relatively
sophisticated animation is expected, within the confines of generally available Internet
access speed, which is still limited by the quality of telephone lines for many.
The Resources for Learning section of the American Museum of Natural History Web
site was among the Best of the Web finalists in 2003 [www.amnh.org/resources]. This is
a collection of activities, curriculum materials, articles, exhibition materials, reference
lists, etc., for educators, families, students and anyone with an interest in teaching or
learning about science. It is possible to search for resources, browse by topic or explore
special collections based around a particular theme. The material is explicitly aimed at
different age levels that are selectable when searching (primary, upper elementary, middle
school, high school and up). Different completions times, varying from less than a typical
lesson period up to more than a week, can also be selected. In the previous year, 2002,
the same museum was a finalist with its “Ology” Web site [www.ology.amnh.org]. This
includes subject areas such as archeology, astronomy, biodiversity, Albert Einstein,
genetics, marine biology and paleontology.
A search for “science museum education” under Google at the original time of writing
produces a rather eclectic collection of links. For example, at the head of the list, the
Franklin Institute in Philadelphia provides some “Educational Hotlists” in the form of an
organized set of links to online resources under over thirty topic areas [www.fi.edu/tfi/
hotlists]. TryScience provides a gateway to current science and technology using both
online and off-line interactive resources in conjunction with a large number of science
centers around the world [www.tryscience.org]. It includes information for parents and
teachers. The Science Museum of Minnesota has a Computer Education Center, estab-
lished in 1983, that has its own Web site [comped.smm.org].
The Science Learning Network (SLN) links a number of science museums around the
world (www.sln.org/museums), but the information available on the Web site appears to
date from 1996. An important part of any online initiative is that it remains up-to-date,
and this is especially true for children’s resources that can very quickly appear dated if
not maintained regularly. The San Francisco Exploratorium provides some excellent
“tools for teaching” (www.exploratorium.edu/educate). The Web site includes a list of
“Ten Cool Sites” for science education, started in 1995, that seems to continue to be
updated regularly, making the site dynamic and encouraging repeat visits
(www.exploratorium.edu/learning_studio/sciencesites.html).
Accessibility issues are increasingly important for the museum sector, for both moral and
legal reasons (Bowen, 2003; Bowen, 2004), to ensure resources are available to all,
including the disabled. In the 2003 Jodi Mattes Access Award, the first year in the UK
in which it was awarded for accessible museum Web sites, there were nine sites that were
nominated. Only one site, the Australian Museum spiders Web site (www.amonline.net.au/
spiders), was science-related. The site includes facilities to change the size of the text
to be larger for partially sighted users at the click of a hyperlink, located at the bottom
of each page.
The Association of Science-Technology Centers (ASTC) includes a “TEXT ONLY MENU”

link at the top of its main Web page (www.astc.org). This is hidden as small white text
against a white background for sighted people, but will be read immediately for blind
people using text to audio software. The blind normally scan Web pages sequentially and
will find such a link quickly and easily. ASTC also provide online advice on accessibility
for science centers and museums (www.astc.org/resource/access).
The Museum of Science & Industry in Manchester, UK have a “Text Only” link as part
of their standard set of navigation links at the top of each page (www.msim.org.uk). Thus
this can be found easily even by users entering the site from pages other than the main
home page (e.g., via a search engine). In 2004, the Science Museum in London had a
similar a “Text Only (Beta)” link in operation (the “Beta” indicating that this facility was
under test), available under an “options >” link (www.sciencemuseum.org.uk). On this
site, the text-only versions of pages also include a link back to the graphics versions at
any time, thus giving good flexibility of navigation.
Later in this chapter we consider some personal views of individual science-oriented
Web sites, both associated with real science museums and of a completely virtual nature,
written by people directly involved with their development. In each case, a brief history
is given, together with some of the more interesting features of the site, especially with
respect to e-learning aspects. Here we briefly look at a couple of examples, one associated
with the leading science center in France and the other providing a well-established
completely virtual resource on the history of computing.
La Cité des Science et de l’Industrie
The first version of the La Cité des Science et de l’Industrie’s Web site (www.cite-
sciences.fr) was developed in 1994 and consisted of a very few pages presenting general
information on the museum. It was nothing more than an online brochure (sometimes
dubbed “brochureware”), updated by the Communication Department as needed. In 1998
it had around 300,000 visits per year. The second version, which is still online today, was
introduced in 1999; it was inspired by a “mediation approach” rather than simple
communication/transmission of information and content.
The progressive growth of the renewed site in terms of content (temporary exhibitions,
learning material) and services (Visite+, educational tools, etc.) in the past four years has
contributed to creating a rich and varied offering, which attracts a significant number of
visitors. In 2003, for example, the museum counted 3,161,000 visits, that is to say a 122%
increase in comparison to the previous year. The next reorganization of the site is
scheduled for 2005. The idea is to continue the mediation approach. This implies taking
visitors into consideration as much as possible and creating online services for them,
especially when it comes to the more pedagogical aspects of the site (Cité des Savoirs).
For example, the different sections of the existing Web site are not conceived from the
visitor’s point of view; that will change in favor of a much clearer segmentation approach
and solutions that include more semantic navigation.
From an educational viewpoint, the site already offers many different types of services
and tools for the general public, as well as for teachers and students/children. An
explicitly educational Web site is available (education.cite-sciences.fr). Educational

material such as reading matter, interactive facilities, quizzes and animations are avail-
able, relating to both temporary and permanent exhibitions. An entire section of the Web
site, the scientific lab, is dedicated to manipulation and interactivity with games and
quizzes for all ages. For professionals and more expert visitors, text, video and audio
versions of conferences and presentations that take place in the museum auditorium are
available online, as well as a section dedicated to the latest news and developments in
science and research, with articles, dossiers and even a specialized online journal on
astronomy and space.
Special sections of the site are also dedicated to teachers (Cité des Enseignants) and
children or students (Site pour les elèves). In the “Cité des Enseignants,” information is
available on general and specific activities for groups and schools as well as tools and
material to prepare for the visit, while in the student section, direct access to manipulation
games and quizzes targeted for specific age groups is provided. There is also access to
Web pages that have been created by students as well as children’s technical workshops
(“ateliers”), normally held at La Cité. In spite of the already conspicuous material and
tools available on the site, the idea is to move further and create a real educational
platform (“platforme educative”) that will be used by teachers and students to download
material for the visit or use in the classroom. This will enable the museum to create a
community of users that will use the site as a proper working tool and that might be able
to exchange opinions and comments through a series of forum activities (Beler et al.,
2004).
Virtual Museum of Computing
Virtual museums, without a physical counterpart, are by their very nature a relatively new
phenomenon whose form is still developing (Schweibenz et al., 2004). As a fairly early
example, the Virtual Museum of Computing (VMoC) (vmoc.museophile.org) was origi-
nally set up on a whim one Monday morning in 1994 when the founder and subsequent
maintainer was a computer science researcher at the Oxford University Computing
Laboratory. This grew out of an early online museum directory, the Virtual Library
museums pages (VLmp) that also started shortly before this in 1994 (Bowen, 2002) and
was subsequently adopted by the International Council of Museums (ICOM)
(icom.museum/vlmp). In those days (and even now) it was relatively easy to set up a Web
site in an academic environment, with few bureaucratic or technical barriers to those
determined to do so. The initial Web site provided a small number of links to history of
computing resources then available on the Web. By the end of the first week the site was
already receiving around a hundred visitors each day. It quickly gained international
prominence online (Bowen, 1996) and has continued to form a nucleus of online
computing history information ever since. An important aspect of success is stability and
continued maintenance of educational resources online, as in this case.
The VMoC website consists of an eclectic collection of links to online history of
computing resources, categorized in a number of broad types, together with a selection
of local virtual galleries. For example, there is a resource presenting A Brief History of
Algebra and Computing, based on an article (Bowen, 1995), together with additional
external hyperlinks and visual material from the MacTutor History of Mathematics
archive (www.groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history). This is specifically linked from and
recommended by a number of educational Web sites. Despites its simplicity, quality of
content is of prime importance in e-learning resources.
VMoC also includes links to important computer pioneers. One of the major “virtual
galleries” is a resource on the computing pioneer, Alan Turing, maintained by Andrew
Hodges, Turing’s definitive biographer (Hodges, 1983). More detailed information on
this resource can be found later in this chapter.
Case Studies
In the rest of this chapter we present a number of examples of Web site case studies
associated with both real museums and in one case a virtual museum. The first, the Natural
History Museum of Los Angeles County, was one of the first museums to start a major
Web site, as is demonstrated by its enviable Web address [www.nhm.org] that is no
doubt coveted by other natural history museums around the world. Secondly, the
Museum of the History of Science in Oxford is located in one of the earliest purpose-built
museum buildings in the world (originally for the Ashmolean Museum). It was also able
to initiate a Web site relatively early because of the advantageous networking facilities
and expertise available in a university environment. Thirdly, the Science Museum in
London is one of the major science museums in the world. Again it was able to establish
an early Web presence partly due to the proximity of Imperial College, but also spurred
on by the fact that the Natural History Museum next door actually established the first
dedicated museum Web server in the United Kingdom just before them. Finally, a
completely virtual Web site is presented, again established relatively early due to the
support of a university environment and the enthusiasm of an individual for the project.
Since this Web site is a personal project, in contrast to the others that are associated with
actual museums, the section describing it is written by the originator in the first person.
All the Web sites described in these case studies are early pioneers in the field in different
ways. Thus it is apt that their various histories should now be reflected upon in this
chapter. It is hoped that other later adopters can learn from some of the lessons illustrated
here.
Natural History Museum

of Los Angeles County
The story of the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County’s Web site
(www.nhm.org) is in many ways the story of the Web itself (Angus, 2000). It is a journey
of discovery that starts before the advent of the Web at a time when only universities
and governments were using the Internet. It is a story of the particular needs of an
organization and how the Internet and later the Web provided answers. It is a journey
that continues to this day as the medium itself evolves and adapts to the community’s
needs and aspirations.
Super Science, Kiosks, Gophers and the Web:

The Genesis of One of the First Museum Web Sites
In 1991, the museum sought to establish a comparative genetics laboratory that would
enable museum researchers to more easily determine evolutionary relationships between
different species of plants and animals. By 1991, the Internet was highly utilized by the
academic community enabling a degree of collaboration that would lead to a rapid
increase in the pace of scientific discovery. Genetic sequence repositories, established
on the Internet, were key resources to help researchers determine evolutionary relation-
ships.
The need to access these repositories drove the museum to seek funding from the
National Science Foundation (NSF). The museum’s application was successful and with
the NSF’s help they established a direct connection to what was then known as NSFnet.
This always “on” connection operated at speeds of 56 kb/sec, the speed of a standard
PC modem today. This connection was the first building block in a foundation that would
place the museum in a position to rapidly deploy a Web site at a time when the Web was
new and audiences were demanding substantial content.
The second block was provided by the museum’s educational outreach program. The
museum held an annual open house for members, who were interested in the comparative
genetics laboratory, but the lab was understaffed. The museum turned to multimedia,
another relatively new innovation, to address the issue. Several animated presentations
were developed and installed on laboratory computers. These presentations substituted
for docent led explanations and established the necessary expertise to later develop
Web-based presentations.
The third block was set down when the museum developed software for informational
kiosks that were to be placed in local businesses, most notably airports. The program-
ming included all the basic facts about the museum and its programs and mirrored what
would be needed in a basic Web site.
In 1993, the museum began to investigate the possibility of developing a “Gopher” site
to provide a presence on the Internet. Gopher, a precursor to the Web, offered a text-
based interface with an innovation: hyperlinks. But already, this technology was old. A
newer application called the World Wide Web was gaining popularity. It offered the same
text-based interface and hyperlinks, but included an exciting option: the ability to link
to pictures. There was only one experimental browser available and that browser could
not display the images directly. Text could only be crudely formatted and position control
of various page elements was minimal. But by the end of 1993, the museum had launched
one of the first museum Web sites, using material that had been developed for the
informational kiosks. The first “online” exhibit consisted of educational presentations
derived from the multimedia developed by the genetics lab for the annual members’ open
house. The University of Southern California hosted this site and it is still operational,
though transformed (www.usc.edu/lacmnh).
Building Audiences: From Tricks to Substance
By 1995, the enormous potential of the Web was becoming clear to a number of people.
The University of California Berkeley Museum of Paleontology had launched a major
Web site and a content starved community came to the site and kept coming. Because
there is no “home page” for the World Wide Web, no “site map,” the location of a Web
site was passed by word of mouth, or more accurately, by e-mail. So two graduate
students from a San Francisco Bay Area university (Stanford) came up with an idea, why
not build a directory for Internet Web sites? And the brainchild that would eventually
become “Yahoo!” was born. People quickly discovered the directory and came back
again and again. Any site that was listed was certain to get visitors.
Museums understand the need for audiences. Exhibits and educational programs both
build and reach out to audiences. The trick was for museums to do the same on the Web.
Clearly the key to building an audience was to have content and to be listed in a directory.
The question was how to open that door. The museum decided to host a directory of
cultural sites called “The Guide to Museums and Cultural Resources.” It was structured
along the lines of the Stanford site but focused on the cultural sector. The museum
actively collected links to cultural resources through a reciprocal exchange with the
managers of other directories and by setting up a system where community members
could add listings to The Guide using a simple Web-based application. In a very short
time, The Guide had links to thousands of new sites worldwide and more importantly, had
tens of thousands of links back to The Guide. And each of those visitors to The Guide
was able to easily click over to the museum’s Web site.
The museum also recognized the importance of a name. In 1996, the museum moved to
secure “naturalhistorymuseum.org,” “nhm.org,” and the “.com” variations. So in addi-
tion to referrals from The Guide and other Internet directories, any time a person entered
“natural history museum” into one of the new search engines, the museum’s site was
likely to come up, if not first, then within the first half dozen listings.
Within a short time, the museum was getting tens, then hundreds, of thousands of hits
per month to their Web site. However, aside from a few simple online exhibits, substance
was seriously lacking. This changed in 1996 when the museum received funding from the
National Science Foundation to produce an exhibit on the natural history of cats. Because
of the success of the museum’s Web site, at least in terms of hits, it was easy to convince
museum administrators to invest the resources to develop an online version of the
exhibition. The Cats! Wild to Mild Web site (www.nhm.org/cats) was born and the
museum committed itself to producing a series of online exhibits (www.nhm.org/
exhibitions/online.html) that included fully developed lesson plans, classroom activities
and other curricula for schools. A balance between content and directory referrals was
achieved.
The success of the Cats! exhibit was not assured. The museum made an effort to actively
involve the wider cat research community in the production of the Web site. Draft pages
were offered up for review to a variety of Internet-based e-mail distribution lists and ideas
were solicited. This resulted in “buy-in” from these communities even before the launch
of the Web site and with the launch, immediately resulted in links that referred more
visitors to the Web site (Angus, 1998).
In 1997, the museum’s Web site was voted “Best Educational Use” at the first interna-
tional Museums and the Web conference held in Los Angeles. This firmly established the
success of the museum’s Web site in the minds of the museum’s administrators and the
wider community.
Building Audiences: Make Their Web Sites Accessible
The museum fell upon hard times. Several scandals rocked the Los Angeles cultural
community and helped to dry up sources of funding for the museum. The budget for the
Web site, never generous, took a beating. With available resources, the museum would
not be able to compete for new visitors against other, better-funded organizations. Nor
would the museum be able to invest in any of the promising new technologies that could
help leverage and re-purpose existing Web-based content. How could the museum
maintain its lead with limited funds? The key was discovered while attending an American
Association of Museums annual meeting in 1998. A visually impaired woman suggested
to a panelist (the author of this case study) that museums could reach out to another
audience if they would make their Web sites accessible to persons with disabilities. Make
their Web sites accessible. This comment resonated and inspired the museum to move
forward in a direction that was both on the leading edge of Web development and was
ethically sound. Another benefit was that it would keep the museum’s Web site in the
spotlight for several years to come. The museum led the way in accessible Web design
and sought to promote the use of standards that would provide equal access to all
audiences, including those with disabilities (Angus, 2001; Bowen, 2003; Bowen, 2004).
A Single Content Repository: Multiple Audiences,

Multiple Devices and Multiple Uses
During the course of seven years of growth, the Natural History Museum’s Web site grew
until it consisted of over 10,000 files. How could all that content be managed? How could
it be updated as technology changed? How could it be used to reach new audiences via
new devices? Simply put, how could it be used over and over in new ways?
The Web grew explosively because it was technically easy to write Web pages in HTML
(HyperText Markup Language), the “language” of the Web. Everyone knows that your
friend’s 16-year-old son or daughter can have a Web page up and running in an hour or
two. However, HTML has a hidden and fatal flaw. It blends content and presentation.
How can material be presented in a new context if the format, the style and the association
with other pieces of content cannot be separated? A new language of the Web, a new
standard is required, and that standard is XML (eXtensible Markup Language), XSL
(eXtensible Stylesheet Language) and XSLT (XSL Transformations) (www.w3c.org).
Information or content can be placed in a single location, a content repository. That

information can be marked with XML so that a computer “knows” what that piece of
content is and how it relates to other content. For example, information about a painting
can be marked so that a computer knows what parts are the name of the painting, its
description and the artist’s name, and it will know much about the object’s relationship
to other paintings. Other standards allow Web developers to access specific pieces of
content and present them with a particular “look and feel” or a particular context. The
information itself remains untouched within the content repository and is available to be
reused in different ways. This allows visitors to request specific kinds of information and
have it returned in the context of the request. Many organizations are using these
standards to leverage their content, to repurpose the collective efforts of hundreds of
staff, to reach the public with educational materials that can provide a teacher with new
options and in many instances change a student’s life.
The separation of presentation and content can also allow the museum to reach new
audiences. The museum’s content can be presented using more than one presentation
template. A template can be designed for the “typical” Internet user, a template that
easily meets the marketing goals of the museum. A second template can be created for
individuals who are blind. The information can be presented in a format that allows a
visually impaired person to use assistive technology that will read the page out loud. A
third template can be created and used to serve information to visitors using hand-held
portable devices. The same content that is on the Web site can be used to guide visitors
within the museum.
The volume of electronic content continues to grow and museums must find ways to
manage the content. Software that allows museums to manage Web content is available.
Many of these systems use the new standards that allow the separation of presentation
and content. Although the software is expensive, in the long term the museum will find
that it is able to better serve the public with accurate and up-to-date information. For
example, the name and telephone number of the museum’s outreach coordinator may
appear in as many as 20 places on a Web site or within a variety of electronic documents.
A single edit within the content repository will update the information wherever it
appears. This saves staff time and ensures that the museum remains an authoritative
source of information.
Metadata is information about information. For example, metadata can be used to identify
a particular piece of content as being of interest to a particular audience, perhaps middle
school children. This allows the museum to design a Web site where visitors can
personalize the site so that the content they most wish to view is presented first.
The Web has changed a great deal since its inception and it will continue to grow and
change, depending upon the community’s needs and aspirations. Museums need to
change as well, to adapt to the new world of instant access and wireless connectivity.
Although the technology of the Web provides instant access to a museum’s information,
it is the content that is important, not the technology. Museums need to adopt standards
and technologies that will allow them to preserve, manage and leverage that content into
the future. If they do not, then the richness and educational value of our scientific
heritage may be lost in an electronic sea of information.
Museum of the
History of Science, Oxford
The Museum of the History of Science is a small, university museum with an outstanding
collection in a specialist area, namely early scientific instruments. It is a department of
the University of Oxford, and as such is expected to contribute to the research and
teaching agenda of the University. Its most prominent contribution to teaching is a
Master of Science course that is conducted entirely within the Museum — taught by the
curatorial staff and to a large extent shaped by the collection of instruments and the
working environment of a museum. As well as its academic presence in research and
teaching, the Museum also aims to be fully public — open six days a week and with a
program of exhibitions, lectures, gallery talks and other events that provide a distinctive
educational opportunity for visitors. We expect our position within a university to
contribute to this distinctiveness, since research and scholarship can contribute to the
richness of the visitor’s experience. Linked to this is the fact that our collection of objects
is very strong in early material, so we tend to be more object-focused than many other
museums of science. Our use of the Web for education reflects these characteristics and
has helped to resolve some of the tensions of being a scholarly museum with a strong
public program.
The museum launched its Web site (www.mhs.ox.ac.uk) in 1995, principally as a vehicle
for virtual versions of its special exhibitions (Bowen, Bennett, & Johnson, 1998a, 1998b).
A series of exhibitions was begun in that year, and the first, The Measurers: A Flemish
Image of Mathematics in the Sixteenth Century, was offered simultaneously in the
gallery, on a gallery computer, and via the Internet. The Web version is still available
today. This established a pattern for Web activity for several years, as each exhibition
was placed on the Web, and maintained indefinitely. Each exhibition was essentially the
full text of the catalog, with all the advantages of navigation and image management that
an electronic edition can offer. We have no evidence that this availability was detrimental
either to visitor numbers or to catalog sales, and anecdotal evidence suggested the
reverse.
While it remains the museum’s ambition to maintain this link between the exhibition
program and the Web site, in recent years it has proved difficult to do so. Our early
exhibitions helped make the case for a major grant from the UK Heritage Lottery Fund,
and the Museum closed for a comprehensive project of extension and refurbishment.
Equipped with new facilities, not least a dedicated gallery for special exhibitions, we have
been coming to terms with a much more ambitious public program and the virtual
exhibition work has not yet been re-established. This may be a local problem, rather than
a common experience, but we have found that as the Museum has expanded its work —
an expansion that was itself fostered and promoted by improving Web resources — it
has proved difficult to maintain development on all fronts, and the Web-based work has
slipped back. Clearly resource limitations are part of the problem, at a time when museum
funding has not grown to meet either staff ambitions or visitor expectations. Nonethe-
less, a parallel gallery and Web exhibition program is too valuable to lose without a
struggle and we hope to be able to revive it before long.
If the virtual exhibition program has stalled for the present, other Web work has
flourished and some of this has been in line with achievements or ambitions elsewhere.
Both our collections database (with images) and our library catalog are now online, as
is an image library of 8,500 items — not massive but large in relation to the size of the
Museum and its collection. Where our contribution may have been more distinctive has
been in going beyond the presentation of our own material and towards connecting or
combining distant collections.
Museums that are physically separate, even those in different countries or different
continents, hold objects that are intimately related to each other in history. They may
have been made by the same hand, or in the same workshop, or commissioned by the same
patron, or used together in the same laboratory. They may represent closely related
stages in design development. In extreme cases they may even be separated parts of what
was once a single piece. Whether or not the objects have this level of intimacy, it is often
enlightening to take a broad view, since a review of evidence across a number of
collections may well modify or enrich one confined to a single source. In early periods
of instrument making the culture of design and manufacture had aspects that were local
and derived from certain traditions of production in a city or region, but there were also
developments that were European in scope and depended on an economy of learning that
was thoroughly international.
We have offered two, very different responses. In one case a relatively small, natural
population of prestigious objects was strongly represented in a few very fine collections.
These objects were closely related to each other in intellectual, economic and social
respects, but the small size of the population meant that they could be considered —
individually and as a group — in great detail and with a wealth of supporting material.
In the second example, by contrast, we have a potentially unlimited population, and the
aim here is to provide a tool for the researcher, a large database that does not itself hold
detailed information on individual objects but which can be searched for unknown
instances of the objects under study and for impressions of their frequency and
distribution.
In the first project, four museums have combined records of their European instruments
up to the year 1600 to create the Epact database (www.mhs.ox.ac.uk/epact). The
museums are the Museo di Storia della Scienza in Florence, Italy, the Museum Boerhaave
in Leiden, The Netherlands, the British Museum in London, UK, and the Museum of the
History of Science in Oxford.
Here is an example of a population of objects that has a strong internal coherence and
because of the richness of the four collections involved, the result also has the advantage
of presenting a fair proportion of the instruments from the period now in captivity in
public museums. A terminus of the year 1600 created a relatively small and manageable
group of 520 instruments, and each has at least one image at three sizes. The intention
was to provide as high-resolution images as was feasible, so that researchers could use
the largest images to examine the instruments in detail. The user has a choice also as
regards the accompanying text, for two descriptions are offered for each entry. An
overview gives such systematic information as the maker, date, place, materials and
dimensions, followed by some general remarks and comments on the instrument. These
are intended to draw attention to points of interest and not to require any technical
background. The second level of text is a detailed and technical description that seeks
to reach the standards of a scholarly catalog. This is one approach to the problem of
having to satisfy different audiences with different needs.
Users are offered other assistance as well, such as biographies for all the makers,
information on the locations where they worked, explanations of the different types of
instruments, and a glossary of technical terms. Links are provided for direct reference to
this supporting information, and a range of ways of ordering the material is at the
command of the user, who can also choose whether to browse by text heading or by
thumbnail image. The standard facilities of a Web database have made this a catalog that
is more versatile than any printed equivalent could have been, but perhaps its greatest
advantage comes from the combination of collections that allows comparisons and
inferences that would not be possible in a single source.
Epact was an attempt to produce the finest product that could be managed, to the best
standards of scholarship and presentation. It required a great deal of effort, and twelve
people from the various museums were involved in different ways. Several years of work
— not, of course, full-time — and a number of meetings were needed. The result is
attractive and has been well received, so that there have been suggestions that it be
extended, either by involving other institutions or extending the date limit. So far, those
involved have not felt inclined to reopen and extend the project they have completed,
because they are well aware of what would be involved. It was a challenge to keep us all
working to the same conventions and to standardize our product. But one thing that might
be useful to others is that the conventions and standards we agreed on and sought to
implement have been published online with the database (www.mhs.ox.ac.uk/epact/
conventions.asp).
The second project, the Online Register of Scientific Instruments (www.isin.org),
presents a complete contrast to Epact. The Register comprises a much larger population,
spread over a much broader range of types and dates, has no restrictions on participating
collections, and it could expand indefinitely. But the more profound differences are in
ethos: where Epact aimed to be closed, complete and conforming exactly to established
standards, conventions and limiting conditions, the Register is an open-ended experi-
ment, whose future is, at least to a large extent, in the hands of its contributors and users.
The conventions are minimal and its future direction and development unclear and
undecided.
There would clearly be an advantage to researchers to be able to consult a single
database, instead of having to keep up with the many initiatives by individual institu-
tions. On the other hand, grand and comprehensive schemes do not work in the long term:
they are unwieldy, they soon outgrow the resources and the enthusiasm of their
originators, and they trespass on the legitimate interests of the keepers of collections.
Collection holders rightly want to control their output. They do not want to hand over
to others their responsibilities for making information available on their collections, but
at the same time they want to be part of some central vehicle for making their work known
and for attracting interested users. The Register seeks to answer this need: to provide
the minimal facilities that will be of service to users and collection holders alike, while
responsibility for information and its dissemination stays where it belongs, namely with
the individuals and institutions who care for the collections.

So one principle of the Register is that collection holders contribute the information on
their objects. They can include as many of their objects as they wish, and in each case
they complete as many as they wish of the fields of information (there are only a few)
offered by the Register. They can return to their entries whenever they like, and correct
them, modify them, improve them, delete them or add to them.
The Register is like a library catalog which tells you about the existence of a book and
how to find it, it does not contain detailed descriptions or histories or images: for these
the user contacts the collection holder, either through a direct link to an online database
where the collection holder has provided this, or by e-mail or post. At present there are
17 contributing collections, the largest being the Science Museum in London with 2,273
entries.
The disadvantage, of course, with placing all responsibility for content with contributors
is that it leads to inconsistency. With Epact we had enough difficulty imposing
consistency on ourselves in a relatively small group of workers dealing with a relatively
coherent group of instruments. Given the scope of the Register, this would be imprac-
ticable with the slight resources at its disposal. It might not even be wholly desirable in
any case, again given the ethos the Register has adopted: contributors do not relinquish
responsibility and centralization is minimal.
The Register does not control or vet contributions in any way. There has been no attempt
at a thesaurus of allowed terms and entries, and no particular language is required. There
are no preferred forms for names of people or places. Where inconsistencies, or mistakes,
appear in the indexes, it is hoped that the contributors will notice these and make
correcting submissions: again it is the contributors who are responsible. In practice
nothing else would be possible; the resources for a thorough vetting and correcting
procedure does not exist. But in any case, there is a virtue in placing these responsibilities
with contributors: the interest and responsibility is collective, and the Register will
develop or not depending on the extent to which contributors and users find it valuable
and want it to work. It is intended to be an opportunity, rather than a finished product.
It also has to be said that the lack of success of grander projects for agreed terminology
is not encouraging. The indexes generated by the Register could become vehicles for
agreement and convergence, as contributors notice consensus emerging on certain
terms and names, and adjust their entries accordingly.
It is in this democratic spirit of self-help, allied to the conviction that a central index of
this sort could be of great use to institutions and researchers, that the Scientific
Instrument Commission of the International Union of the History and Philosophy of
Science has sponsored the Register. The original designer, Giles Hudson, presented the
project to a Symposium of the Commission in 1998 and Jessica Ratcliff has since
developed the site with the support of the Museum. The Register is a challenging and
imaginative experiment, whose future rests with the community of users. For that reason,
although it was launched and is managed by the Museum, it appears at a different URL
(www.isin.org) from the museum’s Web site (www.mhs.ox.ac.uk), where the Epact
database can be found.
While the educational value of our virtual exhibitions is evident, the projects presented
in more detail here, namely Epact and the Register, may seem more like tools for research,
and to a certain extent that is true. Neither offers class or individual lessons tailored
specifically to target groups of e-learners. Until very recently the Museum has not had
the professional educational staff necessary to ensure that such material is really useful
and relevant. However both projects have such potential, and Epact in particular can
readily be used as an information and image resource with a great deal of supporting
material for the user. Its subject matter may at first seem relatively distant from school
learning, but because mathematics in the Renaissance was often closely related to
practical matters, it is not difficult to apply the Epact material to social history.
Time, for example, forms the basis of many school projects, and the single most common
instrument in Epact is the sundial. Many lessons can be learnt from the dials on view;
the importance of time telling, for example, is seen from the number, variety and quality
of the pocket dials, while the arbitrary nature of our division of the day into hours is
demonstrated by the numerous alternatives in use in the past. Many of the instruments
relate to warfare, while others illustrate the importance of religion or astrology in daily
life. At present, students may have to do some exploration to tease out what they want
to use, but the various directories and glossaries ensure that the information is there, and
learning to explore has its own value.
Science Museum, London

The Science Museum (London) is part of the National Museum of Science & Industry
(NMSI), which further comprises the National Railway Museum (York), and the National
Museum of Photography, Film & Television (Bradford). The Science Museum has its
origins with the Great Exhibition of 1851, and has resided in its present building in South
Kensington since 1928. Today, the Science Museum exists to promote public under-
standing of the history and contemporary practice of science, medicine, technology and
industry.
In regard to the online presence of the Science Museum (www.sciencemuseum.org.uk),
the development of its Web site has been organic, at least for the first four years of its
existence. The Web site itself was launched shortly after the Natural History Museum
(NHM) (www.nhm.ac.uk) set up its own pages in 1994. It should be noted that the Natural
History Museum was the first UK museum to have its own Web site presence. Both the
Natural History Museum and the Science Museum benefited from the close physical co-
location with Imperial College, where the relatively high-speed JANET academic network
was already well established with good network connections to other UK universities
and the rest of the world.
The early Science Museum site quickly developed a broad and deep hierarchy with many
cross-listings. In addition to visitor information, there were approximately 12 navigation
sections, a quick search and featured highlights. The sections largely represented
organizational activities and to some extent, the main divisional areas of the Museum
itself. These included Exhibitions, Education, Collections, Research, Commercial and
Services.
Exhibitions Online
Of note at this time were the featured highlights. The Science Box series appeared under
this section — a series of small, temporary exhibitions. In 1995, The Information
Superhighway was one of the Science Box events that appeared on the Web and which
coincided with a set of seminars and a touring exhibition component that provided
outreach to the public in the area of new communication technology.
The latter half of 1998 saw the appearance of “Exhiblets,” the first exclusively virtual
exhibition that did not reference a physical space or exhibition in the actual museum
(www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/collections/exhiblets). The name “Exhiblet” was derived
from a combination of the terms “exhibition” and “Java Applet.” Exhiblets represented
a set of online information resources that used a specific object or collection to explain
events, discoveries and personalities. Each Exhiblet is comprised of a narrative, object
list and bibliography. The resources were a form of pro-active approach to enquiries in
popular areas, such as the personality of Marie Curie, and to highlight collections within
a historical context. The success of the medium can, perhaps, be gleaned from the Web
statistics of December 1999, which shows that “Marie Curie” was a top search phrase that
led visitors to the site, only exceeded by the term “science museum.”
Exhiblets were a relatively low-tech addition to the Web site and were intended to be
easily viewed by different browsers and printed-out as a resource for the enquiring public
and school students. This complemented the availability of activity sheets that the
Education Department had placed online for printing and downloading for teachers and
schools.
More interactive applications were developed for specific featured objects and exhibi-
tions in the Museum galleries. One of the earliest features to use a form of VR was the
online exhibition for the Apollo 10 Command Module, which incorporated an activity
entitled “Design your own rocket” (www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/on-line/apollo10).
The use of Web tools to provide interactivity and participation was encouraged under
the STEM initiative. The STEM Project (Students’ and Teachers’ Educational Materials)
was an Internet competition held by the Science Museum and sponsored by TOSHIBA
and begun in 1997. STEM encouraged school visitors to create a Web site based on a
particular gallery, exhibit or online exhibition. The purpose of the project was to promote
the creation of a database of resources created by students and teachers for students
and teachers. In this way, the project extended the interrelationship between the museum
and school curriculum. Over 1,000 resources are now archived on the site
(www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/learning/sheets/sheets/sheetintro.asp). Note that STEM
ended in 2003.
Web Redesign
During the active period of online development and features added to the Web site,
namely between 1997 and 1999, the Museum began to review its online presence and
sought to provide more integration to existing content. Importantly, it looked to provide
a more interactive and community-based Web experience, and to provide multiple entries
to Web site content through a variety of navigation methods.
Following meetings during the summer of 1998, it was determined that there was a need
to revise the existing navigation of the Web site and to provide multiple audiences with
multiple information structures. One of the methods was determined to be via the offering
of a subject-based navigation.
In an evaluation conducted by the Visitor Research team in 1999 (Steiner et al., 1999),
recommendations indicated the need to reduce the number of highlights on the front page
and the number of options for the initial navigation. Some of the section headings also
came under review. For instance, whereas it was clear that the Education section
contained information for the educational community, especially schools, there was also
the expectation for continuing learning to be located there. Similarly the heading “Online
Features” was another area of confusion for visitors who anticipated “information”
about physical exhibitions. Some of the heading changes thus resulted in Education
becoming “Learn & Teach” and Online Features changing to “Exhibitions Online.”
These changes reveal a move toward usability in terms of language and design for a
growing Web savvy audience, and possibly emphasized the variations in the needs and
expectations of virtual audiences versus the physical visitors to the Museum.
Wellcome Wing
This reorganization of content and Web restructuring coincided with the development
of the new, Intel sponsored, Web site for the Wellcome Wing building of the Science
Museum (www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/on-line/wellcome-wing). The Wellcome Wing
opened in June 2000 and focuses on contemporary science and technology, with a
particular emphasis on biomedicine.
The Web site for the Wellcome Wing was the largest “microsite” at this point accessible
via the museum’s pages. The site was developed to support both the interactive nature
of the new building and the look and feel. It contains interactives similar to those in the
gallery (for example the “Pattern Wall” which can be downloaded as a Flash game or
played within the Museum itself). Also of note is the VRML (Virtual Reality Modeling
Language) 3-D clickable walkthrough of the Wing that gives users the chance to engage
with the space itself as well as providing alternative ways into the content. The building and
the Web site represented a move away from more “object-oriented” and historical rich spaces.
At the same time as the launch of the Wellcome Wing, Antenna was developed
(www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/antenna), “a world first — a constantly updated exhibition
devoted exclusively to science and technology news…” This exhibition brings rapidly
changing exhibitions and CIPs (Computer Information Points) into both the virtual and
real spaces. As time went on, the CIP development was levered into XML which means
that content developed for the gallery kiosks can be re-deployed within minutes to the
wider website audience. Antenna is a conscious response to the information-seeking
behavior of younger audiences who are informed by and exposed to rapid news and
media-led events.
InTouch (www.sciencemuseumintouch.org.uk) went a stage further in linking the real

and virtual by allowing gallery visitors to create their own Web pages when they visited
the gallery spaces of the Wellcome Wing. Various interactives are connected to the Web
space and all are activated on-gallery using a retina scan and online using a user name sign-
in system. To date, roughly 170,000 personal Web pages have been created. InTouch is also
an example of personalization (Bowen & Filippini-Fantoni, 2004) driven design whereby the
experiences offered by the interactives are user-led. The sustainability of InTouch continues
to be reviewed and has provided an important foundation in this area for subsequent projects,
especially in convergence (physical and virtual interdependent spaces).
Dana Centre
The Dana Centre [www.danacentre.org.uk], launched in the winter of 2003, “…marks a

new direction in science communication: to challenge public perception and tackle
contemporary science head on. This dynamic events space will bring the hottest themes
in modern science to adults-only audiences through a program of bold and innovative
events.”
Similar to the Wellcome Wing, the Centre is linked to the experience of a physical building,
but striking differences lie in the use of new media channels for information delivery,
omission of gallery/object-oriented spaces, and its focus on adults as the key audience.
The Centre itself is a highly wired building, with facilities including OB (Outside
Broadcast), Web cast, Web cam, wireless, kiosk, projection, moveable stages and
rigging, wired rooms, etc. The direction in which it has influenced the Web most,
however, is again in the connection between the virtual and real spaces. Not only are the
program and other key information displayed on the Dana Centre Web site, but also
dialogue is fostered through online discussion boards (Bernier & Bowen, 2004) — and
permeates the real space via the live Web kiosks and projections. There are other less
obvious connections as well: the program of events, for example, is updated once online
and an XML feed then powers the “what’s on” projection in the building itself. There is
also a projection feed of images from the NMSI Picture Library Web site
[www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/piclib], chosen at random from the database.
In this community-driven space, the “4thRoom” represents another complementary
innovation developed during the Web site build – a flash interactive that acts as a “skin”
on the online discussion. Each person’s point of view on a particular thread is displayed
within this interactive as an avatar figure. Shortly the interactive will be available as a
screensaver with the discussion fed remotely by the Web site. One consideration in the
set up of the 4th room and debate areas of the Centre is the need for moderation and the
introduction of “House Rules.” The latter was undertaken specifically for the Centre and
in light of its provocative content.
To support community-centric activity, and particular to a technologically aware target
audience, development into the future includes an innovative 3-D chat event, use of SMS
(Short Message Service) and MMS (Multimedia Messaging Service) during and after
debates, “klip” technology that will provide users with live, desktop notifications of the
latest discussions and events and further building of key areas of the site.
The Ingenious Project
Ingenious (www.ingenious.org.uk), funded by the NOF-digitise program (a lottery

funded initiative), represents the largest scale object-based Internet project to date
undertaken by the Science Museum and NMSI (to launch in the Spring of 2004). The
project aim is to make publicly accessible 30,000 digitized images and accompanying
records, 10,000 library records, and 10,000 object records sourced from the Science
Museum (including the Science and Society Picture Library), and its sister sites: the
National Railway Museum in York and the National Museum of Photography, Film &
Television in Bradford (Borda & Beler, 2003).
In addition, this material is to be contextualized by several hundred pages of circa 40
topical stories aimed at life-long learners (the widest potential audience of the “microsite”
projects). These topics use the primary material “to weave connections between the
people, innovations and ideas that have changed our lives and the way we see the world,
from the industrial revolution to the present day” (extracted from the Vision Statement).
Through these connections, users have the further opportunity to find meaning for
themselves by being presented with tools to “create” and to contribute to subject-driven
debates (Borda & Bud, 2002). As an example, the Ingenious Web site allows users to
custom-build their own user experience by adding resources to a “save image” clipboard,
and self-market the site by passing on e-cards, personal pages and links to their friends
and colleagues.
A highlight among the toolkits is the “webgallery” function that will enable users to add
text and captions to images of objects, to arrange them, and to save other types of
resources, as well as e-mail the end product. This creative building process provides an
individualized means of making learning resources of direct significance available to the
user.
On a community level (Beler et al., 2004), debates permit users to contribute and join
conversations focused around contemporary issues. There are also plans to cross-link
debates with the Dana Centre to build on existing tools and streamline the user experience
(and moderation efforts). Due to the nature of the sharing activities and depth of authored
content (especially for the topics), one issue similar to the Dana Centre is the need for
libel coverage and for Ingenious to have its own set of House Rules as the Museum
engages more in the area of user contributions online.
Other than the STEM project, Ingenious tools will be unique to be drawing from a
comprehensive knowledge base for self-publishing and sharing, and general content
syndication (Borda & Beler, 2003). Watermarking is an issue currently being discussed
so that ownership and, viral marketing, can be realized. There are plans to do an extensive
summative evaluation on the whole site once it becomes public. This will likely inform
the development and tweaking of the tools to optimize usability first and foremost.
Science, Invention and Nature
Expanding the community-focus online, the Science Museum is leading a consortium

project (again funded by the NOF-digi program) called Science, Invention and Nature
(SIN) (www.sinergies.org.uk). SIN is an interdisciplinary Web portal that combines

information from four institutional Web sites and their respective NOF-funded projects
exploring aspects of the natural and man-made worlds. The four partner Web sites linked
to the portal thus far are:
• Science Museum (www.sciencemuseum.org.uk)

– Ingenious (www.ingenious.org.uk)
• Natural History Museum (www.nhm.ac.uk)
– Nature Navigator (www.nhm.ac.uk/naturenavigator)
• Wildscreen Trust (www.wildscreen.org.uk)
– Arkive (www.arkive.org)
• Y Touring (www.ytouring.org.uk)
– Genetic Futures (www.geneticfutures.com)
Internet users entering the SIN Web site can browse through different themes (also
known as SINergies) and click on related links, which will also take the user to content
on the four sites. The SIN Web site’s main task is to collate select content from each of
the sites into these broad editorially driven SINergies. One example of such a theme on
the SIN portal is “Food.” The SIN portal will hold an introductory text on this theme, as
well as food-relevant links to the other four Web sites.
There is a possibility for the user to “drill” the other way as well. The four Web sites will
each hold a SINergy button icon on different pages where theme relevant content will
take the user to the SIN portal. For example, a page on “Eating disorders” on the Y Touring
Web site will hold that SINergy button, and when a user clicks it, s/he will be taken to
the SIN portal and the theme on “Food.” The theme will then lead to further content on
the topic “Food” through links and relevant keyword search (pre-defined based on
subject page on which the button resides). This concept follows the idea of a “Web-ring”
in which a group of Web sites with a common theme, configured in a loop, allows the user
easy access in the ring by clicking on links. Significantly, throughout this learning
experience, the user is kept within a contained group of authoritative and subject-
focused set of sites.
To support the concept of an “enclosure” of subject specific resources, the other
principle component of the SIN Web portal is a sophisticated search engine. One of the
main purposes of the portal is to provide users the possibility to search for content for
relevant topics and provide them with a “complete” result across all underlying partner
sites via search algorithms and metadata. The user can also search by resource “type”
(e.g., image, PDF, HTML page). To achieve optimum results, the SIN portal has been
designed to crawl the four Web sites (other sites may be added later) in order to create
an indexed database that will be used for efficient and targeted searches. The search is
a particularly key component because SIN represents a resource almost entirely com-
prised of born digital resources (i.e., Web site materials), and the site itself has minimal
content — the SINergies really acting as jumping off points and a means to provide
examples of the range of interdisciplinary content.
In summary, the idea behind the overall concept is to offer users something more targeted
than a Google result set — here the users are provided with well-known and branded
knowledge organizations from which to search across and access authoritative learning
materials. The SIN site is due to launch in Spring 2004 and will then be re-evaluated.
Future Directions
Future projects are beginning to approach Web site technology, content and delivery
in a more holistic way, not least the need to “join-up” both on resource and practical
levels. This will mean the development of a central content management system,
including industry standard storage and systems, as well as unifying many of the tasks
carried out today into re-useable “toolkits.” These will provide each project with an
increasing array of technical solutions already in place. Effort on projects will therefore
be released to focus on innovation of design and content (i.e., the user experience) rather
than technology. We envisage therefore that as time goes on, the technology will become
increasingly invisible to users and builders of sites within the Science Museum and the
NMSI family.
Continuing efforts are being made to improve accessibility (Bowen, 2003, 2004) and
interoperability across all sites, and we expect delivery to multiple platforms to begin to
become an important part of what we do both online and off-line, and to extend the
learning/engagement channels to multiple users and audience profiles of the Web site.
Alan Turing Home Page

The Alan Turing Home Page, now the index page to a large Web site dedicated to the life
and work of the mathematician, computer scientist and codebreaker Alan Turing (1912–
1954), first appeared on the World Wide Web in September 1995. At first it was hosted
in my own user space on the Web server of Wadham College, Oxford University. In 1996–
97 there were mirror sites in San Francisco and Chicago. But in 1997 I started paying for
my own domain names and Web hosting and since then the site has been solely under
its own dedicated domain name (www.turing.org.uk). It currently has between 1,000 and
2,000 visitors a day.
The background to these early developments was, of course, the very rapid expansion
and growing sophistication of the Web. I was a slow starter on the Internet (for an
academic), and it was not until 1995 that I appreciated how important it was going to be.
Matthew Westby, one of my students at Wadham College (where I am Lecturer in
mathematics) showed me HTML, and thanks to him I began life as a Web author just at
the exciting point when the Web was transforming itself from a club for enthusiasts to
a universal medium for global information and communication. My initial motivation for
the Alan Turing Home Page was simply that on looking up “Alan Turing” on the search
engines that then existed, I was aghast to discover pages of inaccurate offerings,
plagiarized from obsolete texts or the result of poorly informed student projects. I had
an alarming vision, which has never left me, that all my work in the 1980s, in particular
my large-scale biography Alan Turing: The Enigma (Hodges 1983) might as well never
have existed as far as Web users were concerned! More positive feelings very rapidly
superseded this anxiety, because my first Web pages were noticed and appreciated at
once (in particular by Jonathan Bowen, already a pioneer with his Virtual Museum of
Computing), and these new contacts gave me a delight in the value of cooperative linking
which, likewise, has never left me.
The Web site was started to complement that biography of Alan Turing, and its spirit has
remained similar to that of the book, which I started as a multi-faceted, multi-level work
back in 1977. Now as then, I work as an individual researcher and author. But there are
obvious differences between writing a printed text, and authoring for the Web, which
struck me right from the beginning. One is the immediacy of Web publication, both in the
sense of being able to publish without the glacial timetable of book publishers, and in
the sense of being unmediated by their no less icy and static conventions — to publish
direct from author to reader and inviting personal response. The dynamic quality of the
Web also allows correction and expansion of material to be done at any time. This means,
of course, that unless fairly elaborate schemes for archiving and dating are in place, one
cannot expect Web pages to play the role of printed publications in establishing
definitiveness and priority. For this reason I do not write for Web pages in the same style
as for a printed publication, and I am mildly surprised when other people cite ephemeral
Web pages as academic references. Another difference is economic: without elaborate
registration and payment schemes, impractical in my case, there is no royalty payment
to the author. The economic rationale of this work has had to rest on the hope of improved
book sales and a small amount from Amazon.com commissions: neither would justify the
time I have spent. The shoestring finances have also dictated that the technical work must
remain as it began — by doing it myself. This means that the design does not meet the
standard expected by those using professional graphic design elements optimized for all
platforms and screen sizes. Still less could I undertake advanced dynamic “personaliza-
tion” features (Bowen & Filippini-Fantoni, 2004). However, it is tolerable.
In Web authoring I am influenced by the fact that my written style makes much use of
allusion — “only connect” was one of the mottos of Hodges (1983) — and so the principle
of hyperlinking seemed natural to me as soon as I saw it. In the first few days of the site,
I decided on a format that has remained good ever since. There is a formal textual
biography, based on my entry on Turing for the (British) Dictionary of National
Biography. This allows for straight linear reading without the distraction of links. Parallel
to it, there is a Web page “Scrapbook,” visually designed to look like entries and pictures
pasted into a book, which has all the links. This choice of design meant that when new
ventures such as the Turing Digital Archive (www.turingarchive.org) came online, the
browser could move into them seamlessly through hyperlinks. The Scrapbook is
probably the most interesting part of the Web site as it is intended for hyperlinked
“browsing” in a way that only the Web can offer. My policy for the Scrapbook has been
from the beginning to give annotated hyperlinks to other sources. Web authors tend
either to provide sites which are either totally self-contained, without using external links,
or else to give uncritical listings of links to other pages, expressly without any respon-
sibility or judgment of any kind regarding their content. I have never felt happy with either
extreme, and try to update the links and associated commentary. The downside is, of
course, that it is hard to maintain working links and compose suitable remarks. I am always
aware of a large stack of tasks confronting me through the volume of relevant material
on the Web. It is very different now from 1995, when there were only a few items on the
Web for the Scrapbook pages to point to. All truly Web-based material is always “under
construction.”
After 1997 I added further sections, reflecting the new research, talks and publications
that had stimulated by the existence of the Web site. In particular, a “Philosophy” section
has been built round the short printed text that appeared in the Great Philosophers series
(Hodges, 1997), and my online entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
(plato.stanford.edu). This more advanced material attracts about 100 users a day, many
of them degree-level students from around the world. Inevitably, sometimes paragraphs
from my writing must be copied, undigested, into students’ work: as all lecturers know,
the Web lends itself to crude cribbing. But I try to counter this tendency in the Scrapbook
section by annotations that show students (and indeed anyone else) how there are many
differences of view and sometimes-fierce arguments among leading current thinkers.
This relates particularly to the significance of Church’s Thesis, to the question of how
the electronic computer came into being; and to the prospects for Artificial Intelligence.
Here I encourage users to follow external hyperlinks to see these different views for
themselves, and discourage mindless copying.
It also becomes apparent from enquiries that the Web site is being used by school
students. Indeed, the UK National Grid for Learning references it. I am inclined to say,
however, that the questions being “researched” by school students, judging from the
demands for “information” that I receive, often seem to reflect the fact that they are
attempting to answer questions which are far, far too difficult. There is nothing on my
Web site specifically intended for school students, and on the whole my motto would
be that computability is an adult subject. Of course some exceptional school students
will discover my site with relish, like my book, but I make no claim that it would be of
general value for education below degree level. However, this could change: the new A-
level in the ethics and history and philosophy of science might make it a very worthwhile
course element.
From these remarks it should be apparent that I am critical of the too-frequent assumption
that Web material is, just by its nature and its availability, a learning resource of value
to students of all kinds. The Web is poor in its provision of structured course learning,
and is not convenient for the experience of serious reading. My site does not pretend to
supply anything of what students should be getting from textbooks of computer science
and computability. It can complement, but not substitute for, my own printed work. I can
offer specific technical benefits — like a JavaScript Turing machine demonstration,
which does much better than the static printed explanation in my book. I can give
technical details that it would not be economic to print. And I can give an illustrated taste,
an overall browsing experience, which can usefully excite the imagination, and be
accessible to people all over the world. These seem to me the main benefits of Web
material in general.
Looking into the future, I would expect to develop those features of Web material further,
and especially those areas where I can give something unique that no one else would do.
One of these lies in creating a “Book Update:” supplementing my printed text with new
and corrected material of all kinds. If, one day, publishers let Hodges (1983) go out of print
— i.e., it loses its economic viability on printed paper — then the Web site could extend
into providing an e-book alternative. There is certainly room for me to enlarge and
improve the role of technical design and illustration, but really it is the content that
matters. Probably the area where I could best take advantage of my own particular
knowledge and development, is to expand the Philosophy section into a much larger
discussion of physics, computation and the human mind, for instance in relating Turing’s
ideas to those of Penrose (1989).
This may sound a very dry and abstruse conclusion, but actually it is a very personal one.
I am in an unusual position as having come to study the development of computer science
from a background of working with Penrose in relativity and quantum mechanics, and
from a strong personal and political interest in Turing’s individual life. Publishers, like
academic departments, are very wary of cross-genre, multi-purpose work, and enforce
the either/or mentality. The Web, with its low marginal costs and its natural interlinking,
allows a both/and principle which suits me better, and allows me to express what I want,
in the way that I choose. Although I have expressed a skeptical view about the value of
Web material for traditional structured learning, readers’ responses teach me that there
seems to be no obvious limits to the effect that Web authoring can have on readers of
all kinds and all backgrounds, and it is the response of these readers that has been the
non-economic reward to this author.
Lastly, after the preceding text was completed, and just before the final editorial deadline,
there was an unexpected development. I was offered, and have now accepted, a
commercial arrangement with the online retailer Kelkoo (www.kelkoo.co.uk), under which
I am paid for displaying links to it throughout the site. This new arrangement may, of
course, be as short-lived as the famous dot-com bubble of 1999–2000, depending as it
does on the marketing concepts of a multinational company, but for the time being it offers
a rather better economic basis than the state of affairs that I outlined above for
maintaining and augmenting the site. It also illustrates the dynamic nature of online
publishing, where one has to be prepared for changes from day-to-day. You are now
reading a printed text that captures the state of affairs as they stood in early 2004, but
time will not stand still in cyberspace.
The business of a physical museum is a strange amalgam of detailed and obsessive long-
term scholarship, the exploitation of graphic and advertising techniques, the pressure
of unpredictable demands from the general public, and the necessity of negotiating
financial sponsorship. Being the curator of the branch of a “virtual museum” is, albeit
in microcosm, not so different. Experience shows that communication of all kinds is more
like the hopeful floating of bottled messages into the oceans, than the direct linear
inculcation of facts and logical deductions. Electronic publication and e-learning is no
exception. One can only carry on in the hope that this new symbiosis of text and image,
enhanced by the global glow of the computer screen, will spark in some readers that magic
response that goes beyond “information” to real excitement and involvement.
Conclusion
In this chapter we have explored a number of case studies of science museums and their
associated Web sites, as well as completely a virtual Web site concerning the history of
science, in the context of e-learning. The case studies have all been pioneering in their
own way and have taken very different approaches in their development and presenta-
tion of e-learning material.
Of course the Web is constantly developing with new issues and technologies. Any e-
learning facility must try to keep up with these changes or it will inevitably start to look dated.
For example, personalization is an increasingly important technique that allows Web sites to
provide a more relevant experience based on individual requirements. Although there is
considerable scope for development, major science museums such as the Science
Museum in London and La Cité des Science et de l’Industrie in Paris are now exploiting this
approach in their latest Web site developments (Bowen & Filippini-Fantoni, 2004).
Widening access is also an important concern, with legislation now making this a legal
requirement in many countries (Bowen, 2003, 2004). Online, it is possible to make
educational resources in a form suitable for many types of users, whether they are school
children, the general public or advanced researchers (Bowen et al., 2001), even if they are
disabled (e.g., through blindness or partial sightedness for example). The Natural History
Museum of Los Angeles County was an early museum pioneer in this respect (www.ed-
resources.net/universalaccess). With the ever-increasing number of technologies avail-
able on the Web, it is important that museums understand the accessibility issues when
including a particular technology on their Web site (e.g., to improve the interactivity or
multimedia presentation of an e-learning resource). Presenting material in multiple ways
(e.g., textually, visually and aurally) is often beneficial for many end users, if suitable
resources are available.
For the future, successful museums should use their Web sites to augment their
educational facilities in appropriate and cost-effective ways. For example, it is an ideal
medium to make material available for teachers cheaply, avoiding postage costs associ-
ated with traditional physical delivery, and for providing widely available interactive
facilities while avoiding the installation of expensive hardware. It is possible to provide
good facilities even when the budget is limited, as in many virtual museums. It may be
feasible to leverage volunteer effort in the development of e-learning material, through
liaison with universities, for example.
Overall, there is no one route to success, but the area where museums reign supreme over
many other organizations is the availability of real objects and associated unique
content. Using and combining these resources in novel ways can help to inspire those
using museum Web sites for educational purposes in a distinctive way that is not
possible for other organizations.
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to Mike Ellis, Web Manager at the Science Museum, London, for his help
relating to the Science Museum section of the chapter.
References
Angus, J. (1998). Building and maintaining a large Web site. In D. Bearman & J. Trant
(Eds.), MW98: Museums and the Web conference. CD-ROM. Toronto, Canada,
April 25-27. Pittsburgh: Archives & Museum Informatics.
Angus, J. (2000). Building a Web site. Museum International, 52(1), 17-21.
Angus, J. (2001). Wired for accessibility. In D. Bearman & J. Trant (Eds.), MW2001:
Museums and the Web conference. CD-ROM. Seattle, Washington, USA, March
14-17. Pittsburgh: Archives & Museum Informatics. Retrieved from
www.archimuse.com/mw2001/papers/angus/angus.html
Beler, A., Borda, A., Bowen, J.P., & Filippini-Fantoni, S., (2004). The building of online
museum sector. In J. Hemsley, V. Cappellini, & G. Stanke (Eds.), EVA 2004 London
Conference Proceedings, London, July 26-30, (pp. 2.10-2.15).
Bernier, R., & Bowen, J.P. (2004). Web-based discussion groups at stake: The profile of
museum professionals online. Program: Electronic Library and Information
Systems, 38(2), 120-137.
Bicknell, S., & Farmelo, G. (1993). Museum visitors studies in the 1990s. London: Science
Museum93.
Borda, A., & Beler A. (2003). Development of a knowledge site in distributed information
environments. In Proceedings of ICHIM’03: Cultural Institutions and Digital
Technology. CD-ROM. International Cultural Heritage Informatics Meeting, Paris,
September 8-12.
Borda, A., & Bud, R. (2002). Engaging with science & culture: Major missions across
cyberspace to share good history. In J. Hemsley, V. Cappellini, & G. Stanke (Eds.),
EVA 2002 London Conference Proceedings, London, July 25-26 (pp. 3.1-3.8).
Bowen, J.P. (1995, January/February). A brief history of algebra and computing: An
eclectic Oxonian view. IMA Bulletin, 31(1/2), 6-9.
Bowen, J.P. (1996). Virtual museum of computing Web site. IEEE Annals of the History
of Computing, 18(4), 67.
Bowen, J.P. (2002). Weaving the museum web: The Virtual Library museums pages.
Program: Electronic Library and Information Systems, 36(4), 236-252.
Bowen, J.P. (2003). Web access to cultural heritage for the disabled. In J. Hemsley, V.
Cappellini, & G. Stanke (Eds.), EVA 2003 London Conference Proceedings,
London, July 24-25 (pp. s1.1-1.1).
Bowen, J.P. (2004, January). Cultural heritage online. Ability, 53, 12–14. Retrieved from
www.abilitymagazine.org.uk/features/2004/01/A53_Cover_story.pdf
perspective. In D. Bearman & J. Trant (Eds.), MW2004: Museums and the Web
conference. CD-ROM. Arlington, Virginia, USA, March 31-April 3. Toronto:
Archives & Museum Informatics. Retrieved from www.archimuse.com/mw2004/
papers/bowen/bowen.html
Bowen, J.P., Bennett, J., & Johnson, J. (1998a). Virtual visits to virtual museums. In D.
Bearman & J. Trant (Eds.), MW98: Museums and the Web conference. CD-ROM.
Toronto, Canada, April 22-25. Pittsburgh, PA: Archives & Museum Informatics.
Retrieved from www.archimuse.com/mw98/papers/bowen/bowen_paper.html
Bowen, J.P., Bennett, J., & Johnson, J. (1998b, January/June). Des enquêtes sur les
musées en ligne: Le Virtual Library museums pages. Publics et Musées, 13, 115-127.
Bowen, J.P., Bridgen, R., Dyson, M., & Moran K. (2001). On-line collections access at the
Museum of English Rural Life. In D. Bearman & J. Trant (Eds.), MW2001: Museums
and the Web conference. CD-ROM. Seattle, Washington, USA, March 14-17.
Pittsburgh, PA: Archives & Museum Informatics. Retrieved from
Díaz, L.A.B., & del Egido, A. (1999). Science Museums on the Internet. Museum
International, 51(4), 35-41.
Hodges, A. (1983). Alan Turing: The enigma. London: Burnett and New York: Simon &
Schuster.
Hodges, A. (2000). Turing: A natural philosopher. London; Phoenix (also New York:
Routledge, 1999). In R. Monk & F. Raphael (Eds.), The great philosophers. London:
Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
Maynall, W.H. (1980). Challenge of the Chip. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office
(HMSO).
Papert, S.A. (1993). The children’s machine: Rethinking school in the age of the
computer. New York: Basic Books.
Papert, S.A. (1996). The connected family: Bridging the digital generation gap. Atlanta:
Longstreet Press. Retrieved from www.connectedfamily.com
Papert, S.A. (1999). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas (2nd ed.). New
York: Basic Books.
Penrose, R. (1989). The emperor’s new mind. New York: Oxford University Press.
Schweibenz, S., Keene, S., Worcman, K., Jaggi, K., Kraemer, H., & Karp, C. (2004). Virtual
museums. ICOM News: Newsletter of the International Council of Museums,
57(3), 3-8.
Steiner, K., Payne, J., & Romans, J. (1999, June). Evaluation of Web site structure.
Internal Report, Science Museum. London.
The Educational Approach of Virtual Science Centers 393
Chapter XIX
The Educational
Approach of Virtual
Science Centers:
Two Web Cast Studies
(The Exploratorium
and La Cité des Sciences
et de l’Industrie)
Roxane Bernier, Université de Montréal, Canada
Abstract
This chapter looks at ways of examining informal e-learning environments to address
innovative pedagogy, from two well-known institutions, where the theme of science is
promoted within virtual centers, in a manner that is motivating for both online and
onsite visitors. The author argues that real-time interactions such as Web casting act
as a focus that enriches the people’s interest and thus enhances the notion of Public
Understanding of Research (PUR), while “being socialized” through the scientific
community. Science centers have recently expanded their mission beyond hands-on
interactive exhibits, by adopting a reflective perspective drawn from a multidisciplinary
approach to technological progress; that is, covering sociological, political, historical,
philosophical and even ethical issues through online conferences and live
demonstrations for visitors to become involved in topical debates. This allows them to
394 Bernier
form their own viewpoints on contemporary concerns ranging from genetic engineering
and sustainability to space exploration. Within the diversity of educational resources
offered by virtual science centers, it is suggested that museologists should emphasize
a comprehensive description of scientific-related matters, tackling subjects, people
and places, rather than objects themselves in order to genuinely fulfill a social need
and arouse the audience’s curiosity.
Introduction
At the turn of the third millennium, the museology semantics has been deeply altered with
the dissemination of content through information technologies (IT), thus encouraging
Web exhibit designers to reconsider the concepts of interactivity and interaction with
their visitors. Many scholars in technological education have shown that IT improves
the attention span of a large audience and is stressed to be relevant, challenging, lively
and straightforward learning (Sankar & Kaju, 1999). It also enables an instructor-
generated collaborative process (Hiltz, 1993), which ensures useful knowledge transfer
for the public.
The contribution of IT has sparked significant changes in the curators’ philosophy and
is considered to be at the forefront of innovation for museums (Walsh, 1992). Computer-
based exhibits are reported to be of high appeal for enticing people’s interest in general
topics like health, history and space; it is difficult to describe a disease, feel for a historical
epoch, know a recognized figure, appreciate a chemistry experiment or visualize the Big
Bang through fixed images (Bernier, 2003).
Virtual museums are not an exception, because they permit an individualized exploration
from home where users are likely to be best positioned to determine what information they
are looking for (Bazley et al., 2002). Moreover, they offer countless narrative storytelling
and multiple content presentations with respect to both the visitors’ receptivity and the
subject areas to accommodate varied learning styles (Bernier, 2005). Hence, the Web has
rapidly imposed itself as a technological device for improving one’s apprenticeship in
the sciences, natural history and the arts.
The advent of the World Wide Web has indeed broadened access to museums through
pedagogical use of resources and therefore managed to expand knowledge, thus
enabling the development of various innovative e-learning environments, such as global
digital networking (Jackson, 1997; Witcomb, 1997), real-time demonstrations (Semper,
1998; Kjeldsberg, 1999), advanced database index interfaces (Siegel & Grigoyeva, 1999;
Stuer et al., 2001), interactive telepresence (Koliou et al., 2001; Barbieri & Paolini, 2001),
virtual reality (Andrews et al., 2004), online conferences (Vescia, 2002; Alexander, 2004a),
remote educational programs (Schaller et al., 2002; Szalay, 2003), virtual guided tours
(Bernier, 2002; Korteweg & Trofanenko, 2002), and content personalization (Oberlander
et al., 1997; Beler et al., 2004), as well as Web-based discussion forums (Nilsson, 1997;
Bernier & Bowen, 2004). These specific types of Web presentations should help the
visitors to obtain a unique “behind-the scenes” view of knowledge and reestablish their
own ability to learn.
Among all types of cultural institutions found online, science centers appear particularly
well suited to investigate the Web tendency; their core mission has always been to
demystify major scientific accomplishments through a myriad of contexts (Oppenheimer,
1980). The purpose of science centers is to familiarize visitors with key concepts,
demonstrate technical processes, clarify human perceptions, or get acquainted with
social and environmental repercussions (Schiele, 1996). This can be attained through
hands-on experiences based upon phenomena in nature and elementary principles of
science to arouse one’s curiosity (Durant, 1992). Thus, providing a taxonomy of scientific
knowledge, namely to identify, describe and classify objects or events, is seen vital for
supplying a comprehensive understanding of natural sciences (Davallon, 1993).
Science centers are to some extent a social laboratory where knowledge is sacred. This
could be achieved by personalization of Web facilities, including live demonstrations
with educators. The Web is said to be a terrific tool for educational innovation and has
proved to be efficient with respect to online activities from a personal cognitive
perspective (Brooks, Nolan, & Gallagher, 2000). Indeed, the aims of museum mediators
is to invite audiences into the process of basic scientific research by showing them where
specialized instrumentations are created and experiments are performed incorporating
the hearts and the minds of scientists (Alexander, 2004a).
The implementation of Web casts and IT in general within discovery centers falls in line
with the Public Understanding of Science (Hilgartner, 1990; Durant, 1992; Wynne, 1995;
Miller, 2000; Bono, 2001) and more recently with the Public Understanding of Research
(Lewenstein, 2000; Davis, 2004; Ucko, 2004). The ASTC1, the AAAS2, the ECSITE-UK3,
COPUS4 and PCST5, to name a few important organizations, provide a gateway for public
engagement as well as contribute towards “scientific popularization,” especially through
the Web. One of the newest developments is the Internet Virtual Observatory6, an
international project started in 2001 to put the universe online and provide data on the
change in nature about astronomical research (Szalay, 2003).
Nowadays, science museums and related institutions play a key role regarding the
manner in which technological advancements and scientific discoveries are made
accessible to the public who may be overwhelmed with detailed research results. It is
understood that with the introduction of PUS and PUR, innovative programs should be
developed within a multidisciplinary approach, including the humanities, to present an
alternative to scientific interpretations; while researchers possess actual facts, the
audience is concerned with societal dilemmas (Miller, 2000).
A basic understanding of research by the public requires three elements: “content of
current research; the process of research; and potential implications or consequences
[to] provide an opportunity to convey the excitement of discovery” (Ucko, 2004, p. 1).
For example, the Living Labs at the Columbus Center in Baltimore (USA) allow visitors
to screen marine chemicals for their ability to emulsify oil.
Furthermore, Orfinger (1998) recognizes that visits to virtual science museums are better
than that of actual field trips, because the museum personnel can elaborate specific
features in cyberspace and enhance the learning potential of exhibits with components
such as Real Player clips, QuickTime VR environments, Live Picture Viewer and Shockwave
Flash animations. Thus, online exhibitions are much easier to update and can be stored
indefinitely. Some museologists remind us that the educational role of Web museums is
396 Bernier
as much for pre-visit as for post-visit information (Mokre, 1998; Kravchyna & Hastings,
2002) and that a bad physical experience in the real institution can be enhanced through
online benefits from additional forms of content (Mintz, 1998).
As regards to IT instructional approaches, factors, such as learning objectives, charac-
teristics of the technology used and the audience’s computer literacy are reported to be
of prime importance for pedagogical attainments (Brown & Atkins, 1996).
The Challenge of Virtual Science Centers
This chapter will examine how scientific centers are involved in a “cultural transition” in
order to implement new vectors of activities with respect to diverse categories of visitors
(Bernier, 2002). Our main goal is to explore how science online can provide meaningful
learning for virtual visitors, allowing a genuine museum experience. As emphasized
earlier, it will be shown that a Web-based experience is intrinsically tied to content and
linked to a variety of museographic tools (e.g., QuickTime VR, Macromedia, Audio Real)
as well as to specific storyboards (e.g., live demonstrations, audio interviews, video
clips, online activities) according to topics debated (e.g., past, current or traditional,
innovative).
More importantly, we will address the significance of information delivery models by
investigating real-case scenarios of two virtual science centers having a different
cultural setting in terms of pedagogical strategies (e.g., demonstrate, display, visualize)
and content presentations (e.g., homepage, headings, software used). This will be done
by making a comparison between La Cité des Sciences et de l’Industrie (Paris, France)
and The Exploratorium (San Francisco, California), presenting some data on their public
attendances and using a descriptive inventory of available online resources. We hope
therefore to unveil distinctive frames of scientific knowledge and outline the features of
the most attractive displays with regard to specialized audiences. However, we will
concentrate our efforts on specific activities and virtual exhibitions that characterize
both institutions.
The Exploratorium: A Museum of

Science, Art and Human Perception
The home of the San Francisco Exploratorium occupies 110,000 square feet and was
hosted as part of the Palace of Fine Arts during the World Fair held in the year 1915; it
was the only building that was not torn down after the event. This science museum was
founded by the physicist Frank Oppenheimer in 1969 and is the earliest science center
of all. Thus, it has been regarded as a pioneer of hands-on experimentations and now for
online activities. Its Executive Director, since February 1991, is Dr. Goéry Delacôte.
Before that he served as a Chair of the Board of Directors and in the Scientific Council
of the French National Institute of Pedagogical Research at La Cité des Sciences et de
l’Industrie in the mid-1980s. Its mandate is to create a culture of learning about science
and technology by “controlling and watching the behavior of laboratory apparatus and
machinery” through innovative material and tools, nurturing visitors’ curiosity. It
focuses on cognition from physics to neurosciences, including anthropological angles
and also aesthetic aspects (Delacôte, 1999).
The Exploratorium’s profile can be described as follow. Its 2003-04 budget was $26,914,000
and its annual admission is estimated to be 515,000 people in 2003, with 52% being adults
and 48% children; 55% of them lived in the San Francisco Bay Area and 21% from other
states. Their overall collection encompasses 650 original interactive exhibits, including
lectures, performances and art presentations. In addition, they contributed to formal
partnerships with 15 science centers worldwide to develop didactic itineraries as well as
supply touring exhibitions to 38 U.S. museum institutions (Exploratorium, 2004b).
It has extended its role in public educational programs with the creation of the Center for
Media and Communication in Spring 1993, which won the 2000 ASTC (Association
Scientific-Technology Centers) Award for Innovation, and the Phyllis C. Wattis Web
cast studio facility, which transmits real-time demonstrations (e.g., Live@Exploratorium)
and can accommodate nearly a hundred visitors for networked events with international
researchers remotely — “whether working with NASA to broadcast a total solar eclipse
from Africa, or visiting a penguin ranch near the South Pole” (Exploratorium, 2004a). As
a result, Web casts benefited from a similar funding as the physical exhibitions.
The Live@Exploratorium concept (www.exploratorium.edu/webcasts) was initiated
with the “Hubble Space Telescope Servicing Mission” launch in February 1997, from
which the museum staff derived 14 presentations enabling access to the observation
instrument. Their Web site received almost one thousand visitors in ten days and over
twenty thousand virtual visitors for that special event. Thus, the onsite audience was
allowed to interact directly with scientists while online visitors were invited to ask their
questions by e-mail; for example, see “Summing It Up” on March 9 , 2002
(www.exploratorium.com/origins/hubble/live/webcasts.html).
Furthermore, the Exploratorium is among the first virtual science museum sites. It has won
the Webby Awards7 for Science in 2004 and Education in 2002. It was also awarded the
Best Overall Site at the 1998 Museums and the Web Conference competition8. Founded
in 1993, it gets about 15 million annual visits and contains over 15,000 pages of
educational resources; it has produced nearly 500 experiments as well as 50 live Web
casts serving as a basis for training programs (e.g., ExNet in 1999 for exporting innovative
online exhibits) in more than 100 science centers and schools globally (Exploratorium,
2004a). At least 90 percent of the nation’s science museums, and 70 percent of museums
worldwide, have borrowed ideas from this institution, not to mention the 11,500 copies
of the Exploratorium Newsletter distributed bi-monthly (Exploratorium: Fact Sheet,
2004).
As for content presentation, the Exploratorium’s Website (www.exploratorium.com)
offers five main sections: Explore, Educate, Visit, Partner and Shop (see Figure 1); while
the first two are devoted to didactic attainments, from which we will subsequently
describe some of the material, the last three provide broad information on the museum.
A few of the subjects found within the homepage are music, sports, biology, origins and
space; “the chosen topics fall into a category of everyday science — designed to be entry
points via themes the general public are interested in” (Alexander, 2004b). The homepage
398 Bernier
Figure 1. The Exploratorium’s homepage©
introduces us, for instance, to the Cassini-Huygens Mission, an online resource that
investigates “Saturn’s rings” and several moons that evolve around this planet. The
Microscope Imaging Station, which displays highly descriptive animated visualizations
of three model organisms (i.e., the frog, the sea urchin, the zebrafish) and about their
embryonic developments, is also worth viewing.
Thus, Web designers have produced lively online science exhibits using a variety of
interactive software technologies like Shockwave, Macromedia, Real Audio and
QuickTime: see, for example, Flash (e.g., in Science of Music, a sound mixing experiment),
QuickTime (e.g., in Microscope Imaging Station, a 4Mbyte clip explaining the living cells
of a zebrafish) and Real Audio (e.g., in Science of Cycling, an historical audio description
of the bicycle wheels). According to Alexander (2004b), Flash is extremely versatile for
creating diversified user-friendly environments and therefore often preferred for exploit-
ing didactic tools, whereas QuickTime is said to be inaccessible for many organizations
because of firewall problems. Real Player is usable by a greater number of individuals,
although the image quality is lower, with buffered downloading that may be interrupted.
With respect to favorite storyboards, written and audio medium prevail, while Web
casting is mainly utilized for combining audio and video in real-time broadcasts. Hence,
the Web enables ways to enliven content that conventional reading media like books
cannot (Alexander, 2004b).
An Innovative Approach: Origins
Among the topical areas of the Exploratorium’s Web site, Origins seems to be the most
appropriate and exemplary to illustrate the current trend in online activities; Web casts
are considered to be at the forefront of innovation by virtual science centers. Launched
in November 2000, Origins obtained a generous grant from the National Science
Foundation in 1999 and was designed to enhance the audience’s appreciation of remote
scientific discoveries (i.e., through Web casts), by which to judge their uniqueness.
This heading integrates five perspectives: people, places, tools, ideas as well as a live
section organized around six themes: “CERN: Matter,” “Hubble: Universe,” “Antarctica:
Extremes,” “Las Cuevas: Biodiversity,” “Cold Spring: DNA,” and “Arecibo: Astrobiol-
ogy” (see Figure 2). These themes were selected because they unveiled a major finding
in connection with the nature of matter, the universe or life itself. The staff however
mentioned that it was difficult to link the subjects neatly and to show how they are
connected. Consequently, they created an umbrella infrastructure, the “Pictographic
Index,” framing places and disciplines together (www.exploratorium.com/origins/
icons.html).
The content format of Origins consisted of various forms of media for a specific thematic
(e.g., pictures of the field, articles on people, QuickTime VR demonstrations of ongoing
research as well as video interviews with scientists and audio informal observations from
the Exploratorium’s roving team) that did not simply describe events, but also provided
an analytical view to create a genuine connection with field researchers
(www.exploratorium.com/origins/antarctica/fieldnotes/index.html). “This sense of im-
Figure 2. Exploratorium: Origins©
400 Bernier
mediacy contributed to a feeling of actually being at the remote location” (Alexander,

2004a, p. 6). All the information has been organized for different degrees of learning
complexity, such as a phenomenon-based program on ice, an historical viewpoint of the
Human Genome Project or a prototype of a children’s book about basic research, to
ensure thoughtful inner reactions from heterogeneous groups of visitors. Origins has
received over three million individuals and gets an average of 2,275 daily visits, with a
vast majority of people spending nearly 5 minutes (Alexander, 2004a, p. 1).
The museum staff has devised several live Web casts related to six ongoing science
research projects at recognized observatories, among which there are two from the crew
located in Antarctica in December 2001 [e.g., “A Coal in the Icebox” on December 12th 2001
(www.exploratorium.com/origins/antarctica/fieldnotes/12_12ice.html)], and seven for
the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in February 2003 that regularly included documentary
pieces on the 50th anniversary of the discovery of DNA with the Nobel Laureate, Dr. James
Watson (www.exploratorium.com/origins/coldspring/people/watson.html) (Alexander,
2004a). For instance, “Science in Action” provided an experiment using a scanning
electron microscope to observe pollen collected in the field by the researchers
(www.exploratorium.edu/origins/coldspring/people/dispatch/insight1.html).
In Winter 1998, there was “Eclipse: Stories from the Path of Totality,” designed in
collaboration with NASA’s Education Forum10 and Discovery Channel Online11; the
demonstration aimed at showing a solar eclipse, only visible from the Galapagos, South
America and the Caribbean (www.exploratorium.edu/eclipse/live98.html). The idea was
to interest the general public (already keen to view this phenomenon) and for the
Exploratorium, it was an opportunity to use the Net as a vehicle to present actual research
on the interaction between the sun and the earth. The eclipse project recorded over half
a million users and over ten thousand viewers to the Web cast itself; millions of people
received the images via television. “Solar Eclipse” now presents a series of live Web casts
(i.e., Greece in June 2004, USA in June 2002, Zambia in June 2001 and Turkey in August
1999) (www.exploratorium.edu/eclipse/index.html). “This project demonstrates the po-
tential for opening a museum transparently to the world at large through the use of
telecommunication and network while maintaining the museum’s central role as an
interpreter of objects and events, and as creator of social experience of discovery”
(Semper, 1998).
As far as the public is concerned, the Exploratorium’s staff noticed that Web casts were
appealing for both onsite museum audiences and online visitors, as they differed in their
needs and the ways they made use of information. “Online audiences accessed programs
primarily from home and came specifically for the topic, while studio audiences viewed
their experience as an extension of their general museum visit… [Although the staff
intentionally attempted to appeal to novices] the questions received during the Web
casts reflected a prior interest in or knowledge of the science being communicated”
(Alexander, 2004a, p. 8).
The Cold Spring Harbor Web casts aimed exclusively at their online audience, targeting
adults and teenagers, whereas most of the general public for “Hubble: A View to the Edge
of Space” were adult males between 50 and 70 years old. This latter topic was said to be
exemplary, because of the live coverage involving the first publicly available Horsehead
Nebula images from the new Hubble telescope. In addition, the “Hubble Archive Web
casts” are so appealing that they still attract 80 viewers weekly.
Figure 3. Exploratorium: Archived Webcasts©
The findings of an evaluation about Web casts usage have shown that these are a
resource for individuals who never attended the museum and hence created a significant
demand to further engage users beyond the physical setting (Alexander, 2004a).
Therefore, the principal objective of the museum personnel is to give access to more Web
casts avoiding time-zone problems; they also learned that the public select them like a
television listing à la carte and expect full-screen TV quality.
The feature, Archived Webcasts, is invaluable for virtual visitors (see Figure 3); it
proffers a mosaic of selections (up to 40) dating from November 1996 to July 2004 that
illustrate a solar eclipse, the making of candies and the science of sparkling (www.
exploratorium.com/Webcasts/archive.html).
Lastly, the Web cast learning strategy proved to be a success for promoting live science
events to a general audience as well as being useful for other scientific institutions, since
it is reported that “over three million people have used our Website, double the number
we initially projected […] The importance of the Origins Project lies not in the fact that
it brought ideas of science to the public, but rather that it brought actual scientists doing
the science at the moment they were doing it” (Alexander, 2004a, p. 9).
La Cité des Sciences et de l’Industrie of Paris
The site of the Parc de la Villette served as one of the five former butchers’ slaughter-
houses in the year 1810 under the Emperor Napoleon I until 1986, when it was transformed
as a science center during the passage of Halley’s Comet. La Villette is a non-profit
organization located in the 19th arrondissement of Paris; occupying 30,000 square feet,
402 Bernier
it was established in March 1986. It has welcomed 40 million visitors so far, up to 3.5
million annually, and ranks among the top Parisian cultural establishments in terms of
attendances (La Cité, 2004). Its overall budget is estimated to be $100 million with three-
quarter coming from government funding.
La Cité’s Web site was launched in 1994 through the initiative of Joël de Rosnay, Head
of Research and Development at that time; since 1999, La Cité has expanded the subjects
covered by their exhibits and conferences. With over 40 online activities across 45,000
Web pages (Coiffard, 2004), it was awarded the Clic d’Or CB News award in 200312 for the
exhibition “Challenges of the LivingWorld,” that attracted tremendous public interest
(www.cite sciences.fr/english/ala_cite/expo/tempo/defis/home/homef.htm). Neverthe-
less, the favorite online topic is the temporary exhibition Treasures of Titanic, created
after the success of the film and providing as informational background the following:
“The Shipwrecking,” “Discovery of the Wreckage,” “Treasures in the Abyss,” and
“Scientific Findings” (www.cite-sciences.fr/francais/ala_cite/expo/tempo/titanic)
(Coiffard, 2004).
This science museum is among the top six visited worldwide, as reported by Coiffard
(2004). La Cité’s homepage13 contains a table of contents in three languages14 (French,
English and Spanish) (www.cite-sciences.fr/english/indexFLASH.htm): Useful Informa-
tion, a repository of global inquiries; Exhibitions, an outlook on the physical displays;
Shows & Movies, a view on external activities; For professionals, an insight on products
and services for designing exhibits; Cité des métiers, a comprehensive vocational and
training center; Media Library, an informational space on the physical library; Lectures,
an agenda on upcoming meetings; Education, a school-based program section and The
Figure 4. La Cité’s homepage©
Parc de La Villette, an historical background of the location and its mission. In addition,
there are timely events such as the 2nd Annual Villette Numérique Meeting (from
September 21 to October 3, 2004) inviting real visitors to develop an interest in Net art
creations and other digital ventures, and the Annual Internet Fest, held in mid-March,
presenting conferences, demonstrations and workshops related to the Web. Some of the
main features are hands-on, science activities, especially designed for the Internet.
However, the most trend-setting interactive resource is Le Collège, from which we will
provide an in-depth portrait.
Online visitors can also find specific headings: Now Playing, presenting a range of
temporary exhibitions (www.cite-sciences.fr/english/ala_cite/affiche/droit_fs.htm); Sci-
ence News, giving information on topical matters (www.cite-sciences.fr/english/ala_cite/
affiche/droit_fs.htm); Best Contents, enabling a glimpse at a selection of hands-on
activities (www.cite-sciences.fr/english/ala_cite/c_coeur/droit_fs.htm); and Visite +,
providing a detailed log of the visitor’s previous visits (www.cite-sciences.fr/english/
ala_cite/cite_pra/visite+/global_fs.htm) and thus offering users an access to their Cyber
Record (via an entry ticket and a private code). One can also find a Monthly E-
Newsletter15, customized according to the individuals’ interests and Exhibition Presen-
tations, that contains most of the texts as well as bibliographic references of specific
displays. Other museums such as the London Science Museum offer a similar service,
for example, annotating comments and allowing personal written reflections of their
visits, and even the storage of souvenir pictures from the exhibitions (Filippini-Fantoni
& Bowen, 2004). Some may play back their movie clips and animations on virtual
television, as at the Tech Museum in San Jose (Sato, 1999).
Figure 5. La Cité: Managing the Planet©
404 Bernier
In La Cité, each department has an independent budget. Most of the chosen subject areas
of their online displays are either derived from or complementary to those in the physical
institution, thus providing a broader dissemination of their content, like, for example, the
well-used Managing the Planet attraction from October 2003 to March 2006 (www.cite-
sciences.fr/english/ala_cite/expo/tempo/planete/portail/glp.html). This attraction in-
corporates five themes16: “Climate,” “Oil,” “Sun,” “Carbon”17 and “Population,” and
explores the human relationship with nature and territory through hands-on activities,
movies, conferences and a magazine on similar topics (see Figure 5); some were the
results of specific features, like Bricocité for children to describe and understand plants,
animals and objects: breeding crickets, constructing a kaleidoscope or cultivating a
cactus (www.cite-sciences.fr/bricocite).
Its presentation format conforms with the exhibitions and departments found within the
real museum, except for a few online resources especially designed for La Cité’s Web site,
like the section on “Hands-on,” which gathers scientific attractions to experiment and
play as well as allowing discovery in the art, physics, biology and other disciplines; these
are mostly animated by Flash (www.cite-sciences.fr/english/web_cite_fs.htm). We have
noted that virtual visitors are offered more brain-teasers in the French version (e.g.,
Environment, Logic, Chemistry, Perception, Biology) than in the English version.
There is the popular Sciences Actualités section that explores contemporary concerns
from genetics to anthropology with the feature Questions on Current Events (e.g., Genes,
Nanomaterials, Human Origins and the Hubble Space Telescope), although the French
version focuses on events in France (e.g., the invasion of wolves in the Alps-Haute
Provence and the discharge of pesticides in French rivers) (www.cite-sciences.fr/
francais/ala_cite/science_actualites/sitesactu/accueil.php?langue=an).
Special Report emphasizes important present-day topics (e.g., the Greenhouse Effect,
Missions on Mars, Aids Scourges), like the one on drugs entitled “Cannabis through the
Scientists’ Eyes,” which comprises four sub-areas (plant, effects, users and regulation),
including professional viewpoints (www.cite-sciences.fr/francais/ala_cite/
science_actualites/sitesactu/dossier.php?langue=an&id_dossier=101).
News consists of brief worldwide headlines in the form of “pop-ups,” to highlight the high
abortion rate in Great Britain, Guinean children with iodine deficiency and surprising
North American owls (www.cite-sciences.fr/francais/ala_cite/science_actualites/
sitesactu/breves.php?langue=an). Seen in the Press devotes much attention to lighter
events covering sociological queries to spectacular technological inventions, including
Canadian squirrels stealing golf balls under the eyes of golfers, the interdiction of
motorcycles in China and women’s equity in Australia (www.cite-sciences.fr/francais/
ala_cite/science_actualites/sitesactu/presse.php?langue=an). Additionally, Picture of
the Week discusses, among other things, elephant excrements for manufacturing paper
in Sri Lanka, the war of crickets in Maghreb and the very old Mostar bridge in Bosnia
(www.cite-sciences.fr/francais/ala_cite/science_actualites/sitesactu/image_semaine.
php?langue=an). There is a convenient Index to choose subjects by date, region or theme
(see Figure 6).
Finally, educational animations like “Decipher the Scientific Actuality,” inspired by
newspapers’ front pages, are available to further understand this particular type of
Figure 6. La Cité: Sciences Actualités©
information and to develop a critical appreciation of the content provided. In the next
section, we will discuss Le Collège, focusing on conferences, forums and debates, many
of which relate to temporary online and physical exhibitions.
A Current Perspective: Le Collège
In an era of growing incertitude and controversial issues on science developments,

progress is questioned by the general public because of their mixed feelings of fear and
desires about future research outcomes. Hence, these make it difficult for people to take
a position. They expect science centers to tackle relevant subjects, in fields as diverse
as IT (e.g., jobs), ecology (e.g., climate), health (e.g., food), and even ethics (e.g.,
cloning). It is known that research can involve political decisions with nationwide
implications. As indicted by Vescia (2002), people are concerned about which authorities
can be trusted, who are willing to take responsibilities for endangering populations (e.g.,
government representatives, unions, medias, experts) as well as who will really benefit
from these fast-expanding areas. In other words, people wonder what ideas are promul-
gated behind these developments.
The task of La Cité is not only to popularize and render a realistic picture, but also to
demonstrate more commitment towards the nation. This can be achieved firstly by
introducing contemporary problems and relevant subjects linked to major scientific
406 Bernier
advancements; secondly, by making specialized knowledge accessible and easily

comprehensible for ordinary people through the provision of keynote speakers; and,
thirdly, by letting individuals experiment with new forms of public debate via online
conferences.
The Web initiative entitled Le Collège has succeeded to gather an interdisciplinary team
of ten specialists, having among others an anthropologist, an economist, a sociologist,
a historian, a physician and a physicist in an advisory board (i.e., Le conseil scientifique).
It is divided into four sections: Les carrefours du savoir (Knowledge Symposiums), Les
samedis de l’actualité (Topical Saturdays), Colloques et événements (Congresses &
Events) and Les conférences vidéo (Online Conferences) and these sustain the philoso-
phy mentioned above (www.cite-sciences.fr/francais/ala_cite/college/flash.htm); that
is, to create a basis for understanding scientific achievements and create a virtual forum
where people can discuss with open-minded intellectuals who relate to their concerns
on scientific, political and societal issues (see Figure 7). Although Le Collège is only
available for a French-speaking audience, it is granted a generous budget of 300,000
Euros annually. Each conference can have between 50 to 200 attendees, and the themes
are mainly directed towards three topic areas: Life Sciences, Information Technologies
and Environment.
With regard to the historical background of Le Collège, the first debate was held in June
2002 and revolved around the “Mad Cow disease” — considered a contentious issue on
both scientific and political grounds. The conference lasted a day and introduced three
themes: 1) What Happened? 2) Where are We? and 3) Management of the Crisis. The
second debate, in February 2002, concerned “Climate changes” with the participation of
Figure 7. La Cité: Le Collège©
the French Center for Sustainable Development, including five discussions (e.g., future
and past climates, the El Niño phenomenon, and the carbon cycle) where the invited
speakers assessed on the seriousness of the outcomes, with the assistance of onsite
citizens’ recommendations (www.cite-sciences.fr/francais/ala_cite/conferen/climat/
global_fs.htm).
Considering the outstanding popularity of the public conferences, a new auditorium
which can accommodate up to three hundred persons and using the latest higher-end
technologies (e.g., Web casting) was built. A specific Web site for meetings in Real Video
format and related content was therefore launched in July 2002. During 2003, Le Collège
received 13,700 visitors who listened to 250 eminent French researchers. Their interven-
tions enabled La Cité to produce over 180 conferences that can be viewed online, and
where a great number includes written versions of the speakers’ talks, their biographies
and their published books.
For its opening season in 2004-2005, Le College celebrated the international year of
physics (September 25, 2004) and invited users to discover the “Concept of Emptiness”
with French astrophysicists of the Commissariat à l’Énergie Atomique (CEA) and the
Centre National de Recherche Scientifique (CNRS). This year’s program is available at
www.cite-sciences.fr/francais/ala_cite/college/04-05/conferences/programme/index.htm.
Knowledge Symposiums was established at the end of the year 2002 and numerous
debates have since been organized on topics of broad interest, for example, “the impact
of IT in daily life,” and “the power of the sun” (related to both the onsite and online
exhibition Managing the Planet) in April-June 2004, “the law of gender” in May-June
2004, “the global agricultural revolution” in March-June 2004, and “the Neolithic origins”
in October-November 2003 (www.cite-sciences.fr/francais/ala_cite/college/04-05/con-
ferences/programme/index.htm). Congresses & Events were introduced to look further
into complex and critical topics in today’s society and to present arguments by
specialists (e.g., Public Research and Ethics in January 2004, Bamboo: Phantasmagorical
Herb in February 2004, and the purpose of the Philosophy of Sciences in November 2003).
For the latest addition Online Conferences (Now En ligne: Voir et Écouter18), there was
a Gorbachev conference with the man himself as guest-of-honor at Johannesburg
(September 9, 2002), an inaugural banquet with the well-known French philosopher
Michel Serres (September 15, 2002), an international meeting on Sustainable Develop-
ment (September 21-22, 2002) and eight other debates on ethics, medicine and biotech-
nologies. More recently, a neuro-physiologist gave a talk on “What is Pain?” so as to
give a comprehensive view of the sensory functioning of the brain. On January 8, 2004,
the epistemologist Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond presented a paper on “Quantum Revolu-
tion”, explaining the meaning of antimatter. The principal objective of this feature is to
present ten debates or conferences every month. Thus, a menu with a set of themes (e.g.,
Psychology, Energy, Astronomy, Politics, Telecommunications) is offered to help virtual
visitors select their favorite topics; for instance, on Environment, see www.cite-sciences.fr/
francais/ala_cite/college/archives/index_archive_glp.htm. It is possible to limit the
search to video, audio or text excerpts of older conferences if desired (www.cite-
sciences.fr/francais/ala_cite/college/archives/index.htm).
Finally, there is Topical Saturdays in which key people discuss significant subjects with
the audience on how the scientific world affects our civilization, such as the future of
408 Bernier
genetics on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the discovery of DNA. Other subjects
included “Mars Online” in March 2004, “Computer Viruses” in November 2003 and
“Cannabis and Teenagers” in May 2004 (www.cite-sciences.fr/francais/ala_cite/col-
lege/04-05/conferences/programme/index.htm); these provided an opportunity for the
public to meet researchers, politicians and representatives of associations to debate
media happenings, including important discoveries that deserve insights from a special-
ist viewpoint.
There are other examples of online conferences in Europe (e.g., United Kingdom,
Germany, Denmark), as mentioned by Vescia (2002), but the novelty of La Cité is that they
are organized in a science center and are part of a political agenda whereby the panel
produces recommendations. Thus, La Cité’s main goal is to become a significant
informational hub on a variety of subjects involving investigations of digital technology,
defense systems, civil rights, and genetics for Europeans who come from diverse cultural
backgrounds. The Bionet initiative, established with the support of the European
Commission and the European Collaborative for Science Industry & Technology Exhi-
bitions (ECSITE), also features the latest discoveries and techniques pertinent to the life
sciences (e.g., HIV remedies, in vitro fertilization, ageing process); it is shared by eight
science centers and comes in nine languages (www.bionetonline.org).
Discussion: An Analogy Between the Exploratorium and

La Cité
We have explored five fundamental elements when designing a science museum Website:
(1) content presentation, (2) software technologies, (3) storyboards, (4) online activities
and (5) targeted audiences.
In terms of information delivery, La Cité and the Exploratorium offer a standard homepage
that consists of a table of contents on admission and memberships, temporary exhibi-
tions, hands-on activities, online conferences, educational programs, teachers’ re-
sources and upcoming events as well as a historical background of the institution. They
both contain clear headings using simple vocabulary to provide specific reading and
scientific skills for visitors, although some of their features are slightly different.
With respect to their storyboards, these two science museums have managed to cross-
reference with materials on the Web by using a combination of video and audio with
written documents so as to let visitors choose among various learning methods for a
particular topic. Delacôte (2002) believes that the crossing of the real and the virtual is
necessary to widen the cultural institution’s horizon using the convergence of video-
conferencing and the Web, and is a key for the success of online museums.
The first element to stress about La Cité, and which is the most important distinction, is
the usage of real-time demonstrations. If both institutions have features on actual space
science (e.g., the Cassini-Huygens spacecraft and the Hubble telescope project). La Cité
is less Web cast oriented than the Exploratorium but focuses more on online conferences,
which is an approach quite akin to broadcasting. In other words, both museums
emphasize live presentations (e.g., interviews, conferences, demonstrations), especially
on amazing discoveries, since it is very difficult for the public to keep in touch with
developments in the scholarly world. Furthermore, Web casts are known to offer a rich
narrative context and work best for once in a lifetime experience for remote visitors
wanting to familiarize themselves with the intricacies of an astronomical phenomenon
(e.g., an eclipse) and thus raising their level of science literacy. Again, both institutions
show a significant interest in informational topics. It was stressed by Vescia (2002) that
people’s ignorance in science lies in the fact that they are surrounded by techniques that
they hardly master nor understand; therefore, they need explanations on their usage.
The second element to mention is that La Cité has several aspects in common with the
Exploratorium, especially in relation to encouraging the audiences onsite to attend live
broadcasts at their respective studios. La Cité favors the recording of online conferences
and lectures [e.g., “D’un sexe à l’autre,” launched in June 2004, for debating the ambiguity
of transsexuality (www.cite-sciences.fr/francais/ala_cite/college/03-04/carrefours/
seminaires/05-04-masculin-feminin/06-mercader-saladin/index.htm)], whereas the
Exploratorium has a preference for experimenting with real-time demonstrations [e.g.,
“Eyeing the Storm”, created in Spring 1997, to visualize severe storms
(www.exploratorium.edu/visualize)]. Both science museums also archive their content
and make use of these as the basis for online programming. Such personalized knowledge
can facilitate the individual’s learning process and help to organize, integrate and reuse
the results of formal and informal experiences.
In addition, La Cité and the Exploratorium’s online educational resources are aimed at
regular visitors, newcomers, and even those who never intend to visit, and mainly
concern the raising of public awareness of important phenomena in science. As
supported by Semper (1998), the online usage of educational Websites should be
multifaceted and “lavishly designed”, with consideration for “the sweetness of physical
exhibits.” Starting from this last assumption, both museums’ staff have created a huge
amount of content to respond to the needs of virtual visitors.
The third and last element concerning La Cité is that its Web site offers more content
relating to their physical facilities than the Exploratorium, and the latter does not
accentuate much the European dimension in their online exhibitions, such as genetic
engineering, abortion in Great Britain, massive plague of crickets in Maghreb, invasion
of wolves in the French Alps as well as dangerous roads in France. Wynne (1995)
demonstrated the importance of social context for lay people, because it plays a
significant part in how science is interpreted; that explains why groups of citizens want
to give their opinions on national issues, such as are offered in the Congresses and
Events section of La Cité (e.g., polluted French rivers). Individuals also expect debates
on technological innovations since they are part of our social reality.
Indeed, the cultural diversity of public response is of utmost importance because some
topics have serious ethical implications (e.g., DNA technologies) that may concern
specific countries (e.g., Austria) and less on others (e.g., UK and USA); the Germans thus
established a considerable resistance to genetic testing. “In the US, for example, patents
are easily obtainable for biotechnological inventions; while in the EU, they are proving
much harder to secure” (Durant, 1997, p. 236). These differences cannot be explained and
are not the result of ignorance, nor the product of greater or lesser levels of scientific
development, but rather of particular circumstances.
410 Bernier
Thus, it appears that both organizations have an extremely diverse museum audience and
therefore provide topics accordingly, like hobbies for the Exploratorium (e.g., sports and
music) and vocational occupations as well as current social issues for La Cité (e.g., jobs
and cannabis). Yet, some of their content is much alike, such as special events related
to the universe (e.g., solar system and glaciers) while their hands-on displays present
similar subjects. By contrast, La Cité has demonstrated a more philosophical way to tackle
science; that is, by anticipating the exponential growth of knowledge in techniques and
social developments and providing intellectually-oriented views rather than a practical-
minded perspective combined with applied science, as is the case for the Exploratorium.
On the one hand, the originality of La Cité is reliant on the fact that their online
conferences are often part of a political agenda to provide views on questions of public
interest, as visitors often want the right to express themselves on subject matters (e.g.,
Mad Cow Disease, Chernobyl, GMOs). In summary, their main priority is accessibility to
research, including a democratic quest for truth and trust, since the widespread belief is
that “science is for scientists.” One must therefore be given the chance to express one’s
viewpoint in the process of building a collective consensus on ethical matters. La Cité
wants to combine a humanistic viewpoint on scientific progress while being altogether
highly cultural and popular. The institution has dedicated most of her partnership to large
national enterprises like EDF, Cogema, Airbus and Renault (Quittet, 1992).
On the other hand, the Exploratorium aims mostly at providing virtual field trips to several
observatories where significant discoveries are made in locations that most people
cannot easily reach and on topics which appear rather opaque to the layperson. Hence,
the biggest obstacle for the museum staff was to “bridge the setting of an active science
museum dedicated to social learning19 with an online virtual space designed for multiple-
end users [and] getting information about their research (i.e., the researchers’ laborato-
ries) to the public via the Web” (Alexander, 2004a, p. 11).
Science and technology are about the future of society. That is why “the development
of a society in which all individuals are or can be included in the process of reflecting
on, participating in, and evaluating change are needed in public discussion […] whether
face-to-face, distance, or web-based” (UKCST, 2001, p. 3). As mentioned by the United
Kingdom Council for Science and Technology (2001), the understanding of the social and
ethical consequences of medical technologies is widely recognized for social and
economic developments, thus relating to both environment and health. Those confer-
ences represent indeed a great opportunity for a large proportion of individuals tackling
important subject matters.
Although geographically separated and focusing on various online activities, we have
shown that La Cité and the Exploratorium have much in common with respect to their
content online. Vescia (2002) and Alexander (2004a) have reached the same conclusion
regarding the importance of mediating of science through both renowned specialists and
museum educators. Indeed, dissemination via the Web calls for a mediation in order to
increase the visitors’ knowledge since it has been established that the more sophisti-
cated the content the more it needs “human mediation,” as its role is precisely to provide
enlightened viewpoints for facilitating the understanding of complex natural phenom-
enon (Bernier, 1999). This can be described as “distributed learning,” as face-to-face
teaching and computer-mediated communication, that enhance conventional pedagogy
and therefore can overcome the barriers of meeting the needs of diverse learners, are
involved (Dede et al., 2002).
We would also caution that just because something is telecast live, it does not mean that
it will automatically appeal to the public. Viewers need a context in which to appreciate
discoveries by reinforcing the authenticity of the physical museum with additional
materials (e.g., audio comments, video-conferences, Web casts) to present a proper
picture of current scientific research. Thus, the usage of sophisticated software will, in
the long run, raise the overall content offering of virtual centers as well as the online
visitor’s knowledge to a higher level.
The most important aspect of virtual science centers is to magnify their cultural vocation
into three distinct sections, artifacts, information and experience. Artifacts preserve the
traditional perceptions of museums, information clearly has a place virtually, while the
magic of experience can simply be viewed and explained on the Internet. The focus on
science calls for an intriguing presentation, because it is inscribed within a conceptual
framework for thinking about natural phenomena and more especially virtual experimen-
tation. Needless to say, the Web is full of expectations for museum exhibit designers and
virtual visitors; consequently more surveys are needed to analyze the itineraries of
people accessing online science centers from their homes.
One may conclude this discussion with Freeth’s argument (1998): “It’s not too difficult
to devise exhibits which illustrate Newtonian physics — Einstein is a different matter;”
that is, with authoring software, we can provide a great deal of online educational
resources on the Web to complement as well as offer an alternative to the physical
museum in terms of content presentation. This helps to reproduce the enjoyable
experience of the actual visit and to direct one’s learning.
Limitations and Future Directions

There are five significant limitations with regard to Web casts:
1. Although Web cast training is effective, engaging, and offers a definite flexibility
for providing scientific content, it is time-consuming for the museum staff.
2. Considering the educators’ fees, the use of state-of-the-art visual equipment,
travel expenses for the remote crew and provision of add-on written material, the
costs for Web casts are relatively expensive (Alexander & Miller, 2002).
3. Unlike online activities and hands-on laboratories, the success of Web casts is
harder to achieve, since they are available only in one language (Bernier & Bowen,
2004) (in our case, either French or English).
4. The lack of active participation via e-mail could be frustrating for individuals who
cannot take part in the actual Web cast process, like questioning the demonstrator,
which can make the experimentation less appealing for online visitors. The aim of
412 Bernier
Web casts is to provide significant networked events so as to engage people

worldwide and in real-time.
5. Bandwidth limitations, poor audio broadcasting, screen-size, and absence of
accessibility for the disabled more than affect the richness of Web casts. In
addition, firewalls can block access or slow them down with intermittent audio and
video transmission; however, with fast ASDL connections, the image and sound
quality are less problematic.
Web casts can be seen as a boring experience, somewhat akin to satellite-based distance
learning; nevertheless the museum staff have been able to do a relatively good job with
their educational programs to overcome barriers of time and distance.
Overall, one must note that for Web pedagogy, Flash is more appropriate than HTML
when animation and sound are central to content, because it helps to create rich
multimedia interactivity (Schaller et al., 2003), while QTVR provides a means for providing
a realistic 3-D walk-through, including fine control of height, size and brightness (Barnes,
2000). However, Flash is neither immersive nor standardized for all Web content and only
permits Web-based audio and video applications; in addition, it is inaccessible to many
disabled people and requires additional “plug-in” software (Mac Gregor, 2001). These
higher-end technologies are important in cognitively authentic environments, although
museum Web designers must consider both usability and user’s engagement (Nielsen,
1999; Yates and Errington, 2001), as they serve a different purpose.
Despite these constraints, it is important to note that real-time displays are really about
delivering information through the Web; however, one must bear in mind that online
museum demonstrations should be an extension of the real institution. Thus, actual
scientific discoveries should not mimic the classroom ambience to prevent the coldness
of virtual assistance and avoid the pitfalls of e-learning, because it is less frequent to
watch online Web cast demonstrations than to interact with those in the physical
museum. To make learning friendly and efficient, one has to consider the museum setting
differently from schools and relate it to personal significance and everyday experiences
(Falk & Dierking, 2000).
One possible research direction would be to undertake a deep quantitative analysis on
Web logs, which has become increasingly popular to measure audience satisfaction
through socio-demographic data. Content appreciation such as information sought and
number of pages consulted, for understanding their visiting patterns and level of
curiosity for Web casts, should be studied (Ockuly, 2003; Peacock, 2002; Haley-Goldman
& Wadman, 2002). Thus, the audience’s profile can be invaluable for museum profession-
als who wish to provide a new appreciation of current research.
How well a museum Web site meets its visitors’ needs leads us to another strand of
analysis; that is, the consideration of online forums. They have become a significant part
of the Internet for sharing ideas via text-based conversations as well as being recognized
as a “social aggregate,” because one can communicate electronically on specific topics
(Rheingold, 1993); these users form a subculture and can set a sociability similar to the
one found within physical museums because the Internet helps to expand conventional
institutionalized discourse as well as encourage informal exchanges with the staff

(Bernier, 1998, 2005).
For example, NASA’s Quest helps to raise the public awareness of their goals
(quest.arc.nasa.gov); flying in a shuttle, exploring distant planets, building an aircraft
or getting stories about their days’ work while discussing with experts, such as the
Astrobiology Lecture Series (Sato, 1999) make for interesting talking points. There is also
Snacktalk of the Exploratorium (www.exploratorium.edu/snacks/feedback.html), where
users can submit comments on hands-on experiences available in many forms such as
Questions, Help and Acknowledgments (Hunt, 2002). Subject-driven topics such as
those provided by Ingenious of the London Science Museum (www.ingenious.org.uk)
with access to Web forums focusing on the human genome project and other contem-
porary issues (Borda & Beler, 2003) also provide a type of social ontology (Beler et al.,
2004).
Online communities can empower individuals in discovering objects and deepening their
meanings by sharing their concerns in what is called “civic engagement” (Steinbach,
2003). However, it is important to establish dialogue under conditions that minimize
polarization and crowd psychology, such as the use of skilled moderation and balanced
expert information (Ucko, 2004; Bernier & Bowen, 2004). These initial forays are an
indication of possible customizable resources and targeting of the visitors’ interests in
order to strengthen the interaction with the general public and build a global citizenship
through mentoring.
In other words, museum staff should take into consideration five essential components
to enhance their efficiency (KnowledgeNet, 2002): 1) Curiosity: How do we entrench the
users’ curiosity of exploration?; 2) Engagement: How do we get the learner fully
engaged?; 3) Intensity: How do we design a memorable experience?; 4) Peer learning:
How can we build communities that incorporate a social dimension?, and 5) Assessment
and Feedback: How should we help individuals to acquire a greater sense of their own
knowledge, and thus better organize their knowledge capital through e-learning experi-
ences? These will help to create appealing and innovative “cyberambience” for Web
museums (Barr, 1997).
Conclusion
The introduction of original live Web casts is the latest endeavor by museum educators
to implement a creative museographic landscape for providing a compelling reason for
people to visit online museums. On the one hand, this specific strategy from the
Exploratorium was intended to refine their ways of exploring major worldwide discover-
ies, mostly related to applied science and technology (e.g., the Cassini-Huygen expedi-
tion, the Human Genome Project, the Hubble mission, the Antarctica journeys) as well
as to offer content on objects, techniques, people and phenomena that characterize
scientific developments. On the other hand, La Cité des Sciences et de l’Industrie has
brought to our attention that science museums should also tackle social and ethical
issues with respect to various areas of advanced technologies (e.g., health, food,
414 Bernier
information technologies, urbanization) using scholarly presentations such as online

conferences and topical debates to reach out to society.
Indeed, the Exploratorium and La Cité have broadened their interpretive arena with live
demonstrations and expanded their targeted audience to an international level. Judging
from the analysis of log records from virtual visitors to both institutions, these Web-
based resources are viewed as extremely useful for remote learning programs. These gave
confidence for producing extra materials and also serve as a reliable interdisciplinary
resource for schools, universities, science institutions and the general public.
However, the greatest challenge for science museums is not so much to communicate a
substantial amount of information with sophisticated software, but rather that the virtual
experimentation should increase interactivity. Otherwise, it could be overwhelming for
non-scientists experiencing live events. In short, educators should seriously consider
science centers in augmenting the interaction between people and their tools, and
question their ways of designing Web resources for directly involving individuals with
user-friendly environments. Five fundamental issues should be raised:
1. Are interactive technologies efficient for providing content?

2. Can museums afford them?
3. Are they appealing for online learning within a scientific format?
4. Can the audience use IT?
5. How can the engagement of visitors be increased?
Throughout this chapter, we have shown that the usage of digital broadcasting
constitutes a significant rupture with the museum’s conventional online features,
because its “discursive interactivity” allows a personalized investigation in a domestic
setting; that is, to meet the needs of educationally and culturally diverse individuals from
various age groups with differing computer literacy levels and varied scientific knowl-
edge. With the Web, the challenge of offering didactic interpretations of physical and
astronomical phenomenon is greater than ever!
The emergence of Web casts as a principal means of communication has opened avenues
for innovative content dissemination by virtual science museums to capture attention,
stimulate imagination, sharpen reasoning, and even fulfill the vision about the future
ahead of us through meaningful online activities for people. All this should help in
promoting a knowledge-based society; that is, to materialize notions of science, develop
the individuals’ skills and demystify the visitors’ understanding. The principal raison
d’être of Web museums remains the involvement of virtual visitors.
Acknowledgments
The collaboration of both Melissa Alexander, Project Director of Origins at the
Exploratorium and Didier Coiffard, Head of the Department Interactivité et Multimédia at
La Cité provided fruitful sources of information.
Many thanks are due to Jonathan P. Bowen (Professor of Computing at London South
Bank University) who helped a great deal in improving this paper as well as my mother
Mrs. Stéphane Moissan and my companion Mr. Alexandre St-Pierre for providing
enormous support when finalizing this chapter, by taking care of our lovely newborn
Laure.
References
Alexander, M. (2004a, May). Origins: Findings. Final Report. San Francisco: Exploratorium.
Alexander, M. (2004b, July). E-mail correspondence with the Project Director of Origins.
Alexander, M., & Miller, M. (2002). Live@Exploratorium: Origins. In Communicating the
Future: Best Practices in Communication of Science and Technology to the
Public Conference. Poster Session. Gaithersburg, MD, USA, March 6-8, 2002.
Retrieved August 2004, from www.nist.gov/public_affairs/Posters/
exploratorium.htm
Andrews, S., Surendran, D., Landsberg, R., Jojola, E., Kadanoff, L., Mir, R., Podgorny,
J., Rosner, D., SubbaRao, M.M., & Zhiglo, A. (2004). Cosmus: Virtual 3D cosmology
in public science museums. In D. Paper, M. Roussos, & J. Anstey (Eds.), IEEE
Virtual Reality 2004 Workshop Proceedings. Session Virtual Reality for Public
Consumption.
Arnal, P. (2004, June). La Cité des Sciences mise sur l’interactivité. Le Journal du Net.
Retrieved August 2004, from www.journaldunet.com/0406/040608cite
sciences.shtml
Barbieri, T., & Paolini, P. (2001). Co-operation metaphors for virtual museums. In
Museums and the Web conference. Session Engineering the Future. Seattle, WA,
USA, March 14-17, 2001. Retrieved from August 2004, www.archimuse.com/
mw2001/papers/barbieri/barbieri.html
Barnes, C. (2000). Building immersive environments using QuickTime VR: Lessons from
the real world and virtual realities. In Australasian Academic & Developers
Conference. University of Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia, April 25-28.
Retrieved August 2004, from auc.uow.edu.au/conf/conf00/papers/
AUC2000_Barnes.pdf
Barr, D. (1997). The Website: Extending the museum’s mandate for lifelong learning.
Website Learning. Retrieved August 2004, from www.distedsys.com/documents/
oma_paper/body.html
416 Bernier
Bazley, M., Clark, L., Bottaro, B., & Elinich, K. (2002). Think globally, act locally: The role
of real teachers in community science issues. In Museums & the Web Conference.
Session Teachers and Museums, Boston, April 17-20. Retrieved August 2004, from
www.archimuse.com/mw2002/papers/elinich/elinich.html
Beler, A., Borda, A., Bowen, J.P., & Fantoni-Filippini, S. (2004). The building of online
museum sector. In Electronic imaging & the visual arts conference. London, July
26-31. Retrieved August 2004, from arxiv.org/abs/cs.CY/0409055
Bernier, R. (1999, January). Initiation à l’Internet comme mode de navigation: De
l’usage à l’accès au savoir. Étude qualitative. Paris: Département Évaluation et
Prospective, Cité des Sciences et de l’Industrie.
Bernier, R. (2002). The uses of virtual museums: The French viewpoint. In Museums &
the Web conference. Session Evaluation and Experience. Boston, MA, USA, April
17-20, 2002. Retrieved August 2004, from www.archimuse.com/mw2002/papers/
bernier/bernier.html
Bernier, R. (2003). Usability of interactive computers in exhibitions: Designing knowl-
edgeable information for visitors. Journal of Educational Computing Research,
28(3), 245-272. Retrieved August 2004, from baywood.metapress.com/
link.asp?id=ea53b0arc1q33t20
Bernier, R. (2005). Accessing heritage through the Internet: The French perception of
Web museums. Journal of Behavior and Information Technology (forthcoming).
Bernier, R., & Bowen, J.P. (2004). Web-based discussion groups at stake: The profile of
museum professionals online. Program: Electronic Library and Information
Systems, 38(2), 120-137. Retrieved August 2004, from dx.doi.org/10.1108/
00330330410532832
Bono, J.J. (2001). Why Metaphor? Toward a metaphorics of scientific practice. In S.
Maasen & M. Winterhager (Eds.), Science studies probing the dynamics of
scientific knowledge (pp. 215-234). Bielefeld: Transaction Publishers.
perspective. In Museums & the Web conference, Session Personalization, Arling-
ton, VA, USA, March 31-April 3. Retrieved August 2004, from www.archimuse.com/
mw2004/papers/bowen/bowen.html
Brooks, D.W., Nolan, D.E., & Gallagher, S.M. (2000). Web-teaching: A guide to designing
interactive teaching for the World Wide Web (2nd ed.). Innovations in Science and
Technology Series. New York: Plenum Press.
Brown, G., & Atkins, M. (1988). Effective teaching in higher education. Routledge:
London.
Coiffard, D. (2004, July). E-mail correspondence with the Head of the Department
Interactivité et Multimédia.
Davallon, J. (1993, February). À propos de la communication et des stratégies
communicationnelles dans les expositions de science. In Conférences DEA
d’information scientifique et technique. Paris: Palais de la Découverte.
Davis, T.H. (2004). Engaging the public with science as it happens: The current science
& technology center at the Museum of Science. Boston Science Communication,
26(1), 107-113.
Dede, C., Brown, T.B., & Whitehouse, P. (2002). Designing and studying learning
experiences that use multiple interactive media to bridge distance and time. In C.
Vrasidas & G.V. Glass (Eds.), Current perspectives on applied information
technologies (Vol. 1: Distance Education). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Pub-
lishing. Retrieved August 2004, from www.lesley.edu/faculty/tbrownlb/T502/
MultipleMedia.htm
Delacôte, G. (1999). Towards the Year 2001. About Us. San Francisco: Exploratorium.
Retrieved August 2004, from www.exploratorium.edu/general/directors
_vision.html
Delacôte, G. (2002). Du réel au virtuel. Rencontres Internationales du multimedia
d’apprentissage. Session Place du secteur muséal. Quebec City, Canada, March
18-21. Retrieved August 2004, from www.lienmultimedia.com/rima/02-03-21-
07.html
Durant, J. (1997). Deciding which stories to tell: The challenge of presenting contempo-
rary biotechnology. In G. Farmelo & J. Carding (Eds.), Here and now: Contempo-
rary science and technology in museums and science centers (pp. 235-239).
London: Science Museum: London.
Durant, J. (1992). Museums and the public understanding of science. London: Science
Museum.
Exploratorium. (2004a). About Us. Retrieved August 2004, from www.exploratorium.com/
about/index.html
Exploratorium. (2004b). Fact Sheet 2003-04. Retrieved August 2004, from
www.exploratorium.edu/about/fact_sheet.html
Falk, J., & Dierking, L. (2000). Learning from museums: Visitor experiences and the
making of meaning. Walnut Creek, CA; AltaMira Press.
Freeth, M. (1998). Hands online. In Museums & the Web conference. Session Interactivity.
Toronto, Canada, April 22-25. Retrieved August 2004, from www.archimuse.com/
mw98/papers/freeth/freeth_paper.html
Koliou, M., Kamarinos, G., Roussou, M., Trahanias, P., Argyros, A., Tsakiris, D.,
Cremers, A., Schultz, D., Burgard, W., Haehnel, D., Sawaides, V., Friess, P.,
Konstantios, D., Katselaki, A., & Giannoulis-Giannoulopoulos, G. (2001). Enhanc-
ing museum visitor access through robotic avatars connected to the Web. In
Museums and the Web Conference. Session Seeing Differently, Seattle, WA, USA,
March 14-17. Retrieved August 2004, from www.archimuse.com/mw2001/papers/
giannoulis/giannoulis.html
Haley-Goldman, K., & Wadman, M. (2002). There’s something happening here: What it
is ain’t exactly clear? In Museums and the Web Conference. Session Evaluation and
Framework. Boston, USA, April 17-20. Retrieved August 2004, from
www.archimuse.com/mw2002/papers/haleyGoldman/haleygoldman.html
418 Bernier
Hilgartner, S. (1990). The dominant view of popularisation: Conceptual problems,

political uses. Social Studies of Science, 20, 52-53.
Hiltz, S.R. (1993). Correlates of learning in a virtual classroom. International Journal of
Man-Machine Studies, 39, 71-98.
Hunt, D. (2002). Putting knowledge to work: Bringing digital assets to the forefront and
fostering virtual communities. San Francisco: Exploratorium. Retrieved August
2004, from www.sla.org/Documents/conf/ny/DigitalAssets.htm
Jackson, J. (1997). The virtual visit: Towards a new concept for the electronic science
center. In G. Farmelo & J. Carding (Eds.), Here and now: Contemporary science and
technology in museums and science centers (pp. 173-179). London: Science
Museum.
Kjeldsberg, P.A. (1999). Policies and practicalities in exhibiting musical instruments. In
Musical instruments or music? What is the role of a museum in a changing society?
CIMCIM Conference, Paris, June 10-14.
KnowledgeNet. (2002). Exploding the e-learning myth: Next-generation, Web-based
training is here today: And it delivers the wow experience. Retrieved August 2004,
from www.knowledgenet.com/newsroom/whitepapers/elearningmyth_pf.jsp
Korteweg L., & Trofanenko, B. (2002). Learning by design: Teachers/museums/technol-
ogy. In Museums and the Web Conference. Session Learning in Theory and
Practice. Boston, April 17-20. Retrieved August 2004, from www.archimuse.com/
mw2002/papers/korteweg/korteweg.html
Lewenstein, B.V., & Allison-Bunnell, S.W. (2000). Creating knowledge in science muse-
ums: Serving both public and scientific communities. In B. Schiele & E. Koster
(Eds.), Science Centers for this Century (pp. 187-208). Ste-Foy, Quebec: Éditions
Multimondes.
MacGregor, C. (2001). Usable Macromedia Flash – Myth no more. Flazoom.com 2.0.
Retrieved August 2004, from www.flazoom.com/usability/usability_toc.shtml
Miller, S. (2000). Public understanding of science at the crossroads. Science Communi-
cation, Education and the History of Science. British Society for the History of
Science, London, July 12-13. Retrieved August 2004, from www.bshs.org.uk/conf/
2000sciencecomm/papers/miller.doc
Mintz, A., & Thomas, S. (Eds.). (1998). The Virtual and the real: Media in the museum.
Washington, DC: American Association of Museums.
Mokre, M. (1998). New technologies and established institutions. How museums
present themselves in the World Wide Web? Internal Report. Vienna: Technisches
Museum Wien.
Nielsen, J. (1999, May). Top ten mistakes in Web design: Revisited three years later. In
Alert Box: Current issues in Web usability. Retrieved August 2004, from
www.useit.com/alertbox/990502.html
Nilsson, T. (1997). The interface of a museum: Text, context and hypertext in a perfor-
mance setting. In D. Bearman & J. Trant (Eds.), Proceedings of Museums and
Interactive Multimedia 1997 (pp. 146-153). Pittsburgh, PA: Archives & Museum
Informatics.
Oberlander, J., Mellish, C., O’Donnell, M., & Knott, A. (1997). Exploring a gallery with
intelligent labels. In D. Bearman & J. Trant (Eds.), Museums and interactive
multimedia 1997 (pp. 79-87). Pittsburgh, PA: Archives & Museum Informatics.
Ockuly, J. (2003). What clicks? An interim report on audience research. Museums and the
Web Conference. Session Audience. Charlotte, NC, USA, March 19-22. Retrieved
August 2004, from www.archimuse.com/mw2003/papers/ockuly/ockuly.html
Oppenheimer, F. (1980). Exhibit Conception and Design. In Meeting of the International
Commission on Science Museums. Monterey, Mexico. Retrieved August 2004,
from www.exploratorium.edu/ronh/frank/ecd
education. Informal Learning Review. Retrieved August 2004, from
www.informallearning.com/archive/1998-1112-a.htm
O’Sullivan, D. (1990). Transformative learning: Educational vision of the 21st century.
New York: Zed Books.
Peacock, T. (2002). Statistics, structures & satisfied customers: Using Web log data to
improve site performance. In Museums & the Web Conference. Session Evaluation
and Experience. Boston, April 17-20. Retrieved August 2004, from
www.archimuse.com/mw2002/papers/peacock/peacock.html
Podgorny, J. (2004). Studying visitor engagement in virtual reality based children’s
science museam exhibits. Master of Arts., University of Chicago, June.
Quittet, A-M. (1992). Exposer les sciences et l’Industrie. MScope, 3, 54-60.
Rheingold, H. (1993). The virtual community: Homesteading on the electronic frontier
New York: Harper Collins.
Sankar, C.S., & Raju, P.K. (1999). Multi-media courseware to bring real-world decision
making in classrooms. Decision Sciences Institute Conference, New Orleans, LA,
USA. Retrieved August 2004, from web6.duc.auburn.edu/research/litee/media/
pdfs/eval_conf_papers/dsi1999.pdf
Sato, K. (1999). Designing science center exhibits. Learning, Design & Technology.
School of Education, Stanford University. Retrieved August 2004, from
ldt.stanford.edu/ldt1999/Students/tita/ldt/musdesign.html
Schaller, D.T., Allison-Bunnell, S., Borun, M., & Chambers, M.B. (2002). How do you like
to learn? Comparing user preferences and visit length of educational Websites. In
Museums & the Web Conference. Session Learning in Theory and Practice. Boston,
April 17-20. Retrieved August 2004, from www.archimuse.com/mw2002/papers/
schaller/schaller.html
Schaller, D.T., Allison-Bunnell, S., Chow, A., Marty, P., & Heo, M. (2004). To Flash or
not to Flash? Usability and user engagement of HTML vs. Flash. Educational Web
Adventures (EduWeb). Research and Evaluation Section. Retrieved August 2004,
from ww.eduweb.com/to_flash_full.html
Schiele, B. (1996). Les musées scientifiques, tendances actuelles. Musées et Médias :
pour une culture scientifique et techniques des citoyens. In Rencontres culturelles
de Genève 1996. Muséum d’histoire naturelle de Genève, Suisse.
420 Bernier
Semper, R. (1998). Bringing authentic museum experience to the Web. In Museums & the
Web Conference. Session Rich Experiences. Toronto, Ontario, Canada, April 22-25.
Retrieved August 2004, from www.archimuse.com/mw98/papers/semper/
semper_paper.html
Semper, R., Wanner, N.W., Jackson, R., & Bazley, M. (2000). Who’s out there? A pilot
user study of educational Web resources by the Science Learning Network (SLN).
In Museums & the Web Conference. Session Evaluation. Minneapolis, MN, USA,
April 16-19, 2000. Retrieved August 2004, from www.archimuse.com/mw2000/
papers/semper/semper.html
Siegal, P., & Grigoryeva, N. (1999). Using primary data to design Websites for public and
scientific audiences. In Museums and the Web Conference. Session Enabling
Scholarly Research on the Web. New Orleans, LA, USA, March 11-14. Retrieved
August 2004, from www.archimuse.com/mw99/papers/siegel/siegel.html
Steinbach, L. (2003, May/June). Civic engagement in a digital age: An even greater
challenge to museums. In Cultivating Community Connection. Museum News, pp.
27-20, 50, 52, 54 and 56.
Stocklmayer, S., & Gilbert, J. (in press). Informal chemical education In J.K. Gilbert (Ed.),
Chemical education: Towards research-based practice. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Stuer, P., Meersman, R., & De Bruyne, S. (2001). The HyperMuseum theme generator
system: Ontology-based Internet support for the active use of digital museum data
for teaching and presentation. In Museums and the Web Conference, Session
Seeing Differently. Seattle, WA, USA, March 14-17. Retrieved August 2004, from
www.archimuse.com/mw2001/papers/stuer/stuer.html
Stutchbury, R. (1998). Science in the Pub, Introduction. Fundation Advisory Group and
Archived Programs, July. Retrieved August 2004,from www.scienceinthepub.com/
index/html
Szalay, A. (2003). Special feature: A challenge from big science. In Web-Wise Conference.
Session Sustaining Our Digital Resources. Washington, DC, USA, February 26-28,
2003. See also SpaceDaily. Retrieved September 2004, from www.spacedaily.com/
news/telescopes-01b.html
Ucko, D.A. (2004). Production aspects of promoting public understanding of research.
In D. Chittenden, G. Farmelo & B.V. Lewenstein (Eds.), Creating Connections:
Museums and the Public Understanding of Current Research. Walnut Creek, CA:
AltaMira Press Retrieved August 2004, from www.museumsplusmore.com/pdf_files/
PUR-Chap.pdf
United Kingdom Council for Science and Technology (2001). Imagination and under-
standing. A report of the arts and humanities in relation to science and technology.
July. 25 pages.
Vescia, F. (2002). Experimenting with public debate in a European science center. In
Public Understanding of Research Conference. Minneapolis, MN, USA, Septem-
ber 26-29, 2002.
Walsh, K. (1992). The representation of the past: Museums and heritage in the post-
modern world. London: Routledge.
Witcomb, A. (1997). The end of the mausoleum: Museums in the age of electronic
communication. In Museums and the Web Conference. Session The Concept of the
Museum in a World of Internetworking. Los Angeles, March 16-19. Retrieved
August 2004, from www.archimuse.com/mw97/speak/witcomb.htm
Wynne, B. (1995). The public understanding of science. In S. Jasanoff, G. Markle, J.C.
Petersen & T. Pinch (Eds.), Handbook of science and technology studies (pp. 380-
392). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Yates, S., & Errington, S. (2001). Computer-based exhibits: A must have or a liability? In
S. Errington, S.M. Stocklmayer & B. Honeyman (Eds.), Using museums to popularise
science and technology. London: Commonwealth Secretariat.
Endnotes
1
Founded in 1973, the Association of Science-Technology Centers (ASTC) is an
altruistic organization with nearly 500 members, including over 400 science muse-
ums in 43 countries (www.astc.org). ASTC aims at stimulating innovation through
an efficient public understanding of science and technology.
2
Founded in 1848, the American Association for the Advancement of Science
(AAAS) is the world’s largest non-profit society dedicated to technological
excellence across all disciplines and provides scientific information on public
educational programs (www.aaas.org). They manage several Web sites: Science
Online, Science and Society, Science’s Nextwave and EurekAlert.
3
The Science and Discovery Centre Network (Ecsite-UK), formally affiliated to the
European Collaborative for Science, Industry and Technology Exhibitions, was
established in 2001; it represents over 80 discovery centers in the UK (www.ecsite-
uk.net/index.php).
4
The Committee on the Public Understanding of Science (COPUS) was set up in 1987
by the Royal Society and is considered a pioneer for promoting science, engineer-
ing and technology activities on behalf of the British Association for the Advance-
ment of Science (www.copus.org.uk).
5
Launched in 2001, the International Network on Public Communication of Science
and Technology (PCST) encourages discussion of practices, methods, policies
and conceptual frameworks related to ethical matters, social concerns as well as
economical issues. The principal interested parties are practitioners, researchers
and scientific communities who study PCST (www.pcstnetwork.org).
6
This five-year project carried out by astronomers from 17 research institutions has
received a $10 million grant from the National Science Foundation.
7
Viewed as the Oscars of the Internet, this award was established in 1996. It contains
thirty different categories and is based on six criteria: content, structure, naviga-
tion, visual design, functionality, interactivity and experience (www.webbyawards.
com/main/webby_awards/index.html).
422 Bernier
8
Created in 1997, the selected categories of this Web conference include Virtual
Exhibitions, Educational Use, Research site, Museum Professional’s site and
Membership Use. (www.archimuse.com/mw98/best/index.html)
9
Last accessed on August 17, 2004.
10
NASA provided a high-bandwidth datalink connecting Aruba Island to the
Internet, while the Exploratorium organized a video feed from Aruba that was used
by a large group of viewers at schools and museums.
11
Partnering with media organizations can also be an attractive option for breaking
news. This particular approach has improved assistance for museum educational
programs, as they helped publicize significant events and cross-disseminate news
at reduced cost (Ucko, 2004).
12
Introduced in 1997, this competition is held to reward the best French-based Web
sites as well as to publicize innovative Web styles of use in eleven categories: the
Jury’s Prize, Best Media site, Best Institutional site, Best Business to Business site,
Best E-Commerce site, Best Interactive Advertising site, Best Interactive Marketing
site, Best Product site, Best General Audience site, Best Design site, Best Overall
Interest site and Best Renowned International site. (www.clicdor.com/frameset.php)
13
Last accessed on August 17, 2004.
14
The Toubon Law, named after the French Minister of Justice (Mr. Jacques
Toubon), requires that textual documents be translated into at least two other
languages apart from French (e.g., English and German or English and Spanish);
the law was adopted in August 1994 (Coiffard, 2004). Around 60% of La Cité’s users
are foreigners, so a full recasting in Spanish and English will be made available in
2005 (Arnal, 2004).
15
The intended visitors are the ones from La Cité; it will soon be available for all Web
users (Coiffard, 2004).
16
Nearly 50% of online visitors show an interest on the sub-topics of temporary
exhibitions (Arnal, 2004).
17
La Cité spends 550,000 Euros each year to improve its Web site, besides the
workers’ wages. The “Operation Carbon” cost about 17,000 Euros (Arnal, 2004).
18
Last accessed on September 21, 2004. En ligne: Voir et Écouter was previously
entitled Les conférences vidéo.
19
Social learning, as defined by the Exploratorium, is a context that implies a public
museum setting through which social exchanges are required (e.g., discussions
with scientists); it also suggests multiple-end users with a wide range of needs who
access Origins from their personal computer (Alexander, 2004b).
Further Reading
Public Understanding of Science. Quarterly journal. London: Sage. Retrieved from
WWW.SAGEPUB.CO.UK/journalScope.aspx?pid=105747.
Real Science: Making Connections to Research and Scientific Data 423
Chapter XX
Real Science:
Making Connections
to Research and
Scientific Data
Jim Spadaccini, Ideum, USA
Abstract
Almost since the inception of the World Wide Web, scientific images in a variety of fields
of study have been publicly available. However, in most cases the images lacked
support materials making them difficult for the public to understand. Recently science
centers and other educational organizations have begun to create Web-based resources
that help mediate and explain compelling scientific imagery. This chapter looks at the
development of four educational Web sites that utilize actual scientific imagery. Ideum
developed these sites over the last four years with the Exploratorium, NASA’s Sun-
Earth Connection Education Forum, and the Tech Museum of Innovation. From a
developer’s perspective, the creation process for each site is presented. A critical
examination explains why certain decisions concerning design, site structure, technical
approach, content, and presentation were made and how lessons learned from one
project were applied to the next. Finally, the chapter looks at how sites that utilize “real
science” can help science centers fulfill their mission of reaching the public and
assisting them in better understanding scientific research and the scientific process.
424 Spadaccini
Introduction
Originally developed as a tool to help scientists share information, the World Wide Web
continues to be an important mode of communication for scientific inquiry. Rich science
datasets in a variety of fields are publicly available, and can provide a catalyst for
learning. Science centers can act as mediators, organizing information across scientific
disciplines and providing tools for understanding complex scientific research. Users can
gain valuable insight into the scientific process and science centers can do what they
do best — make science understandable and interesting to the public.
Physical exhibits work well in showing scientific phenomena but not necessarily the
scientific process (Bradburne, 1998). Providing exhibits that allow visitors to manipulate
phenomena or exhibits that simply demonstrate it in compelling ways is one of the things
that science centers do best (Ansel, 2003).
However, common sense dictates that due to their physical nature, most exhibits cannot
be converted into effective online experiences. They tend to be pale cousins of their
physical counterparts — “virtual” exhibits in the worst sense of the word. It is better to
focus on creating “real” experiences for Internet visitors. In early 1996, I began working
for the Exploratorium in San Francisco. Although the Web site at that time was just a few
years old, this philosophy (Semper, 2001) was already in place. Over the next few years
we experimented in developing various types of online resources, everything from simple
experiments that online visitors could try at home to Web casting live events from remote
locations.
This spirit of experimentation, coupled with the desire to create “real” experiences for
Internet users, eventually led to exploring sites that utilized actual scientific imagery.
In 2000, I developed the Solar Max and Auroras sites for the Exploratorium (by that time
I had formed my own firm, Ideum) that used near “real-time” data from NASA satellites
and ground-based observatories.
These early experiments showed promise. In developing subsequent sites (for the
Exploratorium and for other clients such as the Tech Museum and NASA) we found that
creating online resources that mine data from real scientific endeavors sheds light on the
scientific process. Furthermore, these types of resources provide a link, both actual and
metaphoric, to the scientific community.
Additionally, developing resources that use scientific data helps ameliorate some of the
problems inherent in developing traditional educational Web sites. The question of
validity as to whether the user is seeing a “reliable representation of reality” (Pollock,
1999) can be addressed by the nature of these types of resources. The online visitor is
seeing what scientists see. How data are presented and mediated for the visitor becomes
the more important question.
During the last few years, science centers have been rethinking their mission and more
actively exploring the role that science plays in society (Bahls, 2004). Science centers
provide the public with tools and opportunities to better understand science and its
impact on society. There is strong interest among the public too. A recent National
Science Foundation survey found that approximately 9 out of 10 adults were either very
or moderately interested in “new scientific discoveries and the use of new inventions and
technology” (National Science Board, 2002). Furthermore, millions of people visit the
Web sites of Science Centers. The Exploratorium alone boasts 15 million visitors a year
(http://www.exploratorium.edu/about/about_web.html).
This chapter focuses on how science centers can in part help fulfill their mission of
reaching the public through the development of Web-based resources that utilize actual
scientific data. The nature of the Web allowing direct and mediated access to scientific
research and data provides opportunities for science centers not found elsewhere.
Science centers and other educational organizations can present data across fields of
research and can make scientific data and images understandable to the public.
I’ll show examples that include specific approaches for developing resources that make
direct connections to scientific research and data. From a developer’s perspective, I’ll
outline the creation process and explain how decisions concerning the content, struc-
ture, and design of these Web sites came about. I will look critically at these works, but
obviously much of what I will present here is subjective. Questions concerning technol-
ogy will also be addressed where pertinent. However, before we look at the example sites,
it first makes sense to look at the general ways in which science centers connect the public
to scientific research and communities.
Ways Science Centers Connect the

Public to Scientific Research
Science centers are institutions devoted to encouraging interest in science, fostering
exploration, discovery, and learning. They connect the public to scientific research and
the scientific process in the following ways:
1. Transmission of scientific information: Providing public access to raw data or the

results of scientific inquiry. For example, images from the Mars Pathfinder Mission
or a map of the human genome.
2. Improving skills such as creativity, curiosity, collaboration, and etcetera: Creating
experiences that engage the public. For example, interactive exhibits or other
museum programs.
3. Experiencing and modeling the scientific process: Providing opportunities for the
public to explore how and where science happens and who conducts it. For example,
lab-based activities, connections to research centers, or access to scientists.
Online resources can be developed to assist science centers in making connections to

scientific research and communities. In most cases, the physical environment of the
museum is a richer alternative — however, there are exceptions. The nature of the Internet
makes it ideal for the transmission of scientific information (this should not be confused
with presenting scientific phenomenon). Web resources can reach large audiences. They
are available anytime and anywhere there is a network connection.
426 Spadaccini
Beyond the obvious advantages of the medium, Web-based activities can provide layers
of information and different levels of complexity. Also, scientists themselves may play
a role. Their participation as advisors and partners on these projects is essential and both
scientists and developers benefit from this interaction (Persson, 2000). Scientists can
even “appear” on the Web sites with short audio or video interviews — helping to explain
what visitors are seeing.
Additionally, Web-based resources can have more longevity. Visitors can easily and
repeatedly access a Web site or online resources. When exploring the more complex
aspects of the scientific method, these are distinct advantages. Visitors can spend more
time from home or school investigating these resources than they might in one museum
visit.
Connecting to Scientific
Research and Data Online
The Internet contains vast warehouses of scientific data. Everything from maps of the
human genome to images of distant galaxies are available on the Web. Scientists
themselves use the Internet to do research, connect with colleagues, and post research
results.
While the Internet does not contain a complete set of current scientific research, and only
very limited selections from past endeavors, the breadth and depth of materials available
are impressive. Nevertheless, finding, organizing, and making sense of what is out there
is an enormous challenge. Scientists tend to make data and research findings available
for other scientists to review, not necessarily to connect with the public.
This presents an opportunity for science centers to help explain these materials and to
make them more readily available to the public. Science centers can provide the necessary
structure and explanations for the public to more effectively understand them and their
meaning.
Of course, the particulars of the scientific data and how the resources are constructed
and presented play an enormous role. All data sets are not created equal. It is easier to
develop a site connecting to satellite imagery of the Earth for example; than it is to develop
one explaining data sets that measure the Earth’s magnetic field. Strong imagery can be
more easily explained and can provide “hooks” for the public.
Also, the aesthetic quality of images can’t be underestimated. Satellite images capturing
features of the sun or microscopic images of cells or DNA can provide a sense of wonder.
This comes not just from the beauty of the images themselves but in many cases from
the knowledge that what we are seeing hasn’t been seen by previous generations –– that
only recent technological advances make this possible.
Scientific visualizations of what can’t be “seen” can also be used. However, in most cases
these are developed for scientists themselves to study––not for the general public. Either
way, “raw” scientific data and materials require careful explanation. Sites need to have
a thoughtful balance of information, enough to adequately explain but not so much as

to turn visitors away. Finally, there is a compelling aspect of connecting to “real things”
that cannot be dismissed –– seeing the same things that scientists do. Connecting to the
same data coming from a spacecraft, a powerful microscope, or from a remote location here
on Earth can inject excitement into a site.
Example 1: Solar Max
In 2000, Ideum developed Solar Max: Your Guide to the Year of the Active Sun
(www.exploratorium.edu/solarmax), a Web site for the Exploratorium and NASA’s Sun-
Earth Connection Education Forum. The site is a portal created to provide visitors with
information about the sun during its most active period, known as “solar maximum.” What
made the site unique was not that it linked to near real-time NASA satellite images of the
sun, but rather that it utilizes these types of images from a variety of NASA missions,
including those from non-NASA ground-based observatories. Additionally, it added
explanatory materials to help users better understand what they were seeing.
At that time, each of the NASA solar missions had their own Web sites providing images
of their satellite views of the Sun. However, none of them contained images from their
fellow NASA missions and certainly not those from other observatories. Each mission
was focused on presenting their own data and findings, not those of other missions.
In fact, the only NASA site to present images from all of the NASA solar images was the
Solar Data Analysis Center (http://umbra.nascom.nasa.gov/sdac.html). However, the
chosen layout format made it difficult to see these images side-by-side and make
comparisons. In addition, the site did not provide links to educational resources, or news
stories, nor did it contain other materials to help explain the images. This was not a flaw
Figure 1. The Solar Max portal site. Notice the near real-time images of the sun and
various support materials.
428 Spadaccini
of the SDAC design but rather a question of its mission and purpose. The Exploratorium
and NASA’s Sun-Earth Connection Education Forum saw it as their role to provide these
types of materials along with the images on the Solar Max site.
In addition to Solar Max, we developed Auroras: Your Guide to the Northern and
Southern Lights (http://www.exploratorium.edu/auroras) which is similar in design and
approach. Together these “twin portal” sites allow users to view near real-time data sets
not just of the sun but also of the Earth — seeing the effects of the active solar storms.
The portal design for both sites was meant to provide a compact “tool kit” not only for
exploration and basic information, but also for additional opportunities to explore other
sites and resources on the subject.
In addition, both sites have streaming media (Real Audio and Video) interviews with
scientists. These help explain the data that users are seeing and provide insight to the
larger scientific concepts presented. Featuring scientists also provides a direct connec-
tion to members of the scientific community. Importantly, including scientific researchers
allows visitors to make a personal connection.
While Solar Max and Auroras do present some support materials, in retrospect they are
somewhat thin on focused interpretive and interactive tools. They don’t include clear,
direct explanations of the individual images that appear on the site; for example, the
images of the sun were captured at different wavelengths like extreme ultraviolet and soft
x-ray. This presented opportunities to explain why scientists were interested in studying
images of the sun produced from various points of the spectrum and to elaborate on non-
visible wavelengths. Unfortunately, this potentially revealing concept was not pursued.
Other evident possibilities for exploration such as the “false colors” used with certain
images were not explained. For example, some of the NASA SOHO extreme ultraviolet
images are colored blue and green, to allow scientists to differentiate between the various
wavelengths at which the images are captured. A visitor to the site could only wonder:
why is the sun green? However, even with these shortcomings, there is some value in
simply bringing these data sets together in one place. It took a science center and NASA
organization that was not “mission-based” to make this happen. Additionally, the
lessons learned were applied to future projects.
Example 2: Global Climate Change: Research Explorer
Following in the footsteps of the Solar Max and Auroras portal sites was the Global
Climate Change: Research Explorer site (http://www.exploratorium.edu/climate). This
project was funded by the National Science Foundation with the goal of increasing public
understanding of science. Developed by the Exploratorium and Ideum in 2002, its
development was shaped by many of the perceived strengths and weaknesses of the twin
portal sites.
The Global Climate Change: Research Explorer allows the public to examine the same
data that scientists and researchers analyze while studying global warming. A combina-
tion of near real-time, short-term, and long-term data helps tell the story of climate change
and modern research methods.
Figure 2. The hydrosphere main page of the Global Climate Change: Research
Explorer. The thumbnails of five data sets open to individual pages with more detail
and explanation.
The site is broken up into five main sections, which correspond to parts of the climate
system and roughly connect to areas of scientific study: atmosphere, hydrosphere,
cryosphere, biosphere, and global effects (which examines models and forecasts).
During the development phase, the structure of the site was quickly agreed upon but
there was much discussion about what to name these categories. Some team members
felt they were too complex and should be simplified.
The problem with simplifying these titles is that they loose their connection to real
scientific research. Calling “atmosphere,” “air” or “hydrosphere,” “water” or even
“cryosphere,” “ice” might make the categories seem more “friendly” for visitors –– but
they do not accurately reflect their contents.
This issue was fairly contentious and both sides of the argument have merit. If the
categories seem too complex it may turn visitors away. After all, “cryosphere” is likely
not a term many people are familiar with. Yet, calling a section “ice” is not completely
accurate — it doesn’t begin to address the complexity of the cryopshere.
In the end, the more scientific terminology was adopted. It was decided that since the
Global Climate Change site’s mission was to explain climate by exploring these complex
systems — to begin that process by calling them something else would not be the best
approach. Furthermore, it was argued that the roots of the more technical terms were fairly
well known “hydro,” “cryo,” and “bio.” Finally the argument was made that if we didn’t
introduce these terms to the public, who would?
430 Spadaccini
Global Climate Change presents a cross-section of scientific disciplines including

physics, chemistry, biology, geology, meteorology, and oceanography. The data comes
from a variety of research institutions and is not displayed together anywhere else.
Presenting the data and results of scientific study together provides a foundation to tell
a larger story.
A glossary of terms and answers to common questions, first introduced in Solar Max
to further interpret and explain the content, were refined and expanded the Global
Climate Change site. Some improvements can be attributed to the fact that the Global
Climate Change site contains a large number of data sets and these tools were applied
to more pages, but there were also fundamental changes in the overall approach. A
glossary of terms was improved, so it appears within the context of specific data and
topics. Each page of data has its own set of terms whose definitions are visible without
having to launch a separate page. In Solar Max the user must select a pop-up field to view
glossary terms, which then appear in a pop-up window.
Answers to common questions were expanded and added to all of the data. Additionally,
the nature of the questions was expanded to get a sense of how scientists conduct
research, test theories, and come to conclusions. While many of the questions focus
squarely on the science, “How much carbon dioxide do forests take out of the atmo-
sphere?,” other questions explore scientific methodology, “How can we tell the differ-
ence between short-term fluctuations in the weather and long-term climate change?” This
was a departure from Solar Max, where the questions were simply about the science,
“What is solar max?” and “Should we be concerned about solar max?”
Figure 3. Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Records from Mauna Loa (1958-2000) from the
Atmosphere section in the Global Climate Change site.
In addition to providing an answer to a question associated with each data set, a

mechanism for receiving questions from the public was developed. While limited
resources prohibited individual responses to these questions, this information provided
insight into how users were interacting with each data set and what questions the data
presented.
Like Solar Max, the Global Climate Change site is “portal-like.” The layout is very
compact and there are links to related sites from each data set page. The links are
presented within the context of the specific data set, providing more information on the
subject if visitors are interested.
While there were certainly many similarities in approach, the biggest difference in
developing Global Climate Change lies in the amount of basic support material. A text
narrative provides an introduction to each section. Each data set contains a detailed
description, caption, and “research connection.”
These three areas explain why this data is important in studying climate change, how the
data was collected, how it is studied, and how scientists use the data to test theories and
develop conclusions. Each diverse data set provides an opportunity to explore the
science and research methods. For example, information on how sea surface temperatures
are measured with microwave energy, how ice core samples are used by scientists, or how
coral bleaching occurs are explained within the context of the data sets shown.
While the support materials provide comprehensive explanations for users interested in
the data, the argument could be made that these materials themselves are too dense. Still,
the portal nature of the site allows data and support materials to be presented together,
helping users to make important connections. Also, basic navigation is simple and the
structure of the site is clearly visible at all times.
However, pages often seem crowded and are likely overwhelming for some visitors.
Additionally, the site relies too heavily on text, with only one short video interview
answering one of the “questions about the data” on the entire site. This interview came
from another existing Exploratorium project. Unfortunately, there wasn’t enough funding
to interview scientists specifically for this project. While scientists didn’t appear on the
site they did play a role as advisors. They reviewed the text that appears on the site and
pointed team members to additional data sets and related Web sites.
Example 3: The Sun-Earth Viewer
The Sun-Earth Viewer (http://ds9.ssl.berkeley.edu/viewer/flash/flash.html) is yet an-

other resource exploring NASA’s near real-time solar data sets. It was first developed
in 2003 and later revised in 2004 by Ideum for NASA’s Sun-Earth Connection Education
Forum (SECEF). It should be noted that SECEF is not a science center. However, their
focus and audiences are much the same. They reach school children of all grades, families,
and curious adults. Additionally, they work collaboratively with a number of science
centers and other educational institutions.
The Sun-Earth Viewer is built entirely in Flash — an interactive Web-based multimedia
tool developed by Macromedia. Beyond the basic connection to scientific data, the
“Viewer” has some similarities to the Solar Max and the Global Climate Change sites.
432 Spadaccini
First the data itself comes from a variety of sources: NASA satellites, a NOAA (National
Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration) satellite, as well as ground-based observato-
ries. Additionally, the Viewer is portal-like in structure, very dense but easy for users
to compare images and view support materials. Also, like the other sites, it relies on links
to additional sites and sources for deeper explanation.
There are some significant differences. While Solar Max and Global Climate Change
simply presented the data along with varying degrees of explanation, the Sun-Earth
Viewer allows users to zoom and pan images of the Sun, viewing features such as
sunspots and solar flares. Additionally, a scale tool showing the size of the Earth is
provided for perspective on some of the solar images.
While Solar Max and Global Climate Change simply linked to the data, the Viewer
integrates it, allowing users to actively explore –– viewing and comparing details from
various images. Resources that allow users to explore and make connections on their own
seem to be more effective and follow the widely accepted practices of museum educators
(Hein, 1991).
In addition to providing an improved method to view solar images, the Viewer contains
a wide and varied assortment of support materials. Detailed illustrations, computer
visualizations, and satellite video footage that examine a variety of Sun-Earth phenom-
enon are presented. These materials all include associated text explanations.
Finally, over 40 minutes of short video clips with scientists and other experts examine
common questions about the Earth and its relationship with the active sun. Although the
site contains much less text than the Global Climate Change site, the use of dynamic
videos helps answer the most common questions about the Sun-Earth connection.
Figure 4. The Sun-Earth Viewer showing a close-up image of the Sun. Notice the scale
tool on the bottom right. The four tabs on the top provide sections with additional
support materials for the visitor.
Progress in Web technology and improvements in Flash in particular, played a very

important role in the development of the Sun-Earth Viewer. This type of interaction with
near real-time data was simply not possible back in 2000, when Solar Max was first
developed. Flash as a development tool wasn’t yet sophisticated enough to link to near
real-time data.
Other new features in Flash such as the ability to embed video and allowing for external
text (or XML), make it a better solution for developers. It can also reach more visitors.
The Sun-Earth Viewer only requires the Flash plug-in. Macromedia’s Flash has devel-
oped into a standard over the last few years and is installed on the vast majority of
visitors’ systems. Solar Max and Global Change required users to have the RealVideo
Player (http://www.macromedia.com/software/player_census/flashplayer/).
While the technological approach was different, many of the lessons learned from Solar
Max and Global Climate Change have been applied to the Viewer. Also, since there have
been two versions of the Viewer, lessons learned in the first version were applied to “2.0.”
The site retains the portal-like structure and explanations are provided within the context
of the data presented. Multimedia, in the form of interviews and visualizations, helps
explain important scientific concepts and phenomena, so the site does not depend
entirely on long text passages. Scientists participated both as advisors and as partici-
pants.
Still, in retrospect there are areas for improvement. There is no glossary of terms, though
many of the complex descriptions would benefit from this feature. In addition, while the
Viewer technology works well for near real-time solar images, the window may be too
small for viewing illustrations. With some of the illustrations it is difficult to read the
labels when the entire illustration is visible, and when you zoom in it can be hard to see
how the whole illustration works.
Figure 5. The Sun-Earth Viewer with an illustration of the Electromagnetic Spectrum
434 Spadaccini
Looking back, a different layout for the illustrations and a different sized window would
probably be the best approach. Still, even this solution would pose more problems. If the
viewer window were larger then something else (on an already crowded screen) would
have to be made smaller, be on scroll mode, or otherwise be hidden. Increasing the size
of the entire window is not an option. The window at 760x540 pixels is already the maximum
size for an 800x600 pixel computer monitor (with room for browser controls, tool bars, etc.).
If the window size were larger some users would have to scroll to see portions of the
viewer.
Another issue worth examining is the site structure, which is based on the type of media
rather than the topic. A structure that reflects the Sun-Earth system would be ideal.
Perhaps something like: the sun, the solar wind, and the Earth’s magnetosphere; or the
solar interior, solar surface, solar wind, Earth’s magnetosphere, auroras, and etcetera.
These terms were explored but the structure that appears was chosen for a number of
reasons.
First, the site’s focus is on the Sun-Earth connection: looking at how events on the sun
can affect the Earth. While the sun and the Earth’s magnetosphere could be looked at
as separate systems, the goal of the site was to show where these systems connect. After
all, the mission of the Sun-Earth Connection Forum is “to increase science literacy and
focus attention on the active sun and its effects on Earth” (The Sun-Earth Connection
Education Forum, 2001).
Also, there were practical reasons, namely that the type and availability of media and
resources were somewhat uneven. As stated earlier, data sets are not created equal.
There are more solar images than images of the Earth’s magnetosphere, for example. This
is a reality in developing these types of sites. It is not that data on the magnetosphere
is sparse; it is just not available in a format that allows for it to be easily presented to the
public. When building Web sites that utilize real scientific data, the structure of the site
needs to reflect the educational goals of the site as well as the available materials.
Figure 6. The Sun-Earth Viewer showing the SOHO EIT images during CCD bakeout
A concern in developing sites that utilize near real-time data is that sometimes for a variety
of reasons the data becomes unavailable. For example, the Sun-Earth Viewer is very
dependent on images from the Extreme Ultraviolet Imaging Telescope (EIT) aboard
NASA’s SOHO (Solar and Heliospheric Observatory). The first four images come from
this device. Every three months the CCD (Charge Coupled Device), which takes EIT
images on SOHO, goes through a process called “bakeout” for 7 to 10 days. This
temporary shutdown is a necessary maintenance procedure (http://
umbra.nascom.nasa.gov/eit/CCD_bakeout.html).
A simple method for swapping out images hasn’t yet been developed. Only associated
text files can readily be updated since they are external from the Flash application. This
issue is one we hope to address later this year. When developing the second version of
the Viewer, images from NASA’s TRACE (Transition Region and Coronal Explorer)
satellite were added. TRACE full-disk images are only available when SOHO EIT images
are not. This provides some coverage of the sun for our visitors. Of course this was not
done for our benefit, but rather for scientists studying the sun.
Example 4: Zooming Into DNA
Zooming Into DNA (http://www.thetech.org/exhibits/online/ugenetics/zoomIn/) was

developed in 2004 for the Tech Museum of Innovation. Created on a small budget, this
was one of four features developed by Ideum with the Tech Museum for an online
exhibition on Genetics. Zooming Into DNA shows microscopic images of cells, chromo-
somes, and DNA. All of the images are “real” scientific images.
The original idea for this exhibit came from an online version (http://www.thetech.org/
exhibits/online/genome/intro4.html) created by the Tech Museum back in 1996. The Tech
Museum felt that the concept was strong and there was room for improvement. In
Figure 7. Zooming into DNA, showing Fibroblast Skin Cells. Notice the “About This
Image” window is open
436 Spadaccini
researching this project we also came across a similar DNA Zoom interactive. It was a
more polished Flash version (http://www.biotechnology.gov.au/biotechnologyOnline/
interactives/DNA_zoom_interactive.htm) developed years later by Biotechnology
Australia.
Using both of these exhibits as starting points we first wondered whether it was worth
pursuing a new version. There was a strong desire not to duplicate what was already out
there. During our initial research we also came across some very interesting images of
cells, chromosomes, and DNA, unlike the two other “zoom-ins,” which relied either
entirely or in part on illustrations. It was decided to create a version that utilized actual
scientific images.
Using real images at the core of the site provided some unique benefits. First, the images
themselves are very compelling. Like the images of the sun, they have a great aesthetic
quality. They can be a catalyst for learning, sparking a visitor’s interest. Additionally,
the fact that they are real presents some interesting questions: What am I seeing? What
scale is this? How was this image taken?
Questions about the images provide a path to explore the scientific process. Certainly
the tools –– whether they are satellites or microscopes –– play an important role in the
modern scientific endeavor. Although, interestingly, this also fits into the Tech Museum’s
stated mission to engage people “…in exploring and experiencing technologies affecting
their lives…” (http://www.thetech.org/about/mission.cfm). Exploring the technologies
used to create the images was also an end in itself.
Along with the ability to learn “About this Image,” a scale tool was added to Zooming
Into DNA. This time a series of images capturing bacteria on the “head of a pin” was used.
A short “movie” allows the user to play the sequence starting with a pin being held
between two fingers and zooming all the way to the point where bacteria can be seen on
the pinhead.
One possible area for confusion is that the “zoom in” is not perfectly linear. Rather, the
“zoom in” follows a conceptual path, as if one were to physically travel from outside to
inside cells, finally arriving inside the nucleus. For example, “nuclear pores” at 300,000X
appear before the “human karyotype” at 5,000X. This was done because nuclear pores
are a point of entry from a cell’s cytoplasm to inside its nucleus where DNA resides. They
allow communication between a cell’s nucleus and its cytoplasm.
The human karyotype image connects more easily with the chromosomes and DNA that
appear at the end of the zoom in. The vast differences in scale are due to both the imaging
technique and the fact that the karyotype is a diagnostic test –– so we’re not seeing
chromosomes in their normal state. At first glance some users may view zoom-in
progression as an error. This was a trade-off. Either retain the purity and simplicity of
zooming in a linear fashion or restructure the site to better match the content. We chose
the latter.
Interestingly, if we decided to do an illustrated version it would have likely been linear
and the subject of “nuclear pores” would probably not have been included. We came
across the image by chance while researching Zooming Into DNA, found the image
fascinating, and decided that it should be included.
Finally, there are areas that could have been improved. Like the Viewer, some of the
terminology is rather advanced and unfortunately there is no glossary tool. Also, the
budget did not allow for multimedia interviews with scientists (although scientists did
play a role in advising). Therefore the explanations are mostly text-based. Perhaps like
the Viewer, there may be a 2.0 version sometime in the future?
Evaluation
There’s certainly anecdotal evidence that these resources have been both popular with
the public and seem to provide educational value. Additionally, Global Climate Change
and The Sun-Earth Viewer were honored (out of 1,700 entries) with a Pirelli International
Multimedia Award in 2004 and 2005. Still there haven’t been any formal evaluative studies
done. There is one voluntary user survey currently underway on the Global Climate
Change site, but unfortunately the results are not complete at the time of this writing.
There is no way beyond interpreting crude Web statistics to tell how users are interacting
with these Web sites. Through these data we know how many people are visiting and
how long they stay. But we have no sense how they are using them or what they are taking
from these sites. Formal evaluation could reveal how effective they are educationally and
could also examine questions of usability.
Beyond evaluation for these specific projects, there is little in the way of evaluation
available for science-based educational resources in general. A comprehensive visitor
study was conducted by the Exploratorium and Science Museum, UK in 2000 (Semper,
2000). However, it focused on different types of educational resources, none that utilized
actual scientific data. Furthermore, the Web has changed dramatically in four short years.
The sites themselves are dated, much of the technological aspects for the study are also
out of date. Still some important information about how these sites are used can be found.
While the need for the more formal and specific evaluation is clear, developers can learn
much from what others have done. One of the most engaging sites that utilizes and
explains a wide variety of data is NASA’s Earth Observatory site (http://
earthobservatory.nasa.gov/). This site clearly organizes the images and, like the ex-
amples in this chapter, it has supplemental materials and other tools for exploring the data.
Developers can also learn from their own past endeavors. Critically looking at your own
work, examining anecdotal feedback from visitors or partners, and viewing Web statistics
can help create a cycle where future sites improve. While each project utilizing real
scientific data has different content, and available resources can change, ideas and
lessons learned from one project can be applied to others.
Usability
In developing effective resources that use scientific data, usability is an important
aspect. Due to the compact nature of these resources, questions of usability are
438 Spadaccini
magnified. Usability for the Web has been defined in many ways. In the simplest sense,
a Web site should function correctly, be efficient to use, easy to learn, easy to remember,
error tolerant, and subjectively pleasing (Brinck, 2002).
It’s a tall order, complicated by the fact that you want to be able to provide interpretive
tools and support materials in close proximity to the images that users are seeing. The
more elaborate the tools and supporting text or media –– the more complicated the design
process becomes.
Ideally, users would have the ability to view an image (and possibly compare it with
others) while being able to review support materials with the image still visible. This is
not always possible, but it is certainly preferable.
Layering materials so they only appear as needed can help address the lack of space.
However, this adds complexity to the site. Users will have to find these elements, and then
decide whether to use them. Finally they need to be able to easily open and close these
windows. Additional elements can add “an additional burden on the user” (Nielsen,
1993).
Creating scrolling text fields or pop-up windows is another way to keep these sites and
pages compact. But again, users need to scroll, and open and close the pop-up windows.
Close coordination between content developers and designers can help create sites with
a high degree of usability. While design considerations shouldn’t always shape content
development, flexibility is important; again, even more so when screen space is so
restricted. With the projects we’ve been involved in, we’ve either developed the content
internally or worked closely with museum writers as well as outside scientists and other
experts.
Conclusion
In the introduction I mentioned that we can “mine” scientific data, and I think the analogy
is a good one. There is an opportunistic quality in creating these types of sites. Like
miners looking for valuable resources, as developers we look for compelling or interest-
ing images. Sometimes finding a great image sparks your interest in the topic and forces
you to rethink the structure or content of your site. Developing a process with time for
discovery, research, and “inventory” at the beginning of each project is extremely
important.
The aesthetic quality of the images can provide “hooks” for visitors. Stunning visual
images can help inspire visitors to dig deeper to learn more. Still, the choice of images
needs to be balanced with the educational goals of the site. The beauty of the images can
only be weighed as one factor. How the image fits into the site as a whole, what it shows,
how it compares to the other images –– all of these factors need to be addressed.
Additionally, near real-time data has an exciting quality. However, in many cases science
requires time; therefore viewing changes in data over long periods of time is required to
observe results. Where this is the case, this message needs to be made clear to visitors
through materials that accompany real-time data, or by using them in conjunction with
short-term or long-term data sets.
Providing support materials that help explain what visitors are seeing is paramount.
Presenting raw data alone serves only the technical purpose of “mirroring.” It’s important
to have explanations that are specific to data shown and that hopefully anticipate the
types of questions visitors may have. A glossary of terms and links to other related sites
can also help users expand their understanding of the materials. These materials are
particularly important for those who are new to the topics presented.
Illustrations, audio, or video can make a site more engaging and compensate for different
learning styles. Audio or video interviews with scientists who work directly with the data
can help the visitors better understand the data sets and the scientific process, as well
as making personal connections with the people who work in science.
Creating tools that allow users to manipulate data lets visitors make their own discov-
eries. Additions such as the ability to zoom and view detail can make a site more engaging.
Also, we’ve seen how tools can help explain scale and provide perspective for satellite-
based or microscope images.
Still more can be done. Authoring software such as Flash has only just recently become
sophisticated enough to allow developers to create new ways to view data. In future
projects we hope to explore more direct ways of comparing data (including real-time data)
such as “onion skinning” which would allow users to overlap images and change their
transparency. We’d also like to develop tools that would allow users to examine real-time
data over time –– to be able to view changes in the data.
Additionally, for static images more can be done with labeling of key features. (For
example, semi-transparent layers that could show the key parts of a cell could be turned
on or off by the user.) By directly showing the parts, users would gain insight into the
workings of subjects they are viewing. There could be a series of these labels, each
examining different aspects of what the image or data show. There are many possibilities.
Beyond better tools for examining and manipulating data, improvements in the support
materials themselves could make for better resources. Improved layering of information
for different levels of expertise would broaden the appeal of resources, allowing them to
reach novices and experts alike.
Another point worth making is that these types of resources don’t have to live on the
Internet exclusively. The Sun-Earth Viewer is on the museum floor at Chabot Space and
Science Center in Oakland, California. Having resources that can be used on the Web and
the museum floor is appealing to museums and other organizations that have tight
budgets for exhibit development.
Electronic exhibits that aren’t available on the Internet can also connect to these types
of data. In 2004, we helped develop an electronic exhibit on Fuel Cells. One of the sections
explaining the benefits of clean-powered Fuel Cells connects to near real-time maps
demonstrating air quality in Los Angeles. Seeing “today’s smog levels” not only helps
explain the topic, it helps connect the user with the sense of immediacy and relevancy.
This exhibit is currently on display at the California Science Center in Los Angeles.
Regardless of how resources that utilize data sets are built or where they ultimately reside
(on the Internet or as exhibits) there are, of course, limitations to keep in mind. First and
440 Spadaccini
foremost, not every area of scientific inquiry can be explored in the way outlined in this
chapter. The Internet is a visual medium, and strong visual data is needed. In some areas
of research, the data simply doesn’t exist.
Also, many data sets are not visually appealing or visual at all. Scientific data is created
for scientists, not the general public. Most are difficult to explain and require a great deal
of mediation. Finally, we’ve seen how real-time data can become unavailable, leaving
sites without key images.
Yet even with these limitations, educational resources that utilize scientific data do
provide opportunities for science centers and other educational organizations to reach
the public in interesting ways. They take advantage of qualities of the Internet, instead
of attempting to work around its limitations. If science centers want to develop effective
Web-based educational resources, new models and methods need to be explored.
As demonstrated, sites that utilize real scientific data introduce users to various topics
in the world of science. They act as catalysts, peaking interest in science through strong
and compelling imagery. In addition, thoughtfully designed tools for interpretation and
reference deepen a visitor’s understanding of scientific concepts.
While there are many different approaches and more experimentation and evaluation
needed, sites that utilize scientific data can provide an engaging educational experience
for Web visitors. They can help foster creativity, curiosity, and discovery. Furthermore,
sites that utilize scientific data can directly explain and model the scientific process,
providing opportunities for visitors to explore “real science.” All of these qualities help
science centers fulfill their mission to reach the public and to help them better understand
science and the role that it plays in society.
Acknowledgments
Many thanks to Andrea Bandelli and Michelle Williamson for their valuable assistance
in formulating some of the ideas and examples presented in this chapter.
References
Ansel, J. (2003). Real, simple and new. The Informal Learning Review, No. 63.
Auroras: Your Guide to the Northern and Southern Lights. (n.d.). Retrieved March 18,
2004, from http://www.exploratorium.edu/auroras
Bahls, C., Park, P., Heyman, K., & Hunter, P. (2004). Science museums exhibit renewed
vigor. The Scientist, 18(6).
Bradburne, J.M. (1998). Dinosaurs and white elephants: The science center in the 21st
century. Public Understanding of Science, 7(3), 237-254.
Brinck, T., Gergle, D., & Wood, S. (2002). Designing Web sites that work: Usability and
Web. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
DNA Zoom Interactive. (n.d.). Retrieved March 20, 2004, from http://
www.biotechnology.gov.au/biotechnologyOnline/interactives/
DNA_zoom_interactive.htm
Exploratorium: About Our Web Site. (n.d.). Retrieved March 25, 2004, from http://
www.exploratorium.edu/about/about_web.html
Global Climate Change: Research Explorer. (n.d.). Retrieved March 18, 2004, from
http://www.exploratorium.edu/climate
A Handful of DNA. (n.d.). Retrieved March 20, 2004, from http://www.thetech.org/
exhibits/online/genome/intro4.html
Hein, G. (1991). The museum and the needs of people. Retrieved March 11, 2004, from
http://www.exploratorium.edu/IFI/resources/constructivistlearning.html
Macromedia Flash Player Statistics. (n.d.). Retrieved March 18, 2004, from http://
www.macromedia.com/software/player_census/flashplayer/
NASA Earth Observatory. (n.d.). Retrieved March 18, 2004, from http://
earthobservatory.nasa.gov/
National Science Board. (2002). Science and engineering indicators – 2002. (NSB-02-
1). Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
Nielsen, J. (1993). Usability engineering. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Persson, P.E. (2000, January/February). The changing science center: Sustaining our
mission into the 21st century. ASTC Dimensions.
Pollock, W. (1999, September/October). Science centers on the Web. ASTC Dimensions.
Semper, R. (2001, November/December). Nodes and connections: Science museums in
the network age. ASTC Dimensions.
Semper, R., Wanner, N., Jackson, R., & Bazley, M. (2000). Who’s out there? A pilot user
study of educational Web resources by the Science Learning Network. In D.
Bearman & J. Trant (Eds.), Museums and the Web: Selected paper from an
international conference, 2000.
Solar Data Analysis Center. (n.d.). Retrieved March 18, 2004, from http://
umbra.nascom.nasa.gov/sdac.html
Solar Max: Your Guide to the Year of the Active Sun. (n.d.). Retrieved March 18, 2004,
from http://www.exploratorium.edu/solarmax
The Sun-Earth Connection Education Forum. (2001). The Sun-Earth Connection Edu-
cation Forum [Brochure]. Berkeley, CA: SECEF.
The Sun-Earth Viewer, 2.0. (n.d.). Retrieved March 18, 2004, from http://
ds9.ssl.berkeley.edu/viewer/flash/flash.html
The Tech Museum of Innovation: About Us: Our Mission. (n.d.). Retrieved March 20,
2004, from http://www.thetech.org/about/mission.cfm
What’s a CCD bakeout, anyway? (2004). Retrieved March 11, 2004, from http://
umbra.nascom.nasa.gov/eit/CCD_bakeout.html
Zooming Into DNA. (n.d.). Retrieved March 20, 2004, from http://www.thetech.org/
exhibits/online/ugenetics/zoomIn/index.html
442 About the Authors
About the Authors
Leo Tan Wee Hin has a PhD in marine biology. He holds the concurrent appointments
of director of the National Institute of Education, professor of Biological Sciences in
Nanyang Technological University, and president of the Singapore National Academy
of Science. Prior to this, he was director of the Singapore Science Centre. His research
interests are in the fields of marine biology, science education, museum science,
telecommunications, and transportation. He has published numerous research papers in
international refereed journals.
R. Subramaniam has a PhD in physical chemistry. He is an assistant professor at the

National Institute of Education in Nanyang Technological University and honorary
secretary of the Singapore National Academy of Science. Prior to this, he was acting head
of physical sciences at the Singapore Science Centre. His research interests are in the
fields of physical chemistry, science education, theoretical cosmophysics, museum
science, telecommunications, and transportation He has published several research
papers in international refereed journals.
*****
Steven Allison-Bunnell is senior writer and producer with Educational Web Adventures,
LLP (USA). Along with developing online learning interactives for museums and other
informal education organizations, he has contributed to Eduweb’s research applying
learning theory and evaluation methodologies to online informal learning materials. He
has developed non-fiction online content since 1995, when he was the founding nature
editor of the Discovery Channel Online. He holds a PhD in science and technology
studies from Cornell University, where he studied the history of natural history museum
exhibits, and a BA in biology from the Robert D. Clark Honors College of the University
of Oregon.
About the Authors 443
Jim Angus joined the National Institutes of Health (USA) in 2001 as Web project
manager. He has a diverse background with undergraduate degrees in biology and
geology, and graduate training in immunology and molecular biology. His prior employ-
ment was at the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County where he established
and managed the Museum’s Molecular Systematics Laboratory. In 1992 he became
interested in information technology as applied to scientific research and assisted in the
development of the Museum’s IT infrastructure. In 1994 he produced one of the first
museum Web sites, which was subsequently named “best educational use” at the 1997
Best of the Web awards sponsored by Archives and Museum Informatics. He currently
serves on the board of directors of several professional organizations including the
Museum Education Roundtable and frequently speaks on Web design and accessibility
of Web sites.
Patricia Barbanell holds a doctorate from Columbia University and has extensive
experience in both K-12 education and museum education. She has worked for more than
20 years developing integrated programs that serve both museums and schools. Her
specialties are integrated arts, multicultural programming and technology integration.
She has presented scores of presentations at professional conferences and has pub-
lished several papers in professional journals. She is past president of NYS Art Teachers
and NY Council of Educational Associations and helped to write the NYS Learning
Standards for the Arts.
Saulo Faria Almeida Barretto (saulo@umc.br) teaches mechanical engineering courses

at Universidade de Mogi das Cruzes, São Paulo, Brazil. He received his BS in civil
engineering from Universidade Federal de Sergipe (1986) and his MS in finite element
methods from Universidade de São Paulo (1990). He received his doctoral degree in
boundary element methods from Universidade de São Paulo (1995). In 1999 he moved his
research interests to work with learning Web environments and since then he has been
conducting research projects funded by Brazilian funding agencies (FAPESP and CNPq)
and the European Community.
Alpay Beler is an information systems architect and digital technologies/new media

strategist. He has more than 10 years experience of development and management
experience in the educational and heritage sectors, with particular knowledge of digiti-
zation technologies, e-commerce, R&D, cross platform networks and Web product
design. Alpay has recently completed a major Web infrastructure at The Science Museum
(London), managing the development of a £1.2m government-funded Web site that
draws on the resources of three national museums and which offers personalized
activities and community building tools. He was also a key team member of a pilot project
for educational content delivery to mobile phones, consulted on the JPEG2000 standard
for the British Standards Institution, and currently is responsible for the implementation
of an online student information system at Birkbeck College.
Jim Bennett is the director of the Museum of the History of Science, University of Oxford
(UK), which has a strong commitment to making its exhibitions and collections available
on the Web. He also directs the master’s course offered by the Museum. Previously Jim
was at the Whipple Museum of the History of Science, University of Cambridge. He is
attached to Linacre College and the Faculty of Modern History at the University of
Oxford. His research work is on the history of practical mathematics from the sixteenth
to the eighteenth century, the history of scientific instruments and the history of
astronomy.
Roxane Bernier has been a researcher at the Department of Sociology of Université de

Montréal (Canada) since 1999 and investigates visitors’ perception with regards to the
usability of information technologies in cultural institutions. She was affiliated three
years with the Centre d’Étude et de Recherche sur les Expositions et les Musées at
Université Jean Monnet (France) in the mid-1990s and since 2003 has been a fellow
member at the Centre Interuniversitaire de Recherches sur les Sciences et la Technologie
in Quebec. Dr. Bernier has worked as a consultant for the Direction des musées de France,
the Cité des Sciences et de l’Industrie in Paris, the Quebec Museum of Civilization in
Quebec city, the Canadian Museum of Civilization in Gatineau, and more recently for the
Canadian Heritage Information Network in doing audience analysis. She coordinated a
special issue on IT for the European museology journal Publics et Musées and contrib-
uted to peer-reviewed journals like the Educational Computing Research, Behavior and
Information Technology and Program. Additionally, Bernier was invited to write articles
for the cyberart magazines Parachute and Archée as well as participated in international
conferences including CATaC 2000, AoIR 2001, Museums and the Web 2002 & 2003 and
the Visitors Studies Association Conference 2004.
Bronwyn Bevan is director of the Center for Informal Learning and Schools, which is
based at the Exploratorium in San Francisco. Her work focuses on partnerships between
cultural institutions, science agencies, and schools. Bevan has also conducted numer-
ous research and evaluation studies examining arts integration into the K-12 curriculum,
and the role of arts-based cultural institutions in supporting instructional change
Ann Borda has held strategic and operational roles in academic and cultural organiza-
tions and recently held the position of head of multimedia collections at The Science
Museum, London. Among the projects in which Ann has been involved are Fathom.com,
an e-learning collaboration led by Columbia University, and a large-scale Web initiative
to bring cultural collections online across several national organizations in the UK. Ann
received her PhD at the University of London in Information Science (1999) and has
published in the areas of e-learning, informatics, metadata applications and content
delivery. Ann is the chair of the CIDOC multimedia group and assistant editor of the
journal Multimedia and Information Technology (MmIT) (www.mmit.org.uk). Currently
she is a visiting research fellow at the Institute for Computing Research, London South
Bank University.
Jonathan P. Bowen (www.jpbowen.com) is professor of computing at London South

Bank University, where he is deputy director of the Institute for Computing Research.
Previously he was at the University of Reading, the Oxford University Computing
Laboratory and Imperial College. He has been involved with the field of computing in both
industry and academia since 1977. As well as computer science, his interests also extend
to online museums. Bowen established the Virtual Library museums pages (VLmp) in
1994, a Web-based directory of museum Web sites worldwide that has since been
adopted by the International Council of Museums (ICOM). He was honorary chair at the
first Museums and the Web conference in 1997 and has given presentations at each
conference since then. He guest edited two special issues of the Museums International
journal concerning online museums. In 2002, Bowen founded Museophile Limited
(www.museophile.com), a spinout company from London South Bank University with the
aim to help museums online, especially in the areas of accessibility, discussion forums
and collaborative e-commerce. Bowen is a fellow of the Royal Society for the Arts and
holds an MA in engineering science from Oxford University.
Horace Dediu is a software developer and programmer who founded the consulting firm
Handheld Media (USA) in 2001. Horace has published articles in the areas of information
retrieval theory and electronic document formats. He teaches corporate seminars on
product usability and mobile information access. Horace researches user interface
design and human factors in computing, and helped shape the Open Ebook file format
standards. His ability to explain the technology and its potential for broadening
information access services, have made him a popular speaker at conferences such as
Seybold and Library. In addition, Horace counts as clients companies such as Nokia, JP
Morgan Chase and Verizon.
Suzanne Dewald has been the development officer of the Schenectady City School
District (USA) for more than a decade and has led the authoring of dozens of successful
grants that have helped to move the Schenectady City Schools into a leadership role in
integrated technologies. She has 20 years of experience authoring funded programs and
directing projects.
Nicoletta Di Blas graduated in classics and obtained a PhD in linguistic sciences from
the Catholic University of Milan, Italy. She currently teaches theory of communication
at the Polytechnic of Milan. Her research interests focus on linguistic themes, on
usability and advanced educational applications, particularly in the cultural heritage
field.
Lynn D. Dierking is associate director at the Institute for Learning Innovation (USA)
and completed her PhD at the University of Florida. She is internationally recognized for
her research on the behavior and learning of children, families and adults in free-choice
learning settings and has published and spoken extensively in these areas. Her research
priorities include the long-term impact of free-choice learning experiences on individuals
and families and the development and evaluation of community-based programs. Dr.
Dierking has worked in a variety of settings: the Smithsonian Office of Educational

Research, University of Maryland’s College of Education and at the Smithsonian’s
National Museum of American History.
Denise P. Domizi is a doctoral student in instructional technology at The University of

Georgia (UGA) (USA). She holds a BA in psychology (1991) and an MEd in instructional
technology (2003), also from UGA. Her research interests include: informal learning
environments, designing and implementing technology-infused learning opportunities
in science centers and museums, and learning communities. Ms. Domizi is currently
employed as a research assistant in the Learning and Performance Support Laboratory
at UGA.
Michael Douma is the executive director of IDEA (the Institute for Dynamic Educational
Advancement) (USA) where he designs and implements information systems that use
technology to facilitate the learning process. His research and teaching interests center
on interactive teaching methods, user interface design, and accessibility. Michael has
presented papers on the interface between learning and technology in Archimuse
“Museums and the Web,” American Chemical Society, the British Museum, and Centre
de la Recherche Scientifique. Through IDEA, Michael recently collaborated on educa-
tional initiatives with Brandeis University, Native American Cancer Research, the
National Gallery of Art, and the Prado Museum (Madrid).
John Falco has served as superintendent of the 9,000 student urban school system of
Schenectady, NY for three years and served for six years as deputy superintendent. In
addition to Project VIEW, he has led development of several transformational projects
in the Schenectady Schools’ Capital Region Science Education Partnership (CRSEP)
(USA), a multi-district Local Systemic Change Initiative funded by the National Science
Foundation. Dr. Falco has been named NYSCATE Superintendent of the Year for
outstanding leadership in integrating technology. Dr. Falco holds a doctorate in
educational administration from Seton Hall University, where his research centered on
improving reading skills for struggling emergent readers.
Silvia Filippini-Fantoni is a research student at the Sorbonne University in Paris, where

she is working on her PhD based on Personalisation through IT in museums. She
graduated in contemporary history from the University of Milan and has experience in
working as a researcher at the European Centre for Digital Communication (Heerlen, The
Netherlands), the McLuhan Institute (Maastricht, The Netherlands) and the Louvre
Museum (Paris), where she focused on developing personalization applications for the
new Web site. The results of work carried out so far have been presented at international
conferences and seminars (EVA, ICHIM, Museums and the Web), where positive
contributions toward the hypothesis have already been received and have led to
interesting collaborations with Dédale on a European Union study about Cultural
Institutions as New Learning Environments, La Cité des Sciences et de l’Industrie in
Paris and the Canadian Heritage Information Network (CHIN).
Stefan Göbel received a diploma in computer science at the Technical University of

Darmstadt, Germany in 1997. He worked as a researcher in the GIS Department at the
Fraunhofer-Institute for Computer Graphics. The topic of his graduation deals with
graphic-interactive user guidance to geospatial data archives. Since July 2002 he has
been head of the Digital Storytelling Department at ZGDV Darmstadt e.V. Here, he is the
project leader of numerous activities and projects within the research field of interactive
digital storytelling and edutainment applications. Since 2003, he has chaired the inter-
national conference “Technologies in Interactive Digital Storytelling and Entertain-
ment” (TIDSE) and the Forum for Knowledge Media Design (KMD-Forum) as speaker.
Kathryn Haley Goldman, MA, is a senior researcher at the Institute for Learning
Innovation (USA). She has a bachelor’s degree in anthropology from Bryn Mawr College
and has extensive training in educational measurement, statistics and evaluation in
learning and technology. She has worked on evaluation projects with the National
Aquarium in Baltimore, Disney’s Animal Kingdom, and the Cleveland Museum of Art.
Previously Haley Goldman worked in several departments of the U.S. Holocaust Memo-
rial Museum, primarily concentrating on audience research. Her research priorities
include the long-term impact of museum visits and investigation of free-choice learning
in new media environments.
Michael J. Hannafin is the Charles H. Wheatley-Georgia research alliance eminent

scholar in technology-enhanced learning, professor of instructional technology, and
director of the Learning and Performance Support Laboratory (LPSL) at the University
of Georgia (USA) — positions he has held since 1995. After earning his doctorate in
educational technology from Arizona State University in 1981, he held academic posi-
tions at the University of Colorado, Penn State University and Florida State University,
and directed centers at both Penn State and Florida State. As director of the LPSL, he
provides leadership for and supports the efforts of several university research scientists,
technical support staff, and graduate students as they identify, pursue, and implement
R&D initiatives related to learning and performing with technology. He has served as
principal investigator (PI) or co-PI on research funded by the U.S. National Science
Foundation, Department of Education, and the Department of Defense as well as through
several private foundations. Dr. Hannafin has published more than 100 journal articles,
textbooks, chapters and reviews, and has earned international awards for both journal
articles and textbooks. He has given numerous invited addresses throughout the world
related to research focusing on developing and testing frameworks for the design of
student-centered learning environments. His current work includes a focus on evidence-
based inquiry — the use of direct evidence featuring real-time video capture, coding, and
analysis of performance data in assessing the effectiveness of learning environments.
Susan Hazan is currently curator of new media and head of the Internet Office at the Israel
Museum, Jerusalem (since 1992), identifying, and implementing electronic architectures
for the gallery, and outreach programs. Selected projects include QuickTime, VRML
environments, video conferencing, an interactive, and online school curriculum,
(museum@school), as well as the comprehensive institutional Web site in English,
Hebrew, Russian and Arabic. Her master’s and PhD research at Goldsmiths College,
University of London in Media and Communications focuses on electronic architectures
in the contemporary museum. Hazan has published numerous publications on new media
in education, art, and museums and regularly presents at international conferences.
Janette R. Hill, PhD, is an associate professor of instructional technology in the College

of Education, University of Georgia (UGA) (USA). Dr. Hill holds a BA in communications
from the University of North Florida in Jacksonville (1988), and an MSLS in library and
information science from The Florida State University (1990), where she also completed
a PhD in instructional systems design in 1995. Her research areas include community
building in virtual environments, resource based learning, and the use of information
technologies for purposes of learning. Dr. Hill teaches undergraduate and graduate level
courses in the instructional technology program at UGA.
Andrew Hodges was born in London in 1949 and studied mathematics at the University
of Cambridge. His postgraduate and postdoctoral work was with Sir Roger Penrose in the
development of twistor theory, applicable to problems in fundamental physics. He is now
attached to the Mathematical Institute at the University of Oxford (UK) and is a lecturer
at Wadham College, Oxford. His interest in the computing pioneer Alan Turing developed
partly through mathematics. His magnum opus is the definitive biography entitled Alan
Turing: The Enigma.
Anja Hoffmann holds a diploma degree in media system design from the University of
Applied Sciences in Darmstadt, Germany. As a member of the Digital Storytelling Group
at the Computer Graphics Centre, she has conducted research in this area since 1998. Her
interests concentrate on interactive digital storytelling and interaction design for
augmented and mixed reality applications. She has devised concepts and interfaces for
digital systems, which allow users to create and experience interactive narratives. Her
understanding of human cognition, technology and design led her to focus on user-
centred knowledge media design.
Ido Iurgel has a master’s degree in philosophy, social psychology and linguistics from
the Ruhr-University of Bochum, and a master’s (“Diplom”) in computer sciences from the
Technische Universität Darmstadt. His special interest is in the integration of humanistic
sciences and computer science. From 1995 to 1996, he worked in Brazil, his native country,
in the industrial application of computer graphics. In 1996, he became a member of the
research group “Phenomenology and Contemporary French Philosophy,” led by Profes-
sor B. Waldenfels at the University of Bochum. From 1996 to 1999, he was granted a
postgraduate research scholarship from the German Research Council (“Deutsche
Forschungsgemeinschaft”) and worked on philosophy of emotion and metaphor. From
1999 on, he was a research assistant at the Department of Digital Storytelling at the ZGDV
in Darmstadt, where he has been developing graphics and AI of virtual characters. He
finalized his degree in computer sciences with a master about virtual personalities in a
mixed virtual/real human dialogue group. Since 2002, he has been a full time scientist in
the department, working within several projects that employ virtual humans for education
and entertainment.
Billie J. Jones is assistant director for writing support at Shippensburg University

(USA), in Shippensburg, Pennsylvania. She completed her doctoral work at Bowling
Green State University in 1998, and has been teaching writing in Pennsylvania since then.
Her training in rhetorical analysis has prepared her to look at subjects as diverse as trauma
narratives, memorials and museums, including their Web presences. In all of this work,
she treats these diverse subjects as rhetorical texts that make meaning through their
words and design.
Andreas Lorenz completed his master’s degree in computer science at the University of
Kaiserslautern (Germany) in 2001, and joined the research group “Information in Context”
at the Fraunhofer-Institute for Applied Information Technology in Sankt Augustin
(Germany) in spring 2002. He is a research associate and commenced his PhD in the
research field of multi-agent systems. His further research interests include user-
adaptive systems, mobile and nomadic systems, evolutionary algorithms, and software
engineering. He was responsible for software-design and implementation in the LISTEN-
project.
Daniel Tan Teck Meng graduated with a BSc (Honors) from the National University of
Singapore, majoring in zoology. He is currently a senior manager (Exhibition Group) at
the Singapore Science Centre. Prior to this, he was chief operations officer of ChainFusion
Ltd., a software development house specializing in the development of enterprise level
Web applications for major multinational corporations. Earlier, he had spect five years
as a senior scientific officer at the Singapore Science Centre, developing life sciences
programs and organizing various scientific exhibitions and national scientific competi-
tions.
Dianna Newman is associate professor at the University at Albany (SUNY) and director
of The Evaluation Consortium at Albany. She has served on the board of directors for
the American Evaluation Association; assisted in writing the Guiding Principles for
Evaluators which serve as the professional guidelines for practice, and is currently on
the national Joint Committee for Standards in Evaluation. She has served as evaluator
for several federal and state funded technology-based curriculum integration grants and
is currently developing an innovative model of evaluation that will document systems
change resulting from technology-based curriculum integration in K-12 and higher
education settings.
Joan C. Nordbotten is an associate professor in information and media science at the

University of Bergen, Norway. Her main interests include multimedia database manage-
ment, HCI (human computer interaction), and Web exhibit construction. She teaches and
has published numerous papers on these topics. She has also functioned as a judge in
several Web exhibit competitions. She currently heads the “Virtual Exhibits on Demand”
project, documented at http://nordbotten.ifi.uib.no/VirtualMuseum/VMwebSite/

VEDweb-site.htm, in collaboration with Bergen Museum. The project has funding from
the Norwegian Research Council to develop tools for integration and presentation of
multimedia data from multiple museum sources.
Teresa Numerico (PhD, history of science) teaches humanities computing courses at the
Philosophy Faculty, Computing for Museums in the Science Museums Management
master’s courses of the University of Bologna (Italy) and new media theory and
techniques at the University of Salerno. She co-edited (with A. Vespignani) Informatica
per le Scienze Umanistiche (Computer Science for Humanities Studies, Mulino, 2003),
has published various papers on the history and philosophy of computer science and
is about to publish a book on Alan Turing and Machine Intelligence. She has also
worked as a business development and marketing manager for different media companies.
Currently she is a visiting researcher at London South Bank University, having been
awarded a Leverhulme Fellowship.
Paolo Paolini is a full professor at the Polytechnic of Milan, Italy, and a lecturer at the
University of Italian Switzerland. He has a master’s degree and a PhD in computer science
from the University of California in Los Angeles (UCLA). He has been active in the
following research fields: database modeling and systems, document modeling, hypertext
and multimedia models, multimedia authoring systems, design methods for the Web and
multi-channel applications. He is the scientific coordinator of NET-LAB, a network of
laboratories dedicated to researching advanced communication by means of new
technologies. NET-LAB includes HOC-LAB (Polytechnic of Milan, Milan and Como
campuses), TEC-LAB (University of Italian Switzerland) and SET-LAB (University of
Lecce, Italy).
Renata Piazzalunga is currently president of the Information Technology Research

Institute, Brazil. She received her BS in architecture and urbanization from Universidade
de São Paulo (USP) in 1991 and her MSc in urban design, also from USP in 1998. She
received her doctoral degree in cyberspace architecture at USP. She is currently engaged
in researching how the information society can influence the way of creating spaces and
representations in architecture. She is also engaged in researching interactive computer-
based learning environments involving cognition systems development for the Web.
Caterina Poggi is a PhD student in information engineering at the Polytechnic of Milan,

Italy. She graduated in communication science at the University of Italian Switzerland
in Lugano. Her research interests focus on multimedia applications for edutainment,
specifically 3-D virtual worlds for education, virtual
Hannu Salmi has been working since 1984 at Heureka, Finnish Science Centre, currently
as the head of research and development. He completed his PhD at the University of
Helsinki, Faculty of Education (1993). The main theme of his research has been informal
learning, motivation and science education. Recently he has been in charge of several
European projects related to public understanding of science and research of scientific
literacy. These projects focus on developing new types of ICT-based educational
solutions and open learning environments
David T. Schaller is principal and founding partner of Educational Web Adventures, LLP
(USA), based in St. Paul, MN. He is responsible for the overall creative direction of the
company and the perpetual quest for the sweet spot where learning theory, Web
technology, and fun meet. Dave has over 15 years of experience in natural history and
social science interpretation, working in print, exhibit, and Web media. In recent years
he has led Eduweb’s research and evaluation efforts, publishing several papers and
frequently presenting at museum conferences. Dave holds an MA in geography and
museum studies from the University of Minnesota and a BA in humanities from
Macalester College.
Oliver Schneider holds a diploma degree in television technology from the University
of Applied Sciences, Wiesbaden, Germany. His special research interest are narrative and
authoring environments. From 1991 to 2000 he worked as a sound engineer and from 1996
to 2000 he worked also as a camera assistant. Additionally he had been a trainer for camera
assistants from 1997 to 2000. From 1999 to 2000 he was responsible for a film compositing
software as an application engineer. Since 2000, he is a full time scientist at the
Department of Digital Storytelling at the ZGDV Darmstadt e.V. (Germany) and from 2002
he has held a supplementary teaching position for sound engineering at the University
of Applied Sciences in Ulm/Germany.
Jim Spadaccini, Founder of Ideum (USA) (www.ideum.com), has managed and directed
a wide range of media exhibits and Web sites for a diverse set of clients. Former director
of Interactive Media at the Exploratorium in San Francisco, Jim was a major contributor,
lead designer, and manager of the three-time Webby award-winning Exploratorium Web
site (Best Science Site 1997-1999). He has received a Smithsonian Computerworld Award
(1999) and an Association of Science and Technology Centers Award for Innovation
(2000). Jim taught for San Francisco State’s Multimedia Studies Program from 1995 to 2003
and more recently has been teaching for the Cultural Resource Management Program at
University of Victoria, British Columbia.
Marcus Specht is a post doctoral researcher at the Fraunhofer-Institute for Applied

Information Technology, Germany. He is head of the Mobile Knowledge Group and
coordinator of the European project RAFT on field trip support for mobile collaboration.
He received an MS in psychology and a PhD in adaptive learning technology from the
University of Trier (Germany). He has rich experience in intelligent tutoring systems and
the integration of ITS and Web-based tutoring adaptive hypermedia, ITS (ELM-ART,
InterBook, AST) and ubiquitous e-learning. His main research interests are adaptive
learning and training systems, knowledge management, contextualized computing, and
intelligent interfaces. He coordinated the technical development of a highly scalable e-
learning platform for design and architecture in the EU-founded WINDS project and was
project leader of the LISTEN project on audio augmented environments.
Ramesh Srinivasan is a doctoral candidate at the Harvard Graduate School of Design

(USA). His research is focused on the interactions between digital media, communities,
education and learning, and the built environment. He has published his research in
several conference proceedings and journals including the Journal of Knowledge
Management, Journal of Digital Libraries, and Journal of Urban Technology (upcom-
ing). Srinivasan holds an MS degree from the MIT Media Lab and a BS from Stanford
University. He is the designer and creator of several interactive media projects including
PhotoGlas, a Web-based news photomontage system; Village Voice, a digital community
system that employed dynamic collage and community-driven architectures to connect
Somali refugees within the Boston area to re-connect and preserve their histories and
cultures; Public Body, a physical installation created for the pedestrians within a tunnel
in downtown Boston, and Tribal Peace, an intertribal media system designed to share
knowledge, and cultural narratives across a dispersed set of Native American reserva-
tions.
Andreas Zimmermann is a research associate and PhD candidate at the Fraunhofer-

Institute for Applied Information Technology in Sankt Augustin (Germany). He received
an MS in computer science from the University of Kaiserslautern (Germany) in 2000. After
one year of business work he joined the research group “Information in Context” to
acquire his doctoral degree in artificial intelligence. His further research interests include
areas like user modeling, personalization, contextualization and nomadic systems. He
was responsible for user modeling and implementation of context-awareness in the EU-
founded LISTEN-project.
Index 453
Index
Symbols artificial intelligence 206

artistic interventions 97
3D graphics 309 Association of Science-Technology
3D modeling 142 Centers 369
asynchronous 95
A audio streaming 141
accessibility 151, 275 augmentation layer 54
accessible museum Web sites 368 augmented reality 205, 257
accountability 97 authenticity 179
active learning 128, 236 authoring process 193
active zones 233 avatar 312
actual visit 282
adaptability 273
B
adaptive annotation 54 bar-coded ticket 283
adaptive Berkeley Museum of Paleontology 373
content 274 Best of the Web competition 367
hiding 54 blogs 100, 155
navigation support 54 born digital resources 385
ordering 54 brochureware 369
presentation 54 broker 55
adaptivity 273
AHA Project 277 C
analogy 173
animation 128 captions 133
antenna 382 case studies 371
art 94 casual information seekers 228
Cats! exhibit 373
454 Index
Center for Informal Learning and Schools E

69
Cité des Sciences et de l’Industrie 283 e-community 276
cognition 195 e-learning
cognitive and affective domains 176 center 229
collaborations 99 environments 394
collaborative filtering 274 site 229
color coding 137 e-mail 155
community 155, 384 education 367
community knowledge 95 educational programs 394
computer graphics 157 edutainment 191
computer information points 382 effectiveness 128
constructivist 128, 195, 295 Electronic Guidebook Research Project 284
learning 164 electronic interactives 164
consumer knowledge 55 ELENA project 278
content 147 emotion 195
databases 228 empowerment 97
personalization 394 entertainment 194
repository 375 Epact database 377
-based filtering 274 ethical implications 409
-management system 52 evidence 156
context parameters 57 exhiblets 381
contextual model of learning 28 experimentation 94
cookies 274 expert users 168
creative play 168 expertise knowledge 56
cultural institutions 69 Exploratorium 69, 94, 284, 396
culture 94
customization 273
F
cyborg 96 feminist critique 96
formal e-learning 277
D forums 155
Dana Centre 383 frame of mind 262
data modeling 139 Franklin Institute 368
databases 152 free-choice learning 28, 164
decision trees 151
designing Interfaces 260
G
digital simulations 172 game 237
distributed authorship 100 global climate change 86, 428
DNA 435 goal based scenario 183
domain Gopher 372
knowledge 55 graphical user interface 128
model 55
dramaturgy 193 H
DVD 97
dynamic exhibits 236 Haraway, D. 96
home page 373
Index 455
HTML (hypertext markup language) 374 site 229

Hubble Space Telescope 397 software technologies 398
human storytelling 193
cognition 173 videoconferencing 293
element 275 interactives 97, 382
-computer interaction 144 interactivity 128, 158
hyperbolic magnification 144 interface 144, 222, 268
hyperlinked story 230 International Council of Museums 370
hypertext 98 Internet users 229
InTouch 383
I
J
icons 145
immersion 193 JANET academic network 380
implementation 128 Jodi Mattes Access Award 368
In Touch project 282
individual interest 277 K
individualized exploration 394 K-12 293
informal knowledge 94, 199
e-learning 278 delivery 147
learning environments 111 -based society 414
information
architecture 164, 217 L
brokering 55
browsing 230 La Cité des Science et de l’Industrie 369,
dissemination 230 396
filtering 52 learning 29
gathering 230 communities 155, 295
items 56 environment 192
presentation 128, 246 methods 191
retrieval 243 styles 394
seekers 229 -by-doing 236
Ingenious project 280 lifelong learners 281
innovative live demonstrations 395
interface 97 Live@Exploratorium 80, 397
systems 95 localization 152
inquiry process 172 location model 54
integrated databases 244 log analysis 348
integration schema 245 London Science Museum 282
intelligent agents 225
intent participation 70
M
interaction 216 magic lens 130
interactive magnifying glass 233
exhibit 236, 397 marketing 194
experience 192 mediation approach 369
learning 228 meta-narratives 95
museum exhibits 164 metadata 375
456 Index
microsite 384 organization 147

mixed reality 206 origins 80
MMS 383
modernity 94 P
multi-tiered exhibits 231 PDA (personal digital assistant) 283
multidisciplinary approach 395 pedagogic 94
multimedia 164, 199 pedagogical attainments 396
museum personal agenda 285
displays 367 personalization 53, 151, 273, 383
exhibit 231 physical
learning collaborative 72 phenomena 165
mediators 395 principle 171
Museum of Science & Industry 369 point to point videoconferencing 305
Museum of the History of Science 376 popular culture 97
museum-based learning 70 post-visit experience 282
MyExploratorium 284 pre-visit phase 285
N previous knowledge 276
problem solving 230
narrative 178 public awareness 413
National Grid for Learning 388 public understanding of research 395
National Museum of Ethnology 286
National Museum of Science & Industry Q
380 qualitative 133
National Science Foundation 372 quantitative 134
Natural History Museum 380
Natural History Museum of Los Angeles R
County 371
navigating 143 ratings 155
navigation bar 231 real world learning 149
networked events 397 real-case scenarios 396
NMSI Picture Library 383 real-life 140
NOF-digitise program 384 real-time demonstrations 394
resource-based learning 111
O rhetoric 3
role-play game 171
on-demand exhibits 239 rule-based filtering 274
online
activities 396 S
audience 400
collaborations 95 SAGRES system 278
communities 276 San Francisco Exploratorium 368
conferences 394 Science and Society Picture Library 384
interactives 164 science centers 111, 348, 424
Online Register of Scientific Instruments Science Learning Network 368
378 science museum 381
ontology 220 science museum education 368
Oppenheimer, F. 94 Science Museum of Minnesota 368
Index 457
science museum Web sites 367 thumbnail index 244

scientific toolglass 130
discourse 95 toolkits 386
discoveries 395 topical debates 414
imagery 424 training 200
method 180 TryScience 368
screen design 150 Turing, A. 386
searching 150 Turing machine demonstration 388
semantic matching 241
simulated realities 257 U
simulating 101 underlying principle 172
simulation 139, 172, 238 understanding 177
single-tiered exhibits 231 University of Oxford 376
site map 231, 373 usability 164, 412
situated knowledge 96 user
situational interest 277 friendly 144
SMS 383 interface 144
social model 55
aspects 207 profile 273
information filtering agents 217
issues 410 V
policy 175
relevance 175 video games 164
Solar Max 427 virtual
space model 54 characters 199
spherical magnification 143 classroom 309
Spyglass 130 communities 155
STEM Project 381 devices 140
stereotypes 63 dimension 253
storyboards 396 exhibit 229
storytelling 192 experiments 238
student-centered learning 147 galleries 371
subsequent experience 277 library museums pages 370
Sun-Earth Viewer 431 museum 98, 266, 389
surface phenomenon 172 Museum of Computing 370
symbolic intervention 97 projects 238
synchronous 95 Science Center 28
systematized knowledge 94 science centers 2, 29
science museums 7
T tour 233
visitors 396
teacher’s guides 149 worlds 195
technological innovations 409 Visite Plus service 283
text databases 152 visualise 95
text Only 369 voting 155
text-mining 348 VRML 98, 382
textbook 231
Idea Group
New Releases from Idea Group Reference REFERENCE
The Premier Reference Source for Information Science and Technology Research
ENCYCLOPEDIA OF
ENCYCLOPEDIA OF INFORMATION SCIENCE
DATA WAREHOUSING AND TECHNOLOGY
AND MINING AVAILABLE NOW!
Edited by: John Wang,
Montclair State University, USA
Two-Volume Set • April 2005 • 1700 pp
ISBN: 1-59140-557-2; US $495.00 h/c
Pre-Publication Price: US $425.00*
*Pre-pub price is good through one month
after the publication date
Provides a comprehensive, critical and descriptive exami-

nation of concepts, issues, trends, and challenges in this Five-Volume Set • January 2005 • 3807 pp
ISBN: 1-59140-553-X; US $1125.00 h/c
rapidly expanding field of data warehousing and mining
A single source of knowledge and latest discoveries in the ENCYCLOPEDIA OF
field, consisting of more than 350 contributors from 32 DATABASE TECHNOLOGIES
countries AND APPLICATIONS
Offers in-depth coverage of evolutions, theories, method-
ologies, functionalities, and applications of DWM in such
interdisciplinary industries as healthcare informatics, artifi-
cial intelligence, financial modeling, and applied statistics
Supplies over 1,300 terms and definitions, and more than
3,200 references
April 2005 • 650 pp

ISBN: 1-59140-560-2; US $275.00 h/c
ENCYCLOPEDIA OF Pre-Publication Price: US $235.00*
*Pre-publication price good through
DISTANCE LEARNING one month after publication date
Four-Volume Set • April 2005 • 2500+ pp

ISBN: 1-59140-555-6; US $995.00 h/c ENCYCLOPEDIA OF
Pre-Pub Price: US $850.00* MULTIMEDIA TECHNOLOGY
*Pre-pub price is good through one
month after the publication date AND NETWORKING
More than 450 international contributors provide exten-

sive coverage of topics such as workforce training,
accessing education, digital divide, and the evolution of
distance and online education into a multibillion dollar
enterprise
Offers over 3,000 terms and definitions and more than
6,000 references in the field of distance learning April 2005 • 650 pp
ISBN: 1-59140-561-0; US $275.00 h/c
Excellent source of comprehensive knowledge and liter- Pre-Publication Price: US $235.00*
*Pre-pub price is good through
ature on the topic of distance learning programs one month after publication date
Provides the most comprehensive coverage of the issues,

concepts, trends, and technologies of distance learning www.idea-group-ref.com
Idea Group Reference is pleased to offer complimentary access to the electronic version
for the life of edition when your library purchases a print copy of an encyclopedia
For a complete catalog of our new & upcoming encyclopedias, please contact:
701 E. Chocolate Ave., Suite 200 • Hershey PA 17033, USA • 1-866-342-6657 (toll free) • cust@idea-group.com

(Leo Tan Wee Hin (Editor), R. Subramaniam (Editor)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

(Leo Tan Wee Hin (Editor), R. Subramaniam (Editor)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

(Leo Tan Wee Hin (Editor), R. Subramaniam (Editor)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

E-Learning and

Leo Tan Wee Hin

Information Science Publishing

Published in the United States of America by

and in the United Kingdom by

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

British Cataloguing in Publication Data

Foreword ....................................................................................................................... vii

Section I: Theoretical Issues

Chapter I. Establishing Identification in Virtual Science Museums: Creating

Chapter III. Contextualized Virtual Science Centers ................................................ 51

Chapter VI. Resource-Based Learning and Informal Learning Environments:

Section II: Design Considerations

Chapter VII. Interactivity Techniques: Practical Suggestions for Interactive

Chapter VIII. From the Physical to the Virtual: Bringing Free-Choice

Chapter IX. Storytelling-Based Edutainment Applications ...................................... 190

Chapter X. Revolutionizing Information Architectures within

Chapter XI. From Information Dissemination to Information Gathering:

Chapter XII. Challenges in Virtual Environment Design: An Architectural

Chapter XIV. E-Learning and Virtual Science Centers: Designing Technology

Section III: Case Studies

Chapter XVI. Open Learning Environments: Combining Web-Based Virtual

About the Authors ..................................................................................................... 442

Index ........................................................................................................................ 453

Four decades ago, a few visionaries — Frank Oppenheimer of the Exploratorium a

Bill Peters, Chief Executive Officer

Leo Tan Wee Hin and R. Subramaniam

Leo Tan Wee Hin and R. Subramaniam

a collection as a museum’s commodity, Eilean Hooper-Greenhill (1995) concludes that

The Concept of Identification

Issues of Audience and Ethos

They have certain expectations of comfort and convenience . . . [and he cautions

Identification in Virtual Science Centers

In graphic form and function, the newspaper is coming to resemble a computer

Discussing the role of “real-time architecture” of “a physical destination place” (Sirefman,

Figure 1. Franklin Institute Online welcome page (http://www.fi.edu/tfi/)

The Franklin Institute Online

Figure 2. Franklin Institute “Explore” page (http://sln.fi.edu/exploreF.html)

Figure 3. Science Museum welcome page (http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/)

Science Museum (UK)

Figure 4. Science Museum “Science of Sport” site (http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/

Figure 5. Science Museum “Launchpad” comments (http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/

Figure 6. Exploratorium Welcome Page (http://www.exploratorium.edu)

Figure 7. Exploratorium “Educate” (http://www.exploratorium.edu/educate/

Figure 8. Exploratorium “Explore” (http://www.exploratorium.edu/explore/

feature, “Ten Cool Sites” (http://www.exploratorium.edu/learning_studio/

a new kind of museum altogether, born from the philosophies of self-directed

Figure 9. Leonardo: Interactive Virtual Science Museum (http://www.ba.infn.it/~zito/

Leonardo: Interactive Virtual Science

Several Final Caveats

possible obstacle is to make mention of special system requirements at the beginning of

Checklist for Virtual Science Center Web Designers

Considerations that Demonstrate Center’s Credibility (Ethos)

• Make clear any relationship(s) with physical-space institutions (e.g., museums,

• Note partnerships with other institutions, agencies, and/or organizations [e.g.,

Considerations that Demonstrate Goodwill Toward One’s Audience

• Offer a balance of resources for physical-space and virtual visitors

Establishing Identification with Users Will

• Create supportive learning environment