Eslam Nofal
Georgia Panagiotidou
Skip Abstract Section
Abstract
Museums offer an ideal environment for informal cultural learning on heritage artifacts, where visitors get engaged in learning due to an intrinsic motivation. Sharing the museum space among visitors allows for collective learning experiences and socializing with each other. Museums aim to design and deploy Tangible User Interfaces (TUIs) in order to embrace the physical materialities of artifacts in the visiting experience. TUIs are believed to be more collaborative, attract more visitors, and persuade them to explore further. Cultural learning on heritage artifacts is particularly meaningful from the early age when opinions and attitudes are shaped. Museums accordingly follow a gamification approach (i.e., using game elements in a non-game context) to provide a collaborative and entertaining learning experience to young visitors. In this study, we investigate the implications of merging these two approaches in order to take advantage of the qualities of both TUIs and gamification in an educational museum context.
Accordingly, we present TouchTomb and its evaluation in a real-world museum environment. TouchTomb is a situated tangible gamification installation that aims to enhance informal cultural learning for young visitors and to foster engagement and collaboration among them. The basis of the installation is a shared progress bar and three games with different spatial configurations, embedded into a custom fabricated replica of an original ancient Egyptian tomb-chapel wall on a 1:1 scale. Our field study involved 14 school visits with a total number of 190 school pupils (from 10 to 14 years old). We deployed a mixed-method evaluation to investigate how such a tangible gamification approach entertains and educates 15 pupils collectively for a maximum of 15 minutes, including the evaluation procedures. We particularly investigated how the different spatial configurations of the game setups influenced the stages of pupils’ cultural learning, and the levels of engagement and collaboration among them. We conclude the article by discussing the qualities of tangible gamification and its role in facilitating cultural learning. For instance, cultural learning is enhanced by situating heritage artifacts in the experience, and embedding learning in the reward system. Engagement and collaboration among visitors are fostered by creating a sense of ownership and designing a diversity of goals.
- F. R. H. Andrade, R. Mizoguchi, and S. Isotani. 2016. The bright and dark sides of gamification. In Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITS’16), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 9684, A. Micarelli, J. Stamper, K. Panourgia (Eds.). Springer, 176--186. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-39583-8_17Google Scholar
Digital Library
- F. Bellotti, R. Berta, A. De Gloria, A. D'ursi, and V. Fiore. 2012. A serious game model for cultural heritage. Journal on Computing and Cultural Heritage (JOCCH) 5, 4 (2012), 1--27. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2399180.2399185Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. B. Carvalho, F. Bellotti, R. Berta, A. De Gloria, C. I. Sedano, J. B. Hauge, J. Hu, and M. Rauterberg. 2015. An activity theory-based model for serious games analysis and conceptual design. Computers 8 Education 87 (2015), 166--181. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.03.023Google ScholarDigital Library
- S. Claes and A. Vande Moere. 2015. The role of tangible interaction in exploring information on public visualization displays. In Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Pervasive Displays (PerDis’15), 201--207. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2757710.2757733Google ScholarDigital Library
- T. Coenen, L. Mostmans, and K. Naessens. 2013. MuseUs: Case study of a pervasive cultural heritage serious game. Journal on Computing and Cultural Heritage (JOCCH) - Special Issue on Serious Games for Cultural Heritage 6, 2 (2013), 8. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2460376.2460379Google ScholarDigital Library
- C. Crook. 1998. Children as computer users: The case of collaborative learning. Computers 8 Education 30 (3--4), 237--247. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-1315(97)00067-5Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. Csikszentmihalyi and K. Hemanson. 1995. Intrinsic motivation in museums: Why does one want to learn? In Public Institutions for Personal Learning: Establishing a Research Agenda, J. H. Falk and L. D. Dierking (Eds.). Washington, DC: American Association of Museums, Technical Information Service, 67--77.Google Scholar
- S. Deterding, M. Sicart, L. Nacke, K. O'Hara, and D. Dixon. 2011. Gamification using game-design elements in non-gaming contexts. In Proceedings of the CHI’11 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA’11). 2425--2428. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/1979742.1979575Google ScholarDigital Library
- L. D. Dierking and J. H. Falk. 1998. Understanding free-choice learning: A review of the research and its application to museum web sites. Museum and the Web. Canada, Retrieved January 25, 2019 from www.museumsandtheweb.com.Google Scholar
- S. Dudley. 2010. Museum Materialities: Objects, Engagements, Interpretations. Routledge, London, UK.Google Scholar
- D. Duranti. 2017. Tangible Interaction in Mmuseums and Cultural Heritage Sites: Towards a Conceptual and Design Framework. PhD Thesis. IMT School for Advanced Studies, Lucca, Italy.Google Scholar
- J. Falk. 1998. Visitors: Who does, who doesn't and why. Museum News 77, 2 (1998), 38--43.Google Scholar
- J. Falk and L. Dierking. 2002. Lessons without Limit: How Free-Choice Learning is Transforming Education. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek.Google Scholar
- J. Froschauer, M. Arends, D. Goldfarb, and D. Merkl. 2012. A serious heritage game for art history: Design and evaluation of ThIATRO. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Virtual Systems and Multimedia. 283--290. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/VSMM.2012.6365936Google Scholar
- A. Gillet, M. Sanner, D. Stoffler, and A. Olson. 2005. Tangible interfaces for structural molecular biology. Structure 13, 3 (2005), 483--491. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.str.2005.01.009Google ScholarCross Ref
- S. H. Ham. 2013. Interpretation—Making a Difference on Purpose. Fulcrum Publishing, Colorado.Google Scholar
- J. Hamari, J. Koivisto, and H. Sarsa. 2014. Does gamification work? A literature review of empirical studies on gamification. In Proceedings of the 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Science. 3025--3034. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2014.377Google ScholarDigital Library
- R. Hammady, M. Ma, and N. Temple. 2016. Augmented reality and gamification in heritage museums. In Proceedings of the Joint International Conference on Serious Games (JCSG’16), Serious Games. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 9894, T. Marsh, M. Ma, M. Oliveira, J. Baalsrud Hauge, and S. Göbel (Eds.). Springer, 181--187, DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45841-0_17Google Scholar
- G. E. Hein. 1998. Learning in the Museum. Routledge, London.Google Scholar
- T. Z. Henderson and D. J. Atencio. 2007. Integration of play, learning, and experience: What museums afford young visitors. Early Childhood Education Journal 5, 3 (2007), 245--251. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-007-0208-1Google ScholarCross Ref
- E. Hooper-Greenhill. 1999. The Educational Role of the Museum. Psychology Press.Google Scholar
- E. Hooper-Greenhill. 2013. Museums and their Visitors. Routledge, London.Google Scholar
- E. Hornecker. 2004. A design framework for designing tangible interaction for collaborative use. Retrieved January 10, 2019 from http://www.ehornecker.de/Papers/DanishHCI.pdf.Google Scholar
- E. Hornecker. 2005. A design theme for tangible interaction: Embodied facilitation. In ECSCW 2005, H. Gellersen, K. Schmidt, M. Beaudouin-Lafon, and W. Mackay (Eds.). Springer, Dordrecht. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-4023-7_2Google ScholarDigital Library
- C. Hoyles. 1985. What is the point of group discussion in mathematics? Studies in Mathematics 16, 2 (1985), 205--214. DOI:http://www.jstor.org/stable/3482346Google ScholarCross Ref
- W. H. Huang and D. Soman. 2013. A Practitioner's Guide to Gamification of Education. Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
- K. Huotari and J. Hamari. 2012. Defining gamification: A service marketing perspective. In Proceedings of the 16th International Academic MindTrek Conference (MindTrek’12). 17--22. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2393132.2393137Google ScholarDigital Library
- N. Ibrahim, N. Mohamad Ali, and N. Faezah Mohd Yatim. 2015. Factors facilitating cultural learning in virtual architectural heritage environments: End user perspective. Journal on Computing and Cultural Heritage (JOCCH) 8, 2 (2015), 8. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2660776Google ScholarDigital Library
- L. J. Kelly. 2007. The Interrelationships between Adult Museum Visitors’ Learning Identities and Their Museum Experience. PhD Thesis. University of Technology, Sydney, Australia.Google Scholar
- K. Kiili. 2005. Digital game-based learning: Towards an experiential gaming model. The Internet and Higher Education 8, 1 (2005), 13--24. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2004.12.001Google ScholarCross Ref
- J. T. Kim and W. Lee. 2015. Dynamical model for gamification of learning (DMGL). Multimedia Tools and Applications 74, 19 (2015), 8483--8493. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-013-1612-8Google ScholarDigital Library
- S. Kim, K. Song, B. Lockee, and J. Burton. 2018. What is gamification in learning and education? Gamification in Learning and Education, Advances in Game-Based Learning. Springer International Publishing, 25--38. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47283-6_4Google Scholar
- D. A. Kolb. 1984. Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Google Scholar
- J. Ma, L. Sindorf, I. Liao, and J. Frazier. 2015. Using a tangible versus a multi-touch graphical user interface to support data exploration at a museum exhibit. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction (TEI’15). 33--40, DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2677199.2680555Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. Macaranas, A. N. Antle, and B. E. Riecke. 2012. Bridging the gap: Attribute and spatial metaphors for tangible interface design. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Tangible, Embedded and Embodied Interaction (TEI’12). 161--168. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2148131.2148166Google ScholarDigital Library
- P. Marshall. 2007. Do tangible interfaces enhance learning? In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Tangible and Embedded Interaction (TEI’07). 163--170. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/1226969.1227004Google ScholarDigital Library
- B. K. Nastasi and D. H. Clements. 1992. Social-cognitive behaviours and higher-order thinking in educational computer environments. Learning and Instruction 2, 3 (1992), 215--238. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/0959-4752(92)90010-JGoogle ScholarCross Ref
- E. Nofal, R. M. Reffat, and A. Vande Moere. 2017. Phygital heritage: An approach for heritage communication. In Proceedings of the 3rd Immersive Learning Research Network Conference (iLRN2017). 220--229. DOI:https://doi.org/10.3217/978-3-85125-530-0-36Google Scholar
- E. Nofal, R. M. Reffat, V. Boschloos, H. Hameeuw, and A. Vande Moere. 2018. The role of tangible interaction to communicate tacit knowledge of built heritage. Heritage 1 (2018), 414--436. DOI:https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage1020028Google ScholarCross Ref
- E. Not, D. Cavada, S. Maule, A. Pisetti, and A. Venturini. 2019. Digital augmentation of historical objects through tangible interaction. Journal on Computing and Cultural Heritage (JOCCH) 12, 3 (2019), 18. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3297764Google ScholarDigital Library
- S. G. Paris. 1997. Situated motivation and informal learning. Journal of Museum Education 22, 2--3 (1997), 22--27. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/10598650.1997.11510356Google ScholarCross Ref
- B. Piscitelli and D. Anderson. 2001. Young children's perspectives of museum settings and experiences. Museum Management and Curatorship 19, 3 (2001), 269--282. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/09647770100401903Google ScholarCross Ref
- S. Price, Y. Rogers, M. Scaife, D. Stanton, and H. Neale. 2003. Using ‘tangibles’ to promote novel forms of playful learning. Interacting with Computers 15, 2 (2003), 169--185. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0953-5438(03)00006-7Google ScholarCross Ref
- J. Rekimoto, Y. Ayatsuka, and K. Hayashi. 1998. Augment-able reality: Situated communication through physical and digital Spaces. In Proceedings of the 2nd IEEE International Symposium on Wearable Computers (ISWC’98). 68--75. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/ISWC.1998.729531Google Scholar
- K. Salen and E. Zimmerman. 2004. Rules of Play: Game Design Fundamentals. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
- J. H. Seo, J. Arita, S. Chu, F. Quek, and S. Aldriedge. 2015. Material significance of tangibles for young children. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction (TEI’15). 153--156.Google Scholar
- N. Simon. 2010. The participatory Museum. Museum 2.0: Santa Cruz, CA, USA.Google Scholar
- E. Sitzia. 2016. Narrative theories and learning in contemporary art museums: A theoretical exploration. Stedelijk Studies 4 (2016), 1--15.Google Scholar
- Q. Sun, C. Ardito, P. Buono, M. F. Costabile, R. Lanzilotti, T. Pederson, and A. Piccinno. 2008. Experiencing the past through the senses: An m-learning game at archaeological parks. IEEE MultiMedia 15, 4 (2008), 76--81. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/MMUL.2008.87Google ScholarDigital Library
- H. Suzuki and H. Kato. 1995. An educational tool for collaborative learning: AlgoBlock. Cognitive Studies 2, 1 (1995), 36--47. DOI:https://doi.org/10.11225/jcss.2.1_36Google Scholar
- R. Taylor, J. Bowers, B. Nissen, G. Wood, O. Chaudhry, P. Wright, L. Bruce, S. Glynn, H. Mallinson, and R. Bearpark. 2015. Making magic: Designing for open interactions in museum settings. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGCHI Conference on Creativity and Cognition (C8C’15). 313--322. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2757226.2757241Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. Vermeeren, L. Calvi, A. Sabiescu, R. Trocchianesi, D. Stuedahl, E. Giaccardi, and S. Radice. 2018. Museum experience design: Crowds, ecosystems and novel technologies. In Museum Experience Design, Springer Series on Cultural Computing, A. Vermeeren, L. Calvi, and A. Sabiescu (Eds). Springer, 1--16. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58550-5_1Google Scholar
- B. Van de Walle. 1978. Lachapelle Funéraire de Neferirtenef. Musées Royaux d'Art et d'Histoire, Bruxelles.Google Scholar
- M. Van der Vaart and A. Damala. 2015. Through the loupe: Visitor engagement with a primarily text-based handheld AR application. In Proceedings of the Digital Heritage Conference. 565--572. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/DigitalHeritage.2015.7419574Google Scholar
- W. Willett, Y. Jansen, and P. Dragicevic. 2017. Embedded data representations. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 23, 1 (2017), 461--470. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2016.2598608Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- Situated Tangible Gamification of Heritage for Supporting Collaborative Learning of Young Museum Visitors
Recommendations
Communicating Built Heritage Information Using Tangible Interaction Approach
TEI '17: Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied InteractionBuilt heritage objects possess multiple types of information, varying from simple, factual aspects to more complex qualitative information and values, such as the architectural qualities, the construction techniques, or symbolic meanings of monuments. ...
Exploring Digital Means to Engage Visitors with Roman Culture: Virtual Reality vs. Tangible Interaction
To effectively communicate the archaeological remains of the distant past is a challenge: Little may be left to see, and the culture may be very different to comprehend. This article compares two technological approaches to communicating Roman archaeology ...
Crafting Tangible Interaction to Prompt Visitors' Engagement in House Museums
TEI '16: Proceedings of the TEI '16: Tenth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied InteractionThis research explores design opportunities where tangible interaction enables new ways to engage visitors with the stories and artefacts on display, not in a museum as such, but within a house museum -- a particular type of heritage site where I ...
Comments