This week’s post is framed around some experiences from this week, and some ruminations from weeks past. The title comes from a Winston Churchill quote that I have kept with me over last seven years or so from being involved in a new building design. And in light of the visits we had, some of the readings, and most importantly my own thoughts and experience, I have some thinking going on about design for formal and informal environments.
A week ago, we visited the Bishop Museum, and toured the newly reopened Hawaii Hall, as well as the science Center. Here were two facilities that had different origins — Hawaii Hall was built 100 years ago, and although it was face lifted in minor ways a few times, it was closed, reinvigorated, and reopened with a focus towards applying good visitor design ideas for the first time since it opened. Info here: The Science Center, on the other hand, was designed from the ground up and therefore had a different approach, look and feel, and goal.
On Tuesday, we visited the Waikiki Aquarium, and looked at its designs from the visitor experience, including the audio tour. The aquarium, has gone through a series of redesigns, and applying new exhibits and approaches over the years.

So along with that, I’ve been thinking about classroom design and library design in particular. My wife recently was at the Sinclair Library at the University of Hawaii and commented on the redesign which created a more friendly, open space for students. An area for socializing with food, coffee available for students, different configuration spaces with more openness, location of a Student Success Center to support studying, research, and other areas of student life. Essentially, they became more of a learning center, and less of an archive of paper text. As a result of small budgets, they did a lot of the work themselves: painting, receiving donations for furniture, rethinking spaces and making the most of what’s available. The results, a threefold increase in traffic over the last three months.

This made me think of a talk I heard in December 2008 by the architectural firm Fielding Nair International and their architect Randy Fielding titled “Transformation through Innovative School Design”. In this talk, he both talked about creating spaces for the 21st century, as well as gave design examples from his company and others. It made me think a bit about how a space like a library, or the Bishop Museum, or the Waikiki aquarium, would start if a donor gave them $2 million to redesign their facility. Make old things new? Or go back to square one, and design with a new eye?
To that end, Fielding discussed 20 modalities and four supporting areas that come into design ideas based on the social nature of humans and the way people learn. The modalities are:
independent study
peer tutoring
team collaboration
1 to 1 learning with teacher
lecture with teacher at Center stage
Project-based learning
technology-based with mobile computers
distance learning
research video wireless Internet
student presentations
performance-based learning
seminar style instruction
community service learning
naturalistic learning
social/emotional learning
art-based learning
storytelling (floor seating)
learning by building
team teaching
play-based learning

Not all of these modalities fit our thinking about informal learning spaces, at least in the way we think of them in exhibits in museums, but there are kernels in each one that support the readings that we have had two this semester.
More importantly, Fielding lays out four design areas that he thinks are significant in any new designs of formal (and informal, in my opinion) learning designs. They are (my explanations, not Randy’s):
The Campfire: a place where a group can gather around, share information, tell stories, and create a social context for their learning. This area has a sequence or synchronized mission to it.
The Watering hole: a more informal place to gather, that allows Asynchronous and unstructured sharing.
The Cave space: this area is designed for more quiet, reflective, individualized learning. A study area, a workroom, an out-of-the-way place.
Real life: spaces that are outdoors, or authentic for learning, experiment, grappling, learning with real objects.

At the end of his presentation, Randy shared a matrix that has been developed to aid schools in determining whether their design meets 21st-century goals. The instrument is called the Educational Facilities Effectiveness Instrument. The website where it is located is here:

The instrument includes criteria like entryway, technology readiness, supporting small learning communities, inclusion of learning studios, storage, transparency, casual eating areas, music and performance areas, outdoor learning, etc. In total there are 200 criteria that are assessed with this instrument. It includes images/exemplars of each category to prompt designers to consider ways to include these.

Some images from his slideshow might paint this a little better:

Are all of these criteria relevant for our thinking about informal learning environments? Probably not, but these prompts would lead one to really identify what areas in your informal environment you really wanted to focus on. For instance, maybe the addition of considering how outdoor areas might expand the kinds of experiences you offer is worth considering. The small way, the Sinclair Library transformation, models this. There was an outdoor lanai area that was redone, with furniture, better lighting, etc. and the result was increased usage on the part of students, who found the area inviting and welcoming. The Waikiki aquarium utilizes very well outdoor areas for their reef tank, small presentation areas, and fish and monk seal exhibit. The ability to be outside changes the feel of the environment, and creates context from the indoor and outdoor experiences of the facility.
So we have a wide range of opportunity as designers. Sometimes it’s weekend repainting and asking for donations of furniture like the Sinclair Library. Sometimes we have the opportunity to design from the ground up, as in the Bishop Museum and science Center. And other times, we can redesign with some resources on spaces into new learning areas. Instruments like the EFEI give a context upon which we can draw out our thinking and our understanding of the research on visitor experience and learning to best design old places new.

Readings from this week:

Black, G. (2005). The engaging museum : developing museums for visitor involvement. London ; New York: Routledge.
(Chapter 7: Applying the principles of interpretation to museum display.)

Gammon, B. (2003). Assessing Learning in the Museum Environment [Electronic Version], from http://sciencecentres.org.uk/events/reports/indicators_learning_1103_gammon.pdf

Hein, G. E. (1998). Learning in the museum. London ; New York: Routledge.
(Chapter 8: the construvist Museum)

Standards for Museum Exhibitions and Indicators of Excellence. (2009). Retrieved September 16, 2009, 2009, from http://name-aam.org/about/who-we-are/standards

So the main focus both in the readings in their class discussion centered around ways to both analyze, and engage learners in museum environments. My interest this week stemmed from a some examples that Peter gave during class that triggered some new thinking in my mind about ways to build in learner centered information, and the potential to assess that real-time.
Three of the examples that Peter gave were virtual guides: one of multimedia CD of The Galleria dell’Accademia, which is where the statue of David from Michelangelo is held, amongst many other significant works. This CD started my thinking about a new way to think of informal learning. At one level, it’s just a standard virtual tour: maps of the Museum with the exhibits labeled, visual 3-D imagery that allows a user to move through and approach exhibit objects, and layers of information that can be pulled up on any given object such as historical information, connections to other pieces in the exhibit, embedded images in either movies. Peter mentioned, and I agree, that although this multimedia product was available when you leave the museum in the gift store, it would have best been situated at the entrance to the museum, to guide the visitor, shape their understanding of the scope of the exhibits offered, and build in prior knowledge before they approach the actual objects. All of these things are good instructional design ideas.
He also showed us a virtual tour of Pompeii, in which a view of the current site was slowly reconstructed into the best understanding of what it looked like at its height 2000 years ago. Probably the striking thing with this visit was the fact that we often only see the ground-level of these sites, and have a hard time imagining things like roof lines and second stories. In particular, we visited the theater and seeing how high the edifice was built upon the stage, the fact that the seats were covered under a canopy, really got me thinking about how important that layer of information matters when we view objects and sites.
The third interface that he showed us, was of the Museum in Naples that had viewers interact with the visual display on frescoes before they entered the museum. The wall sized virtual display allow the user to reach out, zoom in, and interact with the frescoes, with supporting text and audio that explains the historical significance of areas of the fresco. This is a huge improvement in engaging the learner, in giving them the hook (from Csikzentmihalyi), because it sets up a higher level of attentiveness, addresses multiple modes of learning and engagement, and allows self-directed ownership of the information.

So with all of that, it triggered in me an appreciation for what is about to come through mobile technology. There were three separate, but importantly connected pieces of information that I drew together through this process. The first was a TED lecture from 2009 by Pattie Maes and Pranav Mistry, in which they show a device they call “the sixth sense” the wearable device that projects onto any object to hold in front of it, and impresses this with text, images, and even movies about the object. Imagine this device in a museum, where as you walk through and face exhibit objects, you get a very personalized layer of information that you can zoom in for more specifics, or zoom out to get a broader sense of what things you might draw from this experience. Maybe you haven’t thought about the historical connections from earlier readings you had made. The device knows that your family history and included connections to this artist four generations ago, and shows your family tree that makes the connection for you. Perhaps in your calendar in two months, you’re planning a visit to a city where other pieces by this artist are available, and it lets you know that. These are all possibilities that exist today, if these devices come to be. Here is the video from Ted that is the first generation of this device — think of what the implications of this will be in just a few years.

Another development that lays on top of this is the recent release of “did you know version 4”. This video, looks at trends in learning and technology. In looking at the version that was just released for September 2009, one of the key trends that it mentions is the likely scenario that pocket computers (like the iPhone or Google android device) will be the primary way that computing happens by 2020. It also mentions that “the computer in your cell phone today is 1 million times cheaper, and 1000 times more powerful and about 100,000 times smaller than the first one developed at MIT in 1965”. We are emerging into a new realm where instead of going to the computer, we will be wearing the computer, the information will be coming to us. From an informal learning perspective, this becomes extremely empowering, because we now have the opportunity to let the world be our Museum.

The last development that layers into this, is the recent release of augmented reality software for the iPhone. This is a paradigm shift in information technology, from my perspective. Much like the device developed at MIT, this kind of software gives a learner the ability to view the world through a lens of tailored information at any point that they choose. There is a video here of the first release of this kind of software, which allows a visitor to Paris to hold up to your iPhone, and get an augmented view, based on their direction you’re facing in their location (utilizing both compass, and GPS data):

Think of the implications of this from a learning perspective. If it is true, and I believe it is, that mobile devices are going to become more ubiquitous, the developers will seize on this to geocode rich data into a great deal of the world’s spaces, then one of the first places that this will become viable and rich are museums and other informal learning spaces, because they already have a dedicated audience, and content worth generating virtual information about. With the development of the semantic Web (Web 3.0), it will become more and more the experience for any user that the information will come to them, tailored to their history, their interests, and their capabilities. We’ve talked a lot in this class about the importance in museum design to take into account the learner experience. Augmented reality, whne it comes of age fully, will come along way to aid in this quest.

It’s significant to note, in my mind, that augmented reality as a technology, has been long awaiting full adoption — its “killer app”. The Gartner Group and their Hype Cycle has long held augmented reality in its early phases as a technology trigger. Whereas some technologies have moved quickly off of this early phase and into adoption, augmented reality has languished at the beginning of the curve for a decade.

Have we reached a turning point? I believe we have. We are currently in the baby steps of a new type of technological overlay in our world. It is already possible in most of the developed world to take out a pocket-sized device, connect to the global information network, and receive information almost instantly. We are only a few short steps away from the device knowing us, where we are, and what we want to know. In thinking about how this will influence informal learning environments, and even formal learning environments, which is where I spent my professional life, I can’t help but be excited at the opportunity to empower learners to fully take advantage of this.
I know some people will think this is the end of institutions of learning because the seat of power will shift from the experts (teachers) to the learners. I rather think it will create a new kind of learning environment where adult mentors (facilitators) will become masters of process and information utilization, and support learners (apprentices), to fully develop their interests and potential. Moreover, it will increae the importance of informal learning environments. Like all technologies, this will not come to all equally or at the same time. But it will be scalable in a way that may make adoption across socioeconomic and cultural differences much broader.
The future is so bright, I gotta wear shades (but they better have an interactive overlay built into them…)

Week 2 entry: Learning as play

The context of this post is the readings from our ETEC 697 “Educational Technology in Informal Learning Environments” class.

The bibliography for this week:

Csikzentmihalyi, M., & Hermanson, K. (1995). Intrinsic motivation in museums: What makes visitors want to learn? Museum news, 74(3), 35-37 and 59-62.

Falk, J., & Dierking, L. (1992). The Museum Experience. Washington, D.C.: Whalesback Books.

McLellan, H. (2000). Experience design. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 3(1), 59-69.

Pine, J., & Gilmore, J. (1998). Welcome to the experience economy. Harvard Business Review, 76(4), 97-105.

With this topic I’m interested in exploring within these readings is the notion of formal and informal environments, distinguishing characteristics, and how schools manage to beat the life out of learning. Don’t get me wrong, I’ve been a teacher for 27 years, and I think there are times when we truly engage students by the process we take them through a traditional schools, but truthfully, this is more the exception than the rule, and certainly not the purpose of education as we know it. Think about what we’ve learned in the readings that we have. One of the primary tenets of Csikzentmihalyi is that real powerful learning stems from intrinsically driven behaviors. Even in the article, he makes the case that if a learner starts any activity with the intent of needing to do it for some external factor (a grade, a requirement, a non-optional activity) it immediately changes their motivation, their attention and their ownership of the learning.

What distinguishes intrinsic learning, and the design that must occur around it, is that the learner comes to us because they have an interest, and at least believe, even if it’s not true, that they are driving the experience. Here is where the potential overlap with formal and informal learning environments have something to learn from each other. The significance of design implies that although the learner may believe that they are in charge of the experience, that truthfully behind the scene and instructional designer has thought through purposefully how to engage, and take into account the perspective of the learner, so that they feel as though the experience was initiated and driven by them.

In my physics class, we practiced a pedagogical approach called modeling. In it, I was always the shaper of the experience, always new the path we needed to take to have an experience that was worth doing, and yet, with good design and purposeful intent, my students felt more than not that they were driving experience. They felt that they made the decisions about their research, about the results, and what the meaning was. It often felt that though I was pulling the strings, it was an original experience for them, because they built it on their actions.

Csikzentmihalyi makes the case that a “flow” experience arises when we are so immersed in an experience that we reach a higher level of engagement, where we are immersed powerfully, sensory affected, in time slows down to enable the experience to unfold powerfully. In his latest book “The Element”, Sir Ken Robinson talks about Csikzentmihalyi’s flow as happening when a learner is engaged because they are in their environment. Traditional school is full of poor matches of students, adult mentors, and experiences that do not feel intrinsic, nor have any sense of flow whatsoever. One of the things that I’ve been impressed with recently is the power of homeschooling as an alternative model for schools to consider. Think of a learning environment that is always adjusting to our interests, abilities, schedule, strengths and weaknesses, so that we feel engaged, involved, connected.

So what does this have to do with the readings, how does that tie in? Well whether it’s Falk’s description of the interactive experience model that takes into account personal, social, and physical context or it is Pine and Gilmore’s matrix that plots out a “sweet spot” between immersion and absorption, passive and active participation,

ine and gilmore's matrix

or McClellan, who talks about these ideas applied into virtual interfaces, the goal and understanding of human experiences the same. We learn best when we have activated motivation, when we have taken into account the abilities and interests of the learner, and when we unfold an experience that tells a story and creates a sense of ownership in the experience.
This is where traditional school fails us horribly. This is not to say that some schools have found new and exciting ways to accomplish this, but the traditional structures on school: textbooks that are nothing more than unengaging tomes full of uninteresting factoids, schedules that separate out learning into small periods of time that are domain & topic specific, and activities that are at best poor seconds of the real learning that could happen.
To close, maybe the best thing to do would be to reconsider how we treat learning. Our new principal for the high school at Mid-Pacific Institute once taught at the Museum School in New York City. In that school, the learning was based around visits and experiences of the many multifaceted museums that exist in New York. Certainly there were still problems within that school — probably more than anything the inherent tension between the public’s expectation of what schools should be like, and what motivated and drove students to do higher, more authentic, quality work. But any model that takes us closer to learning as play gets us a little closer to the way our brains are wired, and real learning can happen.
Shouldn’t we do this for the sake of our children?