MEETING VISITORS’ EXPECTATIONS

The Perceived Degree of Museumness

Angeliki Antoniou and George Lepouras

Department of Computer Science and Technology, University of Peloponnese, Terma Karaiskaki, 22100 Tripolis, Greece

Keywords: User requirements, Museum learning technologies.

Abstract: Defining a physical or virtual space as a museum, seems to have clear implications on visitors’ behaviour

and particularly learning behaviour. Past research shows that it is essential to identify different museum

types and consider their similarities, differences and special features in order to be able to make valid

research hypotheses. However, visitors would not always define certain types of museums as museums.

Therefore, we wished to study how visitors view the different museum types and their main reasons for

visiting different museums. Investigating visitors’ different definitions and expectations, we used

questionnaires which were also used to produce a scale of museumness, the degree to which a certain

museum type fits visitors’ museum stereotypes. The analysis of the data allowed the creation of a list of

guidelines for the development of educational technology for museum use.

1 INTRODUCTION

What makes a museum viewed as such by

researchers and also by museum visitors? Defining a

physical or virtual space as a museum seems to have

clear implications on visitors’ behaviour and

particularly learning behaviour, since our ultimate

goal is the design of educational technologies for

museum purposes.

1.1 The Perceived Degree of

Museumness

A review of the literature reveals that different

authors and researchers have employed axes to

categorize museums, like the museum content (i.e.

archaeological, art, etc.), the type of audience it

refers to (i.e. children’s museums), the presentation

philosophy of the exhibition (i.e. constructivist

museums), the virtual or the physical character (i.e.

virtual collections), the educational theory different

museums follow (i.e. behaviourism), and many other

factors.

To begin with, it is important to provide a

description of what a museum is. Some researchers

choose to see museums as exhibition centres whose

primary goal is education (Bitgood, 2002), or as

some of many learning resources within a

community (other community learning resources are

libraries, colleges, etc.) (Cross, 2002), or as places

that store memories (Heumann-Gurian, 1999).

According to Heumann-Gurian (1999), past museum

definitions always contained reference to objects. As

an example, we provide the AAM (American

Association of Museums) definition of 1973: ‘…a

museum is defined as an organized and permanent

non-profit institution, essentially educational or

aesthetic in purpose, with professional staff, which

owns and utilizes tangible objects, cares for them,

and exhibits them to the public on some regular

schedule’ (AAM, 1973, p.8).

In addition, museums started as places for the

storage, protection and display of artifacts but they

are transforming to learning institutions (Kelly,

2000). This view is shared between different

professionals, like academics and curators (Falk

&Dierking, 1997). This shift of focus from

storage/display to learning and education seems to

have complied with the increasing need for lifelong

learning (Antoniou & Lepouras, 2008).

The main reason that a distinction between

different museum types is considered essential is the

possibility of generalizing research findings across

museums. The field of museum and visitor studies is

relatively new; consequently, relevant research is

only developing within the recent past. In addition, it

is also known that most research, especially

involving museum learning, takes place in science

187

Antoniou A. and Lepouras G. (2009).

MEETING VISITORS’ EXPECTATIONS - The Perceived Degree of Museumness.

In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Computer Supported Education, pages 187-192

DOI: 10.5220/0001830601870192

 SciTePress

and technology museums (Hooper - Greenhill, et al,

2002). Furthermore, there is very little research that

spans different museum types. ‘…while many very

different organizations are technically labeled

“museums”, this category is formed arbitrarily based

more on economic and political reasons than on

reasons of inherent cultural meaning. However, we

believe that we can conduct parallel studies in

different museum settings in ways that honor the

distinctions among different museum types while

generating some level of comparability across them.’

(Leinhardt & Crowley, 1998, p.4). Therefore, it is

essential to identify different museum types and

consider their similarities, differences and special

features in order to be able to make valid research

hypotheses and also to use existing findings.

Bitgood (2002) believed that the key to museum

classification is education. In that light, he views

education as the primary goal of museums that takes

place through exhibitions. Therefore, museums are

exhibition centres with education as their main

mission. This definition ‘includes (but is not limited

to) art museums, history museums, botanical

gardens, science centres, nature centres, and zoos.

The concept that connects these facilities is

“educational exhibition”’ (Bitgood, 2002, p. 461).

The diversity of characteristics of the above

institutions implies a similar diversity in the learning

processes within their boundaries. Bitgood’s

definition actively excludes Theme Parks that

contain the educational element but their primary

goal is profit. Moreover, many researchers view

museums as informal learning environments. Such

environments include science museums, field sites,

zoos, etc and experimental results demonstrate that

they enhance learning significantly (Falk &

Dierking, 1997). However, the boundaries of the

different learning institutions are not clear. Mellor

(2001) viewed museums as archival institutions and

attempted a distinction between them. Museums,

archives and libraries are all types of archival

institutions. So far, we tried to ‘see’ what museums

are, compared mainly to what they are not. To

summarize the above literature, here is the museum

definition we reached:

Museums are learning environments with

education as their primary mission (and not profit).

They are also archival institutions with relatively

few collection boundaries and developed over time-

as either specialist or generalist institutions- a

commitment to the display of 3D objects (although

this is not necessary). Collections could include

books and documents, plants and living organisms

(however, this does not transform them into

libraries, archives, gardens or zoos).

In additions to our definition, we also provide the

current AAM definition of museums. Museums

‘…present regularly scheduled programs and

exhibits that use and interpret objects for the public

according to accepted standards; have a formal and

appropriate program of documentation, care, and use

of collections and/or tangible objects…’ (AAM,

1997, p.20).

However, very interesting results come from the

field of visitor studies. It seems that not always

visitors agree with the above definitions of

museums. Visitors would not always define certain

types of museums as museums! Although many

researchers believe that art galleries are types of

museums, in a study conducted by Kelly (1999),

participants made ‘clear distinction between an “art

gallery experience” and a museum experience. They

felt that a museum is characterized by the active

learning experiences it provides, which is stronger or

more explicit than the learning experiences art

galleries provide (Kelly, 1999). Thus, the notion of

learning is a very strong museum defining factor in

the visitor’s perceptions. As exhibition environments

with explicit and active learning options, certain

museums are perceived as of higher ‘museumness’,

than exhibition environments with indirect and

implicit learning options (like art galleries). We

introduce the term museumness in order to describe

visitors’ perceptions on a certain physical or virtual

space and whether this space forms a typical

museum or not. Museumness does not form a yes or

no category; rather it suggests a continuum that

different museum types can have higher or lower

scores. For example, visitors might consider both an

archaeological museum and an art gallery as

museums, but of different degree of museumness,

since the former collects all the stereotypical

characteristics that form the notions of museums and

the latter contains fewer of those characteristics.

Therefore, although researchers view art galleries,

zoos, aquaria and botanical gardens as different

museums, visitors do not always agree with them,

thinking that these do not follow the stereotypical

characteristics of a museum in its traditional form.

Apart from the direct connection to learning, visitors

might also be influenced by the physicality of

objects that the museum might or might not have.

For example, a science museum does not necessarily

contain historical objects. It could perform its

purposes solely with the use of technology.

However, some visitors might not characterize it as a

museum, because of this physical absence of objects.

CSEDU 2009 - International Conference on Computer Supported Education

188

Therefore, visitors’ perceived degree of museumness

might affect their (learning) behaviour in a museum.

1.2 Museum Type

From this point onwards, and after having defined

museums, we will attempt to identify different

museum types. For this identification process

different authors use different criteria. One of them

is the objectness (term used by Heumann-Gurian,

1999) of a museum; many museums are heavily

object dependent, like archeological museums,

whereas others like science museums and children’s

museums, are more concept dependent. Heumann-

Gurian (1999) elaborated further on a museum type

classification, based on object properties. Such

properties were: Object uniqueness (archaeological

museums), ownership of object (art museums),

purpose- built objects (science museums, children’s

museums), portability of objects (an opposite

example is a Planetarium), etc. However, the

analysis of object properties is not the only solution

to the problems of museum-types classification.

Other researchers prefer to differentiate between

museums based on the educational theory they

follow. Educational theory consists of two major

components: a theory of knowledge and a theory of

learning (Jackson, et al, 1994; Russell, 1994). In that

light, Hein (1995) produced a theory that combined

the two dimensions of educational theory by treating

those dimensions as axes. In the one end of the

horizontal axis the theories that allow the learner to

construct knowledge are placed. On the other end of

the same axis, the theories that provide the learner

with adding parts of information are found.

Similarly, on the vertical axis, realism is placed on

the one end and relativism on the other. This

implied that every learning theory must have a core

epistemology and this core must necessarily involve

philosophical considerations.

Based on the learning theory museums follow,

Hein also produced a taxonomy of museum types. In

that light, a Systematic Museum follows the

principles of learning that provide the visitor with

adding bits of information and at the same time

accepts realism. An Orderly Museum also follows

the same learning theory but respects relativism. A

Discovery Museum follows the learning theories

that allow visitors to construct meaning within the

theoretical context of realism. Finally, a

Constructivist Museum, accepts learning theories

that support visitor meaning construction and at the

same time relativistic epistemological approaches.

Hein did not focus on the museum contents, as most

classifications do, but on the learning philosophy

they choose to follow.

Similarly, not focusing on the museum content

but rather on the exhibition philosophy, Russell

(1994) differentiates between two main museum

types. The first type, the ancestral museum enhances

top-down cognitive processes, by providing a notion

of reality in a positivist fashion. The other type, the

constructivist museum, supports bottom-up

processes, allows experimentations, creativity,

hands-on activities, and discovery learning. So, the

distinction concentrates on museums that choose to

narrate a story (i.e. by placing items in a

chronological order) and on museums that provide

opportunities for the personal construction of

meaning (i.e. children’s museums sometimes use

ambiguous objects).

Moreover, some classifications are based on the

use of technology and especially the development of

the WWW. ‘A virtual museum is a collection of

electronic artifacts and information resources-

virtually anything which can be digitized. The

collection may include paintings, drawings,

photographs, diagrams, graphs, recordings, video

segments, newspaper articles, transcripts of

interviews, numerical databases and a host of other

items which may be saved on the virtual museum’s

file server.’ (FNO, 1995). Many known museums

also have a web site in which they provide a virtual

experience. Additionally, galleries and also virtual

galleries, simply provide the objects with limited

explanations. On the other hand, museums and

virtual museums, place a greater emphasis upon

theme, interpretation and explanation (FNO, 1996).

Although, there is, so far, very little research on

learning through museum websites, the distinction

between virtual and physical museums is an

important one, since there is some evidence that

visitor behaviour is different between the two.

In a bibliographic review, Hooper-Greenhill &

Moussouri (2002) provided a very useful list of

different museum types and also relevant research

for each type. Briefly, these categories included 1)

science and technology museums, 2) children’s

museums, 3) art museums, 4) history and

archaeology museums, and heritage sites, 5) zoos,

aquaria and botanical gardens. In each category

learning demands are very different either due to the

specific target group (children’s learning vs. adult

learning), or due to a direct connection to objects

(archaeological museums vs. science museums), or

due to the presentation philosophy (history museums

vs. children’s museums), etc. The unique conditions

in each museum type make it difficult to generalize

MEETING VISITORS' EXPECTATIONS - The Perceived Degree of Museumness

189

findings from one type to another. This need to

consider each type’s characteristics separately is also

reflected in a study by Dierking & Falk (1998). The

researchers found that families and schools preferred

to visit science centres, natural history museums,

historical sites, children’s museums, zoos, aquaria.

Adult –only visitors showed a preference to art

museums, historical homes, craft & design

museums, botanical gardens and arboreta.

Finally, in the present study we wished to

explore how visitors view the different museum

types and their expectations in regards to learning or

other activities they might want to be offered in a

museum. Therefore, the different museum types are

classified based on the visitors’ perceptions. We

wanted to explore whether the way people view the

different institutions affects their activity preferences

or not.

2 METHOD

In order to clarify issues on visitors’ museum

notions, we designed and distributed a questionnaire.

The participants were undergraduate students of the

Department of Computer Science and Technology,

University of Peloponnese (Tripolis, Greece).

Visitors’ definitions of a museum and

expectations shape the learning experience they

have. Similarly, any learning technology used in a

museum should consider carefully the different

stereotypes and attitudes that the visitors’ might

have and attempt to comply with the different

environments and needs. We wished to explore the

perceived degree of museumness of the different

museum types, the participants’ attitudes and

expectations towards the different types and the role

of technology.

Our research goals were:

1) To determine how high each museum type

scored on a museumness scale

2) To find out the intended main activity in each

museum type (i.e. education, entertainment,

socialization)

Our research outcomes were:

1) A scale of the perceived degree of

museumness

2) A list of guidelines for the focus of technology

in each museum type.

The list of museums included zoos, art galleries,

industrial museums, science museums, children’s

museums, botanical gardens, archaeological

museums, historical museums, aquaria, and

technology museums.

The main questions were:

1) Which of the following are typical examples

of museums?

2) What will be your main activity in each

museum type?

3 RESULTS

The 28 questionnaires that were used in total

contained categorical (nominal data). The variables

used were:

• Museum Type (i.e. Zoo, Archaeological,

Historical, Children’s, etc.)

• Perceived degree of museumness (values -

yes it is a museum, might be, no it is not)

• Main activity (socialization, entertainment,

learning)

• Secondary activity (socialization,

entertainment, learning)

• Least preferred activity (socialization,

entertainment, learning)

The statistical analysis used the Pearson chi

square test.

Perceived Degree of Museumness and Museum

Type: The first set of tests wished to explore

participants’ views on different museums. The null

hypothesis was formed as following: There would

not be any statistically significant differences

between the degrees of museumness of the different

museums. This hypothesis was rejected since the

statistical analysis showed a highly significant value,

with ×²(18,280) = .00, p<.001

Museum Type and Main Activity: Comparing

Museum Type and participants’ preferred activity,

the null hypothesis was that: There would not be any

differences between peoples preferred activities for

the different museum types. The results were once

again highly significant, with ×²(18,279) = .00,

p<.001 and the null hypothesis was rejected.

Museum Type and Secondary Activity: Similarly

the chi square test revealed high correlations, with

×²(18,269) = .00, p<.001 when museum type was

compared to the next preferred activity of the

participants for the different museum types.

Museum Type and Least Preferred Activity: The

results remain significant, with ×²(18,269) = .00,

p<.001 when the least preferred activity for the

different museum types was tested.

Perceived Degree of Museumness and Main

Activity: The analysis of the two variables showed

significant correlations, with ×²(4,279) = .00, p<.001

CSEDU 2009 - International Conference on Computer Supported Education

190

4 DISCUSSION

4.1 Museumness Scale

The statistical analysis revealed that indeed the

different museum types are viewed as of different

degrees of museumness by the visitors. In addition,

this analysis allowed the formation of a museumness

scale (Table 1). At the one end of the scale there are

museums like zoos and aquaria, since the majority or

participants did not think that these institutions

gather the characteristics needed in order to be

classified as museums. At the opposite end of the

scale, one could find museums that the participants

considered typical examples of museums, like

historical and archaeological ones. The table below

shows how its museum scored on a museumness

scale, going progressively from the museums low in

museumness to the ones with higher degrees of

museumness at the bottom of the table.

Table 1: Museumness Scale.

o, it is not a

museu

Yes, it is a

museu

Zoo 68% 7%

Aquariu

57% 11%

Botanical

Garden

50% 7%

Children’s 36% 29%

Art Gallery 14% 43%

Industrial 14% 68%

Technolo

7% 75%

Science 0% 71%

Histor

0% 100%

Archaeolo

ical 0% 100%

4.2 Perceived Degree of Museumness

and Main Activity

Furthermore, the different degrees of museumness

highly correlate with the preferred and the expected

activities of their visitors in their premises. The

primary activity that visitors expect and want to

perform in institutions that they consider museums is

learning. When an institution is not seen as a

museum, the visitors expect and wish to entertain

themselves. These stereotypes seem dominant since

the correlation found was highly significant. The

findings imply that the design of a ‘fun’ activity in a

historical or archaeological museum will at least

surprise the visitor, or some visitors might see it as

inappropriate. In the same way, institutions with low

degrees of museumness require the implementation

of entertaining and/or edutaining applications in

their premises.

4.3 Guidelines

The present study demonstrates the need to match

the technology to the museums of different thematic

content. Visitors seem to have strong expectations

and stereotypes when it comes to museum related

activities. It is important to recognize these

variations and adapt the activity and the technology

content accordingly. Past research shows that

matching people’s expectations, increases

satisfaction and motivation (Vroom, 1964).

Depending on what people think about a museum,

affects what they expect to do in the museum

premises. These findings influence the design of

technology for museum use.

More specifically, the focus of technology in a

zoo and an aquarium should be primarily on

entertainment, secondly on learning, and thirdly on

socialization. In children’s museums people expect

primarily entertainment, secondly socialization and

lastly learning. Art galleries and historical museums

demonstrate similar characteristics when it comes to

activity expectations. In both museums people

expect to learn first, socialize secondly, while

entertainment is not considered necessary. Due to

their high scores on the museumness scale museums

like archaeological, industrial, science and

technology require applications that enhance

learning mainly and then entertainment and

socialization.

In addition, the very nature of contemporary

museums with education being their main focus, as

discussed above, implies that the needs identified in

this research could be also viewed within the

framework of life long learning. In this light, the

need for socialisation could be viewed as a need for

collaborative learning, the need for entertainment as

a need for edutainment and the need for learning as a

need for more formal and/or more traditional

learning approaches (Antoniou & Lepouras, 2008).

5 CONCLUSIONS

However, these findings might be culturally

dependent and they might only function in a specific

setting. In addition, the present work, due to time

limitations, was restricted in a small sample size that

nevertheless provided very significant results. The

specific results found here should be cross checked

in different settings. In this light, the main point is to

MEETING VISITORS' EXPECTATIONS - The Perceived Degree of Museumness

191

consider issues of museumness in different contexts

before the design of applications for museums and

how these issues might affect visitors’ expectations.

Targeting the design of museum learning

applications, clarifying issues of visitors’

perceptions was important. The present work, at the

initial phases of the design process, provides a basis

for the development of design ideas. Therefore,

knowing the museum type, the content of specific

applications can be decided, whether that is

primarily learning, entertainment, socialization or

any other activity.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors wish to thank the students that

participated in the study, as well as Prof. C.

Agriadoni (University of Thessaly) for her valuable

support.

REFERENCES

American Association of Museums 1973. Museum

Accreditation: Professional Standards. Washington,

DC: AAM.

American Association of Museums 1997. A Higher

Standard: The Museum Accreditation Handbook.

Washington, DC: AAM.

Antoniou, A., Lepouras, G. 2008. Reflections on Mobile

and Life Long Learning: Museums as Application

Fields. In Proceedings of the IADIS International

Conference, Mobile Learning 2008, Algarve, Portugal,

April 11-13, pp 249-252.

Bitgood, S. 2002. Environmental Psychology in Museums,

Zoos, and Other Exhibition Centers. In R. Bechtel &

A. Churchman (Eds.), Handbook of Environmental

Psychology (pp 461-480). John Wiley & Sons.

Cross, J. 2002. Adult Learning and Museums. Paper

presented at Why Learning? Seminar, Australian

Museums, University of Technology, Sydney,

November 2002, pp 1-10.

Dierking, L.D., & Falk, J.H. 1998. Understanding Free-

Choice Learning: A Review of the Research and its

Application to Museum web sites. Museums and the

Web 1998. Retrieved October 2008 from

http://www.archimuse.com/mw98/papers/dierking/dier

king_paper.html

Falk, J.H., & Dierking, L.D. 1997. School field trips:

Assessing their long term impact. Curator, 40 (3),

211-218.

From Now On 1995. Monthly Comments. The

Educational Technology Journal, 5 (5), January 1995.

Retrieved October 2008 from

http://www.fno.org/FNOJan95.html

From Now On 1996. Virtual Galleries vs. Virtual

Museums: What’s the Difference? The Educational

Technology Journal, Vol. 5, No 5, January/ February,

1996. Retrieved October 2008 from

http://www.fno.org/jan96/simpletext.html

Hein, G.E. 1995. The Constructivist Museum. Journal for

Education in Museums, 16, 21-23.

Heumann – Gurian, E. 1999. What is the Object of this

Exercise: A meandering exploration of the many

meanings of objects in museums. America’s Museums’

issue, 128 (3), 163-183.

Hooper – Greenhill, E., & Moussouri, T. 2002.

Researching Learning in Museums and Galleries

1990-1999: A Bibliographic Review. Research Centre

for Museums and Galleries. University of Leicester,

Jackson, R., & Hann, K. 1994. Learning through the

science museum. Journal of Education in Museums,

15, 11-13.

Kelly, L. 1999. Finding Evidence of Visitor Learning.

‘Musing on Learning’ Seminar, Australian Museum,

20 April 1999. Retrieved October 2008 from

http://www.amonline.net.au/amarc/pdf/research/paper

5.pdf

Kelly, L. 2000. Understanding Conceptions of Learning.

Proceedings of the GERG Conference 2000. Retrieved

October 2008 from

http://www.amonline.net.au/amarc/pdf/research/paper

2000.pdf

Leinhardt, G. and K. Crowley 1998. Museum Learning as

Conversational Elaboration: A Proposal to Capture,

Code and Analyze Talk in Museums. Pittsburgh,

Learning Research & Development Center, University

of Pittsburgh

Mellor, D. 2001. Atrefacts of Memory: Oral Histories in

Archival Institutions. Humanities Research, VIII (1),

59-67.

Moore, R., Lopes, J., 1999. Paper templates. In

TEMPLATE’06, 1st International Conference on

Template Production. INSTICC Press.

Russell, T. 1994. The enquiring visitor: usable learning

theory for museum contexts. Journal of Education in

Museums, 15, 19-21.

Smith, J., 1998. The book, The publishing company.

London, 2

edition.

Vroom, V. 1964. Work and Motivation. New York: John

Wiley.

CSEDU 2009 - International Conference on Computer Supported Education

192