1. Case Study: Interactive Models Information Age at the Science Museum
I am going to talk about a case study from the Science Museum’s Information Age Gallery
Museum Location: London, UK
Contact details: Lauren Souter

2. Information Age
Information Age was opened to the public in October 2014.
The gallery tells the story of how information and communication technologies have transformed our lives over the past 200 years.
The Gallery is object – rich. Focusing on the museum’s historic collection, the gallery celebrates the past and present technology that has changed the way we connect with each other through stories of the people who invented, operated and were affected by each new wave of technological innovation

3. Science Objects
Audience Research Shows that visitors, especially non-science specialists or non regular visitors, often have trouble engaging with science objects
Here are some examples of difficult science objects in the Information Age gallery
What is difficult?
They are not beautiful – could be dull
very small
very familiar
Unfamiliar – have no recognition hook to snag passing visitors
hard to pull out personal stories,
What the value?
often meant to be working, moving, how does it work?
What can we do to make objects speak? /// How can we help visitors to appreciate objects and facilitate them having an enjoyable experience with them?

4. Interactive Models
To try and overcome this problem we used a variety of digital interpretation approaches in Information Age.
One example of this is our suite of interactive models.
Electromechanical and digital exhibits.
A model of an object…trigger and manipulate an on screen animation…shows how the object worked. Each model is situated in close proximity to the object it represents.
Aim….help visitors engage with the collection by helping them understand the science behind the objects
Hoped Interaction….motivate visitors to engage with the authentic, object examples on display near them.
Engaged – look, find out more, discuss, find relevance.

5. Summative evaluation
How do visitors respond to the interactive models?
To what extent are the learning outcomes for this experience achieved?
Does visitor interaction with these exhibits increase engagement with the historic object on display?
At the end of last summer we conducted a summative evaluation of the interactive models, working with the target audience to identify the extent to which the model met their aims and what we could learn for the future.
In particular we were interested in the extent to which the models increased engagement with objects in the gallery
I am going to share the key findings from this evaluation with you.

6. Successes
Interactivity helped visitors to engage in an object-rich Gallery
Animations helped visitors to understand the science behind the object
Manipulating a model encouraged visitors to consider what it would have been like to use the technology it represented
1. Interactivity helped visitors to engage in an object-rich Gallery
Visitors enjoyed having an opportunity to engage with an interactive experience in an object rich environment. It appealed to different learning styles and to the need to get hands on in an object rich space.
2. The animations helped visitors to understand the science behind the object
The combination of physical manipulation and animation helped to communicate scientific content – visitors said they had a better understanding of the scientific process behind the technology after engaging with the exhibits
3. Manipulating a model encouraged visitors to consider what it would have been like to use the technology it represented
Visitors felt they understood more about what it would have been like to send a message using these objects after interaction with the model.

7. Lessons learned
Exhibits were more engaging if there was a reward/output
Placement of the object in relation to the model was key for object engagement
Visitors used the exhibit in isolation and did not engage with other surrounding interpretation
barrier to deeper object engagement
1. Exhibits were more engaging if there was a reward/output
Most engaging – morse tapper. Opportunity to use Morse code to type a message at end. With out this visitors felt confused, unsatisfied and frustrated
2. Placement of the object in relation to the model was key for object engagement
If the model is not in direct placement next to the object it represents, visitors will not look at the object, or even realise it represents something on display
Morse/baudot vs Telephone/crystal radio
3. Visitors used the exhibit in isolation
Finding out how it works did not motivate visitors to look for more information. Nothing told them to do it, weren't self motivated to, didn’t know it was there
This prevented them from further object engagement
find out more, discuss, find personal relevance.

8. To consider What should the reward/output be?
Where should the object be placed?
How explicit should the link between object/model be?
Can the exhibit encourage exploration of surrounding interpretation?
discovering the process itself is not the reward
Placement of object is key if you want visitors to notice it.
How can we make sure visitors get all the information they need in order to engage with the object – not just how it works