Relationships between apprehension and engagement at MOXI exhibits -Sam S.

*Apologies for the late post.

One section that stuck out to me in Designs for Learning was where Sue Allen describes the tension between making exhibits more easily apprehendable, while also pushing visitors to challenge themselves and make deeper connections. In Allen's descriptions, the addition of explicit labeling or emphasis on "the salience of key variables" led to greater understanding, but sacrificed prolonged engagement with exhibits. I think this same tension exists in all the exhibits at MOXI, and I wonder how possible it is to strike the right balance between apprehension and engagement at many exhibits, given a large diversity of learning styles and abilities.

I feel that here at MOXI, we often strive to land more on the active engagement side of this relationship. I think that very few of our exhibits are over-explained, which allows for learners to investigate their behaviors without shutting down learning. Many of our exhibits purposefully lack any explanatory labeling whatsoever, and instead feature simple prompts or directions for using the exhibit. As a result, the exhibits often are more "fun," and allow for more organic engagement, but might not result in the visitor leaving the exhibit having engaged with the relevant concepts. One example of this is the whisper dishes. They don't feature any labeling whatsoever. As a result, they do prompt a variety of responses. Most guests intuit that they may have something to do with sound, but their behavior from there varies hugely. I've mostly seen guests facing towards each other to talk, rather than towards the dishes, or seen guests (mostly children) pressing their face against the metal and shouting, and never really changing their volume to experiment. They'll leave the exhibit energized and not overwhelmed, as sometimes happens with exhibits that Allen describes. However, I've rarely observed a greater understanding of what sound is or how it travels through the air. I wonder if any minimal labeling would help with this without sacrificing deeper engagement. At the same time, I'm sure that labeling could easily make concepts too explicit and limit engagement and experimentation. This also becomes even more complicated when you account for different ages, learning styles, and previous knowledge between guests. What an interesting challenge!

-Sam S.

Designs for Learning - Danielle Tisdale

The idea that stuck out to me most in "Designs for Learning: Studying Science Museum Exhibits That Do More Than Entertain" by Sue Allen was, “every intermediate step in the visitors’ experience must be sufficiently motivating that they make the choice of continuing to invest time and attention there.” This statement seemed important to me because as a Spark I can either help or hinder the intermediate steps in the visitors’ experiences, and I am constantly learning better ways to help keep the visitors’ engaged in the exhibits and their own learning experiences. There are times when I am interacting with a visitor and I can help answer a question or pose a challenge that will further spark their engagement with an exhibit and keep them engaged, but then there are those times when I try to do that and the guest loses interest. I need to keep growing in my awareness of what motivates guests and know when to approach them and offer a challenge or allow them to keep engaging with the exhibit on their own.

Designs for Learning - Stephanie

Designs for Learning

"Csikszentmihalyi and Hermanson (1995) characterize ideal learning at exhibits as initially driven by curiosity and interest, and then sustained via a “flow” state, in which visitors become fully involved with mind and body in an intrinsically motivated activity."

When I read this sentence, I immediately thought of the Roll It Wall at MOXI. I think that the roll it wall does a perfect job of achieving this "ideal learning". Although many people may not reach the "flow" state, many others do! People see the wall and are perplexed and driven to explore the possibilities. But, when they try out a track, built by themselves or left by others, often some part of it is unsuccessful. I think that because it's so fun, people aren't discouraged by the failure and that is why they are driven to fix the problems. MOXI has a lot of exhibits that do this but I feel that I see the "flow" happen most often on the Roll It Wall.

Designs for Learning - Angela

Cognitive overload is a common problem in museums. I personally have experienced cognitive overload in a variety of different types of museums. When working on the floor, I can see guests who may be experiencing cognitive overload or museum fatigue where the visitors only engage deeply with an exhibit for a limited period of time and then cruise through the remainder of the floor. I think there are multiple aspects of MOXI that limit the amount of museum fatigue visitors experience. One way is through sparks. By interacting with the guests, this can create more of a guided experience. Simply asking questions or proposing challenges can influence a guest who is overwhelmed in a space to feeling more comfortable. In addition, a lot of exhibit at MOXI have a user-centered design such as the roll it wall. Even though this exhibit is very open-ended, the roll it wall invites a certain kind of use that can then be manipulated in a variety of different ways. In addition, the layout and orientation of the exhibits influences cognitive overload. The roof is a good example of a space where there are a lot of exhibits, however the orientations creates an environment were visitors will not feel as overwhelmed and will have a higher engagement level. Imagine if you moved the weather orchestra exhibits over to white water. This would create a very overwhelming space. This could also create a space where visitors are not as engaged with the exhibits because they are focused on sounds and movement that they observe going on around them. Therefore orientation of the exhibits influences the visitors experience!

Engagement at the Color Mixing Wheel (Revisited)

Engagement Revise language and complexity of engagement

The levels of engagement I noted at the Color Mixing Wheel exhibit are as follows:

Seeing the colors.
Turning the wheel.
Making the connection between the wheel and colors.
Changing speed of the wheel.
Changing the direction of the wheel.
Finding different colors or types of vibrancy on the palette.
Watching the spinning colors and repeated turning.
Noticing other components on the exhibit (i.e. what on the steering wheel controls the color palette).

Observations Inserting engagement levels at each observation

Toddler in stroller (less than 1 year old):

Turns wheel very slightly with tiny hand. Mother pushes stroller away after short moment.

About 2 - 3 year old girl:

Spins wheel and hesitantly leaves with parent after stopping briefly to look at spinning color palette.

8 - 9 year old boy:

Spins wheel and tells mom to look to which the mom says “come on!” He leaves with parent.

5 - 6 Year Old Boy:

Turns wheel, tells mom “watch this!” The mom says “cool”.

Toddler that can barely walk:

Mother sees toddler by the pole the wheel is attached to and says “do you want to do this?” and spins the wheel. The toddler grumbles (pacifier in mouth) while slapping the white pole. The toddler stumbles away after a short moment. 

Adult woman late 20s early 30s:

Sees the exhibit (unsure which part she sees first) and exclaims “Oh my god, does this move?” She spins the wheel, looks at the colors, and says “I’m like a child again!” Leaves after brief moment.

Adult male early 30s:

Spins the wheel as fast as possible while looking at the color palette.

Young adult woman:

Approaches wheel slowly and turns. Looks and sees the colors moving. Stays for a moment, turning the wheel at a moderate pace.

At this point decide to approach her and ask a few questions. I received this information from her.

Short Q&A Responses
The exhibit is calming.
The colors appear to become more vibrant.
She didn’t think the wheel and colors were related at first. This is not intuitive but most first time users don't automatically make the connection between the wheel and the colors, so I think that this may cause confusion for those reading my engagement levels.
The colors are what drew her to the exhibit.
The colors are her favorite part.
She couldn’t think of any immediate connections outside the exhibit during short use.

Additional Revisions
Suggested I change language and engagement levels. My group also utilized categorizing each observation with an engagement level. Someone also remarked I add more complexity to the engagement levels at the exhibit. At first I felt that it would be an inference to state that someone was trying to figure out what the colors on the wheel are rather than observation, but I think that the engagement matrix does afford making some inferences.

- Samantha Brown

Designs for (Optimized) Learning

For the article, Designs for Learning: Studying Science Museum Exhibits That Do More Than Entertain by Sue Allen I found the following passage intriguing.

“This latter endeavor has been part of a research project called Finding Significance,
in which we created video-based additions to existing exhibits, and compared the effects
of “narrative” video clips (in which four different people tell a personal story about their
connection to the exhibit) with “inquiry” video clips (in which the same four people ask the
audience short questions that invite further exploration or thinking about the exhibit) and
with a control (the baseline exhibit without any video addition).”

The “narrative” vs. “inquiry” video clips reminds me of one of our roles as Sparks, engaging with guest using VTS strategies, and how we act out the “inquiry” video clips in person. I think the idea of having designated floor educators to “ask the audience short questions that invite further exploration or thinking about the exhibit” rather than rely on excited (or indifferent) guests to watch a video that asks questions is a more practical, effective method of accommodating to different learning styles.

One major challenge with Sparks communicating the material of an “inquiry” video clip is that humans are not as consistent as robots; VTS can be made omnipresent using technology, however will not be multifaceted, adaptive, and interpersonal (as a video) like when engaging with a human being.

I remember my field trip to the Santa Barbara Maritime Museum when Allen mentions the “narrative” video clips, the two movies I watched in the Munger Theater, how empty the space was, how short the only other guests stayed to watch the second movie (a documentary on the biodiversity of Santa Barbara’s oceans). I don’t recall any “narrative” learning modes at MOXI besides storytime during Toddler Tuesday (which I unfortunately haven't seen yet). I definitely think more research should go into if and how that would be an effective learning method, because Allen does suggest that there could be errors in the methodology. I definitely think a flaw with the “narrative” strategy is that the experiences are third-person or sometimes far more distant. For instance, in the Santa Barbara and the Sea documentary there was so little sensory perception during the fisherman’s tales all most people could do is feel sleepy.

-Samantha Brown

Sophia Rowen- User-centered design, cognitive overload, and immediate apprehendability

Our exercise the other class was centered around identifying different exhibits at MOXI that are strictly observational and using the matrix to come up with levels of engagement for those exhibits. Personally, I felt like this was going to be challenging because exhibits like the color wheel or the donor wall are often passively engaged with. After careful observation, I realized that there was much more to the Donor Wall that meets the eye. While reading “Designs for Learning,” I realized a connection between this exercise and the exhibits at the Exploratorium. Sue Allen states, “Interestingly, some of the Exploratorium’s most attractive and sustaining exhibits in recent years have used little or no physical interactivity at all” (25). This quote suggests that there is not one successful model for an interactive exhibit, and the power of interactive experiences should be challenged by exploring alternative ways of creating interactive exhibits. I like the terms “minds-on” and “hands-on” that are used in the article. I would use these terms to describe the Donor Wall. Since I have chosen this exhibit for my final project I have been giving it a lot of thought. This article is helpful for stimulating ideas for this project in many ways. For example, I have become more aware that the Donor Wall can elicit many self-generated explorations by the visitor than the more traditional exhibits that may have a higher degree of interactivity. This is because of another interesting point raised in the article- cognitive overload. Cognitive overload is defined in the context of this article as a guest having no sense of direction in terms of what is to be learned from an exhibit, and this is combined with having to translate the meaning of the exhibit to their child. All of this contributes to the phenomenon known as “museum fatigue” which Allen defines as a state in which visitors can only engage deeply with exhibits for thirty minutes (20). 

Allen mentions simple designs that are user-centered and states that “when affordances are taken advantage of, the user know what to do just by looking: no picture, label or instruction is required” (21). This quote can be extended to majority of the exhibits at MOXI. At MOXI, there is little signage, and this doesn’t take away from the visitor’s overall experience or engagement because the exhibits are designed in a way that is user friendly. This “user-centered design” is one way that you can reduce cognitive load in exhibits. 

The concept of “immediate apprehendability” is a primary focus in this article. I have never heard this term before and was concerned about the meaning of it. I thought that the way it is described is more forced that realistic. For example, Allen states that immediate apprehendability is “the quality of a stimulus or larger environment such that people introduced to it for the first time will understand its purpose, scope, and properties almost immediately and without conscious effort” (20). I tried to understand this concept by picturing the levels of engagement matrix. Rarely do guests walk up to an exhibit and immediately become aware of the purpose of the exhibit, its overall intent, and the engineering properties behind it. This would in fact defeat all purpose of sustained involvement by visitors. I thought this was interesting and would need to give it a little more thought. 

Lastly, I liked how the article concluded with acknowledging that there is still much to learn about the effects of immediate apprehendability, physical interactivity, conceptual coherence and diversity of learning modes. This is comforting to know that we still need to discover what works and what doesn’t work which is an opportunity given to us through the MAPS program. 

Designs for learning - Destiny

      I really enjoyed reading about the Exploratorium and related to a lot of their statements in the article by Sue Allen. Specifically, I found a quote in the section about different learning styles. It reads, "Specifically, staff at the Boston Museum of Science modified a hall of dioramas based on universal design principles, with the goals of making the subject matter intellectually and physically accessible, and finding new methods for allowing participation by visitors regardless of their special needs (Davidson, 1991)"
   
    This quote stuck out to me because it really hit on the importance of how every visitor is different and they approach each exhibit in a new light. As an informal learning museum, it is our job to have many access points on our exhibits and trained staff that can bring that visitor to the next level of their learning by personalizing and enhancing their experiance.

    Personally, on the floor, I think about this all the time. You never know the guest's preferred learning style, background knowledge, or how they will respond to a stranger. I see this specifically at the program carts since there are so many aspects. For example, they all have audio and visual learning aspects; however, the mystery tubes incorporate the whiteboards that allow the guest to supplement the verbal discussion of their ideas with a drawing to visualize their thoughts. I think this is crucial so that guests have a chance to really encapsulate their plan or ideas. All in all, no matter the guest's prior knowledge or accessibility, the MOXI does a great job of allowing all people to have an enriched experience of learning. 

Response to Designs for Learning

"Cognitive overload is a huge problem in museums of all kinds (e.g., Evans, 1995; Hedge, 1995), but perhaps especially in hands-on science museums. Consider the challenge: visitors are faced with a gyrating landscape of hundreds of exhibits, none of which they have probably seen before, and none of which has standardized controls, mechanisms, or explanations." (Designs for Learning:Studying Science Museum Exhibits That Do More Than Entertain)

The Article goes further to describe how a museum can combat this by making exhibits that have a limited range of exploration. These can help to limit the amount of mental energy needed to obtain the targeted information. The MOXI attempts to do this in the various tracks. In the sound track the Reactable and the Foley Studios are very interactive and have a wide range of options that can engage quests on several levels. To prime guests for these intensive experiences the quiet quest and sound machine are limited in there interaction level. This allows the guests to take a break from the high engagement activities before moving to another or when guests enter the track they can take a break before starting on the high engagement activities. By combining the high engagement and low engagement exhibits in the same space both engages guests of different levels whole and gives the guests that will be at the museum for an extended period a break from the high engagement activities.

Familiar Activities at MOXI- Juliana

One idea that I found interesting from Sue Allen’s “Designs for Learning: Studying Science Museum Exhibits That Do More Than Entertain,” was the idea of familiar activities that lead to immediate apprehendability of an exhibit. Allen gave three examples of familiar activities in the Exploratorium- making a complex machine work, a competition, and watching and waiting.

For the familiar activity of making a complex machine work, Allen uses the example of the exhibit “Bike Cycle,” in which hydraulic pistons controlled by four buttons take the place of major leg muscles. Having the challenge of trying to press the buttons at the right times in order to make the pedals move helped to engage visitors on a deeper level. This reminded me of Reactable, where guests have the challenge of figuring out what each of the different pieces do if you put them on the table, and how to make a complete soundtrack. I have observed many guests spend a very long time at this exhibit attempting the challenge of making music with this unfamiliar instrument.

Allen also mentions competition as a familiar activity to guests. Two exhibits at MOXI came to mind with this familiar activity- Quiet Quest and Mindball. In Quiet Quest, guests compete against each other one at a time by walking across a rocky pathway while trying to be as quiet as possible, and whoever has the lower score wins. This design encourages guests to keep trying the challenge over and over again to get the lowest possible score, keeping them engaged longer. At Mindball, guests compete against each other in order to push the ball towards the other player with their minds. When guests first approach Mindball and see two other guests playing against each other, they immediately become intrigued and watch to see who will win. Competition and races are familiar activities that allow guests to become more engaged with the exhibit and encourage them to make predictions and come up with explanations for how to win the competition.

Lastly, watching and waiting as a familiar activity was another example that led to immediate apprehendability of an exhibit. One exhibit in MOXI that is more of a “watching and waiting” activity is the Sound Machine. Although this is one of the less interactive exhibits that guests can observe, guests are still drawn in to the machine to observe the path of the ball and where the sounds are coming from. So when guests wait long enough to see a ball hit a certain sound component in the sound machine, they are “rewarded” by discovering the source of the sound. This familiar activity encourages guests to spend more time at this exhibit and engage on a deeper level.

Revised Sound Machine Matrix

Engagement Levels

1. Passive Watching 
2. Changing Parts 
3. Focused Watching 
4. Manipulating Pattern 

Observing

While doing my observation of the Sounds Machine, I added a few practices of engagement and split my engagement levels into four levels.  With the sound machine there are only two points of manipulation, each with only one result. Due to the limited interaction manipualtipulation is at a minimum, restricting problem solving and testing of solutions. Observation may advance with the levels as the quest may track the ball of follow the track back from a noise to see where to ball came from.

Asking Questions

1. Passive Watching 
• What is the noise?
• Where are the balls coming from?
2. Changing Parts 
• What does this lever do?
• What happens what I turn the wheel?
3. Focused Watching 
• What is the pattern of the balls?
• What track makes that noise?
4. Manipulating Pattern
• Can I change the pattern of the balls?
• Can I knock the balls off the track?

Exhibits for final projects

Here are the choices everyone picked. If you change your mind, let us know.

Samantha - Color Mixing Machine
Sam - Oscillandarscope
Donor Wall - Sophia
Juliana - Mindball
Stephanie - Light Table
Destiny - Ring Launch
Kevin - Telescopes
Angela - X-Ray
Matthew - Sound Machine
Danielle - Heartbeat drum

Second pass - Levels of engagement and practices for the infrared scope - Sam S.

Levels of Engagement:
1. Guests simply look into the scope.
2. Guests look into the scope and compare with scope visual normal-eye visual of the same area.
3. Guests use the button to switch camera views and different levels of zoom.
4. Guests look for the location of cameras and observe the structure of the viewer.


Observations:
Observations associated with the first two levels of engagement consist of guests using their sense of sight to see the range of colors in the scope's display, then comparing the scope's color range to normal vision. As they begin to engage deeper, they may start to notice patterns in colors, and what different objects or areas correlate to purple, orange, or yellow. They may notice that shadows are a darker purple, while cars can vary based on which way they are facing, and people and the road are a lighter orange or yellow. They may notice that any correlation between colors in the scope and colors in real life is very weak. As they engage further, they may associate colors in the scope with certain parts or orientations of objects; the tires of a car are orange or yellow (hotter), while the rims are darker (cooler), and the undercarriage of a car is even lighter. The train tracks are almost always in the sun, and the gravel and wood railroad ties show up lighter. These observations can eventually lead them to conclude that the colors in the scope depict different heat signatures. Further observations may include grappling with the anomalous behavior of metal objects, which reflect infrared waves.

Questions:
- What am I looking at?
- Is the image I'm looking at in the scope happening at the same time in reality?
- Why are different objects different colors? Do they relate to the colors of things in real life?
- What are the differences between the two zoom levels?
- How are these images being produced? Is there a lens? Is there a camera? Where are the cameras?
- Why do different parts of cars or people show up as different colors in the camera?
- I there anything I can see in the camera that I can't see at all with my eyes?
- Do different materials appear as different colors?
- Okay, so it seems that the materials are related to heat. How does that work? How are the cameras seeing heat?

- Sam S.

Ring Launch revised- Destiny

Ring Launch- revised 

Engagement Levels:

1. Watch
2. Press button
3. Read sign
4. Manipulate materials 

Observing:

            A guest may just simply look the exhibit, may touch the button, and then watch the rings go up. They may also listen to the rings as they leave the base, travel up and down the black tube, and then hit the base again. Visitors can identify the materials used and compare size and shape. They may compare the rings themselves to see similarities and differences. They may notice the metallic rings under the base of where the rings touch. They may even just read the sign and compare that information to the exhibit.

Asking questions:

What do these rings do?
What does this button do?
How or why do the rings launch up?
How do these materials interact?
What would happen if the rings were plastic?
Are the rings different materials?
Are the rings different weights?
Do the rings go up different heights?
Do the heights very after each button press? Do they increase, decrease, or stay the same height?
Can I stop it before it hits the base?
What will be different if the ring isn't touching the base when I press the button?
How do magnets work?
Are there different magnets
Are the black poles affecting the rings?
How is the magnetic field affecting the rings?
How big is the magnetic field?

Mindball Levels of Engagement revised- Juliana

1) Observing others play- Guests watch other guests play Mindball, learning how to play
2) Observing parts of Mindball- Guests press the button, watch the ball move, look at computer screen, or may sit on the stool and read the plaque
3) Playing Mindball- Guests will play with either another guest or spark
4) Coming up with a theory- Guests question what is causing the ball to move, and may discuss with another guest or spark what they think i happening
5) Testing variables- Guests make changes to how they play, which may include focusing on the ball, switching seats, or closing eyes.

Revised: Levels of Engagement: Ferrofluid - Danielle Tisdale

Ferrofluid

1.      Levels of Engagement

1.      Looking at exhibit
       -Maybe reading sign

2.      Turning one knob

3.      Experimenting with both knobs/Making the spike pattern
4.   Realizing that the fluid is affected by magnets

5.      Figuring out which knob affects which magnet/Finding different patterns

Revised Levels of Engagement_ X-ray

1. Playing with toys
2. Observing different parts of the exhibit
3. Looking at the x-rays
4. Making the connection between the different parts
5. Identifying parts of toys through the x-rays (answering questions on the x-ray)
6. Comparison of multiple toys and x-rays

Heartbeat Drum Take 2 -- Stephanie Mapes

Heartbeat Drum: 

Levels of Engagement:

         I.      Look / watch – guests look at it or watch others using it

       II.      Hands on and watch – guests put their hands on and observe what happens

     III.      Investigate what the beating is – either ask a spark or removing hands, replacing hands, etc. Base level visible testing

    IV.      Design games / challenges – figuring out ways you could potentially manipulate the drum

      V.      Testing / competing – actually manipulating the drum
  VI.    (If weather orchestra is set up) Try to control the beat to make music with other instruments

Sophia Rowen- Donor Wall levels of engagement revised

Exhibit: MOXI donor wall 

1. Passive observation 

2. Turning one knob and watching 

3. Inviting someone to turn other knob with you

4. Identifying games/challenges (challenging yourself to hit certain names, counting the number of names hit/ money accumulated)  

6. Hitting the names yourself instead of turning knobs (guests would have to realize that the ball hitting the name will activate the light) 

Air Cannon (from class discussion)

Brainstorming - all the things we've seen people do at the air cannon.
Observe, take turns, aim it, rotate direction (horizontal and vertical), look at it, pull cord (different lengths), put your head in it, pull cord solo, see how far it goes, guess shape of air, knock something down with blast modify shape of hole, see effect of breeze, standing in front of the cannon to get hit with air.

Engagement Levels 
1) Watching
2) Launching fog donuts
3) Pulling cord, rotate cannon (discovering how it works)
4) Shooting at a target (with or without fog)
5) Getting hit with air blast (with or without fog)
6) Changing shape of air of hole with hands (with or without fog)
7) More complex manipulation (with or without fog)

Levels of Engagement Sounds Machine

While doing my observation of the Sounds Machine, I added a few practices of engagement and split my engagement levels into four levels. The practices of engagement added are observable and include changing parts, extended stay or watching, and engaging other guests. With the sound machine there are only two points of manipulation, each with only one result. Due to the limited interaction manipualtipulation is at a minimum, restricting problem solving and testing of solutions. The engagement levels I specified gradually increasing levels from passive observation to complete engagement.
For the first level of engagement, observing, all levels of engagement involved observation. Most of the practices include observation as manipulation is at a minimum. The questions asked may include the rate or pattern of the balls and which balls make which sounds. I put asking questions in the two highest engagement levels as it is crucial finding to connections and interpreting data both indicators of high engagement.

Levels of Engagement: Ferrofluid - Danielle Tisdale

Ferrofluid

1.      Levels of Engagement

1.      Looking at exhibit/Reading sign

2.      Turning one knob

3.      Experimenting with both knobs

4.      Making the spike pattern

5.      Figuring out which knob affects which magnet/Finding different patterns

2.      What are the different observations and/or questions you identified for your exhibit?

·         Observations:

o   At engagement level 2 and up, guests observe that turning a knob manipulates the ferrofluid

o   At level 3, guests can start making comparisons between how each knob affects the ferrofluid differently and begin to look for patterns

o   Level 4 is around when the guest can find the main spike pattern, and level 5 is when they begin to go beyond that and find other patterns or figure out which knob affects each magnet

·         Questions:

o   Why does the fluid move when you turn the knobs?

o   Do the knobs affect different magnets?

o   What patterns can you find?

My understanding of the visitor experience at the ferrofluid exhibit changed a little during this exercise, visitors can engage more deeply with this exhibit than I had expected, even though it is not open ended like most of MOXI’s other exhibits. Most of the guests just turn the knobs, see the spike pattern, and move on, but some will engage with it for longer, find more patterns, and attempt to figure out which knob affects which magnet. Some visitors have prior knowledge of ferrofluid and enjoy getting to experience it hands-on and can engage deeply with the exhibit by building off what they already knew.

Levels of Engagement_X-ray

1. Recognition
The x-ray exhibit is often missed. The first level of engagement is often recognition of the exhibit. Many people will look at the exhibit, see the video, may or may not watch the video, and often move on. Many children also find the toys and play with them but do not realize there is more to the exhibit.

2. Placement
If the X-rays are found, people will often hold the x-rays up to the light or place the x-rays on the table and look through one or more.

3. Making Connections
The next level of engagement is making the connection that the x-rays are of the objects in the back cubbies and matching the objects to the x-rays. This may also include the realization that there are multiple x-rays for some of the objects.

(Making the connection that the video, x-rays, and toys are all related usually occurs sometime within the 2nd or 3rd level of engagement)

4. Exploration
This is the level of engagement were people are looking deeply at the x-rays, identifying what is inside the objects by looking at the x-rays, answering the questions on the x-rays, connecting all of the pieces and really understanding the process.

This exhibit often requires facilitation in order for visitors to be fully engaged. I believe this is highly due to the fact that so many visitors do not notice that the x-rays are even there. The toys are often found, however the connection that those toys are part of an exhibit is lost. With facilitation, visitors often go through all of the levels of engagement.

Sophia Rowen- levels of engagement at Donor Wall

List and describe the engagement levels you identified for your exhibit. 

Exhibit: MOXI donor wall 

1. Passive observation 

2. Turning one knob and watching 

3. Inviting someone to turn other knob with you 

4. Identifying challenges (challenging yourself to hit certain names) 

5. Counting the number of names hit/ money accumulated 

6. Hitting the names yourself instead of turning knobs (guests would have to realize that the ball hitting the name will activate the light) 

What are the different observations and/or questions you identified for your exhibit? 

- on level 2 engagement (turning one knob) I noticed that many people don’t look up to see  the effect of turning the knob  

- guests like to identify patterns in the donor wall, like figuring out which way the balls go and in what certain places they fall 

- guests then identify the causes and effects of the donor wall, for example, that turning the knob makes the ball shoot up through the tube and fall down and hit certain names that then light up 

- guests may observe the various system components of the donor wall, for example, that there is a wheel inside that brings the balls forward to shoot through and up the tube on the side of the wall 

- guests may observe various energy and matter changes in the donor wall (these can only be identified by asking the guest) for example, the weight of the ball, gravity 

- after careful observation of the donor wall over a couple of days, I designed some challenges that guests may want to try, 1) can you find the quote 2) can you catch the ball (requires planning) 

How did your understanding of the visitor experience at your exhibit change (if at all) through this exercise? 

- I became more aware of the different places in the museum that you can stand to view the donor wall (courtyard floor, second floor window) 

- I became more aware of that the longer a guest stays at the donor wall the more likely they are to interact toward a certain goal