Objects and Interactives Sample Clauses

Objects and Interactives. If objects and exhibits, and the knowledge associated with them, are the unique selling points of the science centres and museums, then why are many science centres and museums so committed to digital technologies that they barely stop short of becoming internet service providers? (Several do, indeed, operate an effective on-site intranet, see Appendix I.) Why has there been an apparently relentless search for the supposed Holy Grail of interactivity? Can it really be the case that, both “interactive” and “virtual” have become “so embedded” that there is little debate over their value or utility? There are three fundamental questions to consider. Is there a conflict between objects and interactives? What does “interactive” mean in the museum context? Are the learning issues that arise from mechanical, hands-on exhibits in museums and in science centres the same as those emanating from interactives incorporating digital technologies? For some, interactivity and objects appear mutually exclusive. Boon (2000) is adamant that the two realms are distinct and should remain so: “… placing a computer screen in the midst of an artefact display can be highly distorting of visitor experience, as ‘doing the interactives’ can tend to overwhelm the slower, more complex, less controllable, forms of interaction which occur with visitors’ informed, or simply curious, mental interaction with artefacts and display.” Such a perspective seems rather simplistic, even primitive, in its inherent assumptions about visitors and their learning strategies. In their seminal work, ▇▇▇▇▇ et al (1982) classified exhibits as static or dynamic, the latter subdivided into three categories: automaton; operand; (truly) interactive. Truly interactive exhibits, they argue, require some kind of decision making by the visitor, compared with those, however technologically sophisticated, that require little or no visitor input beyond start/stop. This crucial requirement of user engagement echoes with ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇’▇ (1989) demand that science centre exhibits be “minds-on” as well as hands-on. Such a requirement would limit Hall’s (2004) criticism of the kind of “interactive” exhibit where the visitor “does little more than watch video clips or read text”. Not that choice and decision-making are by themselves any guarantee of a learning opportunity, for, as ▇▇▇▇▇ (2003) asserts, there may be, “no logical point to the interaction and no relationship between action and outcome.” As ▇▇▇▇▇ and vom ▇▇▇▇ (2002)...