Comparing the Visitor Experience at Immersive and Tabletop Exhibits

Abstract

Many museum professionals believe that immersive exhibits—those that surround visitors—provide more attractive, engaging and effective learning experiences than tabletop exhibits. We investigated this claim by comparing visitors’ experiences of the two exhibit types, using pairs of exhibits that differed in scale (immersive vs. tabletop), but shared the same content and similar visitor activity. We randomly selected, videotaped, interviewed, and sent follow‐up surveys to sixty families who experienced immersive exhibits and sixty families who experienced tabletop exhibits. We found that each design type had strengths. Learners at immersive exhibits more often returned to the exhibits mentioned the exhibits’ positive aspects, and saw themselves as part of the exhibits. Conversely, learners spent longer periods of time at tabletop exhibits, and engaged in more content‐related reasoning. Study results partially support the view that immersive exhibits may be more fun and engaging than tabletops. However, results also counter the expectations that being immersed in exhibit experiences will lead to greater physical and intellectual engagement.

High Pulse: Exploring the Exhibit Features of a Collaborative, Whole-Body Exhibition for Experiential Learning in Science Centers

“…Eight groups used the opportunity to collect photos. The findings match findings from Dancstep et al (2015) that whole-body interactive exhibits have a diminished intellectual engagement compared to hands-on exhibits that also held the visitors' attention for a longer period. The family groups did not discuss the exhibit themes more often or more comprehensively compared to the school groups, contrary to findings by Crowley et al (2001).…”

“…As such, the findings support the general believe that immersive, whole-body experience may be capable of enhancing visitor learning (Wellington, 1998;Gilbert, 2002). As in Dancstep et al (2015), only few visitors expressed their reasoning verbally, but they showed their sensemaking when trying to improve their jumping techniques. Yet again, these findings demonstrate the importance of a conceptually coherent exhibit design with clear connection between lines of reasoning, for example, you can jump higher if you combine coordination and muscle strength (Allen 2004).…”

“…Allen and Gutwill (2004) argued that multiple interactive features may overwhelm, disrupt, or displace visitors' attention and in the end disturb or prevent the visitor's experience. Dancstep et al (2015) suggested that whole-body exhibits, compared to tabletop exhibits, each have their own strengths with respect to visitor experience measured by physical effect, attitude, scientific thinking, and memorability. In their study, immersive, whole-body interactive exhibits fostered slightly more positive attitudes particularly in relation to using the exhibits with others (social interactions), whereas tabletops held visitors' attention for longer periods of time and prompted more utterances and reasoning about the scientific phenomena compared to whole-body interactive exhibits.…”

Exhibit Designs for Girls' Engagement (EDGE)

“…Return Visits: We posit that return visits are also indicative of engagement, though used less commonly (Dancstep et al. ). Similar to other indictors of engagement in situations where learners are free to choose, we believe returning to use an exhibit again suggests higher interest and engagement (Diamond ; Falk ; Humphrey and Gutwill ; Sandifer ; Serrell ; Yalowitz and Bronnenkant ).…”

“…Previous studies of exhibit designs have ranged from single exhibits to exhibition collections of 30–60 exhibits, and typically focus on only a handful of design attributes (see for example, Borun and Dritsas ; Dancstep et al. ; Gutwill‐Wise and Allen ; Perry ; Sandifer ; Sanford ). The large number of design attributes identified in the FRD Framework necessitated a much broader investigation.…”