In the past, traditional museology presented the museum as an institution that's role was to educate the public, often by preserving the cultural artifacts that they deemed worthy within their cultural perspective (Hein, 2002). The method of communication was set as a hierarchy of the museums expertise and intellectual superiority to the novice and uneducated visitor model of communication with the museum curator in an intellectually superior position, dictating not only the information to be transmitted but also indicating the cultural value of that information(Macdonald, 2006). The visitor's role within this scenario was one of a recipient of values and information, not as an active participant but as a passive sponge like visitor who is expected to absorb and retain the message that is being handed down to them (Macdonald, 2006). However, a cultural shift away from the traditional model has created space fro new technologies to be embraced by new museology as the shift has emphasised the role of the museu and it’s relationship with their visitor and society as a whole (Vergo (1997). It is important to recognise that the definition of cultural phenomena such as galleries and museums are intrinsically linked to the cultural contexts in which they were made such as society. When the cultural context changes such as the advent of interactive personal technology, that new opportunities are created, that norms change and that the definitions, rules and pre-technology boundaries need to change too.
Socio-Cultural Activity Theory (AT) is a theoretical framework that allows us to conceptualize the participation in a museum visit as an activity that can be mediated by technology, and supports the identification of the factors which shape the interaction between the visitors and the technologies in place.
Whilst the application of typical video gaming elements, such as point scoring, rules of play, and a sense of completion between individuals or teams, to other, non-gaming activities can all be applied to the use of interactive technology games in Museums and galleries. Game playing has often been used as an educational technique, which is where the value of gamification lies for museums.
It is important to acknowledge that people like to learn in different ways and that playing games can represent an effective alternative form of education and learning. If visitors to an art gallery or historical site can learn through completing tasks and gaining points, they are more likely to absorb the message a particular exhibit wishes to convey, and also enjoy and remember the experience much more afterwards (Marshal,2020).
It is important for Museums and galleries to continue to challenge traditional methods of knowledge acquisition , and thus embrace new technologies and philosophies such as the use of technology and gaming and games, as part of stepping into and capturing the attention of the technologically rich and motivational sphere of new younger and less traditional generations of their potential audience.The traditional, classic methods of the means of acquiring knowledge can be challenged when adopting the assumptions of constructive learning.
Constructivism (Vygotsky,1980) suggested that learning is an active, constructive process. The learner is able to be recognised as a constructor of their own information environment due to the sources and influences that they are immersed and experienced in. Within this, participants in constructivist learning are able to actively construct or form their own subjective representations of objective reality, an opportunity that a museums game can offer. Thus new information and input can be linked within the constructed reality to prior knowledge, this in turn informs the construction of mental representations that are subjective in nature but are entirely meaningful to the individual, due to the links and the creation of meaning that they are able to derive from them(Vygotsky, 1980). Jonassen & Rohrer-Murphy (1999) argue that activity theory provides an appropriate framework for analyzing needs, tasks, and outcomes for designing constructivist learning environments. As activity theory is a socio-cultural, and a socio-historical lens with which designers of learning environments and gaming activity designers are thus able to analyze the human activity systems and interactions that support the development and construction of games. The environmental context for this study is that of the game within the context of the presentation of knowledge of the museum and gallery and the relevance of the interaction in creating this new environment. This links to the potential use of a skeuomorphic environment to contextualise the learner and establish cultural boundaries and relivances. It is therefore essential to recognise that conscious learning is a result of activity, not as a forerunner to it, therefore a constructivist learning environment may need to replicate the activity structures, tools and sign systems, socio-cultural rules, and community expectations that performers must accommodate while acting on some object of learning (Jonassen & Rohrer-Murphy,1999).
Due to public interest and the public's positive response to the use of technology by Museums and Galleries, an increasing number of museums are seeking innovative solutions to better exhibit and communicate the evident and intangible heritage they preserve and present, whilst engaging visitors in an educational yet leisure experience, and the use of games as part of the new constructivist learning experience partnership and a successful part of this (Marshal, 2020).
Activity Theory has been recognized as a successful framework for exploring the interaction between users and tools, thus it can be applied to study the technology in the context of human activities (Kaptelinin and Nardi, 2006)
However, it is important to consider that the tool, in the case of technology in the form of a game as an arbiter of the activity can be both enabling and limiting, as it empowers the subject by enabling them to reach an outcome, although it may also restrict the interaction, as it can create a narrowed perspective due to the limits of that particular game(). As a negotiated tool, the technology and game can potentially enable an activity that cannot be practically possible and feasible such as the examination of a fragile object or of an object behind glass, removing the barriers of the practicality of physical handling (Kaptelinin and Nardi, 2006).
Defining what a game is allows us to see how the museum can create an activity that engages and educates, within a set of parameters set by the activity.
‘to play a game is to engage in activity directed toward bringing about a specific state of affairs, using only means permitted by specific rules, where the means permitted by the rules are more limited in scope than they would be in the absence of the rules, and where the sole reason for accepting such limitation is to make possible such activity. (Suits 1967b: 156)
The need for a structure within the game, that defines rules of engagement and parameters of activity are thus implicit to participation with a game. The museum therefore are required to maintain rules for the game that allow the participant to interact, however, these rules and restrictions, if they are not constructivist in nature, allowing for choice and self determination of direction risk a return to the traditional directavist museology of the past.
Comments