Hi, Angelina,

I did a lit review about interactivity a few years ago. I suspect that there are so many facets to the concept of interactivity that it will be hard to develop a universal classification (if, by that, you mean a classification that meets everybody's needs).

Below are some classifications extracted from that review. Each highlights a somewhat different aspect of interactivity.

Eric Gyllenhaal
Selinda Research Associates

---------

Steve Bitgood (1991) classified interactive exhibits by what he called “type of response engagement.” His three categories were:

   * Simple hands-on. Exhibit prompts the visitor to touch, climb, etc.

   * Participatory.   Exhibit prompts a response and the outcome is used to teach a point by comparing it with some other response or standard. In participatory exhibits, visitors might be asked to compare their own jumping distances with those of other animals, feel and compare the characteristics of objects, and so forth.

   * Interactive. Exhibit prompts a response that changes the state of the exhibit; the change is under the control of the visitor (Bitgood, 1991, p. 5).

Adams et al. (2004) identified three categories of interactivity based on purpose and underlying assumptions. Here are their categories (I think I reworked their descriptions, though, to meet the purposes of a particular project):

   * Interactive is the primary experience. The primary focus is to allow visitors to physically experience and explore a phenomenon, or concept, such as lift or drag of an airplane wing.

   * Interactive scaffolds experience with objects. The interactive helps visitors focus on and appreciate an individual object.

   * Interactive supplies information about objects. The interactive provides supplemental information about a collection of objects, beyond what is included in the objects’ labels.

Stocklmayer & Gilbert (2002) point out that interactives in science museums can be classified into (a) interactives linked to a common theme or (b) stand-alone. They also introduce a second classification that applies to science interactives, and may not apply to other subject areas: "Every interactive exhibit is either an exemplar (an idealized example) of a real-world phenomenon or an analogical representation (a teaching model) of a consensus model (one approved by scientific society) of a phenomenon (p. 838)." They provide further subdivisions within these two major types.

Witcomb (2003) describes her objections to the technological approach to interactivity seen in many science museums and increasingly in other sorts of museums. Then she goes on to describe and give examples of two other types of interactivity that seem particularly appropriate for cultural and historical exhibitions:

   * Spatial interactivity. Witcomb’s (2003) example of this type is the Australian National Maritime Museum, which has been criticized for failing to offer strong linear narratives and suggested routes through the exhibits. Witcomb says this museum actually has a non-traditional approach to narration that she calls “serialized narrative.” In this approach, exhibits were organized into individual “vignettes,” each with its own, stand-alone theme or subtheme, which did not require viewing in any particular order. As visitors chose their own routes between vignettes, Witcomb saw them engaging in a form of highly interactive “self-inscription.” Witcomb states that, “The positive effect of self-inscription is that it allows for a pluralizing of narratives and therefore of perspectives and subjectivities” (p. 146).

   * Dialogic interactivity. Witcomb’s (2003) example of this type is the Museum of Sidney, which she says adds the notion of dialogue to the discussion of interactivity. Because the exhibition focuses on the first years of cross-cultural exchange as Sidney was settled by Europeans, the designers “set up a series of cross-cultural dialogues—between past and present, between indigenous and settler voices, between the museum and its visitors, between traditional historical knowledge and contemporary critiques of that knowledge” (p. 156).

References:

Adams, M., Luke, J., & Moussouri, T. (2004). Interactivity: Moving beyond terminology. Curator, 47(2), 155-170.

Bitgood, S. (1991). Suggested guidelines for designing interactive exhibits. Visitor Behavior, 6(4), 4-11.

Stocklmayer, S., & Gilbert, J. K. (2002). New experiences and old knowledge: Toward a model for the personal awareness of science and technology. International Journal of Science Education, 24(8), 835-858.

On 5/16/06, Angelina Tsitoura <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Hello all,
> I am doing a research on possible use of Interactivity in museums. I have
> been trying to find a universal categorization of interactives but
> unfortunately with no luck. Apart from computer related or not, which are
> the most appropriate aspects to look for, in order to do such a
> categorization?
>
> Any suggestions or guidance would be very much appreciated.
> Thank you in advance.
>
>

========================================================= Important Subscriber Information:

The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).

If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).