VISITOR BEHAVIOR ) Winter, 1992 Volume VII Number 4 Page 4

The Anatomy of An Exhibit

Stephen BitgoodJacksonville State University

An educational exhibition center, whether it bea museum, zoo, aquarium, science-technologycenter, or some other type of informal educationalfacility, is an extremely complex environment.Unlike a formal classroom that is relatively barrenof objects, most exhibition centers are packed withthe sights and sounds of objects and media. Unlikethe classroom where the learner remains seated andis exposed to one message at a time, the visitor toan exhibition center is free to wander through anenvironment rich in sensory stimulation, whereattention to one object or message may competewith another. In addition, the motivation of learn-ers differs. In a formal educational setting, peopleare expected to learn (enjoyment is rare and not anecessary condition); while in an exhibit center,one of the visitors' major goals is to enjoy them-selves whether or not they learn anything. Giventhe complexity of the exhibit environment and themotivational goals of the audience, it is especiallyimportant to have an understanding of how theseenvironmental components influence and are proc-essed by the visitor. This article attempts to pro-vide a detailed analysis of the exhibit environment— an important task if we are to understand how todesign exhibits more effectively. Recognition mustbe given to the many previous researchers whose

ideas have helped to shape the current analysis. Inaddition, many of the ideas presented in this articleare the product of an ongoing collaborative projectwith Don Thompson (Bitgood & Thompson, 1992).

"Exhibit" Defined

Before proceeding further, the problem of de-fining an exhibit will be addressed. There is oftenconfusion when the word "exhibit" is used. It issometimes used to mean a single display, some-times applied to a series of displays dealing withthe same, specific topic (e.g., "How airplanes fly"),and sometimes used to mean a large collection ofdisplays with a common theme (e.g., "Electric-ity"). In this article, a distinction is made betweenan exhibit unit (the display), an exhibit group (twoor more displays on the same topic), and an exhibitarea (a collection of displays with a similar, gen-eral theme) to differentiate among the three pos-sible uses of "exhibit" described above.

In this article, the exhibit unit (display) isdefined as a combination of two factors: exhibitcomponents, and the configuration or relationshipsamong these components. Figure 1 illustratesthese two factors comprising an exhibit unit.

Figure 1

The Exhibit Unit

Exhibit Exhibit

Components Configuration

Objects Text Spatial Other Types ofInformation Relationships Relationships

Communication (size, color, etc.)Media

VISITOR BEHAVIOR ) Winter, 1992 Volume VII Number 4 Page 5

The Exhibit Components

An exhibit unit is made up of one or more of thefollowing components: (1) exhibit objects ; (2) com-munication (presentation) media; and (3) text in-formation to be communicated (involving the useof language). Does an exhibit unit have to includeall three of these components? Not necessarily!For example, a text panel alone would be an exhibit(although not necessarily a particularly effectiveone). Some exhibits include only media and textinformation (e.g., an interactive computer).

Exhibit Objects

Exhibit objects might include a painting, asculpture, a piece of furniture, or a piece of china inan art museum; they might also be live animals ina zoo or mounted animals in a natural historymuseum. While science exhibit devices that at-tempt to illustrate a principle of science are notusually thought of as "exhibit objects," it can beargued that they are. For example, according to theviewpoint in this article, an electrical circuit whichthe visitor is required to connect to a battery is con-sidered to be an "exhibit object." An exhibit objectis defined as a visible or tangible thing that does notpresent text information.

Objects have varying degrees of importance inexhibits. Art museum exhibits place heavy em-phasis on objects (paintings and sculpture) withmedia and text information often playing a secon-dary role (although visitors generally prefer moreinformation if presented in a digestible manner).Other exhibits (e.g., an interactive computer) maycontain a communication media device and infor-mation, but no exhibit objects.

While objects may convey meaning to visitors(e.g., "This is an important object because it is inthe museum"), such meaning is not explicit andmust be distinguished from the "text information"component of an exhibit which uses explicit lan-guage. It is also important to emphasize that themeaning that objects communicate to visitors maynot be what is intended by the exhibit designers. Infact, it may be just the opposite!

To understand the impact of exhibits on people,we must understand which characteristics of ob-jects have the strongest impact on visitors, and thequalitative nature of this impact. Table 1 providesa list of a few of the characteristics that are likely tohave a significant impact on visitors.

Table 1Characteristics of Exhibit Objects

Size MotionShape TextureColor DimensionSense modality Material

The visitor literature includes many studiesrelated to these characteristics. A few exampleswill illustrate:

(1) Larger objects attract and hold visitor attentionbetter than smaller objects (e.g., Bitgood, Patterson,& Benefield, 1988).

(2) Objects in motion are more attention-getting thanstatic objects (e.g., Bitgood, et al., 1988;. Melton,1972).

(3) Multi-sensory modalities (e.g., visual plus sound)increase attention (e.g., Peart, 1984).

(4) Three-dimensional objects usually draw moreattention than do two-dimensional (e.g., Peart,1984).

These findings suggest that the major effect ofexhibit objects is to capture visitor attention and tohelp sustain this attention. While objects conveymeaning to visitors, that meaning is often personal,reflecting an interaction between visitor and ex-hibit object variables.

There are other object characteristics from Table1 for which less data are available. For example,what are the effects of shape, color, and texture onvisitor attention? To minimize confusion, animportant distinction should be made here betweenobject characteristics when the objects are in isola-tion versus objects in relationship to other objects.(In the next section on the configuration of exhibitcomponents, the relationship among objects andother components will be discussed.) Thus, an

VISITOR BEHAVIOR ) Winter, 1992 Volume VII Number 4 Page 6

object that is relatively larger than other objects ina display may capture more attention because of itsrelational properties. These relational propertiesshould be distinguished from the absolute charac-teristics. For example, a large object by itself willattract more attention than will a smaller object inisolation, all other things being equal.

Communication Media

Almost every exhibit contains some type ofdevice or vehicle for presenting text information.In fact, exhibits that do not provide text informa-tion are frequently misunderstood by visitors (e.g.,Borun & Miller, 1980; Shettel, et al., 1968). Textinformation can be presented using many differenttypes of communication devices or media. Amedium may be as simple as a label panel or as.complicated as an interactive computer with arandom-access laserdisc. Table 2 provides a list ofmany of the commonly used communication media.

Table 2Examples of Communication Media

Label panels Flip or slide panelsDiagram panels Video discVideo/movie SlidesComputers Hand-held exhibit guidesAudio tape Museum guidesGeographic maps

Communication media can be described interms of their characteristics just as exhibit objectsare in the discussion above. The list of the proper-ties that make objects salient (e.g., size, motion,sense modalities as shown in Table 1) also apply tomedia. Thus, a large-screeen audiovisual displaywill be given more initial attention by visitors thanwill a smaller screen display.

Miles, Alt, Gosling, Lewis, & Tout (1982)have classified communication media into two

major categories: static (those that do not changestate) and dynamic (devices that change their state).Dynamic media include automaton (the change instate is automatically programmed), operand (thechange in state is determined by the visitor), andinteractive (a "dialogue" between visitor and de-vice can occur). Consistently, dynamic (and espe-cially interactive) media have been more effectivethan static ones in terms of gaining visitor atten-tion.

Several useful discussions of communicationmedia can be found in the literature.

(1) Alt (1979) and Miles (1989) have reviewedstudies of audiovisual devices developed at theNatural History Museum (London). Thesearticles provide useful guidelines for the design ofsuch devices.

(2) Screven (1986; 1992) and Bitgood (1990b) havereviewed findings and/or offered suggestions re-garding the design of text information devices.

(3) Bitgood (1991c) reviewed the literature and sug-gested guidelines for developing interactiveexhibits including media devices.

(4) Screven (1990a) and Sewell (1992) have specifi-cally addressed the use of interactive computersas a medium of communication in exhibits.

Text Information

Analysis of the text information component ofan exhibit is more complex than that of objects andcommunication media. Since the educationalmessages of an exhibit are presented in eitherwritten or auditory format, the use of language isa critical part of the exhibit's impact. The "textinformation" component deals with language, bothin terms of how it is presented and its meaning.Figure 2 provides an analysis of the text informa-tion component. (We use the word "text" to refer toboth written and verbal information.) Text infor-mation can be analyzed into two components: textmaterial and text configuration. Text materialincludes both physical characteristics and mean-ing/structure. Table 3 lists many of the possiblephysical characteristics of text. Some of thesecharacteristics have been shown to be critical ingetting visitors to attend to the information.

VISITOR BEHAVIOR Winter, 1992 Volume VII Number 4 Page 7

Table 3 Table 4Physical Characteristics of Text Information Factors Related to Meaning

Typeface Point sizeand Structure of Text

Word length Sentence lengthLine length Print density Vocabulary Sentence complexity

Background contrast White space Style Subject matter and content

Size of text unit Headings Use of questions Clarity of writing

Numbering, lettering, Mapping Density of information Relevance of words

bulleting Print-backgroundcontrast Connection between content & exhibit objects

Some of the findings with respect to physical Empirical studies with visitors on the meaning

characteristics of text include: and structure of text are rare. However, a few areavailable in the literature. For example:

(1) Small units of information are more likely to beread (e.g., Bitgood & Patterson, 1993). (1) Visitors learn just as much when key ideas are

(2) High contrast between print and background presented as they do when given traditional para-increase reading (e.g., Smith, 1991). (e.g.graphs of text Hall, 1988; Kool, ., ,Larger point size produces greater visitor attention (2) Visitors are more likely to read when questions(e.g., Bitgood & Patterson, 1993). are used as headers (e.g., Hirshi & Screven,

(4) Presenting the information in a manner that makes 1988).it easy to scan (e.g., numbering, bulleting, (3) Subject matter that connects to the visitor in aunderlining) usually results in more effective meaningful way is more likely to be read (e.g.,communication (e.g., Hall, 1988; Kool, 1984). Bitgood, et al, 1989).

While the physical characteristics of text areIn addition to the physical characteristics andimportant for attracting and holding visitor atten-

the meaning and structure of text material, onetion, the meaning and structure of text are critical

'must consider how the text material is configured.for communicating the exhibit's message. The

reader is referred to Rand (1985) and ScrevenAs shown in Figure 2, spatial and other types of

(1992) for more on this important topic. Some ofrelationships among text material may be impor-

the factors included in the "meaning and structuretant. Some of the configural relationships that may

of text" category are listed in Table 4.be important include:

Figure 2

Analysis of Text Information

Text Text

Material Configuration

Physical Meaning and Spatial Other Types

Characteristics Structure Relationships of Relationships(size, color, etc.)

Other Types ofRelationships

ISize Motion Color Texture Etc.

Volume VII Number 4 Page 8VISITOR BEHAVIOR ) Winter, 1992

(1) The spatial relationship between the text and thevisitor.

(2) The distance between one panel of text andanother.

(3) The relative position of panels of text on avertical plane. Does higher on the plane meanmore important?

(4) The relative size of panels of text. Does largermean more important?

Unfortunately, we have little empirical infor-mation on these possible configuration factors.There are some data available for the first factor(spatial relationship between the text and the visi-tor). Bitgood, Benefield, and Patterson (1990)found that visitors were most likely to read whenthe visitor is able to look at the exhibit objects andread at the same time.

Configuration of Exhibit Unit Components

As described above and illustrated in Figure 1,"exhibit components" (objects, media, text infor-mation) make up the first factor of an exhibit unit.The second major factor is how the exhibit compo-nents are configured (organized or arranged inrelation to one another). We described configura-tion above as it applies to text material; now we willconsider the role of configuration for all of theexhibit unit components. Figure 3 provides ananalysis of exhibit configuration. In an effectiveexhibit, objects and media must be organized by

exhibit designers in a manner that facilitates ratherthan interferes with the communication of the edu-cational messages. Of course, aesthetic factorsmust also play a role in the configuration of theseelements. However, what is aesthetically pleasing/displeasing to the designer is not always what ispleasing/displeasing to the audience and vice versa.For example, as many of us have learned duringformative evaluation projects, designers are oftenunhappy with the unfinished look of temporarymock-up labels, while visitors do not seem to sharethis concern.

Forpurposes of discussion, relationships amongexhibit unit components will be divided into "spa-tial relationships" and "other types of relation-ships." Each of these categories are described inmore detail below.

Spatial Relationships

Relationship between exhibit space and visitorspace. Visitor and exhibit spaces are defined in thefollowing way: visitor space is the area in which thevisitor is allowed to move; , exhibit space is the areawhich bounds the exhibit components. In many (ifnot most) exhibits, the visitor is denied access tothe exhibit space by being prevented from eithertouching or walking into the exhibit. The visitor isrestricted to a path and often told not to touchobjects. However, in some exhibits visitor and

Figure 3

Exhibit Configuration

SpatialRelationships

Relation between Relation AmongVisitor and Exhibit ComponentsSpace

ExhibitBoundary

VISITOR BEHAVIOR ) Winter, 1992 Volume VII Number 4 Page 9

exhibit space may overlap. For example, in a walk-through exhibit, the visitor walks into the exhibitenvironment and is surrounded by exhibit compo-nents (such exhibits are sometimes called "immer-sion" exhibits). In "hands-on" and interactiveexhibits the visitor may be invited to touch and/ormanipulate exhibit objects and the communicationdevice (e.g., computer). Exhibits that allow pene-tration of the exhibit space (either by walking intoand/or by touching) seem to generate more pro-longed attention (e.g., Bitgood, 1990a; Peers, 1991).Walk-through exhibits may be particularly effec-tive in creating a feeling of "time and place"(Bitgood, 1990a). In addition, "hands-on" exhib-its have proven particularly attractive to visitors(e.g., Gottfried, 1979; Koran, Koran, & Longino,1986).

Relationships among exhibit objects. Thisincludes the relation between primary and secon-dary (background) objects, the relation of oneprimary object to another, and the relation amongsecondary objects. A natural history museumdiorama might contain a primary object (e.g., amounted animal) surrounded by objects whichmake up the animal's natural habitat (e.g., trees,rocks, water). The goal of the exhibit may not beachieved if the secondary objects overpower theprimary objects in some other way. The secondaryobjects in the case of a diorama may have twofunctions: (1) affective, i.e., they attempt to pro-vide a more interesting context for the object (e.g.,Thompson, 1993); and (2) cognitive, i.e., they tryto provide some contextual information (e.g., whatthe animal's natural habitat is like).

The spatial relationship among primary objectsis also important. Miles et al. (1982) have de-scribed ways of manipulating spatial relations inorder to give emphasis to a particular object. Forexample, placing one object in front of others canisolate an object from others, or placing an objectabove others (on a higher plane) may help focusattention on the object.

In some cases, the spatial relationship amongsecondary objects could be important. For ex-

ample in a diorama exhibit, the spacing of vegeta-tion might communicate the aridity of the habitat'sclimate.

Boundary of the exhibit unit . The exhibit unit'sboundary defines the size of the exhibit space andmarks a transition between one exhibit and anotheror an exhibit and some other type of space. Theboundary is often defined by an exhibit case, or thevisitor pathway, or some barrier, or the wall.

Other Types of RelationshipsAmong Components

Other types of relationships among exhibitcomponents in addition to space must be consid-ered. The perceived relative size of one object withrespect to other objects and media is important ingetting visitor attention. Exhibit designers, whenexhibiting a small object, usually scale down thesize of the entire exhibit so that the primary objectis not lost in its surroundings. The relative size ofan object may also communicate what the designerthinks is important. So too with the visitor, a rela-tively large object may be perceived as being moreimportant than smaller objects. (Data supportingnor refuting this speculation could not be foundwhen the visitor literature was reviewed).

Other comparative relationships among ob-jects and media are likely to influence visitors.Miles et al. (1982) suggest that an object can begiven emphasis by placing it with smaller objects,by placing it in front of a distinctive color, byplacing it in front of a distinctive shape or texturefor background, and by distinctive lighting of theobject.

Extra-Exhibit Factors

Designing an effective exhibit is ajuggling act.One must constantly balance the influence of theobjects, the communication media, the text infor-mation, and the configuration of all of the compo-nents. In addition to the exhibit unit componentsand the configuration of these components, there isanother set of variables that must be part of this

VISITOR BEHAVIOR ) Winter, 1992 Volume VII Number 4 Page 10

juggling act — extra-exhibit factors. Figure 4summarizes the extra-exhibit factors. These fac-tors include social and physical influences notspecifically part of the exhibit unit.

Social influences

Both within-group and extra-group influencesare important. Social influence within a visitorgroup will differ considerably depending upon thenature of the group (family, adult, school) and thetype of social interaction (e.g., asking questions,giving information, showing how to use an exhibitdevice, etc.). This point has been documented inmany studies of family learning (e.g., Diamond,1986; Hilke, 1988; Rosenfeld & Turkel, 1982).

Family group influence. There is considerableinformation from the literature about how familymembers influence one another. Some examplesof the findings include:

(1) Children usually dictate where the group goes,while adults tend to help children focus theirattention on the educational messages (e.g.,Diamond, 1986).

(2) Children tend to touch and manipulate, adults aremore likely to be readers (e.g., Diamond, 1986).

(3) Children and adults maintain a high level ofattention to exhibits (e.g., Diamond, 1986)

(4) Children are more likely to model other visitors'behavior than are adults (Koran, et al, 1986).

Adult group influence. We know less aboutadult group interaction. Studies are needed thatapply the methodology of family group research toadult-only groups in order to better understand theprocesses that operate in such groups.

School field trips make up one of the mostfrequent types of visitation. The school field trip,however, is often very different from the familyvisit. Research evidence from school groups sug-gests the following generalizations (among themany that could be made):

(1) Students learn more when pre-visit preparation isgiven (e.g., Bitgood, 1991).

(2) A structured tour results in more learning, butstudents enjoy an unstructured tour more (e.g.,Stronck, 1983).

(3) In a novel setting, students tend to make fewercognitive gains, but seem to learn a lot about thesetting (e.g., Balling & Falk, 1982; Falk, Martin,& Balling, 1978).

(4) While classroom and museum cognitive outcomesoften show little difference, differences inaffective outcomes are usually large (e.g., Borun,Hexer, Casey, & Baum, 1983).

Extra-group influences include those from othervisitors and facility staff. Other visitors can pro-vide models for "hands-on" use of exhibits (e.g.,Koran, Koran, Dierking, & Foster, 1988).

Figure 4

Extra-Exhibit Factors

Social PhysicalInfluences Influences

Within Extra-Group Structural i Extra-exhibitGroup I media

I I I AmbienI Open doors Audio tour

Family Architectural styleMuseum staff Written guidesAdult WindowsOther visitors Maps

School ceilings SightsWalls SoundsFloors Temperature

Etc.

Where Does the Visitor Fit In?

So far, very little has been said about the visitor.We are now ready to deal with the visitor who is, of

VISITOR BEHAVIOR ) Winter, 1992 Volume VII Number 4 Page 11

Physical Influences

Physical influences can be of three types:architectural, ambient, and extra-exhibit media.Structural influences include the mood created bythe style of the building, the effects of doors andwindows, etc. Some of these effects include:

(1) When other forces are not operating, visitors spendmore time viewing right-hand walls of exhibit gal-leries than left-hand walls (Melton, 1935).

(2) Exit attraction: an open door is an invitation to leavethe gallery; visitors tend to leave by the first exitthey encounter (Melton, 1972).

(3) Exit gradient: visitors often follow the straightestline between the entrance and a visible open door(e.g., Melton, 1972).

Ambient distractions include the sights andsounds from other exhibit units and other areas ofthe facility. Ambient factors may also include tem-perature and other causes of physical sensation.Examples of research findings suggest:

(1) Exhibits on opposite sides of a visitor walkwaycompete for attention with one another (e.g.,Bitgood, et al, 1988).

(2) Distracting sounds often pull visitors away froman exhibit to which they have been attending.

(3) Movement in one exhibit will often divertattention from surrounding exhibit units (e.g.,Melton, 1972).

(4) Visitors spend less time viewing outdoor exhibitsunder aversive weather conditions such asextreme cold, extreme heat, and rain/snow(Bitgood, unpublished).

Extra-exhibit media include museum guidesand general orientation information. These mediamight include an audio tour of the museum or ahand-carried museum guide. Such media are ex-tra-exhibit if they are not associated with a specificexhibit. Unfortunately, only a handful of studieshave been conducted on hand-carried communica-tion media (c.f., Bitgood & Davis, 1991).

course, the reason we are analyzing the anatomy ofan exhibit. Figure 5 illustrates what happens whenthe exhibit components (objects, media, text infor-mation), the exhibit configuration, and extra-ex-hibit factors (social and physical influences) are at-tended to and processed by the visitor. Visitorsrespond to these exhibit and extra-exhibit influ-ences based on many factors including their priorknowledge, preconceptions, interests, attitudes,physical abilities, etc. People arrive sometimeswith little knowledge, sometimes with misconcep-tions, and sometimes with highly individualizedways of extracting information from an exhibit.Given the overwhelming range of ages, knowl-edge, cultural backgrounds, interests, attitudes,etc., it is not surprising that many professionalsconsider educationally effective exhibit design tobe a difficult if not impossible endeavor.

Visitor variables can be divided into process-ing mechanisms (cognitive, affective, and motor)and outcome measures. Broadly conceived, cogni-tive processes include: attention, thinking, andmemory. To a large extent, attention appears to betied to the physical characteristics of things (e.g.,larger objects attract more attention, moving ob-jects attract more attention, etc.). Various types ofthinking (e.g., comparing, relating information toprevious knowledge, making logical conclusions)are more closely tied to text information. While anobject may stimulate thinking in the absence of textinformation, it is as likely to stimulate affectiveresponses ("Isn't that pretty!"), or it may generateerroneous conclusions. Cognitive memory wouldinclude retrieval of facts, concepts, and other typesof cogntive information.

Affective processing is more difficult to study.It is often difficult to separate cognitive and affec-tive (e.g., attitudes have both cognitive and affec-tive components). Obviously, people process theirexperiences emotionally based on past history. Avisitor might dislike a science exhibit because itreminds him/her of something that a third gradeteacher said. Cognitive understanding of a topicinfluences affective response (interest, feelings,etc.).

TASK OUTCOMES

ReadingKnowledge gainAttitude changeTalking about

Asking questionsComparingExcitementEnjoyment

etc.

NON-TASK OUTCOMES

SatiationFatigue

Feeling lostBoredom

etc.

VISITOR BEHAVIOR Winter, 1992 Volume VII Number 4 Page 12

Figure 5

A Summary of the Exhibit-Visitor Analysis

ENVIRONMENTAL INPUTS VISITOR PROCESSING OUTCOMES

EXHIBITAttentionCOMPONENTS

Thinking Memory•Objects •Media

•Text Information Affect Motor

EXHIBITCONFIGURATION

Arrangement ofobjects and media

EXTRA-EXHIBIT - NFACTORS

Social and physicalinfluences other thanthe exhibit

Motor processing is associated with the learn-ing of motor skills. Examples include: using amicroscope or telescope, operating a trackball on acomputer, playing a Nintendo game, riding a bi-cycle, playing a musical instrument. Exhibits mayfail because visitors do not know how to use adevice correctly. For example, Alan Friedman (inTaylor, 1992) described the formative evaluationof a telescope in an astronomy exhibit at the Law-rence Hall of Science. The evaluation found thatvisitors had less difficulty using an inexpensive,more familiar, spyglass telescope than an expen-sive, complicated, high-quality one.

Outcome measures can be related or unrelatedto the exhibit task. Task-related outcomes arethose defined by the educational objectives of theexhibit — cognitive, affective, and motor reactions.Nontask-related outcomes are those independentof the exhibit's goals and objectives; for example,satiation, fatigue, and various types of off-taskbehavior (e.g., reading a novel, managing children'sbehavior, etc.).

Visitor variables have received considerableattention in the literature (e.g., Falk & Dierking,1992). But, there has been disagreement over theimportance of various types of outcomes (cogni-tive, affective, motor). The selection of outcomesfor measurement should depend, to a large extent,on the goals and objectives of the exhibit develop-ers. Problems occur when goals and objectives arenot explicitly stated. For a detailed discussion ofthe exhibit development process from the visitorevaluation perspective, see Screven (1990b).

Applying the Exhibit Anatomy Approach

The analysis of the anatomy of an exhibit in thisarticle might be used in several ways. First, it ishoped that an analysis such as is provided here willmake it easier for professionals to conceptualize allof the myriad of variables present in the exhibit en-vironment. A logical analysis and orderly concep-tion of the environment should make it easier tokeep in mind all of the complexities inherent in theexhibit setting.

VISITOR BEHAVIOR ) Winter, 1992 Volume VII Number 4 Page 13

A second way this analysis may be useful is toidentify needed areas of visitor research. Thecurrent analysis reveals many potentially impor-tant variables that have received very little study.For example, how differently do adult groups inter-act in an exhibit setting compared with familygroups? It is hoped that identifying some of theneglected areas will stimulate readers to engage inneeded research.

Another way to apply the analysis described inthis article is to use it to develop a series ofsummary tables and checklists to be used in thedesign and/or remediation of exhibits. For ex-ample, when label text is being developed, onemight refer to a series of tables such as Table 5 onthis page.

Research Questions

Shettel, et al. (1968), Koran and Koran (1986),andFalk and Dierking (1992) have been leaders inattempting to provide a framework for studyingvisitor learning from exhibits. Such a frameworkallows us to ask better research questions. Some ofthe questions raised by the current frameworkinclude:

(1) How do the characteristics of objects and mediainteract with the knowledge, interests, attitudes ofvisitors?

(2) How can exhibit media be used in the mosteffective way?

(3) What is the optimum way of designing textinformation.

(4) In what ways does a contextual background affectthe visitors?

(5) Do the configurations of exhibit componentsinfluence visitors the way designers believe?

(6) How can family, adult, and school visits each bemade more effective?

(7) How can exhibit design eliminate or minimize dis-tracting influences?

(8) In what specific ways do exhibit components andextra-exhibit factors interact with visitor input

variables?

These questions, although not unique to thecurrent analysis, deserve careful study if we are toachieve our quest for a science of effective exhibi-tion.

Conclusion

While there are many ways to conceptualizethe exhibit environment, few have been attempted.The efforts of Shettel, et al. (1968) and Koran andKoran (1986) to formulate a framework for study-ing visitor learning have generated limited system-atic research. This is unfortunate because the anat-omy of an exhibit interacts with visitor variables. Ifexhibit designers are not aware of the myriadcomplex exhibit factors and how they interact withvisitors, ineffective exhibits are likely to result. Ifvisitor researchers are not aware of the manycomplex interactions between visitor and exhibitfactors, they are likely to misinterpret the findingsof their visitor studies. It is hoped that the analysisof the exhibit environment suggested in this paperwill stimulate more efforts to develop and testframeworks for visitor learning.

Table 5Physical Characteristics of Text

Characteristics Guideline

Typeface Select typeface that is easilyread (legible).

Word length Keep the number of longwords at a minimum.

Contrast between Use high contrast colorletters and combinationsbackground

Size of text Keep size of text unitunit (number of words) at a minimum

Questions for Use of questions for headingsheadings increases visitor reading

References

Alt, M. (1979). Audio-visual presentations. Curator, 22(2),85-95.

Balling, J., & Falk, J. (1980). A perspective on field trips:Environmental effects on learning. Curator, 23(4), 229-240.

VISITOR BEHAVIOR ) Winter, 1992 Volume VII Number 4 Page 14

Bitgood, S. (1990a). The role of simulated immersion inexhibition. Technical Report No. 90-20. Jacksonville,AL: Center for Social Design.

Bitgood, S. (1990b). The ABCs of label design. In S.Bitgood, A. Benefield, & D. Patterson (Eds.), Visitorstudies: Theory, research, and practice, Volume 3.Jacksonville, AL: Center for Social Design.

Bitgood, S. (199la). What do we know about school fieldtrips? ASTC Newsletter, January.

Bitgood, S. (1991b). Self-guided handouts in museums andzoos: An annotated bibliography. Visitor Behavior,6(3), 7-10.

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

Bitgood, S., Benefield, A., & Patterson, D. (1990). Theimportance of label placement: A neglected factor inexhibit design. In Current trends in audience research.Washington, DC: AAM Visitor Research and Evalu-ation Committee. Pp. 49-52.

Bitgood, S., Conroy, P., Pierce, M., Patterson, D., & Boyd, J.(1989). Evaluation of "Attack & Defense" at the Annis-ton Museum of Natural History. In Current trends inaudience research and evaluation. (pp. 1-4). New Or-leans, LA: American Association of Museum Evalu-ation & Research Committee.

Bitgood, S., & Davis, J. (1991). Self-guided handouts inmuseums and zoos. Visitor Behavior, 6(3), 7-10.

Bitgood, S., & Patterson, D. (1993). The effects of gallerychanges on visitor behavior. Environment and Behav-ior, in press.

Bitgood, S., Patterson, D., & Benefield, A. (1988). Exhibitdesign and visitor behavior: Empirical relationships.Environment and Behavior, 20(4), 474-491.

Bitgood, S., & Thompson, D. (1992). An integrative ap-proach to visitor learning. Unpublished Working Paper.Jacksonville, AL: Jacksonville State University.

Borun, M., & Miller, M.A. (1980). What's in a name? Astudy of the effectiveness of explanatory labels in ascience museum. Washington, DC: Association ofScience-Technology Centers.

Borun, M., Flexer, B., Casey, A., & Baum, L. (1983). Planetsand pulleys: Studies of class visits to a science museum.Washington, DC: Association of Science-TechnologyCenters.

Diamond, J. (1986). The behavior of family groups inscience museums. Curator, 29(2), 139-154.

Falk, J., & Dierking, L. (1992). The museum experience.Washington, DC: Whalesback Books.

Falk, J., Martin, W., & Balling, J. (1978). The novel field tripphenomena: Adjustment to novel settings interferes withtask learning. Journal ofResearch in Science Teaching,15,127-134.

Gottfried, J. (1980). Do children learn on school field trips?Curator, 23(3), 165-174.

Hilke, D. D. (1988). Strategies for family learning. In S.Bitgood,R. Roper, & A. Benefield (Eds.), Visitor studies-1988: Theory, research, and practice. Jacksonville,AL: Center for Social Design. Pp. 120-134.

Hirchi, K., & Screven, C. G. (1988). Effects of questions onvisitor reading behavior: ILVS Review: A Journal ofVisitor Behavior, 1(1), 50-61.

Kool, R. (1985). The effect of label design on exhibiteffectiveness. Muse, Summer, 32-37.

Koran, J.T., & Koran, M. L. (1986). A proposed frameworkfor exploring museum education research. Journal ofMuseum Education: Roundtable Reports, 11(1),12-16.

Koran, J. J., Jr., Koran, M.L., Dierking, L., & Foster, J.(1988). Using modeling to direct attention. Curator,31(1), 36-42.

Koran, J.J., Jr., Koran, M. L., & Foster, J. (1988). Individualdifferences in learning in informal settings. In S. Bitgood,J. Roper, & A. Benefield (Eds.), Visitor studies: Theory,research, and practice. Jacksonville, AL: Center forSocial Design. Pp. 66-72.

Koran, J., Koran, M., & Longino, S. (1986). The relationshipof age, sex attention, and holding power with two typesof science exhibits. Curator, 29(3), 227-244.

Melton, A. (1935). Problems of installation in museums ofart. New Series No. 14. Washington, DC: AmericanAssociation of Museums.

Melton, A. (1972). Visitor behavior in museums: Someearlyresearch in environmental design. Human Factors,14(5), 393-403.

Miles, R. (1989). Audiovisuals, a suitable case for treatment.In S. Bitgood, A. Benefield, & D. Patterson (Eds.),Visitor Studies: Theory, research, and practice, Vol. 2.Jacksonville, AL: Center for Social Design. Pp. 245-51.

Miles, R., Alt, M., Gosling, D., Lewis, B., Tout, A. (1982).The design of educational exhibits. London: Unwin.

Miles, R., & Tout, A. (1991). Impact of research on theapproach to the visiting public at the Natural HistoryMuseum, London. International Journal of ScienceEducation 13(5), 543-549.

Peart, B. (1984). Impact of exhibit type on knowledge gain,attitudes, and behavior. Curator, 27(3), 220-235.

Peers, B. (1991). Evaluation of the Mammal Hall at theCanadian Museum of Nature. Unpublished. Ottawa,Ontario: Canadian Museum of Nature.

Rand, J. (1985). Fish stories that hook readers. AAZPA 1985Proceedings. Columbus, OH: American Association ofZoological Parks & Aquariums. (Also available fromCenter for Social Design, Jacksonville, AL)

Rosenfeld, S., & Turkel, A. (1982). A naturalistic study ofvisitors at an interpretive mini-zoo. Curator, 25(3), 187-212.

Screven, C. G. (1986). Exhibitions and information centers:Some principles and approaches. Curator, 29(2), 109-137.

Volume VII Number 4 Page 15VISITOR BEHAVIOR ) Winter, 1992

Screven, C. G. (1990a). Computers in exhibit settings. In S.Bitgood, A. Benefield, & D. Patterson (Eds.), Visitorstudies: Theory, research, and practice, Volume 3.Jacksonville, AL: Center for Social Design.

Screven, C. G. (1990b). Uses of evaluation before, during,and after exhibit design. ILVS Review: A Journal ofVisitor Behavior, 1(2), 36-66.

Screven, C. G. (1992). Motivating visitors to read labels.ILVS Review, 2(2), 183-211.

Serrell, B. (1992). Computers on the exhibit floor. Curator,35(3),181-189.

Shettel, H., Butcher, M., Cotton, T., Northrup, J., & Slough,D. (1968). Strategies for determining exhibit effective-ness. Report for the U.S. Department of Health, Educa-tion, and Welfare. Pittsburgh, PA: American Institutefor Research.

Stronck, D. (1983). The comparative effects of differentmuseum tours on children's attitudes and learning.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20(4), 283-290.

Taylor, S. (Ed.) (1992). Trying it. Washington, DC: Asso-ciation of Science-Technology Centers.

Thompson, D. (1993). Considering the museum visitor: Aninteractive approach to enironmental design. Ph. D.Dissertation. University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. q

Greenglass, D.I. (1986). Learning FromObjects in a Museum. Curator, 29/1, 53-66.

Summarized byDon Thompson

Center for Social Design

According to Greenglass, it has often beenhypothesized that people learn in different ways,and that a given individual will be more likely tolearn when information is presented in ways whichmatch his or her particular learning style. A studywas conducted in order to evaluate whether such arelationship between learning style and informa-tion type exists in museums.

For this experiment, the construct of learningstyle was determined by an individual's cognitiveorientation. Cognitive orientation was measuredin terms of each person's conceptual level (CL), "ameasure of information-processing ability...(which) ranges from a `low level', at which theperson is dependent and unable to generate con-cepts, to a `high level', at which the person is

independent and capable of generating his/her ownconcepts." Greenglass suggested that the informa-tional elements of exhibits can in turn be describedaccording to their structure. In high-structureexhibits, the tasks to be completed and the informa-tion to be learned are clearly stated, while low-structure exhibits allow the visitor to determine hisor her own goals and to participate in free-explora-tory activities. It was hypothesized that low-CLvisitors would learn more from highly-structuredexhibits than from low-structure exhibits, whilehigh-CL visitors would learn more from low-struc-ture exhibits.

ProcedureSubjects were tested to determine their concep-

tual level, and then were shown a series of histori-cal objects. Each person was then expected tosolve certain problems relating to the people whohad used those objects, and how they had beenused. To simulate low structure exhibition, somesubjects were given only an introductory text and aseries of questions which they were to answer. Forhigh structure exhibits, other subjects were alsogiven a series of hints to help them determine theanswer.

Results and SignificanceResults showed that the hypothesis that low-CL

individuals would score higher in response to highlystructured tasks than for low structure tasks wassupported. However, the hypothesis that high-CLsubjects would perform better in response to lowstructure tasks was not supported, as these indi-viduals performed equally well in either condition.It was suggested that these findings indicate thatmuseum exhibits should be highly structured inorder to achieve the greatest possible learning fromall visitors.

HAVE YOU RENEWED YOURMEMBERSHIP IN THE

VISITOR STUDIES ASSOCIATION?

Call (205) 782-5640 if you are not sure.