DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY IN MUSEUMS – case studies

Institute of Education10 January 2013

Martin Bazley (Martin Bazley & Associates)

Martin BazleyPreviously• Teaching (7 yrs)• Science Museum, London,

Learning Unit, Internet Projects (7yrs)• E-Learning Officer, MLA South East (3yrs)

Martin BazleyCurrently• Consultancy, websites, training, user

testing, evaluation …Martin Bazley & Associateswww.martinbazley.com

Martin Bazley & Associates

BBC / Public Catalogue Foundation Your Paintings project

Consulting on user interface

Consulting on online survey

User testing

Martin Bazley & Associates

Ford Madox Brown Work schools interactive with embedded video

Consulting on content and user interface

User testing (classroom-based)

(Also worked on redevelopment of main website)

Martin Bazley & Associates

Ashmolean Jameel Centre Eastern Art Online

Consulting on content and user interface

User testing – HE and specialists

Martin Bazley & Associates

The National Archives Cabinet Papers project

Consulting on content and user interface for schools

User testing (classroom-based)

Martin Bazley & Associates

John Ruskin Elements of Drawing website

Consulting on content and user interface

User testing – HE and Ruskin specialists

(Also development of schools resource)

Elements of online learning resourcesImage(s) + caption(s)

Key question(s) / short activities

Background teacher notes / pupil activity sheets

Zoomable images 

Video

Interactive

More complex functionality

Increasing cost and complexity

Increasing cost and complexity M

ost u

sefu

l for

teac

hers

Mos

t use

ful f

or te

ache

rs

These are the first things to provide, and do not require high levels of IT expertise or investment

Video can be done quite easilyThe others will mean investment of money and /or expert time

Two contrasting examples of resource development

Both produced for Ashmolean Museum- Flash interactive- John Ruskin resources including video

• Funded through Take One… Picture project

• Repurposing an existing activity

• Focus on interactive element – buying in expertise not available in-house

• Opportunity to review and improve content

• Opportunity to involve local teachers

• Time consuming (attention to detail important), but great results!

• Attempts to create interactives in house less successful

Example 1: Brighton Then & Now whiteboard interactive

Brighton Then and Now screenshot

http://www.ashmolean.org/education/resources/resources2011/interactives/Brighton/Brighton.html

Take One Picture interactive: pros

+ An ‘interactive’ resource often seems more attractive.

+ Offers a richer experience around each painting.

+ Activity is closely guided, so can be used even by inexperienced teachers.

Take One Picture interactive: cons

- Relatively expensive to produce.- Quite limited in application – teachers cannot

adjust to suit their needs. - Because most images / assets are ‘wrapped’ in

Flash, this type of resource is sometimes less findable via Google etc.

• Funded through AHRC grant - small component of bigger project

• Starting from scratch - defining concept very time consuming

• Opportunity to work closely with local school on in depth project

• Heavy demands on education staff time – (esp Joint Museums Art Education Officer)

• Opportunity to try out new approaches eg video clips

•Resulted in ‘solution’ for education staff to create teaching and learning packages (requiring minimal help from busy ICT team)

Example 2: ‘Through Ruskin’s Eyes’ learning package

‘Through Ruskin’s Eyes’ screenshot

http://educationonline.ashmolean.org/ruskin/

John Ruskin resource: pros

+ Provides images, videos and straightforward activities that students or teachers can use in their own way.

+ Less expensive to develop+ More likely to be found via Google etc+ Used WordPress.com for prototyping and

Wordpress.org for the final site – with the option to produce more as required

John Ruskin resource: cons

- Does not have the ‘wow’ factor of an ‘interactive’

Overall comparison

TOP: approach quite well defined so easier to see the potential. More constrained.

Ruskin: more specialist audience so more in depth activities. Working with partners creative but increases complexity.

Developing a learning resource: iterative review

your content curriculum (find a match)

Ch

eck

Does it match your audience’s specific needs?

If so TEST - and then amend

Learning activities Learning outcomes (find a match)

More information / advice / ideas

Martin Bazley0780 3580 737

www.martinbazley.com