The document summarizes research conducted on visitor interactions at exhibits in the Technology Zone of the Language Live Show. Observations were made of 280 visitors interacting with 14 exhibits over time. The most attractive exhibits were eSplice, Flashsticks, and Linguisticator, which had higher visitation and consistent interactions. These exhibits effectively offered unique, innovative learning products that engaged visitors through curiosity and testing. Charts in the document show trends in movement patterns between exhibits and pathways, and in varying levels of social interaction between different exhibits. Recommendations include selling space to exhibits with more varied, unique products to better engage visitors.

1. Many factors and contingencies can affect social behaviour in
participation. From observation; (based partly on Rossman’s
2003 symbolic interaction approach) The research
interpretations are of key elements:
 Evaluation
Overall the most attractive exhibits are eSplice, Flashsticks
and Linguisticator that indicate higher visitation and consistent
interactions. Noticeably these stands have an effective
foundation in common. The stands offer the visitor a unique
innovative learning product which keeps the consumers
intrigued, engaged through curiosity, and testing products
through social participation.
Processes in Social Behaviour of Interactive
Participation at The Language Live Show
 Methodology
The research project is exploratory, using philosophy as
an interpretivist approach, using qualitative and
quantitative research through non participant and
systematic observations (Fox et al, 2014).
Empirical research, (involves collecting data based on
observation) gathering a small convenience sample of
280 visitors, was equally divided between 14 exhibits.
Monitored by a stopwatch as collective data instrument.
 Conclusion
Fig.3 Identifies a trend in continuous flows of
large movement between the visitor pathways
and the exhibits in the external layer of the
Technology Zone (green ring). The internal area
was sporadic in movement and mainly with
individuals, couples and smaller crowds (blue
ring).
Fig. 2
 Results
Graph showing the grade of interactions between exhibits and attendees.
• Positive participations were from stands such as eSplice, Flashsticks and Linguisticator (Fig
1).
• Weak engagements were from stands; Genee World, My Learning (UK) Ltd and Langlion
(Fig 2).
References
Fox, D. Gouthro, M, B.
Morakabati, Y.
Backstone, J. (2014)
Doing Events
Research, From theory
to practise. Routledge:
Oxon.
Getz, D. O’Neill,O.
Carlsen, J. (2001)
Journal of Travel
Research: Service
Quality Evaluation at
Events through Service
Mapping, Sage
Publications, Vol 39,
Pg. 380-390.
Berridge, G. (2007)
Event Design and
Experience.
Butterworth-
Heinemann: Oxford.
 Investigation Brief
The aim was to identify which exhibits in the
Technology Zone highlights more attractiveness to the
attendees in part relation to visitor experience.
The objective was to analyse the interaction period
between individuals and stands.
Research Questions:
• Is there a trend between the pathway of visitors
and stands.
• Is there a between stands and the grade of
social interaction.
• What are the prior contingencies.
Fig.1
Fig.4 Reveals a trend, how highest
indications of interactions are from the lower
segment (green box) of the Technology
Zone in contrast to lower forms of
participation in the upper section (blue box).
Fig.3 Fig.4
Product (Object)
Staff Responsiveness (Interacting people)
Physical Settings
 Recommendations
To sell space to exhibitors with innovative unique learning
technological products. So that visitors have a variation rather
than products with similarities.
To have exhibitors use blueprint principle, (Getz, D et al,
2001 pg. 382) to avoid visitors seeing front of stage slip to
back stage. Elements such as playing with mobiles, back
facing the audience and leaving stands empty, affects staff
responsiveness.
Using Rossman’s Model of six elements of symbolic
interaction can be used to reflect on how visitors experience
is structured. (Berridge,G.2007).
Shareen Pennington
shp0389@londonmet.ac.uk
Large flow
Small flow
Weak
interactions
Strong
interactions