Slides used to support discussion at a session at Institute of Education, London on 10 January 2013 as part of a module in the MA in MUSEUMS & GALLERIES IN EDUCATION called ‘Material and Virtual Cultures: trans-forming the museum and gallery experience’ led by Caroline Marcus and Pam Meecham

1. DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY IN
MUSEUMS – case studies
Institute of Education
10 January 2013
Martin Bazley (Martin Bazley & Associates)

2. Martin Bazley
Previously
• Teaching (7 yrs)
• Science Museum, London,
Learning Unit, Internet Projects (7yrs)
• E-Learning Officer, MLA South East (3yrs)

3. Martin Bazley
Currently
• Consultancy, websites, training, user
testing, evaluation …
Martin Bazley & Associates
www.martinbazley.com

5. Martin Bazley & Associates
BBC / Public Catalogue
Foundation Your Paintings
project
Consulting on user interface
Consulting on online survey
User testing

6. 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)

7. Martin Bazley & Associates
Ashmolean Jameel Centre
Eastern Art Online
Consulting on content and
user interface
User testing – HE and
specialists

8. Martin Bazley & Associates
The National Archives
Cabinet Papers project
Consulting on content and
user interface for schools
User testing (classroom-
based)

9. 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)

10. Elements of online learning resources
These are the first
Increasing cost and complexity
Increasing cost and complexity
things to provide, and
Image(s) + caption(s) do not require high
levels of IT expertise or
Key question(s) / short activities investment
Background teacher notes / pupil activity sheets
Zoomable images Video can be done quite easily
The others will mean investment of
Video money and /or expert time
Interactive
aet r o u es u t s o M
aet r of ll uf es u t s o M
More complex functionality
f f

11. Two contrasting examples of
resource development
Both produced for Ashmolean Museum
- Flash interactive
- John Ruskin resources including video

12. Example 1: Brighton Then & Now whiteboard interactive
• 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!
Brighton Then and Now screenshot
• Attempts to create interactives in house
http://www.ashmolean.org/
less successful
education/resources/resou
rces2011/interactives/Brig
hton/Brighton.html

13. 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.

14. 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.

15. Example 2: ‘Through Ruskin’s Eyes’ learning package
• 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)
‘Through Ruskin’s Eyes’ screenshot
• Opportunity to try out new approaches eg
video clips
http://educationonline.ash •Resulted in ‘solution’ for education staff to
molean.org/ruskin/ create teaching and learning packages
(requiring minimal help from busy ICT team)

18. 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

19. John Ruskin resource: cons
- Does not have the ‘wow’ factor of an
‘interactive’

20. 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.

21. Developing a learning resource: iterative review
your content   curriculum
(find a match)
kce h C
Learning activities   Learning outcomes
(find a match)
Does it match your audience’s specific needs?
If so TEST - and then amend

22. More information / advice / ideas
Martin Bazley
0780 3580 737
www.martinbazley.com