The first article I read was The use of internet cancer support groups by Asian Americans and White Americans living with cancer. by Im, E.-O., Lee, B., & Chee, W. (2011). In the article the authors explored why, although Internet support groups for cancer patients are a good source for social support, fewer Asian Americans use this method of support. Using an internet questionnaire, they were able to select from 30 participants from each group “Asian Americans Living with Cancer who were Online (ALCO)” and…. Whites living with cancer who were online (WLCO).”, page 387. In studying the two groups there were similarities in background, support care needs and general internet usage.
However, the authors surmised based on their finding in the study that cultural attitudes might be the reason for less participation in using Internet cancer support groups (ICSG’s). “ALCO’s might not want to disclose their cancer even on the internet interactions because of the stigma attached to cancer in Asian culture.”, page 391. Because of this ALCO’s tended to have “later stage diseases…. so their physical needs were frequently different”, page 393, presumably leading to the “morbidity and mortality rates… of Asian Americans have increased or stayed the same”, page 386.
Although the authors wanted to caution that there are a number of factors that still need to be accounted for “the cultural appropriateness and adequacy of the instruments used in this study should be further examined”, page 394, they did suggest that those who wish to create ICSG’s should consider “ethnic differences and… cultural factors should be Incorporated into the design and structure”, page 394.
The other two articles focused on mobile /handheld devices. In the Sung (2010) article the authors compared three different types of museum participation. The first group used traditional work books the second a prompting system and the third a mobile device that allowed for enhanced data collection. All the participants were fitted with head cameras that recorded where they looked, how they engaged with displays and each other while in the museum.
The authors designed a letter coding system to determine how the interactions or observations took place and for what duration or if they were not participating in learning behaviors.
They then analyzed all the footage of the three different groups and charted the number and level of interactions with the museum displays as well as their school mates and all the other observations in the coding system. They then complied all the data to try to determin the level of interactions. Since I’m not big on statistical analysis, and math in general, I’ll take their word for it that they found a significant difference in the level of engagement between the three groups the highest being the group with the mobile device. See image below for breakdown of their findings.
The final article Usability evaluation of handheld devices : A case study for a museum application. by Stoica (2005) examined collaboration with mobile devices in a museum setting. In order to further participant collaboration the visit is likened to a play and each child is a member of a team. They are each provided a device which has clues unique to that device and through cooperation they are rewarded based on their solutions. Sounds like the game Clue, so I’ll say it’s professor Plum in the library with the candlestick.
just kidding, it’s more involved than that. In the two game types described, Text and Image, there are instructions that allow participants to explore locations but they cannot get the results to complete the task without sharing information with the other participants. Although the authors were surprised that the text game had a shorter completion time they attributed it to the learning curve with becoming familiar with the device during the image game but I would think it would also have something to do with knowing your own national anthem, even though it’s all Greek to me :-)) (see image)
Sorry I just couldn’t help myself.
Im, E.-O., Lee, B., & Chee, W. (2011). The use of internet cancer support groups by Asian Americans and White Americans living with cancer. Journal of transcultural nursing : official journal of the Transcultural Nursing Society / Transcultural Nursing Society, 22(4), 386-96. doi:10.1177/1043659611414142
Stoica, A., Fiotakis, G., Cabrera, J. S., & Frutos, H. M. (2005). Usability evaluation of handheld devices : A case study for a museum application. Human-Computer Interaction Proceedings PCI2005, Volos, (November 2005).
Sung, Y.-T., Hou, H.-T., Liu, C.-K., & Chang, K.-E. (2010). Mobile guide system using problem-solving strategy for museum learning: a sequential learning behavioural pattern analysis. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(2), 106-115. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00345.x
Hi Steve!
So your post reminded me of something is thought about last time I had a virtual guided tour: I found the device distracting. I’d gone to the Empire State Building with my kids, and we purchased the audio tour. Each of us had our own device. We were each focused on our own device. There was no discussion between us and no interaction between the people on the tour. No questions, no answers. The virtual tour isolated us as individuals. It was so bad I turned it off, and we had a much better experience in the second half.
I worry that the museum project discussed might do exactly the same thing, don’t you? Think, for a second, about the iPhone effect: go to a cocktail party or dinner and when there’s a lull in the conversation, someone’s phone comes out. Once one phone comes out, they all come out. Personal interaction disappears. Might mobile integration affect the community of inquiry if we’re not careful? Might we risk isolation through screen based activity, instead of connection?
How do we guard against that, the “iPhone phenomenon”?
I was interested in your discussion of Sung, Hou, Liu, Chang’s (2009) research because I have read and analyzed several articles regarding augmented reality applications within museums for my final project. It appears as though museums are similar enough to libraries as an informal learning environment. Sung et al.’s research using a problem solving system with PDA, an audio-visual system with PDA and traditional paper-based guided learning sheet was comparable to an arts education exploration study done by Chang, Chang, Hou, Sung, Chao & Lee (2014) (doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2013.09.022). Instead of a problem solving PDA guide, Chang et al. utilized an AR guide and compared it against an audio guide or no guide. Their results showed that the AR group exhibited higher scores on a painting appreciation test than the comparison groups. Chang et al. looked at the time each group spent focused on the artwork and found that the augmented reality group and audio guided coincided because they spent at least ten minutes more than the nonguided participants. It is intriguing to see that Sung et al.’s (2009) study determined a higher peer-peer interaction in comparison to Chang et al.’s (2014) use of augmented reality that showed no interaction at all with their peers. This difference would suggest that either the problem solving activity was more engaging to discuss with a peer or the augmented reality in Chang’s research was more of independent activity. I think Sung et al.’s study should have investigated learning gains with each of their distinct groups as well as the behavior patterns. Karen