AVANCERAD NIVÅ, 30 HP STOCKHOLM SVERIGE 2020,
Principles of a Gamification
Concept in a Museum Using AR for Enhancing the Engagement in
Children
HEDVIG FAHLSTEDT
KTH
SKOLAN FÖR ELEKTROTEKNIK OCH DATAVETENSKAP
Ett museum är inte bara en offentlig förvaring av kultur utan även en utbildningsinstitution som strävar efter att emotionellt stimulera sina besökare genom att erbjuda en stimulerande utbildningsupplevelse. Dock finns det en allmän uppfattning att museer ibland anses vara tråkiga, särskilt hos de yngre besökarna.
Syftet med denna studie var att undersöka hur en utställning i ett museum kan bli mer engagerande genom att kombinera spelifiering med museets handlingssätt för att förbättra besökarnas engagemang hos barn.
Målet var att identifiera distinkta principer i de fyra dimensionerna spelifiering, museum som kontext, målgruppen 10-13-åringar och teknologin Augmented Reality. Genom att använda Research Through Design metodologin genomfördes en konceptstudie och designstudie. En prototyp utvecklades som en representation av de definierade principerna som utvärderades i en användarstudie med deltagare inom målgruppen.
Användarstudiens resultat visade att spelifieringskonceptet var engagerande, men med anledning av få deltagare såväl som brist på användardata kunde konceptet inte validera att besökarnas museumrelaterade engagemang förbättrades.
Däremot kan resultatens utvärdering och de principer som definierats i denna studie
fungera som riktlinjer för annan forskning som utförs inom samma dimensioner eller
med liknande förhållanden.
Museums are not only public repositories of culture, but also educational institutions striving to emotionally stimulate visitors with an explorative educational experience.
However, it is stated knowledge that museums can be considered boring, especially by the younger visitors.
The purpose of this study was to investigate how a museum exhibition can become more engaging by combining gamification with the museum's course of action to enhance visitor engagement in children.
The goal was to identify distinct principles in the dimensions of gamification, the museum context, the target group of 10-13 year olds and Augmented Reality. With a Research Through Design approach, a concept study and design study was conducted, and a prototype was developed as a representation of the principal findings. The prototype was evaluated in a user study conducted with participants within the target group.
The result of the user study indicated that the gamification concept was engaging but due to few participants as well as lack of usability data, the concept could not be fully validated to enhance visitor engagement in a museum.
However, evaluation of the findings and the defined distinct principles of the dimensions
can serve as guidelines for other research conducted within the same dimensions or with
similar conditions.
Enhancing the Engagement in Children
Hedvig Fahlstedt EECS School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
KTH Royal School of Technology Stockholm, Sweden
hedvigf@kth.se
ABSTRACT
Museums are not only public repositories of culture, but also educational institutions striving to emotionally stimulate visitors with an explorative educational experience. However, it is stated knowledge that museums can be considered boring, especially by the younger visitors.
The purpose of this study was to investigate how a museum exhibition can become more engaging by combining gamification with the museum's course of action to enhance visitor engagement in children.
The goal was to identify distinct principles in the dimensions of gamification, the museum context, the target group of 10-13 year olds and Augmented Reality.
With a Research Through Design approach, a concept study and design study was conducted, and a prototype was developed as a representation of the principal findings. The prototype was evaluated in a user study conducted with participants within the target group.
The result of the user study indicated that the gamification concept was engaging but due to few participants as well as lack of usability data, the concept could not be fully validated to enhance visitor engagement in a museum.
However, evaluation of the findings and the defined distinct principles of the dimensions can serve as guidelines for other research conducted within the same dimensions or with similar conditions.
KEYWORDS
Augmented Reality, Gamification, Museum, Exhibition, Engagement, Visitor Engagement, Principles of Gamification,
Mechanics, Dynamics, Emotions, Tekniska Museet, Gamified Experience
1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background
Gamification is the application of game industry principles in non-game situations to enhance user engagement [12], [16], [4].
Today, gamification is considered to be the next generation method for marketing and customer engagement. However, the idea of utilizing games to encourage engagement is nothing new. For example, it is customary in the direct interaction between a teacher and a pupil, in game-like exercises [12]. When designing gamification, the term is often contextualized into its three fundamental principles; mechanics, dynamics, and emotions [30], [12]. While mechanics are the predefined static rules of gamification, dynamics are the resulting subjective behavior and emotions are what caused the dynamics [30]. As game experiences often include a mix of emotions, user enjoyment is the single-most important engagement goal in gamification, assuming that users will not continue playing if they do not enjoy themselves [34], [33].
An institution where visitor engagement and enjoyment is crucial factors to uphold public relevance, is a museum.
Museums of today are not only public repositories of culture, but also educational institutions striving to emotionally stimulate visitors and to enable an explorative educational experience [15]. However, they are also often considered boring.
At Tekniska Museet1 , the National Museum of Science and Technology in Stockholm, Sweden, one of the key principles is inclusion of all, where the aim is to adapt the museum and exhibition design to respond to people with special needs. Furthermore, the primary target group of the museum are children. In order to meet the needs of a young target group, methods such as interactivity- and experience-centered visits are used, with an inclusive focus.
With studies claiming that seven-year-olds can perform complex touch screen gestures and use most of the simple features of smartphones with ease, children are ever so digitally experienced and this brings new possible ways of interaction [39]. For example, through Augmented Reality (AR), in which the user can interact with real-world objects through enhanced computer- generated perceptual information displayed on a smartphone.
1.2 Research Question
With a research-through-design approach, this study aims to develop and evaluate a prototype that explores a concept addressing and incorporating the principles of gamification to enhance engagement, the museum as the context, children as the target group and AR as the facilitating technology in order to answer the research question:
How can a museum exhibition become more engaging for children, using AR technology in a gamification concept on a handheld device?
1.3 Delimitations
As the result of this study is based on the principles and characteristics of the exhibition “100 Innovations” at Tekniska Museet, it can primarily be applied in museums and exhibitions of the same nature. Despite that both gamification and museums are highly represented in research regarding education, this study does not process the learning aspect of said dimensions.
2 THEORY AND RELATED RESEARCH
This section presents theory and research relevant to the study. Initially, methods for assessing visitor engagement are briefly presented followed by mapping of the four dimensions of this study: gamification, the
1 https://www.tekniskamuseet.se/
museum context, the target group, and the technology of Augmented Reality.
2.1 Engagement
In this paper, both the definition and assessment of visitor engagement are grounded in research presented by Leister et al. [21]
In their work, tools to map out dimensions of visitor engagement is presented and variables to assess engagement, such as Fun (F), Concentration (C), Will to Play Again (A), Will to Recommend (R) and Engagement (E) are defined, and targeted questions providing subjective data for said variables are presented in a questionnaire. Furthermore, a PANAS questionnaire was used to assemble objective data of positive and negative affect in the moment. The subjective data from the questionnaire was compared with the objective result from the PANAS, in order to detect inconsistency in the data. The research was conducted in three museums using installations with different properties, to find evidence of an assessment framework for estimating visitor engagement. The participants were students, in groups as well as single individuals.
The methodologies presented in the research is applicable to multiple types of installations and contexts according to Leister et al. [21]. The present study utilizes learnings and guidelines from this research, such as variables for visitor engagement and targeted question.
For a more detailed presentation, see section 3.3 PANAS- C.
2.2 Gamification
The definition of gamification is an application with game-playing elements and game principles used in a non-game context [12], [16], [4]. The underlying motive for introducing a gamification concept to any situation with an end receiver or user, is often to enhance user engagement, by increasing user activity, social interaction and quality of user actions [11].
While gamification as a term started receiving attention in 2010 [40], its practice has been used long before that.
In education, gamification practices are customary as young pupils learn through game-like exercises.
Research shows that allowing pupils to start over, leads to an experimenting behavior without fear of consequences of failure. As a result, the pupil
engagement is enhanced [13]. When users of a gamification find their own reasons for engaging with a behavior, such as experimenting without fear of consequences, it is called intrinsic motivation. Intrinsic motivation is suitable in gamification systems aiming for long-term behavioral change, as in education.
Reward systems with extrinsic rewards, on the contrary, are not always suitable in education, according to Nicholson [26]. An extrinsic reward is a tangible reward such as a gift or cinema ticket, which motivates immediate and short-term change of the user behavior.
An important aspect to extrinsic reward systems is that once a user is rewarded, intrinsic motivation to perform the task again will not be developed [26].
Except from an educational context, gamification has been applied as a method to encourage engagement in various other contexts such as sales, entertainment, health, marketing, and personal development [33]. When designing gamification, the term is often contextualized into its three fundamental principles; mechanics, dynamics, and emotions [30], [12]. Mechanics are the predefined static rules of the gamification, e.g. the names of the properties in a game of Monopoly, or the rules of how to win. Dynamics are the behavioral actions produced by the users while being exposed to the mechanics, e.g. conspiring or bargaining in a game of Monopoly. Emotions are a product of how a player reacts to the mechanics and then generates dynamics, i.e. what caused the conspiring.
Figure 2.1 The connection between the key principles of gamification [30]
As game experiences often include a mix of emotions, player enjoyment is the single-most important engagement goal in gamification, assuming that players will not continue playing if they do not enjoy themselves [34], [33]. However, gamification should go beyond just providing enjoyment as it “[...] should also generate diverse game dynamics, such as rewards, competition, altruism, and self-expression in a way that helps people satisfy their physiological needs” [33].
2.3 Museum Context
The primary function of a museum is to educate its visitors. By preserving artifacts of significance and having them on display, museums are natural learning environments [8].
Furthermore, museums are open to the public, making inclusion of all an important aim in exhibition design and strategy. This hypothetically suggests that museums should attract everyone, but unfortunately, a common perception of these sources of knowledge is that they are boring to visit. Especially among the younger visitors.
Hence, to increase enjoyment and improve visitor engagement in the museums, varying methods and techniques are used in the exhibition design. Two popular methods are to create experience-centered visits or interactable exhibits.
A number of museums have created experience-centered installations by using gamification. The “Footprint eQuiz”, is an interactive trivia game where two players compete in a quiz. It is exhibited in the museum Engineerium in Fornebu, Norway, and is one example where gamification is utilized successfully [21], [19].
“Solar Cell” is another example, installed in the exhibition Energy Tivoli at the Norwegian Museum for Science and Technology in Oslo. This installation contains a wall on which a drawing of an atom is presented. Visitors throw balls, representing photons, at the four outer electrons of the atom. The purpose of “Solar Cell” is to visualize how energy is created [20]. Furthermore, “Ha llbarhetsjakten”
at Tekniska Museet is a gamification with a sustainability theme launched in 2019. By following a trail that is
communicating the Sustainable Development Goals2 through most parts of the museum, the visitor learns about sustainability.
Evidently, there are several techniques to create an interactable exhibition for museum visitors.
Implementing buttons and switches to control an installation or oral narration through speakers near the artifacts are other examples. A technology that enables interaction with less material impact on the exhibition design is AR [2]. Research shows that AR in museums has a positive effect on visitor experience and visitor engagement, as well as the will to revisit the site [3], [27], [17]. Already in 2003, the mobile application LIFEPLUS was designed to enrich museum tours with AR storytelling. This mobile application was installed on a laptop inside a backpack, with attached binoculars and camera. The visitor carried it around to take part of the experience [36]. Today, the same concept can be used with a lot more ease, made available for all visitors with a smartphone. For example, Rubino et al. developed an AR mobile game called "Step by Step" aiming to motivate the users to explore Palazzo Madama - Museo Civico d’Arte Antica in Turin, Italy and broaden their understanding of cultural aspects with AR content. Their findings were positive results of the perceived entertainment of the visitors as well as better information communication [31]. "Intrigue at the museum" is another interactive and experience- enhancing mobile gamification in this museum. By using storytelling and narration in the historical exhibition the goal is to facilitate engagement and create a pleasurable learning experience for the younger visitors [38].
2.4 Target Group: Children, ages 10-13
The target group of this study is children of ages ten to thirteen, a group that is highly represented in visitor statistics of Tekniska Museet.
These children are digitally experienced, with introduction and exposure to technology from a young age. The smartphone is one of the most frequently used technological items in the household according to previous research. Hence, HCI research investigates what is suitable within different age groups in terms of smartphone interaction. According to Yadav et al.
children from the age of seven and eight are able to perform complex touch screen gestures and use most of
2 The sustainable development goals report 2016. https://doi.org/10.29171/azu_acku_pamphlet_k3240_s878_2016
the simple features of smartphones with ease.
Appreciated interaction consists of play with creative apps, puzzles and logical quizzes. This group also prefers to narrate their experiences by using storytelling apps and participating in roleplay games. Interaction with educational apps is proven to be beneficial from this age, leading to higher levels of engagement in the learning situation [39].
In discussions about educational apps, the term “Learn Through Play” is frequently used, to describe how children use play to develop and learn to think in the cognitive realm. By using their imagination in their comfort zone of play, children develop their engagement to a more elaborate and complex level [14]. On the contrary, to engage a child, a playful setting is often effective.
Previous research shows that play makes children focused during a longer period of time. In clinical studies with children as the research objects, play is therefore used as a tool to make trial results more accurate. By playing while interviewing, Lyra et. al proposes that playfulness is critical for sustaining children’s engagement during prolonged evaluation processes where children often get disengaged and tired [23].
Play also enables for inclusive interaction. Research shows that children with disabilities who were classified with having exceptional learning needs, could not be distinguished in a group of children without disabilities in a play-based inquiry setting in a museum [29]. During playful settings, children who otherwise were struggling to learn from the exhibition, could interact in a meaningful manner.
2.5 Augmented Reality
Augmented Reality (AR) is a direct experience of the real-world environment enhanced with computer- generated perceptual information. AR, defined by Milgram et al. as "augmenting natural feedback to the operator with simulated cues" [25], places AR inside the Reality Virtuality Continuum (RV) between reality and virtual reality. It is simplified by Guo et al. [10] and illustrated by Portman et al. [28] in 2015 by the Mixed Reality Continuum presented in Figure 2.2. AR allows the user to see the real world with a real-time overlay containing computer graphics such as 2D and 3D content.
Figure 2.2 The Mixed Reality Continuum [10]
2.5.1 Augmented Reality Display Technologies
There are mainly three display technologies for AR available for consumers. Head-mounted displays (HMD), handheld displays (HHD), head-up displays (HUD).
Examples for products using the technologies are Hololens3 and Magic Leap4 (HMD), the smartphone (HHD) and, for example, Volvo5 cars using projection technologies that project speed parameters onto the windshield (HUD). Comparing the most frequently used displays, HMD and HHD, both technologies have advantages and disadvantages. The ability to gaze in all directions is possible with a HMD. In counterpart, a HMD has a limited user base as well as a limited field of view [9]. The HDD has the advantage of allowing easy access to AR for all smartphone or other HHD users [28]. The disadvantage is, primarily, the inconvenience of the smartphone occupying one or both hands of the user.
2.5.2 Augmented Reality Techniques
Within AR, mainly two areas of navigation techniques are used, Marker-less and Marker-based AR. The navigation functionalities in Marker-less AR utilizes the device data from GPS, compass, accelerometer and camera to locate its movements and position in the real world. Marker- based AR uses the camera to locate reference points in the physical world as cues for the computer graphic content [1].
A marker is a physical visual cue that is recognized by detection algorithms [6]. Examples of such markers are presented in Figure 2.3. A fiducial marker (1) contains black and white pixels with high contrasts, a 2D marker
3 https://www.hololens.com 4 https://www.magicleap.com
5 https://group.volvocars.com/news/future-mobility/2019/varjo-collaboration
6 https://solarframework.github.io/use/unity/
(2) is an image containing details and contrast, and 3D markers (3) are 3D objects with contrasts on its surface.
Figure 2.3: Examples of markers. A fiducial marker6 (1) an example of a 2D marker7 (2) and a 3D marker8 (3)
Both techniques have advantages and disadvantages.
Marker-based AR is alterable in a physical space, hence moving the physical marker moves the AR content.
However, it restricts the experience to the area of where markers are visible. In comparison, Marker-less AR is more immersive considering the AR content is not bound to a physical cue. However, the independent rendering can cause AR content to appear out of context.
Furthermore, Marker-less AR requires a surface with texture to create a good user experience. A white flat surface may cause surface detection failure. Marker- based AR was used in this present study to enable for the museum to alter and move the trails in the exhibition manually.
2.5.3 Augmented Reality Applications
Poke mon Go was and is of today a popular mobile game offering AR technology. Niantic9 launched it in the United States in 2016. During Poke mon Go’s first year, it was the most widely downloaded and used smartphone application in the entire world [18]. The application uses the mobile device´s GPS for navigation, and the goal of the game is to locate, capture and train virtual creatures, so-called Poke mon. A Poke mon is caught by throwing a Poke ball at it, and this interaction is the part of the game that is available in AR. Snapchat 10 , a multimedia messaging application, is another popular application
7 https://www.gabrielkelly.co/blog/friction-unity 8 https://hub.packtpub.com/types-augmented-reality-targets/
9 https://nianticlabs.com/
10 http://www.snapchat.com/
offering AR technology. Snapchat centers around user interaction with virtual stickers and Augmented Reality when altering the multimedia messages. IKEA Place11 is an AR app launched in 2017 enabling users to virtually place true-to-scale 3D models of IKEA furniture in a space, enhancing the shopping experience for IKEA customers. What these popular applications have in common is the use of AR technology as a tool to create an experience centered enhancement of an already established consumer offering, similar to the aim in this present study.
3 METHODOLOGIES
This section describes the methods used in the present study.
3.1 Research Through Design
Research Through Design (RTD) constitutes the overall framework for this present study. RTD is a concept that describes an iterative research approach in which the design process itself becomes a way to acquire new knowledge [41], [7], [24]. The methods and creative processes of design practice are merged with a research environment were, one process step’s outcome, is applied in the next, iteratively [37], [9], [21].
Figure 3.1: The iterative design process of RTD12
This present study has applied an RTD process as presented in Figure 3.1. Initially, the process starts with choosing the problems or opportunities, context, target group and theoretical framing. This step is called
“Select”. The “Design” step involves understanding the current state of the process and how it offers new perspectives on the framing of the work. “Evaluate”
11 https://apps.apple.com/us/app/ikea-place/id1279244498
involves evaluating as prototyping processes and design processes are being conducted. “Reflect and Disseminate” involves reflection of the framing and documentation and sharing of the learnings. A Research Through Design-method is not a linear method, e.g.
“Design” and “Evaluate” can relieve each other [41]. For a more detailed illustration of the process of this present study, see Figure 3.2 in section 4.
3.2 Video prototyping
This method was used to present the prototypes in this present study. Video prototyping is a useful method when visualizing prototypes for user interfaces and applications [35]. It provides rapid means to prototype for testing and enables evaluation of applications that have not yet been developed [35]. By capturing video at the site, the sensory experiences users are expected to be exposed to can be simulated with images and sound in the video prototype. Story lining and storytelling also make the observer better able to visualize the interaction and experience usability of the application [22].
However, a disadvantage with presenting a prototype through video is the lack of contextual factors, e.g.
crowdedness at the site of intended deployment, the surrounding soundscape. Furthermore, a video prototype is not interactive [32].
3.3 PANAS-C
The PANAS-C questionnaire was used to evaluate emotions of the participants in the user study. It was part of the assessment of engagement presented by Leister et al [21].
The Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) is a 20-item self-report measure of positive and negative affect [37]. According to Watson et al., NA and PA reflect dispositional dimensions. PA represents the extent to which an individual experiences pleasurable engagement with the environment. A high PA score is indicative of emotion, such as enthusiasm and alertness.
In contrast, a low PA score characterizes emotions of lethargy or sadness. A high-NA score represents subjective distress and unpleasurable engagement, and a low NA score shows absence of these feelings [3].
A shortened version of the PANAS adapted for children is called PANAS-C where the C stands for “Child”.
According to Ebesutani et. al, 10 item PA and NA scale are sufficient for evaluating the emotion of children [5]. The
12https://www.slideshare.net/LuanNguyenThanh8/research-through-design-in-hci
emotions evaluated in this present study were: Excited, Nervous, Enthusiastic, Upset, Inspired, Irritable, Attentive, Ashamed, Active, Frustrated. Since the positive effects were of interest, negative emotions such as fear and guilt were omitted from the questionnaire, similar to the modifications done by Leister et al. [21].
3.4 Analyzing data
The data from the surveys used in the pre-study and in the user-study was analyzed through comparisons of response scores on a Likert scale as well as identification of recurrent themes in the data.
The semi-structured interviews in the user study were transcribed, and themes were identified and analyzed in correlation to the six variables presented in section 2.1, using framework analysis and discourse analysis.
The PANAS-C questionnaire responses were analyzed through calculation of the PANAS-C score.
4 RESEARCH THROUGH DESIGN PROCESS
A detailed illustration of the process steps of this present study is presented in Table 4.1.
4.1 Pre-study
A pre-study was conducted in order to map out previous research and to investigate the research question properly.
It consisted of a literature study (see section 2 for more details) and a survey conducted with 17 participating children within the age of the target group, eight girls and nine boys. The survey consisted of 18 questions, nine requiring multiple choice answers and nine requiring free-text answers. The survey included questions like
“Have you ever visited a museum and if so, how did you like it?”, “Do you own a smartphone?”, and “Have you ever used an app utilizing AR-filters?”.
4.2 Concept Study 4.2.1 Prototype 1
Based on the pre-study, a prototype representing the principles of gamification, the museum context, the target group, and AR, was developed. As the purpose of the prototype was to enhance engagement using gamification, it was of utter importance that it was enjoyable. With the targeted users being digitally experienced children who enjoy playing games on their own smartphones, the prototype was developed as a mobile application. This was also ideal in terms of inclusion, and since children are engaged and learn Table 4.1 Illustration of the research through design process
through playful settings it was furthermore in line with the key principles of museums; an inclusive educational institution. However, since displayed artifacts often are non-touchable, museums were considered boring by children participating in the survey;
“– The worst part of the museum was that I could not touch and interact with things.” - child from the survey in the pre-study
Hence, to overcome this restriction, AR technology was a suitable technology to pursue, which turned the non- interactable exhibition of “100 Innovations” into an interactable one. A reward system with intrinsic rewards was furthermore applied to motivate behavioral change and engagement. The mechanics of the prototype were inspired by Poke mon Go, motivated by its general popularity within the target group. The reward system of badges as well as dynamics such as searching, finding, catching AR objects was used for creating individual progress.
Figure 4.1: The AR content for Prototype 1 in Unity To visualize the AR interaction of the gamification concept, interactable AR content was developed in Unity game engine version 19.3.213 with Vuforia Software Development Kit (SDK) version 8.5.914 . Developing the AR interaction in Unity with Vuforia SDK supported both Android and iOS, the two most popular operative systems within the target group at the time.
Furthermore, this setup was suitable for the marker- based AR technique used in this study.
Figure 4.1 shows a screenshot image of the development of the AR content and interaction in its static development state. It displays the flat image target, blue and grey ball for throw interaction and robot and a cardboard box as objects to hit. The ball was
13 https://unity3d.com/unity/beta/2019.3 14 https://developer.vuforia.com/forum/unity 15 http://youngentech.com/
implemented with reference to the Poke mon Go interaction design with the objective to communicate the act of “capturing” with a Poke ball. The ball was an asset by YounGen Tech15 from the Unity Asset Store16 . The robot was an asset by Unity Technologies17. It was used to communicate the concept and interaction in a way that corresponded to the technological theme at Tekniska Museet.
Figure 4.2: The prototype 1 in 4 frames. Instruction Frame (4.2.1), Interaction Frame 1 (4.2.2), Interaction Frame 2 (4.2.3), Reward frame (4.2.4)
Figure 4.2 consists of four screenshot images from prototype 1. Frame 4.2.1 presents information about the goal of the application, frame 4.2.2 and 4.2.3 show freeze frames in a ball throw interaction when the ball hits a robot sitting on a box in AR. Frame 4.2.4 shows the reward when successfully hitting the robot. The reward is a badge. The badge was named “Fo rpackningsma rket”
which translates to the “Packaging-badge”. It had the objective to address which artefact in the exhibition that hid that specific robot. In this case, it was near the artefact “Juice Packs” in the exhibition.
4.2.2 Heuristic evaluation
Heuristic evaluation is a common usability engineering method, in which a focus group of experts examines a prototype in order to find conceptual problems in usability so that they can be attended to as part of an iterative design process.
The heuristic evaluation in this present study consisted of a group interview with Expert 1 and Expert 2 and a semi-structured interview with Expert 3, all of them were employees at Tekniska Museet and possessed extensive knowledge in creating exhibitions. The focus group interview was conducted digitally using the video conference service called Zoom18. A digital form was sent
16 https://assetstore.unity.com/
17 https://unity.com/
18 Zoom.org
to the participants, including questions and videos. The group interview was semi-structured and divided into two parts. The first part was regarding visitor engagement, and the second part was regarding the concept of prototype 1. In the semi-structured interview the concept of the prototype was presented and discussed. In the semi-interview with Expert 3, the prototype was presented in a physical meeting during a semi-structured interview.
4.3 Design Study 4.3.1 Prototype 2
Learnings from the result of the heuristic evaluation of prototype 1 (See section 5) highlighted some usability problems with the concept of the prototype. Among the learnings were that the recognizability of an artifact was a factor for popularity. However, a boring artifact can become fun by using gamification, such as “Guess the object”. This fact was not considered in Prototype 1.
Furthermore, several properties in the mechanics of the prototype were causing exclusion in one way or another.
For example, similarities with Poke mon Go excluded those who had no experience of the game application.
The reward system required previous knowledge of the application design terminology, as did the AR interaction. The information providing instructions of how the interaction worked and the goal of the concept, was not sufficient considering individuals with learning needs. The AR content was causing exclusion in terms of gender since the robot was not perceived as gender neutral. Another learning was that it was desired to create an explorative experience-centered visit, by leading the visitor through a trail, and hence the prototype was not sufficient. Lastly, the experts judged the prototype as not being fun enough.
Based on mentioned learnings, prototype 2 was developed with an improved representation of the principles of the four dimensions.
The concept of Prototype 2 was a scavenger hunt in an AR application on a handheld device inside the exhibition
“100 Innovations” at Tekniska Museet.
The scavenger hunt enabled interaction with different artefacts in the exhibition and created trails between artefacts displayed in different locations.
19 https://marvelapp.com/
To distance the concept from Poke mon Go, a trail was represented by a puzzle frame. A puzzle is a common, playful and easy relatable object. The mission of the game was to complete puzzles inside the exhibition. To complete a puzzle, the AR puzzle pieces that were hidden in different locations inside the exhibition had to be located and collected, hence forming a trail. Puzzle pieces were located with the help of clues. The clues were a solution to suffice the need of a “guessing” dynamic to the gamification.
Upon completion of a puzzle, the user was rewarded with a medal in the application, corresponding to said puzzle.
The end goal of the game was to collect six medals which in turn was rewarded with a gift from Tekniska Museet.
This new reward system included an extrinsic reward to motivate the user to complete the entire game experience or enhance the will to revisit the museum if the game was not completed after the first visit. To motivate the user between rewards, a visualization of the game progress was implemented.
The application language was set to Swedish to meet the requirements of the target group. A help section was implemented to make the application more inclusive.
The overall style of the application with rounded corners and colorful illustrations was designed to make the interface more playful.
4.3.2 Application Design Process
Figure 4.3 shows a sketch of the user flow, functionality and user interaction that was used in the development process. The application prototype was created in Marvel19 , a prototyping platform and the illustrations were created in Adobe Illustrator20.
20 https://www.adobe.com/se/products/catalog.html
Figure 4.3: Sketch of the application prototype user flow, functionality and user interaction
The AR content, shown in Figure 4.4, was created in Blender21 and the animation and the particle system effect were developed in Unity with Vuforia SDK and built to a Huawei p20 PRO for visualizing the AR content on a smartphone. This visualization was later used in the prototype. The Huawei p20 PRO is an Android phone with a 155 x 73.9 mm touch screen, that was similar in size and functionality compared to the latest models of smartphones from Apple22 and Samsung23, which at the time were the most popular manufacturers of phones used by the target group.
Figure 4.4: Animated AR content in Unity
21 https://www.blender.org/
22 https://www.apple.com
4.3.3 Final Application Design
In Figure 4.5 the “AR view” is displayed in 4.5.1. This view presents how the camera is used to create an update in real-time of the surroundings. This is also where the AR content shows up when a target is in view of the camera. “Puzzle view 1” and “Puzzle view 2” are presented in 4.5.2 and 4.5.3, showing the colorful puzzle trails available in the museum. The “Info view” in 8.4 is a help section to provide instructions for application use and the “Backpack view” in 4.5.5 visualizes the individual progress and clues.
Figure 4.5: Prototype AR view (4.5.1) puzzle view (4.5.2), all puzzle view (4.5.3), info view (4.5.4) and backpack view (4.5.5)
In figure 4.6, a still screen shot of the animated AR content is displayed in 4.6.1. The puzzle piece is animated to rotate and glimmer. In frame 4.6.2, 4.6.3, 4.6.4 the progress of a trail is displayed. The puzzle frame shows the puzzle piece progress. 4.6.5 show the AR view at the destination of a medal reward.
Figure 4.6: From the left AR view with puzzle piece (4.6.1), orange puzzle view with one puzzle piece (4.6.2), new puzzle piece (4.6.3), orange puzzle view with all puzzle pieces (4.6.4), AR view with final artifact (4.6.5)
Figure 4.7.1 displays the medal reward of one puzzle.
4.7.2 present the progress in the backpack view with one obtained medal. 4.7.3, 4.7.4 and 4.7.5 display examples of clues using images of objects rather than text clues, to make them less excluding.
23 https://www.samsung.com
Figure 4.7: Medal view (4.7.1), backpack view (4.7.2) and three clue views (4.7.3, 4.7.4, 4.7.5)
4.3.4 Video Prototype
The video prototype aimed to simulate a real-life experience of the application and concept in the exhibition of “100 Innovations”. Using video prototyping methods [32] [35], audio and visual material was collected from inside the exhibition.
For the material collection, a professional wide-angle camera, Canon EOS 6D24 , was used together with a 35 mm lens as well as a 17-40 mm wide-angle lens. Screen recording on a Huawei p20 Pro was used for the screenshots and interaction with the AR content. The application interaction was recorded with screen recording on a laptop. The video was cut in iMovie25 with effects created in Illustrator.
The final video prototype26 consisted of an application walkthrough demonstrating the fundamentals of the game concept and game design, embedded with a storyline set in the “100 Innovations” exhibition at Tekniska Museet, with relatable storytelling, video simulation of the surroundings and uplifting background music.
4.4 User Study
The assessment of engagement in the user study consisted of three methods. The first method was a semi- structured interview including a questionnaire. The second was a PANAS-C questionnaire and the third was observations made during the user study sessions.
4.4.1 Semi-structured interview including a questionnaire This method was used to evaluate 6 variables, as part of the assessment of engagement. The variables presented in Table 4.2 are defined in the guidelines presented by Leister et al.
24 https://www.canon.se/cameras//
25 https://www.apple.com/imovie/
The variable “F” evaluated perceived enjoyment of the participants while they reflected about Prototype 2. The
“A” variable evaluated if the participants wanted to visit the exhibit in real life or wanted to play the game presented in Prototype 2. “R” evaluated the intention to recommend the game to someone else. “C” and “E”
evaluated if the participants were concentrated during the session and engaged in Prototype 2. “S” evaluated the participants' suggestions of improvement.
Table 4.2: The variables and their corresponding variables used in the semi-structured interview
Variables
F Fun
A Visit the exhibit, Intention to play
R Recommend
C Concentration E Engagement
S Suggestions of improvement
4.4.2 User Study Session
Four children participated together with a parent or a teacher, in separate sessions using Zoom. The children, ages 12, 13, 10 and 12, are referred to as p1, p2, p3 and p4.
A session lasted for about 30-45 minutes and was recorded with both video and audio, showing the participating child’s facial expressions and verbal answers and reactions. A screenshot of the setup from one of the sessions is presented in Figure 4.8.
Figure 4.8: User Study session setup
26 https://youtu.be/KPmHHsCuLxQ
Initially, the participants granted permission to be recorded with video and audio for analysis purposes.
They were informed about the study in general and that they could ask for help from their accompanying adult at any time during the session. The session was divided into three sections. Two of which included the video prototype and one with the PANAS-C questionnaire.
In section one, the participant watched the first half of the video prototype. It presented the museum and the exhibition “100 Innovations”. The participant then answered questions verbally, with multi-choice answers and with text. Examples of questions in this section were
“What did you think of the video?”, “Did the exhibit seem fun?”.
In section two, the participant watched the second half of the video prototype. It presented interaction with Prototype 2 inside the exhibition. Prototype 2 was referred to as “the game” during the interviews. After the video viewing, the participant answered questions, similar to session one, such as “Would you recommend the game to someone you know?” and “Do you remember where the last puzzle piece was?”.
In the last section, the participant answered the PANAS- C questionnaire.
5 RESULT 5.1 Survey
5.1.1 Museum experience of children
The questions in the survey regarded the participants previous museum experiences, mobile game habits and AR experience. The part of the survey regarding museum visits showed that most children had been to a museum before. A few were neutral or disliked museum visits while the majority were positive to museum visits in general.
“– The best part was that you could write your name on a space rocket and launch it into space! (Not a real rocket)” - participant 17
Patterns found in the answers to a question regarding what the children thought was bad with the exhibit they recently visited were that they thought the visit was boring and lacked interaction possibility.
“– The worst part of the museum was that I could not touch and interact with things”– participant 1
“– It took too long” – participant 16
“– It was a bit boring” – participant 9 5.1.2 Mobile game and AR experience
The part of the survey regarding mobile game experience showed that all children played mobile games at least once a week, and 13 of these children played mobile games one or several times in a day. All children had smartphones and, most of them had previous experience with AR, which predominantly was a positive experience.
“– AR filters are quite fantastic” – participant 16
“– Some filters change your appearance and I think that is bad but some turns you into a dog and that is okay” – participant 12
“– I was experimenting when I tried AR in Pokémon Go” - participant 15
5.2 Focus Group
5.2.1 Engagement discussion
In the discussion regarding engagement, Expert 2 talked about how the visitor expresses engagement through movement and expressions. A child can express engagement orally with “Oh!” and “Look!”, says Expert 2:
“– An engaged child in an exhibition starts to move faster. The child runs from artifact to artifact and shows more energy. If the child is there with a parent or adult, the child grabs the arm of the adult and drags him or her over to something.” – Expert 2
In discussions of what makes artifacts popular the experts pointed out that both recognition and the suspense of guessing can create engagement around an artifact.
“– When an artifact is relatable or easy identifiable by the visitor, it becomes popular” - Expert 2
“– The suspense of having to guess what an object is, can be exciting and fun for children” - Expert 1 5.2.2 Concept discussion
The concept in prototype 1 was reviewed and discussed during the second part of the focus group interview.
Problems that were articulated were that the similarities with Poke mon Go caused exclusion of those who had no experience of the game.
“– This concept should live on its own, and not be depending on another mobile game concept” – Expert 1, referring to Pokémon Go.
“– This can be hard to understand if you are not very familiar with the game” - Expert 1, referring to Pokémon Go.
The instructions of the game concept were not clear enough to the experts and the appearance of the AR content, the robot, was perceived as “male” and not
“gender neutral”.
“– I don’t understand the concept from the instructions entirely” – Expert 2
Motivational factors suitable for the target group such as an extrinsic reward was discussed in the semi-structured interview with Expert 3.
5.3 User Study result
5.3.1 Result of Semi-structured interview including a questionnaire
Figure 5.1: Mean value of the response to the questions examining perceived fun on a Likert scale with 5 level responses, (F1 and F2 had std.dev = 0,5).
F1: “Did the exhibit seem fun?”
F2: “Did the game seem fun?”
The questions F1 and F2 examined the level of perceived fun that the participant experienced during the first and the second part of the video prototype. The mean value is presented on a 5 item Likert scale in Figure 5.1.
“– I think that playing a game during the museum visit would make it more fun, because sometimes it gets kind of boring“ – p1
All participants wanted to visit the museum as well as play the game in real life. Three out of four answered that they would recommend both the exhibit and the game to someone they knew.
All participants responded with accurate answers to the questions that evaluated the participants' concentration during both video viewings.
Three of the participants answered that they thought the game seemed fun and exciting, and all participants felt
engaged while watching the video. Comparison of subjective data and objective individual PANAS-C score for each corresponding variable show no inconsistency in the data regarding excitement and engagement.
One participant believed that the game would enhance the level of exploration that participants did in the exhibition.
“– It is good that it makes you move around a lot and seeing more things” – p2
Spontaneous reactions to the extrinsic reward was expressed by one participant.
“– I really like that you win a prize to bring home in the end” – p1
Suggestions for improvement of the prototype was given by three of four participants (p1, p2 and p4). Participant p1 suggestion was to implement interaction with the puzzle pieces when placing them in the puzzle frame.
“– What if, when you find a puzzle piece you can place it yourself into the puzzle frame, so you need to figure out how to place it correctly” – p1
A suggestion of improvement from p2 was to turn the clues into riddles.
“– If you place an egg into it, the egg will explode!” – p2, giving an example of a riddle
Lastly, p4 suggested that implementing difficulty levels to the game would make the game more fun.
5.3.2 Total PANAS-C Score
In table 5, the mean values of the PA and NA scores are presented. The standard deviation is similar in range as published by Ebesutani et al. [5] for assessment with a PANAS-C and as Watson et al. [37] for assessment in the moment. The minimum and maximum value of PA and NA score is 1 and 5. As was stated in section 3.3, a high PA score is indicative of pleasurable engagement with the environment while a high NA score is indicative of distress and unpleasurable engagement. Thus, a high PA score combined with a low NA score is indicative of a positive affect.
Table 5: Mean PANAS-C score and std.dev (n=4, POS = Positive Affect, NEG = Negative Affect)
POS Mean Score NEG Mean Score
All (n=4) 3,7 All (n=4) 1,3
std.dev.(n=4) 1,3 std.dev.(n=4) 1,6
The mean value of the PANAS-C score in Table 5 presents objective data of the positive and the negative effect of the prototype, which indicates a high PA and low NA score.
6 DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to investigate the dimensions of gamification, the museum context, the target group and AR technology in order to create a representation of the principles of these four dimensions. The goal was to answer the research question:
How can a museum exhibition become more engaging for children, using AR technology in a gamification concept on a handheld device?
To answer the question, the representation had to be evaluated by the target group in a user study, hence a prototype was developed.
6.1 Engagement
Results of the user study showed that the participants were concentrated during the video presentation of the prototype. Results also indicated that they understood the concept of the game. Analysis of the result indicated that the children thought the game seemed fun and three of four children wanted to recommend the game to someone they knew. According to the assessment framework presented by Leister et al., asking if the visitor had fun during their museum experience can be used as a proxy of visitor engagement. Furthermore, the will to recommend a game experience to someone else shows of engagement in the game. All participants answered that they wanted to test the game if they visited the museum, which indicates that the game was interesting to them.
However, as one participant did not give suggestions for improvement of the game and did not show will to recommend the game, the participant showed less engagement compared to the other participants. The PANAS-C score of this individual did not stand out from the participant group, nor did it indicate inconsistency compared to the subjective data. However, observations during the session showed that this participant turned to the accompanying adult for validation when answering questions, more times than the other participants. The
adult offered help faster when the participant lingered on questions compared to the others. This observation might suggest that the difficulty level of the questions was too high for this individual. Another possible explanation is that the participant was less interested in the game. Another possible reason might have been the fact that this participant was conducting the test at home with a parent, and not in a classroom with a teacher, and therefore was in a less alert and focused state of mind.
Learnings from the user study showed that the game was perceived as fun by the participants, and that they felt engaged in the game concept. However, the result did not in all aspects establish that the concept would necessarily lead to visitor engagement.
6.2 Gamification
The three principles of gamification are dependent on each other. Implementing a mechanic leads to specific dynamics or emotions with the user. This was stated knowledge when the design process was initiated, and was further contextualized during the process. To enhance engagement, specific design choices within gamification were identified as suitable.
Emotions such as enjoyment, excitement, recognition and belonging were defined as desirable. Dynamics indicative of leading to these emotions were actions of exploration and interaction in the exhibition as well as competition and social interaction.
A reward system mechanic with an extrinsic reward showed indications of leading to excitement, motivation to play and enjoyment. However, the difficulty in maintaining engagement caused by an extrinsic reward must not be neglected. Extrinsic rewards are powerful, and can also cause damage such as prevention or loss of intrinsic motives. If the extrinsic reward is removed, the engagement will most likely disappear for those individuals who have previously been exposed to the extrinsic reward system. Creating suspense in the act of guessing or interpreting was identified as an additional desirable mechanic of the gamification concept. It created both social interactions, belonging, recognition and exploration.
Conclusions of the overall perception of the gamification indicated that the extrinsic reward as well as the emotions linked to playing games in general, were predominant factors in the positive perception of the
game. This was not a surprise. However, an unexpected conclusion was the importance of clue mechanics. It led the dynamic of guessing and interpreting and caused more desired emotions than was initially expected.
Implementing the extrinsic reward system showed indications of stronger desired emotions such as immediate motivation. However, it might also have caused dynamics such as exploration to diminish. This highlights the importance of considering the strong dependencies of the gamification principles, as well as its interplay with the specific principles of the context and the target group.
6.3 Museum context
A specific principle identified as distinct to the museum context was the aim to be inclusive of a diverse museum audience. Barriers that need to be considered for a gamification concept of this sort may be physical, sensory or intellectual. The prototype was not evaluated with participants that could represent users with impairments, which is a crucial step in the process of making a concept accessible for all. However, design choices that aimed to diminish barriers were considered.
For physical barriers, the mobility of the AR markers made placement in accessible locations possible for the museum staff. Intellectual barriers were considered in instruction formulation, as well as images and icons replacing text where it was possible. Sensory barriers were diminished with choices of contrasting colors and text size, but were not successful in making Prototype 2 accessible to blind visitors. Furthermore, the fact that the prototype was developed for a handheld device creates a barrier for visitors with no access to a smartphone.
To create an experience-centered visit, artifacts are given a narrative communicated to the visitor through a series of events. A gamification concept of this sort enables parallel interactive exhibition trails which can involve a number of artifacts.
A museum exhibition design can be on display for both long and short periods of time and can contain almost anything. Therefore, to create a scalable concept, a flexible implementation process, and adaptability of in- game mechanics such as items, were essential to consider.
6.4 Target Group: Children 10-13
Specific principles identified as distinct to the target group was their digital experience, and their need to interact.
For this specific target group, the potential in developing the gamification concept for a device such as a smartphone was clear. The group had easy access to and had a common interest in smartphones. Furthermore, they preferred interaction with smartphones in creative, logically challenging and social manners. The exhibition displayed 100 artifacts of different sizes and fields of which were more or less known from previous experience by the target group. According to the results, the digital trails between artifacts invited the children to explore new parts of the exhibition, that was not solely depending on the child's previous knowledge or themes of personal interest.
The user study indicated that the participants felt enjoyment and excitement towards the prototype, however the preferred emotions of recognition and belonging were not possible to examine due to the user study method. Analysis of the user study results showed indications of a need to implement adjustable difficulty levels, to make it relevant and including for a diverse group.
6.5 Augmented Reality
Interactivity was identified as one of the most important needs of the target group to enhance engagement. The use of AR technology was one way to make interaction with the non-touchable artifacts possible. Comparing interaction with AR and interaction with installations such as the “Footprint eQuiz” or “Solar Cell” via buttons and switches, a permanent installation approach runs higher risk of being non-inclusive towards a diverse target group in terms of accessibility, as well as risk of queuing and deterioration of visitor experience. In counterpart, AR on a handheld device benefits from being mobile and personal, with a possibility to fulfill the needs of a diverse target group on an individual level.
Evidently, the AR technology itself was a contributing factor to the level of interest shown by the participants, since AR was a technology that excited the target group in general.
Marker-based AR was used in this present study to enable for the museum administration to alter and move the trails in the exhibition manually, hence creating a
scalable concept. Furthermore, the marker-based AR was better suited to communicate and market the gamification concept in the museum context, by creating visual stimuli for visitors in the exhibition.
6.6 Method critique
User tests with larger participant groups would have enabled for a statistically validatable result of the engagement in the prototype. This was not possible due to time limitations. Therefore, the conclusions presented in this study should be interpreted as indications and trends.
Initially, a detailed plan including pre-study, concept study, design study and usability study, was formulated.
Although most of the initial plan went accordingly, one step was not feasible. Due to governmental restrictions during the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic, the museum was closed for visitors at the time of the usability study, making it impossible to implement. Therefore, interaction with the prototype was not a direct parameter of engagement, which it would have been if interaction data was collected.
Furthermore, inviting adults to participate in the user tests passively might have influenced the children’s responses in different ways.
The formulation of some questions in the user study might have confused some participants, since observations indicated that they had to ask their adult company for help. The adults gave different explanations for words or sentences, which can have affected the results.
6.7 Future Research
Museums are interested in enhancing visitor engagement. Two popular methods to do so is by creating experience-centered visits and interactable exhibits. The prototype, representing the identified principles, shows potential of enhancing engagement in the user, while utilizing both methods. This suggests that this present study can be relevant to exhibition designers.
The next step for this research is proper concept and usability testing of a game application, inside the exhibition of “100 Innovations” at Tekniska Museet or another similar exhibition. A possible direction for future research within the presented concept is to evaluate how
to make it more engaging. Learnings from the study suggest that inclusion should be a predominant focus.
Implementing a learning aspect to the concept could be a possible next step considering the learning focus of the museum context as well as the possibilities in gamification within the field. However, a gamification design creating intrinsic motivation rather than extrinsic reward system should be considered for more long-term visitor engagement, as advised by Nicholson [26].
A suggestion to future research in the target group and the museum dimension is to target other visitor groups of museums, such as adult groups visiting the museum for business conferences.
7 CONCLUSIONS
In this study, the assessment of engagement in a gamification concept served as a measure of the concept's success within the intended dimensions.
When approaching the research question in a RTD process, findings of distinct principles to the four dimensions gamification, museum context, children and AR were visualized in a prototype. The prototype was evaluated in a user study to answer the research question.
The results indicated that the prototype was engaging, however, due to few participants in the user study, the concept could not be fully validated to enhance visitor engagement in a museum. The defined distinct principles of the dimensions can serve as guidelines for other research conducted within the same dimensions or with similar conditions.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
There are some people whom I would like to acknowledge. Thank you to Bjo rn Thuresson for your feedback and support as supervisor and to Siri Olofgo rs at Tekniska Museet for your feedback and administration. Thank you Kattis Karlsson for your expertise and support during the user study.
I would also like to acknowledge my family and Beatrice for your cheer, support and babysitting. Finally, my warmest of thanks to you, Johannes Karlsson, for your unconditional love, feedback and support during this past year and to you little Louie, for the motivation.
