Evaluation sample
Summative evaluation, The Contemporary Austin, Austin, TX

 

 

 

 

The Contemporary Austin

 

Summative Evaluation of the LOFT Interpretive space for Tom Sachs: Boombox Retrospective 1999-2015

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       

                               

 

 

Prepared by:

 

Mary Mikel Stump

 

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The following report outlines and characterizes results from a summative evaluation of visitors’ engagement with six interpretive experiences installed within The Contemporary Austin’s LOFT Interpretive space. The approach used to assess visitors’ experiences included visitor tracking, focused observations, and semi-structured interviews.  Overall, data from this study suggest that the Contemporary’s LOFT interpretive space can provide important qualitative interactions that can serve to augment the visitor experience, if the museum-goer can locate and visit the LOFT.

Key findings include the following:

  • Visitors who utilize the LOFT space tend to engage in activities together and visitor profile varies slightly from the larger demographic of The Contemporary Austin’s visitor profile.

 

  • Visitors had difficulty locating the LOFT space. However, of the visitors who did locate and participate in it, the interpretive space was overwhelmingly well received.

 

  • Visitors did not use the interactive activity stations evenly.  Influences on usage were not only equipment malfunction, but also crowding within the physical area of the interactive.

 

  • The general impression from visitors was that the interpretive activity stations did expand their knowledge of the artist on view and his creative practice. Comments were made about a new or reinforced appreciation/interest in some aspect of a works of art on view.

 

  • The data suggested that some interpretive activity stations were better suited to the visitor base than others, as visitors favored some activities more than others.

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction…………………………………………………………………………..….….1

ProjectOverview……………………………………………………………….….1

Summative Evaluation of Interpretive Experiences.…………..………….....1

Methods………………………………………………………………………………….…..5

            Visitor Tracking……………………………………………………………….…....6

            Tracking Procedures …………...…………………………………………....…….6

            Tracking Participants………………...……………………………………….…….6

            Focused Observations……………………………………………………….…...7

            Observation Procedures…..…………………………………………………….....7

            Observation Participants…...……………………………………………………...8

            Semi-structured Interviews……………………………………………….……..8

            Interview Procedures………………………………………………….……………8

            Interview Participants……………………………………………………………..10

Primary Findings………………………………………………………………………….11

            Who visits the LOFT interpretive space?...................................................11

            How does the visitor navigate to/through the LOFT?...............................11

            How are the elements/components within the LOFT

Space utilized by the visitor?.......................................................................12

Detailed Findings…………………………………………………………………………12

            Who visits the LOFT interpretive space?................................................... 12

How do visitors navigate to/through the LOFT?........................................13

How are the elements/components within the

LOFT Space utilized by the visitor?............................................................15

Conclusions……………………………………………………………………………….20

Recommendations……………………………………………………………………….21

References………………………………………………………………………………...22

Appendix A: Observation Tool.………………………………………………………...23

Appendix B: Observation Tool.………………………………………………………...26

 

                                                 

INTRODUCTION

 

Project Overview

Situated within the museum’s downtown location, The Jones Center, the mezzanine LOFT—overlooking the second floor gallery—is an interpretive engagement space that contains six activities and/or stations that are developed, proposed, and produced by the museum’s community engagement and education staff. These activities, focused on the The Jones Center’s galleries, are changed alongside each new exhibition to complement the artwork on view. The elasticity of the activities within the LOFT space allows for diverse learning styles as well as a wide age span among the visitor population. The opportunity for hands-on investigation and interpretation through the playful exploration of key elements within the art on view helps to extend the visitors’ stay while encouraging interactivity and play through open-ended activities (Mellard, 2015).  Such interactivity further serves to cement the key elements presented within the LOFT components. This summative evaluation seeks to broadly assess how The Jones Center’s [The Contemporary Austin] visitors utilize the LOFT space as an aggregated experience within the museum visit.

 

Summative Evaluation of Interpretive Experiences

In an effort to close the “inferential gap” between observing and interpreting (Rennie, L. and Johnston, D., 2004, p.S8), the employed methodologies are both qualitative and quantitative.  Recording what visitors do, as well as say (2004), is essential to understanding their overall experience, as is assessing how that experience is informed by the configuration of interpretive activities relative to visitors’ needs, expectations, and behaviors (Hood, M., 1999). As such, data research was performed that yielded both meaningful qualitative data, via visitor interviews, as well as significant quantitative data, drawn from visitor behavior observations. Richness of meaning was gained by the mixture of these methodologies, which informed each other and provided for the ability to assess similar questions through both objective and subjective means (Frechtling, J., 2002). 

 

This summative evaluation addresses six interpretive experiences installed in support of the exhibition, Tom Sachs: Boombox Retrospective: 1999-2015Tom Sachs: Boombox Retrospective: 1999-2015 is “…an immersive, interactive assemblage of sculptures, objects, and audio elements riffing on the ‘boombox’—the 1980s pre-iPod, hip-hop street badge of honor, and a nod to Sachs’s love of the genre” (TheContemporary Austin, 2015). The six interactives installed within the LOFT space consist of the following:

 

§  I Pad stations: three wall-mounted I Pads (with seating).  Installed on the I Pads is a Prezi formatted presentation that provides layers of information—via text, graphic illustrations, photos, and video—about the studio practice of artist Tom Sachs.   The estimate time for the Tom Sachs Prezi without videos is no less than 7 minutes, counting at 5 secs per frame (84 frames total). There are 11 videos in the Prezi; the length of the Prezi with videos is approximately 10-25 minutes, depending if each video is watched and if content is read (Zurko, H., personal communication). 

  • Knolling Table: an interactive light table with transparency depictions of office supplies and tools, designed to facilitate social interaction amongst visitors, as well as to illustrate the concept/practice of “Knolling,” which is introduced in a video by Tom Sachs on view within the first floor exhibition galleries. The table allows visitors to “play” with the concept and interact with each other in so doing.
  • Listening Stations: a series of interactive audio listening stations that traces the evolution of audio equiptment, including a turntable, Eight-track tape player, casette tape player, Walkman CD player, and an MP3 player—each with a set of headphones and all playing the same recording, James Brown, which relates to and supports both Tom Sachs’ creative practice while also providing an historical context and knowledge within which to view the works on exhibition in the galleries.
  • Love Letters: referring to Tom Sachs’ video, “Love Letter to Plywood,” which is a part of the exhibition, this interactive encourages the visitor to write a love letter to a material or object of significance.  The Love Letter is then posted on the wall, where it remains throughout the day for other visitors to read.
  • Library: a collection of books curated/recommended by and found in the library of Tom Sachs.  A variety of texts, these books allow the visitor a full picture of Tom Sachs’ influences and interests.
  • Drawing Mashup: a drawing activity wherein images relevant to Tom Sachs’ work are carved into three hand-made large scale dice. The premise is that the visitor roles the dice and uses the images that result to draw on provided sketch pads

 

At the heart of this evaluation is the effect that the LOFT space has on visitors’ overall experience and how that experience is informed by the activities contained therein; basic audience research coupled with visitor behavior is imperative for targeting educational Outcomes, as well as audience needs and expectations (Hood, M., 1999). Summative evaluation of these interpretive experiences sought to answer three overarching questions:

 

1.    Who is the visitor?

  •  Is the visitor alone? What is the age range of the visitor?
  • Is the visitor a resident of Austin or visiting Austin?
  • Has the visitor been to The Contemporary Austin before?
  • Has the visitor utilized the LOFT space before?
  • Is the visitor a member of the museum?
  • Age/Identifying gender of visitor
  • How often does the visitor look at art?

2.    How do visitors navigate to/through the LOFT interactive space?

  • Are visitors oriented to the LOFT space at the information desk?
  • How did visitors know about the LOFT space (accidental find or directed by signage/gallery attendant)?
  • How does the visitor move through the space, physically (sequence of movement)?
  • How much time is spent at each interpretive activity/element?
  • Does the visitor read the instructive panels for the separate activities?
  • Does the visitor actively engage in the activities or participate passively (watching/looking).

3.  How are the elements/components within the LOFT Space utilized by the visitor?

  • Does the visitor view the LOFT space as a separate experience or as part of an integrated whole that comprises their museum visit?
  • How does the visitor evaluate/value the six activities provided within the LOFT space?
  • Do the activities in the LOFT space help create a larger frame of reference for the visitor?
  • Is the visitor able to make more connections to and/or gain understanding of the exhibitions on view by engaging in activities within the LOFT space?

 

METHODS

Mixed methods were used to assess visitors’ experiences with newly installed interpretive activities in the LOFT space, including visitor tracking, focused observations, and semi-structured interviews.

 

Visitor Tracking

Tracking Procedures

 

To document visitors’ interactions with interpretive activities located in the LOFT space, a single evaluator tracked visitors through the LOFT space both in real time, as well as by security video footage. As the observation was done both in person and via video footage, for ethical reasons, a sign stating that the observation was taking place was displayed at the admissions desk of the museum. All tracking data were collected between March 11 and April 26, 2015.  Tracking data were collected by evaluator Mary Mikel Stump, a graduate student at The Johns Hopkins University in the Master of Arts Museum Studies program. 

 

An individual museum evaluator observed visitors in the LOFT space, recording their path between each interactive activity as well as the overall time spent at each activity on a generalized floorplan (see Appendix A for tracking instrument and protocol). On these plans, the evaluator noted at which of the interpretive activities visitors stopped and lingered and the duration of their time at the activity.

 

The evaluator also documented any relevant evidence of social interaction at each interpretive activity within the LOFT space. Particularly noteworthy was any comment pertaining to user experience or meaning regarding the activity or the relevant information to the visitor’s experience.

 

Tracking Participants

A total of 50 visitors were observed as they moved through the LOFT space. Four fifths were observed on weekends (n=40), and one fifth was observed on free days (n=10). Time of observation ranged throughout the day, as visitorship allowed, with approximately 35% (n=15) being observed in the morning and 65% (n=35) in the afternoon. Some school tour groups were observed, as well. However, due to the heavily directed nature of the docent-guided school tours within the LOFT space, it is recommended that data related to school tours should be considered in a separate summative evaluation. 

 

Focused Observations

Observation Procedures

 

In order to gather more in-depth data relative to visitors’ interactions with the elements/components that comprise the LOFT interpretive space, the evaluator conducted focused observations of visitors within the space. Observations were conducted by Johns Hopkins graduate student Mary Mikel Stump from March 11- April 25, 2015, as a part of an internship project for The Contemporary Austin. The evaluator conducted these observations by placing herself within the space, unobtrusively observing visitors during their experience in the LOFT, as well as observing via video from security cameras focused on the LOFT. Within selected times of the observations, visitors were chosen at random.  As a result of sporadic participation during weekday hours, the majority of visitors were observed via video footage. This also helped with getting a clearer view of visitor utilization, as the small scale of the LOFT space affected the opportunity for unobtrusive observation. Detailed field notes were taken, documenting the sequence in which they visited the activity stations, the duration of visit to each activity station, whether or not the visitor read the instructions for each activity station, and whether or not the visitor shared the activity station with another person. During real-time observation, visitors’ comments were also noted, although the observations made via video precluded hearing visitors’ comments, as there was no audio included.

 

Observation Participants

The observation portion of the evaluation focused on a total of 50 visitors within the LOFT interpretive space. Due to the nature of the focused observation procedures, the gathered demographic information is observational and approximate, which yielded information relative to perceived gender, approximate age, and social group. Forty-eight percent of those observed were perceived to be male, while 52% were perceived to be female. Eighteen percent were teenagers (<18), 42% were approximately 20-29, 34% were approximately 30-39, 2% were approximately 40-49, 2% were 50-59, and 2% were approximately 60+ years of age.  Of those observed, 24% visited alone, while 76% were in groups of two or more.

 

The age distribution found in this sample is not representative of the overall visitorship during the Tom Sachs exhibition, as there is a much smaller percentage of visitors in the <18 age overall demographic group (6%) compared to the observation sample of 18%; the observed 2% of visitors aged 50+ is lower than the overall 5% demographic provided by the museum; and the gender representation is the inverse of the overall visitorship demographics provided by the museum, with the average visitorship being comprised of more male than female, as opposed to the results of the observation, which yielded a larger number of female visitors. This may be due to the fact that the observations were conducted during specific target days; error in estimation of age; physical constraints of getting to the space; and/or the possibility that the LOFT space may attract a specific type of visitor, reflected in age and gender, is something that may want to be explored at a later date.

 

Semi-Structured Interviews

Interview Procedures

To asses the added and intrinsic value of the LOFT space to visitors’ overall experience at the museum, semi-structured interviews were administered to randomly selected visitors upon the end of their visit to the museum. Interviews were also conducted by evaluator and graduate student, Mary Mikel Stump between March 11 and April 19, 2015.

 

Just as in the observation procedures, interviewed visitors were limited to those who appeared older than 14 years of age. Visitors were asked to participate in the interview as they were exiting the museum by the evaluator, who was positioned near the exit.  Those who agreed to take part were asked to move to an area within the lobby that was out of the main flow of foot traffic. The interview consisted of 20 questions, divided into three sections: general visitor information, rating of the individual LOFT activity stations, and questions aimed at a qualitative response to the visitor’s experience in the LOFT.

 

For each activity station in the LOFT space, visitors were asked to rate their experience on a scale of Great/Good/Average/Below Average/Failure/Didn’t Visit. Follow-up questions were asked regarding visitors’ “takeaway” from each activity station and any comment about their experience with each.  If the visitor did not use a particular activity station, they were asked the reason.  Visitors were also asked to rate their overall level of enjoyment within the LOFT space, ranking it on a scale from 1 – “Loved It!,” 2- “Liked It,” 3- “It was okay,” 4- “Meh,” and 5- “Didn’t like it all.”  Other questions relevant to signage and wayfinding were asked.

 

It is important to note that during the first two days of interviews, the evaluator was positioned within the LOFT space, itself.  After low visitor turnout in the LOFT space over a 5 hour period on a free admission day at the museum, it was determined that 96% (44 out of 46 visitors) for the same time period did not actually visit the loft.  At that point, the evaluator made the decision to change locations to the lobby area, near the exit, and add to the interview questions relating to whether or not the visitor went to the LOFT and if not, why. 

Interview Participants

Forty-four percent (n=22) of visitors interviewed were perceived to be male, while 56% (n=28) were perceived to be female. Twelve percent (n=6) of visitors were teenagers; 32% (n=16) were 20-29 years of age; 36% (n=18) were 30-39 years; 16% (n=8) were 40-49 years; 4% (n=2) were 50-59 years; and 0% (n=0) were 60 years or older. Eighty-four percent (n=42) of visitors were Caucasian; 8% (n=4) were Asian, Indian or Pacific Islander; 6% (n= 3) were Hispanic; and 4% (n=2) were Black/African American.  Seventy-two percent (n=36) were local; 28% (n=14) were from out of town. Twenty-eight percent (n=14) of visitors tracked were alone, while 72% (n=36) were part of a group (2 or more people). Of that 72%, 22% (n=8) were part of a family group with children and the remaining 78% (n=28) were part of an all-adult friends group. 

As with the observation sample, demographic percentages were not necessarily representative of the overall Contemporary Austin visitorship (The Contemporary Austin, 2015), with a higher percentage of Asian, Indian, or Pacific Islander being represented in the interview sample than museum statistics state. This could be determined by the nature of random sample or reflective of events happening in other parts of the city on the selected interview dates.

         

Of the interviewed visitors, 52 % (n=26) had previously visited the Contemporary Austin;  48% (n=24) were visiting for the first time. Of those who had previously visited the museum, 77% (n=20) had visited 2-4 times; 15.4% (n=4) had visited 5-10 times; and 7.6% (n=2) had visited 11-20 times. Only 4% (n=2) of visitors interviewed were members of The Contemporary Austin. Forty-eight percent (n=24) of visitors interviewed reported looking at art “Often” (visting museums 10 or more times per year); 20% (n=10) of visitors interviewed reported looking at art occasionally (visiting museums 4-9 times per year); 24% (n= 12) of visitors interviewed reported looking at art “Now and Then” (visiting museums 1-3 times per year); and 8% (n=4) of visitors reported “Hardly Ever” looking at art (doesn’t visit museums regularly).

 

PRIMARY FINDINGS

Using visitor behavior and feedback taken at a variety of times and days of the week from fifty randomly selected visitors, this evaluation sought to provide data in three categories that address visitor profile, navigation to and throughout the space, and learning behaviors. 

 

Who visits the LOFT interpretive space?

Through in-person interviews, it was found that although there are some visitors who contradict the larger museum demographic profile, a majority of visitors come with someone, are from Austin, and are repeat visitors, as well as first time visitors. The majority of visitors to the LOFT space look at art 6-14 times per year. Aligned with national trends in museums and galleries (Griffiths, J-M. and King, D., 2008), the majority of those observed were female, while other data shows that the majority of visitors are between 25and 40 years of age. 

 

How does the visitor navigate to and through the LOFT interpretive space?

In terms of navigation, data indicated that a significant number of visitors had a difficult time locating or knowing about the LOFT space. Once in the space, the majority of interactive activity stations were utilized, with the I Pad station and the Drawing Mashup being the least used.  In addition, movement back and forth between stations was observed, with the Knolling Station acting as a “node” of sociability between those who knew each other and those who didn’t.

 

How are the elements/components within the LOFT Space utilized by the visitor?

Through both behavioral observation and interview questions, the most meaningful data emerged regarding how visitors operate within the LOFT interpretive space. The majority of visitors engaged in the activities with someone else and they felt that this aided in both solidifying content knowledge, as well as providing an atmosphere that was more enjoyable.  Although there are suggestions for improvement, visitors provided mostly positive feedback about their overall experience and indicated a return visit.

 

DETAILED FINDINGS

Who visits the LOFT interpretive space?

Visitors who engage in the LOFT interpretive space are, on average, informed and connected to contemporary art Austin.  Seventy-seven percent of visitors knew what exhbition was on view prior to coming and 68% (n=34) of those visitors had heard about the exhbition by word of mouth. Twenty-eight percent of the visitors who participated in the LOFT space were 20-29 years of age, while 34% (n=17) were 30-39, making 62% (n=31) of visitors are childbearing ages and are most likely to have families.  Over half of the visitors to the LOFT space were women.  Ninety-four percent of visitors surveyed are not museum members, which bears significance in terms of possible connections that the museum can make with visitors through programming such as the LOFT space which may, in turn, have implications for increased membership, as repeated internal programming spaces are known to establish and build personal connections that act as throughlines from one exhibition to another (Baltimore Art Museum, 2012).

How do visitors navigate to/through the LOFT interactive space?

Before we can assess how visitors navigate to and through the LOFT space, it is necessary to assess a percentage of those visitors who use the LOFT space a percentage of those who do not.  The question was asked of interviewees, “Did you go to the LOFT interactive space?” Interview data reveal that a significant number of visitors within the sample sample size of 50 did not actually go to the LOFT interpretive space for a variety of reasons (Figure 2).

2.png

From comments by visitors who said they did not go to the LOFT space, the indicated reasons were: they weren’t insterested (1%); although they had been to the LOFT space in previous visits, they weren’t aware that it changed with each exhibition (1%); they didn’t know about it (they either hadn’t been told about it or didn’t remember it) (34%); and the majority were told about it by the Admissions Desk, but couldn’t find it or didn’t see it (64%).              

Thirty-seven percent of visitors answered that the Admissions Desk had not informed them of the LOFT space, whereas 21% couldn’t remember the desk attendant telling them about the LOFT space.  This would indicate a need for both more consistent verbal instructions from the Admissions Desk, as well as the necessity for more visible signage.  Ninety-two percent of visitors interviewed who did not know about or see the LOFT space indicated that they would have participated in the LOFT interactive activities, had they known about it.  As an incidental note, half of those same visitors interviewed who indicated they would have gone into the LOFT had they known about it returned to the second floor galleries to see the LOFT interpretive space rather than ending their visit at the museum after the interview ended. 

Lastly, interviews yielded additional data related to visitors and the effectivenss of existing wayfinding/signage for the LOFT space within the museum.  Although signage does exist on the stair wall leading up to the LOFT space, 68% (n=34) of visitors did not see the existing signage.  Others either saw the signage or acted upon some other visual cue, such as the stairs or other visitors moving to/through the LOFT space. One-hundred percent of visitors accessed the LOFT space via the stairs, leaving questions as to whether there were no visitors with mobility issues who wanted to use the LOFT space or if those visitors with mobility issues were not able to find the ADA access elevator to the space.                                                       

                  

How are the elements/components within the LOFT Space utilized by the visitor?

Through both observation and interview data, visitors’ utilization of the activity stations were recorded to reveal the stations ranked by visitor usage in the following order: Listening Station, Knolling Station/Love Letters (tie), Library, I Pads, and the Drawing Mashup (see Figure 4.).  For the purposes of data collection, “utilization” is defined as an instance when visitors had both feet planted on the ground, had been in one place for longer than 3 seconds, and were clearly directing their attention toward the interpretive activity (Luke, J. and Stein, J., 2006).


Visitors’ specific use of interpretive activity stations

Both interview and observation data indicated similar patterns in visitors’ specific use of interpretive activity stations.  Quality of experience and visitor satisfaction can be directly tied to complete understanding and expectation of an interactive activity on the part of the visitor. For this reason, it is important to assess visitor behavior regarding the instructions for each activity station.  Figure ___, seen below, indicates the visitors’ observed actions in regards to reading the instructions, which is indicated by the percentage of visitors who did, in actuality, read the instructions related to each activity station. 

Among the reasons given for not reading the instructions were:

  • “There were people around the instructions and so I couldn’t see them.”
  • “I read it but I didn’t really understand the instructions.”
  •  “I didn’t want to take the time.”
  •  “The activity seemed somewhat intuitive.”
  • “I already knew how to do it.”
  •  “I just wanted to watch someone else do it.”
  • In addition, to fully understand how visitors use the individual components of the LOFT space to construct their overall visit, it is necessary to look at which activity stations they visited, as well as the sequence. It should be noted that the Knolling Station, acted as a “node” of activity, with visitors returning to that element multiple times between other activities.  Reasons for this may be seen in the sociability related to the activity, as was indicated by the comments in both interviews and observations.

 

During the interviews, visitors were asked to rate their experiences with each of the interactive activity stations.  Ranked on a verbal scale of: Good, Great, Average, Below Average, Fail, or Didn’t Visit, the follwing chart shows that the IPad stations as well as the Drawing Mashup station were the least visited.  Responses to open-ended questions indicated that this wasn’t entirely due to lack of interest, but instead overcrowding.  Since these activities can be solitary in nature (although they can be shared experiences, too), many visitors moved on from thoseactivities without going back to them at a later time when the activities were available.

Comments from open-ended questions give insight into visitors’ feelings regarding those activities that performed less than others, as well as overall feelings about the space:

  •  “Because of the signs around the exhibition, I didn't know we could touch the things up there (the LOFT). I thought we could only look.  I would have liked it better if I had known.”
  • “It felt like a lot of it…the Knolling and Listening…were geared to younger people.”
  • “I liked the content, just not the platform.” (about the I Pad Prezi format)
  • As John Falk and Lynn Dierking (1992) noted about visitor pathways, how a visitor navigates the physical context they are viewing determines and influences much of their experience as it effects how they allocate time, what their attention pattern is, and the choices they make. As such, the data gained regarding specific usage of the Contemporary Austin’s LOFT space vitally informs this summative evaluation, overall.

In addition, to fully understand how visitors use the individual components of the LOFT space to construct their overall visit, it is necessary to look at which activity stations they visited, as well as the sequence. It should be noted that the Knolling Station, acted as a “node” of activity, with visitors returning to that element multiple times between other activities.  Reasons for this may be seen in the sociability related to the activity, as was indicated by the comments in both interviews and observations.      

During the interviews, visitors were asked to rate their experiences with each of the interactive activity stations.  Ranked on a verbal scale of: Good, Great, Average, Below Average, Fail, or Didn’t Visit, the follwing chart shows that the IPad stations as well as the Drawing Mashup station were the least visited.  Responses to open-ended questions indicated that this wasn’t entirely due to lack of interest, but instead overcrowding.  Since these activities can be solitary in nature (although they can be shared experiences, too), many visitors moved on from thoseactivities without going back to them at a later time when the activities were available. This is indicated in the following sequence diagram .  

Further insight is gained by assessing the duration of vistiors’ stay at each activity station.  Based on visitor observation within the LOFT space, the average times at station are listed in the table below. 

Comments from open-ended questions give insight into visitors’ feelings regarding those activities that performed less than others, as well as overall feelings about the space:

  •   “Because of the signs around the exhibition, I didn't know we could touch the things up there (the LOFT). I thought we could only look.  I would have liked it better if I had known.”
  • “It felt like a lot of it…the Knolling and Listening…were geared to younger people.”
  •  “I liked the content, just not the platform.” (about the I Pad Prezi format)
  • As John Falk and Lynn Dierking (1992) noted about visitor pathways, how a visitor navigates the physical context they are viewing determines and influences much of their experience as it effects how they allocate time, what their attention pattern is, and the choices they make. As such, the data gained regarding specific usage of the Contemporary Austin’s LOFT space vitally informs this summative evaluation, overall.     

 

CONCLUSIONS

Results from this study reveal a two-part story relative to visitors’ engagement within the context of the LOFT interpretive space and The Contemporary Austin.  On one level, a majority of visitors felt that the interpretive activity stations in the LOFT helped them make meaning both with the works on exhibition, as well as Tom Sachs’ creative practice, in general. This, in turn, helped them to feel more connected to the artist and his work (and, as a result, the museum, itself).  And on the another level, not all of the interpretive activity stations were well used by visitors; observation and interviews suggest a variety of levels of engagement within these activity stations, with relatively few visitors utilizing the I Pad stations and the Drawing Mashup, in comparison to the other activities offered.

Although socialbility was not a specific focus of this summative evaluation, the idea did become a part of the findings, as 52% (n=26) of visitors engaged in the activity stations with another person.  Of those visitors, 94% (n=24) knew the person with whom they were engaged and 96% (n=25) felt that it was more enjoyable to do the activity with another person rather than alone.  Forty-five percent of visitors felt that it helped solidify information to do an activity with someone. Additionally, 96% (n=48) of visitors saw the LOFT as an integrated and important part of their visit to the Contemporary Austin.  When asked for descriptors for their impression of the LOFT space, visitors repreatedly answered with phrases such as: “solidified ideas,” “more fun,”“social,” and “interaction.”

Overall, for visitors that participated in the LOFT’s interactives, response was overwhelmingly positive, with 100% (n=50) of visitors saying that they would visit the LOFT space on their next visit, as was illustrated by some of the answers to the open ended questions in the interview:

  •  “I appreciated seeing terms put to use.”
  •  “I liked the context that it gave to the exhibition.”
  • “The additional information that was offered about Sachs was inviting.”
  •  “ I enjoyed the interactivity.”
  •  “The interactive space was better than most museums we've seen.”
  • “In an exhibition with stuff that you want to touch but cant, it's nice to be able to touch something.”
  •  “I would go there first next time.”
  •  “It’s the most personal part of visit to museum.”
  • “I really appreciated the LOFT more than the exhibit.  It’s a necessary counterpart.”

 

RECOMMENDATIONS

In totality, this summative evaluation supports the important role that the LOFT interpretive space at The Contemporary Austin can play in visitors’ engagement and learning within the context of each current exhibition. With some modifications to the configuration of the space, more input from staff in terms of directing visitors, additional signage,  and the space establishing itself as a destination for repeat visitors, it is likely that a growing number visitors will become aware of the space, seek it out, and use it to enhance their overall museum visit experience at The Contemporary Austin.

 

                                                                        References

Diamond, J., J. Luke and D. Uttal (2010). Practical Evaluation Guide: Tools for
      Museums and other Informal Educational Settings. Plymouth, U.K.: Alta Mira
      Press.

Falk, J. and Dierking, L. (1992). The Physical Context: Visitor Pathways. The Museum
      
Experience. Washington, D.C.: Whalesback Books.

Frechtling, J. (2002). Review and Comparison of Selected Techniques. The 2002 User
       Friendly Handbook For Project Evaluation.
Washington D.C.: NationalScience
       Foundation.

Griffiths, J-M and King, D.W. (2008, January). Interconnections: The IMLS Nationa
      l Study on the Use of Libraries, Museums, and the Internet. Museum Results.
      
Retrieved from
      http://www.interconnectionsreport.org/reports/IMLSMusRpt20080312kjm.pdf

Hood, M.(1999). Getting Started In Audience Research. In Borun, M. & Korn, R. (Eds.),
      Introduction To Museum Evaluation (pp.11-17). Washington, D.C.: American
     Association of Museums.

Luke, J. and Stein, J. (September, 2006). Summative Evaluation of Interpretive
      Experiences Newly Installed Within the Permanent Collection. Walker Art Center.
      Minneapolis, MN.. Institute for Learning Innovation.

Rennie, L., & Johnston, D. (2004). The Nature of Learning and Its Implications for
     Research on Learning in Museums. Science Education, 88(1), 4-16.

Serrell, B. (1998). Paying attention: Visitors and museum exhibitions. Washington, DC:
     American Association of Museums.


EXAMPLES of EVALUATION TOOLS 

 

APPENDIX A: Visitor Behavior Observation Tool  
                        The Contemporary Austin 

Evaluator Name: Mary Mikel Stump 

Evaluation Subject: LOFT Interpretive space for Tom Sachs: Boombox Retrospective 1999-2015 

Observation Dates: March 12 – April 9, 2015 

Description: Visitors’ utilization of interpretive elements within the LOFT space and navigation through space. 

__________________________________________________________________________________

Day/Date of Evaluation: __________________ / ____________, 2015 

Observation No.:  

Start time of Observation: ___________AM/PMEnd time of Observation:____________AM/PM  

Description of observed visitor 

Age:  

Perceived Gender:  

Is the visitor A) Part of a Group____ B) Individual ____ 

If A), then did the group move together through the space? Yes____ No_____  

Description of behavior/movement 

Upon entering the LOFT space, the visitor first went to: 

IPad stations___Didn’t Visit ___ Duration________ 

Did the visitor read the instruction panel? Yes ___ No___ 

 

Knolling ___ Didn’t Visit ___ Duration________ 

Did the visitor read the instruction panel? Yes ___ No___ 

 

 

Listening/Audio Stations ___ Didn’t Visit ___ Duration________ 

Did the visitor read the instruction panel? Yes ___ No___ 

 

Love Letters ___ Didn’t Visit ___ Duration________ 

Did the visitor read the instruction panel? Yes ___ No___ 

 

Library___ Didn’t Visit ___ Duration________ 

Did the visitor read the instruction panel? Yes ___ No___ 

 

Drawing Mashup ____ Didn’t Visit ___ Duration________ 

Did the visitor read the instruction panel? Yes ___ No___ 

 

Did visitor interact with other visitors? Yes____ No______ 

If so, when/under what circumstance?  

Class ___ Tour Group ___ Social Group ____ Family ___ Other ________________________________ 

·                Time of day that visitor entered LOFT space : ______ AM / PM (circle one) 

·                Time of day that visitor exited LOFT space:  ______ AM / PM (circle one)  

·                Visitor access the loft via stairs ______service elevator ________    

·                OR visitor didn’t enter LOFT space: ____ 

·                Visitor read LOFT signage on stairs?  Yes ____ No _____ 

After exiting LOFT space, what did the visitor do? 

Exited: Stairs ___Exited: Elevator ___ Looked at art:  2nd floor ____Looked at art: 1st floor ___ Restroom ___ 

Noteworthy comments made by visitor (key words or phrases that depict their frame of mind): 

 

 

Note movement within LOFT space:  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                      [ from stair entry][from elevator entry] 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX B: Interview Tool
                       The Contemporary Austin

                      Tom Sachs: Boombox Retropspective 1999-2015

Evaluator Name: Mary Mikel Stump   Evaluation Subject: LOFT Interpretive Space

Date of Interview: ______________, 2015    (circle one)  SUMO TU WE THFRSA

Interview No.:

Start time of Interview: _________AM/PMEnd time of Interview:________AM/PM

1) Is this the first time you’ve visited The Contemporary Austin (Jones Center)? Yes___ No___

How many times have you visited?

First time ___ 2-4___5-10___11-20___ Over 20___

2) Is this the first time you’ve visited the LOFT space? Yes___ No___

How many times have you visited?

First time ___ 2-4___5-10___11-20___ Over 20___

3) Did you know what exhibitions were on view before you got here? Yes __ No __

If Yes, how did you find about them? Social Media: Facebook ____Twitter ____

Website ___ Exhibition Guide ___ Word of Mouth ___ Other __________________

4) Did the Admissions Desk tell you about the LOFT space? Yes ___ No ___ Don’t Remember _____

5) Did you see the signage directing you to the LOFT space? Yes ____ No____

6) Inside the LOFT space, did you read the instructions for the interactives?

All ___Most ___ AFew___ None___ Why Not? _________________________

7) Did you enjoy your experience in the LOFT space?  

1(Loved it!)  2 (Liked it.)  3(It was okay.) 4(Meh.)  5(Didn’t like it at all.)

8) How would you rate your experience with each interactive?

A) IPad stations

Great ___ Good ___ Average ___ Below Average ___ Fail ___ Didn’t Visit ___

What was your takeaway from this activity? ___________________

B) Knolling Station

Great ___ Good ___ Average ___ Below Average ___ Fail ___ Didn’t Visit ___

What was your takeaway from this activity? ___________________

C) Listening/Audio Stations

Great ___ Good ___ Average ___ Below Average ___ Fail ___ Didn’t Visit ___

What was your takeaway from this activity? ___________________

D) Love Letters

Great ___ Good ___ Average ___ Below Average ___ Fail ___ Didn’t Visit ___

What was your takeaway from this activity? ___________________

E) Library

Great ___ Good ___ Average ___ Below Average ___ Fail ___ Didn’t Visit ___

What was your takeaway from this activity? ___________________

F) Drawing Mashup Great ___ Good ___ Average ___ Below Average ___ Fail ___ Didn’t Visit ___

What was your takeaway from this activity? ___________________

9) Did your experience in the LOFT help you to get a better understanding/appreciation of the art on view at the Jones Center?

Very much so ____ Sort of____ A Little ____ Not at all ___

10) Did you do any of the activities with another person? Yes ___ No___

Did you know them? Yes___No___

11) Did doing the activities with someone else help in your understanding of the content?

Yes___ No___

12)  Did you feel more connected to the art on view at the Jones Center:

Very much so ____ Sort of____ A Little ____ Not at all ___

13) How often would you say you look at contemporary art?

Often____ Occasionally ___ Now and Then ___ Hardly Ever___ Never____

14) Would you consider your time in the LOFT space a part of your overall visit to the museum?

Yes___ No___   If No, why not?

15) Would you come back to the LOFT on your next visit? 

Yes___ No___   If No, why not?

16) Any comments you’d like to make about your experience in the LOFT?

 

 

Where do you live? _______________________________

Are you a museum member? Yes ____ No ____

Age range: Under 18 __ 18-22 __23-30 __ 30-40__ 40-50__ 50-60__ 60-70__ 70+__

Identifying Gender: _______________