Design Factors Affecting Interactive Science Museums in Egypt

Re-integrating Science with the Society: Design Factors Affecting Interactive Science Museums in Egypt

Hania A. Elmahmoudy Department of Architecture Engineering, The American University in Cairo ARCH 49800: Senior Project Dr. Zeinab Shafik December 12, 2019

1

Abstract The research investigates the gap between science and the society in Egypt; known as the “Deficit Model” (Dickson, 2005). The study targets science museums as a forum of informal education to increase science literacy. The socio-cultural shifts in museum design led to expanding science awareness into the society by introducing interactive museums. The research addresses the misconceptions about the definition of interactivity as only a tool of technological advancement. The research investigates several existing museum design elements such as: visibility, organization, affordances, lighting, accessibility and acoustic control as independent factors and its relationship with the socio-cultural dependent factors of museum design: choice, motivation and distraction. The research reframes the definition of interactivity in science museums and its three dimensions based on interactions of users and each other, the interaction of users and exhibits and the interaction of users with interactive exhibits. The significance of the research is to study the shortage in literature regarding the architectural design elements of interactivity in science museum design and its implications in quest to reintegrate science with the society. The research focuses on adults, including parents, museum facilitators, trip guides, & children and their experience in the Children’s Civilization and Creativity Center. The research addresses how architecture can play a role in redefining the relation between science and the society through interactivity in science museums. Through researcher observations, online and on-site surveys, interviews and children participant observations, the different interactive design implications are verified with its variable design elements. The validity of the socio-cultural independent factors in relation to the dependent interactive spatial design elements and interactive exhibit tools for science interactive museum design is tested through the Children’s Civilization and Creativity Center as a local case study. The selection criteria is based on the availability of interactive spatial design and exhibit tools in the Museum. Through the research, the correlation between the socio-cultural independent factors in relation to the dependent interactive spatial design elements and the interactive exhibit tools is proven to be true. New interactive spatial design elements are investigated through the local case study. The main assumption that interactive science museums

2

contribute to reintegrating science with society is proven to be true through the local case study with further research recommendations for interactive designs of science museums.

Keywords: Interactivity, the Children’s Civilization and Creativity Center, interactive spatial Design Elements, Interactive exhibit tools, socio-cultural factors & reintegrating science with society.

3

Table of Contents Abstract........................................................................................................................................................ 1 List of Figures.............................................................................................................................................. 5 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 7 1.1. Research Background ........................................................................................................................ 7 1.2. Scope & Limitations .......................................................................................................................... 8 1.3. Research Problem Statement ............................................................................................................. 8 1.4. Main Research Questions .................................................................................................................. 9 1.5. Research Objectives ........................................................................................................................... 9 1.6. Research Hypothesis ........................................................................................................................ 10 1.7. The Socio-Cultural Framework of Informal Science Education...................................................... 10 1.8. Spatial Design Elements in Interactive Museums............................................................................ 11 1.8.1. Choice ....................................................................................................................................... 12 1.8.2. Distraction ................................................................................................................................. 13 1.8.3. Motivation ................................................................................................................................. 14 1.9. Interactivity in Museums ................................................................................................................. 14 1.9.1. User-to-user interaction............................................................................................................. 16 1.9.2. User-to-document interaction ................................................................................................... 16 1.9.3. User-to-system interaction ........................................................................................................ 16 2. Research Methodology ......................................................................................................................... 18 2.1. Case study selection criteria ............................................................................................................. 18 2.2. Data Collection Stages ..................................................................................................................... 19 2.2.1. Exploratory Field Visits ............................................................................................................ 19 2.2.2. Questionnaires........................................................................................................................... 20 2.2.3. Observations ............................................................................................................................. 22 2.2.4. Interviews .................................................................................................................................. 23 2.2.5. Participant Observation ............................................................................................................. 23 2.3. The Children’s Civilization & Creativity Center Case Description ................................................. 23 3. Results and Discussions ........................................................................................................................ 27 3.1. Data Analyses .................................................................................................................................. 27 3.1.1. Choice: ...................................................................................................................................... 28 3.1.2. Distraction ................................................................................................................................. 32 3.1.3. Motivation ................................................................................................................................. 33 3.1.4. Interactive Exhibit Tools........................................................................................................... 35

4

3.2. Discussion & findings ...................................................................................................................... 39 4. Conclusion and Recommendations...................................................................................................... 41 7. References .............................................................................................................................................. 43 8. Appendices ............................................................................................................................................. 45 8.1. Appendix A ...................................................................................................................................... 45 8.2. Appendix B ...................................................................................................................................... 46 8.3. Appendix C ...................................................................................................................................... 61

5

List of Figures Figure 1: Deficit Model Diagram (Dickson, 2005)....................................................................................... 8 Figure 2: Relation between dependent & independent variables ................................................................ 12 Figure 3: An illustration of the open seven zones, Wonder lab gallery, promoting choice. (Wonder lab, The Statoil Gallery Online Brochure, 2017) ............................................................................................... 13 Figure 4: Theoretical Framework ............................................................................................................... 15 Figure 5: Types of interactive exhibit displays (Tsitoura, 2007) ................................................................ 17 Figure 6: Locations of interactive museums on a macro map of Cairo done by author (2019). Captured from Google Maps ...................................................................................................................................... 18 Figure 7: Research Methodology done by author (2019) ........................................................................... 19 Figure 8: Age group distribution of questionnaire responses done by author (2019) ................................. 20 Figure 9: Questionnaire responses based on gender distribution done by author (2019) ........................... 21 Figure 10: Questionnaire number of visits per visitor of the Children’s Civilization & creativity Center done by author (2019) ................................................................................................................................. 21 Figure 11: Questionnaire responses based on museums visited done by author (2019) ............................. 21 Figure 12: Questionnaire gender distribution of the Children’s Civilization & creativity Center done by author (2019)............................................................................................................................................... 21 Figure 13: Different visit purposes for the Children’s Civilization & creativity Center done by author (2019) .......................................................................................................................................................... 22 Figure 14: People accompanying visitors of the Children’s Civilization & creativity Center done by author (2019)............................................................................................................................................... 22 Figure 15: Aspects that attract the visitors to the Children’s Civilization & creativity Center done by author (2019)............................................................................................................................................... 22 Figure 16: Museum entrance landmark captured by author (2019) ............................................................ 24 Figure 17: Landscape design of the museum from Mallinson Architect presentation at the Heritage Award Ceremony (2013) ........................................................................................................................................ 24 Figure 18: The museum exterior captured by the author (2019)................................................................. 24 Figure 19: The basement museum plan from the Heritage Award presentation (Mallinson, 2013). The zones and legend are highlighted by the author (2019). ............................................................................. 25 Figure 20: The picture shows the light emitted from the elevator disturbing the black setting of the screen display. Captured by the author (2019). ...................................................................................................... 25 Figure 21: The underwater Archaeology game required supervision of children to ensure their safety.

Photo captured by author (2019) ................................................................................................................. 26 Figure 22: Multi-source data approach of socio-cultural independent factors and interactive design elements. ..................................................................................................................................................... 28 Figure 23: Evaluation of exhibit themes extracted from questionnaire done by the author ....................... 29 Figure 24: Evaluation of museum interior navigation extracted from the survey done by the author ........ 30 Figure 25: Evaluation of children safety inside the museum extracted from questionnaire done by the author .......................................................................................................................................................... 31 Figure 26: Evaluation of visual distraction from the questionnaire done by the author ............................. 32 Figure 27: Evaluation of exterior design of museum from questionnaire done by the author .................... 32 Figure 28: Vibrating ramp and circulcation ramps captured by the author ................................................ 33 Figure 29: Evaluation of museum accessibility from questionnaire done by the author ............................ 33 Figure 30: Evaluation of rest spaces in museum from questionnaire done by the author........................... 33 Figure 31: Evaluation of lighting from questionnaire done by the author .................................................. 34

6

Figure 32: Collage of different interactive exhibit tools captured by author .............................................. 36 Figure 33: Types of interactive exhibits done by the author ....................................................................... 37 Figure 34: Types of physical involvement of exhibits done by the author ................................................. 37 Figure 35: Nature of content of interactive exhibitions done by the author ............................................... 38 Figure 36: Types of responses of interactive exhibitions done by the author ............................................. 38 Figure 37: Levels of control over content of interactive exhibitions done by the author ........................... 38 Figure 38: Multi-user capability of interactive exhibitions done by the author .......................................... 38 Figure 39: Evaluation of the knowledge enhancement after visiting the museum from questionnaire done by the author ............................................................................................................................................... 39 Figure 40: Evaluation of noise level from questionnaire done by author ................................................... 39 Figure 41: Evaluation of interactive exhibits from questionnaire done by author ...................................... 40

7

1. Introduction 1.1. Research Background Learning is a lifelong process that involves formal and informal learning methods. Informal science education happens outside educational institutions (Miller, 2010). Informal science education can take place in various facilities such as science museums, zoos, aquariums and other similar places that are designed to engage the society in science-related activities (Krishnamurthi & Rennie, 2012). According to Adult Science Learning in the Internet Era on public science literacy, elementary and secondary schools contribute for a short period of time with little understandings of science. Therefore, the aim of informal science education facilities is to increase the interest and engagement of the public, whether adults or children, in scientific and technological fields (Krishnamurthi& Rennie, 2012). This paper focuses on science museums as not only as a source for informal education, but also as a tool to enhance scienceculture engagement.

Before the 20th century, museums were a place to display knowledge through the preservation and display of artifacts. The changes in the socio-economic structures, due to globalization, resulted in a social conscious movement to expand science and technological awareness to the society and culture (Tsitoura, 2007). Derived from the technological advancements, the nature and form of interaction among people in interactive science museums is impacted to cope with the social conscious movement.

Interactive science and technology museums, known as “third generation museums�, are not the only source to enhance science-culture reintegration, but are one of the main factors to achieve this objective (McManus, 1992&Tsitoura, 2007). Interactivity, as a concept in museums, is a tool for informal science education where visitors interact in the museum with each other, interact with the exhibits or with the museum interactive technological systems (Tsitoura, 2007).

8

1.2. Scope & Limitations The research investigates the existing literature related to the socio-cultural and behavioral factors affecting the physical design and interactive technological exhibit tools of interactive science museums as a form of informal science educational environments. The effectiveness of the existing design factors and possible future design factors is explored in a local case study focusing on the Children’s Civilization and Creativity Center in Heliopolis, Cairo in order to reintegrate science with the society.

The limitations of the study include the location as the research focuses on Cairo as the capital of Egypt with its local science museums. The research also focuses on children & adults, including parents as they disseminate knowledge to their children. Due to the limitation of science museums in Egypt, the local studies are chosen based on the criteria of availability of interactive science museums.

1.3. Research Problem Statement Egypt and its ancient civilizations encountered significant advances in scientific fields such as astronomy, mathematics and social sciences. However, based on the Global Competitiveness Index (2017-2018), Egypt is ranked the 130 out of 137 worldwide countries in terms of the quality of its educational system. Regarding the innovation pillar, Egypt is ranked the 109th country (Global Competitiveness Index, 2017-2018). The innovation pillar is concerned about the quality, funding, university-industry collaborations and capacity for the scientific research institutions. The gap between science and the society results in a waning Figure 1: Deficit Model Diagram (Dickson, 2005)

appetite for science as the society is not influenced by the scientific developments in its everyday life nor inspired by the science educational curricula (Bond, Michael et al, 2012). The effect is scientifically known as “the Science

9

Literacy/knowledge deficit model� (Dickson, 2005). The deficit model is concerned with the division between the experts and non-experts and implies that the communication should enhance the transfer of knowledge from experts to non-experts (Dickson, 2005).

Many science museums are considered as interactive museums only using technology. However, the concept of interactive museums should be properly redefined to include different forms of interactivity. The significance of the research is to redefine interactive science museum design for the physical / built environment to fill in the gap in the existing literature on the design implications for interactive science museums. The existing literature addresses the social and personal contexts that affect the science museums as a form of informal science educational environments without investigating the significant physical factors to reintegrate science with the society and increase adult literacy.

1.4. Main Research Questions The research investigates several significant questions among which are the following: -

To what extent can interactivity build a relationship between science museums and the society and redefine its role?

-

What are the elements of design that can support the interactive science museums as a form of informal science education?

-

What are the elements defining interactivity and its classifications?

-

What is the perception and evaluation of the user group to spatial design elements and technological exhibit tools of interactivity in science museums based on the case study?

1.5. Research Objectives Identify the new physical and interactive design elements in interactive science museums as a form of informal science education to improve the integration between the science and the community in Egypt.

10

Secondary Objectives -

Assess the interactivity of the spatial design and exhibit technological tools and its effect on the experience of the user group in the case study and propose research areas based on literature.

1.6. Research Hypothesis The interactive spatial design and technological exhibit tools in science museums as a facility of informal education increases the engagement of children and adults and enhances the museum experience in order to reintegrate science with the society.

1.7. The Socio-Cultural Framework of Informal Science Education Building on the research problem, the following literature review focuses on the implications of interactive science museums as a form of informal science education. The existing literature of informal science education, museum design and interactivity offer suggestions in relation to the design of science museum spaces.

The guidelines to evaluate informal learning environments is guided by socio-cultural theories and are classified into the following independent behavioral factors: 1) “interpretation, meaning and exploration” 2) “identity, motivation and interest” 3) “learning environments” (Rennie et. al., 2003). To create exploration and interest in informal learning education, choices and variability of activities should be integrated as informal science education facilities are free-choice environments (Rennie et. al., 2003; Allen, 2004; Falk, 2006). Since informal learning environments are voluntary, factors such as control, comfort and responsiveness are included to enhance motivation of the users to navigate and explore more scientific information offered in the facility. The physicality of informal learning environments is mostly affected by “museum fatigue” where the built environment stimulates user distraction (Allen, 2004). The distraction occurs when the visitor is mentally required to think about the spatial experience;

11

consequently, wayfinding and hierarchy of exhibition organization are used as tools to ease the distraction caused by the spatial experience for the users (Allen, 2004). The balance between the previously mentioned socio-cultural and behavioral independent factors: choice, motivation and distraction accommodates different types of visitors to provide a framework for evaluating informal learning in museums as a form of informal learning environments.

Including a variation of interactive, non-interactive and reflective spaces provides different learning experiences that suit different types of visitors. However, the design of the interactive spaces differs from the non-interactive spaces in the museum due to cultural behavior related to experiencing the museum. As discussed by Falk and Dierking (1992), interactive museums should stimulate the visitors to interact with hand-on exhibits. Despite clearly inviting the users to interact with the exhibits, some visitors prohibited their children from physical interacting with the exhibits. Therefore, the hands-on exhibitions should be designed to ensure the affordability of these activities stimulating exploration and motivation.

1.8. Spatial Design Elements in Interactive Museums Based on the socio-cultural framework, the design implications for museums are classified into choice, motivation and distraction independent variables (Rennie et. al., 2003). The design elements and their relation to the socio-cultural frameworks were investigated by variety of literature resources. The design elements are independent variables such as: visibility, organization, affordances, lighting, accessibility and acoustic control. The relation between the socio-cultural dependent factors (choice, distraction & motivation) and the previously mentioned design elements is investigated in the following section.

12

Figure 2: Relation between dependent & independent variables The researcher combined the matrix based on Young (2017).

1.8.1. Choice The space organization of the exhibited groups should be open to the circulation spaces, and nondirecting for the users to provide more choices. Also, the form should be radial and centralized instead of the Cartesian grid to provide more freedom of choice (Young, 2017). The centrality saves time for the visitors when viewing the exhibits. In addition, the open spaces provide safety for the children as their parents can watch them all the time. Based on Falk and Dierking (2012), the exhibits should be grouped by themes to facilitate the comprehension of information. The wayfinding in the exhibitions is also important to limit “museum fatigue�. The Wonder Lab, established at 2016, is an interactive gallery located on the third floor of the London’s Science Museum with seven zones and with over than 50 interactive exhibits. As illustrated in the Wonder Lab, the museum is divided into different open zones

13

without a predetermined route to provide more choices for the visitors as indicated in figure 3 (Frearson, 2016). The Wonder Lab has a cartesian plan which provides an unstructured spatial experience as one of the museum staff mentioned (Braidwood, 2017). The investigation done in the Architect’s Journal of United Kingdom concluded that despite the criticisms, the museum provides more choices and freedom of exploration for the visitors (Braidwood, 2017). The spatial mapping and relationship between spaces has a great impact on remembering the information.

Visitors indicate that exhibits are identifiable, even after years from visiting museums, by stairs or architectural

Figure 3: An illustration of the open seven zones, Wonder lab gallery, promoting choice.

(Wonder lab, The Statoil Gallery Online Brochure, 2017)

elements are different in scale and act as landmarks in the museum (Young, 2017). The different zones in the Wonder Lab are marked by hanging objects. The affordances of the space should make sure that the museum environment affords the needed activities. For instance, varied environments can include gardens, indoor play areas for winter activities and other activities. The maximum flexibility of the space ensures maintaining the visitors’ interest. The space organization can be achieved through the previously mentioned design elements under the sub-themes of wayfinding, grouping, safety and affordances.

1.8.2. Distraction The visibility and the organization of the spaces are interrelated. The spaces with high levels of visibility, such as main circulation spaces, attracts the maximum number of visitors (Young, 2017). The levels of visibility create a pattern that guides the visitors while exploring the museum thus, it leads to more freedom of choice and social networking. However, the high levels of visibility can cause

14

distraction for the users. The balance between the openness and visibility is based on the kind of activities needed and the number of visitors needed to be attracted to the space.

1.8.3. Motivation The physical design of the museum stimulates the motivation of the users by restoring the comfort and curiosity of the visitors (Young, 2017). The accessibility of the physical spaces provide comfort for the users such as providing ramps for visitors with disabilities, seating for the parents and the elderly and wide circulation spaces to avoid physical obstructions. Providing different activities for the target user group to accommodate different ages and interests increase the accessibility of the museum.

The colors used in spaces should stimulate the users based on the activities done in the space. The psychological effects of the colors are highly effective to induce different feelings (Young, 2017). For instance, bright and bold colors are more inviting and interactive than other colors. Natural lighting in museums caused a shift from the “black box” science centers that are based on artificial lighting. Richard Toon (2015) argues that the “black box” increase the comprehension of scientific concepts as it detaches the connection between the visitor and the exterior environment and culture. On the hand, it is argued that light enhances the satisfaction and comfort of the visitors (Young, 2017). As illustrated in Wonder Lab at the Museum of London, the visitors’ first impression of the “exploration paths” is being “dark and designed with an adult aesthetic” (Braidwood, 2017). The previously analyzed sub themes are accessibility, color and lighting can highly contribute to increasing the motivation of the visitors.

1.9. Interactivity in Museums Museums are not only spaces for informal learning, but also enhances the social and cultural integration with science. The interactivity in museums resulted as a shift in history based on the concept of interaction between the visitors (Tsitoura, 2007). The lack of identification of the interactivity, as only dependent on the use of technology, led to misconceptions about the understanding of interactive museums. Interactivity refers to enhancing the “informal education, entertainment and socializing” due to

15

their positive effect on the visitors (Tsitoura, 2007). Interactivity is not limited to the use of technology, but also applies to hands on and participatory museums as a form of interactive museums. Consequently, interactive museums do not only stimulate the interaction between the visitors and the exhibits buts also, between the visitors and each other and between the visitors and the interactive display tools (Tsitoura, 2007). Interactivity increases the cooperation between the society and enhances the sense of belonging.

The concept of interactivity has three dimensional constructs. According to McMillan (2002), interactivity is based on user-to-user interaction, user-to-document interaction and user-to-system interaction. The relationship between the dependent socio-cultural design strategies and the dimensions of interactivity is illustrated in the figures below.

Figure 4: Theoretical Framework The researcher combined the matrix based on Young (2017) & Tsitoura (2007).

16

1.9.1. User-to-user interaction The interactions between visitors includes interpersonal interaction that develops based on face to face communications. The symbolic interaction take place when interpreting meaning. The social interaction happens when communicating rules of a game or an interactive exhibit. (Tsitoura, 2007). The last type is the feedback interaction when scholars analyze the interaction of individuals together.

1.9.2. User-to-document interaction The interaction is mainly focused on the interaction with documents such as artifacts; media; and exhibits. It also includes interaction with the exhibition content creators (Tsitoura, 2007).

1.9.3. User-to-system interaction It includes the interaction between a system interface such as computer and the individuals. The interface allows for user choice and includes “cognitive and emotional” aspects of the visitors’ experience (Tsitoura, 2007).

The interactivity of the exhibits is evaluated according to the types of actions and responses in the exhibits (Tsitoura, 2007). The museums are evaluated based on the type of physical involvement, type of response, type of visitors control over the content, significance of interaction to the content flow and the number of visitors interacting. The type of physical involvement is either “natural” using the five senses or “mediated” using buttons (Tsitoura, 2007). The type of response refers to the range of choices available for the user. It includes passive interactions where the visitor gets no response. The reactive responses happen when the user performs one action and receives only one response. The reciprocal responses are the multiple responses that the user receives pending his actions. The type of control differs between displayed information, choice of selection between several links, modifying the content or creating a new content. The types of interactions vary between observations, narration of information and following step by step instructions. In addition, it includes active exploration & experimentation, simulations,

17

communication or construction of knowledge for self-expression (Tsitoura, 2007). The last classification includes the number of users involved whether single or multiple users. The different combinations of the previously mentioned elements differ in the needed form of activity and the museum form of knowledge.

Figure 5: Types of interactive exhibit displays (Tsitoura, 2007)

18

2. Research Methodology The research problem is identified as the gap between the science and the society. From literature, different activities and thus building typologies are identified as providers of a form of informal learning environments to reintegrate science with society, among which are interactive museums. Based on literature review, there is a gap in literature regarding design implications for interactive museums.

The research hypothesis proposes that the socio-cultural independent design strategies are correlated to the dependent design elements and interactive technological exhibit tools impacting the interactive qualities in science museums. The research uses the observation approach to investigate the existing interactive design elements and technological exhibit tools through a local case study of an interactive museum to identify different methods of applying new design elements to achieve interactivity in the chosen museum. The local case study is a representative of the state of the art in interactive museum design in Egypt.

2.1. Case study selection criteria The selection criteria of the local case study is based on the availability of museums in Cairo due to limitations of science interactive museums in

Figure 6: Locations of interactive museums on a macro map of Cairo done by author (2019).

Captured from Google Maps

Egypt in general. The proposed case studies included the October War Panorama Museum, the Science Exploration City in the 6th of October, the Planetarium Science Center in Bibliotheca Alexandria and the Children’s Civilization and Creativity Center in Heliopolis.

19

2.2. Data Collection Stages Different methods of data collection are used in the following sequence. Exploratory field visits were done to narrow down the case study selection as investigated before. The investigation was followed up with a questionnaire designed based on Young (2017).

The following stage included detailed walk-through and observations in the selected case study. Interviews were also conducted with tour guides, museum facilitators and adult visitors. Participant observations were done on site with the children through group games. The previously mentioned stages are described in detail as follows: 2.2.1. Exploratory Field Visits The selection of the case studies is narrowed down to include both technological and architectural spatial design interactivity in the museums. After several exploratory site visits that included walk-through and observations to the October War Panorama Museum, it

Figure 7: Research Methodology done by author (2019)

was concluded that the technological interactivity is focused on a simulator with a lack of hands on interactive tools. The Science Exploration City was closed for the past two years for construction work and maintenance. The Science Exploration City re-opened on December 1, 2019 so, it was not selected for feasibility and the research time frame limitation. However, the future research questions tackle spatial and technological interactive design issues in the Science Exploration City. The Planetarium Science Center in Bibliotheca in Alexandria was not selected for the feasibility and time frame of the research.

The Children’s Civilization and Creativity Center, known as the Child Museum, in Heliopolis was

20

selected based on feasibility and for including both spatial, technological and hands-on interactive design.

The research is mainly done on the Pharaohs themed basement floor in the Child Museum due to limitations of accessibility as the science themed floors were inaccessible due to maintenance.

2.2.2. Questionnaires The questionnaire was distributed online and on site to test the interactive design elements and interactive exhibit tools at the Children’s Civilization and Creativity Center. The questionnaire aims to examine the visitors’ behaviors and experiences within the interactive museums. The questionnaire is designed based on the Interior Design for Informal Science Learning: Case Study for a Small Community Science Center, Young (2017). The online questionnaire targeted a stratified sample from museum visitors. The online questionnaire was distributed to museum visitors in the American University in Cairo (AUC) and the German University in Cairo (GUC), with a focus on architecture students specially with the interactive spatial design strategies and implications. The online questionnaire was also distributed to the museum visitors through the museum’s online platform on Facebook and museum online groups. The full survey is investigated in Appendix B. The following investigates the generic questionnaire results and the responses regarding the interactive design elements and interactive exhibit tools are investigated in the results and discussions section.

The questionnaire is divided into three consecutive sections. The first section investigates the demographics of the participants and whether they have visited any science museums in Egypt. It also investigates to what extent the users believe that science museums enhance the public knowledge &

Figure 8: Age group distribution of questionnaire responses done by author (2019)

whether science museum visits should be part of school and university curricula. The online questionnaire

21

reached 68 responses, with around 78% responses within the age of 18-24 as indicated in figure 7. The responses received were mainly from females with around 71% as shown in figure 8. Almost all the responses believed that science museum enhance the public knowledge and that science museum

Figure 9: Questionnaire responses based on gender distribution done by author (2019)

visits should be part of school and museum curricula.

The second section of the questionnaire examines the different museums the users visited in Egypt, the number of visits and the reasons behind visiting the science museums and the reasons that attract the users to visit science

Figure 11: Questionnaire responses based on museums visited done by author (2019)

museums. 31 users from the 68 responses visited the Children’s Civilization and Creativity Center.

Other museums were also visited as shown in figure 9. 61% of the responses are from females as in figure 10. The number of each user’s visits to the museum is illustrated in figure 11. Most of the users visited the museum once, however many users visited the museum up to five times. The responses showed that the users visit the museum for different purposes, mainly to enhance their scientific knowledge and as part of school or university trips as in figure 12. Most of the

Figure 12: Questionnaire gender distribution of the Children’s Civilization & creativity Center done by author (2019) 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 five four once once three twice twice times times times Figure 10: Questionnaire number of visits per visitor of the Children’s Civilization & creativity Center done by author (2019)

22

responses should that the users visit the museums with their family, children or friends as illustrated by percentages in figure 13. The main aspect that attracted the visitors to the museum is the interactivity of

Figure 13: Different visit purposes for the Children’s Civilization & creativity Center done by author (2019)

the museum by 61% as showed in figure 14. The third section investigated the visitors’ responses concerning the interactive design elements and interactive exhibit

Figure 14: People accompanying visitors of the Children’s Civilization & creativity Center done by author (2019)

tools. The third section results are integrated within the results and discussions section.

Figure 15: Aspects that attract the visitors to the Children’s Civilization & creativity Center done by author (2019)

2.2.3. Observations The researcher observations were done on site at the museum during three site visits. The site visits took place during the weekends due to feasibility and to ensure the availability of the maximum number of visitors at the museum. The researcher observations included the spatial interactive design elements and classifications of the interactive exhibit tools based on the literature. The observations are integrated with the discussion along with the questionnaire and interview results. The researcher observations also included the plans of the museum. The plans were revised and analyzed regarding the design and activities related to interactivity in the discussion section.

23

2.2.4. Interviews The on-site interviews targeted two museum facilitators where the previously mentioned questionnaire questions were investigated in form of an informal and non-structured interview. The interviews targeted adults, including parents and trip guides, visiting the museum on-site. Two school trip guides and three families were interviewed. The written from these interviews were recorded and included in the discussion section.

2.2.5. Participant Observation In order to investigate the interactive design strategies and tools, the qualitative questionnaire was directed to children under the age of 18 in a more engaging game form of informal interviews. The age group under 12 years was useful in terms of evaluating the interactive design tools more than the interactivity of the spatial design. The group participant observation included ten school children under the age of 12 where the questionnaire was asked in form of an interactive game to motivate the children to be more interactive. The children were notified at the beginning of the observation that the uniqueness of their answers in the game will add points to their scores to ensure the integrity of the answers and promote their critical thinking.

2.3. The Children’s Civilization & Creativity Center Case Description The following information about the Children’s Civilization & Creativity Center is extracted from a video presentation filmed at the Best in Heritage Conference in Dubrovnik in September 2013. The presentation is done by Dr. Ossama Meguid, the museum director, Mrs. Fatma Mostafa, the museum vice director & Architect Michael Mallinson, the designer of the museum.

The Children’s Civilization & Creativity Center, previously named Suzan Mubarak Child Museum, was established in 1996 as an initiative by the previous first lady of Egypt, Suzan Mubarak. The museum occupies a land of 14 acres. It is run by the Heliopolis Society Non-Governmental Organization (NGO). The objective of the museum is to provide knowledge for children from all social and educational

24

backgrounds without discrimination. The museum was renovated by Dr. Zahi Hawass, the Minister of Antiquities Affairs and the design competition was won by Mallinson Architects based in the United Kingdom. The museum reopened in 2012 and won the International Award at UK's Museums and Heritage Awards as mentioned by Meguid (2013).

The museum entrance is marked a giant pyramid structure

Figure 17: Landscape design of the museum from Mallinson Architect presentation at the Heritage Award Ceremony (2013)

orbited by cosmic spheres and planets as shown in figure 17. The landmark illustrated how science is emerging from the history of Egypt as explained by Mallinson (2013). The landscape design creates a recreational buffer that reenergizes the users after the traffic jam existing around the dense area of the museum. The landscape journey is marked by a water source fountain, resembling the Nile starting from the early BC rock inscriptions to modern

Figure 16: Museum entrance landmark captured by author (2019)

Egypt as shown in figure 16. The museum buildings design also reflects the idea of time, the steps work as an ancient Egyptian Sun Clock, the conic drum reflects the Water Clock, and the blue dome an emblem of the heavens of the Star Clock as in figure 17 (Mallinson, 2013).

Figure 18: The museum exterior captured by the author (2019)

25

The themes are repeatedly used inside the Museum. According to Mallinson (2013), the basement discovered the “Archaeology of Egypt through time from Old Kingdom, New Kingdom to Graeco-Roman Period”. The Ground Floor discovers “everyday life in Egypt, the seasons of the Nile, flood, sowing and harvest” (Mallinson, 2013). The first floor discovers “modern Egypt and how the visitors can improve it” through clean energy resources. The top Floor discovers the future of space from the history of Science in Egypt. The researcher observed a gap in the displayed themes as the exhibition halls do not

Figure 19: The basement museum plan from the Heritage Award presentation (Mallinson, 2013). The zones and legend are highlighted by the author (2019).

include Islamic, Christian and several historical periods. The researcher observations took place in the basement floor due to inaccessibility of the other floors due to maintenance. The basement zone is divided into seven sub-themes as illustrated in figure 19. The observations highlighted design issues such as the directed circulation path of the museum. The directed path forced the museum facilitators and

Figure 20: The picture shows the light emitted from the elevator disturbing the black setting of the screen display. Captured by the author (2019).

school trip guides to physically block the zones to prevent visitors from entering the following museum zones and to ensure the safety of users. The observations also marked the lack of communal and rest places during the museum visit. The plan observations illustrated the lack of exits or connection to the central circulation zone. Some observations were noticed by the researcher on site such as that the

26

elevator disconnects the experience of the users when watching the data show presentation as it disturbs the black setting with the light produced once the elevator opens as illustrated in figure 20. The previously highlighted design issues were investigated through the questionnaire and the following site visits.

The museum provides immersive hands on and technological exhibit tools to encourage the visitor experiences. The interactive exhibit tools detail every part of the exhibition such as “Tutankhamen’s discovery archaeological dig, the pharaohs temples and a journey through the stars to find science in Egypt every experience is unique, imaginative and innovative� (Mallinson, 2013). The researcher observations concluded that the different types of interactive exhibits are preferred according to the different ages of the visitors. Some interactive hands on tools required to be supervised to ensure the safety of the children. The

Figure 21: The underwater Archaeology game required supervision of children to ensure their safety. Photo captured by author (2019)

preference of each user group is investigated through the interviews and participant observations. The interactive exhibit tools in the basement are investigated in the discussion section as the museum welcomes all the age groups but mainly children based on the protocol of cooperation with the Ministry of Education, schools private, public and international and schools in rural areas around Cairo (Meguid, 2013).

27

3. Results and Discussions 3.1. Data Analyses The following date includes the analysis of the case study. The data is presented as themes based on the relation between the independent socio-cultural factors and the dependent interactive design variables. The interactive exhibit tools are also analyzed based on the literature and theoretical reviews.

Each theme includes collective representation of the data collected such as the questionnaire results in the form of charts, the interviews in the form of extracts from the visitor discussions. The researcher observations based on the site visits with evidence of photographs are also included. This multi-source approach of data collection and presentation helps to give a clear investigation of the case study analysis.

The individual responses of the Child Museum visitors, through the survey, were combined into one document in addition to the two museum organizers & guides interviews done at the museum. The children under 12 were asked the same survey questions, but in a game sort of conversation and were concerned mainly about the interactivity in the museum. Per the literature, the aspects of spatial design (the independent factors) are correlated to the socio-cultural dependent factors such as choice, distraction & motivation. The positive and negative responses regarding the spatial design and its relation to the socio-cultural factors are recorded below to preserve meanings that each participant held.

Socio-cultural Factors (Dependent Factors)

Design Elements (Independent Factors)

Characteristic Response

Choice 1)Organization Wayfinding grouping

Positive Response "The internal design is one big circulation hall that had the displayed items scattered around" Negative Response

2)Safety

"Experience needs to be acquired by the users" Positive Response

3)Affordances

"I faced no problem watching the children inside" Positive Response "quite interactive"

28

Negative Response “more interactive activities that are suitable for adults are needed” Distraction 1)Visibility

Positive Responses 70% of the responses find the exhibit spaces not visually distracting Negative Response "Exterior needs to be catchier"

1)Accessibility

Positive Responses 84% of the surveyed visitors find it easy to find and access the exhibit spaces 68% of the visitors can finds places to rest during touring the museum Negative Response "Color coded and coordinated journeys to guide the visitors as an interactive and explorative method" Positive Responses 74% of the surveyed visitors find the museum space will lit

Motivation

2)Color

3)Lighting

Figure 22: Multi-source data approach of socio-cultural independent factors and interactive design elements.

The data are gathered by the author based on the literature examined by (Young, 2017).

The interactivity in the museum is not centered around the “mechanical modes of interaction”, the visitors can interactively move in and around the spaces and not only be focused on the physical interactive exhibits. The integrity of the interactive museum and exhibition design is analyzed through both the visitor and their relationship with the spatial design elements and types of physical interactive exhibits and its relation to socio-cultural dependent factors. The independent design elements are correlated to the dependent socio-cultural factors as explained in the literature & methodology of analysis.

3.1.1. Choice: Based on the literature, the architectural space organization, safety and affordances are key factors for supporting the visitors’ choice.

29

3.1.1.1. Organization Exhibit Grouping The exhibit is designed to have directed circulation to create a sequential experience. However, the responses indicate that the directed circulation limits the choice of the users thus, it “needs development in terms of experience needed to be acquired by the users” as mentioned by one of the surveyed visitors. Although the circular, centralized and radial schemes provide more choices than the Cartesian grid plan as studied by Young (2017), the central plan design at the museum has no connection to the exhibition spaces with no exits in between. So, it minimizes the freedom of choice. “A better way is to make the navigation more of an expedition to the kids” as proposed by one questionnaire responses.

The need of a visitor-oriented experience rather than a designer-oriented experience was recommended through “a maze with several milestones, each milestone would have one item to explore”. The existing spatial design provided easy way finding that is directed without providing choices nor an explorative dimension.

The exhibits are designed to create a sequence as explained before. Based on Falk and Dierking (1992), grouping the exhibition by themes facilitate the comprehension of information. Each exhibition floor

Figure 23: Evaluation of exhibit themes extracted from questionnaire done by the author

is divided into sub themed exhibit spaces. The learning themes are coherent and communicated on an average of three on a scale from one (lowest) to four (highest) as shown in figure 23. The sequence of organizing the themes and unfolding the concepts is “teacher designer” and not “visitor centered” (Young, 2017). The responses of the visitors indicate that the grouped themes are not differentiated by spatial qualities such as scale for instance as suggested by Allen (2004). The responses indicate that the

30

“every zone needs to be designed according to theme or related to each other… to increase interactivity”.

Similarly, Young (2017) suggests that organization of the space should be marked by landmarks to encourage more choices for the visitors.

Wayfinding The wayfinding is one of the key elements to reduce “museum fatigue” (Allen, 2004). The responses indicate that 80% percent of the surveyed

Figure 24: Evaluation of museum interior navigation extracted from the survey done by the author

visitors find the interior easy to navigate as shown in figure 24. However, it needs “to be associated by someone to help you circulate around the building” as the interactive exhibits needs a guide. The children indicated that they had to follow the guides through their journey to explain the interactive exhibits that are button initiated or computer based which limits the choice of activities. The most remarkable physical setting was the central space that is used for vertical circulation through ramp and elevator. One of the visitors indicated that he identifies the place, even after years from visiting the museum, by the central circulation space (Falk and Dierking, 2012). On the other hands, the children interviewed indicated that they define the space by certain interactive games. The children had to rely on most of the time for navigation, which limits the choice of activities.

31

3.1.1.2. Safety The safety of the children was questioned by the teachers, guides and parents. 68% of the surveyed visitors find it easy to watch their children inside the museum as shown in figure 25. However, it was observed at the museum that the teachers had to physically block the exhibit space to prevent the children from proceeding to the next exhibition

Figure 25: Evaluation of children safety inside the museum extracted from questionnaire done by the author

space. The shortage of an open space museum limits the opportunity of the parents to supervise the children while allowing them to freely choose the activities based on the individual interest.

3.1.1.3. Affordances The affordances are concerned about how easily the visitors perceive the properties of the space.

It also relates to ensuring that the space affords all the expectations of the different visitors (Young, 2017). The Child Museum engages the children through several hands on and computer-based experiments. The hands-on experiments were suitable for the children less than 11 years. The children under 11 remembered the experiences that they could relate to their cultural experience and that provided more hands-on experience (Anderson et. Al, 2012). The computer based, and button-initiated activities were suitable for children above 11 years old. The parents and adults suggested including “more interactive activities that are suitable for adults�. One of the responses showed the interest of including virtual reality tools to explore the exhibit for the adults.

The responses suggested including more themes with different architectural design. The responses also expressed the need of flexibility and choice to afford as it can be “a maze with several

32

milestones, each milestone would have one item to explore�. For parents who regularly bring their children to the space, they wanted a variety in the themes and a flexibility for change.

3.1.2. Distraction 3.1.2.1. Visibility The visibility and the spatial organization, including wayfinding, are correlated. The literature shows that the higher levels of visibility strengthens the wayfinding (Holscher et al., 2012). The

Figure 26: Evaluation of visual distraction from the questionnaire done by the author

high levels of visibility also ensure more choices and social construction. Although the exhibition is directed, each exhibit space has high visibility within it. The visibility between the different themed exhibition spaces is limited which decreases the visual distraction as 74% of the responses find the exhibit spaces not visually distracting as shown in figure 26. The high level of visibility ensures the supervision of the children by their parents. The museum is designed to allow the exhibits to belong is grouped spaces with different levels of visual hierarchy as investigated by Falk and Dierking (1992).

The visibility was also studied through discussing the exterior of the building. The exterior of the building has an architectural story behind it.

However, the visitors could not recognize the architecture symbolism behind the architectural exterior on their

Figure 27: Evaluation of exterior design of museum from questionnaire done by the author

33

own. 74% of the visitors only recognized the exterior as a science museum as illustrated in figure 27. One of the responses suggested that the “exterior needs to be catchier�. add charts pie of bar charts 3.1.3. Motivation Based on the literature and methodology of analysis discussed before, the accessibility, color and lighting contribute to the comfort, curiosity that leads to motivation.

3.1.3.1. Accessibility The exhibit spaces are physically accessible to provide comfort for the users. The circulation provides ramps for children, strollers and wheelchairs as shown in figure 28. The vertical ramps are included in the main circulation core. Also, the exhibition space provides ramps

Figure 28: Vibrating ramp and circulcation ramps captured by the author

during circulation as shown in the figure. 84% of the surveyed visitors find it easy to find and access the exhibit spaces Figure 29: Evaluation of museum accessibility from questionnaire done by the author

as illustrated in figure 29.

From the observations done by the author, it was observed that the exhibit spaces do not have rest or community spaces while touring the museum. The survey showed that 68% of the visitors can finds places to rest during touring the museum as shown in figure 30. After investigation, the places were random exhibit

Figure 30: Evaluation of rest spaces in museum from questionnaire done by the author

places that were informally used as rest and community spaces as shown in the figure. However, they are

34

initially designed as exhibits and not for communal rest. The design of interactive spaces differs due to cultural behaviors related to museum experiences as discussed by Falk and Dierking (1992). The findings are related to the cultural background and how the users’ culture differ in experiencing the space.

3.1.3.2. Color Although the survey did not specifically ask about the colors. The surveyed visitors suggested providing “color coded and coordinated journeys to guide the visitors as an interactive and explorative method”. The observed colors used in the exhibition Pharaohs exhibition space are mainly sterile looking, pale and simple with the same pharaonic scheme of colors. However, using bright and bold colors are more inviting and promote interactivity more than other colors (Young, 2017).

3.1.3.3. Lighting The exhibition is will lit because of the artificial lighting in the basement. The dome like sky light list the rest of the floor to the extent that on the upper most floor the window glass is covered with a reflective material. The natural light is abundant in the ground floor. The natural light enhances the comfort of the users (Young, 2017). However, the two upper floors are considered “black box” science centers to increase the comprehension of scientific concepts (Toon, 2015). It is argued that the natural light increases the visitor’s satisfaction. However, 74% of the surveyed visitors find the museum space will lit although it is not naturally lit as illustrated in figure 31.

Figure 31: Evaluation of lighting from questionnaire done by the author

35

3.1.4. Interactive Exhibit Tools Within the intended approach exhibits were considered as interactive regardless the underlying technology and if they allowed some sort of action from the visitor other than mere visual perception. The identified exhibits involved: - “Exhibits that could be touched, lifted, sensed, rotated and generally physically manipulated in some way” - “Demonstration Exhibits that could be initiated through button-pressing” - “Computer based exhibits with a screen that could be operated with a button and/or a mouse ball for navigation”.

- “The type and level of actions and responses enabled by each exhibit is examined through the proposed classification”.

- “The classification is formed in such a way so that it emphasizes the type and level of involvement of the visitor during the interaction”.

The exhibits were then classified based on the interactivity classification methodology used by Tsitoura as follows: - Type of exhibition - Type physical Involvement -Type of response of the interactive towards the visitor - Type of visitor’s control over the content - The nature of the interaction in terms of visitor’s potential inducement to content flow -Number of visitors interacting simultaneously

36

From all the four exhibit themes in the Child Museum, the interactive exhibits in the Pharaohs basement exhibition floor were identified due to the limitations of availability. The total number of interactive exhibits in the Pharaohs themed floor is 14. However, the findings and discussions are based on 12 interactive exhibits due technical maintenance of the two interactive exhibits that are mainly button initiated exhibits.

The context of the investigation explores the possible ways of using Interactivity within the child museum, in order to reinforce the impact of the museum visit. The evaluation approach was based on a creation of an inventory (found in Appendix C) with all the existing interactive exhibits in the Child Museum. The proposed classification for these exhibits includes a short-scale visitor research and an analysis of the results as well as further recommendations for future implementation. The proposed classification is based on a classification method used by Tsitoura in Master of Museology under the title of “Interactivity in Museums: A Relationship Building Perspective�. The detailed investigation of the interactive exhibit tools is provided in Appendix C. Based on the previous mentioned classifications, the overall numbers of the different types of interactive exhibits are identified as follows:

Figure 32: Collage of different interactive exhibit tools captured by author From top left to bottom right: screen introductory movie- earthquake vibrator- Exploring the great pyramid- catch a pyramid map- inside the pyramid video screen- hieroglyphics art tracing- botanical garden wall assembly- 3D sculpture reassemblingTutankhamun tomb hologram- Archeological information on screen displays- Medicine game touch screen- Ball Pat- The submarine.

37

From the findings above, most exhibits are hands on or Type of Exhibits of exhibits computer-based exhibits as shown in figure 32. Almost all the exhibits require the physical involvement of the visitor either 5

through movement or senses as indicated in figure 33. Half of

6

the interactive exhibits provide no response as they are hands

1

on exhibits and the computer-based exhibits are mainly screens

Handling objects Button initiated exhibits Computer based exhibits

to display information as shown in figure 34. The reactive exhibits are mainly based on pressing a button then the simulation starts. Only one of the exhibits generate a vibration

Figure 33: Types of interactive exhibits done by the author

response. Most of the exhibits either provide access to watch Physical Involvement the information or to modify one or more of the parameters as indicated in figure 35. The exhibits are mainly focused on

1

displaying information or exploring to finds the new information with a lack of exhibits that encourage communication and constructive debates as shown in figure 11

36. The interactive exhibits allow more than one visitor to interact with the exhibit. However, this does not necessarily

Natural

Mediated

mean that the visitors can interact with each other. Although, Figure 34: Types of physical involvement of exhibits done by the author

38

the multiuser exhibits provide more opportunities for interaction than the single user exhibits as shown in figure 37.

Types of response

Levels of control over content

1

1

5 6

5

5 1

Passive

Reactive

Reciprocal

Figure 36: Types of responses of interactive exhibitions done by the author

Nature of Content/ Visitors Perception

Access

Options/Choice

Modification

Generation

Figure 37: Levels of control over content of interactive exhibitions done by the author

Multi-user Capability

0 0 1

1 4

4 1 2 11 Observative Instructive Simulative Constructive

Narrative text Explorative Communicative

Figure 35: Nature of content of interactive exhibitions done by the author

Single user

Multiple user

Figure 38: Multi-user capability of interactive exhibitions done by the author

39

3.2. Discussion & findings The proposed hypothesis that correlates between the independent socio-cultural factors and dependent interactive design elements in relation to interactive exhibit tools is proven to be true in terms of achieving interactive design in science museums. In addition, the general assumption that proposed the effectiveness of interactive science museums to reintegrate the science with society is also proven to be true. The responses indicate that 94% of the museum visitors believe that their knowledge is enhanced after visiting the museum as shown in figure 39.

Thus, the interactivity in the museum is successful in terms of the interactive spatial design elements and the interactive exhibit tools.

Figure 39: Evaluation of the knowledge enhancement after visiting the museum from questionnaire done by the author

The responses of the surveyed visitors proposed future directions of investigation such as the ventilation as the museum lacked natural ventilation. The acoustics of the museum were surveyed regarding the level of noise inside the museum.

68% of the surveyed visitors confirmed that the level of noise inside the museum was appropriate as shown in figure 40. The other design factors Figure 40: Evaluation of noise level from questionnaire done by author

could be an area of focus for future studies.

From the previous findings, the involvement of the users mainly involves around the physical presence. The social interaction is not fully supported however, the exhibits involves the interaction of multi-users. The physical interaction based on pressing buttons is very limited to two exhibits that were

40

facing maintenance malfunctions. The cognitive and emotional challenge is absent in terms of the interactivity of the exhibits which limit the user choices (Tsitoura, 2007).

When surveying the extent of interactivity of the exhibits and the museum design, the interactivity was tested on the adults and the children under the age of 18. The surveyed children under the third-grade equivalent to around eight years preferred the hands-on interactive exhibits such as excavation in sand and 2d art tracing. They also showed interest in holograms. On the other hand, the adults showed interest in technological interactive exhibits that are rare in the exhibition, thus they showed interest in providing more interactive activities that are suitable for the adults. The overall interactivity on the museum was rated between three to four on a scale from one (lowest) to four (highest) as illustrated in figure 41.

Figure 41: Evaluation of interactive exhibits from questionnaire done by author

41

4. Conclusion and Recommendations The research included both the random and targeted sampling for participants from the Child museum. Thus, the results cannot be generalized as it needs securing thousands of participants. The research conclusions may benefit similar museums to find whether the interactivity of the spatial design and exhibit tools of the science museums increase the dissemination of knowledge thus, reintegrate the science with the society. The context of the community lead to variations for choice and flexibility preferences as indicated by the literature and proven by the research discussions.

The participant responses aligned with the identified interactive spatial design implications for identified in literature to support knowledge dissemination in science museums. The spatial design elements supporting choice include organization of space, safety and affordances. Distraction prevents the museum fatigue through providing visual breaks and limiting visual distraction. The motivation, related to comfort and interest, is identified through accessibility, color and lighting.

Providing an undirected and open space that makes use of the central circulation core to promote free choice and exits in between the tour were preferences stated by the visitors of the child museum. The parents expected an expedition for the children with milestones for more choices and interactive exploration. Although the museum is designed based on a sequential theme, the visitors identified the lack of different spatial qualities for each theme and more flexible choices. The way finding was recognized by the vertical central circulation core. New design elements were explored from the case study such as the effect of noise related to acoustic design. Also, the presence of rest and communal spaces was proved to be important for an interactive experience. The presence of multiple exits also proved to provide more choices. The new explored interactive design elements can be investigated in further case studies.

The Child museum visitors who participated in the research were mainly asked about the interactive spatial design implications related to choice, motivation and distraction based on the literature.

The research is mainly targeting the interactivity of the interior and exterior design of the museum

42

building. However, the interactivity of the landscape and garden design were not brought into consideration as part of the overall discussion. The interactivity of landscape and garden design in the Child museum can be an area of focus for future studies.

The interactive exhibit tools prove to be successful as it does not depend only on technological tools but rather include hands on interactive experiences. The research examines the concept of interactivity as a method to change the behavior of its users and their expectations and by this necessitates a changed approach by museums. Possible new approaches of interactive exhibit tools should enhance social interaction and participatory culture. Interactivity is a promising concept that can include debates, forums of ideas and learning environments.

The case study proves the lack of interactive science museums in Egypt. Based on proving the validity of the main assumption where interactive science museums contribute to reintegrating science with the society, thus the interactive science museum experience should be repeated in different geographic locations in Egypt. The Children’s Civilization and Creativity Center lacked the presence of many historical themes; thus, the missing themes can be implemented in other interactive science museums.

43

7. References Allen, S. (2004). Designs for learning: Studying science museums exhibits that do more than entertain. Science Education. 88(Suppl. 1), S17–S33. Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). doi: 10.1002/sce.20016 Bond, M., Maram , H., Soliman, A., & Khattab, R. (2012). Science and Innovation in Egypt. Retrieved December 12, 2019, from http://www.bibalex.gov.eg/CSSP/publications/Atlas Egypt_final proof_report.pdf.

Braidwood, E. (2017, October). FOI reveals evidence of injuries at Muf's Science Museum gallery.

Retrieved December 12, 2019, from https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/foi-revealsevidence-of-injuries-at-mufs-science-museum-gallery/10024647.article.

Children’s Centre for Civilization and Creativity Ossama Meguid and Fatma Mostafa Children’s Centre for Civilization and Creativity 2 Abu Bakr El Siddique, St., Heliopolis, Cairo https://www.facebook.com/CivilizationCreativity Heliopolis, Egypt. (2012). Retrieved December 12, 2019, from http://presentations.thebestinheritage.com/2013/Children’s Centre for Civilization and Creativity.

Dickson, D. (2005, June 27). Retrieved December 12, 2019, from https://earthscience.rice.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/dickinson-2005-deficit-modelscinet.pdf.

Falk, J.H. and Dierking, L.D. (1992). The museum experience. Washington, D.C.: Whalesback Books.

Falk, J.H. (2006). An identity-centered approach to understanding museum learning.

Curator. 49(2), 151-166. doi: 10.1111/j.2151-6952.2006.tb00209.x Frearson, A. (2016, October 12). Muf creates "wonderlab" inside Science Museum gallery. Retrieved December 12, 2019, from https://www.dezeen.com/2016/10/11/muf-wonderlab-science-museumgallery-london-slides-theatre/.

Holscher, C., Brosamle, M and Vrachliotis, G, (2012). Challenges in multi-level wayfinding: A case study with the space syntax technique. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design. 39, 63-82.

Krishnamurthi, A., & Rennie, L. (2012, January). Informal Science Learning and Education: Definition

44

and Goals. Retrieved October 2019, from http://www.afterschoolalliance.org/documents/STEM/Rennie_Krishnamurthi.pdf.

McMillan, S, J. (2002). Exploring Models of Interactivity from Multiple Research Traditions: Users, Documents, and Systems. Available at: http://web.utk.edu/~sjmcmill/Research/interactivity2.doc Miller, J. D. (2010). Adult science learning in the internet era. Curator, 53, 191–208 Rennie, L.J., Feher, E., Dierking, L.D., Falk, J.H. (2003). Toward an agenda for advancing research on science learning in out-of-school settings. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 40(2), 112-120. DOI: 10.1002/tea.10067 Toon , R. (2005). Black box science in black box science centers. In Macleod, S. (Eds.) Reshaping museum space: Architecture, design, exhibitions. London: Routledge.

United States Access Board. Other Issues, Signage. Retrieved from http://www.accessboard. gov/guidelines-and-standards/buildings-and-sites/about-the-adastandards/ background/ada-accessibility-guidelines-for-building-elementsdesignedfor-children-s-use/other-issues Tsitoura, A. (2007). Interactivity in Museums : A Relationship Building Perspective. Retrieved October 2019, from https://www.academia.edu/938975/Interactivity_in_Museums._A_relationship_building_perspect ive.

Wonder Lab, The Statoil Gallery. (2017, September). Retrieved December 12, 2019, from https://learning-resources.sciencemuseum.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/wonderlab-galleryguide.pdf.

World Economic Outlook Database. (2017). Egypt the Global Competitiveness Index 2017-2018 Edition. Egypt the Global Competitiveness Index 2017-2018 Edition. Retrieved from http://www3.weforum.org/docs/GCR20172018/05FullReport/TheGlobalCompetitivenessReport2017–2018.pdf Young, B. L. (2017). Interior design for informal science learning: Case study for a small community science center. (Order No. 10272294, Purdue University). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, , 52. Retrieved from http://p2048library.aucegypt.edu.libproxy.aucegypt.edu:2048/login?url=https://search-proquestcom.libproxy.aucegypt.edu/docview/1948788144?accountid=8423

45

8. Appendices 8.1. Appendix A

Reference questionnaire to test the validity of the new design elements (Young, 2017).

46

8.2. Appendix B

47

48

49

Science & Interactive Museums in Egypt

50

51

Interactive Architecture Design and Interactive Exhibit Tools in the Children’s Civilization and Creativity Center

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

Do you have any other ideas to enhance the user experience inside the museum through architectural design and interactivity?

No No Most of the interactive tools were not working More interactive activities and suitable for adults Just keep the maintenance of the buildings.

Color coordinate the journery

60

make the layout of the museum pharos themed 1- The place needs to be designed in zones and every zone be designed according to theme or related things related to each other 2- I need to have some sort of experience while circulating in the place 3- The interior of the buildings needs development in terms of experience needed to be acquired by the users 4the exterior needs to be more catchy 5- implement new technologies using modern technology will enhance interactivity Circulation is key!!! And also sequence of info Time span of tour was too short using vr i think it would be a good idea to make an exhibition with different designs (similar to different architectural themes) ...i guess it would help people to interact more with it Colors and enhance landscape I think the museum as well as its campus/gardens was sufficiently interactive.

I remember the internal design as being one big hall that had the displayed items scattered there; a better way is to make the navigation more of an expedition to the kids. An example would be a maze with several milestones, each milestone would have one item to explore. Kids can get a map and reporting cards at the entrance and follow them and submit their reporting cards at the end of the trip to a treasure machine that would open up if they got the right info on the reporting cards and give them a "treasure" that is scientific in nature.

Please share any concluding comments about the building. Thank you for your time :) Different/Unique Outlook, quite interactive yet not all of the sectors were functioning which was a shame.

2 I liked it More ventilation is needed.

Very innocent and interactive but you have to be associated by someone to help you circulate around the building.

Thanks I never though we could have such a museum in Egypt.

The last time I visited the museum was about 20 years ago, so I don't recall all the details. But I remember being impressed by the displayed items, especially the gravity item which i can still remember until today!

61

8.3. Appendix C

Theme

Name of interacti ve

Descrip tion

Interacti ve archeolo gy

Screen introduct ory movie

A comput er based exhibit

Interacti ve archeolo gy

Earthqua ke vibrator

Interacti ve archeolo gy Interacti ve archeolo gy

Explorin g the great pyramid Catch a pyramid interactiv e map

Interacti ve archeolo gy

Inside the pyramid screen

The 2D Art

Hierogly phics Art tracing

Type of interactivity/p hysical involvement

Natural: watching

button initiated exhibit

Natural: using senses and feeling

button initiated exhibit

Mediated: pressing buttons

button initiated exhibit

Mediated: pressing buttons

A comput er based exhibit

Handlin g objects

Natural: watching

Natural: hands on experiment

Type of response Reactive: button pressed, demonstr ation starts

Num Interactiv ber Type of e content of control Nature users Observativ e: Access: watching displayed up to & informati 30 communic on ative: by discussion

Targ et grou p Child ren and adult s

Reactive: only one response produced (the vibration )

Modifica tion: change in the paramete r of vibration

up to ten

limite d for childr en only becau se of limite d weig ht

Reactive: button pressed, demonstr ation starts

Access: Observativ displayed up to e: informati 15 watching on

Child ren and adult s

Passive: no response

Generati ve: creating new content

simulative : simulation of a real world phemnom enon

Instructive : testing skills and following step by step instruction s

up to 10

Child ren and adult s

62

The 2D Art

Potanical Garden wall assemby

Handlin g objects

Natural: hands on experiment

Passive: no response

The 3D Art

3D sculpture reassembli ng

Handlin g objects

Natural: hands on experiment

Passive: no response

Natural: watching

Archaeo logy Excavati on

Tut ankhamu n tomb hologram

A comput er based exhibit

Archaeo Treasure Handlin logy excavatio g Excavati n objects on

Natural: hands on experiment

Child ren

up to 10

Child ren

Reactive: button pressed, demonstr ation starts

Access: Observativ displayed up to e: informati 20 watching on

Child ren and adult s

Passive: no response

Modifica tion: rearrange content represent ation

up to 30

Child ren

Observativ e: watching Access: & displayed up to narrative informati 5 text of on data & informatio n

Child ren and adult s

Choice: set of navigatio nal links

A comput er based exhibit

Natural: watching

Passive: no response

Medicine Ancient game Medecin "Treat e the Pharoah"

A comput er based exhibit

Mediated: pressing buttons

Reciproc al: multiple response s

Underw ater Archaeo logy

Explorativ e: sense making and experimen tation Explorativ e: sense making and experimen tation

up to 10

Archaeol Archaeo ogy logy informati Excavati on screen on display

Underw ater Archaeo logy

Modifica tion: rearrange content represent ation Modifica tion: rearrange content represent ation

Ball Pat

Handlin g objects

Natural: hands on experiment

Passive: no response

The submarin e

A comput er based exhibit

Natural: watching

Reactive: button pressed, demonstr

Modifica tion: rearrange content represent ation Access: displayed informati on

Explorativ e& communic ative

Instructive : testing skills

Singl e user

Child ren and adult s

Explorativ e& communic ative

up to 30

Child ren

Observativ up to e: 10 watching

Child ren

63

ation starts

Type of exhibition

Number of exhibits

Handling objects

5

Button initiated exhibits

1

Computer based

6

exhibits Total

12

Physical Involvement

Number of exhibits

Natural

11

Mediated

1

Total

12

Type of Response

Number of exhibits

Passive

6

Reactive

5

Reciprocal

1

Total

12

Levels of Control

Number of exhibits

over Content

64

Access

5

Options/Choice

1

Modification

5

Generation

1

Total

12

Nature of Content/Visitors

Number of exhibits

Perception Observative

4

Narrative text

1

Instructive

2

Explorative

4

Simulative

1

Communicative

0

Constructive

0

Total

12

Multi-user Capability

Number of exhibits

Single user

1

Multiple user

11

Total

12