Overview of project

    Why this project/the class

    The goals were:        

     1. Visitors will add their voice to the exhibition by adding words to the sequence.

     2. Visitors will contribute to connections by participating in a continuous photographic record.

     3. The majority of participants will take the Flickr URL with them.

     4. Visitors will visit the Flickr site to see how their word connects to others and see how other visitor's contributed.  

Evaluation methods

     Facilitator observation

          The facilitator, who was stationed next to the sculpture and was present to answer questions and take photos, used a paper chart to tally the number of visitors, groups, and participants. The facilitator's chart tracked the visitors' levels of interaction (walked by, stopped and watched, asked questions, participated) and their attitude (smiling, laughing, helping others, frowning, or ignoring). This observational method was unobtrusive and required no interviewing. Its faults and errors were due to lack of group consensus on what and how to count before beginning the project. Each facilitator tallied categories in their own way and there was particular confusion about whether groups should be marked as one participation or as though each member of the group was an individual participant. To see the charts in an Excel format, click here:  Our final and most accurate measurement of participation therefore is the number of photos in the Flickr stream. 

Findings (excel graphs - but only participation):

     Project participation

• We did not get everyone to participate. A few people ignored us and the Xavier work, walking past us as though we meant to solicit something. Many more people stopped, looked and asked questions. Of those that stopped, some still walked away without participating. A few people walked away but came back later to participate.
• Many of the people who stopped and asked questions seemed to be drawn in by the Flickr photos streaming on the computer screen. They often watched that to understand the activity instead of reading the instructions or to clarify our verbal explanation.
• Many of the participants engaged positively with the activity - the majority smiling and/or laughing. Some even stayed after they had completed their word and photo to see what the next person would do or to see how their photo (once uploaded) contributed to the Flickr stream. 

     overall attendance - low on Sunday but we still had 25 participants. (Super Bowl)

     Limitation - Lots of museum studies students and friends and family - people who were there because we asked

          think about who each of us brought in.

               chris - brought 4 pictures, in 3 pictures

               rose - brough in X pictures, was in X pictures

               rachel - brought in X pictures, in X pictures

               alicia - brought in 0 pictures, in 2 pictures

               X museology students and staff - kris, maya, we only know of 1st years for sure...

     our data that was collected - what was purpose of other categories?

     our photos - differing counts

Discussion

     what worked.  

          magnets were attractive/familiar to people

          moving screen of images was attractive

          different way of learning what was going on - more people seemed to learn best by watching a) others B) flicker stream c) instructions

     what didn't

          had to be heavily facilitated

          physically moving letters was cumbersome

          paint was weak

          words read "backwards" from right to left - people may have had difficulty when seeing actual set up.  then understood more when saw flickr.     

          people still may not have "gotten" the idea

          people still seemed to be nervous/shy or not inspired or not wanting to be participatory that day.

          camera looked formal

          tucked away space may have been intimidating

     Initial obstacles with the work and the gallery:

          be careful - everyone wants to touch him

          communication needed more time - took a while to straighten things out.

          they had information but wasn't processed til last minute

          short time frame - development was compressed - 4 weeks.

     what would do different

          some things.