page | 295 chapter 41: the role of simulated immersion in exhibitions stephen bitgood technical report no. 90-20. (1990) jackson

Page | 295
Chapter 41: THE ROLE OF SIMULATED
IMMERSION IN EXHIBITIONS
Stephen Bitgood
Technical Report No. 90-20. (1990) Jacksonville, AL: Center for Social
Design
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This paper deals with a visitor experience that I will call “simulated
immersion.” Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary defines
“immersion” as:
“To plunge into something that surrounds or covers; to engross; to
absorb; to involve deeply.”
When applied to exhibitions, the term might be described as the
experience of feeling engrossed, absorbed, or deeply involved in an
exhibit. Exhibit designers in museums, zoos, and other exhibition
centers attempt to create an immersion experience in many of their
exhibits. Witness the number of exhibits whose purpose is to make the
visitor feel transposed to a particular time and place. Perhaps a
couple of examples will help describe immersion.
Living history museums attempt to create the illusion of bygone days.
Yellis (1990) explains the goal of Plimoth Plantation as follows:
“…What we are after is an environment, both physical and human, so
authentic and of a piece, an experience of such critical mass and
vitality that it becomes possible for the visitor to discount the
annoying, but undeniable, reality that he is not in the past. It
becomes desirable for him to relinquish the present at some level, to
let go, yield himself to whatever experience he needs to have of the
past, and take the initiative in precipitating that experience.”
(Yellis, 1990; p. 52)
Natural history museums have constructed simulated caves, coal mines,
rain forests, swamps, icebergs, etc. to make visitors feel they are
immersed in these environments.
Zoos are designing exhibits that give the illusion of naturalistic
surroundings. Prey and predators may be separated by invisible moats,
giving visitors the impression that the prey is easily accessible. To
add to the authenticity, zoos are stimulating naturalistic behavior in
the animal being exhibited. For example, distributing food throughout
an exhibit requires the animals to forage for food similar to what
they would do in the wild.
Science museums have developed space flight simulators, submarines,
and other types of apparatuses that attempt to capture at least part
of the experiences of space flight, underwater travel, etc.
The above examples can be called “simulated” immersion since they
attempt to create an illusion of time and place by reconstructing key
characteristics of the exhibited time and place. Perhaps it should not
really be called an “illusion” since visitors do not really believe
they are in the simulated time and place. Even though we know the
environment is being simulated, we can still feel like we are
experiencing at least part of the actual environment.
There also seems to be other types of immersion experiences –
“interactive,” “media,” “aesthetic,” and “dramatic” immersion.
“Interactive” immersion occurs when the visitor is deeply involved in
feedback-produced responding such as often occurs with computers or
video games. Effective software can be used to deeply engage visitors.
“Media” immersion refers to being absorbed in an audio-visual
presentation such as a 3-D film in EPCOT or a planetarium
presentation. “Aesthetic” immersion refers to being deeply involved in
art work. “Dramatic” immersion occurs when the audience is deeply
involved in a play or some other dramatic presentation. These other
types of immersion experiences are important, they are often involved
in exhibition settings, and they seem to overlap with what we are
calling “simulated” immersion. However, the current paper will focus
primarily on “simulated” immersion.
Despite its popularity in the exhibit design process, there has been
little analysis and/or study of this phenomenon of immersion.
Consequently, I will attempt to discuss and speculate on five
questions related to this visitor experience:
1.
What is “simulated immersion”
2.
How important is “simulated immersion” to the visitor experience?
3.
How does “simulated immersion” relate to learning?
4.
What factors produce the experience of “simulated immersion”?
5.
How can “simulated immersion” be measured?
What is Simulated Immersion?
Simulated immersion will be defined as “the degree to which an exhibit
effectively involves, absorbs, engrosses, or creates for visitors the
experience of a particular time and place.” Immersion is apparently an
important part of the visitor experience since it is highly rated by
visitors and may, under the right conditions, facilitate several types
of learning (declarative knowledge or verbal/written statements about
the exhibit, procedural knowledge or skill demonstration, special
knowledge or relationships among architectural features and objects,
and emotional or affective reactions associated with the experiences.
For example, after a visit to Henry Ford Museum & Greenfield Village
in Dearborn, MI, you might be able to describe how Thomas Edison
developed a successful light bulb (declarative knowledge), you might
be able to demonstrate how early Americans positioned their tableware
(procedural knowledge); you might recall the physical arrangement of
buildings in the re-creation of Menlo Park (special knowledge); and
you might be able to recall your feeling of sadness when you viewed
the chair in which Abraham Lincoln was shot (affective knowledge).
The immersion experience seems to be related to Csikszentmihalyi’s
(1988) “flow experience” or Maslow’s (1954) “peak experience.”
However, flow and peak experiences are general states of the
individual, while the immersion experience is a more specific reaction
(feeling of time and place) to the design of the environment. When
visitors are immersed in an exhibit that simulates a time and place,
they are likely to report some or all of the following:
*
The exhibit involves or absorbs you.
*
The exhibit creates an exciting experience.
*
The exhibit creates the feeling of being in a particular time and
place.
*
The exhibit is realistic and natural.
*
The subject matter comes to life.
*
The exhibit focuses your attention.
*
The exhibit is memorable.
Importance of Simulated Immersion to the Visitor Experience
Anecdotal evidence abounds that suggests the feeling of immersion is
extremely important to visitor experiences. Its major effect may be
affective (“The exhibit is enjoyable, exciting, fun”). The success of
many EPCOT exhibits is undoubtedly due to this experience. At the
large aquarium tank in the Living Seas, we feel that we are on the
bottom of the sea as we identify many species of ocean dwellers. The
3-D movie in Imagination Land provides such a strong illusion of depth
that it is not uncommon to observe members of the audience reach out
to touch a creature who is, seemingly, right in front of their noses!
The number of people who return to EPCOT to see these exhibits again
attest (at least subjectively) to the importance of this experience.
Theme parks have been capitalizing on the immersion experience for
years. Museums are not beginning to enter the arena of
immersion-producing exhibits. Taking a lesson from Disney, the
Dinomation organization has exploited the popularity of dinosaurs and
the seductive attention-getting characteristics of large, moving
models. Museums are clamoring to book these mechanical monsters
because of their tremendous appeal, especially to children. Many large
museums in Chicago, Milwaukee, Los Angeles, and many other cities have
developed exhibits designed to create an immersion experience.
However, there is at least one importance difference between theme
parks and museums. While theme parks can justify their exhibitions in
terms of visitor enjoyment alone, museums are obligated to emphasize
the educational impact at least as much as entertainment.
More objective information about the importance of immersion is also
available. Griggs (1984) found the realism of an exhibit (one of the
characteristics assumed to contribute to immersion) was highly valued
characteristic among visitors. More specifically, he found that the
statement “The exhibits are not realistic enough and it is difficult
to relate them to the way you would find them in the real world” was
important to visitors in his study at the Natural History Museum
(London).
Alt and Shaw (1984) in their exploration of the “ideal characteristics
of an exhibit” found that the better exhibits were described by
visitors in the following way: “It makes the subject come to life.”
“It’s a memorable exhibit.” “It involves you.” These descriptors seem
to be correlated with the concept of immersion.
Another source of evidence that immersion is important to visitors
comes from two studies that we recently completed at the Anniston
Museum of Natural History (AMNH). In the first study (Bitgood,
Ellingsen, & Patterson, 1990a) we were attempting to measure visitors’
perceptions of exhibits by visitor ratings of bipolar adjectives such
as “natural-artificial” and “exciting-dull.” We found that “exciting,”
“natural,” and “meaningful” exhibits are also those that were judged
to make the visitors feel like they are “in the time and place”
exhibited.
In a second study (Bitgood, Ellingsen, & Patterson, 1990b) visitors
rated exhibits in terms of 18 descriptors (e.g., “It makes the subject
come to life.” “It looks real.” “It’s memorable.” “It makes you want
to learn more about the subject matter.”. Factor analysis suggested
the following pattern:
Factor 1: It looks real. It makes you feel you are really in the time
and place described the the exhibit. It’s exciting. It is realistic.
The label(s) help you feel involved in the exhibit. It’s memorable.
The lighting level helps to create a desirable atmosphere. It makes
you want to learn more about the subject matter.
Factor 2: It doesn’t give enough information. It’s confusing. It’s
badly placed – you wouldn’t notice it easily. Other exhibits interfere
with enjoyment because of distracting sights or sounds.
Factor 3: In involves you. The exhibit space surrounds you. It doesn’t
give enough information. It uses senses other than visual.
Factor 4: It’s artistic. It makes the subject come to life. You can
understand the point(s) it is making quickly.
Factors 1, 3, a nd 4 were highly correlated with one another and the
items include variables that we believe either describe the visitor
immersion experience (e.g., It’s exciting. It looks real. It makes you
feel you are really in the time and place described by the exhibit.)
or those that facilitate the experience (e.g., It uses senses other
than visual. The lighting level helps to create a desirable
atmosphere.). Factor 2, on the other hand, includes variables that
interfere with the experience (e.g., It doesn’t give enough
information. It’s confusing. It’s badly placed.).
While additional evidence documenting the importance of immersion for
visitors is needed, the above discussion suggests that it is a highly
valued aspect of visitors’ experiences. The fact that exhibit
designers today are producing exhibits that attempt toengross the
visitor with such frequency, despite their cost, suggests that
designers are also convinced that immersion is an important experience
for visitors.
How Does Simulated Immersion Relate to Learning?
Although the experience of immersion does not seem to be a serious
objective in academic settings, formal learning and immersion
experiences are not incompatible. Formal learning institutions often
seem to limit their concerns to declarative knowledge and converging
thinking. While immersion experiences in exhibition centers are
considered fun and/or exciting, classroom learning is more often seen
by learners as the complete opposite. But immersion can (and should)
play a critical role in the classroom. I recall that some of the most
outstanding teachers I had were able to make me feel immersed in the
subject matter. One of my undergraduate history professors had us
re-live the renaissance in Italy using verbal descriptions and 35-mm
slides of the art and architecture of 17th Century Italy.
What do visitors learn during the exhibit immersion experience? The
answer, I believe, is that it depends upon the design and content of
the exhibit. They can learn facts that relate to traditional academic
objectives (declarative knowledge). They may learn a skill such as how
to use a microscope of fulcrum (procedural knowledge). They may also
learn spatial knowledge about the exhibit’s setting (how to find their
way). They may learn what it is like to be in a cave or coal mine.
They may learn to feel the sadness of a great historical tragedy
(affective). These experiences are more vivid and memorable than those
produced by reading alone. This is not to disparage the importance of
reading. Reading is equally important in the learning process. Reading
can also transport you into another time and place. Nevertheless, I
believe there are times when reading distorts our perceptions. For
example, reading about the early U.S. space vehicles in a book is not
quite the same as sitting in one of these vehicles at the Space &
Rocket Center in Huntsville, AL. As discussed later, it may be
possible to facilitate the immersion experience by the use of
suggested mental imagery in labels such as “Imagine yourself in a
tropical forest ….”
The major point of the above discussion is: learning associated with
immersion is more experience driven than it is information driven.
Instead of emphasizing the acquisition of facts, concepts, etc., a
more pervasive understanding of the subject matter is sought – one
that includes the feelings of experiencing another time and/or place,
curiosity, excitement, etc.
What Factors Produce the Experience of Simulated Immersion?
There can be little doubt that the characteristics of an exhibit
either enhance or detract from the experience of simulated immersion.
The question is: “What are these factors and how important is each in
creating the experience of immersion?”
A logical analysis of exhibit characteristics in conjunction with a
literature reviw suggests that the following factors may contribute to
simulated immersion:
1.
The use of physical space (dimensionality, feeling of space
surround)
2.
Environmental feedback
3.
Multisensory stimulation
4.
Authenticity or object realism
5.
Use of “real time” or “dramatic time”
6.
Social involvement
7.
Mental imagery
8.
Artistic portrayal
9.
Lighting effects
The Use of Physical Space (Dimensionality)
The dimension of exhibit space can vary from a two-dimensional graphic
on the wall (2-D), to a three-dimensional object in a barren exhibit
case (3-D), to a three-dimensional ob ject placed within a realistic
or thematic backgroup (3-D+) to an exhibit with features that totally
surround the visitor (space surround). The total volume of space may
also influence the immersion experience. A 12 X 12 foot graphic is
expected to be more immersing than a 2 X 2 foot graphic. It is
difficult to argue with the assertion that the use of exhibit space
influences perceived immersion. Does a space surround exhibit enhance
the feeling of immersion more than a 3-D+ exhibit?
Jon Coe (1985; 1986) has made an eloquent argument for designing zoo
exhibits using the principle of “landscape immersion.” He describes
this type of exhibit as follows:
“It is an approach where the landscape dominates the architecture and
the zoo animals appear to dominate the public. The zoo becomes a
landscape with animals. In this approach, the visitor leaves the
familiar grounds of an urban park called a zoological garden, and
actually enters into the simulated habitat of the animals. The animals
remain separated from the public by invisible barriers, but the people
do enter the animals’ realm and … may even consider themselves to be
trespassers in the wilderness home of the plants and animals. Every
effort is made to remove or obscure contradictory elements, such as
buildings, service vehicles, or anything that would detract from the
image or experience of actually being in the wilderness.” (Coe, 1986,
p. 9)
Coe seems to believe that perceived immersion is created by the
realistic illusion of animals placed in their natural habitats.
Critical to this illusion is the absence of objects that are not found
in the natural environment. This argument seems to imply that, all
other factors being equal, a “space surround” exhibit (one that
completely surrounds you in the illusion) should produce greater
feelings of immersion than a diorama exhibit (a three-dimensional
object or live animal placed within a thematic background). Our
studies at the Anniston Museum attempted to look at supporting
evidence for the “space surround” factor.
In the first study (Bitgood, et al, 1990a) we had visitors complete a
survey rating all of the exhibition areas in terms of bipolar
descriptors such as “exciting-unexciting,” “feeling of being in the
time and place-feeling of not being in the time and place.”
Unfortunately, our results did not strongly support the assumption
that a “surround” exhibit was more immersive than a diorama. A
simulated walk-through cave exhibit was no more effective in making
the visitors feel they were in the “time and place” of the exhibit
than diorama exhibits on North American animals (Attack & Defense) or
naturistic dioramas in the African Plains exhibit area. It is possible
that the authenticity of other exhibit features (in addition to the
use of space) influenced this finding or it may be that space surround
factors are not as critical as the thematic background or subject
matter of the exhibit. We are studying this question further.
Although Coe did not mention the presence of labels, it seems
reasonable to assume from his arguments that exhibit labels placed
within an otherwise naturally simulated environment would detract from
the feeling of immersion. This view is shared by many designers of
such naturalistic exhibits. There is often a reluctance to mar such
exhibits with labels. Thus, the Brookfield Zoo’s Tropic World is
devoid of labels. The Alabama Cave in the Anniston Museum of Natural
History has all of its interpretation on panels placed in an area
prior to the visitor entering the cave. Unfortunately, there is no
data available comparing feelings of immersion in exhibitions with and
without labels. However, we do have some data that may pertain to this
issue. Anniston Museum’s Attack & Defense exhibition has well-designed
labels that produce a high rate of reading; despite this, visitors
report a high degree of “feeling in the time and place.” Perhaps
well-designed labels do not have to interfere with immersion.
Environmental Feedback
Environmental feedback, a second factor that may enhance simulated
immersion, occurs in many types of exhibits. Environmental feedback
takes place when a visitor’s response produces some change in the
environment. Interactive exhibits provide such feedback. Examples of
such exhibits are common in science and children’s museums.
Interactive computers tell visitors if they responded correctly to a
self-test. Pressing a button that spot lights some object within an
exhibit/diorama is sometimes used to focus attention. A response to a
question asked by a visitor to a living history interpreter is another
example of environmental feedback. Another example is successfully
manipulating a tool used by some past civilization.
Multi-sensory Stimulation
The use of multi-sensory stimulation is also assumed to ehance the
feeling of immersion in an exhibit. If the visual stimuli in the
exhibit are paired with other sensory inputs (sounds, smells, texture,
temperature, etc.), greater immersion is likely to be created. In the
Alabama Cave exhibit at the Anniston Museum, visitors often refer to
the trickling water running over the cave formations and the coolness
and darkness that makes it feel like a cave. How important are the
sounds, temperature, and lighting effects in producing the feeling
that you are in a cave? In our second study (Bitgood, et al, 1990b),
we found a high correlation between visitor ratings of “feeling in the
time and place” and multisensory stimulation. Touch, smell, and taste
have also been used in combination with visual stimuli. Further study
is needed to assess how important this factor is to immersion.
Object Realism or Physical Authenticity
Yellis (1990), citing Graburn (1984) argued that authenticity is a
major theme underlying modern behavior. Physical authenticity, or
object realism, may play an important role in simulated immersion. It
seems reasonable to assume that the more realistic the objects, the
deeper the involvement of visitors. I suspect that, in most cases,
“realistic” replicas area as effective as the real object for
producing this experience; however, this speculation remains to be
demonstrated. Whether real human bones of Native Americans or
realistic looking replicas are placed in a simulate burial site may be
immaterial as far as the visitor is concerned.
In one museum we have visited, the head of a hippo submerged in a
simulated river, looked like a fake, plastic hippo head. How much does
this unrealistic object detract from the visitor’s perception of
immersion? I am not sure.
In our studies at the Anniston Museum of Natural History we have found
that “naturalism” or “realism” was correlated with “feeling of time
and place.” We are not sure yet how much this factor contributes to
the immersion experience.
Use of Time
Can both “real time” and “dramatic time” facilitate simulated
immersion? Yellis (1990) contrasts “real time” with “dramatic time.”
The following table summarizes this difference:
Real Time Dramatic Time
Normal time Time is compressed
Outlined scenarios Scripted scenarios
People act like the actual people People act more dramatically than
real life
They are re-creating in real time
Visitors must be active in Visitors passively accept interpretation of
actor
Interpreting experience
_____________________________________________________________________
Yellis argues that “real time” is an important factor in producing
simulated immersion at Plimoth Plantation. Costumed interpretation
using both “real” and “dramatic” time is popular in living history
museum and this factor warrants study.
Social Involvement
Social involvement may work either as a facilitator or an inhibitor to
the immersion experience. A live interpreter may successfully engage
the visitor in such a way as to produce a deeply immersing experience.
On the other hand, crowds of other visitors, children pulling on
mother’s hand, impatient companions who pressure you to move more
quickly or who critize the exhibition, may serve to inhibit the
experience of immersion.
Prompted Mental Imagery
Prompting visitors to feel immersed also appears to be effective.
Prompting may include role playing by visitors or a suggestion for
visitors to use mental imagery (e.g., “Imagine yourself in the place
of ….”). Labels that suggest mental imagery to the visitor may also
facilitate the immersion experience. Consider this example from the
Anniston Museum of Natural History:
“…Imagine you are the Elk. The wolves come out of nowhere. If you run,
they chase and if you stand, they bite. You must use your defenses!”
Is the above label effective in making visitors feel immersed in the
exhibit? It seems to be. In our second study (Bitgood, et al, 1990b)
label content was rated as important in “making you feel involved in
the exhibit.”
Live interpreters may also effectively prompt mental imagery. An
interpreter’s suggestion of placing yourself in the time and place of
the exhibit may be extremely effective judging from the research
literature using mental imagery in memory exercises, as well as in
therapeutic techniques for reducing fear and anxiety.
Artistic Portrayal
We found that effectiveness of the artistic portrayal was associated
with other variables we considered part of the immersion experience
(Bitgood, et al, 1990a; 1990b). At this point, it is not clear how the
perceived artistic value contributes to the experience or how
respondents interpret the concept of “artistic.”
Lighting Effects
We also found the ratings of lighting level to be associated with the
immersion factor. Lighting level may help to set the atmosphere of the
exhibit; alternatively, glare and inadequate lighting may interfere
with the experience.
Meaningfulness and Understanding
To become immersed in an exhibit the viewer must understand the
content and the subject matter must be meaningful. In our studies we
found that exhibits that produced a “feeling of time and place” were
also rated as “meaningful.”
Variables That Interfere with the Immersion Experience
Our research at the Anniston Museum of Natural History suggests that
several factors may detract from the immersion experience: distracting
sights and sounds, bad placement of exhibits, lack of information
about the exhibit, confusing messages, and social inhibition. These
are the same variables that detract from any successful exhibit
experience.
How Can Perceived Immersion be Measured?
There has been considerable debate over whether the traditional
scientific methodology used in formal education adequately applies to
informal educational settings. Are we being limited by this
methodology in attempting to evaluate learning in informal settings?
Or, have we simply failed to adequately identify a broad range of
objectives to measure? I would argue that if measurable objectives are
identified, current methods are adequate.
Several approaches can be taken to the study of perceived immersion.
Whatever the procedures used, it is important to use multiple methods
so that a more complete picture of the visitor experience is obtained.
Each method has its strengths and weaknesses. Self-reports may contain
distortions that could lead to erroneous inferences. Direct
observation, by itself, can give only part of the picture.
Measurement Methods
There are many possible ways that the concept of immersion could be
measured. Here is a brief description of the general methodologies.
These methods can be used with experimental or correlational studies.
Correlational studies may include factor analysis, cluster analysis,
or regression analysis. Care must be taken to ensure, however, that
the information collected is objective, reliable, and valid. If it
minimizes personal bias, in the collection of information, it is
objective. If it uses standardized methods of collecting information
so that all observers follow the same recording protocols, it is
likely to be reliable. And, if it is free from distortion (e.g.,
overpredicting or underpredicting the actual phenomena being studied),
then it is likely to be valid.
1.
Questionnaires and rating scales. These techniques have
respondents answer questions in writing or rate an exhibit on
particular characteristics that might reflect perceived immersion.
Visitors might be asked to give their general impressions of
exhibits. Or, they can be asked to rate how exciting one exhibit
is compared with others. This method was used by Bitgood, et al.
(1990a; 1990b) and Griggs (1984).
2.
Direct observation. Visitors may be unobtrusively observed and
verbal comments carefully recorded aqnd analyzed as tgo their
content. Statements that reflect perceived immersion can compared
from one exhibit to the next. Obviously, statements such as “I
really feel like we are in a cave” suggest immersion. Observers
might also record how attentive visitors are to exhibit
characteristics versus interfering stimuli such as the presence of
other people.
3.
Interview. Visitors can be asked open-ended questions about
exhibits and their responses recorded and later analyzed into
categories reflecting perceived immersion.
4.
Other methods. A number of other methods might prove fruitful. For
example, visitors could be given audio recorders and instructed to
record their impressions as they view exhibits. These tapes could
be transcribed and a content analysis conducted.
Issues That Need to be Addressed
1.
Identification of factors that enhance perceived immersion. In
this paper I have suggested some possible factors that influence
the immersion experience. The relative contribution of each of
these factors to the immersion experience remains to be
determined. For exhibits designed to produce an illusion, does the
use of space contribute more than the use of non-visual sensory
inputs? How important is object realism? What are the factors that
contribute to aesthetic immersion?
2.
Factors that interfere with perceived immersion. How much do
crowds detract from the immersion experience? Do labels and other
interpretive materials diminish the illusion?
3.
More detailed description of the nature of the experience. The
description of immersion needs to be analyzed in more detail. Can
immersion experiences really be categorized accurately into
illusionary, interactive, and aesthetic types? Are there other
types that may be important?
Summary and Conclusion
The purpose of this paper was to suggest that the concept of perceived
immersion is an important visitor experience, that it can be described
and measured, that it is strongly related to museum learning, and that
it is worthy of intensive study. The true worth of this concept has
yet to be demonstrated. Can the notion of immersion be used to predict
visitor reactions? Will it lead to more effective exhibits? Is there
such a general phenomenon that applies to all kinds of exhibition
centers? These are some of the questions that must be asked and
answered if immersion is to prove a useful mechanism in exhibit design
and visitor evaluation.
References
Alt, M. & Shaw, K. (1984). Characteristics of the ideal museum
exhibits. British Journal of Psychology, 75, 25-36.
Bitgood, S., Ellingsen, E., & Patterson, D. (1990a). Toward an
objective description of the visitor immersion experience. Visitor
Behavior, 5(2), 11-14.
Bitgood, S., Ellingsen, E., & Patterson, D. (1990b). How important is
the visitor immersion experience? Presented at the Visitor Studies
Conference, Washington, DC.
Csikzentmihalyi, M., Csikzentmihalyi, S. (Eds.) Optimal experience:
Psychological studies of flow in consciousness. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Coe, J. (1985). Design and perception: Making the zoo experience real.
Zoo Biology, 4, 197-208.
Coe, J. (1986). Towards a co-evolution of zoos, aquariums, and natural
history museums. AAZPA Proceedings. Minneapolis, MN
Graburn, N. (1977). The museum and the visitor experience. Museum
Education Anthology, Pp. 177-182.
Griggs, S. (1984). Visitor perceptions and evaluation of seven
exhibitions at the Natural History Museum. London, UK: British Museum
(Natural History).
Maslow, A. (1965). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper.
Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary (1986). Springfield, MA:
Merrian-Webster.
Yellis, K. (1990). Real time: The theory and practice of living
history at Plimoth Planation. Plymoth, MA: Plimoth Planation.

  • THE UNITED STATES BURN SUPPORT ORGANIZATION MY NAME IS
  • PRIJAVNICA ZA JUBILARNI 10 ZNANSTVENI PIKNIK 242592021 PERIVOJ DVORCA
  • TABLA CON LAS CARACTERÍSTICAS RELEVANTES DE LA ADOPCIÓN INTERNACIONAL
  • ESTATUTOS COMUNIDAD PROPIETARIOS EDIFICIOS “MIRADOR VILLABLANCA II (PORTALES 3
  • SAMPLE DATA SAFETY MONITORING PLAN THE INDIVIDUALS RESPONSIBLE FOR
  • VESELI AUTOBUS IZNENAĐENJA 2606 2507 2108
  • 9 LIN BUS – AN EMERGING STANDARD FOR BODY
  • 22 H TRIBUNAL SUPERIOR DE JUSTICIA SECRETARIA GENERAL DE
  • FORMULARIO DE RECLAMO I DATOS PERSONALES DEL RECLAMANTE NOMBRE
  • TWO METHODOLOGIES TO BUILD INFLATION LEADING INDICATORS FOR BRAZIL
  • OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS FOR THE ADOPTION OF SUSTAINABLE FOREST
  • ZAHTEV ZA ZAPOŠLJAVANJE – JAVNI OGLAS INSTRUKCIJE MOLIM VAS
  • 26122014 TARİHLİ VE 29217 SAYILI RESMİ GAZETEDE YAYIMLANMIŞTIR ENERJI
  • J URIDISKĀM PERSONĀM SIA NESTE LATVIJA 1 (1)
  • JUAN – SOLAMENTE HACE DOS DÍAS QUE HE VUELTO
  • SOLICITUD DE BAJA COLEGIAL D Dª   CON
  • 1) POPOLN SISTEM DOGODKOV MNOŽICO DOGODKOV S{A1A2…AN} IMENUJEMO POPOLN
  • JOSÉ AGUSTÍN DOS HORAS DE SOL DOS HORAS DE
  • INFORMATION FOR PERMIT HOLDERS (FURTHER INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE IN
  • VIRGINIA STATE BAR JUDICIAL EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE COURT OF APPEALS
  • CURSO INTERNACIONAL SOBRE ACCESIBILIDAD Y AYUDAS TÉCNICAS PARA TODOS
  • SOAL PEMANTAPAN 1SEBUAH PQR SIKUSIKU DI Q PQ
  • SERVIÇO PÚBLICO FEDERAL MINISTÉRIO DA EDUCAÇÃO SECRETARIA DE EDUCAÇÃO
  • ANTTON VALVERDE 28 DE FEBRERO TEATRO 2030 15
  • [TYPE TEXT] GENDER PRIMER EXERCISE GENDER QUIZ
  • AN FORUM ST STEPHAN OTTO MAUER ZENTRUM WÄHRINGER STR
  • ROADS INFRASTRUCTURE MAROOCHY SHIRE COUNCIL PLANNING SCHEME POLICY NO
  • DE ANZA COLLEGE STUDENT ACCOUNTS ADMINISTRATIVE UNIT OUTCOME 20102011
  • СОСТАВ КОТИРОВОЧНОЙ КОМИССИИ НА ОКАЗАНИЕ УСЛУГ ПО ШИНОМОНТАЖУ И
  • ……………………………… (MIEJSCOWOŚĆ DATA) WOJEWÓDZKI INSPEKTOR