Presentation done by Dr. M. Claudia Leue, Dr. Timothy Jung and Dario tom Dieck, during "Augmented reality" workshop, of the ENTER2015 eTourism conference.

1. ENTER 2015 Research Track Slide Number 1
Google Glass Augmented Reality:
Generic Learning Outcomes
for Art Galleries

2. ENTER 2015 Research Track Slide Number 2
Background
• Increasingly, art galleries are asked to provide
evidence of their efforts towards facilitating
visitors’ learning experience (Hooper-Greenhill et
al., 2003)
• AR has the potential to create a realistic learning
environment through the projection of content in
front of art objects

3. ENTER 2015 Research Track Slide Number 3
Google Glass
• Completed its developer program in Jan 2015
• At the last stage towards releasing a consumer
version
• Focus is on niche industry application e.g.
medical, manufacturing, museums and galleries
• At this point in time, research is particularly
important for museums and art galleries to
understand the opportunities of Google Glass

4. ENTER 2015 Research Track Slide Number 4
Google Glass cont.
• Interaction through
touch pad & voice
command
• Will change the way
visitors experience
museums (Rhodes and
Allen, 2014)

5. ENTER 2015 Research Track Slide Number 5
Google Glass cont.
• Traditionally more
utilised on smart-
phones, the launching
of Google Glass allows
art gallery visitors to
receive augmented
information while
looking at paintings

6. ENTER 2015 Research Track Slide Number 6
Aim
• We aimed to assess whether Google Glass can
enhance the knowledge and understanding, skills,
attitude and values, enjoyment, inspiration and
creativity as well as activity, behaviour and
progression of visitors at Manchester Art Gallery

7. ENTER 2015 Research Track Slide Number 7
Theoretical Framework
Source: Hooper-Greenhill et al. (2003)

8. ENTER 2015 Research Track Slide Number 8
Generic Learning Outcomes
“the perceived benefits visitors … have from a
museum visit … These benefits may include
changes in knowledge or skills and so on but,
more often than not, they are much more
subtle. They may be about seeing something
in a different light, making new links, or
discovering that museums can be fun places”
(Monaco and Moussouri, 2009, p. 318)

9. ENTER 2015 Research Track Slide Number 9
Methods
• Project from Jan. until June 2014
• Development of Museum Zoom
AR Application
– 33Labs & DevXtend
• Testing on 16th
and 17th
of June
• Experiments and interviews with
22 participants, recruited via
social media
• 20-59 age range

10. ENTER 2015 Research Track Slide Number 10
Methods
• Visitors experienced paintings through Google Glass
• Content overlaid in the format of small cards
• Application provided information (audio, text) on:
– painting, artist, related paintings (theme,
medium, artist), location
• Functions:
– Sharing
– Read aloud

11. ENTER 2015 Research Track Slide Number 11

12. ENTER 2015 Research Track Slide Number 12
Methods
• The 30 minutes
testing was followed
by a semi-structured
interview inquiring
about the GLO
categories
• Thematic analysis

13. ENTER 2015 Research Track Slide Number 13
Findings 1
• Knowledge and Understanding
– majority of participants improved their
knowledge and understanding of the
art because of Google Glass and the
Museum Zoom AR application
• “it was a lot easier to digest the
information”
– Feeling more responsive
• “I was actually looking closer at the
paintings and looking at them in more
detail”

14. ENTER 2015 Research Track Slide Number 14
Findings 2
• Skills
– Participants identified ‘appreciation’ as a new skill they
have learned
• “I would normally look at the images and walk away but now I
am asking myself different questions”
• “it made me look at the art in a different way and look at the
way it is constructed and the subjects in it rather than the
painting as a whole”
• “it made you kind of appreciate [the paintings] more and look
at them more rather than just going around and glance at
each”

15. ENTER 2015 Research Track Slide Number 15
Findings 3
• Attitudes and Values
– Participants found advantages, usefulness and
benefits of using Google Glass in the gallery
– Educational value
– Personalisation
• “value for me is … that [Google Glass] is able to direct your
journey through the gallery much more specifically and I think
there is a lot to be said for being able to create your own
experience rather than what an audio guide tells you what to
do step by step”.

16. ENTER 2015 Research Track Slide Number 16
Findings 4
• Enjoyment, Inspiration and Creativity
– Created a seamless and instant experience
• “seamless experience hinders me from getting
bored, which is normally the case in art galleries”
– Inspiration to learn
• “I was most inspired by the connections between
the paintings… and the way the pictures were
brought together”
– Negative aspects:
• Disappointed in limited content
• Feeling isolated from other people

17. ENTER 2015 Research Track Slide Number 17
Findings 5
• Activity Behaviour and Progression
– Made visitors more perceptive, reflective
– Makes them ask more questions
• What links are available?
• “it will change the way I will be looking at the
painting. I think I will look at the way paintings are
constructed and look at the way subjects have been
depicted more”
– However, one participant “felt more
intrusive to the enjoyment of others”

18. ENTER 2015 Research Track Slide Number 18
Discussion
• This study used GLO as a
framework to apply it to a
new technology within the
art gallery context
• Contributes to the
literature and knowledge
on life-long learning within
the visitor economy

19. ENTER 2015 Research Track Slide Number 19
Discussion cont.
• Participants confirmed that they normally look at
art individually without making any connections
• Google Glass helped to see new links/ to look
deeper
• Personalised experience
 Considered the prominent learning outcomes of
using Google Glass within the art gallery

20. ENTER 2015 Research Track Slide Number 20
Discussion cont.
• Audio guides (also mobile-
based) follow a similar
approach
– freely select a desired route
based on personal preference
(Huang et al., 2011)
• Google Glass perceived to be
a more personal and
convenient device
– due to the hand-free approach

21. ENTER 2015 Research Track Slide Number 21
Concerns
• Isolation from other people
• Feeling intrusive to the experience of other people
• Audio, although quiet might be heard by other visitors
• Some did not like the attention they received
• Battery-life
• Heating of device
• Price
• Hard to see when wearing glasses (if not the own device)

22. ENTER 2015 Research Track Slide Number 22
Conclusion
• Learning outcomes may entail changes in
knowledge or skills however, may also be more
subtle
– Using new and innovative devices seems to change
the viewpoint which may change future visit activity
and behaviour
• However, the success of Google Glass as a learning
facilitator is dependent on personal circumstances,
experiences and preferences

23. ENTER 2015 Research Track Slide Number 23
Limitations & Future Research
• Majority of participants 20 – 39
– Future research should include a wider spectrum
of participants
• Participants should be segmented into technology
adoption classes based on their perceived degree
of innovativeness
• Use of a control group would enhance the reliability
of findings (compare mobile with wearable)

24. ENTER 2015 Research Track Slide Number 24
Thank you very much for your attention!
c.leue@mmu.ac.uk t.jung@mmu.ac.uk d.tom-dieck@mmu.ac.uk
@creativeARhub
facebook.com
/creativearhub
www.creativear.or
g