What Biological Visualizations Do Science Center Visitors ... - MDPI

education sciences Article

What Biological Visualizations Do Science Center Visitors Prefer in an Interactive Touch Table? Gunnar E. Höst , Konrad J. Schönborn *, Henry Fröcklin and Lena A. E. Tibell Department of Science and Technology (ITN), Linköping University, Campus Norrköping, Norrköping 60174, Sweden; [email protected] (G.E.H.); [email protected] (H.F.); [email protected] (L.A.E.T.) * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 30 June 2018; Accepted: 24 September 2018; Published: 6 October 2018







Abstract: Hands-on digital interactivity in science centers provides new communicative opportunities. The Microcosmos multi-touch table allows visitors to interact with 64 image “cards” of (sub)microscopic biological structures and processes embedded across seven theme categories. This study presents the integration of biological content, interactive features and logging capabilities into the table, and analyses visitors’ usage and preferences. Data logging recorded 2,070,350 events including activated category, selected card, and various finger-based gestures. Visitors interacted with all cards during 858 sessions (96 s on average). Finger movements covered an average accumulated distance of 4.6 m per session, and about 56% of card interactions involved two fingers. Visitors made 5.53 category switches per session on average, and the virus category was most activated (average 0.96 per session). An overall ranking score related to card attractive power and holding power revealed that six of the most highly used cards depicted viruses and four were colourful instrument output images. The large finger traversal distance and proportion of two-finger card interaction may indicate the intuitiveness of the gestures. Observed trends in visitor engagement with the biological visualizations are considered in terms of construal level theory. Future work will examine how interactions are related to potential learning of biological content. Keywords: visualization in biology education; (sub)microscopic scale; digital touch table interfaces; science centers

1. Introduction The digital revolution is providing novel ways for communicating scientific knowledge to citizens. This raises the hypothesis that hands-on interactive exploration in digital science center contexts could provide new knowledge-building experiences. Herein, one advantage of interactive science center exhibits is their potential to induce engagement through curiosity and exploration [1,2]. In turn, doing so also offers citizens new opportunities for engaging and learning about objects, processes and systems that are beyond direct human vision [3]. Recent research indicates that interactions afforded by modern technologies play a critical and highly relevant role in scientific meaning-making [4]. Moreover, recent work [5–7] also shows that analytical tools that track and log users’ behavioural interactions can produce fine-grained information about how bodily processes of interaction could map onto processes of engagement and learning. Modern science center and museum environments across the world such as Science Centre Singapore and London’s Science Museum, incorporate various immersive interactive exhibits to communicate science, allowing for new active opportunities for engagement and discovery [8]. The Visualization Center C in Sweden develops interactive visualization platforms to communicate scientific phenomena. One such technology is the digital table interface, which affords multi-touch interaction with embedded content. For example, the “Microcosmos” table (Figure 1) has been Educ. Sci. 2018, 8, 166; doi:10.3390/educsci8040166

www.mdpi.com/journal/education

Sci. 2018, 2018, 8, 8, x166 Educ. Sci. FOR PEER REVIEW

of 14 15 22 of

developed to provide public visitors with an individual and/or collaborative opportunity to access, developed provide public visitorsvisualizations with an individual and/or collaborative opportunity to access, view and to manipulate embedded of (sub)microscopic biological structures and view and manipulate embedded visualizations of (sub)microscopic biological structures and processes. processes.

Figure Figure 1. 1. Public Public visitors’ visitors’ collaborative collaborative multi-touch multi-touch interaction interaction with with the the Microcosmos Microcosmos table table in in aa digital digital science center context. science center context.

As curatorsand andpedagogues pedagogues to pursue the communicative and potential educational As curators aimaim to pursue the communicative and potential educational benefits benefits of museum and science center environments in the digital age, increasing research attention of museum and science center environments in the digital age, increasing research attention is on is on measuring aspects as attraction, engagement, holding powerand anddwell dwelltime time of of interactive measuring aspects suchsuch as attraction, engagement, holding power interactive exhibits exhibits [9–12]. [9–12]. Another Another developing developingarea area isis probing probing how how visitors visitors actually actually use use and and interact interact with with the the digital digital platforms, and what the nature of interaction may eventually imply for learning [5,7,13]. This paper reports reportsthe thefirst first findings from an overall research programme investigating how This paper findings from an overall research programme investigating how visual visual can be incorporated into andigital interactive digital touch table to communicate contentcontent can be incorporated into an interactive touch table to communicate (sub)microscopic (sub)microscopic biological phenomena. addition, the to research aims explore the preference and biological phenomena. In addition, theInresearch aims explore theto preference and engagement engagement attributes of the embedded biological visualizations through logging visitors’ interaction attributes of the embedded biological visualizations through logging visitors’ interaction with features with featuresofand of the table The future of the work will examine how users’ and content thecontent table interface. Theinterface. future phase of the phase work will examine how users’ interactions interactions related to any potential learning of biological and processes. are related toare any potential learning of biological concepts andconcepts processes.

1.1. Research Research on on Interactive Interactive Multi-Touch Multi-Touch Tables 1.1. Tables in in Science Science Center Center and and Museum Museum Settings Settings Digital interactivity the way content is discovered, communicated Digital interactivityis changing is changing thescientific way scientific content is accessed, discovered, accessed, and explored [14,15]. Experiences afforded by modern digital technologies play a critical role how communicated and explored [14,15]. Experiences afforded by modern digital technologies in play a sciencerole topics interesttopics and engagement during individual and collaborative interaction [12,16,17]. critical in evoke how science evoke interest and engagement during individual and collaborative The last decade or soThe haslast witnessed thesorapid emergence finger-based multi-touch tablesmulti(e.g., interaction [12,16,17]. decade or has witnessed theofrapid emergence of finger-based Figuretables 1) as communication in science centersin and museums [12,13,18]. In such[12,13,18]. contexts, touch (e.g., Figure 1) asinterfaces communication interfaces science centers and museums touch more than mere of display”—they physically and digitally mediate In suchinterfaces contexts,are touch interfaces are “modes more than mere “modes of display”—they physically and between science communicator and user through various interactive features [8,19]. At the same time, digitally mediate between science communicator and user through various interactive features [8,19]. given interactive digital platforms respond to user inputs, researchers are finding At thethat same time, given that interactive digitaldynamically platforms respond dynamically to user inputs, it increasingly relevantitto explore what choices users make In this regard, researchers are finding increasingly relevant to explore whatduring choicesinteraction users make[20]. during interaction data logging techniques offer a means to obtain information about how users interact with a system. [20]. In this regard, data logging techniques offer a means to obtain information about how users interact with a system. Recently, logging has been applied to research contexts where real-time

Educ. Sci. 2018, 8, 166

3 of 15

Recently, logging has been applied to research contexts where real-time recording of user actions reveals fine-grained detail about interactive and exploratory preferences [5–7,21]. Seven selected studies concerned with engagement, communication and learning properties of multi-touch table interfaces that concern visitors’ interaction with the technology in science center and museum contexts are reviewed below. Their review is not intended as an exhaustive account of research on human interaction with multi-touch digital tables at large. In a study by Zaharias et al. [22], a 3D multi-touch table comprising a mirror reflecting a projected image onto a horizontal table surface, and an infrared camera that tracked user finger movements, was used to represent the “Walls of Nicosia” in a municipal museum in Cyprus. The aim of interacting with the table was to provide the user with a virtual tour of the fortifications of Nicosia while facilitating users’ engagement and participation. Features of the table included navigating through visualized content by pressing virtual buttons. Additional two-finger gestures also allowed zooming, panning, and tilting of the perceived view. A comparison between a group of 5th-year school students (“control” group) that learned the content through paper-based materials with another (“virtual” group) that interacted with the table showed no significant differences in learning outcomes. However, the group that interacted with the touch table revealed a significantly more favourable user experience than the control group [22]. As part of another museum context, Ynnerman et al. [8] have combined CT scanning and volumetric visualization to produce the “Gebelein Man”—a virtual human mummy that users can interact with on a multi-touch table interface. Interactive features of the touch table include rotation in the horizontal axis, clipping planes, zooming with two-finger pinching and stretching, and using a slider to display embedded graphics. While present as an interactive exhibit (alongside the original physical mummy) in the Early Egypt Gallery of the British Museum, an evaluation study with the virtual Gebelein Man showed a 40% increase in visitors’ dwell time in the gallery. The results revealed an average 2:09 interaction time with the table and visitors scored overall ease of use of the table at 90%. The findings have implications for engagement and pedagogical possibilities offered by multi-touch interactive displays in public settings. For example, an earlier study by Jönsson et al. [18] that evaluated users’ gesture-based exploration of volumetric data rendered on a touch table interface at a science center in Sweden, provides implications for formulating design recommendations that could improve factors such as exhibit dwell time. With respect to work investigating the role of gesture in interactions with multi-touch digital tables, Hinrichs and Carpendale [13] have studied visitors’ engagement with “Collection Viewer” at the Vancouver Aquarium. The application contains a distributed collection of image, video and animation media that communicate content about the biology and environment of the Arctic. Users interact individually or collaboratively with the table surface through a set of multi-touch gestures that include translation, rotation, scaling and flicking. Ethnographic analysis of 943 gesture events demonstrated that rather than performed in isolation, gestures were often intricately linked with, and influenced by, previous and subsequent interactive sequences. The results have important implications for the implementation of gesture sets in public interactive tables aimed at communicating scientific content (cf. [23]). Through a multi-touch table exhibit called “DeepTree” [7,10], users can explore evolutionary relationships between species in a visualized “tree of life”. Users can display different domains of life by moving “horizontally” in the virtual tree or moving “vertically” to delve into time and locate the branch point where speciation occurred. Learners can also discover the last common ancestor of any two species. While present as an exhibit at the Harvard Museum of Natural History (HMNH), an evaluation of the interface by Block et al. [10] showed that dwell times were higher than for other exhibits, and that interaction with the table induced various positive affective responses. In further work conducted at the California Academy of Sciences, a systematic observational analysis by Block et al. [12] on visitors’ interaction with the technology has pointed towards various design guidelines related to visitors’ engagement with communicated scientific content. Among other findings, and by also incorporating event logging of user actions, a follow-up study [7] at HMNH and the Field Museum in Chicago showed a significant relationship between physical interaction with the touch

Educ. Sci. 2018, 8, 166

4 of 15

table and verbal utterances related to the embedded content. The results of this research indicate that carefully designed interactive features in touch table interfaces can be used to meaningfully “encode” complex scientific concepts. Overall, the reviewed studies probe pertinent questions on how users interact with multi-touch tables to access and explore scientific content aimed at the public. In turn, the work provides inroads into how content and interactive features can be designed to improve intuitive gesture-based exploration of visualized data for science communication. However, the literature suggests that more work is required to further explore the factors that influence the nature of interaction and collaboration around multi-touch digital tables [12,23]. Moreover, from a content perspective, little is known about the role of such tools in visitors’ exploration of aperceptual phenomena that are beyond our direct visual experience, such as the microscopic structures and processes constituting the biological world. It is this juncture that motivates an empirical inquiry into science center visitors’ engagement, preferences, and interactions with visualized (sub)microscopic biological content communicated through interactive touch table technology. 1.2. Aim of the Study The setting of the current study is in Sweden, where science centers are recognised components of the educational infrastructure, and seen as potential agents for increasing visitors’ interest in science [24]. The aim of this study is to analyse public visitors’ interaction with a digital touch table when exploring visualized (sub)microscopic biological content. 2. Methods 2.1. Integrating Content and Interactive Features into a Multi-Touch Digital Table—Microcosmos The Microcosmos touch table investigated in this study is a further development of an application that was originally designed for the opening of the Visualization Center C in Norrköping, Sweden in 2010. The aim of the application is to provide visitors with access to the wide range of imagery used in life science to represent objects and processes that are too small to be seen with the naked eye. Among the static images and dynamic visuals are photomicrographs, electron microscopy images, computer-generated molecular models based on experimental data, animations, videos, illustrations and paintings. The system was designed to allow multi-user exploration of the content as well as provide a flexible interface for explanations given by science center guides. Designing Microcosmos involved embedding 64 visualization “cards” in the form of 43 static and 21 dynamic images (animations and videos) into an interactive system displayed in full HD resolution (Figure 1). The cards are grouped within seven thematic categories (proteins, viruses, cells, molecules, genes, processes of life and diseases) that can be selected by touching the respective category on the bar at the base of the display interface (see Figure 1). Activating a category visualizes the group of cards associated with that biological theme. In a similar fashion to earlier designed multi-touch tables reported by Shen et al. [25] and Hinrichs and Carpendale [13], a suite of interactive features allows visitors to (collaboratively) interact with a single (or multiple) card(s) through finger-based gestures that include selecting, moving, zooming and rotating. For example, a card can be selected and moved with a single finger, and touching respective text and image symbols on each card switches between the visualization (“front” of the card) and a textual description (“back” of the card). Two fingers are used to zoom (increase or decrease the card size) or to rotate a card (see Figure 1). In the default state of the system the cards “float” freely on the display area, based on the integration of a physics engine. The system returns to this state 10 s after any interaction activities have ceased, and switches to a new category if no user interacts with the table within 90 s. The development of the software used an Agile approach with incremental rounds of testing and refining the table system until it performed as per the intended design described above. The resulting software was structured into six main parts, with functions related to handling cards, rendering images

Educ. Sci. 2018, 8, 166

5 of 15

and videos, video playback, menu interactions and logging. Logging was achieved by including a function that monitored data received from the hardware and software output to allow capture of predefined variables. These included activated theme category, selected card, as well as card and finger coordinates related to contact (“finger down”) and release (“finger up”), movement, rotation and zooming. The logging was executed in the code that handles cards and consists of writing a text row to a log file for each finger update from the hardware. The program was written in C++, using the lightweight Simple DirectMedia Layer library to provide low level access to graphics (via OpenGL support) and touch interaction. FFmpeg was used for video playback, while XML files with media metadata were read using RapidXml. Hardware comprised a standard tower computer with a graphics card (NVIDIA GeForce 680) and a 55-inch LCD display. Light sources in the display frame creates a grid across the table surface. The system detects any intersections of the grid and feeds the data to the program. The number of simultaneously detected grid intersections is limited to six different objects. 2.2. Logging and Analysing Visitors’ Interaction with Microcosmos The Microcosmos table was an unguided exhibit available for open-ended visitor exploration in the Visualization Center C during data collection for this study. The data corpus consists of anonymously logged data for the period 1–31 July 2017. Parameters of users’ engagement with the table were calculated from the log files using spreadsheet software (Microsoft Excel). As a first step, the log data were parsed into “sessions” [26], defined here as periods of interaction separated by at least 60 s of table inactivity. Variables for describing overall usage included the average session time, average session finger movement and average number of theme category switches per session. Before calculating averages, pre-processing of the log files was performed in the spreadsheet software to calculate the time since session start, the distance traversed by finger movements, and the number of theme category switches, respectively, for each session. An indication of how often users interacted with multiple fingers was achieved by calculating the fraction of interactions in which multi-touch interaction (i.e., zoom and rotate) was evident from logged changes in the states for cards. As a second step, the log data was analyzed at the level of individual cards. Three different measures were calculated for each card as indicators of how engaging each respective card was for visitors. Two of these measures are related to the attractive power of cards to induce visitors’ interaction: the number of sessions that a card was used in, and the number of sessions in which a card was used as the first card. The third measure is related to the holding power of cards and was calculated as the mean number of log entries associated with a card in the sessions wherein it was used. On cross-examining the log files and card database it was discovered that two cards had accidentally been assigned identical names. These cards were removed from analysis since they could not be separated in the log data. As a third step, a ranking score was calculated to allow sorting of the cards with respect to visitor engagement (e.g., Table 1). The calculation involved three steps. Firstly, the measures of attractive power were adjusted for each card by dividing the value with the number of theme categories that the card was a member of. Doing so accounts for the increased likelihood that a visitor encounters a card that is present in multiple categories, which could otherwise introduce a bias when comparing cards that are not members of the same number of categories. The holding power measure is not affected by this bias since it only considers cases where a card has already been encountered and selected for interaction by the user. Secondly, the three measures of engagement were normalized with respect to the ranges of values for each measure. The resulting normalized values range from 0 for the least used card to 1 for the most highly used card for each measure. Thirdly, the ranking score for each card was calculated by summing the normalized values produced in the previous two steps, resulting in possible ranking scores ranging from 0–3. The ranking scores were sorted to produce lists of the ten highest and the ten lowest scores, representing cards that users engaged with the most and the least, respectively. The two lists of cards were analysed with respect to features that may be linked to users’ differential engagement.

Educ. Sci. 2018, 8, 166

6 of 15

Table 1. Procedure for calculating ranking scores for users’ engagement with cards in the Microcosmos touch table exhibit, with one example image from among the most engaged cards and one from the least engaged cards, respectively. Operation

Variable

1. Liquid Crystalline DNA (in 1 Category)

60. Staphylococcus (in 2 Categories)

Sessions First usage Entries/session

116/1 = 116 19/1 = 19 339

122/2 = 61 8/2 = 4 150

Sessions (range 36–116) First usage (range 0–19) Entries/session (range 93–452)

(116 − 36)/80 = 1.00 19/19 = 1.00 (339 − 93)/359 = 0.68

(61 − 36)/80 = 0.31 4/19 = 0.21 (150 − 93)/359 = 0.16

Ranking score

1.00 + 1.00 + 0.68 = 2.68

0.31 + 0.21 + 0.16 = 0.68

Adjustment by category occurrence

Normalization by range of adjusted values

Summing of values

3. Results and Discussion 3.1. Visitors’ Interaction with the Microcosmos Table Analysis of the month-long log sample, consisting of two million (2,070,350) log events, suggested that visitors interacted with all of the available cards, during 858 sessions. The average session time was 96 s, which compares favourably with other reported exhibit holding times in science center and museum contexts [11,18]. Furthermore, visitors engaged all the available interactive features in the system throughout the study period, including all the biological theme categories. Finger movements covered an average accumulated distance of 4.6 m per session, and the majority of interactions with the table interface (approximately 56%) were performed using two fingers (e.g., zooming and rotating). This may indicate the intuitiveness of the zooming and rotation finger gestures for exploring the biological visualizations. Together with the large finger distance traversed on the table surface, this also suggests a potentially important role of bodily interaction in engaging and exploring visualized biological content for education [3]. The session construct was applied since there are no “natural” units of analysis associated with the table or readily available in the data [26]. This is a consequence of the multi-user and multi-touch features of the table, where usage may range from a single individual interacting with the table for a well-defined period to groups of individuals that interact with variable levels of cooperation (cf. [12]). Also, the anonymous data does not contain any information about the composition of users at any one time. Figure 2 provides an example of the distribution of data points generated by users’ interaction with the touch table during one session. It is intended to demonstrate that the captured data relates to interactive finger-based gestures such as selecting, moving, zooming and rotating. In this example, multiple users (probably at least three, positioned at the top left, top right, and lower right corners of the table surface, respectively) are engaged with the exhibit during the session, and interacting across large parts of the touch table surface. The higher density of data points in the upper left corner indicates that a particularly active person (or persons) was positioned there, while a person(s) standing close to the lower right corner were less active. In summary, results from the overall usage data analysis indicates that visitors engaged with the exhibit to an extent comparable to typical exhibits. In addition, they utilized the multi-touch functionality and actively interacted with the table.

Educ. Sci. 2018, 8, 166

7 of 15

Educ. Sci. 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW

7 of 14

Logged finger finger positions positions on on the the horizontal horizontal table table surface surface obtained obtained from from aa session session of of users’ users’ Figure 2. Logged interaction with with Microcosmos. Microcosmos.The Thetracked trackeddata datawere were captured during a session that lasted 6 min, interaction captured during a session that lasted 6 min, in in which users moved their fingers a collective distance approximately which thethe users moved their fingers a collective distance of of approximately 16 16 m.m.

3.2. Visitors’ Preferences for Visualized Biological Content 3.2. Visitors’ Preferences for Visualized Biological Content The log files contained an average of 5.53 category switches per session. In terms of biological The log files contained an average of 5.53 category switches per session. In terms of biological content, the virus category was the most frequently activated (0.95 activations per session on average). content, the virus category was the most frequently activated (0.95 activations per session on The other categories were less frequently activated, with average number of activations per session average). The other categories were less frequently activated, with average number of activations per ranging from 0.72 to 0.80 (Table 2). session ranging from 0.72 to 0.80 (Table 2). Table 2. Users’ total and average category activations across the seven theme categories embedded in Table 2. Users’ total and average category activations across the seven theme categories embedded the Microcosmos touch table. in the Microcosmos touch table. Category Category Viruses Viruses Cells Cells Diseases Diseases Molecules Molecules Genes Proteins Genes Proteins Life processes Life processes

Total Activations Average Activations per Session Total Activations Average Activations per Session 812 0.95 812 0.95 687 0.80 687 0.80 677 0.79 677 0.79 673 0.78 673 0.78 649 0.76 649 0.76 630 0.73 630 0.73 619 0.72 619 0.72

Interaction with individual cards varied greatly. For example, the number of sessions was seven Interaction with individual cards varied greatly. For example, the number of sessions was seven times larger for the most frequently activated card than for the least frequently activated card. Similarly, times larger for the most frequently activated card than for the least frequently activated card. the number of times a card was accessed first during a session ranged from 0 to 48, while interaction Similarly, the number of times a card was accessed first during a session ranged from 0 to 48, while with cards yielded average numbers of log entries that varied by a factor of almost 5. The difference in interaction with cards yielded average numbers of log entries that varied by a factor of almost 5. The average number of entries between the between most (median = 141) and the leastand (median = 6) used cards difference in average number of entries the most (median = 141) the least (median = 6) was statistically significant (Mann-Whitney U = 551, p < 0.001). The differences in interaction between used cards was statistically significant (Mann-Whitney U = 551, p < 0.001). The differences in different cards indicate that there systematic differences in how users chose in to how engage with the interaction between different cardswere indicate that there were systematic differences users chose visualized content. In the following, trends in those differences will be described and interpreted. to engage with the visualized content. In the following, trends in those differences will be described The overall ranking score, based on the two attractiveness measures and the measure of holding and interpreted. power, list of the ten most cards andmeasures the ten least cardsof(Tables Theyielded overallaranking score, basedhighly on the accessed two attractiveness andaccessed the measure holding3 and 4). Six of the most highly used cards (images 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10 in Table 3) concerned viruses, while power, yielded a list of the ten most highly accessed cards and the ten least accessed cards (Tables 3 none4). ofSix theof least cards (Table 4) concerned The cards3)among the highly accessed and theactivated most highly used cards (images 3,viruses. 4, 5, 7, 9, 10 only in Table concerned viruses, while none of the least activated cards (Table 4) concerned viruses. The only cards among the highly accessed cards that depicted cells did so in the context of virus infection with only parts of a cell

Educ. Sci. 2018, 8, 166

8 of 15

Educ. Sci. 2018, 8, xx FOR PEER REVIEW Educ. Educ. Sci. Sci. 2018, 2018, 8, 8, x FOR FOR PEER PEER REVIEW REVIEW

88 of 14 8 of of 14 14

cards that depicted cells did so in the context of virus infection with only parts of a cell visible (image 9 visible (image in Table while theof three of cells among the least used images and videos visible in 3), while depictions of cells the used images and in Table while999the three 3), depictions cellsdepictions among the used images and videos portrayed whole visible3),(image (image in Table Table 3), while the the three three depictions ofleast cells among among the least least used images and videos videos portrayed whole cell structures (images 55, 56, 60 in Table 4). Apart from the difference in scientific portrayed whole cell structures (images 55, 56, 60 in Table 4). Apart from the difference in scientific cellportrayed structureswhole (images 56, 60 in(images Table 4). the 4). difference in scientific content, there were cell55, structures 55,Apart 56, 60 from in Table Apart from the difference in scientific content, there were also clear differences in representational preference. Most notably, the content, there clear in representational style preference. Most notably, the also clear differences representational style Moststyle notably, the highly content, there were wereinalso also clear differences differences in preference. representational style preference. Mostaccessed notably,images the highly accessed images and videos contain a larger number that integrate colour, sharper contrasts, accessed and videos contain aa larger number that colour, sharper contrasts, highly accessed images and videosthat contain larger number that integrate integrate colour, sharper contrasts, andhighly videos containimages a larger number integrate colour, sharper contrasts, and are brighter than the and are brighter than the less accessed images and videos. For example, all four images among the are than the less images videos. For all images among the and are brighter brighter than thevideos. less accessed accessed images and and videos. For example, example, all four four images among theare lessand accessed images and For example, all four images among the highly accessed that highly accessed that are based on instrument output (e.g., electron microscopy) are colourful (images highly accessed that are based on instrument output (e.g., electron microscopy) are colourful (images highly thatoutput are based on instrument output (e.g.,are electron microscopy) are (images based on accessed instrument (e.g., electron microscopy) colourful (images 1,colourful 6, 9, 10 in Table 3), 1, 6, 9, 10 in Table 3), while the three transmission electron microscopy images among the least 1, 6, 9, 10 in Table 3), while the three transmission electron microscopy images among the least 1, 6, 9, 10 in Table 3), while the three transmission electron microscopy images among the least while the three transmission electron microscopy images among the4). least accessed an images have a accessed images have aa greyscale appearance (images 56, 60, 61 in Table Interestingly, exception accessed images have greyscale appearance (images 56, 60, 61 in Table 4). Interestingly, an exception accessed images have a greyscale appearance (images 56, 60, 61 in Table 4). Interestingly, an exception greyscale appearance (images 56, 60, 61 in Table 4). Interestingly, an exception to the trend towards to the trend towards lower brightness and colour intensity among less used cards are images that use to images to the the trend trend towards towards lower lower brightness brightness and and colour colour intensity intensity among among less less used used cards cards are images that that use use lower brightness and colour intensity among less used cards are images that use aare watercolour style to aa watercolour style to represent complex molecular scenes (images 57, 58, 59 in Table 4). a watercolour watercolour style style to to represent represent complex complex molecular molecular scenes scenes (images (images 57, 57, 58, 58, 59 59 in in Table Table 4). 4). represent complex molecular scenes (images 57, 58, 59 in Table 4). Table 3. Most highly accessed cards based on two measures related to attractiveness and one measure Table Table 3. 3. Most Most highly highly accessed accessed cards cards based based on on two two measures measures related related to to attractiveness attractiveness and and one one measure measure

Table 3. Most highly accessed cards based twoofmeasures related to attractiveness and onein measure related to holding power, presented in on order rank score. (Image credits are provided the related related to to holding holding power, power, presented presented in in order order of of rank rank score. score. (Image (Image credits credits are are provided provided in in the the related to holding power, presented in order of rank score. (Image credits are provided in the Acknowledgements). Acknowledgements). Acknowledgements). Acknowledgements). Card Name

Card Name Card Card Name Name

Media Type

1. Liquid Crystalline DNA 1. Crystalline 1. Liquid Liquid DNA Crystalline DNA DNAImage 1. Liquid Crystalline

2. DNA molecule 2. 2. DNA molecule 2. DNA DNA molecule molecule

3. Virus

3. Virus 3. 3. Virus Virus

Media Rank Media Rank Media Rank Type Score Type Score Rank Score Type Score

Image Image Image 2.68

2.68 2.68 2.68

Image

Image Image Image 2.15

2.15 2.15 2.15

Image

Image Image Image 2.11

2.11 2.11 2.11

Visual Appearance Visual Visual Appearance Appearance Visual Appearance

Educ. Sci. 2018, 8, 166

9 of 15

Educ. Sci. 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW Educ. Sci. 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW Educ. Sci. 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW Educ. Sci. 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW Educ. Sci. 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW Educ. Sci. 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW

Card Name

4. HIV HIV virus virus 4. 4. HIV virus 4. HIV virus 4. HIV virus 4. HIV virus4. HIV virus

9 of 14 9 of 14 9 of 14 9 of 14 9 of 14 9 of 14

Table 3. Cont. Media Type

Rank Score

Image Image Image Image Image Image 2.07

2.07 2.07 2.07 2.07 2.07 2.07

Image Image Image Image Image 2.05 Image

2.05 2.05 2.05 2.05 2.05 2.05

6. EC-SOD—protect EC-SOD—protect cells cells from from oxygen oxygen radical radical 6. 6. EC-SOD—protect cells from oxygen radical damage EC-SOD—protect cells from oxygen radical 6.6.EC-SOD—protect cells damage Image 6. EC-SOD—protect cells from oxygen radical damage from radical damage damage 6. oxygen EC-SOD—protect cells from oxygen radical damage damage

Image Image Image Image 1.90 Image Image

1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90

7. HIV HIV virus virus infecting infecting aa cell cell 7. HIV virus infecting a cellVideo 7. HIV virus7. a cell 7.infecting HIV virus infecting a cell 7. HIV virus infecting a cell 7. HIV virus infecting a cell

Video Video Video 1.81 Video Video Video

1.81 1.81 1.81 1.81 1.81 1.81

8. Water Water transport transport channel channel 8. 8. Water transport channel 8. Water transport channelImage 8. Water transport channel 8. Water transport channel 8. Water transport channel

Image Image Image 1.80 Image Image Image

1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80

9.infecting HIV virus virus infecting aa cell cellImage 9. HIV virus9. a cell HIV infecting 9. HIV virus infecting a cell 9. HIV virus infecting a cell 9. HIV virus infecting a cell 9. HIV virus infecting a cell

Image 1.78 Image Image Image Image Image

1.78 1.78 1.78 1.78 1.78 1.78

Image

5. Poliovirus Poliovirus with with human human cell cell receptors receptors 5. 5. Poliovirus with human cell receptors 5. Poliovirus human cell receptors 5. Poliovirus with with human 5. Poliovirus with human cell receptors Image receptors 5.cell Poliovirus with human cell receptors

Visual Appearance

Educ. Sci. 2018, 8, 166

10 of 15

Educ. Sci. 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW Educ. Sci. 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW Educ. Educ.Sci. Sci.2018, 2018,8,8,xxFOR FORPEER PEERREVIEW REVIEW Educ. Sci. 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW

Card Name

Table 3. Cont.

Media Type

10. Swine flu virus (H1N1) 10. Swine flu virus (H1N1) 10. Swine flu 10. Swine fluvirus virus(H1N1) (H1N1) 10. Swine flu virus (H1N1) Image 10. Swine flu virus (H1N1)

Rank Score

Image Image Image Image 1.73 Image

10 of 14 10 of 14 1010ofof1414 10 of 14

Visual Appearance

1.73 1.73 1.73 1.73 1.73

Table 4. Least highly accessed cards based on two measures related to attractiveness and one measure Table 4. Least highly accessed cards based on two measures related to attractiveness and one measure Table 4.4.Least highly accessed cards based two measures related toto one measure Table Least highly accessed cards based ontwo twoof measures related attractiveness and one measure related to holding power, presented in on order rank score. (Image credits areand provided in the Table 4. Least highly accessed cards based measures related toattractiveness attractiveness and one measure related holding power, presented in on order rank score. (Image credits are and provided in the Table 4.to Least highly accessed cards based on twoof measures related to attractiveness one measure related to power, presented ininorder order ofofrank rank credits are provided ininin the related to holding holding power, presentedin orderof rankscore. score.(Image (Image credits are provided the Acknowledgements). related to holding power, presented score. (Image credits are provided the Acknowledgements). related to holding power, presented in order of rank score. (Image credits are provided in the Acknowledgements). Acknowledgements). Acknowledgements). Acknowledgements). Card Name Media Type Rank Score Visual Appearance Card Name Media Type Rank Score Visual Appearance Card Name Media Type Rank Score Visual Appearance Card Name Media Type Rank Score Visual Card Name Card Name Media Type Rank Score Visual Appearance Appearance Media Type Rank Score Visual Appearance

55. Red blood cells 55. Red blood cells 55. 55.Red Redblood bloodcells cells 55.cells Red blood cells Image 55. Red blood

56. Stem cell 56.Stem Stem cell 56. Stemcell cell 56. Stem cell56. 56. Stem cell

Image

57. Antibodies binding to foreign protein 57. 57. Antibodies binding Antibodies bindingto toforeign foreign protein Image 57. Antibodies binding protein to protein 57.foreign Antibodies binding to foreign protein 57. Antibodies binding to foreign protein

58. Cytoplasm 58. Cytoplasm 58.Cytoplasm Cytoplasm 58. 58. Cytoplasm 58. Cytoplasm

Image

Image Image Image Image Image

0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85

Image Image Image Image Image

0.77

Image Image Image Image Image

0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75

Image Image Image Image Image

0.74

0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77

0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74

Educ. Sci. 2018, 8, 166

11 of 15

Educ. Sci. 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW Educ. Sci. 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW Educ. Sci. 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW Educ. Educ. Sci. Sci. 2018, 2018, 8, 8, xx FOR FOR PEER PEER REVIEW REVIEW Educ. Sci. 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW

Card Name

Media Type

11 of 14 11 of 14 11 of 14 11 11 of of 14 14 11 of 14

Table 4. Cont. Rank Score

59. 59. Muscle Muscle sarcomere sarcomere 59. Muscle Muscle sarcomere 59. 59. Muscle sarcomere sarcomere 59. Muscle sarcomereImage 59. Muscle sarcomere

Image Image Image Image Image Image

60. 60. Staphylococcus Staphylococcus 60. Staphylococcus Staphylococcus 60. 60. Staphylococcus Image 60. Staphylococcus 60. Staphylococcus

Image Image Image Image Image Image

0.69

0.68

0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69

0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68

61. Electron micrograph Electron micrograph of of amyloid amyloid fibrils fibrils 61. 61. Electron micrograph 61. Electron micrograph of of amyloid amyloid fibrils 61. Electron micrograph fibrils Image 61. Electron micrograph of amyloid fibrils of amyloid 61. Electronfibrils micrograph of amyloid fibrils

Image Image Image Image Image Image

0.63

0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63

62. 62. The ribosome - the-- the 62. The The ribosome ribosome the protein protein factory factory 62. The The ribosome ribosome -- the the protein proteinVideo factory 62. protein 62. Thefactory ribosome - the protein factory factory 62. The ribosome - the protein factory

Video Video Video Video Video Video

0.61

0.61 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.61

63. Transport over a cell a cell membrane 63. 63. Transport Transport over over a cell membrane Video 63. Transport over a cell membrane membrane membrane 63. 63. Transport Transport over over aa cell cell membrane 63. Transport over a cell membrane

Video Video Video Video Video Video

64. Adenosine 64. Adenosine 64.receptor Adenosine receptor receptorImage 64. Adenosine Adenosine receptor receptor 64. 64. Adenosine receptor 64. Adenosine receptor

Image Image Image Image Image Image

0.50

0.00

Visual Appearance

0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

A possible explanation for the revealed trends in engagement may be offered by construal level A possible explanation the revealed trends in engagement may be A possible explanation forfor the revealed trends in engagement may be offered offeredby byconstrual construallevel level A possible explanation for the revealed trends in engagement may be offered by construal level theory [27]. According to construal level theory, the level at which humans construe objects and A possible explanation for the revealed trends in engagement may be offered by construal level A possible explanation for the revealed trends in engagement may be offered by construal level theory [27]. According to construal level theory, the level at which humans construe objects and theory [27]. According to construal level theory, the level at which humans construe objects and events theory [27]. According to construal level theory, the level at which which humans construe objects and A possible explanation for the revealed trendsthe intoengagement may be offered by construal level theory [27]. According to construal level level at humans construe objects and events is influenced by the psychological distance that object, the distance from an egocentric theory [27]. According to construal level theory, theory, the level at which humans construe objects and events is influenced by the psychological distance to that object, the distance from an egocentric is influenced by the psychological distance to that object, the distance from an egocentric reference theory [27]. According to construal level theory, the level at which humans construe objects and events is influenced by the psychological distance to that object, the distance from an egocentric events is influenced by the psychological distance to object, the distance from egocentric reference in the here and now. In particular, objects that are at aa close psychological to events is point influenced by the psychological distance to that that object, the distance from an an distance egocentric reference point in the here and now. In particular, objects that are at close psychological distance to events is point influenced by the distance to are that distance from an distance egocentric point in the here and now. Inpsychological particular, objects that atobject, a close psychological distance to to the reference point in the the here and now. In particular, objects that are atthe a close close psychological distance to reference in here and now. In particular, objects are at a psychological the person will be construed at a low level, which means that concrete details and contextual factors reference point in the here and now. Inlevel, particular, objects are at a close psychological distance to the person will be construed at a low which means that concrete details and contextual factors reference point in the here and now. In particular, objects that are at a close psychological distance to the person will be construed at a low level, which means concrete details and contextual factors person will bewill construed at a construal. low level,level, which means that that concrete details andpsychological contextual factors will the person at which means concrete details and factors will be emphasized in the contrast, that are at aa larger the person will be be construed construed at aa low low By level, which objects means that concrete details and contextual contextualdistance factors will be emphasized in the construal. By contrast, objects that are at larger psychological distance the person will be construed at a low level, which means that concrete details and contextual factors will be emphasized in the construal. By contrast, objects that are at a larger psychological distance be emphasized in the construal. By contrast, objects that are at a larger psychological distance will emphasized in construal. By contrast, objects are at psychological distance will construed in more abstract manner, emphasizing overarching aspects of an will be be emphasized ina the the construal. By contrast, objects that thatthe arecentral, at aa larger larger psychological distance be construed in more abstract manner, emphasizing the central, overarching aspects of an will be emphasized the construal. By contrast, objects arecentral, atoverarching a larger psychological distance beMultiple construed ininaaaabstract more abstract manner, emphasizing the central, overarching aspects of an be construed in a more manner, emphasizing thethat central, aspects of anof object. will be construed in more abstract manner, emphasizing the overarching aspects object. psychological distances may be involved in this effect, including spatial, temporal, will be Multiple construed in a more abstract manner, emphasizing the central, overarching aspects of an an object. psychological distances may be involved in this effect, including spatial, temporal, will be construed in a more abstract manner, emphasizing the central, overarching aspects of an object. Multiple psychological distances may be involved in this effect, including spatial, temporal, object. object. Multiple Multiple psychological psychological distances distances may may be be involved involved in in this this effect, effect, including including spatial, spatial, temporal, temporal, object. Multiple psychological distances may be involved in this effect, including spatial, temporal,

Educ. Sci. 2018, 8, 166

12 of 15

Multiple psychological distances may be involved in this effect, including spatial, temporal, social, and hypotheticality distances [27]. In terms of users’ interaction with visualizations in the present study, properties of the visualizations may be related to differences in psychological distance and corresponding differences in construal level. In turn, we propose that low and high construal levels may be associated with different user behaviours in exploring the content. Lee et al. [28] propose that black-and-white images may be associated with a larger psychological distance than colour images in at least two ways. Firstly, black-and-white may connote a greater temporal distance, given that historical events that took place before the invention of colour reproduction are often displayed in greyscale. Secondly, black-and-white may also connote a larger social distance, since most people experience their everyday surroundings in colour. In addition, they add that black-and-white may tend to highlight contours and shapes, which might reinforce the same cognitive processing that is associated with high-level construal [28]. Taken together, this would tend to induce a high-level construal of black-and-white images and a low-level construal of colour images. The above reasoning does not explain the appearance of brightly coloured images among the less engaged images. We propose that hypotheticality may be an important dimension in this regard. Objects that are psychologically close on the hypotheticality dimension are more real and associated with a higher probability, while imagined or unlikely objects and events are more distant [27]. In relation to the present study, images that appear more like physical objects (e.g., 3D-models and electron micrograph images) may be perceived as more real (closer on the hypotheticality dimension) compared to 2D paintings (more distant on the hypotheticality dimension), which could induce a difference in construal level between different types of coloured images. The presence of one image that also uses a watercolour style to display a virus (image 4, Table 3) indicates that other mechanisms may also be involved. For example, familiarity with the portrayed objects may influence the psychological distance in relation to another dimension, namely the information distance [29]. It is reasonable to suggest that the spherical virus-particle portrayed in image 4 (Table 3) is more familiar than the protein complexes shown in image 57, 58 and 59 (Table 4), respectively. Pre-knowledge may also have other effects that are unrelated to the effects from psychological distance on construal level. We argue that the findings in this study could be explained by differences in psychological distance associated with the images leading to different levels of construal. However, the ranking of images and videos was based on a measure of interactive engagement rather than level of construal per se. Hence, applying construal level theory to the results of the study would imply an association between level of construal and interactive behaviour. Given that a low-level construal tends to focus on details, it may be reasonable to expect that users would interactively explore the details to a higher degree than images that are construed at a high level. Conversely, a high level of construal focuses on central properties, for example form, and the relevant processing of the images may therefore not require as much interaction. Further research is needed to investigate the relations between levels of construal and interactive behaviour among users. 4. Conclusions This study has provided insight into engagement and preference factors related to exploration of visualizations of the biological microcosmos through interactive multi-touch digital table technology. The findings indicate that the Microcosmos interactive touch table (Figure 1) attracts visitor attention, is highly usable, and that it may afford important embodied experiences of interacting with biological representations. Visitors showed a preference for virus-related content, as indicated by both card use and theme category switch data. “Realistic” images (e.g., micrographs) were shown to be highly engaging, provided they integrated coloured elements. Further preferences included colourful images, while cards with dark or greyscale colours and low contrast were less preferred. An interesting contradiction to this trend is the observation that complex biological scenes portrayed using a watercolour style seemed to induce low engagement among the visitors. A possible explanatory framework for this finding is construal level theory [27], which posits that differences in psychological

Educ. Sci. 2018, 8, 166

13 of 15

distance between stimuli engender different levels of construal. The implications for design, engagement and learning with scientific visualizations warrant further investigation. Future work will probe the urgent empirical challenge of systematically exploring how the interactive features of modern visualization technologies impact learning outcomes [20]. In this regard, interaction and narrative are becoming two critical components of interactive visualization at public venues [8] that require continued inspection. Future work will use the revealed preference and interactive trends from this study to inform the design and integration of science narratives [30] into the table interface as an additional tool for communicating biological phenomena to visitors. This will entail complementing logged data with think-aloud interview protocols, to aid the analysis of any relationships between visitors’ interaction and learning of biology. Author Contributions: All authors conceptualized and wrote the manuscript. H.F. coded and integrated the software and was responsible for the technical upkeep of the table interface. G.E.H. performed the main analysis, and K.J.S. and L.A.E.T. provided feedback during the process. K.J.S. performed the literature review and synthesized the current state of the art. L.A.E.T. sourced the visuals. K.J.S., G.E.H. and L.A.E.T. acquired funding for the project. Funding: This research was funded by Norrköpings fond för Forskning och Utveckling grant number NK KS 2016/0417. Acknowledgments: Images in Tables 3 and 4 are used with permission. Image credits: 1. Image data courtesy of Olympus Corporation https://www.olympus-lifescience.com/; 2. Svilen Milev; 3. Animech AB, Jonas Törnros; 4. David S. Goodsell, the Scripps Research Institute; 5. Image made with VMD by researchers at the NIH Center for Macromolecular Modeling and Bioinformatics, Beckman Institute, University of Illinois; 6. Lena Tibell; 7. Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Copyright 2007. All rights reserved. www.BioInteractive.org; 8. Emad Tajkhorshid, NIH Center for Macromolecular Modeling and Bioinformatics, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; 9. Dennis Kunkel Microscopy/Science Photo Library; 10. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Influenza Laboratory; 55. HAAP Media, SXC.hu; 56. National Institutes of Health (NIH); 57. David S. Goodsell, RCSB PDB; 58. David S. Goodsell, the Scripps Research Institute; 59. David S. Goodsell, the Scripps Research Institute; 60. Todd Jarry, Ambrose Cheung, Louisa Howard; 61. Per Hammarström and Peter Nilsson, IFM, Linköping University; 62. MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology, Cambridge, UK; 63. RISE Interactive C-Studio and Lena Tibell; 64. Stefano Forli, The Scripps Research Institute. The authors thank Visualization Center C for providing public access to the Microcosmos exhibit. The authors also thank Karljohan Lundin Palmerius for early conceptual input and technical advice. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, and in the decision to publish the results.

References 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

6. 7.

8.

Stocklmayer, S.M.; Rennie, L.J.; Gilbert, J.K. The roles of the formal and informal sectors in the provision of effective science education. Stud. Sci. Educ. 2010, 46, 1–44. [CrossRef] Ynnerman, A.; Löwgren, J.; Tibell, L. Exploranation: A new science communication paradigm. IEEE Comput. Graph. Appl. 2018, 38, 13–20. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Johnson-Glenberg, M.C.; Birchfield, D.A.; Tolentino, L.; Koziupa, T. Collaborative embodied learning in mixed reality motion-capture environments: Two science studies. J. Educ. Psychol. 2014, 106, 86. [CrossRef] Lui, M.; Slotta, J.D. Immersive simulations for smart classrooms: Exploring evolutionary concepts in secondary science. Technol. Pedagogy Educ. 2014, 23, 57–80. [CrossRef] Schönborn, K.; Höst, G.; Lundin Palmerius, K.; Flint, J. Development of an interactive immersion environment for engendering understanding about nanotechnology: Concept, construction, and implementation. Int. J. Virtual Pers. Learn. Environ. 2014, 5, 40–56. [CrossRef] Schönborn, K.J.; Bivall, P.; Tibell, L.A.E. Exploring relationships between students’ interaction and learning with a haptic virtual biomolecular model. Comput. Educ. 2011, 57, 2095–2105. [CrossRef] Horn, M.S.; Phillips, B.C.; Evans, E.M.; Block, F.; Diamond, J.; Shen, C. Visualizing biological data in museums: Visitor learning with an interactive tree of life exhibit. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2016, 53, 895–918. [CrossRef] Ynnerman, A.; Rydell, T.; Antoine, D.; Hughes, D.; Persson, A.; Ljung, P. Interactive visualization of 3D scanned mummies at public venues. Commun. ACM 2016, 59, 72–81. [CrossRef]

Educ. Sci. 2018, 8, 166

9. 10.

11.

12.

13.

14. 15.

16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.

22. 23.

24.

25.

26.

27. 28.

14 of 15

Thuneberg, H.; Salmi, H. To know or not to know: Uncertainty is the answer. Synthesis of six different science exhibition contexts. J. Sci. Commun. 2018, 17, A01. [CrossRef] Block, F.; Horn, M.S.; Phillips, B.C.; Diamond, J.; Evans, E.M.; Shen, C. The DeepTree exhibit: Visualizing the tree of life to facilitate informal learning. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 2012, 18, 2789–2798. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Sandifer, C. Technological novelty and openendedness: Two characteristics of interactive exhibits that contribute to the holding of visitor attention in a science museum. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2003, 40, 121–137. [CrossRef] Block, F.; Hammerman, J.; Horn, M.; Spiegel, A.; Christiansen, J.; Phillips, B.; Diamond, J.; Evans, E.M.; Shen, C. Fluid grouping: Quantifying group engagement around interactive tabletop exhibits in the wild. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Seoul, Korea, 18–23 April 2015; ACM: New York, NY, USA, 2015; pp. 867–876. Hinrichs, U.; Carpendale, S. Gestures in the wild: Studying multi-touch gesture sequences on interactive tabletop exhibits. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 7–12 May 2011; ACM: New York, NY, USA, 2011; pp. 3023–3032. Livingstone, S.; Sefton-Green, J. The Class: Living and Learning in the Digital Age; New York University: New York, NY, USA, 2016. Sundén, E.; Lundgren, I.; Ynnerman, A. Hybrid Virtual Reality Touch Table—An immersive collaborative platform for public explanatory use of cultural objects and sites. In Proceedings of the GCH’17 EUROGRAPHICS Workshop on Graphics and Cultural Heritage, Graz, Austria, 27–29 September 2017. Mishra, P.; Koehler, M.J. Technological pedagogical content knowledge. Teach. Coll. Rec. 2006, 108, 1017. [CrossRef] Falk, J.; Storksdieck, M. Using the contextual model of learning to understand visitor learning from a science center exhibition. Sci. Educ. 2005, 89, 744–778. [CrossRef] Jönsson, D.; Falk, M.; Ynnerman, A. Intuitive exploration of volumetric data using dynamic galleries. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Gr. 2016, 22, 896–905. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Barry, M. Please do touch: Discourses on aesthetic interactivity in the exhibition space. Particip. J. Audience Recep. Stud. 2014, 11, 216–236. Pedra, A.; Mayer, R.E.; Albertin, A.L. Role of interactivity in learning from engineering animations. Appl. Cognit. Psychol. 2015, 29, 614–620. [CrossRef] Buckley, B.C.; Gobert, J.D.; Kindfield, A.C.H.; Horwitz, P.; Tinker, R.F.; Gerlits, B.; Wilensky, U.; Dede, C.; Willett, J. Model-based teaching and learning with BioLogica: What do they learn? How do they learn? How do we know? J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 2004, 13, 23–41. [CrossRef] Zaharias, P.; Machael, D.; Chrysanthou, Y. Learning through multi-touch interfaces in museum exhibits: An empirical investigation. Educ. Technol. Soc. 2013, 16, 374–384. Hornecker, E. “I don’t understand it either, but it is cool”—Visitor interactions with a multi-touch table in a museum. In Proceedings of the 3rd IEEE International Workshop on Horizontal Interactive Human Computer Systems, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1–3 October 2008; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2008; pp. 113–120. Swedish National Agency for Education. Science Centers—A Memo about an Evaluation of Technology and Science Education; Science Centers—PM om en utvärdering av teknik- och naturvetenskap; Skolverket: Stockholm, Sweden, 2013. Shen, C.; Vernier, F.D.; Forlines, C.; Ringel, M. DiamondSpin: An extensible toolkit for around-the-table interaction. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Vienna, Austria, 24–29 April 2004; ACM: New York, NY, USA, 2004; pp. 167–174. Peltonen, P.; Kurvinen, E.; Salovaara, A.; Jacucci, G.; Ilmonen, T.; Evans, J.; Oulasvirta, A.; Saarikko, P. It’s mine, don’t touch! Interactions at a large multi-touch display in a city centre. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Florence, Italy, 5–10 April 2008; pp. 1285–1294. Trope, Y.; Liberman, N. Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychol. Rev. 2010, 117, 440–463. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Lee, H.; Deng, X.; Unnava, H.R.; Fujita, K. Monochrome forests and colorful trees: The effect of black-and-white versus color imagery on construal level. J. Consum. Res. 2014, 41, 1015–1032. [CrossRef]

Educ. Sci. 2018, 8, 166

29. 30.

15 of 15

Fiedler, K. Construal level theory as an integrative framework for behavioral decision-making research and consumer psychology. J. Consum. Psychol. 2007, 17, 101–106. [CrossRef] Murmann, M.; Avraamidou, L. Narrative as a learning tool in science centers: Potentials, possibilities and merits. JCOM J. Sci. Commun. 2014, 13, A02. [CrossRef] © 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).