Category: Reading Reflections

It took me a while to watch the Nancy Proctor video partly because, like Clete, I didn’t check my Broncomail. Also, once I read my e-mail (after class on Monday) I wanted to watch on my big PC monitor, but was frustrated with the audio. I finally ended up getting out a little laptop (one that my 83 year-old, rather tech savy father handed down to me) that I rarely use and plugged in the ear buds. The sound was really great.

I think my feelings about mobile devices in museums may be evolving. I’ve had this idea that people would pay more attention to their mobile devices than the actual exhibit, but I’m not sure I think that anymore. I have often used audio tour devices in museums because I find them more informational than reading signage on the walls. Though I sometimes get annoyed out and about in the world by how often people have ear buds in their ears, in a museum I appreciate being able to cut out other distractions and to concentrate on the exhibits. Now I have this shiny, new iPod Touch and I want to be able to use it. I really would like to be able to take my own device into a museum and access information from it. I used to spend lots of time looking up supplemental information before or after a trip to a museum… back in the dark ages from a big, multi-volumed, out-of-date encyclopedia. Now I could access extra information while I’m at the exhibit while it is fresh on my mind.

After seeing even a little bit of what is involved with getting a small-scale mobile project to “work” I think it is even more important that mobile devices be part of classes in public history. If the mission of a museum is to “provide access, education and interpretation to all audiences” then museum visitors are going to expect uses of new technology. Students who want careers in museums or as public historians need exposure and practical experience and time to think about any how new technology fits into their work.

Let me first say that technology is only as good as the person who reads his email.  In the case of this blog, since I didn’t read my email, I blame technology rather than take the blame myself.  I like how that works!  Sooooooooooo let me play catchup.   I did take the time to watch Nancy Proctor’s presentation and do agree that it looks like somebody filmed it with their cell phone and put it on YouTube.  Oh the irony of it all!    She brings up some very interesting ideas concerning the use of technology in museums.  I thought it was interesting how they were using this new technology for audio tours in Amsterdam in 1952 and sixty years later many museums haven’t got that far yet!  I think that if a museum really wants to take full advantage they need to accomplish a few things. 

First they need to have strong leadership that fully understands this new technology or hire somebody that fully understands it and give them full reign( or is it rein?)  to get the job done.  They also need to be able to accommodate all levels of customer understanding of technology.  They will have everyone from the 14 year old tech genius who almost knows too much, all the way down to the 80  year old grandma who still has a rotary dial phone in her house and is deathly afraid of all technology.  The trouble is that the museum only has a few minutes to accommodate these customers so they must be prepared for all levels beforehand.  This might require dividing the customer into A, B or C groups and adjusting the technology and presentation accordingly. 

I think we have all seen some of this in our class.  There is so much out there that is exciting and we wanted to use for our projects that we (or I) had a hard time trying to narrow it down to one or two.   The advantages of  using technology in our class was limitless, but our abilities to learn and time to learn was limited.  I think that if I was teaching a graduate or undergraduate public history course using mobile devices the I would keep it narrowed down to a few of the best apps or programs.  Assignment “A” would be done this way using that app, Assignment “B” would use another app, Assignment “C” would use another, etc.   I think all this mobile tech and apps is awesome, but drinking from a fire hose is hard to do and harmful to your health!

Thomas F. King has some serious issues!  He sounds like he might need to be on suicide watch. And who is this John H. Perkins on the back cover who said this book is a “joy to read”?  John, get a life!  If I saw Mr. King I would have to tell him to perk up buttercup!  If we think back to what was happening to our environment in the early 1900’s and the progress we made to correct those abuses, we should be very pleased.  The Endangered Special Act, Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, among others all helped to raise awareness of what we were doing wrong and help us start doing things right.  He seems to think we still aren’t doing enough, but he also needs to keep in mind that we still need an economy in this country.  We must still be able to harvest timber, extract resources and manufacture goods to keep our country strong.  And there is no reason why we can’t do all that and still protect our environment.

It is not about the technology, it is about the education. Nancy Proctor brought up several good points in her presentation. I want to focus on the ones that hit home for me. I have enjoyed having a having itouch this semester and exploring the technology involved in creating a mobile application. I have actually really enjoyed playing with app builders (even if I was not able to get past the cost of publishing). It has an instant gratification component to putting your research in and seeing a result instantly. However, I was swept up by the technology and maybe a little forgetful of my purpose to educate. I liked how Proctor concluded that we should not see this technology as bringing in new income into the museum atmosphere, although it may cut some costs as an education device, a device which enables as public historian to provide quality work to the general public. Often as an intern at the Idaho State Historical Museum in conversation with my peers we have discussed the need for the museum to become more business savvy to bring in more patrons and money. Proctors pointed out the museums life spans are ten times as great as any usual business. It occurred to me that Idaho Historical Museum has been in use downtown a lot longer than many businesses downtown; perhaps businesses should ask us what to do to stay alive through the ups and downs of an economy. I think there are still advantages to museum mobile apps that may bring in more revenue. Proctor’s illustration of the app that advertises the local paper was, in my opinion, great! It is two community based businesses supporting each other and public access to knowledge. Her talk gave me a lot of food for thought on mobile devices in the museum. I hope to see this implemented in several museums.

I think the advantage of the mobile device is the accessibility to it, especially to the younger generation. Specifically on our mobile music project it sells to a mass audience, but allows for a niche audience too. Music nets a broad audience, and like museums, has several niches. Boise has several music venues that fit a variety of music. We are able to access the interest of several people by using music as our “hook” and then bringing in history and the variety of music available in Boise. Liabilities…. Cost! (yea I am not going to get off this Buzztouch thing) I think Buzztouch is still an incredibly easy to use and great developer. I will some way or another make an app come to life from this developer (I have some other projects in the works). I wonder if you could get enough universities on board to create a grant or funds to entice apple, android, or blackberry to create a site similar to Buzztouch that allowed for students to create applications available, perhaps only through a “university app store”, to test their models and ideas without cost. This would benefit several colleges within universities business, history, education, ect.  Because of the popularity with mobile devices and technology, I see public history going in the same direction. It has become more apparent to me that web/mobile design skills are going to be an important factor in public history projects and jobs. I think it’s a great move in the museum’s long business run to keep up with.

There are several things I liked in Nancy Proctor’s presentation. First, I thought her emphasis on the experience and content of using mobile devices in a museum setting, instead of just concentrating on the technology was insightful. I think it can be easy to get wrapped up in the latest and greatest technology and as a result, lose sight of the purpose behind using the technological platform. The second topic that provoked me to think was Proctor’s emphasis on using mobile devices to facilitate conversation, instead of mere interpretation. I think mobile devices can be wildly successful at bringing people together and produce a truly wonderful collaborative product.

As far as the my group’s and my project, I think one of the advantages of using a mobile devices is, as Proctor mentioned, that it really can bring people from a variety of backgrounds together. Our project brings a face to a local farm through a mobile device and it caters to a “niche” of people in the Treasure Valley. One of the hardships I think that a mobile device brings to the project is that some farmers can be wary of its use in relation to their trade.

Like many of my classmates I think using mobile devices in classes is a good idea in theory. Like others mentioned, it can turn into a distraction rather than a learning tool. One thing I think BSU should look at (if they choose to push mobile device usage in classes) is there demographic. There is a sizable amount of non-traditional students and some (but certainly not all) might struggle with the application of mobile devices. I’ve encountered some who struggle with BroncoWeb or Blackboard, so if BSU did choose to push mobile devices they need to take the necessary precautions to make sure they educate all students on their usage. That being said I think the use of mobile devices in public history projects are fantastic, especially as Proctor pointed out, if they are targeted at niche topics people enjoy.

 

I really enjoyed Proctor’s emphasis that looked at content possibilities for mobile applications for museums rather than focusing on cutting edge technologies.  I am not a huge museum fan and this presentation made me realize that one of those reasons is the generic approach provided most exhibits that fail to engage me.  Proctor’s emphasis on using mobile technologies to cater to different niches intrigued me.  I think that this is a great approach to making museums more interactive, more personal, and more adaptable hopefully justifying their existence in the future.  I thought she also made a good point that most people will bring their own devices and that this would change the nature of the technology budget for museums.  I also like the idea that non-museum employees could be involved in creating tours or commenting on exhibits opening many more avenues to reaching a variety of niches that would be impossible for a museum to cater to.

For our mobile project, having an interactive and accessible tour on a mobile device makes it an affordable and easy way to present the information to the general public.  The downside, for me, is a bunch of people walking around downtown looking at their mobile devices as individuals.  I thought that Proctor had a good discussion about how to foster a discussion and group approach with mobile devices that would be interesting to incorporate into our project.  I agree with Anna that mobile devices sound like a good idea in theory for the classroom, but in practice tend to be a huge distraction.  There are many things that a mobile device could do to augment a history class (pictures, timelines, interactive maps, etc.) but I also think that facebook, twitter, and email would get just as much attention in a classroom setting.  I do, however, like the idea of utilizing mobile devices out of class for projects and to enhance the homework experience.  I also really love the idea of incorporating mobile technologies into public history.  I think Proctor was right in showing that people tend to be really interested in niche topics, and if these topics were addressed in more individualized mobile history projects public history would be more effective.

In a shocking turn of events, I not only plan to stay on topic… but also submit my commentary early!!! The weekly readings tend to invoke some inner turmoil that I need to express.. Luckily for all of you, this week’s assignment was rather tame and to the point. No emotions here. Strictly business.

Nancy Proctor has been involved on the professional end, with what we are experimenting with in this course. Museums are great for us ‘niche’-types who genuinely find them interesting and could be lost for days in a single exhibit. However, we are but a fraction of the general population, especially when it comes to a tourist-driven market. In order to make the average citizen excited about seeing a bunch of “old stuff” (as Bran Ferren called it), it’s the museum staff’s job to tempt them to not only walk through the doors, but also spend money to experience the museum.

When I was in Boston, my tiny art school provided us with free admission to the surrounding museums, largely the Museum of Fine Arts. I would go there at least twice a week, and spend at minimum, three hours usually focusing on a specific exhibit, painter, movement, or what-have-you. I rarely spent any money there besides an occasional bottle of water, and I’m sure my school’s contribution to gain us access to the MFA was much lower than if myself and my thousands of classmates were to be charged at every admission. We weren’t the focus of these measures that Nancy Proctor spoke of. Us art students may have experimented once and a while, but our purpose was to approach the piece in the mindset of our discipline, not be told how to do it. Same with Historians… we tend to want to immerse ourselves in the artifacts and construct scenarios and explanations.

My mobile app is to contribute to the general public history regarding the cultural movements in the city. There is no specific museum or organization that would be interested in funding the research or development for the application, however the individuals whose history and heritage is to be celebrated in this experiment would see it as invaluable. The liability in this is obviously the cost, which could be partially (or hopefully) recouped through the revenue created in subscriptions, advertisements, or purchases. The minimal (if any) profit would not allow this to be my hypothetical concentration, or make it feasible for anyone to hire me for this purpose. Add in the maintenance costs that Nancy spoke of, and you dive back ‘into the red’. This is where the benefit comes in…

An application such as the one I am developing is a wonderful marketing tool on so many levels. At the forefront, it celebrates the city. Beneath that you dive into a specific culture, movement, era, etc. that either celebrates your own, or makes you realize the significance of certain peoples and their part in the development of the city. The tourism opportunities for a purposefully marketed application could result in a large increase in revenue for specific museums or organizations that assist in promotion, as well as general revenue across the city.

This type of experimentation with mobile devices in a public history context does wonders for inspiring creativity in promoting a field that we are all passionate about. When I worked as an Interpreter, I saw it as my job to make even the most uninterested individual become fascinated with the site by the end of my tour. I have taken the exact approach with the development of my application. Hypothetically, if a person was to visit Boise and did a search for tourist applications, that the application they downloaded would not only serve as a personal guide for them to learn and interact with a strange city, but also hold onto as a keepsake of their trip and in turn, use it as a way to tell his or her friends about their visit. The circle of life goes around…

In the world of academia, it specifically helps with exploring other outlets for museum promotion. As students, we are focused on honing our craft and abilities so that they are useful in the ‘real world’. An increasingly important task for the public historian is to make the general public interested. The future of museums and the discipline as a whole is completely in the hands of the tourist. Their money is what drives exhibitions, restorations, and every preservation and promotional effort. Nancy raises the point of needing to ‘meet the guest where they are’. The cellphone that they are never without could be the way we can entice them into a building that they may not have considered going into before.

It is all well and good to interpret a site for a guest, however the goal for every public historian should be (as Nancy quoted Max Anderson) to bring “interpretation to conversation” – entertain and educate them in such a way that they not only engage the staff of the museum or physical surroundings, but also engage their friends, family, or strangers in a discourse. Word of mouth is the most powerful tool for a museum, and it is the task of the Historian of the present and future to implement the ways in which the average person can discover and immerse themselves in history.

I liked Nancy Proctor’s characterization of museums like the Smithsonian as “social networks.” I think that this was originally an important function of museums which unfortunately has been lost as exhibits have stopped encouraging museum-goers to tour in “herds” and instead have adjusted to focus on individual engagement. That is one aspect of the current museum culture (and indeed modern culture overall) that I don’t think mobile devices are going to solve; they seem to continue to promote individual isolation rather than interaction, although perhaps apps like Foursquare, etc. will change that.

Proctor’s advice that “profit should not be the imperative” in adapting mobile technology for museums was right-on. Since it has been shown that most apps do not generate even enough to cover developing costs, using mobile apps in museums (which already do not generate sufficient income) must be done purely out of good will towards the endeavors of education and visitor experience. Hopefully, as Proctor notes, the end of this will eventually be worth the means as visitors leave the museum “happier” and more willing to contribute financially to the institution.

The advantages to using mobile devices in museums and other public history projects are numerous. Perhaps most importantly, they allow visitors to control their own museum experience; they can tour at their own pace, choosing to learn more about what truly interests them rather than becoming bored with what does not. In this manner, mobile devices are an optimal format for other public history projects, and particularly useful for projects like my own, which is a walking tour. Walking tour participants can obtain all of the information they could possibly want using a mobile device rather than paper brochures or interpretive signs, because the mobile format can provide easy access to further information and research–an advantage that these other two formats lack. However, I am pessimistic about the value of using mobile devices in other venues such as college classes. While visitors to museums, etc. are generally voluntary visitors, students sitting in class do not always want to be there, so mobile devices more often than not provide an easy distraction rather than an educational aid. I do not think that mobile “learning” overall has the potential to provide a better educational experience than a talented teacher or professor…but perhaps that is just the Luddite in me speaking.

After reading the text, it was frustrating to read so many negative situations in which people are being mistreated and taken advantage of by big businesses and government bureaucracy.  In cases where the environment is being damaged and polluted, our citizens’ safety is being ignored.  In the case of PG&E and their hazardous dumping, it not only polluted the environment, it made people gravely ill and killed many others.  Once again when it comes to government agencies, when there is an issue, there are numerous loop holes, and confusing paperwork that typical people are unprepared to deal with.  Hiring lawyers is often impossible(too expensive) for many people to try to combat an environmental issue that they need to address.  Even King spoke about his frustration to help people in need, but that he needs to get paid too.

I thought the Rosas family was rather amazing, since they came up with two solutions that would limit or stop the blasting of canyon walls, and there would be no need to use bridges and embankments. They suggested running the second track along the same lines as the original track to reduce environmental impact. They also hired a civil engineer, Dr. Kamran Nemati who suggested putting the train lines underground and using a tunnel.  This would make the route safer because it would be a straighter route. Also, by using a tunnel the train wouldn’t have to deal with issues like rockslides, or animals wandering on the tracks.  However, how were the Rosas rewarded for their efforts, not at all.  The BNSF’s engineer Robert Boileau, said the tunnels were too expensive and impractical.  Basically they told the Rosas IDK…

There sure were a lot of acronyms in that book.  Since several of you posted some acronyms from previous jobs, here are some educational ones.  ELL English Language Learner, ED Emotionally Disturbed, EDSPED Special Education, SLC Small Learning Communities, IEP Individualized Education Plan.