1. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel
Enhancing Guided Museum Tours by Accessing and Incorporating Visitors’ Entrance Narratives
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel
Dina Tsybulsky
Jeff Dodick
Jeff Camhi

2. BACKGROUND
This research was carried out within the framework of the Discovery Tree Walk of the Nature Park & Galleries, the “open-campus museum” of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
The “Big Idea” of this one-hour tour is “Trees are big in many different ways”.
All data were collected and analyzed in

3. The Nature Park & Galleries (est
The Nature Park & Galleries (est. 2003) includes 50 tree species from six continents.
Visitors to the Discovery Tree Walk focus on 15 of these trees.

4. Visitor Experiences in Museums
THEORETICAL BASIS
Visitor Experiences in Museums
Four Types of Satisfying Experiences
(Pekarik, Doering & Karns, 1999)
Social experiences
Introspective
experiences
Object experiences
Cognitive experiences

5. The Entrance Narrative
THEORETICAL BASIS
The Entrance Narrative
A basic framework, the fundamental way a person contemplates the world.
Knowledge about
the subject matter or topic, organized according to that basic framework.
Personal experiences,
emotions, and memories.
The Entrance narrative may have three distinct components (Doering, 1999):

6. The Primary Goal RESEARCH GOALS
To check the effect of accessing and incorporating visitors’
Entrance Narratives (EN) in guided museum tours on their experiences and actions.
To achieve this goal we employed
one of two EN methods:
Method 1
Entrance Narrative Mapping - ENM
Method 2
Entrance Narrative Chat - ENC

7. Entrance Narrative Mapping Entrance Narrative Chat
RESEARCH DESIGN
Entrance Narrative
Mapping
Entrance Narrative
Chat
Guide invites visitors to fill out their EN-Map.
Guide invites visitors to reflect on their EN.
Guide invites visitors to share their filled - out EN-Maps.
Guide encourages visitors to share their
EN-Chat.
ההבדל בין השיטות הוא בשלב ההתחלתי, כאשר כל שיטה מציעה אפשרויות שונות לערור של נרטיב מקדים. על מנת לעורר נרטיב מקדים נעשה תיווך מדריך-קבוצה על ידי שימוש במארגנים מקדימים מציגים. בשלב א' של המחקר נעשה שימוש ב"מיפוי נרטיב מקדים" על ידי "תרשים שמש" - דף שבו מצויר "שמש" עם מילה "עצים" בתוכו. המבקרים קיבלו "תרשימי שמש" מהמדריכה והתבקשו לכתוב ב"קרני השמש" את החוויות מהעבר, זיכרונות, אסוציאציות – כל דבר שעולה להם במחשבה לגבי העצים (ראה תרשים 2). בשלב ב' של מחקר נעשה שימוש ב"צ'ט נרטיב מקדים" על ידי הפנייה שאלה למבקרים - מה הם הזיכרונות והאסוציאציות שלהם לגבי עצים.
בהמשך ההדרכה המבקרים מתבקשים לשתף את האחרים בנרטיב המקדים שלהם (מה שהם כתבו או מה שהם חשבו). במהלך ההדרכה תפקידה של מדריכה לקשר תוך כדי הסיור בין הנרטיב המקדים של המבקרים לבין נושא הסיור דרך אובייקטים – עצים. הדבר דורש גמישות ומוכנות של המדריכה להיות קשובה ופתוחה לפני המבקרים. הקשר הזה ניתן לעשות, לדוגמא, באופן הבא: אם נרטיב מקדים של מבקר מסוים לגבי עצים הוא אסוציאציה עם הצבע ירוק, אז המדריכה יכולה, בזמן המתאים, לשים לב המבקרים ולהראות להם את הגוונים השונים של הצבע הירוק בקמפוס.
Guide builds an initial connection between EN and subject of tour.
Guide builds a connection during tour between EN and
subject of tour.

8. Samples METHODS EN – Chat EN – Mapping Visitor Samples n = 114 n = 53
(Exp. and Control Groups)
n = 114
n = 53
1st Year Biology Students -
n = 55
1st Year Biology Co-majors
n = 54
General Public

9. Entrance Narrative Mapping
METHODS
Data Collection
Visitor Experience
Questionnaire
Behavioral checklist
Entrance Narrative Mapping
We post-tested the experimental group with 12 Likert-based questions and 1 open question. Results were compared with controls.
Using our checklist we classified the frequencies of eight different activities of the visitors during the tour (e.g. examining a leaf). Results were compared with controls.
We analyzed EN-Maps to classify the range of Entrance Narratives.
Results were compared among different visitor samples.
תצפית:
מספר שאלות הנשאלות על ידי המבקרים.
מספר תשובות של מבקרים לשאלות המדריכה.
רישום תוכן הסיור במחברות על ידי מבקרים.
מספר הערות או/ו תגובות מילוליות של מבקרים (דיבור).
מספר שיחות עם חברים/בני משפחה בנושאים הקשורים לסיור.
מספר שיחות עם חברים/ בני משפחה בנושאים שאינם קשורים לסיור.
התייחסות מוטורית של מבקרים, שרלוונטית לסיור (לדוגמא, נגיעה בעץ, איסוף עלים וכו').
התעסקות בדברים שאינם קשורים לסיור (לדוגמא, שיחות בטלפון נייד).
שאלונים:
בשלב ב' של המחקר נבנה שאלון אחר (נספח 3), כאשר קיימות 10 אפשרויות לתשובה במקום 5 בשלב א'. הרחבת סקאלה מאפשרת לקבל מגוון רחב יותר של תגובות, כך שתמונה רחבה יותר ומפורטת יותר מתקבלת מניתוח השאלונים. בנוסף, הדבר נעשה על מנת להגדיל תוקף המסקנות (דהינו, להגדיל את עוצמת המבחנים הסטטיסטיים). עם זאת, הגדלת הסקאלה מגדילה את זמן המילוי והנטל על משיבים. לכן, הוצאו כל השאלות הפתוחות מן השאלון, ונקבעו 10 השאלות המרכזיות.

10. Question Categories and Examples in Visitor Experience Questionnaire
METHODS
Question Categories and Examples in Visitor Experience Questionnaire
To what extent did the tour provide you with a satisfying social experience with those you came with,
or people you hadn’t known?
To what extent did
the tour make you want
to learn more about
trees or related subjects?
the tour elicit from
you feelings and
emotions?
To what extent
did the tour reveal
to you objects of beauty?
Social
Introspective
Object
Cognitive

11. EN mapping: Comparison of visitor
RESULTS
EN mapping: Comparison of visitor
questionnaire results between experimental groups and control groups (n = 162).
p ≤
Median (Exp. / Control)
Question
0.05
1/2
1) Adults overall experience
0.03
1/1
2) Children’s overall experience
0.01
3) Aroused visitors’ interests
4) Quality of guiding
2/2
5) Learned new things
6) Reminded of prior knowledge
2/3
7) Desire to learn more
0.04
8) Satisfying social experience
9) Reminded of earlier experiences
10) Reveal aesthetic beauty
11) Elicit feelings/emotions
3/4
12) Elicit a sense of the spiritual

12. RESULTS
EN mapping: Responses to the open question – Describe briefly the nature of your experience on this tour.
Examples
Nature of experience
“I got to know trees deeply.”
“I discovered special and beautiful trees really close to where I stood, like the Sequoia.”
“Now I feel more connected to trees, and it reminded me of many varied experiences from my youth until now.”
“I was happy to see my kids taking part, and I was happy to be in a group with my friends.”
Cognitive
Social
Object
Introspective
Grouping the data from all three demographic categories of visitors, only in the introspective and memories subset was there a significant difference between experimental and control groups (p≤0.05). That is, visitors in the experimental groups mentioned introspective experiences and memories significantly more than did visitors in the control groups. In fact, this difference was significant for each of the three demographic categories considered separately (General public p≤0.01; the two student demographic categories, p≤0.05).

13. EN mapping: Comparison of checklist
RESULTS
EN mapping: Comparison of checklist
results between experimental and control
groups (n = 162).
p ≤
Median
(Exp./Control)
Checklist Statement
0.01
25/8
1) Visitors ask question of guide
18/5
2) Visitors answer questions asked by guide
4/0
3) Visitors write down something during tour
20/6
4) Visitors utter comment about subject of tour
12/1
5) Visitors converse with one another on subject of tour
30/14
6) Motor acts related to tour subject
3/3
7) Visitors converse with one other not about subject of tour
2/5
8) Motor acts not related to tour subject
We have received similar results at comparison for:
* The three demographic categories—general public, biology students, and co-majors.
* The three different group sizes (small groups 4-6 people, medium groups 7-12 people, large groups people).
* The male and female respondents.
* The general public groups that included at least one child, vs those that included no children.

14. EN mapping: Comparison of results on
the visitor questionnaire and behavioral
checklist.
We obtained similar results between experimental and controls for:
The three visitor samples: 1st year biology students, 1st year biology co-majors, and General public.
The three different group sizes: Small groups (4-6 people), Medium groups (7-12 people), Large groups (13-17 people).
Gender differences: Male subjects (n = 66), Female subjects (n = 72).
Group composition: General public groups including at least one child (n = 31), General public groups without children (n = 23).

15. EN mapping: Analysis of EN-Maps.
RESULTS
EN mapping: Analysis of EN-Maps.
We found the following significant differences:
The general public both wrote more words and drew more pictures than either student group (p < 0.01).
This correlates with the stronger effect of the EN-mapping on the general public vs. the student groups.
87% of the visitors who experienced the EN mapping method said it helped bring them into the subject of the tour, and 85% said it increased their interest in the tour.
trees
Thus, the general public engaged with the EN mapping more fully than either of the other two groups, and perhaps the co-majors did so the least. Perhaps, then, the greater effect on the general public groups than the student groups of accessing and incorporating their ENs is related to their greater involvement in the EN mapping process.

16. RESULTS
EN chat: Comparison of questionnaire results between the experimental and control groups
(n = 114 students).
p ≤
Median
(Exp. / Control)
Question
0.01
2/3
1) Overall experience
2/4
2) Aroused visitors’ interests ns
2/2
3) Quality of guiding
3/3
4) Learned new things
3/5
5) Reminded of prior knowledge
4/5
6) Desire to learn more
5/6
7) Satisfying social experience
8) Reminded of earlier experiences
9) Exposure to beauty and aesthetics
3/4
10) Experience of other students on tour

17. EN chat: Comparison of checklist results
between the experimental and control groups
(n = 114 students).
p ≤
Median
(Exper. / Control)
Checklist Statement:
0.01
16/5
1) Visitors ask question of guide
22/10
2) Visitors answer questions asked by guide
4/0
3) Visitors write down something during tour
8/3
4) Visitors utter comment about subject of tour
6/2
5) Visitors converse with one another on subject of tour
40/15
6) Motor acts related to tour subject
2/4
7) Visitors converse one other not about subject of tour
1/4
8) Motor acts not related to tour subject

18. Accessing and incorporating visitors’ Entrance Narratives
CONCLUSIONS
Accessing and incorporating
visitors’ Entrance Narratives
improves guided tours
The two different instruments (questionnaire and checklist) gave corroborating results, that EN serves as an affective advanced organizer for museum tours.
EN significantly improved the four key categories of visitor experience: object, cognitive, introspective, and social.
EN-Mapping was found to be more effective with the general public than with the student groups.