Learning about Art History by Exploratory Search, Contextual View and Social Tags

An improved virtualization layer to support distribution of multimedia contents in pervasive social applications

“…This proposal brings together different elements used during the last decade to improve the pedagogy of History through technology, including smartphones and tablets (Loidl, 2006;Akkerman et al, 2009), videogames for learning (Charsky and Ressler, 2011;Froschauer et al, 2012), location-based and virtual reality educational tools (Tosatto and Gribaudo, 2009;Jacobson et al, 2009, augmented reality (Nincarean et al, 2013Schrier, 2005) and social networking (Arends et al, 2012;Agarwala et al, 2012;Díaz et al, 2012). The REENACT experiences were designed to promote learning about the prelude, the course and the aftermath of the events in three stages (more details in López-Nores et al, 2012):…”

Leveraging Short-Lived Social Networks in Museums to Engage People in History Learning

“…During the last few years, there have been many approaches to improve the pedagogy of History through technology, with smartphones and tablets being around for some time [15], [16], just like videogames for learning [17], [18], location-based and virtual reality educational tools [19], [20] and, of course, social networking on top of the traditional sites of the Web 2.0 [21], [22], [23]. We started developing the REENACT system in late 2012 as an approach to bring augmented reality (AR) technologies into the scene as well, aiming to engage groups of people into immersive collective experiences that would make them learn about the prelude, the course and the aftermath of battles and wars with the aid of tactile mobile devices, repositories of multimedia contents and remote experts.…”

Characteristics of tagging behavior in digitized humanities online collections

“…For example, Arends et al. () reported their approach in developing a system of art works, explorARTorium (http://www.exploratorium.edu/), to support learning of art history. With the explorARTorium interface, artworks can be compared and contrasted with different dimensions, allowing users to develop a sense for the context of an artwork.…”

“…Information professionals are beginning to recognize the possible use of tags in “bridging the semantic gap between the terminology used by professionals and search terms of end users, enriching collections with factual and contextualized information, increasing connectedness with the archive, and defining the future workflow” (Oomen et al., , p. 1). Several studies also contend that social tags would enhance content description and improve subject access, search, and retrieval (Arends, Weingartner, Froschauer, Goldfarb, & Merkl, ; Smith‐Yoshimura & Shein, ; Stvilia, Jörgensen, & Wu, ). Such social tagging potential is particularly compelling for knowledge organization systems or discovery tools of hidden, archival, and special collections.…”

“…Second, studies on social tagging were limited to a few subject domains, mainly the social sciences or sciences (Xu et al., ). Third, few studies have paid attention to the tagging of primary archival resources from digitized collections in the humanities, whereas there exist many studies of museums' tagging on artworks (see Arends et al., , and Trant, , for such studies). As humanities scholarship continues to embrace digital technologies, it is essential to explore what opportunities and benefits social tagging could provide for cultural and historical document analyses, research, and education.…”