Evaluation

Overall the most attractive exhibits are eSplice, Flashsticks and Linguisticator that indicate higher visitation and consistent interactions. Noticeably these stands have an effective foundation in common. The stands offer the visitor a unique innovative learning product which keeps the consumers intrigued, engaged through curiosity, and testing products through social participation.

Many factors and contingencies can affect social behaviour in participation. From observation; (based partly on Rossman’s 2003 symbolic interaction approach) The research interpretations are of key elements:

Processes in Social Behaviour of Interactive Participation at The Language Live Show

Methodology

The research project is exploratory, using philosophy as an interpretivist approach, using qualitative and quantitative research through non participant and systematic observations (Fox et al, 2014).

Empirical research, (involves collecting data based on observation) gathering a small convenience sample of 280 visitors, was equally divided between 14 exhibits. Monitored by a stopwatch as collective data instrument.

Conclusion

Fig.3 Identifies a trend in continuous flows of large movement between the visitor pathways and the exhibits in the external layer of the Technology Zone (green ring). The internal area was sporadic in movement and mainly with individuals, couples and smaller crowds (blue ring).

Fig. 2

Results

Graph showing the grade of interactions between exhibits and attendees.

• Positive participations were from stands such as eSplice, Flashsticks and Linguisticator (Fig 1).

• Weak engagements were from stands; Genee World, My Learning (UK) Ltd and Langlion (Fig 2).

References

Fox, D. Gouthro, M, B. Morakabati, Y. Backstone, J. (2014) Doing Events Research, From theory to practise. Routledge: Oxon.

Getz, D. O’Neill,O. Carlsen, J. (2001) Journal of Travel Research: Service Quality Evaluation at Events through Service Mapping, Sage Publications, Vol 39, Pg. 380-390.

Berridge, G. (2007) Event Design and Experience. Butterworth-Heinemann: Oxford.

Investigation Brief

The aim was to identify which exhibits in the Technology Zone highlights more attractiveness to the attendees in part relation to visitor experience.

The objective was to analyse the interaction period between individuals and stands.

Research Questions:

• Is there a trend between the pathway of visitors and stands.

• Is there a between stands and the grade of social interaction.

• What are the prior contingencies.

Fig.1

Fig.4 Reveals a trend, how highest indications of interactions are from the lower segment (green box) of the Technology Zone in contrast to lower forms of participation in the upper section (blue box).

Fig.3 Fig.4

Product (Object)

Staff Responsiveness (Interacting people)

Physical Settings Recommendations

To sell space to exhibitors with innovative unique learning technological products. So that visitors have a variation rather than products with similarities.

To have exhibitors use blueprint principle, (Getz, D et al, 2001 pg. 382) to avoid visitors seeing front of stage slip to back stage. Elements such as playing with mobiles, back facing the audience and leaving stands empty, affects staff responsiveness.

Using Rossman’s Model of six elements of symbolic interaction can be used to reflect on how visitors experience is structured. (Berridge,G.2007).

Shareen Penningtonshp0389@londonmet.ac.uk

Large flow

Small flow

Weak interactions

Strong interactions