Field Notes (17): Augmented Reality in Museums

The Promise of Collaboration in AR—and Its Challenges

The use of augmented reality (AR) in museums has often been framed as a transformative leap in how cultural heritage is presented and experienced. AR overlays digital content onto physical artifacts, allowing visitors to interact with exhibits in ways previously unimaginable. While the technology promises deeper engagement, questions remain about whether it can deliver meaningful learning outcomes or if it risks becoming just another fleeting novelty.

Bitter et al.'s (2024) AR prototype, designed for multi-user collaboration in a natural history museum, is an example of these ambitions. Leveraging Microsoft HoloLens 2 and Android smartphones, the system allows groups to interact with exhibits collaboratively, with features like real-time synchronization and gamified tasks. However, the HoloLens, once at the cutting edge of AR hardware, is now significantly outdated, and its limitations invite speculation about the potential effectiveness of newer, more advanced technologies.

Main Argument

The integration of AR in museums has predominantly focused on solo user experiences, where individuals engage with exhibits in isolation. While immersive and informative, these experiences miss opportunities for social interaction—a key element of effective learning. Bitter et al. (2024) propose that collaboration and co-presence can significantly enhance the educational value of AR. Their multi-user system fosters shared engagement, with participants working together to label bones and solve challenges.

However, this ambitious approach raises fundamental questions:

• How does collaboration in AR balance genuine teamwork with the potential for technological distractions?

• Can such systems scale effectively across diverse museum contexts?

• Does the reliance on AR overshadow more traditional, human-centered learning methods?

These questions underscore the need to temper enthusiasm for AR with a critical evaluation of its long-term viability and broader educational impact.

Co-Presence: An Overlooked Challenge in AR

The concept of co-presence—where participants share a real-time, interactive space—is central to Bitter et al.’s system. By encouraging groups to explore exhibits collaboratively, the system transforms what is often a solitary activity into a social learning event. Participants interact with a virtual butterfly guide, label bones together, and match Latin names to physical skeletons.

Promise of Co-Presence
In theory, co-presence introduces a rich layer of social interaction, allowing visitors to discuss, correct, and learn from one another. These elements align with established research that highlights the benefits of peer learning, including improved critical thinking and deeper retention of knowledge.

Challenges of Co-Presence
However, implementing co-presence in an AR environment is not without pitfalls. The synchronization of devices—essential for ensuring a seamless shared experience—relies on advanced infrastructure and flawless technical execution. Any lag, misalignment, or device failure can disrupt the collaborative flow, diminishing the learning experience. Moreover, the novelty of AR tools can become a distraction, with visitors focusing more on the technology itself than the content of the exhibit.

The question remains whether co-presence in AR offers genuine social interaction or merely simulates it through scripted experiences. While Bitter et al.’s prototype provides a foundation for collaborative learning, it may inadvertently reinforce superficial engagement rather than fostering meaningful teamwork.

Immersive AR: Depth or Distraction?

Bitter et al.’s system pairs Microsoft HoloLens 2 with Android smartphones, providing a multi-device approach to accessibility. Participants can interact with both virtual and physical components of the exhibit, such as labeling bones and comparing anatomical features. The experience is gamified, with auditory and visual feedback designed to guide users toward correct answers.

Educational Potential
The ability to manipulate digital models alongside real-world artifacts offers an undeniably engaging experience. Visitors not only learn Latin terms for skeletal structures but also develop a hands-on understanding of anatomy and evolutionary relationships. By integrating AR into these exhibits, museums can attract younger, tech-savvy audiences while making complex scientific concepts more digestible.

Distraction by Design
Yet, the gamified nature of the system raises questions about its educational depth. Immediate rewards and visual effects may encourage task completion without fostering critical reflection. Are participants truly engaging with the material, or are they simply following cues to achieve a sense of accomplishment? This "gamification trap" risks prioritizing short-term engagement over sustained understanding.

Additionally, the reliance on immersive technology can shift attention away from the artifacts themselves. Visitors may leave with a memorable experience of using AR but fail to connect meaningfully with the exhibit's historical or scientific significance.

Risks of Overreliance on Technology

While AR technologies have the potential to revolutionize museum experiences, an overemphasis on these tools carries significant risks that threaten to undermine their educational and cultural objectives. Without careful implementation, museums may find themselves prioritizing the technology itself over the content and context that make these spaces valuable. Risks include:

Technology Fatigue
The relentless push for innovation can overwhelm visitors, particularly those who are less familiar or comfortable with advanced devices. Visitors may focus on the hardware’s novelty rather than the exhibit’s deeper narrative, leaving them disengaged or fatigued.

Barriers to Inclusivity
High-end AR devices like the HoloLens or Vision Pro create cost and accessibility barriers for underfunded museums and underserved audiences.

Shallow Engagement and Spectacle
Gamification and high-tech visuals can overshadow the significance of artifacts, reducing engagement to fleeting tasks rather than meaningful exploration.

Erosion of Human-Centered Learning
The relational aspects of museum visits—dialogue with curators or spontaneous discussions—may be lost if AR systems dominate the experience, isolating users behind headsets.

Dependence on Aging Systems
As AR hardware rapidly becomes obsolete, museums risk investing heavily in technologies that cannot sustain long-term functionality.

Loss of Context
Excessive focus on digital overlays can shift attention away from the original artifact, reducing the tactile and sensory experience integral to cultural heritage.

Balancing Innovation with Meaningful Engagement

The incorporation of augmented reality into museums and cultural heritage sites represents a significant step forward in how these institutions engage their audiences. By combining digital overlays with physical artifacts, AR technologies offer opportunities to enhance visitor interaction, improve accessibility to complex information, and create a dynamic, memorable museum experience. The system developed by Bitter et al. (2024) is a bold attempt to reimagine museum visits, emphasizing co-presence, collaboration, and interactive learning. However, as this essay has argued, the integration of such technologies is not without significant challenges.

One of the central benefits of AR is its ability to transform passive observation into active participation. Visitors no longer view artifacts behind glass but instead, interact with them through augmented visuals and tasks. These immersive experiences foster curiosity, encourage critical thinking, and help visitors forge deeper connections with historical and scientific narratives. At the same time, collaborative features such as those tested in Bitter et al.’s prototype enhance the social aspect of museum visits, allowing groups to learn and solve problems together. This aligns well with contemporary educational priorities, such as fostering teamwork, problem-solving, and interdisciplinary thinking.

However, these benefits must be weighed against the risks of over-reliance on technology. AR systems, even as they advance, often struggle to maintain the balance between technological sophistication and educational substance. The danger lies in allowing the medium to overshadow the message, with museums emphasizing flashy visuals and gamified elements at the expense of meaningful, contextual learning. For example, in Bitter et al.’s prototype, there is a risk that visitors may focus more on achieving gamified objectives than engaging with the historical or scientific importance of the artifacts themselves. Museums must carefully navigate these pitfalls to ensure AR serves as a tool for deepening understanding rather than merely entertaining.

Accessibility remains another significant concern. High-end AR systems such as the Microsoft HoloLens 2 or Apple Vision Pro are prohibitively expensive for many museums and their visitors, making it difficult to scale these technologies equitably. Even smartphone-based AR, while more affordable, risks creating a two-tiered museum experience where only those with the latest devices can fully participate. Institutions must consider how to democratize AR experiences so that they serve diverse audiences, including those from underfunded schools, remote communities, or visitors with disabilities.

The risk of technological obsolescence also looms large. Museums that invest heavily in proprietary AR systems face the challenge of keeping pace with rapid advancements in hardware and software. As devices like the HoloLens become outdated, institutions must grapple with the financial and logistical burdens of frequent upgrades, staff retraining, and exhibit redesigns. This dependence on aging systems raises questions about the sustainability of AR in museums. It highlights the need for adaptable, future-proof technologies that can evolve alongside the institutions that adopt them.

Another crucial consideration is the potential erosion of human-centered learning. Museums have traditionally been spaces for dialogue, reflection, and interpersonal connection. Over-reliance on AR risks isolating visitors behind headsets or devices, reducing opportunities for meaningful interactions with curators, educators, or other visitors. While co-presence features like those in Bitter et al.’s system attempt to address this by fostering group collaboration, they cannot fully replicate the richness of face-to-face discussions or the spontaneity of shared exploration. Museums must strive to integrate AR in ways that enhance human connections rather than replace them.

Looking to the future, the potential of AR in museums will depend on how thoughtfully it is implemented. Rather than viewing AR as a complete replacement for traditional exhibits, museums should see it as a complementary tool—one that enhances storytelling, adds layers of interactivity and engages new audiences without compromising the core mission of preserving and sharing cultural and historical knowledge. By prioritizing inclusivity, sustainability, and educational depth, museums can ensure that AR enriches the visitor experience without overshadowing the artifacts and narratives at the heart of their collections.

Concluding Thoughts

Ultimately, the success of AR in museums will depend not on the technology itself but on how it is used to serve the broader goals of education, equity, and cultural engagement. As institutions continue to experiment with these tools, they must remain vigilant about the risks of over-reliance while embracing the opportunities for innovation. In doing so, they can unlock the full potential of AR as a transformative force in museum education, creating spaces that are not only immersive but also meaningful, inclusive, and enduring.

References

Bitter, J. L., Dörner, R., Liu, Y., Rau, L., & Spierling, U. (2024). Co-Presence with Skeletons: A Multi-User Immersive Augmented Reality Demonstration in Cultural Heritage. EUROGRAPHICS Workshop on Graphics and Cultural Heritage. https://doi.org/10.2312/gch.20241268