The current paper presents a study conducted at The National Museum of Science and Technology in Stockholm to investigate the exhibition “Antarctica – that’s cool” from its first concept to the first workshop that is held in the exhibition. The focus is on the influence of floor staff on an exhibition and workshops as learning facilities in museums. Findings, based on visitor observation and the exhibition building process, go into the characteristics of low-budget productions and discuss the importance of staff on the exhibition floor for museums as life-long learning facilities. The holistic approach of the study provides deep insights into the complex interplay of visitors, staff and exhibitions. The results can be used for future exhibition building processes and educational programs in museums and should strengthen the museum’s position as life-long learning facility in nowadays society.

Most science centres in Canada employ science-educated floor staff to motivate visitorsto have fun while enhancing the educational reach of the exhibits. Although bright andsensitive to visitors’ needs, floor staff are rarely consulted in the planning,implementation, and modification phases of an exhibit. Instead, many developmentteams rely on costly third-party evaluations or skip the front-end and formativeevaluations all together, leading to costly errors that could have been avoided. This studywill seek to reveal a correlation between floor staff’s perception of visitors’ interactionswith an exhibit and visitors’ actual experiences. If a correlation exists, a recommendationcould be made to encourage planning teams to include floor staff in the formative andsummative evaluations of an exhibit. This is especially relevant to science centres withlimited budgets and for whom a divide exists between floor staff and management.In this study, a formative evaluation of one exhibit was conducted, measuring both floorstaff’s perceptions of the visitor experience and visitors’ own perceptions of the exhibit.Floor staff were then trained on visitor evaluation methods. A week later, floor staff andvisitors were surveyed a second time on a different exhibit to determine whether anincrease in accuracy existed.The training session increased the specificity of the motivation and comprehensionresponses and the enthusiasm of the staff, but not their ability to predict observedbehaviours with respect to ergonomics, learning indicators, holding power, and successrates. The results revealed that although floor staff underestimated visitors’ success ratesat the exhibits, staff accurately predicted visitors’ behaviours with respect to holdingpower, ergonomics, learning indicators, motivation and comprehension, both before andafter the staff training.