-
artifacts is necessary to understand the operationality and pedagogical potential of the augmented
environment.”
(Pata, K. 2007)
AR systems incorporate new ways of interacting with digital media by overlaying
meaning onto the real world. Direct 3D manipulation of content is more intuitive in
3D learning and construction environments, because the direct perception of changes
may foster the build-up of a mental model. The construction of psychological and
physical space is one of the constituent parts in the generation of context. AR systems
have been referred to as “intelligence amplifying systems to enhance human cognitive activities, such
as attention, planning, analyzing problems, exploring new concepts, and decision making”
(Brooks,
1995)
.
Main research aim: Provide design principles or reusable heuristics for developing
augmented learning spaces.
Research questions: What is the best way to present these principles? What evidence
will count to show that they work?
In addition the use of mixed or blended reality creates a range of new challenges for
the designer and the learner: i) To what extent does the design of the content effect
the style of the user interface? ii) To what extent does the design of the user interface
affect the range of potential interaction techniques? iii) What are the best methods for
reducing the cognitive effort involved in managing interfaces (and the complex
systems those interfaces regulate)?
2 An identification of the significant problems in the field of
research
The area of AR research is still in its infancy. Very few design guidelines and
interaction patterns have been developed. As a result there are many opportunities for
research. As AR applications involve virtual information registered in 3D traditional
desktop evaluation techniques are not applicable. HCI problems associated with AR
are also multiplied due to the vast number of different AR systems, the many types of
interfaces (audio and haptic as well as visual) and the types of potential user input.
Another significant problem in the field is that the usability of an AR interface not
only depends on objective measurements. The subjective user perception of
interacting with the system should also play an important role during the development
of an AR environment. However individual differences between users will make this
difficult to evaluate.
3 An outline of the current knowledge of the problem domain, as
well as the state of existing solutions
Swan and Gabbard (2005) list a comprehensive collection of design principles found
in the AR literature. Such guidelines may be used by researchers interested in
particular design issues for their AR system but they raise many issues. Other work
that has resulted in the development of appropriate interfaces for pervasive and
ubiquitous computing technology; and explored the nature of context and the design
of context sensitive technologies includes ([Dey, 2001], [Dourish, 2004], [Lonsdale,
2004] and [Chalmers, 2004].
4 A presentation of any preliminary ideas, the proposed approach,
the results achieved so far and contribution to the problem
A preliminary idea for a guiding design principle lies in the difference between
declarative and procedural designs. The procedural mode of guidance can be
described as a linear sequence of instructions. The more precise we make a procedural
representation, the more prescriptive it becomes. A declarative approach is more
concerned with the many different ways that something can be achieved. “It describes the
structure of a knowledge base (a map for example) rather than specifying a set of instructions for action.
The creative activation of this knowledge base is at the disposal of the user because a declarative approach
offers alternative options for action.”
(Boyle, 2002)
The proposed approach will consist of the following 3 phases:
Phase 1) Examine the outcomes of three existing case studies (Palace of Darius
Persepolis, Materialising Sheffield and the Theatre of Memory) of virtual
reconstruction research projects (where the physical location is not a part of the
context). The design of the information environment (content, interface, and
interaction) used in each one of these case studies will be examined in order to see the
range and type of contexts that was generated from them. How adaptable were these
environments? From this analysis the most significant design factors will be captured
and identified in order to contribute towards the next design phase. These case studies
represent procedural designs because the ability for the learner to interrogate the data
set is extremely limited.
Phase 2) Examine a mobile version of the CONTSENS Cistercians in Yorkshire
project (where the physical authentic location remains apart of the context). This case
study represents an example of more declarative design because the learner has the
ability to examine the data set in a more open way.
The archaeological learning environment (consisting of the reconstruction of 5
Cistercian abbeys in Yorkshire) was designed to allow the learner to explore the
interaction between the virtual and the physical (the reconstructions and the ruins) and
create a rich research context. The core idea behind the creation of the resource was
that the user can learn a great deal more about a specific building or style of
architecture if they are able to interact with the material in ways that is not possible,
either on site, or via traditional print media. A comprehensive database of
visualisations contained (but did not prescribe) the entire set of reasoning that led
from the design of the 2D plans to the 3D reconstructions. The process of
datamining hierarchies of evidence (intellectual transparency) in the quest for constituent
parts, key narratives and evolutions of form can be explored in depth. This declarative
design was essential as the total range of knowledge contained within the application
could then be utilised, allowing many diverse and wide-ranging opinions to be tested
and unified for further analysis. The capacity for users to have this ‘active hand’ in
the construction of their own ‘take on things’ via visualisations which can be
dynamically generated and transformed on the fly, in situ, and ‘saved’ has already
been shown to contribute toward the successful augmentation of context
(See Cook,
2010)
An example of a successful design principle shows that the way the content is
organized directly impacts on the type of interaction which is possible: Inheritance
and the innate structural hierarchy of the architectural reconstructions are utilised to
allow the disaggregation of a design into its original elements. Users can drill down
(an example of an interaction pattern) through the final presentation of the model (the
front end to the whole data set) into all the component objects and any architectural
element within the model to automatically load any linked information which that
element may have attached. These objects can then be extracted from their
hierarchical structures, manipulated, measured and reconfigured (interaction patterns)
according to the users unique research query. For example each abbey can be
represented as a collection of their constituent architectural mouldings. A significant
amount of the architectural style is imbedded in the structure of these mouldings
along with invaluable information about their origins. The user is able to search and
transform (an example of an interaction pattern) these 2D mouldings into their final
3D forms (using mobile devices in situ) in order to examine how (for instance) the
Gothic style of architecture compares and potentially relates to the Romanesque style.
In this scenario it is the visualisation database which provides the digital component
of the context which in combination with the real ruins allows collaborating learners
to augment their rich research contexts for learning. The visual scope made available
by the designer provides the ‘action potential’ (context as interaction) for the learner.
Phase 3) From an analysis of phase 1+2 the most significant design factors will be
identified in order to create a series of AR prototypes to augment the learning space.
The AR environment will map the digital information directly onto the physical world
with the intention of eliminating the potential for distraction. A lack of focus on the
actual object of study was reported in the feedback of phase two where users had to
look away from the real world scene to look at the device.
5 A sketch of the applied research methodology
Design-Based research
(Design-Based Research Collective, 2003)
will be used to
identify and model technology-mediated, social learning and behaviors in order to
design tools that support and promote the practices under investigation. For example,
Cook (2002) has proposed a Design Research approach which revolves around
evolutionary prototyping. This involves repeated cycles of: empirical work,
theory/model development and tool/artifact refinement. These particular aspects are
typically conceived as overlapping activities and phases (rather than as sequenced
‘steps’); it is thus an evolutionary Design Research approach to analyzing the role of
theory/models, empirical work and technology in learning. DBR will be applied to the
phases outlined above. Two theoretical frameworks will be used to inform the
methodology. The first of these is distributed cognition which highlights the
importance of physical embodiment for cognition. Distributed Cognition involves the
embodiment of information that is embedded in representations of interaction
between individuals, artifacts and the environment.
(Hollan, J. et al 2002)
. The second
framework which will act as a lense and a measure of ‘context as interaction’ is the
previously described Augmented Context for Development
(see Cook, 2010)
.
The first phase of the research methodology is the literature review where the most
relevant literature related to the defined problem is classified according to the
different areas that are to be covered. During the evaluation phase the proposal will be
tested in order to ascertain whether it accomplishes the main objectives of the
research. Does the empirical evidence support our theoretically informed ideas about
how you structure a context? As the study combines pedagogical and technical
aspects it will involve a mixed evaluation that considers qualitative and quantitative
analysis. The main aim in the evaluation phase is to understand the use of the
technology developed within a context. This will be done through an analysis of
various case studies. However, it is crucial for a correct evaluation to have a formal
methodology. Since the project is framed in both the physical and digital domains and
all technological and learning objectives must be analyzed, it is essential to consider
quantitative and qualitative data. For this purpose, the Mixed Method will be
implemented. This combines quantitative techniques and sources, such as closed
questions or event log files generated automatically by the mobile devices with
qualitative techniques, such as open questions, discussion groups or observations.
Only by considering both types of information can we gain an in-depth understanding
of the whole system within its context
6 A description of the Ph.D. project's contribution to the problem
solution
One of the initial contributions to this research area was a proposed set of ‘interaction
heuristics’ based on evaluation data from phase one and two. Heuristics are guidelines
or ‘rules of thumb’ that should in future systems be able to guide the design and
development of meaningful learning contexts. The initial set include guidelines such
as: i)Vary the form of interaction and provide a more personalised view. ii) Improve
indexing (it was deemed essential to give the user full access to all the content that
was available in the system at any time) iii) Support for the evolution of practice
(students claimed that it would be good to fit this practise into a larger context of their
choice. iv) Provide the ability to perform deep customisation including level of detail,
preferences and order of presentation (some students were at different conceptual
levels and would have benefited from this ability to tailor the content to their
individual level of interest) v) Users should be able to accomplish a task with a
minimum of interaction steps. It should be easy for the user to learn how to use a
system without prior training. vi) Reuse the real worlds (well known) level of
interaction - don’t make the interaction too different from how people would interact
with real environments and problems. Other heuristics included providing the ability
to… vii) Use simple designs where all of the interactions and elements of augmented
social experiences must add value.
Another area of contribution is the use of declarative design. This is justified
primarily as it gives the designer the possibility of an augmented learning context that
learners may then choose to activate. In that way it is declarative. Instead of creating a
context sensitive system which recommends (in a procedural way) this intervention at
this point in time the feature is simply made a part of the context.
The research will further extend the ZPD by incorporating the dynamic use of real
time social data into the AR environment. We spread ideas around through dialogue
and other forms of interaction. These ideas become ‘contagious patterns of cultural
information that pass from meme to meme which in turn have the ability to change
the actions of a group’
(Dawkins, 1976)
.