an augmented reality approach to curriculum design
TRANSCRIPT
ALT-C 20161
Creating and connecting: An Augmented Reality approach to delivering an authentic curriculum
Dr. Mike Hobbs, Department of Computing and TechnologyAnglia Ruskin University
[email protected] Dr. Debbie Holley, Centre for Excellence in Learning,
Bournemouth [email protected]
ALT-C 20162
The Personal Development Portfolio ‘PDP’ Overview of PDP
• Provides skills and personal educational development.• Promotes higher level learning and career planning• Supports Pro-active, independent, autonomous, learners• Provide a base level for skills in :
communication, group work, research, referencing, presentations,
Policy context• Quality Assurance Agency for HE in the UK require institutions
to provide personal development planning[1].• UK needs more technically qualified students in ‘STEM’
subjects[2]. • Technically qualified students often lack key employability
skills[3].
ALT-C 20163
Motivation for this research ‘STEM’ Students
• Computer Science and Computer Gaming Technology Technically able but lacking broader soft skills
• End of year course reviews identified issues of poor engagement with PDP classes and curriculum
But informal discussion showed awareness of the importance of soft skills for employability.
Approach• Provide a collaborative learning framework
(drawing on Vygotsky’s theories of proximal development)• Create the context for the independent, autonomous
development of skills (drawing on Piaget/Kegan/Laske to provide a suitable constructive development framework )
ALT-C 20164
Improving PDP and Soft Skills Constraints
• Limited time and work requirement.• Content, needs to be interesting but not core to course.• Techniques easily assimilated for both students and staff
(multiple class delivery) Desired Features
• (Some) freedom in assessment topic• Introduction to the project process (and group work)• Simple assessment task to allow students to focus on skills
developed rather than end result.
Critical Success Factor = Student Engagement
ALT-C 20165
Creating Augmented Reality Why AR?
• Interesting area in education technology• Relevance to software development - “authentic task”• Available ’end user’ development tools• Simple development process • Suitable for BOYD and teaching in conventional classrooms
User Created Content• Students free to design their own artifacts.• Constrained by deliberately vague ‘client’ brief.• Requires creativity – enabled and restricted by technology.
ALT-C 20166
Wider Context
ALT-C 20167
Previous work - First iteration 2014/5 The Book / library AR task
• Students responded well but found task ‘too easy’Technically unchallengingLacking potential for creativity / designNeeded more structure – less ad hoc.
Aims for 2015/6• Increase technical challenge• Increase engagement with task• Deepen learning experience• Increase size and make up of participating cohort• ‘Roll out’ AR class materials to wider audience
ALT-C 20168
The Treasure Hunt Why?
• Used as the core theme to focus activity.• Easily understood – but open to interpretation.• Translates well to the AR medium (e.g. Pokeman Go)• Learning through ‘play’
Progress from ‘did it work?’ to ‘did it achieve our aims?’Easy feedback mechanism ‘was it fun?’
• Have to consider the player/user :Artifact not an end in itself - mechanism for communicationFocus drawn away from ‘what do I want’ to ‘how can I address the needs of others’
ALT-C 20169
Typical class activities
Supportive ‘flipped’ approach rather than content delivery:• Introduce topics, review available materials
Each topic is supported with a section of documents and links on the VLE.
• Discuss progress on project and reflections on the tasks.• Provide monitoring and support.• Student group presentations.• Review portfolio work and sign off ‘PDP’ check list.• Q&A on progress in other modules and student life.
ALT-C 201610
Student Activity What Students had to do:
• Form groups, organize and meetings,
• Post progress to group blog• Research and post comment
on one relevant paper each.• Plan, design and create AR
artifacts around the concept of the Treasure Hunt.
• Give a group presentation on what they did.
• Provide a short summary report
Link to Youtube video of Horizon
ALT-C 201611
(Some 0f) What Happened: At the Student level
• Meaningful socialization for new students-helping to provide support network.
• Developed ‘natural’ communication channels• Deeper responsibility / decision / control than most
assessment tasks. At the course level
• More students enjoying PDP• Support materials allow non-project staff able to deliver
content.• More students involved including Computer Scientists as well
as Computer Gamers.• More students passing compulsory PDP element
ALT-C 201612
Nerds with AttitudeWord Game• Pre-drawn triggers were
hidden around a house• Each trigger gave an
Aura showing a single letter
• Participants put letters together to make a word
• Managed project work online using Trello
“The first thing we decided to do was to find a way to communicate between the group in case any of us were unable to meet up…”
ALT-C 201613
Horizon Treasure Hunt• Auras provide clues • Users collected a code
word from each location.
• Locations around campus and local area were used.
“The importance of teamwork cannot be stressed enough, teamwork is the most fundamental aspect ..if we had not worked as a team we could have failed…”
If you want to find more you find directions on the floor,but for that little matter, It’s a symbol for a letter!
ALT-C 201614
The Fighting PeacocksCampus Tour• Campus navigation aid• Using audio media and
QR codes as triggers.
• Created a test grid for results
• Mutual testing of applications were useful.
‘(We )tested another groups game, the results were very positive’
ALT-C 201615
Results – assessment completion
Submission of Assessments (at first attempt)
Year CohortSize
Main Assessment
PDP Submission ratio
% %
2013/14 (base line) 55 80 66 0.8
2014/5 78 77 79 >1.0
2015/6 130 84 85 >1.0
Ratio between the submissions for the main assessment and PDP – “of those who completed the main assessment for the module, how many also completed PDP”.
> 1.0 means that, MORE students completed their PDP than their main assessment.
ALT-C 201616
Results – Student experienceCriteria 2014/5 2015/6
Was Aurasma Easy to use? 79% 71%
Did the AR project help my PDP? 69% 79%
• Questionnaire:• Students found technology harder• BUT more seemed to think it helped their PDP• The implication is that the more expressive task provided more
technical challenges but was more effective. • Free text comments point to more problems with a more diverse
set of BYOD devices
Got PDP done in an easy way, work completed without realizing it.”
“Group work was a really good part”
ALT-C 201617
Conclusions for Treasure Hunt AR Qualitative Impressions
• More design process used during construction• Increased narrative in design • Better identification of purpose for artifact• Wider use of student sourced communication tools• More ‘between group’ cooperation.• Better alignment of task to underpinning principles of the
course.• Better understanding of the purpose of the PDP task
Only 24% thought the task could be more challenging this year compared with 64% last year.
“Got PDP done in an easy way, work completed without realizing it.” “Group work was a really good part”
ALT-C 201618
Future Work PDP 2016/7
• PebblePad for lasting, online student portfoliosUsed for tutor / student communication and record of progress.
• Full lesson plans for each PDP sessionAllowing anyone to implement the programme
• Template to guide project progress with deadlines / deliverables.• Extend PDP content to cover digital and academic literacy
Currently implied but made specific assessment targets.• Flavors provide clearer link to student course e.g.
Computer gamers to focus on game development aspectsComputer Scientists to focus on design
• Highlight theoretical underpinningsMake explicit the implicit connections and rationale
ALT-C 201619
Our project blog: http://augmentedaru.org
ALT-C 201620
References [1] QAA (2009). Personal development planning: guidance for institutional policy and practice in higher education, The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. http://www.qaa.ac.uk/en/Publications/Documents/Personal-development-planning-guidance-for-institutional-policy-and-practice-in-higher-education.pdf [2] House of Lords (2012). House of Lords Select Committee Report Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths (STEM) subjects (2012) http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201213/ldselect/ldsctech/37/37.pdf.[3] CBI/Pearson (2013). Changing the pace – Education and Skills Survey. http://www.cbi.org.uk/media/2119176/education_and_skills_survey_2013.pdf.