Using augmented reality to support learning and teaching in the recording studio environment

Using augmented reality to support learning and teaching in the recording studio environment

• 1.
  Using augmented realityto support learning and teaching in the recording studio environment
• 2.
  Ruth Clark: SeniorLearning Technologist Craig Golding: Curriculum Leader Music Production and Film Music Matt Ramirez: Senior Innovation Developer, Jisc
• 3.
  • Specialist StudyCore Module • Taught in small studio groups (5-6 students) • 2 hour highly practical, hands-on learning experience. Teaching Music Production at Leeds College of Music
• 4.
   Large quantitiesof information to absorb and complex technical skills to retain during classes  Focus on practical application of knowledge presents a barrier to higher level thinking  Existing learning resources used in isolation and out of the studio environment. Challenges of Studio Learning Environment “overemphasis upon lower order thinking in the curriculum constrains the amount of time that can be dedicated to having students think critically and utilise knowledge in creative and meaningful ways” [2].
• 5.
   Benefits kinaestheticand multi- modal learning styles  Support constructivist learning pedagogies  Engaging students with emerging technologies and immersive learning experience. Why Augmented Reality? “enable the visualisation of intangible concepts” [6]
• 6.
  • Enlisted theservices of Jisc • Matt Ramirez: – Lead AR developer • Collaborative design process Partnership with Jisc and design process Graphic here
• 7.
   Navigation andset up of recording console  Used existing interactive manual to create storyboard  Colour coded overlays  Additional information and multimedia  Required robust 3D tracking model First Phase of Development
• 8.
  Second Phase ofDevelopment  Student and staff identified patch bay as challenging.  Patch bay, signal flow and relation to recording process a threshold concept  Some students demonstrated “mimicry”, following a more confident student’s lead.
• 9.
  Second Phase ofDevelopment  AR layer that controlled functionality related to digital overlay  HTML 5 layer for user control of animated leads  Signal flow shown via animated arrows
• 10.
  EVALUATION AND ANALYSISOF DEVELOPMENT
• 11.
  • Pilot groupsobserved and follow up focus groups • Ascertain effect on learning behaviours • Identify areas for development and latent technical issues Methods
• 12.
  • Positive responsefrom users • Tracking reliability identified as a potential barrier to uptake • Recent developments in tracking technologies were incorporated User response and technical barriers
• 13.
  • Student’s abilityto self-support and respond to technical questions increased • Enabled students to refresh their knowledge when tackling studio sessions out of class and after breaks from study • Tutors observed better knowledge retention Constructivist learning …an effective constructivist approach to learning as students made more “deep and lasting connections within their knowledge base” [2]
• 14.
  • The combinationof the visual, auditory, written and kinaesthetic elements suited students’ individual learning styles. • More effective situated learning. Multimodal learning “If I have a problem, I learn by fixing the problem there and then"
• 15.
  • Shift ingroup dynamic, with less dominance of a ‘technical ringleader’. • Introvert students more engaged in the practical learning process. • There was less appearance of “mimicry” and students in participating pilot groups grasped the threshold concept of the patch bay quicker, allowing them a deeper understanding of the subject [5]. Effective group based learning Democratising the learning process and ensuring understanding of threshold concepts
• 16.
  Final Project Output Graphichere  Stand-alone app  Available on student’s own devices via App store  Integrated within curriculum via scheme of work  Expansion to other curriculum areas within the conservatoire.
• 17.
  References 1. L. W.Anderson, D. R. Krathwohl, Eds., A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. (Longman, New York, 2001). 2. M. Bower, C. Howe, N. McCredie, A. Robinson, D. Grover, Augmented Reality in education–cases, places and potentials. Educational Media International 51(1), 1-15. (2014). 3. I. Radu, R. Zheng, G. Golubski, M. Guzdial. (Augmented Reality in the Future of Education. (Paper presented at CHI ’10, Boston, USA, 2010; http://www.dfki.de/EducationCHI2010/web/Schedule_files/EDUCATI ONRadu_et_al.pdf) [the easiest access to this source is by the internet] 4. H. Beetham in Rethinking Pedagogy for a Digital Age, H. Beetham, R. Sharpe, Eds. (Routledge, New York, 2013), pp31-48. [second edition] 5. R. Land, G. Cousin, J.H. Meyer, P. Davies in Improving Student Learning Diversity and Inclusivity, C Rust, Ed. (Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development, Oxford, 2005), pp53-64. 6. M. Akçayır, G. Akçayır, Advantages and challenges associated with augmented reality for education: A systematic review of the literature. Educational Research Review, 20, 1-11, (2017).
• 18.
  THANK YOU Ruth Clark- @ruthycl Craig Golding - @cragsgolding Matt Ramirez - @Jisc_AR