tell me what you want and i’ll show you what you can have: who drives design of technology for...
Upload: interactive-technologies-and-games-education-health-and-disability
Post on 18-Dec-2014
68 views
DESCRIPTION
Tell me what you want and I’ll show you what you can have: who drives design of technology for learning? Associate Professor Sue Cobb Interactive Technologies and Games (ITAG) Conference 2014 Health, Disability and Education Dates: Thursday 16 October 2014 - Friday 17 October 2014 Location: The Council House, NG1 2DT, Nottingham, UKTRANSCRIPT
Tell me what you want and I’ll
show you what you can have
Who drives design of technology for
learning?
Sue Cobb Human Factors Research Group, University of Nottingham, UK
Structure of presentation
• Introduction
• My background and research
• Description of VE/CVE technology
• Why we wanted to apply this technology for student learning
• Example projects and Design/development approach: UCD/PD
• Outcomes and Lessons learned
Sue Cobb
• 1992: Virtual Reality Applications Research Team (VIRART), Human
Factors Research Group, University of Nottingham
• Head of HFRG, Faculty of Engineering
• Background - Psychology and Human Factors
• Research interest – Applications of VR technology in education
– Specific interest from special educational needs community in how VR
technology could bring the world of learning into the classroom
– Need to work with technology that could be placed in schools (desktop VR
systems)
• Research approach = Methods for user-centred design and
evaluation of VR applications
• www.hfrg.nottingham.ac.uk
Virtual and mixed reality technologies
Virtual Real
User-Centred Design (UCD)
• Design centred around the user
• Understanding the needs of the user in order to inform design – Involve users as much as possible (recognise
limitations)
– Integrate knowledge and expertise from different disciplines
– Iterative testing to check design meets user requirements
Participatory Design
• Originated in Scandinavia 1970‟s
• Established PD methods
– System prototypes
– User evaluation
– Mutual learning between active participants
– All partners are equal: Users, managers,
systems designers, human factors experts
Working with the User Group
How can VR support learning?
• Constructivist learning – „direct experience‟ – Multi-sensory cues – 3D immersion – Frames of reference
• Constructionist learning – Students create or modify VE – Collaborative learning
• Situated learning – Interactive role play in CVEs
Moshell and Hughes (2002)
• Computers are fun!
• Motivational
• Increased learning opportunities
• Self-directed, active learning
• Self-paced
• Learning by doing
• Safe space for learning
• Scaffolded
Neale, Brown, Cobb and Wilson (1999) Cobb, Neale and Stewart (2001).
• The Virtual City Project
• Practice of procedural steps in everyday tasks
• 3 weeks of training improved task familiarisation
• Student-led activity in real world
Brown et al.(1998)
Life skills education
Main findings
• Students found it easier to use VEs than
mentors believed they would
• Shift of control-action and decision-making shift
from teacher initiated to student initiated
• Anecdotal reports of benefit to performance
• Student feedback on UCD method positive
• Usability issues raised
VEs for Social Skills Training
AS Interactive 3yr project: 2000-2003
Funded by Shirley Foundation
University of Nottingham
Human Factors/VIRART
Computer Science
Psychology
National Autistic Society
www.virart.nott.ac.uk/asi
Why Virtual Environments (VEs)?
• Ability to control input levels e.g. number of people
present, auditory inputs, non-verbal cues
• Practice skills safely without experiencing real world
problems (role play)
• Shared (visual) features between virtual and real worlds
may facilitate generalisation of skills from former to latter
Parsons & Mitchell (2002)
Participatory design
• Idea generation – Discussion and brainstorming
– Low tech prototyping
– Bodystorming
• Design modelling – Mock-ups (“Wizard of Oz”)
• Prototype evaluation – User testing
– Observation
– User notes and comments
Text is displayed here
VE content and viewpoints
Interface design
Research Questions
• What type of VEs?
• How do we replicate social situations?
• How do users understand and interpret these VEs?
• How can we encourage social interaction?
• How do we measure social skills?
• How can we support generalisation?
Research Questions
Single User Virtual Environments (SVEs)
A single user is guided through a
social interaction task and invited to
make choices about what to do and
what to say in specific situations
The user may be supported by a
teacher or training advisor seated
next to them at the PC
SVE Training Scenarios
Social Café
Catching a bus
• Use, understanding and learning (to a limited degree).
• Some indication of successful learning and potential
generalisation to other media
• Learning potential not confined to those with stronger
verbal abilities (Mitchell et al. 2007)
• However, limitations
– Visually „blocky and unrealistic‟
– Limited spontaneous interpersonal communication
• CVEs offer more flexibility for but technology not
sufficiently robust for use in schools (Cobb, 2007)
Main findings
http://cospatial.fbk.eu
Objective: to develop specific interactive technologies for school settings that may help to promote learning and social competence in children on the autism spectrum.
Project structure
SoA Review
CBT Framework
SAS Technology CVE Technology
Evaluation
Social competence training Technology for ASC
Social competence skills:
• cooperation/collaboration
• social conversation
Application of CBT techniques:
• learning
• experience
• Design Process • Usability • Barriers to implementation
• Effectiveness
Collaborative Virtual Environments
(CVEs)
• Several users, real time
communication
• Open-ended, more natural
• Less anxiety provoking
• Exploration
• Dynamic
• Perspective taking
• Facilitation
• Supportive environment for
rehearsing appropriate
behaviours
Design method
• Design team: research group + teachers
• Design workshops –
evaluation & discussion of
design concepts
• School visits
• Concept designs
• Prototype building
• Methods for user testing and evaluation
• User trials
Participatory design
CBT aspects of scenario What is the intervention focused general social goal? Cooperation / Collaboration
What are goal’s main social components? Choosing
Mutual planning
Mutual performance
What are goal’s sub social components? Compromise
Which CBT learning
techniques are most
suitable to be
implemented?
Indicate which are best implemented
via software
Problem solving
Indicate which are best implemented
via a human mediator
Concept clarification
(collaboration/cooperation)
Which CBT
experience
techniques are most
suitable to be
implemented?
Indicate which are best implemented
via software
Behavioural rehearsal (working
together)
Feedback reinforcement (players are
rewarded for completing the task)
Indicate which are best implemented
via a human mediator
Modelling practice
Homework (practice working together
on a task in a real world activity)
Teacher Involvement
• 3 schools; 3 teachers in core design team
• 5 schools; 40 teachers in stage 2 reviews
• 4 schools intervention study (22 pupils)
• Dissemination event: 120 delegates, 1000+ hits online
Agile
Design Team
WP5
Wider school setting (new schools & PD with ASD students)
Block Party Block Party
Block Party
Catch
the Sheep
Catch
the
Sheep
Catch
the
Sheep
Snack Tim
e
Design Concepts
Adapted methods: involving
children with ASC in design
Millen, Cobb, Patel and Glover (2012).
Millen, Cobb, and Patel (2011)..
CVE software
Talk2U: Two children work with a teacher who explains social conversation and helps them to practise key parts. Different topics can be chosen and talked about by pressing the button in the room.
Block Challenge: Two children work together to build a tower of blocks. Each has a different target, and they must talk to each other to select blocks and rotate them so that the side facing each player matches their own target.
Main findings
• Suitable for supporting collaboration and communication
• Encourages children to consider others‟ perspective and
task-related needs
• Facilitation can be tailored to the individual needs of
children
• Engaging for all children but too easy for most
• Overall, game does what we wanted it to do!
Follow-on project: Shape digital stories. See outcomes relating to COSPATIAL in videos „Collaboration by Stealth‟, „Outside the Box‟, and „Working Party‟. http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/research/activity/education/shape/digital-stories/index.aspx
Why can’t you have what
you want?
Lessons learned: how to improve
the participatory design approach
CVE development process
Concept evaluation & prototyping Formative evaluation & re-design
Background technology review Concept elaboration
User centred design process.
Iterative review of design stages
Identification of needs & requirements + CBT
Presentation of requirements to
different stakeholders
Multi-disciplinary research in development and
application of interactive technology
Multi-disciplinary design/development teams Stakeholders--- define objectives/interpret outcomes HF/HCI researchers --- interface design CS and technical research--- develop design prototypes Users --- inform and evaluate interface, usability
Understanding user needs and requirements Task description Interviews and observation Focus groups
Informing technology design and development
UCD and PD methods Low tech prototyping Focus group review Usability studies
Evaluation of outcomes User testing Observation and measurement of
performance Evaluation of effectiveness
Inclusive design toolbox of methods (Neale, Cobb and Kerr, 2003)
Applying Participatory Design to Develop Technology for Autism Evaluation and Treatment.
Online course in collaboration with Autism Speaks: http://pdtech.haifa.ac.il/login/index.php
The COSPATIAL sandwich
Top slice: theory-driven
from the literature and
disciplinary custom
Filling: technology requirements
affordances, representations,
control, input devices
Bottom slice: user-driven
participants, practices,
processes Parsons and Cobb (2014)
Lessons learned
Overall conclusions
• Development of VR for learning requires a multi-
disciplinary team
• A participatory design approach ensures contribution from
all stakeholders
• Development process difficult and time consuming
• Acknowledge tensions between design drivers -
• Utility still requires teacher-led facilitation
• Not easy for teachers to set up in schools conduct
design process within school context? (Newbutt, N. PhD Thesis 2013)
Acknowledgements
• Thanks to the students, parents, teachers and other
professionals who participated in these projects.
• The Virtual City project was supported by a National
Lotteries Grant.
• AS Interactive was supported by funding from the Shirley
Foundation. Visit www.virart.nott.ac.uk/asi for information
• COSPATIAL was supported by the Seventh Framework
Programme of the European Commission (Grant
agreement no. 231266). Visit http://cospatial.fbk.eu/ for
project information.
References Brown, D. J., Neale, H. R., Cobb, S. V. G., & Reynolds, H. (1999). Development and evaluation of the virtual city. International Journal
of Virtual Reality, 3(4), 27-38.
Cobb, SVG (2007). Virtual environments supporting learning and communication in special needs education. Topics in Language
Disorders, 27 (3), 211-225.
Cobb, S.V.G., Hawkins, T., Millen, L., and Wilson, J.R. (2014) Design and Development of Virtual Environments for Special
Educational Needs. Chapter 42 in: In K. Hale and K. Stanney (Eds.), Virtual Environment Handbook, 2nd Edition, Boca Raton: CRC
Press, 1075-1108.
Cobb, S.V. G., Neale, H.R. and Stewart, D. (2001). Virtual Environments - Improving accessibility to learning? Proceedings of 1st
International Conference on Universal Access and Human Computer Interaction, Aug 8-10, New Orleans, Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, 783-787.
Millen, L., Cobb, S.V.G. & Patel, H (2011). Participatory design approach with children with autism. International Journal on Disability
and Human Development (IJDHD), 10(4), 289-294.
Millen, L., Cobb, S.V.G., Patel, H. and Glover, T. (2012). Collaborative virtual environment for conducting design sessions with students
with autism spectrum conditions. Proc.9th Intl Conf. on Disability, Virtual Reality and Assoc. Technologies. P.M. Sharkey, E. Klinger
(Eds), pp269-278. Laval, France, 10-12 Sept. 2012.
Neale, H., Cobb, S. and Kerr, S. (2003). An inclusive design toolbox for development of educational Virtual Environments. Presented
at: Include2003, Royal College of Art, London, 25-28 March 2003
Parsons, S. and Mitchell, P. (2002) The potential of virtual reality in social skills training for people with autistic spectrum
disorders. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 46, (5), 430-443.
Neale, H. R., Brown, D. J., Cobb, S. V. G., & Wilson, J. R. (1999). Structured evaluation of Virtual Environments for special needs
education. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 8(3), 264-282.
Parsons, S. and Cobb, S. (2014). Reflections on the role of the „users‟: challenges in a multidisciplinary context of learner-centred
design for children on the autism spectrum. International Journal of Research & Method in Education,
DOI:10.1080/1743727X.2014.890584
Parsons, S. and Mitchell, P. (2002) The potential of virtual reality in social skills training for people with autistic spectrum
disorders. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 46, (5), 430-443.