Towards a Pedagogy of Comparative Visualization in 3D Design Disciplines
Download as PPTX, PDF1 like382 views
Spatial visualisation skills and interpretations are critical in the design professions, but traditionally difficult to effectively teach. Visualization and multimedia presentation studies show positive improvements in learner outcomes for specific learning domains. But the development and translation of a comparative visualization pedagogy between disciplines is poorly understood. This research seeks to identify an approach to developing comparable multimodal and interactive visualizations and attendant student reflections for curriculum designers in courses that can utilize visualizations and manipulations. Results from previous use of comparative multimodal visualization pedagogy in a multimedia 3D modelling class are used as a guide to translation of pedagogy to architecture design. The focus is how to guide the use of comparative multimodal visualizations through media properties, lesson sequencing, and reflection to inform effective instruction and learning.
Ad
More Related Content
What's hot (20)
Viewers also liked (13)
Ad
Similar to Towards a Pedagogy of Comparative Visualization in 3D Design Disciplines (20)
Ad
More from Bond University (15)
Recently uploaded (20)
Towards a Pedagogy of Comparative Visualization in 3D Design Disciplines
- 1. TOWARDS A PEDAGOGY OF COMPARATIVE VISUALIZATION IN 3D DESIGN DISCIPLINES James Birt Faculty of Society and Design Bond University, Australia Jonathan Nelson Faculty of Society and Design Bond University, Australia Dirk Hovorka Business Information Systems University of Sydney, Australia
- 2. Dr James Birt Assistant Professor of Interactive Media and Design (Games & Multimedia) • BIT (Hons), PhD (Software Engineering & Artificial Intelligence) • 2014 Australian Office for Learning and Teaching Citation for Outstanding Contribution to Student Learning • 15+ years industry & academic experience • bond.edu.au/profile/dr-james-birt
- 3. Introduction • Spatial visualization & interpretation important design skills BUT require significant experiential development • Visualizations help convey complex spatial concepts But often studied as single modality solutions • Dual modality shows positive improvements But comparison difficult Translating a pedagogy of comparative multimodal visualization (2D, VR & 3D Physical) use - from multimedia to architecture design
- 4. Problem Typically method to learn 3D is with 2D orthographic views • This information literally falls flat and can be difficult to comprehend as a beginner designer or worse for a client
- 5. Previous study: comparative visualization use in multimedia design (Birt & Hovorka, 2014) • Explored the effect of mixed media visualization use in the classroom (3d printing, VR & 2D) • Analysed 12 weeks of reflective learner blogs • Explored questions on: engagement; cognitive memory; visualization advantages/limitations; demonstration & communication
- 6. Emphasis on manipulation & creativity through 3D Physical & VR 2D Image Projection 3D Physical 3D Virtual Reality Accessibility P: available anywhere N: Time consuming; not readily available N: not readily available Useability P: no additional learning required to use P: feels natural like real life N: creates motion sickness; requires extra training Manipulability N: manipulation not authentic P: can handle as real object M: change aspects but no tactile, haptic feedback Navigability N: static, lacks interaction M: aids spatial awareness but can’t navigate internally P: real-time internal navigation and spatial awareness Visibility M: many aspects available but interior is not visible, lacks depth P: enables connection between real and virtual environment P: defect visualisation and classification and aspects available Communication P: simple with rapid versioning M: physical model aids communication but slow to manufacture P: good for demonstration Creativity P: bringing to life; not limited to real life M: making physical reality but limited to physical objects P: real-time interaction and modification improves creative process not limited to real life
- 7. Translating to architectural design • Focus on the synergy among the visualisations to create & reinforce the material to be learned - RQ1: “How do learners perceive the comparative capabilities of visualization media to support learning?” • Learners perceptions may differ between specific lesson tasks and will change over time- RQ2: “Do learners preferences for visualization technologies change with task or over time?” Learning Objective Applied Media 2D VR Phy Theoretical paradigms of 3d modelling Y Y Y 3d primitive construction & manipulation Y Y Curves & NURBS surfaces Y Y 3d modelling as it relates to the human scale Y Y Complex surface construction Y Y 3d modelling as it applies to architecture Y Y Manage complex scenes with a high number of models Y Y Presenting a complex scene & ability to reflect and synthesize the course material Y Y Y
- 8. Experimental Design • Participants Undergraduate Architecture students (n = 25) • Reflective weekly learning blog comparing media • Analyse using a thematic analysis through NVIVOTM
- 9. Weekly Blog - Stimuli Question(s) 1. Which media representation(s) engaged you and what aspect(s) made it engaging? 2. Which media representation(s) did you find most memorable “sticky” in your understanding and implementation of the learning objective and why? 3. Discuss each media representation(s) advantages; limitations (constraints) and contrast the differences between each media representation 4. For the purpose of demonstrating the learning objective to a design team; and client, which media representation would you use and why? 5. Discuss with respect to the media representation(s) how the representation aided communication of the learning objectives between you and: your instructor; and your fellow classmates
- 10. Preliminary Analysis - Emphasis on navigation/scale in physical & VR space (Published @ The 26th Australasian Conference on Information Systems DEC ’15) 2D Image Projection 3D Physical 3D Virtual Reality Accessibility P: Always available; Idea generation; Easy sharing; N: Difficult to fully navigate; unavailable; N: Access to hardware & software; Usability M: Familiar; Direct fabrication; but difficult to comprehend human scale & site placement P: This is reality; Understandable; M: Human scale; Familiar; but problems with Frame Rates; Motion Sickness; Translation to 2D for construction assembly; Senses P: Touch; Materiality; Smell; Sticks in my mind; N: No haptic touch; No smell; Navigability N: Lacks navigation; Sense of depth and perception; Angle of space lost M: Walking in reality has effect; but access & angles of view can be limited; P: Allows navigation of human scale space and orientation; Can view from any angle; Not limited to real life; Visibility N: Space translation lost from 2D to 3D; Interaction with surrounding environment; P: Quality is real life M: scale; immersion; focused illustration of mistakes; allows highlighting of what I found important; but can lack materiality, texture & lighting Comm. N: Difficult to convey immersive & realistic impression of space P: Preferred method of demonstration; Finer detail & realism M: effective; immersive; realistic impression of occupying a space; but not as good as physical Creativity P: Makes one more in tune to real physical space; shows space as a whole instance
- 12. • Full paper available from: http://www.2015conference.ascilite.org/wp- content/uploads/2015/11/ascilite-2015-proceedings.pdf • Preliminary Results available from: https://acis2015.unisa.edu.au/wp- content/uploads/2015/11/ACIS_2015_paper_252.pdf