skip to main content
10.1145/3173225.3173264acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesteiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Work in Progress

Prototyping and Simulating Complex Systems with Paper Craft and Augmented Reality: An Initial Investigation

Published:18 March 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

We present early work developing an Augmented Reality (AR) system that allows young children to design and experiment with complex systems (e.g., bicycle gears, human circulatory system). Our novel approach combines low-fidelity prototyping to help children represent creative ideas, AR visualization to scaffold iterative design, and virtual simulation to support personalized experiments. To evaluate our approach, we conducted an exploratory study with eight children (ages 8-11) using an initial prototype. Our findings demonstrate the viability of our approach, uncover usability challenges, and suggest opportunities for future work. We also distill additional design implications from a follow-up participatory design session with children.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

wip1009.mp4

mp4

124.1 MB

References

  1. Apple Inc. 2017. ARKit. Retrieved from https://developer.apple.com/arkit/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Ryan Arisandi, Yusuke Takami, Mai Otsuki, Asako Kimura, Fumihisa Shibata, and Hideyuki Tamura. 2012. Enjoying virtual handcrafting with ToolDevice. In Adjunct proceedings of the 25th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology (UIST Adjunct Proceedings '12), 17. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Bill Buxton. 2010. Sketching user experiences: getting the design right and the right design. Morgan Kaufmann. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Michelene T H Chi. 1997. Quantifying qualitative analyses of verbal data: A practical guide. The journal of the learning sciences 6, 3: 271--315.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Bill Cope and Mary Kalantzis. 2015. A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Learning by design.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Allison Druin. 1999. Cooperative Inquiry: Developing New Technologies for Children with Children. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '99), 592--599. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Matt Dunleavy, Chris Dede, and Rebecca Mitchell. 2009. Affordances and limitations of immersive participatory augmented reality simulations for teaching and learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology 18, 1: 7--22.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Morten Fjeld, Jonas Fredriksson, Martin Ejdestig, Florin Duca, Kristina Bötschi, Benedikt Voegtli, and Patrick Juchli. 2007. Tangible User Interface for Chemistry Education: Comparative Evaluation and Re-design. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '07), 805--808. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Sean Follmer, David Carr, Emily Lovell, and Hiroshi Ishii. 2010. CopyCAD: Remixing Physical Objects with Copy and Paste from the Real World. In Adjunct Proceedings of the 23Nd Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST '10), 381--382. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Sean Follmer and Hiroshi Ishii. 2012. kidCAD?: Digitally Remixing Toys Through Tangible Tools. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '12), 2401--2410. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Rochel Gelman and Kimberly Brenneman. 2004. Science learning pathways for young children. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 19, 1: 150--158.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. J.S. Gero. 1990. Design Prototypes: A Knowledge Representation Schema for Design. AI Magazine 11, 4: 26. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Ashok K Goel, Swaroop S Vattam, Spencer Rugaber, David Joyner, Cindy E Hmelo-silver, Rebecca Jordan, Sameer Honwad, Steven Gray, and Suparna Sinha. 2009. Learning Functional and Causal Abstractions of Classroom Aquaria The SBF Theory of Understanding of Complex Systems ACT?: Interactive Construction of SBF Models. Science, August: 2128--2133.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Michihiko Goto, Yuko Uematsu, Hideo Saito, Shuji Senda, and Akihiko Iketani. 2010. Task support system by displaying instructional video onto AR workspace. In 2010 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR '10), 83--90.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Mona Leigh Guha, Allison Druin, and Jerry Alan Fails. 2013. Cooperative Inquiry revisited: Reflections of the past and guidelines for the future of intergenerational co-design. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction 1, 1: 14--23.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Ankit Gupta, Dieter Fox, Brian Curless, and Michael Cohen. 2012. DuploTrack?: A Real-time System for Authoring and Guiding Duplo Block Assembly. In Proceedings of the 25th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST '12), 389--401. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Tien Chi Huang, Chia Chen Chen, and Yu Wen Chou. 2016. Animating eco-education: To see, feel, and discover in an augmented reality-based experiential learning environment. Computers and Education 96: 72--82. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. María Blanca Ibáñez, Ángela Di Serio, Diego Villarán, and Carlos Delgado Kloos. 2014. Experimenting with electromagnetism using augmented reality: Impact on flow student experience and educational effectiveness. Computers and Education 71: 1--13. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Yasmin B Kafai and Mitchel Resnick. 1996. Constructionism in practice: Designing, thinking, and learning in a digital world. Routledge.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Amy M. Kamarainen, Shari Metcalf, Tina Grotzer, Allison Browne, Diana Mazzuca, M. Shane Tutwiler, and Chris Dede. 2013. EcoMOBILE: Integrating augmented reality and probeware with environmental education field trips. Computers and Education 68: 545--556.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Hannes Kaufmann and Bernd Meyer. 2008. Simulating Educational Physical Experiments in Augmented Reality. In ACM SIGGRAPH ASIA 2008 Educators Programme (SIGGRAPH Asia '08), 1--8. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Hannes Kaufmann and Dieter Schmalstieg. 2003. Mathematics and geometry education with collaborative augmented reality. Computers and Graphics (Pergamon) 27, 3: 339--345.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Han-Jong Kim, Ju-Whan Kim, and Tek-Jin Nam. 2016. miniStudio: Designers-Tool for Prototyping Ubicomp Space with Interactive Miniature. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '16), 213--224. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Manfred Lau, Masaki Hirose, Akira Ohgawara, Jun Mitani, and Takeo Igarashi. 2012. Situated Modeling: A shape-stamping interface with tangible primitives. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded and Embodied Interaction (TEI '12), 275--282. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Microsoft. 2017. HoloLens. Retrieved from https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/hololensGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Andrew Miller, Brandyn White, Emiko Charbonneau, Zach Kanzler, and Joseph J. Laviola. 2012. Interactive 3D model acquisition and tracking of building block structures. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 18, 4: 651--659. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Seymour Papert and Idit Harel. 1991. Situating Constructionism. Constructionism 36, 2: 1--11.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Remo Pillat, Arjun Nagendran, and Robb Lindgren. 2012. Design requirements for using embodied learning and whole-body metaphors in a mixed reality simulation game. In 2012 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality - Arts, Media, and Humanities (ISMAR-AMH '12), 105--106.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Chris Quintana, Brian Reiser, Elizabeth Davis, Joseph Krajcik, Eric Fretz, Ravit Golan Duncan, Eleni Kyza, Daniel Edelson, and Elliot Soloway. 2004. A Scaffolding Design Framework for Software to Support Science Inquiry. The Journal of the Learning Sciences 13, 3: 337--386.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Teresa Restivo, Fátima Chouzal, José Rodrigues, Paulo Menezes, and J. Bernardino Lopes. 2014. Augmented reality to improve STEM motivation. In 2014 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), 803--806.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Jochen Rick, Phyillis Francois, Bob Fields, Rowanne Fleck, Nicola Yuill, and Amanda Carr. 2010. Lo-Fi Prototyping to Design Interactive-Tabletop Applications for Children. Capital & Class2 36, 1: 77--95.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Valkyrie Savage, Sean Follmer, Jingyi Li, and Björn Hartmann. 2015. Makers- Marks: Physical Markup for Designing and Fabricating Functional Objects. In Proceedings of the 28th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software & Technology (UIST '15), 103--108. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Hyunyoung Song, François Guimbretière, Chang Hu, and Hod Lipson. 2006. ModelCraft: capturing freehand annotations and edits on physical 3D models. In Proceedings of the 19th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST '06), 1--10. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Y. Umeda, H. Takeda, T. Tomiyama, and H. Yoshikawa. 1990. Function, behaviour, and structure. Applications of Artificial Intelligence in Engineering V 1, 177--193.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Greg Walsh, Elizabeth Foss, Jason Yip, and Allison Druin. 2013. FACIT PD: a framework for analysis and creation of intergenerational techniques for participatory design. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '13), 1--10. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Christian Weichel, Manfred Lau, David Kim, Nicolas Villar, and Hans W. Gellersen. 2014. MixFab: A Mixed-Reality Environment for Personal Fabrication. In Proceedings of the 32nd annual ACM conference on Human factors in computing systems (CHI '14), 3855--3864. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Giles Westerfield, Antonija Mitrovic, and Mark Billinghurst. 2015. Intelligent augmented reality training for motherboard assembly. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 25, 1: 157--172.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. Hsin-kai Wu, Silvia Wen-yu Lee, Hsin-yi Chang, and Jyh-chong Liang. 2013. Computers & Education Current status, opportunities and challenges of augmented reality in education. Computers & Education 62: 41--49.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  39. Peta Wyeth and Helen C Purchase. 2003. Using developmental theories to inform the design of technology for children. In Proceedings of the 2003 conference on Interaction design and children (IDC '03), 93--100. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Prototyping and Simulating Complex Systems with Paper Craft and Augmented Reality: An Initial Investigation

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Conferences
          TEI '18: Proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction
          March 2018
          763 pages
          ISBN:9781450355681
          DOI:10.1145/3173225

          Copyright © 2018 Owner/Author

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 18 March 2018

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • Work in Progress

          Acceptance Rates

          TEI '18 Paper Acceptance Rate37of130submissions,28%Overall Acceptance Rate393of1,367submissions,29%

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader