FC 2016: Frontier Computing pp 971-979 | Cite as
Developing the Framework for Evaluating the Interaction Design of Mobile Augmented Reality Systems for Cultural Learning
Abstract
Mobile augmented reality (MAR) is an increasingly popular technology for enhancing how students interact with and learn about the cultural environment and cultural objects in the physical world. Sometime the learning effect is influenced by the delighted value, which is always subjective and learning—driven. In order to ensure successful launch the mobile augment reality of cultural interactive learning tool, it is extremely important to predict the delighted value of design alternatives systematically based on the common language understood by both students and designers. However, the framework for communicating and evaluating such value from interested perspective is not available in the literature. Therefore, the objective of this research is to extract key frameworks of delighted value from interested perspective and develop an effective algorithm to evaluate MAR cultural learning system. First, through literature review and the interview of participants, many scenarios of learning influence were collected. A focus group was invited to identify the essential elements that influence the delighted value of MAR cultural learning system. Followed by a large scale questionnaire survey and factor analysis, four frameworks were extracted. These frameworks, name as CARE framework in brief, included communication, association, reflection, and engagement. Second, the perception differences of MAR cultural learning paper prototypes were conducted to verify the validity of CARE framework for comparative studied. The findings of this study demonstrated that CARE framework was effective for solution designing in MAR cultural interactive learning tool.
Keywords
Mobile augmented reality design Cultural learning Frameworks of delighted valueReferences
- 1.Weiser, M., 1991. The Computer for the Twenty-First Century, Scientific American, pp. 94–10, September 1991.Google Scholar
- 2.Bier, E., Stone, M., Pier, K., Buxton, W., DeRose, T.,1993. Toolglass and Magic Lenses: The See-Through Interface. Proc. SIGGRAPH ‘93, ACM Press (1993), 73–80.Google Scholar
- 3.Cristian, V.,2011. Entry points, interests and attitudes. An integrative approach of learning. Procedia Socail and Behavioral Sciences, 11, 77–81.Google Scholar
- 4.Krapp, A., Hidi, S. & Renninger, A., 1992. Interests, learning and development. The role of interest in learning and development (pp. 3–25). Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- 5.Renninger, K. A., & Wozniak, R. H., 1985. Effect of interest on attention shift, recognition, and recall in young children. Developmental Psychology, 21, 624–632.Google Scholar
- 6.Renninger, K. A., 2000. Individual interest and its implications for understanding intrinsic motivation. In C. Sansone & J. M. Harackiewicz (Eds.), Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: The search for optimum motivation and performance (pp. 373–404). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
- 7.Hidi, S., & Baird, W., 1988. Strategies for increasing text-based interest and students’ recall of expository text. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 465–483.Google Scholar
- 8.Gleue, T., Dähne, P, 2001. Design and implementation of a mobile device for outdoor augmented reality in the ARCHEOGUIDE project. In: Proceedings of the 2001 conference on virtual reality, archeology, and cultural heritage, Glyfada, Greece. ACM Press, New York, pp 161–168.Google Scholar
- 9.Höllerer T, & Feiner S, 2004. Mobile augmented reality. In: Karimi H, Hammad A (eds) Telegeoinformatics: location-based computing and services. Taylor & Francis Books, LondonGoogle Scholar
- 10.Wellner P., Mackay W. & Gold R, 1993. Back to the real world. Comm ACM 36(7):24–26.Google Scholar
- 11.Milgram P, Kishino F, 1994. A taxonomy of mixed reality visual display. IEICE Trans Inf Syst, E77-D(12):1321–1329.Google Scholar
- 12.Azuma, R.T., 1993. Tracking requirements for augment reality. Communication of ACM, 36(7): 50–51.Google Scholar
- 13.Norman, D. A., 2004. Emotional design: Why we love (or hate) everyday things. NewYork: Basic BooksGoogle Scholar
- 14.Veryzer, R. W., & Borja de Mozota, B., 2005. The impact of user-oriented design on new product development: An examination of fundamental relationships. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 22(2), 128–143. (2005).Google Scholar
- 15.Lang, P. J., 1985. The cognitive psychophysiology of emotion: Anxiety and the anxiety disorders. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- 16.Huang, M. H., 2001. The theory of emotions in marketing. Journal of Business and Psychology, 16(2), 239–247.Google Scholar
- 17.Lave, J. & Wenger, E., 1991. Situated Learning. Legitimate Peripheral Participation.Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. (1991).Google Scholar