TOWARDS A PEDAGOGY OF COMPARATIVE VISUALIZATION IN 3D DESIGN DISCIPLINES

James BirtFaculty of Society and Design

Bond University, Australia

Jonathan NelsonFaculty of Society and Design

Bond University, Australia

Dirk HovorkaBusiness Information SystemsUniversity of Sydney, Australia

Dr James BirtAssistant 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

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

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

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

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

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 Media2D VR Phy

Theoretical paradigms of 3d modelling Y Y Y3d primitive construction & manipulation Y YCurves & NURBS surfaces Y Y3d modelling as it relates to the human scale Y YComplex surface construction Y Y3d modelling as it applies to architecture Y YManage complex scenes with a high number of models Y   YPresenting a complex scene & ability to reflect and synthesize the course material Y Y Y

Experimental Design• Participants Undergraduate Architecture students (n = 25)• Reflective weekly learning blog comparing media• Analyse using a thematic analysis through NVIVOTM

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

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 RealityAccessibility 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

• 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