Augmented Reality and the Events Curriculum: The Students’ Perspective

Augmented Reality and the Events Curriculum: The Students’ Perspective

Alex Gibson, Dublin Institute of Technology Mary O’Rawe, Dublin Institute of Technology

Introduction

The emergence of Augmented Reality (AR) as a ground-breaking technology has transcended both business and academic sectors. Despite its rapid rise commercially, evidence of the benefits of AR in the classroom at higher education is slower to emerge, with only a limited focus to date on its specific relationship with curriculum development and learning outcomes. Outside STEM, (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) even less evidence exists. To respond to the changing characteristics of the higher education learning environment, and the shift towards mobile learning (M Learning) and ubiquitous learning (U Learning), it is clear that educators should reflect these trends in curriculum design and didactic methods. This paper presents the findings of exploratory research on the potential benefits of AR in an events management curriculum at the Dublin Institute of Technology. Using focus groups, the authors assess the

degree to which AR is perceived by students as being a valuable tool in increasing learners’ knowledge gain, and the type of cognitive processes that may benefit most. In evaluating the efficacy of AR, the student perspective was mapped a gainst Bloom’s revised taxonomy, yielding

a range of useful lessons for the creation of a progressive and engaged curriculum and learning environment. Concerns raised by students also point to the importance of including the student voice in any development of an AR-enabled curriculum.

Literature Review

The rise of AR and its emergence as a teaching and learning tool Methods After some false dawns, the rise of AR is now seemingly unbounded. In the first quarter of 2016 alone, VC investments in both AR and its sister technology Virtual Reality (VR) totaled $1.2 billion (Merel, 2016), including hardware, video, games, advertising and marketing, and consumer apps.

Described as “the addition of a computer-assisted contextual layer of information over the real world, creating a reality that is enhanced or augmented” (Johnson, Smith, Willis, Levine and Haywood 2011, p. 16), AR has in recent years also garnered increased attention at education Described as “the addition of a computer-assisted contextual layer of information over the real world, creating a reality that is enhanced or augmented” (Johnson, Smith, Willis, Levine and Haywood 2011, p. 16), AR has in recent years also garnered increased attention at education

‘ubiquitious learning’ (Bacca et al. p.133) and ‘nomadic’ learning (Estapa and Nadolny, 2015 p.40) further point to the potential for AR and other modes of technology-enhanced learning. In the U.S., AR has achieved a notable degree of acceptance among innovators in the education space. Common access points to AR technology are in AR tools such as flash cards: the 4D Anatomy (DAQRI) and Animal 4D (Octagon) apps being noteworthy examples. However, up to this point this space has been mostly in the context of primary and secondary students. The tide may be changing. Early studies on higher education report many positive benefits arising from the use of AR. Johnson et al. (2011, p. 16) feature AR as a ‘bonafide game-changer’ pinpointing its ease of use and fit with existing education expectations and practices. Furthermore, in their 2015 analysis, Johnson, Adams Becker, Estrada and Freeman (2015) point to AR as offering clear opportunities to support curriculum design in areas such as blended learning. They also see AR as spurring experimentation generally in higher education. A range of writers (Johnson et al. 2015; Bower and Sturman, 2015) see the projected growth trajectory of wearable technologies as also offering significant future scope for increased employment of AR in the curriculum.

Although useful general discussion of AR in higher education is now emerging, specific studies of AR being integrated into curriculum and pedagogy, and the resulting learning value, lag behind (Schmitz, Klemke and Specht, 2012, p. 6). Few studies have empirically proven the assumed cognitive learning outcomes. Thus, our understanding of the place of AR in learning spaces and contextual learning, and its potential in lecture-hall applications is in the early stages of exploration. Indeed, aligning AR simulations with curriculum design principles and learning outcomes is not a task most curriculum review teams are yet charged with, or are likely to be, in the near future.

The disruptive nature of the education landscape creates a new urgency to grapple with this challenge. With higher education under fire across most OECD countries (Hunt, 2012; OECD, 2010), engaging and retaining students remains a key challenge against a tide of Massive Open Online courses (MOOCs) and online provision. AR can offer some advantages here. Its active rather than passive nature obviously confers potential for interactivity in teaching and assessment modes. Johnson et al. (2011) point to AR’s ability to transfer learning from one context to another

(p. 17) and also highlight its blurring of the boundaries between formal and informal learning. The highly technological profile of the contemporary learner also points to opportunities for AR in the curriculum, with the predominance of students in today ’s universities being from the tech-savvy ‘Generation Y’ or “digital natives” and “digital immigrants” as Prensky (2001) famously termed them.

Current contexts for AR-enabled teaching and learning Where AR curriculum experiences are presented in the literature, they are most often drawn from STEM, and construction and engineering contexts, where there is sharply growing awareness and application (Antonioli et al. 2014; Shirazi and Behzadan, 2015). Students in the medical field too, have benefitted from AR around the anatomy curriculum (Patzer, Smith, & Keebler, 2014). Measurable and positive impacts on students ’ learning have been observed in such contexts both in the short term and long term, but these impacts are often general in nature (Shirazi and Behzadan, 2015; Chiang, Yang & Hwang 2014). Such immersive collaborative simulation clearly offers wider potential for lecturers and students - indeed, AR ’s potentially transformative added value (Minock, 2013) is pointed to, but yet largely unproven. Limited empirical evidence or rigorous case studies do not yet exist to prove this promise in most contexts, including this particular context of Events Management curricula, in terms of its specific benefits in teaching, learning and creative inquiry. It is timely therefore, to provoke a set of questions on how AR may play a part, and the extent of that part, in designing an innovative, challenging and motivating curriculum and pedagogy. This leads to a number of preliminary questions which this paper seeks to address in an exploratory fashion.

Aims and Research Tool

According to Dunleavy and Dede (2014), Augmented Reality poses unique technological, managerial and cognitive challenges in both learning and teaching. While understanding the interrelationship between these challenges, this paper chooses to address the challenges exclusively through the cognitive lens. The specific question under examination in the paper, and therefore the overall aim is: To what extent, and in what context, do students feel AR could increase their knowledge gain, and what domains of knowledge may be most relevant to AR? The authors ’ specific approach in this paper is to contribute a student voice to this debate. The According to Dunleavy and Dede (2014), Augmented Reality poses unique technological, managerial and cognitive challenges in both learning and teaching. While understanding the interrelationship between these challenges, this paper chooses to address the challenges exclusively through the cognitive lens. The specific question under examination in the paper, and therefore the overall aim is: To what extent, and in what context, do students feel AR could increase their knowledge gain, and what domains of knowledge may be most relevant to AR? The authors ’ specific approach in this paper is to contribute a student voice to this debate. The

and attempt to categorize the cognitive learning outcomes experienced by the student focus groups, Bloom ’s taxonomy (Bloom, 1956) was selected as the focus of the research. This much- revered model and its revised version (Anderson, Krathwohl, Airasian, Cruikshank, Mayer, Pintrich, Raths, and Wittrock, 2001) are bedrocks of curriculum development at all levels of education. Academics find great value in these core frameworks, which classify statements of what we expect or intend students to learn as a result of instruction. Rather than the cumulative hierarchical framework of the original framework, the revised model offers a two-dimensional framework whereby learning is mapped along dimensions of ‘Knowledge’ and ‘Cognitive Processes’. This was deemed more appropriate for the characteristics of the focus groups.

Figure 1. Bloom’s revised taxonomy (Anderson et al. 2001)

Bloom’s other categories of learning outcomes (the affective domain and psychomotor domain) were not considered in this study. Both authors have previously used the taxonomy and are experienced in curriculum and programme design. A template, drawn from Anderson et al. (2001) was created by the authors Bloom’s other categories of learning outcomes (the affective domain and psychomotor domain) were not considered in this study. Both authors have previously used the taxonomy and are experienced in curriculum and programme design. A template, drawn from Anderson et al. (2001) was created by the authors

Figure 2. Focus group template

Events Management as the research frame Two focus groups of Event Management students were selected for this research, comprising students from the first and final years of an undergraduate degree (B.Sc. Event Management) at Dublin Institute of Technology. Students were selected on a random probability basis. No students had any prior exposure to AR in either an education or workplace context. Although the research frame of event management was chosen for convenience (both authors are lecturers and tutors on first and final years of the degree), it does offer a useful and appropriate context to explore AR and its potential in the creation of knowledge and learning. Event Management programmes at higher education are now a popular choice for students. The B.Sc. Event Management programme in Dublin Institute of Technology was introduced to the portfolio of degree courses at the School of Hospitality Management and Tourism, DIT in 2005, in response to the growth in events in Ireland at that time and the need to work with industry in enhancing its professionalization through a graduate base. The School already had the leading reputation in Ireland for programmes and research in the hospitality and tourism fields. In the authors’ work around programme review and curriculum development, a wide variety of

approaches to curriculum balance have been observed. For example, the weightings of practical approaches to curriculum balance have been observed. For example, the weightings of practical

the appropriate knowledge, understanding and professional management skills necessary to be successful in the exciting and vibrant event industry through the provision of a carefully designed and academically rigorous programme. The central focus of the programme is on specialist event management subjects and business modules, which extend the field of study to the broader business environment within which event management is positioned. Both authors were members of the original programme development team and the subsequent revalidation team.

Focus groups Two separate focus groups were conducted, one with a first-year sample of eleven students, the other with a final year sample of seven undergraduates. The authors acted as facilitator and rapporteur. The focus groups took place in DIT in April 2016. Following a viewing of video material

around AR (Microsoft Hololens) 1 , each group of students was taken through the structure of the focus group and introduced to Bloom’s taxonomy. A demonstration of an AR application was then provided to contextualize the discussion; students were presented with two stimuli material: item

one was a poster of one of Irela nd’s most successful festivals, Electric Picnic. The second stimulus item was a diagrammatical representation of a core framework from students’

Management module, Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs (Maslow, 1943). Using the Aurasma AR app, both items served as trigger images to launch digital overlays. In the case of the Electric Picnic

poster, when students scanned the image on a tablet which had the app opened, a promotional video from the 2015 Electric Picnic festival began to play. When the image of Maslow’s Hierarchy was scanned, an overlay of a video tutorial on Maslow began to play. Students were then invited to explore how the technology would enhance their learning across a wider number of course modules, and what the nature of that learning might be. By mapping AR applications to the key learning typology of Bloom ’s taxonomy (revised), the authors assessed the extent to which AR

1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7d59O6cfaM0 1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7d59O6cfaM0

Findings and Discussion

From the research a number of interesting findings emerged. Relative to Bloom’s (1956) taxonomy and the revised version (Anderson et al. 2001), the authors found that AR offered most promising applications at the more rudimentary ‘Remember/Recall’ and ‘Understand’ domains,

and paradoxically at the highest order domain of ‘Create’. A member of the first-year focus group commented that “AR would definitely improve my recall and revision”. Final years, too highlighted that AR “would help me understand Accountancy, for example if I miss a class”. Both groups

pointed to the potential for AR in the curriculum of the business-oriented modules, e.g. Accountancy and Management, for self-directed learning and recall support. Key advantages of AR over their traditional Virtual Learning Environment (Blackboard/Webcourses) were seen in terms of personalization, accessibility, and real- time application. “It feels more interactive” and “I would feel more in control of my learning”, commented two final year students. “We could touch, see and experience events…giving us a whole new level of learning”, stated a final year. This

benefit of interactivity was highlighted on a number of occasions; students cited poster and presentation design for a variety of modules as lending th emselves easily to AR. “I could make my materials more personalized and engaging”, commented one student. In the context of Bloom’s ‘Create’ level of learning, final year students pointed to the learning value

that AR could offer by enabling them to understand and create crowd management and capacity flow systems, replacing time-lapse videos. Stage production modules were also deemed to be a good context for AR-enabled learning. One student felt that AR lent a next-generation potential to CAD, stating that “AR can replace walk-through renders”. First-year students highlighted the learning and engagement value of AR in a core module, Event Industry Studies, where they could both ‘understand’ and ‘apply’ learning to fundamental case studies in the event sector. Final years, despite having considerably more extensive practical experience at this stage of their degree, also pinpointed this context, particularly in the aspect of risk, and health and safety. Also drawing favourable comments, was the “potential of AR to aid the transfer of learning from one subject to another”.

In assessing the four knowledge dimensions – factual, conceptual, procedural and meta-cognitive (Anderson et al. 2001)), factual and meta-cognitive were most clearly pointed to by both groups of students. Indeed, meta- cognitive learning was deemed critical and the role of AR in “helping me look back and see the effect on my learning process” was a useful dimension to the discussion. Although Bloom’s affective dimension of learning was not considered as a core component of this

exploratory research, it was noteworthy that both groups of students saw a strong motivational effect in using the technology which would transfer to the cognitive dimension. Comments such

as “wow!”… “so cool!”… and “so good!” were noted in both focus groups, as was the strong novelty dimension of the technology. This is a phenomenon previously explored in the literature,

and the authors deem this a valuable aside. Esposito (2007), although writing in the context of Fac ebook, comments that the more ‘relevant’ lecturers are deemed to be, the more students engage with their learning. A student in the final year group enthused that “We would be at the

cutting edge if we could use this technology, both for our learning and in the workplace, providing new experiences for delegates.”

Challenges and criticisms of using AR Although no challenges arose in terms of students’ ability to use and understand the AR technology, concerns were voiced around the extent to which the technology might inhibit group

and peer learning. This may represent inexperienced thinking from the students that AR results in mobile, take-home learning and is not social learning, when in fact some of its greatest potential may lie in this characteristic. This concern was particularly strong in the first-year focus group, where students are still finding their learning style, and dependent on support from peers. Students voiced strong

opinions that the classroom is still critical to learning and that “peer learning could be negatively affected by AR”. Final years too, voiced some concerns around any impact of AR learning materials on the acquisition of soft skills and the role of such skills in enabling higher-order thinking.