1 / 26

Using Augmented Reality to Conduct Chemistry Labs

Using Augmented Reality to Conduct Chemistry Labs. EDIT 752. Group 2. Michelle Dunham Andrew Muccio Jesse Ortel Frances Suazo. Agenda. Project Review EDIT 732: Prototype version 1.0 Research: Round 1 Changes: Prototype version 2.0 Research: Round 2 Changes: Prototype version 3.0

agalia
Télécharger la présentation

Using Augmented Reality to Conduct Chemistry Labs

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Using Augmented Reality to Conduct Chemistry Labs EDIT 752

  2. Group 2 Michelle Dunham Andrew Muccio Jesse Ortel Frances Suazo

  3. Agenda • Project Review • EDIT 732: Prototype version 1.0 • Research: Round 1 • Changes: Prototype version 2.0 • Research: Round 2 • Changes: Prototype version 3.0 • Business Model Update • Summary

  4. Project Review • AR Chemistry Lab for home school high school Chemistry students • Students would use AR based lab to replace existing labs that are conducted at home using basic lab materials and off-the-shelf curriculums (e.g. Apologia) • Advantage of AR labs: safe, inexpensive, logistics friendly, student centered/controlled, spatial oriented, physical component (haptic), exploratory in nature, meets CLEP standards, and allows for easy iterative modeling.

  5. Project Review • Primary Persona: HS junior - college-bound, independent learner, wants enriching learning experiences, frustrated by lab barriers, open to new technology, and life long learner. • Secondary Persona: Parent/teacher - Safety/time/dollar conscious, preparing kids to compete and excel in college and be lifelong learners. • Warrants further investigation and review at a future date

  6. EDIT 732: Prototype version 1.0 • Captivate concept based prototype • Focused on: • Reaction time and pour rate calculations of AR algorithm in order to replicate realistic titration experience • Parent Control • CLEP • Using water, flour, and house hold cups • Stick, Cut, Place in Front

  7. Research: Round 1 (March 2011) • Three components: • Critical Group Reflection (CGR) • Competitive Analysis • Interviews: 4 interviews(3 students/1 parent/teacher) • Findings • CGR: • Use beakers instead of cups based on feedback from stakeholders • Need to have a weight component for powders • Creation of Research Questions • Competitive Analysis: • Still no competitors, but…

  8. Research: Round 1 (March 2011) • Findings (continued): • Interviews (4) • Format/ HSRB approved • Feedback: • Validation of key concepts/assumptions identified in CGR • Validated: Concept, Safety, logistics, CLEP, modeling, realistic, constructivist, price (value) • Not Validated: sharing results with siblings, marketing slogan, value of using household items, simplicity over reality • Measurement must be done and errors must impact the outcome in a realistic way • Measurement tools should be realistic • User controls/options fine-tuned

  9. Research: Round 1 (March 2011) • Process for Revising the Prototype • Group 2 developed a table that includes: • A description of each prototype item we evaluated • What action we took with the item in our revised prototype • What category type(s) does each prototype item belong to (Functional, Operational, Visual, Marketing, and Standards) • The source(s) who noted the prototype item • The group’s decision and logic to why we took the action we did with the item in the revised prototype

  10. Round 1

  11. Round 1

  12. Round 1

  13. Round 1

  14. Round 1

  15. Round 1

  16. Round 1

  17. Parking Lot for Round 2 or Future Round 3

  18. Changes: Prototype version 2.0 • Matrix (change-add/delete/modify, source, decision point/logic) – with links • Side by Side comparison shots of prototype • Show border changes options and be ready to explain why these were made • Show measurement change shots • Show error of measurement/hint use/ then correct measure and outcome • Show using realistic equipment (beakers/scale) • Show universal markers on beakers/equip • Parking lot

  19. Version 1.0 Version 2.0 Measurement precision focus

  20. Version 1.0 Version 2.0 Error feedback loop

  21. Version 1.0 Version 2.0 Authentic experience

  22. Version 1.0 Version 2.0 Border features

  23. Research: Round 2 (April 2011) • Revision of interview questions

  24. Changes: Prototype version 3.0

  25. Business Model • No known competitors with AR lab focus • Teacher/Student approved • Potential annual market: ~105,000 units (based on 2007 NCES stats of 422,000 9-12 grade home school students) • Recommended Retail Price: $250 (based on competitive analysis done 15 Mar 2011, and Research Round 1 interviews) • Product could be aligned with all major chemistry curricula, but recommend start with established home school curriculums • Product should expand to Physics

  26. Summary • Road ahead and Recommendations

More Related