Artefact 3 - ARTutor in a Field Trip Teaching Geology - MDDE 621

The main purpose of this particular assignment was to summarize the expected benefits and potential problems associated with some form of Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC) in a specific learning situation. I also had to assess how well CMC has met the goals I had set out for it.

Initially, I was not certain that an Augmented Reality application could be regarded as CMC since it is mainly a way of online communication, as the abbreviation suggests, but looking further into theory it turned out that it is also a “means for sending and receiving documents, and accessing databases of all kinds, worldwide” (Fahy & MacGregor, 2017, p. 225) and  Augmented Reality applications can provide such access (2.3).

I had already decided that I would design AR enhanced activities for a field trip to Sousaki, a volcano site close to Athens. When I visited the site to take the pictures needed for the pdf, I had to make a decision about what to include. I read thoroughly the goals I had set for the students and chose certain spots and formations from the area.

The next step was to select the kind of augmentation I would link to these pictures. I had to look through a lot of different resources, study the information provided and choose the ones that would best support the students’ learning by achieving the goals (1.4., 1.5.).  There were pictures, text, videos that I could choose from, but each situation was different. For instance, there was a geothermal energy meter on the site and I wanted to present the benefits of geothermal energy. Looking through the videos I found one that showed water geysers in Iceland a country whose need for energy is covered by geothermy (1.6.). In the case of the cave with carbon dioxide, I had to create my own resource because there were not any available online suitable to teach just that (1.11.).

After choosing the pictures and the information they would be linked to, I had to actually make the connection using the ARTutor platform. It turned out to be quite easy to create a “book” as the augmented pdf is called but to get started, I had to watch a demo and experiment a lot (3.1.). When the augmented book was complete and the pdf pages printed and laminated, I downloaded the ARTutor application on the mobile devices I would use on the field trip. I scanned the pictures a lot of times to see how it worked – there were some issues to be taken into account; for example, there needed to be plenty of light for the augmentation to work (2.4., 2.5.). 

The time between my engaging in developing the book with all the pictures and the variety of augmentations, and the actual date of the field trip, was limited. Everything had to be ready and tested the day before the trip when I went to the school to inform the students of the process, ask them to download the ARTutor application and show them how it works with a demo I had prepared (6.5.).

While we were in the field, I was so happy to see the students so involved in the activities. Some of them were using their own devices and were really interested and seemed to be absorbing any information they accessed. As Tan & El-Bendary (2013) suggest, Augmented Reality actually complements and does not replace reality. The situation I created for the students was ideal since the real and the virtual objects co-exist in real time (3.3., 3.5.).

 My choice of objects to support the learning of students regarding the paleogeographic evolution of this area, with the lake and the volcano, was successful, since all student managed to pass the final assessment after completing all the activities, including a game where all groups contributed their part to illustrate the different stages of the activity of the volcano and how it finally became dormant (4.2., 4.4.).

On the way back home, the students were given evaluation forms to complete, where their anonymity was secured (5.11.). The evaluation of the ARTutor from the instructors was conducted through a Google form (5.10.). It was important that I compiled a questionnaire that would allow me to look deeper into the practical aspects of using the ARTutor as an educational tool to create learning experiences, in order to complete my assignment. I studied carefully the articles already published about ARTutor (5.3.) and chose to ask questions about how easy it was to use and learn the different functions, if it was time-consuming, about its design and the presentation of the system information, about the satisfaction from working with the software, the difficulties they experienced working on it and if there was sufficient support by the AETMA team (5.1., 5.4.). I answered the questions myself along with 3 other teachers that were involved in the whole process.

Summarizing the answers from students was a much more straight-forward process. They all enjoyed working with this application, they asked for even more activities, they underlined their enthusiasm about working in groups and appreciated the fact that they were looking at something and at the same time had access to all sorts of information about it. In the case of the teachers, I had to look for common patterns in their answers and to make a distinction between what they regarded as problems. There were some connectivity problems and some problems with the OS of the Android in the mobile devices that were not actual problems of the ARTutor but affected its efficiency (3.4.). This had to be clearly presented (5.6.).

To do so, I created a PowerPoint presentation as my assignment, but I took it a little further. What I mean is that I exported this presentation as a video, an MP4 file, created my own YouTube channel and published it there. This was the first time I had done something like that and spent a lot of time watching demo videos with instructions on how to do that. I now have my own channel and have published more videos I have created myself, which is very convenient and this acquired skill has served me fine so far (1.10.).

While working on my presentation I mainly focused on the process itself. I included a lot of pictures and videos from the augmentations and some photos taken from the field trip showing how students worked together. I also presented some of the theoretical backgrounds to illustrate what Augmented Reality is all about and of course the evaluations’ results (4.1, 4.6.).

After completing this whole process, from the beginning, designing it, to the end, evaluating it, I can firmly support that ARTutor can serve as a very efficient educational tool that can enhance the teaching design and adequately support the learning process (6.3.). The fact that it is free of charge is another unique feature of it and I feel proud for my contribution (6.4.). Its value is immense since the learning object that I have created is now part of the ARTutor platform and can be freely used by anyone, for strictly educational purposes. Accordingly, other people’s contributions are shared through this platform. As Dr. Tsinakos mentioned, “ARTutor embraces the "UNESCO - Education for All" initiative, trying to remove socioeconomic or cultural barriers which prohibit the access to high-end educational technologies and to the technology-enhanced learning in general” (Tsinakos, 2019) and has been awarded the Golden Price in the Education Leaders Award 2019.

References:

Tan, Q. & El-Bendary, N. (2013). Location-based learning with mobile devices. In Tsinakos A and Ally M. (Eds) in Global Mobile Learning Implementations and Trends,169-186. China Central Radio & TV University Press.

Tsinakos, A. (2019, January 19). ARTutor: An Augmented Reality Platform For Education And More... [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://elearningindustry.com/augmented-reality-platform-for-education-artutor