Using AR to support learning and teaching in the recording studio environment.

1. Using augmented
reality to support
learning and teaching
in the recording studio
environment

2. Ruth Clark: Senior Learning Technologist
Craig Golding: Curriculum Leader Music
Production and Film Music

3. • Specialist Study Core
Module
• Taught in small studio
groups (5-6 students)
• 2 hour highly practical,
hands-on learning
experience.
www.lcm.ac.uk
@leedsmusic
Teaching Music Production
at Leeds College of Music

4.  Existing learning resources used
in isolation and out of the studio
environment.
 Large quantities of information
to absorb and complex technical
skills to retain during classes
 Focus on practical application of
knowledge presents a barrier to
higher level thinking
www.lcm.ac.uk
@leedsmusic
Challenges of Studio Learning
Environment
“overemphasis upon lower order
thinking in the curriculum
constrains the amount of time that
can be dedicated to having
students think critically and utilise
knowledge in creative and
meaningful ways” (Bower et al.).

5.  Benefits kinaesthetic and multi-
modal learning styles
 Support constructivist learning
pedagogies
 Engaging students with
emerging technologies and
immersive learning experience.
www.lcm.ac.uk
@leedsmusic
Why Augmented Reality?
“enable the visualisation of
intangible concepts” (M.
Akçayır and G. Akçayır)

6. • Enlisted the services of
Jisc
• Matt Ramirez:
– Lead AR developer
• Collaborative design
process
www.lcm.ac.uk
@leedsmusic
Partnership with Jisc and
design process
Graphic here

7.  Navigation and set up of
recording console
 Used existing interactive
manual (Articulate) to
create storyboard
 Colour coded overlays
 Additional information and
multimedia
 Required robust 3D
tracking model
www.lcm.ac.uk
@leedsmusic
First Phase of Development

8. www.lcm.ac.uk
@leedsmusic
Second Phase of
Development
 Student and staff identified
patch bay as challenging.
 Patch bay, signal flow and
relation to recording process a
threshold concept
 Some students demonstrated
“mimicry”, following a more
confident student’s lead.

9. www.lcm.ac.uk
@leedsmusic
Second Phase of
Development
 AR layer that controlled
functionality related to digital
overlay
 HTML 5 layer for user control
of animated leads
 Signal flow shown via
animated arrows

11. EVALUATION AND ANALYSIS OF
DEVELOPMENT

12. • Pilot groups observed and
follow up focus groups
• Ascertain effect on learning
behaviours
• Identify areas for development
and latent technical issues
www.lcm.ac.uk
@leedsmusic
Methods

13. • Positive response from
users
• Tracking reliability
identified as a potential
barrier to uptake
• Recent developments in
tracking technologies
were incorporated
www.lcm.ac.uk
@leedsmusic
User response and technical
barriers

14. • Student’s ability to self-support
and respond to technical
questions increased
• Enabled students to refresh
their knowledge when tackling
studio sessions out of class and
after breaks from study
• Tutors observed better
knowledge retention
www.lcm.ac.uk
@leedsmusic
Constructivist learning
…an effective constructivist
approach to learning as students
made more “deep and lasting
connections within their
knowledge base” [2]

15. • The combination of the visual,
auditory, written and
kinaesthetic elements suited
students’ individual learning
styles.
• More effective situated
learning.
www.lcm.ac.uk
@leedsmusic
Multimodal learning
“If I have a problem, I learn
by fixing the problem there
and then"

16. • Shift in group dynamic, with less
dominance of a ‘technical
ringleader’.
• Introvert students more engaged
in the practical learning process.
• There was less appearance of
“mimicry” and students in
participating pilot groups grasped
the threshold concept of the
patch bay quicker, allowing them a
deeper understanding of the
subject [5].
www.lcm.ac.uk
@leedsmusic
Effective group based learning
Democratising the learning
process and ensuring
understanding of threshold
concepts

17. www.lcm.ac.uk
@leedsmusic
Final Project Output
Graphic here
 Stand-alone app
 Available on student’s own
devices via App store
 Integrated within curriculum
via scheme of work
 Expansion to other
curriculum areas within the
conservatoire.

18. References
1. L. W. Anderson, D. R. Krathwohl, Eds., A Taxonomy for Learning,
Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of
Educational Objectives. (Longman, New York, 2001).
2. M. Bower, C. Howe, N. McCredie, A. Robinson, D. Grover,
Augmented Reality in education–cases, places and potentials.
Educational Media International 51(1), 1-15. (2014).
3. I. Radu, R. Zheng, G. Golubski, M. Guzdial. (Augmented Reality in
the Future of Education. (Paper presented at CHI ’10, Boston, USA,
2010;
http://www.dfki.de/EducationCHI2010/web/Schedule_files/EDUCATI
ONRadu_et_al.pdf) [the easiest access to this source is by the
internet]
4. H. Beetham in Rethinking Pedagogy for a Digital Age, H. Beetham,
R. Sharpe, Eds. (Routledge, New York, 2013), pp31-48. [second
edition]
5. R. Land, G. Cousin, J.H. Meyer, P. Davies in Improving Student
Learning Diversity and Inclusivity, C Rust, Ed. (Oxford Centre for Staff
and Learning Development, Oxford, 2005), pp53-64.
6. M. Akçayır, G. Akçayır, Advantages and challenges associated with
augmented reality for education: A systematic review of the
literature. Educational Research Review, 20, 1-11, (2017).

19. THANK
YOURuth Clark – r.clark@lcm.ac.uk
Craig Golding – c.golding@lcm.ac.uk