top of page
Planets In My Pocket. AR and Analog in Educational Play
This 3-week university project aimed to explore AR’s capabilities as an educational tool. The goal was to uncover what AR can offer that educational analog games cannot, while also identifying its potential drawbacks, particularly in fostering collaboration.
SOLUTION
To address this challenge, our team of three designed two games about the solar system: one with physical 3D planets and another where the planets were displayed as animated 3D models through an AR app. This approach allowed us to compare the learning and collaboration experiences between physical and AR-based interactions.
FINDINGS
The user tests revealed that AR offers a fun and engaging way to interact with models. However, it did not prove as effective as a primary learning tool, as users struggled to absorb all the information through AR alone. The tests also revealed that collaboration was stronger when participants shared a single screen, which shows the importance of limiting devices for better teamwork when using AR.
TIME
3 weeks
METHODS
Comparative analysis, user testing, low-fidelity prototyping and high-fidelity prototyping.
TOOLS
Figma, Adobe Suite (including Adobe Aero), Miro, Fusion 360, Zoom, Microsoft Office Suite, and Google Workspace.
SKILLS
Interaction Design, Experience Design, Design Research
DISCOVER AND DEFINE
The discovery phase was all about testing different AR and VR apps to get inspired. In total, over 15 apps were tested.
Testing the apps gave us an overview of different AR types, which we then categorized by trigger element and AR projection type. We encountered three different triggers: a QR code as a trigger, a picture as a trigger and an in-app trigger. The different types of AR are projection on a physical object, projection on our bodies, 3D models around the room and picture-to-video.
IDEATE AND DESIGN
After brainstorming within the education field, we chose the universe as our focus. It intrigued us all, suited AR’s strength in visualizing the unseen, and had readily available 3D planet models, saving development time.
We then started playing around with different apps and options on how we can create an AR solution to see what our possibilities and restrictions are. After taking into account our past experiences with AR + time, we chose our AR type (a physical model in combination with AR).
We created a table for the game, physical models of planets, and an AR model with animations and put together facts about the planets that are easily understandable on the physical and AR model.
USER TESTING
The goal of the user tests was to find out how AR can offer a fun experience of interacting with models, how it affects collaboration and whether users can pick up on data encrypted in the models.
In total, 8 people participated in the user test and the tests were done in pairs. They first interacted with the concept using physical models and then moved on to our concept where models were portrayed in AR. We also tested out how multiple views in AR affected collaboration compared to a singular view, that participants had their own device instead of sharing on one device.
We saw that using one screen compared to using two screens had a clear effect on how the participants collaborated. When participants had two screens, there was less collaboration between them.We discovered that the AR model wasn’t as efficient as a learning tool as we anticipated. However one of the participants said: "Rather than teaching anything, it sparks interest in finding out more".
CONCLUSION
AR provides a fun and engaging experience, making it a valuable tool in educational settings. While it may not replace traditional learning methods, it sparks curiosity and encourages users to explore topics further. One of AR’s key advantages is its ability to offer fresh perspectives - such as showcasing scale, movement, and details that might otherwise be difficult to grasp. AR can be a collaborative tool, if there are limited amount of screens. For example, participants who worked in a pair and shared a screen, were more collaborative than participants who had their own screens.
bottom of page