260 likes | 350 Views
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
E N D
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 • Business Model Update • Summary
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.
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
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
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…
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
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
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
Version 1.0 Version 2.0 Measurement precision focus
Version 1.0 Version 2.0 Error feedback loop
Version 1.0 Version 2.0 Authentic experience
Version 1.0 Version 2.0 Border features
Research: Round 2 (April 2011) • Revision of interview questions
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
Summary • Road ahead and Recommendations