Hello, everyone.
My name is Jingya.
I come from Eindhoven University from the Netherlands.
Today, I'm very glad to be here and present our latest study.
And now let's go--
Turning Our Book Into a Game.
I remembered, when I was a kid, I always had a lot of homework.
But I lost my attention very easily
and just wanted to play even for a while.
Today's kids are born with digital medium.
They lost interest in their schoolwork or textbook.
With serious games could improve their learning motivation.
However.
With these games.
Children will close their book and go into the digital world.
What if we want to make the book itself more fun?
Imagine this scenario where a kid
is doing homework on the book and starts
losing concentration.
And suddenly, an animal pops up on the book
and that the children can interact with the animal
directly by moving the book.
And the animal can ask some questions
related to the book page, and the kid
can get immediate feedback from the animal.
This combination of physical book
and the file of digital game could
improve children's learning motivation
and attract them back to the book.
And this is happening with AR serious games.
In our study, you would aim to create a better understanding
of how to design AR serious game to offer children more playful
and fun learning experience.
We applied self-determination series
to fundamental framework.
In the beginning of this study, we applied a co-design session
together with children to better understand them and generate
some of these concepts.
Based on the insights collected from the co-design sessions,
we developed our base game prototype.
So in this game, children use their mobile phones
to scan the book to find out some virtual animals.
They can interact with the animal--
give the animal some food and so solve some math problems
with the animals.
We contacted that user study comparing this AR game
with traditional paper exercise.
Our result showed that AR game was considered more fun
than the paper exercise.
And there was no difference between the correct
in this of answering the question between these two
versions.
Well, this is just the beginning of this story.
Similar to some other existing AR games,
our base game applies the screen-touch interaction
as the input.
And we use now AR specific adamant
to show some information such as the game progress
While we are thinking since we are making a AR game,
how can we make the interaction more intuitive?
And how can we capitalize on the AR affordance
to create a more immersive game world for children?
Oh, yeah.
So take a step further.
We explore the intuitive interaction between the player
and the book.
And also, we created a 3D progress
map to show the progress.
Now let's check out the new game together.
So each rated from the base game, the mere idea
of the new game is that there is an exercise on the book page.
And there are different answers popping up all over the book.
The goal is to guide the animal to find that the correct answer
of the exercise.
The left side is this green touch interaction.
Similar to the base game, the key touches
on the screen to guide the animal to the target answer.
While on the right side is the tangible interaction.
We turn the book itself into the interface,
with which to control the game.
And there are two main actions, turning and lifting.
We start turning action.
Case turn the page around to navigate
the direction of the animal.
And by lifting the paper, keys can control
the speed of the animal.
If the kids leave the paper of a certain angle,
the animal will speed up.
And similarly, if lifting from the opposite side,
its moving speed will slower down until it stops.
It's like animal is climbing or sliding in the real world.
So by comparing these two-way interactions,
we are curious to find out to what
extent children want to make effort in playing the game.
Regarding to the feedback type, in the left side,
after the animal finds the correct answer,
kids will get immediate feedback on the top right
corner on the screen.
While with the 3D progress map.
After the animal find the correct answer,
kids can collect the animal on the map.
If the answer is correct, they can see the animal.
And if the answer is not correct,
they can't find the animal anywhere on the map.
They can check the map anytime during the game.
And at the end, they can see how many
exercise they have all sorted correctly
by checking the number of the animals on the map.
By comparing these two versions, we
aim to find out the impact to of AR-enabled paradigms
on the learning experience.
We conduct a study with 32 children from the Netherlands,
aged seven and eight years old.
We adapted questions from PENS and IMI or questionnaire.
We also observe their behaviors during the play,
and we conducted this interview after the play.
I don't know if you ever have experience playing or doing
experience with this age group.
Also asked the previous presenter just said,
it is quite difficult because these kids are really sweet,
and they really want to make us happy.
So they tend to slug the highest ratings in the questionnaires.
And sometimes, they have difficulties understand
the written emotions.
Therefore, we also develop animated skills
to help children to select the more nuanced answers.
We want to make children feel that there are other kids who
are also expressing their opinions,
and it is OK to have different opinions with the statement.
We also want to attract children's attention
more with this colorful and visually expressive
characteristic than just on the paper.
The animated skills include different characters
with different gender and different appearance
to address like the one character
during the entire questionnaire.
These expressions and movements were
recorded by the acting of two professional actors.
We also did some pattern study with these scales
but don't want to keep you from lunch.
So if you are interested, I can talk to you later.
So now, let's move on to the findings.
Overall our results shows that there
are no significant difference between the two exam
interaction types in terms of perceived competence, autonomy,
and the enjoyment level.
Regarding to the difference between the two feedback types,
our data indicate that when receiving feedback
through progress map, children significantly
perceived more competence and autonomy.
And they reported significant stronger feelings of enjoyment.
Based on the findings, we generated some insights
for AR serious game design.
First, our data showed that for a serious AR game,
a simple screen touch interaction might already
be sufficient.
However, we see the potentials in applying
tangible interactions when designing it.
There should be a video.
Although the tangible interaction
requires more effort from children,
they were not demotivated in using it.
Instead, according to the interview,
children found it interesting and more fun.
We also observed that children enjoyed
exploring and practicing the controls
of the tangible interface.
Therefore, using this physical book to control the game
can be applied as the solution, with which children
can make meaningful actions and understand that direct response
towards their actions.
Regarding to the feedback types, their
proposed a progress map can be inserted into different books
and can be generalized to different game
stories, engaging children to interact with the book more.
Therefore, when designing for motivating
and immersive experience for children,
we suggest designers to utilize a special fondness of AR
to create stories or replace basis.
They can integrate the virtual game
elements more in spatial settings
and combine them with the real world
to [INAUDIBLE] that learning environment.
We are aware of the limitation in our studies.
For example, we use a new animated skills.
And we even measure the learning performance
in the current study.
And we are aware of these limitations
and will focus on them, address them more in the future
and overcome-- carry out of further a systematic research.
In conclusion, in this study, we examined
the noble interactions and the representation
paradigms that AR forced to better understand
how they can influence children's learning experience
and how to take advantage of them effectively.
We think AR games can have strong motivation and power
to engage children in learning.
By doing this research, we seek to view
this is systematic understanding of the design
space of serious AR games and the ways in which it
can improve learning motivation for children in the future.
That's it.
Thank you.
We do still have time for a few questions.
So there in the middle, that mic is going from your left.
OK.
Adrian Schneider from Queen's University in Canada.
Hi.
I'm wondering in the earlier study where the animals popped
up when it was determined that the children were distracted,
how did you decide when they were distracted
because obviously you didn't want to distract them
by animals if they were working really well?
Oh, you mean the beginning?
The radio I showed?
Yeah.
Yes, that's the beginning of my story.
But it's not the beginning of the study.
The beginning of study's the co-design is in session.
And then we move to the animal pop up from the book.
And the distraction part, I mean,
you know that children have a shorter /
and they always want to do something else when they study.
So what we want to do is to create the book as a game.
So when they open the book, the game already starts.
So they answer some questions.
And they can go into the game, and see some feedback,
and see some reflections.
And then maybe they will be more motivated to study
with the book more.
So I don't know when they will be distracted by that.
I'm sure they will be distracted at some point.
Yeah, thanks.
There was another question that on the other side of the room.
Yeah.
Here, you're in the middle.
Thanks.
Kathrin Gerling, KU Leuven.
I have a really nit picky technical question.
I'm sorry.
On the scale that you served with the animated faces--
Yeah?
I think it's really nice.
But I'm wondering whether the negative point actually
represents a no from the child of that age.
How did you test the validity of the animations that you chose?
Sorry, I didn't get the question.
What's your scales?
You have different visualizations
of how the person feels about the options that you offer.
Did you check if the no visualization that you chose
actually represents a no of the strength
that you would have on a Likert scale?
I can also ask you over lunch of being unfair here, sorry.
Yeah, actually, this is the original scale.
It's the seven Likert scale.
And we found that children have this difficulty
to understand the bipolar scale.
So we tended to the unipolar scale.
So each questions, like, it's a positive one.
They can't strongly agree with it or this great start
to agree.
And there is a negative question.
They can also strongly agree on this agree--
slightly agree.
Maybe we can talk later.
Yeah.
I didn't get that, sorry.
OK.
I think it's about time.
It's 12:30.
So thanks, again.