A conceptual framework to compare two paradigms of augmented and mixed reality experiences

Abstract

Augmented and Mixed Reality mobile technologies are becoming an emerging trend in the development of play and learning experiences for children. This tendency requires a deeper understanding of their specificities to adequately inform design. To this end, we ran a study with 36 elementary school children to compare two AR/MR interaction paradigms for mobile technologies: (1) the consolidated "Window-on-the-World" (WoW), and (2) the emerging "World-as-Support" (WaS). By analyzing children's understanding and use of space while playing an AR/MR mystery game, and analyzing the collaboration that emerges among them, we show that the two paradigms scaffold children's attention differently during the experience and elicit different forms of collaboration. We conclude by presenting a conceptual framework to distinguish the strengths, weaknesses, and potential of the two AR/MR paradigms, as well as the comparison between marker-based and marker-less technical solutions. This study aims at helping practitioners in taking design decisions for AR/MR technologies for children.

Using augmented reality with speech input for non-native children's language learning

“…Children can also control the view or change the position of 3D objects in real-time by rearranging the AR markers or using their voice. Instead of focusing fully on the screen, children construct the learning experience with the support of the physical world, which results in a more holistic understanding of the experience (Malinverni et al, 2018). These kinds of activities could provide exciting ways to enrich the educational experience and motivate children"s learning.…”

A systematic review of physical–digital play technology and developmentally relevant child behaviour

“…The effect of tablet screens on collaboration was also found in the study by Malinverni et al [123]. The study compared the behaviour of 36 nine to eleven year-old children in mixed-reality games delivered by a tablet versus a projector.…”

“…This was delivered by including such actions as requirements to achieve play goals or as requirements to engage in play activities. We found examples of how play technology did this for the cases of problem solving in the studies by Malinverni et al [123], McKenzie et al [116], and Shahid, Krahmer, and Swerts [117]; or physical activity in the studies by Cibrian et al [136], Garde et al [119], Martin-Niedecken [130], Saksono et al [135], and Straker et al [121]. Table 8 and Table 9 show a summary of these studies, including only results relevant to problem solving and physical activity, respectively.…”

“…The study by Malinverni et al [123] engaged 36 children aged nine to eleven in problem solving in a mixed-reality mystery solving game under two conditions: Tablet-based and a projector-based mixed reality. Here children were required to solve problems in order to make progress within the mystery solving game.…”

“…Makers programmed the need for children to engage in these developmentally relevant play actions as an integral part of game experiences, to play or advance within the games. Shahid et al [117], Malinverni et al [123] and McKenzie et al [116] offer examples of digital play mechanics that enforce children to engage in problem solving by requiring them to solve problems to advance in treasure-hunt games and a card guessing game. Greater physical accessibility of digital content (visibility of projections rather than tablet screens) also made problem solving more likely to happen within group contexts in Malinverni et al [123].…”