The brief.
For our main event, we were asked to develop a contextualized, usable tool for our own needs and interests. The tool needed to be digital and created from resources we had available to us or that we could learn to use/ create ourselves over the course. In short, we needed to develop new technical skills. The task was otherwise very open ended and if we couldn’t produce the usable tool, then a proof of concept would do in its place. You’ll see below that I’ve largely developed two ‘working’ proofs of concept.
The design.
The idea behind my design is to use the affordances and configurations of analogue tools such as 3D glasses and classic View-Master stereoscopes to create an experience of literally ‘looking through the lens’ of theory in an immersive sense to solve problems. I’ve detailed the inspiration and research behind the idea in the project proposal so here I’ll just get to the point. Under the umbrella of New Materialism, I want participants to be able to read diffractively across theories, and across physical space. There are 7 physical NSCAD campus spaces included here and 7 theories, to fit the number of slots on a traditional View-Master reel. Theories were stripped down to specific questions as prompts to encourage solutions to space-related problems and to generate discussion ‘through the lens’ of the theories. Spaces were photographed wide-angle. Here are the theories and spaces:
Theories:
Situated learning (Lave & Wenger, 1991)
Phenomenology (Marton, Hounsell & Entwistle, 1984)
Transformative Learning (Mezirow, 1991)
Lateral Thinking (de Bono, 1971)
Social Development Theory (Vygotsy, (1978)
Constructivism (Bruner, 1966)
Cognitive load theory (Sweller, 1988)
Spaces (NSCAD):
Library
Classroom
Fashion Studio
Computer Lab
Lecture Theatre
Learning Commons
Multi-purpose Space
The use.
The tool is intended for use as a professional development tool. Further iterations of the tool could include sets of materials for student use as well, to co-construct solutions to the same problems faculty/technicians/administrators try to address. Two configurations are possible with the simulated tools I’ve designed:
One pair of people, looking individually but discussing together - they see the same space through each View-Master overlayed with 7 theories.
An audience of people looking and discussing collectively - they see 7 different spaces through their 3D glasses, but only 1 theory overlay.
Imagine this professional development scenario: The pair of faculty/technicians look through the View-Master and answer prompts about the same space through 7 theories. The audience looks collectively through the 3D glasses and answers the prompts together. The aim of both experiences is to generate solutions to feeling a lack of community and engagement in NSCAD’s physical spaces through the prompts.
I also want to explore differences in professional development experiences depending on immersion and intimacy in the spatial experience of these media. Which might yield more interesting results in terms of ideation and output, and which might feel physically/cognitively/ emotionally better to participants?
The 3D Glasses (sample 1):
The 3D Glasses (sample 2):
Still image of the 3D effect without the theory overlay.
Translucent coloured overlays were added to differentiate the text from the background for the purposes of this presentation. By using the glasses, the idea is that the text would come forward in space making it clearly distinguishable without the use of an overlay.
The View-Master:
A short criticism:
I have some ideas about changes I’d have made, and steps in the process that I would have done differently.
In the View-Master sample, I’d have liked to figure out how to animate the images to rotate like a View-Master reel as they enter the screen.
I think it would have been interesting to play more with blending this digital process with the classic analogue version. Is there a way, for example, to make View-Master film images, then use projections and mirrors to allow for audience viewing, while retaining a sense of immersion?
I’d have liked the letters to represent better the 3D, moving-forward-in-space effect I’d had in my head.
The theoretical ‘lenses’ are represented as question prompts, which are purely textual. I’d have liked to play with their modality a bit to see if there were other ways of representing the elements of the theories I wanted to deploy as thinking tools.
Next time, when I take the pictures, I need to create depth of field in order for the 3 effect to really work.