More Like this

1. TAR AR: RESEARCHING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF AUGMENTED REALITY ACTIVITIES FOR VISITOR LEARNING AT LA BREA TAR PITS

   DeNeve Weeks, Danaan ( January 2022 , SOCIETY OF VERTEBRATE PALEONTOLOGY)

   Digital technologies have the potential to support informal STEM learning by fostering immersion, interactivity, and engagement with scientific material. AR in particular can overlay digital information on real-world objects and places, revealing and allowing interaction with things the public would normally not see. This is particularly valuable for historical sciences like geology, archaeology, and paleontology, where abstract concepts and unusual/restricted access settings (such as geological or fossil sites, and laboratories) spark curiosity, but also create challenges for fostering learning. However, AR as a tool is still in its nascent stages. Current applications are as likely to be “fun gimmicks” as they are to produce actual learning gains. At La Brea Tar Pits (California, USA) we are researching what makes paleontology learning AR good. We have conducted two ARlearning experiences to test whether AR is better at reducing scientific misconceptions relative to traditional static museum signage and test the effectiveness of several modes of AR delivery (VR headset vs handheld, high vs low interactivity). The first experience taught participants about Pleistocene climate, flora, and fauna. We found that handheld high interactivity AR is preferred, and while no AR condition had greater learning outcomes than comparable signage, the AR experience generated greater curiosity. The second experience (currently underway) invites participants to explore how organisms become entrapped in the asphalt seeps in a life-size AR scene. In addition to both of these experiences, we have created versions of each of the extinct Pleistocene animals represented in the AR experiences that can be interacted with Snapchat, Instagram, or native AR on a user’s phone, that is immediately suitable for classroom and off-site use. Funding Sources National Science Foundation AISL grant 

   more » « less
2. Tar AR: Bringing the past to life in place-based augmented reality science learning.

   Davis, M. ( April 2021 , MuseWeb 2021 Annual Meeting Professional Forum)

   null (Ed.)

   Informal science learning spaces such as museums have been exploring the potential of Augmented Reality (AR) as a means to connect visitors to places, times, or types of content that are otherwise inaccessible. This proposal reports on a design-based research project conducted at La Brea Tar Pits, an active paleontological dig site located within a city park in the heart of Los Angeles. The Natural History Museums of Los Angeles County and the University of Southern California engaged in a research practice partnership to enhance place-based science learning through the design and iterative testing of potential AR exhibits. Results from one implementation show that AR technology increased visitor interest in the park and positive emotions around science content. Significant learning gains and decreases in science misconceptions also occurred for participants. We also give guidance on developing scientifically accurate assets for AR experiences and leading users through a virtual narrative. This presentation offers insights into museum and university partnerships for promoting public understanding of science in informal spaces by leveraging place-based learning through technology-enhanced engagement. https://mw21.museweb.net/proposal/tar-ar-bringing-the-past-to-life-in-place-based-augmented-reality-science-learning/ 

   more » « less
3. Tar AR: Using AR to Enhance Science Enjoyment and Informal Science Learning, (Poster)

   Herrick, I.R. ; Sinatra, G.M. ; Kennedy, A. ; Nye, B.D. ; Swartout, W.R. ; & Lindsey, E. ( January 2020 , 2020 APA Annual Meeting)

   Science museums aim to engage a large, diverse public audience in science learning and consequently, attempt to present information in entertaining, socially oriented, and innovative ways. Recent work using augmented reality (defined as technology that overlays virtual objects on to the real world) engages the public using content that is both situated in the context of the exhibit and virtually generated in a way that allows hidden worlds to become visible. However, little is known about how AR technology can facilitate museum visitors science learning. The Tar AR project, a sustained collaborative partnership funded by NSF AISL with La Brea Tar Pits/Natural History Museum of Los Angeles and a local university, explores how an AR experience can: promote visitor enjoyment, enjoyment, increase understanding of scientific topics, and promote user s feelings of ease with AR technology. 

   more » « less
4. What We Can Learn from Jury Note Taking: A Content Analysis

   Denne, E. ( March 2020 , Annual Conference of the American Psychology-Law Society.)

   Abstract: Jury notetaking can be controversial despite evidence suggesting benefits for recall and understanding. Research on note taking has historically focused on the deliberation process. Yet, little research explores the notes themselves. We developed a 10-item coding guide to explore what jurors take notes on (e.g., simple vs. complex evidence) and how they take notes (e.g., gist vs. specific representation). In general, jurors made gist representations of simple and complex information in their notes. This finding is consistent with Fuzzy Trace Theory (Reyna & Brainerd, 1995) and suggests notes may serve as a general memory aid, rather than verbatim representation. Summary: The practice of jury notetaking in the courtroom is often contested. Some states allow it (e.g., Nebraska: State v. Kipf, 1990), while others forbid it (e.g., Louisiana: La. Code of Crim. Proc., Art. 793). Some argue notes may serve as a memory aid, increase juror confidence during deliberation, and help jurors engage in the trial (Hannaford & Munsterman, 2001; Heuer & Penrod, 1988, 1994). Others argue notetaking may distract jurors from listening to evidence, that juror notes may be given undue weight, and that those who took notes may dictate the deliberation process (Dann, Hans, & Kaye, 2005). While research has evaluated the efficacy of juror notes on evidence comprehension, little work has explored the specific content of juror notes. In a similar project on which we build, Dann, Hans, and Kaye (2005) found jurors took on average 270 words of notes each with 85% including references to jury instructions in their notes. In the present study we use a content analysis approach to examine how jurors take notes about simple and complex evidence. We were particularly interested in how jurors captured gist and specific (verbatim) information in their notes as they have different implications for information recall during deliberation. According to Fuzzy Trace Theory (Reyna & Brainerd, 1995), people extract “gist” or qualitative meaning from information, and also exact, verbatim representations. Although both are important for helping people make well-informed judgments, gist-based understandings are purported to be even more important than verbatim understanding (Reyna, 2008; Reyna & Brainer, 2007). As such, it could be useful to examine how laypeople represent information in their notes during deliberation of evidence. Methods Prior to watching a 45-minute mock bank robbery trial, jurors were given a pen and notepad and instructed they were permitted to take notes. The evidence included testimony from the defendant, witnesses, and expert witnesses from prosecution and defense. Expert testimony described complex mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) evidence. The present analysis consists of pilot data representing 2,733 lines of notes from 52 randomly-selected jurors across 41 mock juries. Our final sample for presentation at AP-LS will consist of all 391 juror notes in our dataset. Based on previous research exploring jury note taking as well as our specific interest in gist vs. specific encoding of information, we developed a coding guide to quantify juror note-taking behaviors. Four researchers independently coded a subset of notes. Coders achieved acceptable interrater reliability [(Cronbach’s Alpha = .80-.92) on all variables across 20% of cases]. Prior to AP-LS, we will link juror notes with how they discuss scientific and non-scientific evidence during jury deliberation. Coding Note length. Before coding for content, coders counted lines of text. Each notepad line with at minimum one complete word was coded as a line of text. Gist information vs. Specific information. Any line referencing evidence was coded as gist or specific. We coded gist information as information that did not contain any specific details but summarized the meaning of the evidence (e.g., “bad, not many people excluded”). Specific information was coded as such if it contained a verbatim descriptive (e.g.,“<1 of people could be excluded”). We further coded whether this information was related to non-scientific evidence or related to the scientific DNA evidence. Mentions of DNA Evidence vs. Other Evidence. We were specifically interested in whether jurors mentioned the DNA evidence and how they captured complex evidence. When DNA evidence was mention we coded the content of the DNA reference. Mentions of the characteristics of mtDNA vs nDNA, the DNA match process or who could be excluded, heteroplasmy, references to database size, and other references were coded. Reliability. When referencing DNA evidence, we were interested in whether jurors mentioned the evidence reliability. Any specific mention of reliability of DNA evidence was noted (e.g., “MT DNA is not as powerful, more prone to error”). Expert Qualification. Finally, we were interested in whether jurors noted an expert’s qualifications. All references were coded (e.g., “Forensic analyst”). Results On average, jurors took 53 lines of notes (range: 3-137 lines). Most (83%) mentioned jury instructions before moving on to case specific information. The majority of references to evidence were gist references (54%) focusing on non-scientific evidence and scientific expert testimony equally (50%). When jurors encoded information using specific references (46%), they referenced non-scientific evidence and expert testimony equally as well (50%). Thirty-three percent of lines were devoted to expert testimony with every juror including at least one line. References to the DNA evidence were usually focused on who could be excluded from the FBIs database (43%), followed by references to differences between mtDNA vs nDNA (30%), and mentions of the size of the database (11%). Less frequently, references to DNA evidence focused on heteroplasmy (5%). Of those references that did not fit into a coding category (11%), most focused on the DNA extraction process, general information about DNA, and the uniqueness of DNA. We further coded references to DNA reliability (15%) as well as references to specific statistical information (14%). Finally, 40% of jurors made reference to an expert’s qualifications. Conclusion Jury note content analysis can reveal important information about how jurors capture trial information (e.g., gist vs verbatim), what evidence they consider important, and what they consider relevant and irrelevant. In our case, it appeared jurors largely created gist representations of information that focused equally on non-scientific evidence and scientific expert testimony. This finding suggests note taking may serve not only to represent information verbatim, but also and perhaps mostly as a general memory aid summarizing the meaning of evidence. Further, jurors’ references to evidence tended to be equally focused on the non-scientific evidence and the scientifically complex DNA evidence. This observation suggests jurors may attend just as much to non-scientific evidence as they to do complex scientific evidence in cases involving complicated evidence – an observation that might inform future work on understanding how jurors interpret evidence in cases with complex information. Learning objective: Participants will be able to describe emerging evidence about how jurors take notes during trial. 

   more » « less
5. Real-time experiential geosimulation in virtual reality with immersion-emission

   https://doi.org/10.1145/3486184.3491079  

   Torrens, Paul M. ; Gu, Simin ( November 2021 , GeoSim '21: Proceedings of the 4th ACM SIGSPATIAL International Workshop on GeoSpatial Simulation. November 2, 2021)

   The aim of this work is to develop closer connectivity between real, lived human encounters in everyday life and geosimulation that might be tasked and designed to experiment with synthetic variations of those experiences. In particular, we propose that geosimulation can be used in close connection with virtual geographic environments and virtual reality environments to build human-in-the-loop interactivity between real people and geosimulation of the geographies that they experience. We introduce a novel scheme based on immersion and emission by socio-visual gaze to facilitate connectivity between human users and geosimulation. To examine the utility of the approach, we present a worked demonstration for examining road-crossing behavior in downtown settings for Brooklyn, NY. 

   more » « less