Spatial visualisation skills and interpretations are critical in the design professions, but traditionally difficult to effectively teach. Visualization and multimedia presentation studies show positive improvements in learner outcomes for specific learning domains. But the development and translation of a comparative visualization pedagogy between disciplines is poorly understood. This research seeks to identify an approach to developing comparable multimodal and interactive visualizations and attendant student reflections for curriculum designers in courses that can utilize visualizations and manipulations. Results from previous use of comparative multimodal visualization pedagogy in a multimedia 3D modelling class are used as a guide to translation of pedagogy to architecture design. The focus is how to guide the use of comparative multimodal visualizations through media properties, lesson sequencing, and reflection to inform effective instruction and learning.

1. TOWARDS A PEDAGOGY OF
COMPARATIVE VISUALIZATION IN
3D DESIGN DISCIPLINES
James Birt
Faculty of Society and Design
Bond University, Australia
Jonathan Nelson
Faculty of Society and Design
Bond University, Australia
Dirk Hovorka
Business Information Systems
University of Sydney, Australia

2. Dr James Birt
Assistant Professor of Interactive Media
and Design (Games & Multimedia)
• BIT (Hons), PhD (Software Engineering &
Artificial Intelligence)
• 2014 Australian Office for Learning and
Teaching Citation for Outstanding
Contribution to Student Learning
• 15+ years industry & academic
experience
• bond.edu.au/profile/dr-james-birt

3. Introduction
• Spatial visualization & interpretation
important design skills BUT require
significant experiential development
• Visualizations help convey complex
spatial concepts But often studied
as single modality solutions
• Dual modality shows positive
improvements But comparison
difficult
Translating a pedagogy of
comparative multimodal
visualization (2D, VR & 3D
Physical) use - from multimedia
to architecture design

4. Problem  Typically method to learn 3D is with 2D
orthographic views
• This information literally falls flat and can be difficult to
comprehend as a beginner designer or worse for a client

5. Previous study: comparative visualization use
in multimedia design (Birt & Hovorka, 2014)
• Explored the effect of mixed media visualization
use in the classroom (3d printing, VR & 2D)
• Analysed 12 weeks of reflective learner blogs
• Explored questions on: engagement; cognitive
memory; visualization advantages/limitations;
demonstration & communication

6. Emphasis on manipulation & creativity through 3D Physical & VR
2D Image Projection 3D Physical 3D Virtual Reality
Accessibility P: available
anywhere
N: Time consuming; not
readily available
N: not readily available
Useability P: no additional
learning required to
use
P: feels natural like real
life
N: creates motion sickness;
requires extra training
Manipulability N: manipulation not
authentic
P: can handle as real
object
M: change aspects but no
tactile, haptic feedback
Navigability N: static, lacks
interaction
M: aids spatial
awareness but can’t
navigate internally
P: real-time internal navigation
and spatial awareness
Visibility M: many aspects
available but interior
is not visible, lacks
depth
P: enables connection
between real and
virtual environment
P: defect visualisation and
classification and aspects
available
Communication P: simple with rapid
versioning
M: physical model aids
communication but
slow to manufacture
P: good for demonstration
Creativity P: bringing to life;
not limited to real
life
M: making physical
reality but limited to
physical objects
P: real-time interaction and
modification improves creative
process not limited to real life

7. Translating to architectural design
• Focus on the synergy among the visualisations to create & reinforce the
material to be learned - RQ1: “How do learners perceive the comparative
capabilities of visualization media to support learning?”
• Learners perceptions may differ between specific lesson tasks and will
change over time- RQ2: “Do learners preferences for visualization
technologies change with task or over time?”
Learning Objective
Applied Media
2D VR Phy
Theoretical paradigms of 3d modelling Y Y Y
3d primitive construction & manipulation Y Y
Curves & NURBS surfaces Y Y
3d modelling as it relates to the human scale Y Y
Complex surface construction Y Y
3d modelling as it applies to architecture Y Y
Manage complex scenes with a high number of models Y Y
Presenting a complex scene & ability to reflect and synthesize
the course material
Y Y Y

8. Experimental Design
• Participants  Undergraduate Architecture students (n = 25)
• Reflective weekly learning blog comparing media
• Analyse using a thematic analysis through NVIVOTM

9. Weekly Blog - Stimuli Question(s)
1. Which media representation(s) engaged you and what aspect(s) made it
engaging?
2. Which media representation(s) did you find most memorable “sticky” in
your understanding and implementation of the learning objective and
why?
3. Discuss each media representation(s) advantages; limitations
(constraints) and contrast the differences between each media
representation
4. For the purpose of demonstrating the learning objective to a design team;
and client, which media representation would you use and why?
5. Discuss with respect to the media representation(s) how the
representation aided communication of the learning objectives between
you and: your instructor; and your fellow classmates

10. Preliminary Analysis - Emphasis on navigation/scale in physical & VR space
(Published @ The 26th Australasian Conference on Information Systems DEC ’15)
2D Image Projection 3D Physical 3D Virtual Reality
Accessibility P: Always available; Idea
generation; Easy sharing;
N: Difficult to fully
navigate; unavailable;
N: Access to hardware &
software;
Usability M: Familiar; Direct
fabrication; but difficult to
comprehend human scale
& site placement
P: This is reality;
Understandable;
M: Human scale; Familiar; but
problems with Frame Rates;
Motion Sickness; Translation to
2D for construction assembly;
Senses P: Touch; Materiality;
Smell; Sticks in my
mind;
N: No haptic touch; No smell;
Navigability N: Lacks navigation;
Sense of depth and
perception; Angle of
space lost
M: Walking in reality
has effect; but access
& angles of view can
be limited;
P: Allows navigation of human
scale space and orientation; Can
view from any angle; Not limited
to real life;
Visibility N: Space translation lost
from 2D to 3D; Interaction
with surrounding
environment;
P: Quality is real life M: scale; immersion; focused
illustration of mistakes; allows
highlighting of what I found
important; but can lack
materiality, texture & lighting
Comm. N: Difficult to convey
immersive & realistic
impression of space
P: Preferred method
of demonstration;
Finer detail & realism
M: effective; immersive; realistic
impression of occupying a
space; but not as good as
physical
Creativity P: Makes one more in tune to
real physical space; shows
space as a whole instance

12. • Full paper available from:
http://www.2015conference.ascilite.org/wp-
content/uploads/2015/11/ascilite-2015-proceedings.pdf
• Preliminary Results available from:
https://acis2015.unisa.edu.au/wp-
content/uploads/2015/11/ACIS_2015_paper_252.pdf