This document describes a project using augmented reality to support learning in a music production studio environment. It discusses challenges in the current studio learning model like absorbing large amounts of information and focusing on practical skills. An augmented reality application was developed in two phases to help visualize concepts like console navigation and patch bay signal flow. Evaluations found students had improved knowledge retention and understanding of threshold concepts. The project aims to expand AR integration within the music program curriculum.

1. Using augmented reality to
support learning and teaching in
the recording studio
environment

2. Ruth Clark: Senior Learning Technologist
Craig Golding: Curriculum Leader Music Production and Film Music
Matt Ramirez: Senior Innovation Developer, Jisc

3. • Specialist Study Core
Module
• Taught in small studio
groups (5-6 students)
• 2 hour highly practical,
hands-on learning
experience.
Teaching Music Production at Leeds
College of Music

4.  Large quantities of information
to absorb and complex technical
skills to retain during classes
 Focus on practical application of
knowledge presents a barrier to
higher level thinking
 Existing learning resources used
in isolation and out of the studio
environment.
Challenges of Studio Learning Environment
“overemphasis upon lower order
thinking in the curriculum
constrains the amount of time that
can be dedicated to having
students think critically and utilise
knowledge in creative and
meaningful ways” [2].

5.  Benefits kinaesthetic and multi-
modal learning styles
 Support constructivist learning
pedagogies
 Engaging students with
emerging technologies and
immersive learning experience.
Why Augmented Reality?
“enable the visualisation of
intangible concepts” [6]

6. • Enlisted the services of
Jisc
• Matt Ramirez:
– Lead AR developer
• Collaborative design
process
Partnership with Jisc and design process
Graphic here

7.  Navigation and set up of
recording console
 Used existing interactive
manual to create
storyboard
 Colour coded overlays
 Additional information and
multimedia
 Required robust 3D
tracking model
First Phase of Development

8. Second Phase of Development
 Student and staff identified
patch bay as challenging.
 Patch bay, signal flow and
relation to recording process a
threshold concept
 Some students demonstrated
“mimicry”, following a more
confident student’s lead.

9. Second Phase of Development
 AR layer that controlled
functionality related to digital
overlay
 HTML 5 layer for user control
of animated leads
 Signal flow shown via
animated arrows

10. EVALUATION AND ANALYSIS OF DEVELOPMENT

11. • Pilot groups observed and
follow up focus groups
• Ascertain effect on learning
behaviours
• Identify areas for development
and latent technical issues
Methods

12. • Positive response from
users
• Tracking reliability
identified as a potential
barrier to uptake
• Recent developments in
tracking technologies
were incorporated
User response and technical barriers

13. • Student’s ability to self-support
and respond to technical
questions increased
• Enabled students to refresh
their knowledge when tackling
studio sessions out of class and
after breaks from study
• Tutors observed better
knowledge retention
Constructivist learning
…an effective constructivist
approach to learning as students
made more “deep and lasting
connections within their
knowledge base” [2]

14. • The combination of the visual,
auditory, written and
kinaesthetic elements suited
students’ individual learning
styles.
• More effective situated
learning.
Multimodal learning
“If I have a problem, I learn
by fixing the problem there
and then"

15. • Shift in group dynamic, with less
dominance of a ‘technical
ringleader’.
• Introvert students more engaged
in the practical learning process.
• There was less appearance of
“mimicry” and students in
participating pilot groups grasped
the threshold concept of the
patch bay quicker, allowing them a
deeper understanding of the
subject [5].
Effective group based learning
Democratising the learning
process and ensuring
understanding of threshold
concepts

16. Final Project Output
Graphic here
 Stand-alone app
 Available on student’s own
devices via App store
 Integrated within curriculum
via scheme of work
 Expansion to other
curriculum areas within the
conservatoire.

17. References
1. L. W. Anderson, D. R. Krathwohl, Eds., A Taxonomy for Learning,
Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of
Educational Objectives. (Longman, New York, 2001).
2. M. Bower, C. Howe, N. McCredie, A. Robinson, D. Grover,
Augmented Reality in education–cases, places and potentials.
Educational Media International 51(1), 1-15. (2014).
3. I. Radu, R. Zheng, G. Golubski, M. Guzdial. (Augmented Reality in
the Future of Education. (Paper presented at CHI ’10, Boston, USA,
2010;
http://www.dfki.de/EducationCHI2010/web/Schedule_files/EDUCATI
ONRadu_et_al.pdf) [the easiest access to this source is by the
internet]
4. H. Beetham in Rethinking Pedagogy for a Digital Age, H. Beetham,
R. Sharpe, Eds. (Routledge, New York, 2013), pp31-48. [second
edition]
5. R. Land, G. Cousin, J.H. Meyer, P. Davies in Improving Student
Learning Diversity and Inclusivity, C Rust, Ed. (Oxford Centre for Staff
and Learning Development, Oxford, 2005), pp53-64.
6. M. Akçayır, G. Akçayır, Advantages and challenges associated with
augmented reality for education: A systematic review of the
literature. Educational Research Review, 20, 1-11, (2017).

18. THANK
YOU Ruth Clark - @ruthycl
Craig Golding - @cragsgolding
Matt Ramirez - @Jisc_AR