A case stucy on technology selection and didactical design for immersive learning and dialog spaces

Abstract: Increasingly automated work environments lead to changes in the tasks and activities of humans in these work systems. On the one hand, activities have an increasingly controlling and monitoring character (Dregger et al. 2018) and, on the other hand, require rapid and competent human intervention in case of errors. On the other hand, there is a lack of learning opportunities to build up the necessary knowledge and experience, a phenomenon known as the ironies of automation. (Bainbridge 1983)Learning processes are therefore increasingly being transferred to virtual worlds. Learning situations that are rare, dangerous or difficult to access in practice can also be simulated here. When designing virtual learning applications, the main focus is usually on technical feasibility, while the didactic design of the learning content and the learning setting tend to be neglected. This also explains why many lighthouse projects are still being created, but are not successfully established in practice. A systematic approach to technology selection and design is required. (Haase et al. 2020)The Elbedome is a mixed-reality laboratory for the large-scale presentation of interactive visualizations on a 360° panorama and floor projection surface. It enables the collaborative reception, design and discussion of learning content in a hybrid setting. Compared to virtual reality glasses, the Elbedome allows a number of people to come together physically and simultaneously in an immersive learning and dialog space (Keller & Haase 2019).The submitted paper presents the unique large-scale projection system "Elbedome" and uses selected examples to underline the special features of this technology compared to common solutions such as mobile devices or VR glasses. In particular, the special potential of the Elbedome for collaborative learning processes as well as participatory design and decision-making processes of interdisciplinary stakeholders is highlighted. In addition, the article provides insights into the scalability of the technology, which is essential for the successful use of such a solution (Scavarelli et al. 2021), and makes recommendations for practical use by various target groups based on systematic criteria.References:Bainbridge, L. (1983). Ironies of automation. In Analysis, design and evaluation of man–machine systems (pp. 129-135). Pergamon.Dregger, J., Niehaus, J., Ittermann, P., Hirsch-Kreinsen, H., & Ten Hompel, M. (2018). Challenges for the future of industrial labor in manufacturing and logistics using the example of order picking systems. Procedia cirp, 67, 140-143.Haase, T., Radde, J., Keller, A., Berndt, D., & Dick, M. (2020). Integrated Learning and Assistive Systems for Manual Work in Production-Proposal for a Systematic Approach to Technology Selection and Design. In International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics (pp. 853-859). Springer, Cham.Keller, A., & Haase, T. (2019). Lernen und kreativ planen in einem 360-Projektionsraum. In: Digitalisierung und Fachkräftesicherung: Herausforderung für die gewerblich-technischen Wissenschaften und ihre Didaktiken, 53, 63.Scavarelli, A., Arya, A., & Teather, R. J. (2021). Virtual reality and augmented reality in social learning spaces: a literature review. Virtual Reality, 25, 257-277.

Keywords: Virtual Reality, didactics, technology selection, immersive, learning

DOI: 10.54941/ahfe1005385

Cite this paper:

​