1. Introduction
The goal of the WATERLINE project [
1] is to create a European Digital Water Higher Education Institution (HEI) Alliance, based on the quadruple helix model of innovation, leading to the development of the Alliance’s research, educational and entrepreneurship capacities. A considerable component of this project is the creation of a set of learning artefacts that leverage AR and VR (collectively XR) technologies to facilitate the group and remote teaching of water engineering topics that often require access to large and/or unwieldy equipment, e.g., flume tanks, water distribution networks and so on.
Much of the need for this project came from the experiences of the project partners during the COVID-19 lockdowns, with traditionally in-person-delivered material being refactored and presented through on-line and video methods. Whilst these forms of presentation do deliver learning materials, Franklin’s quote of “tell me and I forget, teach me and I may remember, involve me and I learn”, is never far away, as well as Biggs [
2] notion of “deep learning”. Whilst water engineering materials have been taught through student engagement approaches, with physical experiments and demonstration, historically, it has been extremely difficult, if not impossible to share interactive flume tank and water distribution network material, see
Figure 1, with remote students.
However, XR techniques now provide a potential solution to these issues through the creation of learning materials that virtualise large, and potentially complex, physical systems and allow students to engage with learning materials at their own pace. Of course, this process is a not a simple “build it and they will come”-type solution and careful consideration needs to be given to how meaningful experiences can be built for water engineering students that meet both academic needs and student needs.
2. Method
Part of the University of Exeter’s role within the project is the provision of technology transformation for the learning establishments in the project consortium, with this paper detailing that role from three perspectives: pedagogy (what is to be taught), user experience (how the users interact with the learning applications) and technology (the underlying hardware and software stacks that power the learning applications).
Whilst it is tempting, and common practice, to think of these three perspectives as a design–build–test style process, the development of interactive media is often far more iterative, or incremental, in nature. However, it is not enough to simply describe the process as, say, agile [
3] rather than just procedural, or waterfall. Instead, we have developed an approach this is geared around the following underlying pillars.
2.1. Incremental Development
Whilst it is tempting, and common practice, to think of these three perspectives as approaches to development: waterfall and agile (or incremental) development, for our work, incremental development geared around iterations of plan-do-test-review gives us the opportunity to undertake user-focused experimental development. The advantage of this approach is that we obtain early feedback that can be used to quickly address issues with development going in the wrong direction. The challenge with this approach is that it relies on managing user expectations as users are asked to test and evaluate early-stage work, though expectations are usually managed with paper-based prototypes.
2.2. Multi-Stakeholder Design Thinking
Design thinking [
4] provides an incredibly useful set of techniques for exploring both “problem” and “solution” spaces and helps develop better overall solutions through user engagement. However, developing learning applications provides at least two users: academic content creators and students as receivers of content. Experience has shown that students typically do not know what they need to know, and academics do not always know what students want.
2.3. Sandbox and Narrative Design
We have borrowed these terms from the game development and game design document (GDD). Typically, a game comprises a sandbox (underlying systematic world model) and a narrative that drives the player through that game world.
Our water engineering learning applications are similar, in that they have an underlying systematic water model, e.g., EPANET [
5], and a “learning” narrative that drives the user through the application.
Building this design document allows us to see what the “grand plan” of each application is. Moreover, maintaining this document to reflect the results of user testing gives us a “living document” such that we can not only see what the current state of the application design is but also see the decisions that have brought us to this point.
2.4. User Testing
Testing is a core aspect of both incremental development and design thinking. Currently, we are engaging with qualitative approaches through structured usability testing [
6], in which we walk users through paper-based prototypes and encourage them to “think aloud” about their engagement. This provides us with valuable feedback and the paper-based nature of the prototypes allows their functionality to be quickly refined with Post-it notes and hand-written updates.
2.5. Paper-Based Prototyping
Paper-based prototyping gives us an environment where we can experiment with content development and delivery without needing to engage with time-consuming technical R&D. Users can be walked through a Post-it note and cardboard representation of learning content and asked to verbalise their thoughts, allowing for issues to quickly be raised and potentially addressed through just-in-time alterations to the current content.
Whilst it is very clear that we are ultimately developing XR applications and we would assume that users would struggle with seeing paper rather than VR, users are generally quick to reset their expectations and happy to provide critical feedback, not least once they see that their requests can be quickly iterated. This is something that we generally do not see as much with actual digital applications.
2.6. Technical Research and Development
Whilst the fundamental challenges with this project are design-centric, i.e., making learning applications that are engaging and teach the users, the key perceived challenges are with technical implementation. This is to be understood with technology projects, particularly when developers do not have a lot of experience with VR development.
To address this, we have a technical R&D aspect to development, such that the developers can spend time upskilling on the Unity and Unreal Engine technologies that they are using for their respective applications.
3. Results and Next Steps
To date, the application development partners have enthusiastically adopted the design pillars and produced initial design documentation through working with academic and student partners. This approach has allowed them to obtain a clear understanding of who their users are (both academic content providers and consumers) and start to become engaged with the nature of the problems that they are dealing with. Having a clearly defined technical research pillar has also allowed them to spend some time dealing with the technology concerned and has allayed their implementation fears.
The design documents have allowed the partners to have clear and unambiguous descriptions of what they are doing which are shared between the partners with a common set of design terms. Likewise, technical solutions are being shared between partners to build more development confidence within the project.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, G.L. and M.B.J.; writing—original draft preparation, G.L.; writing—review and editing, G.L., M.B.J., L.S.V.-L., A.S.C., S.D. and D.A.S.; project administration, A.S.C., S.D. and D.A.S.; funding acquisition, L.S.V.-L. and A.S.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
The work presented in this paper was supported by the WATERLINE project funded by the EC Horizon Europe programme GA 101071306. UNEXE’s participation in WATERLINE was supported by UKRI grant numbers 10042020.
Institutional Review Board Statement
Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement
Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
We acknowledge the support of our partners in the project.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.
References
- Waterline Project. Waterline Project Homepage. [Online]. Available online: https://waterline-project.eu/ (accessed on 30 March 2024).
- Biggs, J.; Tang, C. Teaching for Quality Learning at University; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Agile Manifesto. Available online: https://agilemanifesto.org/ (accessed on 30 March 2024).
- The Double Diamond. Available online: https://www.designcouncil.org.uk/our-resources/the-double-diamond/ (accessed on 30 March 2024).
- Available online: https://www.epa.gov/water-research/epanet (accessed on 30 March 2024).
- Lewrick, M.; Link, P.; Leifer, L. Structured Usability Testing. In The Design Thinking Toolbox: A Guide to Mastering the Most Popular and Valuable Innovation Methods; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2020; pp. 229–232. [Google Scholar]
| Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).