Outline A Study of Digital Ink in t Background & - - PDF document

1

A Study of Digital Ink in Lecture Presentation

Richard J. Anderson*, Ruth Anderson*†, Crystal Hoyer*, and Steven A. Wolfman*‡

* U. Washington, † U. Virginia, ‡ U. British Columbia

Steve Wolfman presenting http://www.cs.washington.edu/research/edtech/

Steve Wolfman A Study of Digital Ink in Lecture Presentation 2

ε ε ε εt

Outline

• Background & Motivation
• Study
• Attentional Marks & Hand Gestures
• Ephemerality & Persistence
• Conclusions & Future Directions

Steve Wolfman A Study of Digital Ink in Lecture Presentation 3

ε ε ε εt

Distance & Large Class Studies Presenter

Ink Study

Classroom Feedback System Retro/Prospective Feedback Patterns Student Interaction Systems

[ITiCSE ’04] [SIGCSE ’02, ITiCSE ’02 & ’03] [SIGCSE ’04] [CSCL ’03] [CHI ’03]

Research History

Steve Wolfman A Study of Digital Ink in Lecture Presentation 4

ε ε ε εt

Expected Use of Ink

Steve Wolfman A Study of Digital Ink in Lecture Presentation 5

ε ε ε εt

Common Use of Ink

Steve Wolfman A Study of Digital Ink in Lecture Presentation 6

ε ε ε εt

Outline

Background & Motivation

• Study
• Attentional Marks & Hand Gestures
• Ephemerality & Persistence
• Conclusions & Future Directions

2

Steve Wolfman A Study of Digital Ink in Lecture Presentation 7

ε ε ε εt

Ink Study

Interpretive analysis [Erickson] of 3 courses:

– Distance courses (∴, A / V and ink archives) – “Slideware-style” – Experienced instructors

Databases 23 hrs 10 Prof C. AI 20 hrs 8 Prof B. Compilers 6 hrs 4 Prof A. Topic Time Lectures

Steve Wolfman A Study of Digital Ink in Lecture Presentation 8

ε ε ε εt

Prevalence of Attentional Marks

Segmented strokes from six hours of lecture into coherent episodes and coded into four categories:

2 2 2 1 2 1 Other 15 16 14 40 38 41 Writing 8 8 8 8 7 9 Diagram 76 74 77 51 53 49 Attentional B+C C B B+C C B % of episodes % of strokes

Steve Wolfman A Study of Digital Ink in Lecture Presentation 9

ε ε ε εt

Outline

Background & Motivation Study

• Attentional Marks & Hand Gestures
• Ephemerality & Persistence
• Conclusions & Future Directions

Steve Wolfman A Study of Digital Ink in Lecture Presentation 10

ε ε ε εt

Understanding Attentional Marks

Properties:

– brief, simple markings – occur with speech – augment meaning of speech – ad hoc form

Is there a linguistic context in which to understand these marks?

Steve Wolfman A Study of Digital Ink in Lecture Presentation 11

ε ε ε εt

Spontaneous Hand Gestures

Spontaneous Hand gestures [McNeill]:

– are synchronous w/speech – are co-expressive w/speech – lack standard of form

Attentional marks share these properties.

Steve Wolfman A Study of Digital Ink in Lecture Presentation 12

ε ε ε εt

Gesture Types: Iconic

3

Steve Wolfman A Study of Digital Ink in Lecture Presentation 13

ε ε ε εt

Gesture Types: Deictic & Cohesive

Steve Wolfman A Study of Digital Ink in Lecture Presentation 14

ε ε ε εt

Outline

Background & Motivation Study Attentional Marks & Hand Gestures

• Ephemerality & Persistence
• Conclusions & Future Directions

Steve Wolfman A Study of Digital Ink in Lecture Presentation 15

ε ε ε εt

Persistent Representation vs. Ephemeral Meaning

Steve Wolfman A Study of Digital Ink in Lecture Presentation 16

ε ε ε εt

Persistent Representation vs. Ephemeral Meaning

Steve Wolfman A Study of Digital Ink in Lecture Presentation 17

ε ε ε εt

Design Recommendations

• Separate strokes w/non-homogenous color
• Show co-occurrence/ordering w/age cues
• Show process w/incremental rendering

Steve Wolfman A Study of Digital Ink in Lecture Presentation 18

ε ε ε εt

“Whiteboard” Effect [Prince]

4

Steve Wolfman A Study of Digital Ink in Lecture Presentation 19

ε ε ε εt

Candy-Striping [Prince]

Steve Wolfman A Study of Digital Ink in Lecture Presentation 20

ε ε ε εt

Conclusions

• Identified important ink use pattern: Attentional

Marks

• Established gestural framework for

understanding/analyzing Attentional Marks

• Demonstrated tension between ephemeral

meaning and persistent representation

• Generated design recommendations to resolve

tension

• Characterized instructors’ parsimonious use of

UI features

Steve Wolfman A Study of Digital Ink in Lecture Presentation 21

ε ε ε εt

Future Directions

• Alternate ink renderings
• Augmented transcripts

– Keyframing – Deixis resolution for blind students

• Improved recognition

– Auto-captioning – Link time/speech to slide locations

• Further analysis

Steve Wolfman A Study of Digital Ink in Lecture Presentation 22

ε ε ε εt

URLs for More Info

UW CS&E Education & Ed. Tech. Group:

http://www.cs.washington.edu/research/edtech/

Classroom Presenter:

http://www.cs.washington.edu/education/dl/presenter/

Steve Wolfman A Study of Digital Ink in Lecture Presentation 23

ε ε ε εt

EXTRA SLIDES: NEW SURPRISING USE

Steve Wolfman A Study of Digital Ink in Lecture Presentation 24

ε ε ε εt Surprising Use of Attentional Marks (1 of 3)

5

Steve Wolfman A Study of Digital Ink in Lecture Presentation 25

ε ε ε εt Surprising Use of Attentional Marks (2 of 3)

Steve Wolfman A Study of Digital Ink in Lecture Presentation 26

ε ε ε εt Surprising Use of Attentional Marks (3 of 3)

Steve Wolfman A Study of Digital Ink in Lecture Presentation 27

ε ε ε εt

EXTRA SLIDES: MOTIVATING PROBLEMS

Steve Wolfman A Study of Digital Ink in Lecture Presentation 28

ε ε ε εt

Steve Wolfman A Study of Digital Ink in Lecture Presentation 29

ε ε ε εt

“Sticky” Colors

Steve Wolfman A Study of Digital Ink in Lecture Presentation 30

ε ε ε εt

“Feature Recovery” Problem

6

Steve Wolfman A Study of Digital Ink in Lecture Presentation 31

ε ε ε εt

EXTRA SLIDES: GESTURE TYPES

Steve Wolfman A Study of Digital Ink in Lecture Presentation 32

ε ε ε εt

Gesture Types: Metaphoric

Steve Wolfman A Study of Digital Ink in Lecture Presentation 33

ε ε ε εt

Gesture Types: Beats