Embodied interaction with guitars: instruments, embodied practices and ecologies

In this thesis I investigate the embodied performance preparation practices of guitarists to design and develop tools to support them. To do so, I employ a series of human-centred design methodologies such as design ethnography, participatory design, and soma design. The initial ethnographic study I conducted involved observing guitarists preparing to perform individually and with their bands in their habitual places of practice. I also interviewed these musicians on their preparation activities. Findings of this study allowed me to chart an ecology of tools and resources employed in the process, as well as pinpoint a series of design opportunities for augmenting guitars, namely supporting (1) encumbered interactions, (2) contextual interactions, and (3) connected interactions. Going forward with the design process I focused on remediating encumbered interactions that emerge during performance preparation with multimedia devices, particularly during instrumental transcription. I then prepared and ran a series of hands-on co-design workshops with guitarists to discuss five media controller prototypes, namely, instrument-mounted controls, pedal-based controls, voice-based controls, gesture-based controls, and “music-based” controls. This study highlighted the value that guitarists give to their guitars and to their existing practice spaces, tools, and resources by critically reflecting on how these interaction modalities would support or disturb their existing embodied preparation practices with the instrument. In parallel with this study, I had the opportunity to participate in a soma design workshop (and then prepare my own) in which I harnessed my first-person perspective of guitar playing to guide the design process. By exploring a series of embodied ideation and somatic methods, as well as materials and sensors across several points of contact between our bodies and the guitar, we collaboratively ideated a series of design concepts for guitar across both workshops, such as a series of breathing guitars, stretchy straps, and soft pedals. I then continued to develop and refine the Stretchy Strap concept into a guitar strap augmented with electronic textile stretch sensors to harness it as an embodied media controller to remediate encumbered interaction during musical transcription with guitar when using secondary multimedia resources. The device was subsequently evaluated by guitarists at a home practicing space, providing insights on nuanced aspects of its embodied use, such as how certain media control actions like play and pause are better supported by the bodily gestures enacted with the strap, whilst other actions, like rewinding the play back or setting in and out points for a loop are better supported by existing peripherals like keyboards and mice, as these activities do not necessarily happen in the flow of the embodied practice of musical transcription. Reflecting on the overall design process, a series of considerations are extracted for designing embodied interactions with guitars, namely, (1) considering the instrument and its potential for augmentation, i.e., considering the shape of the guitar, its material and its cultural identity, (2) considering the embodied practices with the instrument, i.e., the body and the subjective felt experience of the guitarist during their skilled embodied practices with the instrument and how these determine its expert use according to a particular instrumental tradition and/or musical practice, and (3) considering the practice ecology of the guitarist, i.e., the tools, resources, and spaces they use according to their practice

Embodied interaction with guitars: instruments, embodied practices and ecologies

In this thesis I investigate the embodied performance preparation practices of guitarists to design and develop tools to support them. To do so, I employ a series of human-centred design methodologies such as design ethnography, participatory design, and soma design. The initial ethnographic study I conducted involved observing guitarists preparing to perform individually and with their bands in their habitual places of practice. I also interviewed these musicians on their preparation activities. Findings of this study allowed me to chart an ecology of tools and resources employed in the process, as well as pinpoint a series of design opportunities for augmenting guitars, namely supporting (1) encumbered interactions, (2) contextual interactions, and (3) connected interactions. Going forward with the design process I focused on remediating encumbered interactions that emerge during performance preparation with multimedia devices, particularly during instrumental transcription. I then prepared and ran a series of hands-on co-design workshops with guitarists to discuss five media controller prototypes, namely, instrument-mounted controls, pedal-based controls, voice-based controls, gesture-based controls, and “music-based” controls. This study highlighted the value that guitarists give to their guitars and to their existing practice spaces, tools, and resources by critically reflecting on how these interaction modalities would support or disturb their existing embodied preparation practices with the instrument. In parallel with this study, I had the opportunity to participate in a soma design workshop (and then prepare my own) in which I harnessed my first-person perspective of guitar playing to guide the design process. By exploring a series of embodied ideation and somatic methods, as well as materials and sensors across several points of contact between our bodies and the guitar, we collaboratively ideated a series of design concepts for guitar across both workshops, such as a series of breathing guitars, stretchy straps, and soft pedals. I then continued to develop and refine the Stretchy Strap concept into a guitar strap augmented with electronic textile stretch sensors to harness it as an embodied media controller to remediate encumbered interaction during musical transcription with guitar when using secondary multimedia resources. The device was subsequently evaluated by guitarists at a home practicing space, providing insights on nuanced aspects of its embodied use, such as how certain media control actions like play and pause are better supported by the bodily gestures enacted with the strap, whilst other actions, like rewinding the play back or setting in and out points for a loop are better supported by existing peripherals like keyboards and mice, as these activities do not necessarily happen in the flow of the embodied practice of musical transcription. Reflecting on the overall design process, a series of considerations are extracted for designing embodied interactions with guitars, namely, (1) considering the instrument and its potential for augmentation, i.e., considering the shape of the guitar, its material and its cultural identity, (2) considering the embodied practices with the instrument, i.e., the body and the subjective felt experience of the guitarist during their skilled embodied practices with the instrument and how these determine its expert use according to a particular instrumental tradition and/or musical practice, and (3) considering the practice ecology of the guitarist, i.e., the tools, resources, and spaces they use according to their practice

Electronic homework: an intelligent tutoring system in mathematics.

by Lee Fong-lok.Thesis (Ph.D.)--Chinese University of Hong Kong, 1996.Includes bibliographical references (leaves 309-323).Questionnaires and some appendixes in Chinese.TABLE OF CONTENTS --- p.iiTABLES --- p.viiFIGURES --- p.viiiACKNOWLEDGMENTS --- p.ixABSTRACT --- p.xiChapter 1 --- INTRODUCTION --- p.1HOW COMPUTERS CAN HELP OUR CHILDREN --- p.2How Human Tutors Tutor --- p.7"Can Computers "" Think""?" --- p.11Intelligent Tutoring Systems --- p.17ELECTRONIC HOMEWORK --- p.18A Personal Tutor to Students --- p.18The Present Study 226}0ؤ An Investigation into Electronic Homework --- p.23How to Build up Electronic Homework --- p.25Effect of using Electronic Homework --- p.29The Future of Electronic Homework --- p.29CHAPTER SUMMARY --- p.30Chapter 2 --- REPRESENTATION OF KNOWLEDGE --- p.32OVERVIEW --- p.32HOW KNOWLEDGE IS REPRESENTED --- p.33SYMBOLIC EXPRESSIONS OR NEURAL NETWORKS --- p.36PROCEDURAL AND DECLARATIVE KNOWLEDGE --- p.37On Evidence Supporting the Procedural- Declarative Knowledge Distinction --- p.39Distinction of Knowledge --- p.49EXPLICIT VERSUS IMPLICIT KNOWLEDGE --- p.52DEGREE OF SOPHISTICATION VERSUS PROCEDURALIZATION --- p.53NOTATION OF KNOWLEDGE --- p.59What Should Be Done But Not What Is Actually Done --- p.62CHAPTER SUMMARY --- p.63Chapter 3 --- WHAT KNOWLEDGE TO INCORPORATE AND HOW --- p.67OVERVIEW --- p.67SEPARATE STORAGE FOR DIFFERENT TYPES OF KNOWLEDGE --- p.69DIFFERENT TYPES OF KNOWLEDGE --- p.70The Expert module --- p.71The Student Module --- p.78The Tutoring Module --- p.85The Communication Module --- p.121CHAPTER SUMMARY --- p.124Chapter 4 --- PROBLEM COMPLEXITY AND INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES --- p.127OVERVIEW --- p.127COGNITIVE DIFFICULTY OR SIMPLE ITEM DIFFICULTY RATIO --- p.129DIFFICULTY LEVEL OBTAINED BEFORE TEST ADMINISTRATION --- p.130OTHER MEASURES OF PROBLEM DIFFICULTY --- p.131Complexity of Problems --- p.132Problem Complexity Level --- p.133INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES --- p.133Chapter 5 --- HOW TO IMPLEMENT AND EVALUATE THE SYSTEM…… --- p.136OVERVIEW --- p.136KNOWLEDGE ACQUISITION --- p.140Expert Module --- p.141Student Module --- p.142Tutoring Module --- p.149Problem Difficulty --- p.155IMPLEMENTATION --- p.161Implementation of Knowledge into Computer Tutor --- p.161EVALUATION --- p.162Formative Evaluation --- p.162Summative Evaluation --- p.163CHAPTER SUMMARY --- p.167Chapter 6 --- KNOWLEDGE ACQUIRED --- p.169OVERVIEW --- p.169EXPERT MODULE --- p.170STUDENT MODULE --- p.172Mal-rules --- p.172Strategies for Handling Mal-rules --- p.176Understanding the Errors --- p.177Section Summary --- p.209TUTORING MODULE --- p.210Effects of tutoring --- p.210Scores in Posttest and Ceiling Effect --- p.214Effects of Practice and Tutoring Methods on Retention test --- p.214How Experienced Teachers Perceive --- p.221CHAPTER SUMMARY --- p.228Chapter 7 --- PROBLEM DIFFICULTY --- p.230OVERVIEW --- p.230RESULTS OF DIFFERENT MEASURES OF PROBLEM DIFFICULTY --- p.231Students' estimation of Item Difficulty --- p.232Item Difficulty Ratio --- p.234Teachers' Estimation of Problem Difficulty --- p.234Predicted Complexity --- p.237CORRELATION AMONG THE VARIOUS MEASURES OF PROBLEM DIFFICULTY --- p.243How students rate the problems --- p.245PREDICTING THE PROBLEM DIFFICULTY MEASURES --- p.246About the Three Measures --- p.249Practical Considerations --- p.252PROBLEM COMPLEXITY --- p.254USING PROBLEM COMPLEXITY IN ELECTRONIC HOMEWORK --- p.258CHAPTER SUMMARY --- p.258Chapter 8 --- SYSTEM EVALUATION --- p.259OVERVIEW --- p.259THE EVALUATION --- p.260Formative Evaluation --- p.260Summative Evaluation --- p.270DISCUSSION --- p.288Who Benefit From Using The System --- p.288Hardware Constraints --- p.289Human-computer interface --- p.289Effect on the use of Electronic Homework --- p.290Expert-Novice Differences --- p.292CHAPTER SUMMARY --- p.293Chapter 9 --- CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION --- p.294OVERVIEW --- p.294THEORETICAL ASPECTS --- p.295Why and how do students make errors? --- p.296What makes an expert tutor? --- p.302KNOWLEDGE OBTAINED --- p.304CAN ELECTRONIC HOMEWORK HELP STUDENTS AND TEACHERS? --- p.305Purposes of the Evaluation --- p.305Results of The Evaluation --- p.306SUGGESTIONS --- p.306Machine Learning --- p.307Input Systems --- p.307Better understanding of Human Problem Solving Process --- p.307REFERENCES --- p.309Appendix A: Mal-rule Collecting Tests ……… --- p.324Appendix B: Test on Solving Algebraic Equations --- p.334Appendix C: Tutoring Scripts --- p.336Appendix D: Manipulative Rules Used In Solving Algebraic Equations --- p.338Appendix E: Remediation Rules Used In Solving Algebraic Equations --- p.339Appendix F: List of Mal-rules --- p.341Appendix G: Teachers' Estimation of Problem Difficulty --- p.344Appendix H: Learning Process Questionnaire --- p.349Appendix I: Questionnaire on the Use of Electronic Homework --- p.344Appendix J: Teachers' Perception on Electronic Homework --- p.347Appendix K: Students' Perception on the Use of Electronic Homework in Formative Evaluation --- p.346Appendix L: Results of Students' Perception on Electronic Homework --- p.347Appendix M: Students' Scores in Learning Process Questionnaire --- p.349Appendix N: Homework 1 --- p.355Appendix O: Homework 2 --- p.358Appendix P: Students' Retention Test Scores --- p.361Appendix Q: Results of Teachers' Perception on Electronic Homework --- p.366Appendix R: Transcript of Students' Interview --- p.368Appendix S: Installation and Source Code --- p.40