ImpressDent is a project undertaken at the University of Otago made possible with a CALT grant. I completed this project when working at the University.
Principal Investigator: Dr Sunyoung Ma, Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Dentistry
Instructional Design: Swee Kin Loke, Higher Education Development Centre
Designer: Gala Hesson, Higher Education Development Centre
Programmer: Richard Zeng, Higher Education Development Centre
The Brief:
This project seeks an outcome help university students understand how different variables impact on the accurate creation of dental impressions (no teeth), via experimentation and interaction design.
The Problem:
It is difficult to explain this procedure using 2D resources as dental impressions are made in co-operation with the patients activating their facial muscles correctly and the clinicians understanding the facial anatomy and its consequence to their clinical outcomes.
Existing:
Currently, the making of dentures is being taught in the 4th year paper [DENT461]. During lectures, teaching staff currently use pictures and photographs (e.g. of incorrectly taken impressions) to verbally explain how to make dental impressions correctly.
Users:
No experience seeing patients with no teeth, but have done impressions with teeth in 3rd year.‘Patient’ is a long term denture wearer (smooth gums)
Needs:
1) Firstly, students need to visualise what actually happens during the making of dental impressions;
2) Students need to actively test out various
scenarios (namely different positions/sizes of tray and patient’s facial muscles) to understand the
consequences of adjusting the different variables (inquiry-based learning).
3) The models required will also need the positions of key orofacial muscles which can be manipulated to move.
Suggested Solution:
– Creation of a web-based App.
– 3D simulation that is available to students online.
– A focus on creating a User Centred – constructivist learning environment. (LCD)
IN-THE-WORLD:
THE DESIGN PROCESS
Building from bottom up.
1) Development of brief and specifications.
2) Understanding and visualisation of dental
impressions. Analysing the functional aspects
of the problem. Defining.
3) Training and model exploration. Exploring front and back end operations.
Identifying and clarifying key interactions.
4) Mock – Ups and conceptualisation. Forming the solution.
5) Modelling, Capturing key frames and animation, User Interface Design,
Back and front end development
6) User testing and development (Prototyping)
Research:
Initial research was undertaken to explore what similar resources were on offer. The closest media were You-tube clips. Various readings on interaction design for education were used as material to highlight best practice, and UCD principals. Scaffolding, orientating the user, positioning and usability became focus factors.
Observational study:
I went to clinics and obseved the process in action, taking notes of errors and asking students the occasional question to help better my understanding and their experience.
Conceptualising and problem solving (Design Thinking):
The majority of design thinking involved was around the concept of fidelity. As with any simulation, when you are trying to mimic real life you want to get as close as you can whilst still maintaining a structure and key semantics. Time and resource, also, obviously come into play. Design decisions are then based on learner centred design, with constant reference back to learning objectives and the initial vision of the brief.
The solutions around refining an infinite analogue task to a bounded digital task involved the development of storyboarding and task flows.
Storyboarding:
I met with the principal investigator to visualise the key steps involved in the impression making process. Through a process of elimination we managed to simplify this down to around 10 steps. I then visualised these actions, making sense of their links and iterative consequences.
Task flow:
This was a messy time. I created a task flow to make sense of the user’s journey through the simulation. The aim was to allow as many experiential options as deemed necessary, but not end up with a million different plate outcomes (render constraint).
UI
Main decisions in the development of the UI were:
– Constant reference to ideal outcome – to allow quick coherence and comparison.
– Radio buttons and slide bars – interactive decision making linked to rapid response in main image. (synchronous learning)
THE SOLUTION
EVALUATION AND USABILITY TESTING
We carried out a focus group (observation and transcribed interview) and then from that feedback undertook a design iteration to resolve issues. We then tested version 2 with a full test run. This allowed us to capture and review log files from the student runs and their notes from the ‘my feedback’ box to understand if they/how they were learning and building knowledge. Alongside this we ran another focus group and a survey.
Concise results are below.
CONCLUSION
Ideally, iteration would consist of:
– re-design to fix usability issues between variables and outcomes (IA and UI)
– an entire 3 dimensional user reactive environment (simulation)
Realistically, the project needs more funding to engage more fully in the specialized areas of 3D, Interaction Design and UX.
As it exists currently, there are numerous educational benefits gleaned from ImpressDent and plenty of evidence which support a deeper and more involved understanding of the denture making process.
ghesson.wordpress.com 