This is an empirical qualitative
investigation, an experimental
field case study, with
technological mediation. The study refers to an aim of
qualitative/interpretative research with flexibility in its structure method and
direction (Bogdan e Biklen, 1994; p.107). The research used
participant observation to collect non-numeric and unstructured data,
simultaneously based on describing and understanding processes (Lessard-Hérbert,
Goyette & Boutin, 1994). We tried to respect the real research
contextual field, so the understanding process grew in a poorly controlled and
adaptable participant observation. The study occurred in a basic school in
Coimbra, Portugal, during the 2009/2010 academic year. We involved a group of twelve
special needs students from special individualized curricula. The sample included young people, three
girls and nine boys
aged between 12 and 17 — mostly 14 year-olds. Most students came from dysfunctional social aggregates and low socioeconomic status, with a complex development story, with distinctive and several physical, psychological and social requirements.
Four of those cases stood out
positively, in terms of family support.
The project consisted of individual observation sessions, with an
estimated duration of thirty
minutes. Participants had experiences with different prototypes of interactive
artistic environments, which we designed or implemented. Because it is known that
special needs students usually have trouble in directing and keeping attention,
we worked individually with participants.
Prototypes proposed
different immersion experiences based on real-time sound and image processing,
as a strategy to develop, as much as possible, students ‘skills, extending and
enriching their sensory capabilities.
We aimed at implementing the
multisensory approach of “ludic engagement” (Petersson, 2006) and “aesthetic resonance” (Brooks &
Hasselblad, 2004) mediated by technology. During the sessions, we instigated difference
of behaviours, reactions and free exploration, observing the individual
expression and personality of each participant. We developed the “Special INPUT” concept as a key element for the
artistic design and technique ideation for the project. We wanted
to explore distinctive aesthetics with the poetics of
interactive sound and image, creating different situations of immersive
experiences based on real time abstract sound and image compositions.
Apparently simple, each prototype emphasized the single input of each
participant, contemplating three areas: sound, movement, and visual inputs. So,
the environments are grouped into different types of action. As a process of discovery,
three types of relation with the environments emerged — sound, movement and
image. From these approaches we created three main prototype concepts: Special SOUND, Special MOVEMENT and Special ME. The word “special” highlights
individuality, the focus of this project on ability instead of inability or
incapacity, valuing difference and genuine expression.
Technical approach
As to the technical approach to design or
implement the prototypes we used the interactive programming
environment Max MSP Jitter, occasionally in communication with the
Community Core Vision open source/ cross-platform solution for computer vision. In one of the prototypes we
also used the Processing programming language and environment. For data input
we used hardware such as a microphone, an ultrasonic sensor for distance
measurement attached to an Arduino board, the PlayStation Eye webcam modified
with a special kit of lenses with an infrared filter, the Air-FX
Hand Controlled Digital Effects and the Evolution UC16
MIDI controller. In one of the environments, we used real musical
instruments as sound input. As output we used a video projector, a sound system
and the computer. We programmed all prototypes with the exception
of the H prototype presented in session 7 — by Golan Levin — available on video
capture Processing libraries under the name SlitScan.
Instruments
The prototypes were the main instruments of
this study and their physical and virtual interfaces were developed just enough
to understand the impact of each proposal. For each prototype we contemplated the skills of the
participants, considering user detection and response issues, contemplating sensibility
adjustment settings. For the data collection process we used techniques that
allowed the subsequent process of encoding data interpretation. Video recording
with two cameras — front and rear — was an extremely prolific method for data
analysis. Using qualitative data analysis software — Nvivo8 — we extracted very
rich and precise descriptive narrative from videos, isolating data categories. We
also used screen captures during the sessions to archive images produced by the
participants. Those files were compiled and distributed to the students at the
end of the sessions. During the process, to describe and reflect about them, we
also used field notes, observation guidelines and analytical memos. We
registered the behaviours of the participants, connecting them to variables of
their aptitude (Bruce Tuckman, 2005). On this basis, in each session with each
participant, we obtained information about intellectual, emotional, personal,
interpersonal, intrapersonal, psychomotor and artistic skills
of the students in those environments.
Sessions
-->Sessions
Each session began with a short introduction
and, sometimes, with a demonstration of the proposed environment, motivating
autonomous participation. We presented the prototype concept to the students,
indicating its function mode and aesthetic possibilities. During the action,
referring ideas such as plasticity, dynamics, strength, lightness and visual
rhythm or mass and temperature of sound, speech, intensity, harmony or
disharmony, we encouraged students to position themselves in the environments
with openness to the stimuli. Participants revealed different personalities,
so we always respected their nature,
listening to their wishes and recording
their preferences and suggestions.
We never forced students to participate; we encouraged them to
stay less time in the sessions than expected, so we got sessions ranging from
10 to 40 minutes. The assiduity of participants was good, although some of them
occasionally missed the sessions for different reasons — illness, visits to the doctor, forgetfulness or rejection. Out of 96 sessions we got 74
presences. Out of 12 students, four never missed a session, three missed two, one
missed one, and four missed three or more sessions. We never thought that this could
be a problem because this study, instead of focusing on individuals, focused on
group results.