Remote Hands-On Experience: Distributed Collaboration with Augmented Reality

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5794)


One claim of Technology-Enhanced Learning (TEL) is to support and exploit benefits from distance learning and remote collaboration. On the other hand, several approaches to learning emphasize the importance of hands-on experience. Unfortunately, these two goals don’t go well together with traditional learning techniques. Even though TEL technologies can alleviate this problem, it is not sufficiently solved yet - remote collaboration usually comes at the cost of losing direct hands-on access. The ARiSE project aimed at bringing Augmented Reality (AR) to School Environments, a technology that can potentially bridge the gap between the two goals mentioned. The project has designed, implemented and evaluated a pedagogical reference scenario where students worked hands-on together over large distances. This paper describes the AR learning approach we followed and discusses its implementation and its future potential. It shows a simple and successful distributed AR learning approach and suggests features for improvement.


Augmented Reality Collaboration Remote Presence Virtual Reality Technology-Enhanced Learning Human Computer Interaction 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    ARiSE Project home page,
  2. 2.
    Wind, J., Riege, K., Bogen, M.: Spinnstube: A seated augmented reality display system. In: Proceedings 13th Eurographics Symposium on Environments, 10th Immersive Projection Technology Workshop, Weimar, Germany, July 15-18. Eurographics Association, Aire-la-Ville (2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lamanauskas, V., Pribeanu, C., Pemberton, L.: Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Reitmayr, G., Schmalstieg, D.: Mobile collaborative augmented reality. In: Proceedings of IEEE and ACM International Symposium on Augmented Reality (ISAR 2001), New York, NY, USA, October 29-30 (2001)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ohshima, T., Satoh, K., Yamamoto, H., Tamura, H.: AR2Hockey: a case study of collaborative augmented reality. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Virtual Reality Annual International Symposium, Atlanta, Georgia, USA, March 14-18 (1998)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Regenbrecht, H.T., Wagner, M.T.: Interaction in a collaborative augmented reality environment. In: CHI 2002 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA, April 20-25 (2002)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Müller, D., Erbe, H.-H.: Collaborative Remote Laboratories in Engineering Education: Challenges and Visions. In: Gomes, L., Garcia-Zubia, J. (eds.) Advances on remote laboratories and e-learning experiences. University of Deusto, Bilbao (2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bruns, W.: Hyper-bonds – distributed collaboration in mixed reality. Annual Reviews in Control. Elsevier, Oxford (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chastine, J.W., Nagel, K., Zhu, Y., Yearsovich, L.: Understanding the design space of referencing in collaborative augmented reality environments. In: Proceedings of Graphics interface 2007, Montreal, Canada, May 28-30. ACM, New York (2007)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Seichter, H.: Augmented Reality and Tangible Interfaces in Collaborative Urban Design. In: Proceedings of the 12th International CAAD Futures Conference: Integrating Technologies for Computer-Aided Design, July 11-13. University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia (2007)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Billinghurst, M.: Augmented Reality in Education. New Horizons for Learning (2002),
  12. 12.
    Piaget, J.: The Science of Education and the Psychology of the Child. Grossman, New York (1970)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Spiro, R.J., Coulson, R.L., Feltovich, P.J., Anderson, D.K.: Cognitive flexibility theory: Advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. In: Patel, V. (ed.) Proceedings of the 10th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Erlbaum, Hillsdale (1988)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bruner, J.: Going Beyond the Information Given. Norton, New York (1973)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lamanauskas, V., Vilkonis, R., Bilbokaite, R.: Pedagogical Evaluation of the Augmented Reality Platform. Appendices P1-P8 of [3] (2009), – downloads section
  16. 16.
    Pribeanu, C., Balog, A., Iordache, D.: Usability Evaluation Summer School 2007. Appendix U2 of [3] (2009), – downloads section
  17. 17.
    Bandura, A.: Social Learning Theory. General Learning Press, New York (1977)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Vygotsky, L.S.: Mind in Society. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1978)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Salomon, G. (ed.): Distributed Cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1993)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Roschelle, J., Rosas, R., Nussbaum, M.: Towards a Design Framework for Mobile Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. In: Proceedings of the 2005 Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, Taipei, Taiwan, pp. 520–524 (2005)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ryokai, K., Vaucelle, C., Cassell, J.: Virtual Peers as Partners in Storytelling and Literacy Learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 19(2), 195–208 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pask, G.: Conversation, Cognition, and Learning. Elsevier, New York (1975)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gutwin, C., Greenberg, S.: The Mechanics of Collaboration: Developing Low Cost Usability Evaluation Methods for Shared Workspaces. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Workshops on Enabling Technologies: Infrastructure for Collaborative Enterprises, WET ICE 2000 (2000)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kuck, R., Wind, J., Riege, K., Bogen, M.: Improving the AVANGO VR/AR Framework: Lessons Learned. In: Schumann, M., et al. (eds.) Virtuelle und Erweiterte Realität: 5. Workshop der GI-Fachgruppe VR/AR. Berichte aus der Informatik, pp. 209–220. Shaker, Aachen (2008)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    The Ensemble Distributed Communication System – A group communication toolkit developed at Cornell University as well as Hebrew University of Jerusalem,
  26. 26.
    Skype home page,
  27. 27.
    Swan, J.E., Gabbard, J.L.: Survey of User-Based Experimentation in Augmented Reality. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Virtual Reality, Las Vegas, Nevada, July 22-27 (2005)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pinelle, D., Gutwin, C.: A Review of Groupware Evaluations. In: Proceedings of WETICE 2000, Workshops on Enabling Technologies: Infrastructure for Collaborative Enterprises, pp. 86–91. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2000)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Neale, D.C., Carroll, J.M., Rosson, M.B.: Evaluating Computer-Supported Cooperative Work: Models and Frameworks. In: Proceedings of CSCW 2004: Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, pp. 368–377. ACM Press, New York (2004)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Baker, K., Greenberg, S., Gutwin, C.: Empirical development of a heuristic evaluation methodology for shared workspace groupware. In: Proceedings of the 2002 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, New Orleans, pp. 96–105. ACM Press, New York (2002)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Steves, M., Morse, E., Gutwin, C., Greenberg, S.: A comparison of usage evaluation and inspection methods for assessing groupware usability. In: Proceedings of the 2001 International ACM SIGGROUP Conference on Supporting Group Work, pp. 125–134. ACM Press, New York (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Pinelle, D., Gutwin, C.: Groupware walkthrough: Adding context to groupware usability evaluation. In: Proceedings of the 2002 SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 455–462. ACM Press, New York (2002)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Baker, K., Greenberg, S., Gutwin, C.: Heuristic evaluation of groupware based on the mechanics of collaboration. In: Nigay, L., Little, M.R. (eds.) EHCI 2001. LNCS, vol. 2254, pp. 123–139. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Dünser, A., Grasset, R., Seichter, H., Billinghurst, M.: Applying HCI principles to AR systems design. In: MRUI 2007: Second International Workshop at the IEEE Virtual Reality Conference, Charlotte, North Carolina, USA (2007)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Sutcliffe, A., Gault, B.: Heuristic evaluation of virtual reality applications. Interacting with Computers 16, 831–849 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Milgram, P., Kishino, F.: A taxonomy of mixed reality visual displays. IEICE Transactions on Information and Systems (Special Issue on Networked Reality) E77-D(12), 1321–1329 (1994)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kaufmann, H., Dünser, A.: Summary of Usability Evaluations of an Educational Augmented Reality Application. In: Shumaker, R. (ed.) HCI International Conference, Beijing, China, pp. 660–669 (2007)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Nielsen, J.: Heuristic evaluation. In: Nielsen, J., Mack, R.L. (eds.) Usability Inspection Methods. John Wiley & Sons, New York (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Fraunhofer IAIS, Schloss BirlinghovenSankt AugustinGermany
  2. 2.School of Computing, Mathematical and Information SciencesUniversity of BrightonBrightonUK

Personalised recommendations