Towards a Modular Network-Distributed Mixed-Reality Learning Space System

  • Timothy J. Rogers
  • Bedřich Beneš
  • Gary R. Bertoline
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4292)

Abstract

We propose a Modular Mixed-Reality Learning Space System (MRLSS) that relies on middleware tools and distributed mixed-reality technologies to support multi-modal communications between local, remote, and virtual audience sets. Each audience set occupies a spatial module represented throughout the system as a cell which is visually displayed on specifically aligned projection surfaces in each module. A module can host multiple cells and can be categorized based on scalability and technical advantage. For example, an Individual Cell (ICell) could contain a participant with only a web cam and audio. A Classroom Cell (CCell) could be a single classroom. A Virtual Cell (VCell) is a graphically rendered space with unique possibilities for interaction, experience, and exploration. A Studio Cell (SCell) is a specialized facility with advanced systems, services, and scalable spatial capabilities. A University Cell (UCell) can host multiple instances of an MRLSS, i.e. simultaneously host and combine more than one MRLSS.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Dede, C.: Planning for neomillenial learning styles:shifts in students learning style will prompt a shift to active construction of knowledge through mediated immersion. Educause Quarterly 28 (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jamieson, P., Dane, J., Lippman, P.C.: Moving beyond the classroom: Accommodating the changing pedagogy of higher education. In: Refereed Proceedings of 2005 Forum of the Australasian Association for Institutional Research, pp. 17–23 (2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Welker, J., Berardino, L.: Blended learning: Understanding the middle ground between traditional classroom and fully online instruction. Journal of Educational Technology Systems 34, 33–55 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Stapleton, C., Hughes, C.E.: Believing is seeing: Cultivating radical media innovations. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications 26, 88–93 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schwabe, G., Gath, C.: Mobile learning with a mobile game: design and motivational effects. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 21, 204–216 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Oblinger, D.: Leading the transition from classrooms to learning spaces: The convergence of technology, pedagogy, and space can lead to exciting new models of campus interaction. Educause Quarterly 28, 14–18 (2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Salzman, M., Dede, C., Loftin, R., Chen, J.: A model for understanding how virtual reality aids complex conceptual learning. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 8, 293–316 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rogers, Y., Scaife, M., Gabrielli, S., Smith, H., Harris, E.: A conceptual framework for mixed reality environments: Designing novel learning activities for young children. Presence 11, 667–686 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chen, J.X.: Learning abstract concepts through interactive playing. Computers and Graphics 30, 10–19 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Milgram, P., Kishino, F.: A taxonomy of mixed reality visual displays. IEICE (Institute of Electronics, Information and Communication Engineers) Transactions on Information and Systems, Special issue on Networked Reality E77-D, 1321–1329 (1994)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mixed reality laboratory (1997)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Benford, S., Greenhalgh, C., Craven, M.: Inhabited television: broadcasting interaction from within collaborative virtual environments. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI) 7, 510–547 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Craven, M., Benford, S., Greenhalgh, C., Wyver, J., Brazier, C.J., Oldroyd, A., Regan, T.: Ages of avatar: Community building for inhabited television. In: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Collaborative Virtual Environments, pp. 189–194 (2000)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Greenhalgh, C., Benford, S., Taylor, I., Bowers, J., Walker, G., Wyver, J.: Creating a live broadcast from a virtual environment. In: Proceedings of the ACM Siggraph Conference on Computer Graphics, pp. 375–384 (1999)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Greenhalgh, C., Benford, S., Craven, M.: Patterns of network and user activity in an inhabited television event. In: ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology, Proceedings, pp. 34–41 (1999)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Drozd, A., Bowers, J., Benford, S., Greenhalgh, C., Fraser, M.: Collaboratively improvising magic: An approach to managing participation in an on-line drama. In: Proc. ECSCW 2001, Bonn, Germany, pp. 159–178 (2001)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Koleva, B., Taylor, I., Benford, S., Fraser, M., Greenhalgh, C., Schndelbach, H., vom Lehn, D., Heath, C., Row-Farr, J., Adams, M.: Orchestrating a mixed reality performance. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, Seattle, WA, pp. 38–45 (2001)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Benford, S., Greenhalgh, C., Reynard, G., Brown, C., Koleva, B.: Understanding and constructing shared spaces with mixed-reality boundaries. In: ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), vol. 5, pp. 185–223 (1998)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Koleva, B., Schndelbach, H., Benford, S., Greenhalgh, C.: Developing mixed reality boundaries. In: Proceedings of DARE 2000 on Designing aumented reality environments. Designing Aumented Reality Environments, Elsinore, Denmark, pp. 155–156. ACM Press, New York (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Benford, S., Norman, S.J., Bowers, J., Adams, M., Row Farr, J., Koleva, B., Taylor, I., Rinman, M., Martin, K., Schndelbach, H., Greenhalgh, C.: Pushing mixed reality boundaries. Technical Report CID-84, Center for User Oriented IT Design (CID) (1999)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tokunaga, E., van der Zee, A., Kurahashi, M., Nemoto, M., Nakajima, T.: A middleware infrastructure for building mixed reality applications in ubiquitous computing environments, 382–391 (2004)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rogers, Y., Lim, Y., Hazlewood, W.: Extending tabletops to support flexible collaborative interactions. In: Tabletop 2006, Adelaide, Australia, pp. 71–79. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2006)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Moeslund, T., Strring, M., Broll, W., Aish, F., Liu, Y., Granum, E.: The arthur system: An augmented round tableGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Broll, W., Meier, E., Schardt, T.: The virtual round table – a collaborative augmented multi–user environment. In: CVE 2000, The Third International Conference on Collaborative Virtual Environments (2000)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Regenbrecht, H.T., Wagner, M., Baratoff, G.: Magicmeeting: A collaborative tangible augmented reality system. Virtual Reality 6, 151–166 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Regenbrecht, H., Lum, T., Kohler, P., Ott, C., Wagner, M., Wilke, W., Mueller, E.: Using augmented virtuality for remote collaboration. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 13, 338–354 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Stanford, V., Garofolo, J., Galibert, O., Michel, M., Laprun, C.: The nist smart space and meeting room projects: signals, acquisition annotation, and metrics. In: IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing (ICASSP 2003), vol. 4, pp. IV– 736–739 (2003)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mills, K.: Smart spaces (1999)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Timothy J. Rogers
    • 1
  • Bedřich Beneš
    • 1
  • Gary R. Bertoline
    • 1
  1. 1.Purdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA

Personalised recommendations