Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

A Pedagogical Framework for Mixed Reality in Classrooms based on a Literature Review

439 views

Published on

ED-Media conference, Amsterdam, June 2019, Netherlands

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

A Pedagogical Framework for Mixed Reality in Classrooms based on a Literature Review

  1. 1. u www.tugraz.at W I S S E N n T E C H N I K n L E I D E N S C H A F T A Pedagogical Framework for Mixed Reality in Classrooms based on a Literature Review EDMEDIA 2019 24.06.19 KOMMETTER Christopher | EBNER Martin
  2. 2. u www.tugraz.at CONTENT 1. Introduction
  3. 3. u www.tugraz.at CONTENT 1. Introduction 2. Classification of mixed reality
  4. 4. u www.tugraz.at CONTENT 1. Introduction 2. Classification of mixed reality 3. Results and Discussion
  5. 5. u www.tugraz.at CONTENT 1. Introduction 2. Classification of mixed reality 3. Results and Discussion 4. Conclusion and outlook on future work
  6. 6. Graz University of Technology § Educational Technology § Austria, Graz § https://tugraz.at > 3.300 staff > 13.700 regular students 7 faculties 95 institutes
  7. 7. Introduction
  8. 8. 24.06.19 TU Graz 8 Motivation Introduction §  VR devices since 60s §  many diverse ways to integrate these techniques into the classroom §  Affordable devices in combination with concepts like making §  Pedagogical motivation factors like collaborations and gamification §  already in classrooms à in higher education: need to catch up §  Framework: spot new capabilities for implementation of future VR or AR applications in education
  9. 9. 24.06.19 TU Graz 9 Research Design Introduction §  clarify the consistent definition of virtual reality (VR) and define the classification on VR systems §  clustered due to the definitions found in literature regarding the appropriate technology they were using §  searching on academic databases like ERIC, WebOfScience, ACM Digital Library and also SpringerLink; A search using Google Scholar was also performed §  papers were selected and been clustered in a second analysis according to the kind of technology used §  papers dealing with technical specifications and implementations have been dropped for further analysis
  10. 10. Classification of mixed reality
  11. 11. 24.06.19 TU Graz 11 Taxanomy of MR Classification of mixed reality The Virtuality Continuum (VC) of Milgram defines the area between Real to Virtual environment as mixed reality, where AR is supposed to augment the real world with virtual objects while AV is augmenting a virtual world with real-world objects picture adopted from Milgram & Kishino (1994)
  12. 12. 24.06.19 TU Graz 12 Augmented reality (AR) Classification of mixed reality §  fuses physical & digital world in real time by expanding real world with virtual object §  natural operations to interact with virtual objects §  marker or location based §  popular to public since Pokèmon Go (hype in summer 2016)
  13. 13. 24.06.19 TU Graz 13 Virtual reality (VR) Classification of mixed reality Unlike augmented reality, VR produces a world of its own, rather than expanding the real one --- dominant features of virtual worlds are: §  Immersion §  Telepresence §  Multisensory simulation §  Motivation §  Multiple representations and 3D frames of reference (Dede, Salzman, & Loftin, 1996)
  14. 14. 24.06.19 TU Graz 14 Virtual reality (VR) Classification of mixed reality Classification of virtual reality (VR) based on type of technology used to achieve virtual worlds and interact with them picture adopted from Muhanna (2015)
  15. 15. Results and Discussion Framework for mixed reality use in education
  16. 16. 24.06.19 TU Graz 16 Pedagogical context Results and Diskussion enhance distance learning break the borders on physical limitations of real objects interact with objects in a natural way as used to it collaborations including facial expressions, gestures and body language (Woods et al., 2004) (Kaufmann, 2003) (Winn, 1993) (Billinghurst & Kato, 1999)
  17. 17. 24.06.19 TU Graz 17 Pedagogical context Results and Diskussion AR Systems: allows users to interact with object and events in a natural way gains the potential for the use as an educational tool Physical activity is linked to conceptual understanding students can increase their learning outcome when they use their hands to interact with scenes from an augmented story Augmented reality systems can establish such an interactive learning environment (Radu, 2014)
  18. 18. 24.06.19 TU Graz 18 Pedagogical context Results and Diskussion VR Systems: are largely self-explanatory, but a guideline should be provided to the users in order to ensure learning benefits To portray the actual scenario in teaching activities the presence of a supervisor must be observed A supervisor could either be next to the students or even could be a part of the virtual environment either as virtual human or artificial intelligence. (Mellet-d'Huart, 2012)
  19. 19. Framework for mixed reality use in education 24.06.19 TU Graz 19 We need something to cluster
  20. 20. Framework 24.06.19 TU Graz 20 AR or VR Type Operation site at school or at home Teaching method group, single or partner Level of pervasion assisting, enhancing or replacing Super- vision 1:1 or 1:n Results and Diskussion
  21. 21. 24.06.19 TU Graz 21 Framework Results and Diskussion Studierstube Anatomy 4D Aurasma / HP Reveal Construct 3D Science Space Viecher I & II MARIE MagicBook Second Life some examples of MR used in teaching
  22. 22. 24.06.19 TU Graz 22 Framework Results and Diskussion Studierstube Anatomy 4D Aurasma / HP Reveal Construct 3D Science Space Viecher I & IIAR AR AR AR VR VR MARIE AR MagicBook AR/VR Second Life VR Type AR or VR
  23. 23. 24.06.19 TU Graz 23 Framework Results and Diskussion Studierstube Anatomy 4D Aurasma / HP Reveal Construct 3D Science Space Viecher I & IIschool school & at home school & excursion school school school MARIE school MagicBook school Second Life at home Operation site at school or at home
  24. 24. 24.06.19 TU Graz 24 Framework Results and Diskussion Studierstube Anatomy 4D Aurasma / HP Reveal Construct 3D Science Space Viecher I & II single or group single single single or group single single MARIE single MagicBook single or partner Second Life group Teaching method group, single or partner
  25. 25. 24.06.19 TU Graz 25 Framework Results and Diskussion Studierstube Anatomy 4D Aurasma / HP Reveal Construct 3D Science Space Viecher I & IIreplacing enhancing enhancing replacing replacing replacing MARIE enhancing MagicBook enhancing Second Life replacing Level of pervasion assisting, enhancing or replacing
  26. 26. 24.06.19 TU Graz 26 Framework Results and Diskussion Studierstube Anatomy 4D Aurasma / HP Reveal Construct 3D Science Space Viecher I & II 1:1, 1:n teacher is present in real environment next to student(s) 1:n teacher is present in real world; instructions within the application are served without any AI 1:n instructor in real world guides pupils 1:1, 1:n teacher is present in real environment next to student(s) 1:n teacher in real environment guides students 1:1, Instructions in a virtual welcome center, fully computer- generated without AI MARIE 1:1 teacher control parts of the system MagicBook 1:n a teacher in real environment is guiding students Second Life 1:n in virtual word, avatar controlled by a human Super- vision 1:1 or 1:n
  27. 27. 24.06.19 TU Graz 27 Framework Results and Diskussion §  Most of the examples shown require any type of instruction §  Usually a teacher is present in the real world next to the students for supervision either for one student (1:1) or for a group of students (1:n) §  Some examples are using a kind of virtual instruction §  none of the shown examples are using an automatic tool to instruct the students §  Even fully immersive virtual worlds require a teacher
  28. 28. Conclusion and outlook on future work
  29. 29. 24.06.19 TU Graz 29 Development Conclusion and outlook on future work §  A kind of AI in the form of an avatar, as human-controlled in Second Life, could improve a virtual environment by helping each student individually. §  Therefore, a usage beyond a school-setting could be established. §  The availability of affordable VR headsets also represents a step in this direction to use VR as a learning platform instead of just an entertaining one
  30. 30. 24.06.19 TU Graz 30 Development Conclusion and outlook on future work §  VR systems: chicken and egg problem à huge amount of time to create content to make a system for teaching and this content is not generated until there are enough systems developed to make use of it §  AR applications, as the MagicBook shown formerly, could be easily be realized and can enhance a traditional schoolbook for example on showing 3D visualizations of the teaching content §  need for research to investigate purposes of the use of AR in lecture halls (Allison & Hodges, 2000) (Zumbach & Moser, 2012)
  31. 31. u www.tugraz.at §  Christopher Kommetter, kommetter@tugraz.at Thank you for your attention! 24.06.19 §  Martin Ebner, martin.ebner@tugraz.at
  32. 32. 24.06.19 TU Graz 32 Acknowledgements This activity has received funding from the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT), a body of the European Union, under the Horizon 2020, the EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation. Further information about MiReBook: https:// eitrawmaterials.eu/course/mirebooks-mixed-reality-handbooks-for- mining- education/
  33. 33. 24.06.19 TU Graz 33 References §  Allison, D., & Hodges, L. F. (2000). virtual reality for Education? In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on virtual reality Software and Technology (pp. 160–165). New York, NY, USA: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/502390.502420 §  Zumbach, J., & Moser, S. (2012). augmented reality--Multimediale Lernumgebung der Wahl im 21. Jahrhundert. Zukunft Des Lernens, 154–164. §  Milgram, P., & Kishino, F. (1994). A Taxonomy of mixed reality Visual Displays. IEICE TRANSACTIONS on Information and Systems, 77(12), 1321–1329. §  Dede, C., Salzman, M. C., & Loftin, R. B. (1996). MaxwellWorld: learning complex scientific concepts via immersion in virtual reality. Proceedings of the 1996 International Conference on Learning Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0151-9638(18)30048-6 §  Muhanna, M. A. (2015). Virtual reality and the CAVE: Taxonomy, interaction challenges and research directions. Journal of King Saud University-Computer and Information Sciences, 27(3), 344–361. §  Woods, E., Billinghurst, M., Looser, J., Aldridge, G., Brown, D., Garrie, B., & Nelles, C. (2004). Augmenting the science centre and museum experience. In Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on Computer graphics and interactive techniques in Australasia and South East Asia (pp. 230–236). §  Billinghurst, M., & Kato, H. (1999). Collaborative mixed reality Games. Proceedings of the First International Symposium on mixed reality (ISMR ’99), 261–284. §  Winn, W. (1993). A conceptual basis for educational applications of virtual reality. Human Interface Technology Laboratory. Technical Report TR-93-9, 1–14. §  Kaufmann, H. (2003). Collaborative augmented reality in Education. Institute of Software Technology and Interactive Systems,Vienna University of Technology. §  Radu, I. (2014). Augmented reality in education: a meta-review and cross-media analysis. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 18(6), 1533–1543. §  Mellet-d’Huart, D. (2012). Virtual reality for training and lifelong learning. Themes in Science and Technology Education, 2(1–2), 185–224.

×