An Overview of Systems Enabling Computer Supported ... - CiteSeerX

Proceedings of the 36th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2003

An Overview of Systems Enabling Computer Supported Collaborative Learning requiring Immersive Presence (CSCLIP) Joyce Lucca, Nicholas C. Romano, Jr., Ramesh Sharda Oklahoma State University [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

Abstract In this paper we consider three types of computer-based systems that are employed individually and in pairs to achieve learning objectives: Computer-Supported Learning Systems, Collaborative Systems, and Immersive Presence Systems. When these systems are integrated together, higher-order learning objectives that have typically required co-located interactions can be supported in a distributed fashion. The objective of this work is to report on educational uses of the intersection of these three different types of systems in the combination space we refer to as Computer Supported Collaborative Learning requiring Immersive Presence (CSCLIP). Educational uses of CSCLIP technology and their features are identified. We then provide a discussion and comparison of the features common to CSCLIP systems. Within this discussion, we develop the criteria necessary for comparison of current CSCLIPs and some key requirements of implementation of future CSCLIPs. 1. Introduction The idea of using computer systems to facilitate both individual and team-based learning has been around since the 1940’s, when Vannevar Bush described his famous “Memex” [1]. Over the past four

decades researchers and educators from several disciplines have explored using computer systems in teaching and learning and several areas of research and practice have emerged. Many universities have begun to offer full degree programs online through distance education [2-5]. Our review of the literature suggests that three types of computer-based systems are employed individually and in pairs to achieve learning objectives: Computer-Supported Learning Systems, Collaborative Systems, and Immersive Presence Systems. Each of these areas has evolved independently with researchers and practitioners from multiple disciplines making strides toward the use of the computer to “augment” the human intellect [6]. We argue that when two of these systems are integrated, higher-order learning objectives can be achieved, and that when all three are combined, learning objectives that have typically required colocated interactions can be supported in a distributed fashion. The purpose of this paper is to report on educational uses of the intersection of all three different system types in the combination space we refer to as Computer Supported Collaborative Learning requiring Immersive Presence (CSCLIP). Figure 1 depicts this intersection. We first briefly introduce each of these three system types.

1.1 Computer-Supported Learning These systems have traditionally been termed Computer-Aided/Assisted Instruction (CAI) (see for example [7-13]). and have contributed significantly to the use of computers in education, however they traditionally focus on individual learners working on a local computer to accomplish cognitive learning objectives [14]. Distance Education (DE) [3, 5, 15] is an extension of CAI to enable remote students to

0-7695-1874-5/03 $17.00 (C) 2003 IEEE

1


access course content. A number of different technologies and methods, ranging from simple downloading of textual content to sophisticated streaming digital video, have been employed for DE [3, 5, 15-17]. Traditional DE still focuses on content delivery to individual students accomplishing cognitive learning objectives [5, 14].

CSCLIP systems and some key requirements of implementation of future CSCLIP systems. The objective of this paper is to identify and compare systems, projects, and infrastructures that fall within the CSCLIP domain. No attempt is made to access the quality of these systems.

1.2 Collaborative Systems Collaborative Systems are often referred to by the all-encompassing term “GroupWare”, coined by MIS researchers Paul and Trudy Johnson-Lenz circa 1980 [18]. Collaborative systems can range from email, online discussion groups and Internet chat rooms to sophisticated Group Decision Support Systems. There are two main streams of academic research in this area: Group Support Systems (GSS) (See, for example, [19-23]) and Computer-Supported Collaborative Work (CSCW) (See, for example, [2426]).

GSS CSCW

VTC

VR

CSCLIP Distance Education

ALN CSCL

CAI

1.3 Immersive Presence Systems Immersive Presence Systems are generally thought of in terms of Virtual Reality (VR) [27-29]. However, we employ two dimensions of immersive presence: level of profound involvement and temporal nature of communication [28], to discuss a number of systems along a continuum of immersion. Level of profound involvement in immersive presence systems concerns the richness of the media and communication channels employed to conduct the dialogue between the user and the system and therefore, the number of the five human senses that are stimulated to create immersion [28, 30]. The temporal dimension concerns whether activity and response is same-time (real-time or synchronous) or different-time (delayed or asynchronous) [31]. The intersection of these three types of systems is what we call Computer Supported Collaborative Learning Requiring Immediate Presence (CSCLIP). Immediate Presence is characterized in two ways. First, it allows Same-Time-Different-Place (STDP) interaction among students, instructor, and technology. Second, it implies immediate, physical presence, which is typically required in hands-on learning environments. We assert that the right mix of learning theory, group dynamics, technology, and high bandwidth will usher in a new level of interactivity to support CSCLIP. We define CSCLIP concepts in Sharda et al, 2002 [32]. By providing a discussion and comparison of the features common to CSCLIP systems, we develop the criteria necessary for comparison of current

Figure 1. CSCLIP – overlap of ComputerSupported Learning, Collaborative, and Immersive Presence Systems

2. Selection of Systems For Comparison Educational uses of CSCLIP technology were found through an extensive literature review and Web search to identify existing CSCLIP systems that contain the components of collaboration, learning, and immersive presence. While a completely exhaustive review is not practical and would not remain exhaustive for long, this paper is an attempt to provide Further, an overview of current CSCLIP systems. we use a broad definition of immersion in that we include both the highly immersive systems using large room technology as well as the less immersive desktop systems. Though the cost of the highly immersive systems is dropping, we belieive the mature technology and affordability of PC based systems makes them suitable for possible pervasive use. In conducting the literature review we found many different types of systems. For example, Youngblut [33] reviews approximately 40 different learning systems. However, only three of those systems had the three components of learning, collaboration, and immediate presence that we are seeking in this paper. Though the textual counterparts to this technology, Multi-User Domains (MUDS) and object-oriented MUDS (MOOs)

0-7695-1874-5/03 $17.00 (C) 2003 IEEE

2


are in widespread use, they are beyond the scope of this review. Several new and interesting systems were identified. However, they are in the very early stages of development and information was insufficient to include them in the comparison. It is useful to think of systems in a three-tier level: tools, generators, and specific applications. At the lowest level we have tools that can be used to build systems. These would include programming languages, hardware, networking pieces, etc. that can be combined to build a specific CSCLIP application. In the middle would be platforms such as CAVERNsoft. These can be characterized as system generators or environments to build specific applications together more efficiently [34]. Both tools and/or generator environments can be used to build specific applications that offer immercive, collaborative learning in a specific CSCLIP domain. Figure 2, adapted from Sprague and Watson (1996) [35] illustrates this concept. It is important to make this distinction because our purpose in this paper is to compare systems at the higher application level.

Specific CSCLIP Applications

CSCLIP Generator

CSCLIP Tools

Figure 2. CSCLIP Applications

Tools,

Generator,

and

Table 1 provides an alphabetical list of the systems we compared, where they are located, and the status of their development.

Table 1. Summary of Systems to be Compared System Name Computer Supported Collaborative Learning requiring Immersive Presence (CSCLIP) Global Change World Intelligent Distributed Virtual Training Environment (INVITE) Network Racer

User Organization

Contact Information

Oklahoma State University

csclip.iris.okstate.edu

University of Washington Brunell University, UK

http://www.hitl.washington.edu [email protected]

Computer Museum, Boston, MA University of Illinois

http://www.ohwy.com/ma/c/compumus.htm

University of Illinois

http://www.evl.uic.edu/roundearth/

Shared Miletus

University of Illinois

http://www.fhw.gr/fhw/en/projects/3d/miletus

Virtual Anatomy Lab

University of Washington University of Illinois

http://www.hitl.washington.edu

NICE: Narrative-based Immersive Constructionists/Collaborative Environments The Round Earth Project

Virtual Harlem Virtual Physics Lab Virtual Playground Virtual Interactive Telecommunications Advanced Lab (VITAL)

http://www.evl.uic.edu/tile/NICE/NICE/intro.html

http://evl.uic.edu/cavern/harlem

University of Lancaster, UK University of Washington Oklahoma State University

NA http://www.hitl.washington.edu/research/playground http://www.mstm.okstate.edu/~vital

Status Prototype under development 2002 Prototype developed 1999 Prototype under development 2002 In use since 1994 Prototype completed 1999 3rd formal study completed 2001 Development ongoing Prototype Development ongoing Prototype Development ongoing Conceptual

3. Features of CSCLIP Systems In this section we identify key features of CSCLIP systems. For discussion purposes, we divide them into two categories: technical features and human/behavioral features features.

0-7695-1874-5/03 $17.00 (C) 2003 IEEE

3


3.1 Technical Features User Interface User interfaces available today run along a continuum from highly rich and immersive to the much leaner medium of desktop videoconferencing and textbased chat. At the high cost end is the CAVE. CAVE is a virtual reality (VR) system where the display is a 10 foot-cubed room that is rear projected with stereoscopic images, creating the illusion that 3D objects appear to co-exist with the user in the room [36]. A user wears a pair of lightweight stereographics glasses to enable him/her to interact easily with both the virtual and physical worlds. He/She also holds a three-button wand for three-dimension interaction with the virtual environment [36]. The Immersa Desk is similar but smaller than a CAVE and consists of one back-projected panel tilted at a 45-degree angle, similar to a drafting table and requires 3D glasses. At the low cost end are PC based systems typically running Linux, Windows PC, or Windows NT and accessible through a browser interface. Hardware A wide variety of hardware is available for use in VR environments. Although not commonly used yet, some systems are being developed using Headmounted Display (HMD) technology. An HMD can range from a pair of goggles to a full helmet, enabling images to appear as three-dimensional. In addition, most HMDs include a head tracker so that the system can respond to head movements to make it appear as if the wearer is actually looking at a different part of the virtual reality. The Navigational and Control Wand is an important component in most of the CAVE environments. The wand is a six degree of freedom mouse with three buttons for moving right, left, and forward [37]. Another important piece of equipment for CAVEs is Stereographics glasses which are used to mediate 3D images. A less costly alternative is the Access Grid Augmented Virtual Environment (AGAVE) that provides passive polarized stereoscopic 3D graphics using low cost projectors and a PC platform of Linux or Windows PC [38]. Students use inexpensive 3D movie glasses to view the immersive content and navigate using a joystick. Other miscellaneous tools include Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs) which are used in large VR spaces for easy access to annotations and servers which are needed to guarantee consistency for participants in the shared environment as well as discovering who else is entering or exiting the environment.

Networking Technology Networking technologies ranging from being highly system specific to the Internet have been tested. iGrid 2000 is a 100 Mbps network connection set up from Yokohama, Japan to STAR Tap in Chicago [39]. STAR TAP is an international Point of Presence (POP) for several research networks in the United States. The iGrid 2000 network was established to highlight the value of international high-speed computer networks for science, communications, and education and was used to demonstrate the Shared Miletus project during the INET 2000 conference. Graphical User Learning Landscapes in VR (GULLIVR) is network technology that allows multiple users on separate VR systems to connect through a centralized database that enables consistency across the different environments [33]. CALVIN is based on protocols that are tailored toward VR data characteristics and that enable users to enter and exit the environment easily from the Internet [40]. Many universities now have access to Internet2. Internet2 is a consortium being led by over 190 universities working in partnership with industry and government to develop and deploy advanced network applications and technologies. Distributed users that do not have access to Intenet2 must still rely on the plain old Internet for connectivity. Software Software to support VR environments can range from off the shelf products to highly specialized applications. Still under development are tools to enable shared context, awareness of others, negotiation, and multiple viewpoints [41]. Yggdrasil and CAVERNsoft were developed for use in CAVEs. Yggdrasil is an authoring system used to simplify the construction of behaviors for virtual objects and sharing the state of an environment through a distributed scene graph mechanism [38]. CAVERNsoft is a networking toolkit used for integrating VR with data-intensive computing over high-speed networks. It also supports the rapid creation of new tele-immersive application and facilitates the retrofitting of non-collaborative VR systems [34]. Several systems that are more accessible and less specialized include Distributed Interactive Virtual Environment (DIVE) and Java. DIVE is available from SICS in Sweden and supports multi user environments that can be networked over the Internet [33]. Java and its related tool kits, Java 2 SDK and Java 3D API, are being used as an interactive interface that allows students to build their own on-line 3D

0-7695-1874-5/03 $17.00 (C) 2003 IEEE

4


space [42]. Other systems are using off-the-shelf products. Database software is also used in some systems to maintain persistent data that continues to

evolve, so that participants can return and check on its progress at a later time [36]. Table 2 provides a summary of these technical features.

Table 2. Technical Features Summary Features

Global Change World

User Interface CAVE Immersa Desk PC Hardware HMD Wand Streographics glasses AGAVE 3D movie glasses Joystick PDAs Server Networking Technology iGrid2000 GULLIVR CALVIN Internet2 Internet Information not available Software Under development Yggdrasil CAVERNsoft DIVE Java Database Off-the-shelf products Information not available

X

INVITE

X

X X

Network Racer

NICE

Round Earth X X

X

X X X

X

X

X X

Shared Miletus

Virtual Anatomy

Virtual Harlem

Virtual Physics

Virtual Playground

VITAL

X X X

X

X X

X

X

X

X

X

X X

X

X X

X

X

X

X X X X X

X

X X X X

X

X

X

X

X

X X X

X X

X X X

X X

X

X X X

X

3.2 Human/Behavioral Features Temporal Dimension Some systems have both synchronous and asynchronous capabilities. Synchronous capabilities can include real-time audio and video, text chat, annotation tools that allows the students or instructors to leave messages in the virtual world to be retrieved during future visits, and note taking capabilities [41]. Asynchronous functionality has the ability to document, retrieve and replay virtual interactions. Participant Representation Participant representation can range from highly stylized human representations to views from a

desktop videoconference. Many of the systems use avatars which are a graphical representation of a person’s body in a virtual world. Avatars have a head, body, and hand that correspond to the user’s actual tracked head and hand motions and can range from being cartoon-like to highly personalized with gesture and lip synchronization capabilities [41]. From the PC perspective camera coverage, representations are usually limited to head and shoulders views and/or full room views. Issues such as awareness of where the instructor and other participants are located and roaming capabilities are also important considerations with these types of systems. Learning Objectives Learning objectives within VR environments can be characterized by using Bloom’s taxonomy.

0-7695-1874-5/03 $17.00 (C) 2003 IEEE

5


Bloom’s [14] definition of behavioral learning objectives includes the domains of cognitive, affective and psychomotor. Cognitive Domain refers to intellectual learning and problem solving. Cognitive levels of learning include: knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation [43]. The Affective Domain refers to the emotions and value system of a person. Affective levels involve learning by receiving, responding, valuing, organizing, and characterizing by a value. Affective levels are associated with emotional learning, feelings, being, relationships, and our ability to deal with situations.

The Psychomotor Domain refers to movement characteristics and capabilities including physical types of learning [44]. Intended Users VR systems can typically be characterized as being developed for children or for adults involved in either higher education or life long learning programs. Table 3 provides a summary of features being used by each system.

Table 3. Human/Behavioral Features Summary Features Temporal Dimension Synchronous Asynchronous Participant Representation Avatar Head & shoulders video Full room video Awareness & roaming Information not available Learning Objectives Cognitive Affective Psychomotor Intended Users Children Adults

Global Change World

INVITE

Network Racer

NICE

Round Earth

Shared Miletus

X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Virtual Anatomy

X X

Virtual Harlem

Virtual Physics

Virtual Playground

X

X

X

X

X

X

VITAL

X

X X X X

X

X

X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X

X

X

X X

X

4. Discussion Examination of the tables reveals some interesting patterns. Three of the systems could function using different user interfaces, with the NICE application capable of functioning using all three interfaces. The CAVE and ImmersaDesk technologies are primarily used with the more high-end systems. The majority of systems use PC technology, in part due to cost and availability. The important hardware components appear to be wands and servers, with only one system using HMD technology. PDAs are being used with INVITE and Virtual Harlem and it will be interesting to follow this technology to see if it becomes more pervasive in VR environments. Networking technology can be characterized as either proprietary or TCP/IP based.

X

X

X

X

X X X

X

X

X

X

X

Unfortunately information was not available on four systems as to exactly what networking protocols were being used. However, the pattern shows that the systems using CAVE use proprietary networking. Actually there is specialized networking technology available to link CAVEs known as CAVERN. It is an alliance of industrial and research institutions equipped with CAVEs, ImmersDesks, and high performance computing resources [45]. This high-speed network supports collaboration in design, training, education, and scientific visualization in a virtual reality environment. PC based systems are largely using Internet technology. Software is somewhat of a mixed bag. We assume that system developers start off trying to use as many off-the-shelf products or Java toolkits as possible but eventually need develop some system specific programs. As mentioned previously CAVERNsoft has

0-7695-1874-5/03 $17.00 (C) 2003 IEEE

6


been used to generate a number of multi-disciplinary applications. With respect to Human/Behavioral features, all systems were synchronous, with five systems having both synchronous and asynchronous capabilities. It will be interesting to empirically test to see what this feature adds to system success. Most systems use avatars for physical representation, with only one system using interactive video. All systems have a cognitive learning objective, with five also having an affective component. Of those five, three have children as the intended users. Only one system has a psychomotor objective. The intended users category was fairly evenly split with five systems being developed for children and seven for adults.

5. Conclusions and Research Issues This paper provides a concise point of reference for the evaluation of CSCLIP systems. It identifies systems that have elements of learning, collaboration, and immersive presence. It then identifies both technical and human/behavioral features of these systems, providing readers with a broad understanding of the CSCLIP domain. The quality or effectiveness of these systems was not addressed. Finally, it identifies gaps, trends, and patterns within those features. A number of research issues come up as a result of completing this survey. These include easeof-use and usability studies, quality of service issues, scalability issues, and the ability to generalize these systems into other domains, and testing for overall effectiveness.

2.

3. 4.

6.

7. 8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

6. References 1.

5.

Bush, V., As We May Think. The Atlantic Monthly, 1945: p. 101-108. Cleveland, P.L., and Bailey, E. K. Organizing for distance education. in Twenty-seventh Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. 1994. Maui, Hawaii: IEEE Computer Society Press. Dede, C., Emerging Technologies and Distributed Learning. American Journal of Distance Education, 1996. 10(2): p. 4-36. Kaye, A.R., Computer-supported collaborative learning in a multi-media distance education environment, in Computer Supported collaborative learning, C.

15.

16.

O'Malley, Editor. 1995, Springer Verlag: Berlin. p. 3-21. Mason, R.a.A.K., Mindweave: Communication, Computers and Distance Education. 1989, Oxford, UK: Pergamon. Engelbart, D., A conceptual framework for the augmentation of man's intellect, in Vistas in information handling. 1963, London: Spartan Books. Blitzer, M.D., and Boudreaux, M. C., Using a computer to teach nursing. Nursing Forum, 1969. 8(3): p. 234-254. Chambers, J.A., and Sprecher, J. W., Computer-assisted instruction: current trends and critical issues. Communications, 1980. 23: p. 332-342. Daniel, J.I., Using the Web to Improve Computer-Aided Instruction in Economics. The Journal of Economic Education, 1999. 30(3 (Summer)): p. 225-241. Daniel, J.I., Computer-Aided Instruction on the World Wide Web: The Third Generation. The Journal of Economic Education, 1999. 30(2 (Spring)): p. 163-170. Hoffer, E.P., Methewson, H. O., Loughery, A., and Barnett, G. O., Use of computer-aided instruction in graduate nursing education: a controlled trial. Journal of Emergency Nursing, 1975. 1(2): p. 27-29. Lehmann, H.P., Lehmann, C. U. Freedman. , J. A., The use of simulations in computeraided learning over the World Wide Web. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 1997. 278(21 (December)): p. 1788-1791. Piemme, T.E., Computer-assisted learning and evaluation in medicine. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 1988. 260(3 (July)): p. 367-373. Bloom, B.S., Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals, handbook 1: Cognitive Domain. 1956, New York: McKay. Cleveland, P.L., and Bailey, E. K. Organizing for distance education. in Twenty-seventh Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. 1994. Maui, Hawaii: IEEE Computer Society Press. Aniebona, M.C., Effective Distance Learning Methods as a Curriculum Delivery Tool in Diverse University Environments: The Case of Traditional vs. Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 2000. 4(October).

0-7695-1874-5/03 $17.00 (C) 2003 IEEE

7


17.

18.

19.

20. 21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26. 27. 28.

29. 30.

Brackett, J.W., Satellite-Based Distance Learning Using Digital Video and the Internet. IEEE Multimedia, 1998. 5(3 (JulySeptember)): p. 72-76. Johnson-Lenz, P., and Johnson-Lenz, T. Groupware: The emerging art of orchestrating collective intelligence. in First Global Conference on the Future. 1980. Toronto, Canada. Dennis, A.R., et al, Information technology to support electronic meetings. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 1988. 12(4): p. 591-624. DeSanctis, G., and Gallupe, B. R., Group decision support systems: A new frontier. Database, 1985: p. 190-201. Huber, G.P., Issues in the design of group decision support systems. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 1984. 8(3): p. 195-204. Nunamaker, J.F.J., Vogel, D. R., and Konsynski, B., Interaction of Task and Technology to Support Large Groups. Decision Support Systems, 1989. 5(2): p. 139152. Zigurs, I., M.S. Poole, and G. DeSanctis, A study of influence in computer-mediated group decision making. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 1988. 12(4): p. 625-644. Lewe, H., and Krcmar, H. The Design process for a CSCW research lab - the Hoenheim CATeam room example. in twenty-fourth Hawai'i International Conference on System Sciences. 1991. Maui, HI: IEEE Computer Society Press. Maneti, M. Capturing the capture lab concepts: a case study in the design of computer supported meeting environments. in CSCW 1988. 1988. Portland, OR: ACM SIGCHI & SIGOIS. Rodden, T., A survey of CSCW systems. Interacting with Computers, 1991. 3(3): p. 319-353. Metzger, P.J. Adding Reality to the Virtual. in IEEE 1993 Virtual Reality Annual International Symposium. 1993. Steuer, J., Defining Virtual Reality: Dimensions Determining Telepresence. Journal of Communication, 1992. 42(4): p. 73-93. Stuart, R., The design of virtual environments. 1996, New York: McGraw-Hill. Milgram, P., H. Takemura, et al. Augmented Reality: A Class of Displays on the Reality-

31.

32.

33. 34.

35. 36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

Virtuality Continuum. in SPIE Proceedings: Telemanipulator and Telepresence Technologies. 1994: SPIE. Conn, C., Lanier, J., Minsky, M., Fisher, S., and Druin, A. Virtual environments and interactivity: Windows to the future. in SIGGRAPH '89 Panel Proceedings. 1989. New York: Association for Computer Machinery. Sharda, R., Romano, N.C., Jr., and Lucca, J., A Conceptual Framework For Computer Supported Collaborative Learning Requiring Immediate Presence, in Human Resouce Development and Information Technolgoy, C. Sleezer, Wentling, T., and Cude, R., Editor. 2002, Kluwer Academic Publishers: Boston, MA. Youngblut, C., Educational Uses of Virtual Reality Technology, . 1998, Institute for Defense Analyses. Johnson, A., Leigh, J., and DeFanti, T. Multidisciplinary Experiences with CAVERNsoft Tele-Immersive Applications. in Fourth International Conference on Virtual Systems and Multimedia. 1998. Gifu, Japan. Sprague, R.H., Jr., and Watson, H.J., Decision Support for Management. 1996, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Roussos, M., Johson, A. Moher, T., Leigh, J., Vasilakis, C. and Barnes, C., Learning and Building Together in an Immersive Virtual World. Presence, 1999. 8(3): p. 247-263. Moher, T., Johnson, A., Ohlsson, S., and Gillinghm, M. Bridging Strategies for VRBased Learning. in CHI '99. 1999. Pittsburgh, PA. Park, K., Leigh, J., Johnson, A., Carter, B., Brody, J., and Sosnoski, J. Distance Learning Clasroom Using Virtual Harlem. in VSMM 2001. 2001. Berkeley, CA. Pape, D., Anstey, J., D'Souza, S., DeFanti, T., Roussou, M., Gaitatzes, A. 2001. in International Conference on Augmented, Virtual Environments and Three-Dimensional Imaging. 2001. Mykonos, Greece. Leigh, J., Johnson, A., and DeFanti, T. CALVIN: an Immresimedia Design Environment Utilizing Heterogeneous Perspectives. in IEEE International Conference on Multimedia Computing and Systems '96. 1996. Hiroshima, Japan. Kuljis, J. A Distributed Virtual Collaborative Learning Environment. in IASTED International Conference Applied Informatics. 2002. Innsbruck, Austria.

0-7695-1874-5/03 $17.00 (C) 2003 IEEE

8


42.

43. 44.

45.

Campbell, B., Rosse, C., and Brinkley, J.F. The Virtual Anatomy Lab: a Hands-on Anatomy Learning Environment. in MedVR 2001. 2001. Krathwol, D.R., Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals, handbook 2. 1964, New York: McKay. Simpson, J.S., The classification of educational objectives, psychomotor domain. Office of Education Project No. 5-85-104. 1966, Urbana, IL: University of Illinois. Johnson, A., and Leigh, J., Tele-Immersive Collaboration in the CAVE Research Network. 2001: Interaction.

0-7695-1874-5/03 $17.00 (C) 2003 IEEE

9