REENACT: Augmented Reality and Collective Role Playing to Enhance

the Pedagogy of Historical Events

An EXPERIMEDIA Experiment

Mart´ın L´opez-Nores, Yolanda Blanco-Fern´andez, Jos´e J. Pazos-Arias, Alberto Gil-Solla, Jorge

Garc´ıa-Duque and Manuel Ramos-Cabrer

AtlantTIC Research Center for Information and Communication Technologies,

Department of Telematics Engineering, University of Vigo, Vigo, Spain

Keywords:

Future Internet Research and Experimentation, Technology-enhanced Learning, Augmented Reality.

Abstract:

Much of human history has been shaped by the outcomes of countless battles and wars. Unfortunately, the

classical pedagogy of these events merely tells about who were the belligerent forces, how long the ﬁghts lasted

for, and who ended up winning. We present one proposal to engage groups of people into immersive collective

experiences that will make them learn about a certain battle or war both from the inside, as reenactors, and

from the outside, as historians. The participants will be equipped with smartphones or tablets that interact

with the technological facility developed within the EXPERIMEDIA FP7 project, which provides support

for the implementation, deployment and execution of distributed live games, social networking features and

augmented reality.

1 INTRODUCTION

History is commonly taught in a way that major bat-

tles and wars are put down as occasional events that

just happen, that involve two sides (often appearing

as the good and the evil forces) and that apparently

end fortuitously, as by tossing a coin. Nothing is

that simple in reality, and so the classical pedagogical

approach neglects many facts about the reasons for

the battles, alliances and supporters, why things went

on the way they did, what were the winning or los-

ing choices, what were the consequences in the short,

medium and long terms, etc. As a result, the general

awareness of History in our society is rather partial

and deﬁcient.

Fortunately, novel technologies provide powerful

means to make things better and more interesting.

Smartphones and tablets have already been around for

some time (Akkerman et al., 2009; Sala et al., 2011),

just like social networking (Arends et al., 2012),

videogames for learning (Charsky and Ressler, 2011;

Watson et al., 2011) and even virtual reality (Jacob-

son et al., 2009). We present a new approach (called

REENACT) that introduces augmented reality tech-

nologies in History learning. The aim is to engage

groups of people into immersive collective experi-

ences that will make them learn about the prelude, the

course and the aftermath of battles and wars with the

aid of tactile mobile devices, repositories of multime-

dia contents, an advanced technological facility and

remote experts. Very brieﬂy, the REENACT experi-

ences will be organised in three stages:

• Stage 1 (reenactment) is about involving groups

of people in the reenactment of battles. They will

be moving around in a room, playing the actions

deﬁned for a given role by a script of the event

and interacting with the other participants inside

the game. Tactile mobile devices will provide the

participants with an augmented reality vision re-

sembling a multiplayer role-playing game.

• In stage 2 (replay), the participants will be taken

to a projection room to analyse what has been hap-

pening. They have already lived the battle from

inside, with a very partial vision, and now it is

turn to learn more by watching things from out-

side, and to see how their recreation compares

to the real historic events. The explanations will

be given by one expert, who may be physically

present at the projection room or appearing on the

screen from a remote location.

• Finally, in stage 3 (debate), the expert will drive a

collective brainstorming about the consequences

of the conﬂict in the short, medium and long

111

Lopez-Nores M., Blanco-Fernandez Y., J. Pazos-arias J., Gil-solla A., Garcia-Duque J. and Ramos-Cabrer M..

REENACT: Augmented Reality and Collective Role Playing to Enhance the Pedagogy of Historical Events - An EXPERIMEDIA Experiment.

DOI: 10.5220/0004499801110118

In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Signal Processing and Multimedia Applications and 10th International Conference on Wireless

Information Networks and Systems (SIGMAP-2013), pages 111-118

ISBN: 978-989-8565-74-7

 2013 SCITEPRESS (Science and Technology Publications, Lda.)

terms. The projection screen will become a dy-

namic big board to display comments posted by

the participants, which can be rearranged by the

expert as the debate goes on. At any time, the ex-

pert will be able to choose multimedia contents to

illustrate the different points that are raised.

In this paper, we ﬁrstly present the details of the

REENACT proposal (Section 2) and its implementa-

tion (Section 3). Then, we describe our experimen-

tation plans (Section 4), taking a look at some of the

indicators we will be measuring to assess the value

of the proposal for different stakeholders, in terms of

Quality of Experience (QoE) and Quality of Commu-

nity (QoC). Conclusions are given in Section 5.

2 THE REENACT APPROACH

We will look into the three stages of the REENACT

approach by borrowing examples from the speciﬁc

scenario of the Battle of Thermopylae, which is the

ﬁrst event we will experiment with. This eventis quite

popular as a symbol of courage against overwhelming

odds, but it is not really well understood due to non-

rigorous treatment in movies and comics. Fortunately,

the details reported by Herodotus (Herodotus (author)

and A. D. Godley (translator), 1922) and other histo-

rians provide sufﬁcient scenes to yield both a didactic

and enlightening experience to explain such facts as

the advantages of training, equipment and good use

of terrain as force multipliers. These are some of the

points to highlight during the experiences.

2.1 Details of the Reenactment Stage

Once a sufﬁcient group of people has been formed to

participate in a REENACT experience about a given

battle or war, they will be taken to a room where they

will ﬁrst watch a brief projection explaining the his-

torical context of the conﬂict. Then, they will be

armed with their tactile mobile devices and assume

a given role in the battle, ﬁghting for whichever side.

The tactile mobile devices will be providing the

participants with the actions they may make at any

given moment: to advance on a certain stand, to re-

treat, to ﬁght one way or another, to surrender or not,

etc. The choice of possible actions will be a function

of each individual’s choices, the orders delivered by

the respective commanders or decisions made collec-

tively by voting. The options appear on the top half of

the mobile devices’screens, along with links to pieces

of content that explain the current state of things (see

Fig. 1).

Some of the reenactors’ actions will require them

to move around the room, seeking different zones

identiﬁed by 2D codes on the ﬂoor or on the walls.

The mobile devices help identify the zones by aug-

menting the world seen through the cameras with rep-

resentative 3D models, as shown in Fig. 2.

The zones correspond to locations that are dis-

played on the maps of the bottom half of the devices’

screens (see Fig. 1). This way, each participant will

be able to visualise his/her position in the scenario of

the battle, where the rest of the people will be charac-

terised as per their roles. In the case of the Battle of

Thermopylae, the zones are arranged into three differ-

ent scenes:

• The ﬁrst scene (appearing on the left of Fig. 1)

situates the main locations during the prelude of

the battle: Asia Minor, the Hellespont, Thessaly,

Phocis, Thebes, Corinth, Arcadia and Sparta.

• The second scene (appearing on the right of

Fig. 1) displays the relevant locations during the

course of the ﬁghts in the Thermopylae area: the

Persian camp, the Greek camp, the old Phocian

wall, the Anopaean path and the Greek rearguard.

These locations can appear either on a satellite

view of the area (as seen nowadays) or on an an-

cient historical map overlaid on it, which helps the

user understand how the area has changed over the

centuries due to a process of sedimentary deposi-

tion that has moved the coastline far apart from

the mountains.

• The third scene displays three afterlife locations

to host participants whose characters die during

the reenactment: the Elysium (Greek heaven), the

Tartarus (Greek underworld) and the Garothman

(Zoroastrianism heaven).

Another feature of augmented reality to enhance

the immersion is the provision of 360

◦

views of some

zones, including the Greek and Persian camps at

Thermopylae. One snapshot of the former is shown

in Fig. 3.

Augmented reality is also used when it comes to

battling. One-on-one ﬁghts can be easily simulated

by having two reenactors (one from each side) move

2D codes around the surface of a table, interpreting

moves forward and backwards as attack and defense

gestures, respectively. The screens will be display-

ing a ﬁght between 3D models accordingly. Simple

logical puzzles (adapted from Simon Tatham’s collec-

tion

) will also be offered to ﬁll dead times waiting for

other reenactors’ decisions or actions.

Finally, to enhance the feeling of a collective

experience, one laptop can be put to use any big

http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/˜sgtatham/puzzles/

SIGMAP2013-InternationalConferenceonSignalProcessingandMultimediaApplications

112

Figure 1: Snapshots of the main activity of the reenactors’ application.

Figure 2: Displaying 3D models over 2D codes.

screens or projection boards available in the reenact-

ment room to display the visualisation of the scenario

of the battle, along with video footage that may serve

to illustrate what is going on, and even pictures or tex-

tual comments coming from the reenactors’ devices.

If available, loudspeakers will play accompaniment

music and sound effects for further immersion. These

features may enhance the educational aspect too, as

proved in (Fassbender et al., 2012).

Figure 3: A 3D view of the Greek camp at Thermopylae.

2.2 Details of the Replay Stage

Once the recreation of the battle has ﬁnished, the

reenactors will be taken to a projection room to anal-

yse what has been happening. They havealreadylived

the battle from inside, with a very partial vision, and

now it is turn to sit down and learn more by watch-

ing things from outside, to see how their recreation

compares to the real historic events.

The second stage of the REENACT experiences

REENACT:AugmentedRealityandCollectiveRolePlayingtoEnhancethePedagogyofHistoricalEvents-An

EXPERIMEDIAExperiment

113

Figure 4: A snapshot of the expert’s interface.

will be driven by one expert, who may be physically

present at the projection room or appearing on the

screen from a remote location. The expert will rely on

a record of the movements and actions of each partic-

ipant during the reenactment. Combining this record

with the script of the battle, the expert will be able

to identify speciﬁc situations lived by the reenactors

that could serve to explain important facts about the

course of the ﬁghts (e.g. to illustrate the technologi-

cal superiority of one of the opponents, the war tactics

employed, etc).

As it can be seen in Fig. 4, the expert’s interfaces

will show a timeline of what each one of the partici-

pants has done, decided and watched during the reen-

actment stage. The sequence of contents displayed

on the big screens of the reenactment space will be

displayed, too. This way, the expert will be able to

choose the most suitable contents to support his/her

explanations, which will be projected on the top half

of the projection screen. Additionally, the bottom half

will be displaying the video feed from the expert’s

webcam and some additional material, like a map of

the battle with the avatars in place or textual com-

ments typed by the reenactors.

The important point of the replay stage is to re-

late the reenactors’ experiences with the historical

facts, which should help them to realise and memo-

rise facts that usually go unnoticed in traditional His-

tory teaching. Therefore, the expert must devote some

time to explaining what aspects of the reenactment di-

verge from the real facts, either because the scripts

make some allowances or because the participants

have made the opposite of the real characters’ deci-

sions. Also, the expert may choose to run a collec-

tive quiz game with multiple-choice questions about

the prelude and the course of the event. This may be

a qualifying game (the one who misses an answer is

eliminated) or a cumulative one (the one who gets the

greatest number of correct answers, wins). Typically,

there will be only one correct answer, while at least

one other option could make sense and at least one

would be ridiculous, like in the following example:

• Who was the predecessor of Xerxes I?

1. Xerxes 0. (FALSE)

2. Darius the Great. (TRUE)

3. Julius Caesar. (FALSE)

4. Arnold the Great. (FALSE)

There will also be questions in which all the an-

swers are correct, just seeing one fact from different

perspectives, like:

• What was the year of the Battle of Thermopylae?

1. The 4th year of the 74th Olympiad by the Attic

calendar. (TRUE)

2. Year 274 ab urbe condita. (TRUE)

3. Year 2157/2217 by the Chinese calendar.

(TRUE)

4. Year 23 by the Achaemenid calendar. (TRUE)

Finally, there may be features for pure entertain-

ment like awards to the best soldiers of each side,

rankings of participants ordered by how long they

have survived, galleries of user-generated pictures,

etc.

2.3 Details of the Debate Stage

After the replay stage, also in the projection room, the

expert will drive a collective brainstorming about the

consequences of the conﬂict in the short, medium and

long terms, wondering what might havebeen different

in History if things had happened differently. For ex-

ample, considering the Battle of Thermopylae (which

was not really decisive) in the broader context of the

Greco-Persian wars, the topics for debate will include

the following:

• Would there be fewer ruins in Athens today if King

Leonidas had stopped the Persians’ advance?

Would the Parthenon ever have been built?

• Would the Persians have conquered the whole of

Europe? If so, would all European countries be

like Turkey today? Actually, would there be coun-

tries?

SIGMAP2013-InternationalConferenceonSignalProcessingandMultimediaApplications

114

• Would the Persians have conquered a larger share

of Africa, too?

• Who would have been the Persians’ greatest ri-

vals: the Macedons led by Alexander the Great

the next century, the Carthaginians a little bit

later, the Celts, the Vikings, ...?

• Would there have been Persian equivalents to

Socrates, Plato and Aristotle?

• Would science have developed better or worse?

Would the Middle Ages still have occurred?

• Would the Europeans have discovered America,

or someone from America have crossed the At-

lantic Ocean the other way before? If so, who?

• Would Iran have been a superpower as the USA

are today?

During the debate stage, the projection screen will

become a dynamic big board to display comments

posted by the participants, which can be rearranged

by the expert as the debate goes on. At any time, the

expert will be able to choose multimedia contents to

illustrate the different points that are raised. Partici-

pants will type their comments using the tactile mo-

bile devices, and, if chosen by the expert, they will

have the possibility to explain their ideas or view-

points to the whole audience in an audio- or video-

call. Some arguments can be voted upon, or socially

rated as “possible” or “impossible”, “likely” or “not

likely”, “interesting”, “absurd”, “original”, so that the

most active participants get some kind of recognition.

Again, there may be quiz games to appraise the par-

ticipants’ understanding of the importance and impact

of the battle.

3 IMPLEMENTATION ON TOP

OF THE EXPERIMEDIA

FACILITY

The REENACT proposal has been implemented on

top of the Future Media Internet (FMI) technolog-

ical facility provided by the EXPERIMEDIA FP7

project

. As explained in (Salama et al., 2012), the

technologies that reside in the EXPERIMEDIA facil-

ity have been encapsulated into four components un-

der common type of content:

• The Experiment Content Component (ECC) mon-

itors, derives experimental data from, and man-

ages the other components, taking control of

installation, deployment at the experimentation

http://www.experimedia.eu/

venues, running and termination. The ECC elicits

Quality of Service (QoS), Quality of Experience

(QoE) and Quality of Community (QoC) data from

the other components and delivers it to the experi-

menters so they can analyse the behaviour of tech-

nical systems in relation to user experience.

• The Social Content Component (SCC) gathers

and manages data that is generated on social net-

working sites during the course of an experiment.

Internally, it provides access to different social

networks (giving read access and publishing ca-

pabilities) and also communicates social network

monitoring metrics to the ECC, which exposes it

to the experimenters so that they can analyse and

draw information from the social network activi-

ties that take place during the experiment.

• The AudioVisual Content Component (AVCC)

provides services related to the management and

delivery of audiovisual contents, including acqui-

sition from a media producer, adaptation and dis-

tribution to different platforms, liveedition and re-

alisation, and data and metadata synchronization.

• The Pervasive Content Component (PCC) pro-

vides means to track the users’ locations as a

means by which augmented reality content can be

delivered and user-generated data can be mapped

to a spatial location. The PCC hosts an augmented

reality platform and an online environment for the

orchestration of distributed live games.

The REENACT experiences will be delivered by

a software system comprising one server and three

main interfaces: the reenactors’ front-end, the ex-

pert’s front-end and the administrator’s front-end.

• The REENACT server centralises access to pre-

recorded contents and live streaming through the

AVCC, and to store the records of events raised

during the reenactments. Besides, it provides a

repository to store the static images and the text

documents that may be used for illustration pur-

poses at any time.

• The reenactors’ front-end is an Android applica-

tion that delivers the interactions envisaged for the

participants, relying mainly on the PCC during the

reenactment stage and on the SCC during replay

and debate.

• The expert’s front-end interacts mainly with the

AVCC to allow the expert to join from a remote

location and to browse the content repositories. It

also interacts with the SCC to enable participation

in debates with means to highlight key words, to

rule out offensivecomments or foul language, etc.

REENACT:AugmentedRealityandCollectiveRolePlayingtoEnhancethePedagogyofHistoricalEvents-An

EXPERIMEDIAExperiment

115

• Finally, the administrator’s front-end is a web

application that provides the interfaces needed

to supervise the operation of the rest of the el-

ements during the REENACT experiences, in-

cluding manual control over the orchestration of

events during the reenactment stage and the gath-

ering of information for later evaluation in coop-

eration with the ECC.

The main functional blocks and features of the

REENACT system (green) in combination with the

EXPERIMEDIA facility (light blue) are depicted in

Fig. 5. More detailed information can be found

in (Salama et al., 2012) and (L´opez-Nores et al.,

2012).

It is worth noting that the tactile mobile devices

of the reenactors may be Android smartphones or

tablets, with screens between 5 and 8 inches —

smaller ones would not ﬁt the amount of information

to display, and bigger ones would not be comfortable

to move around during the reenactment. Additionally,

to successfully use and run the AR features, they also

need to have a rear camera, gyroscope, compass and

other sensors, plus sufﬁcient computing power and a

recent version of the Android operating system.

4 EXPERIMENTATION PLAN

The scenario of the Battle of Thermopylae is be-

ing developed in collaboration with the Foundation

of the Hellenic World (henceforth, FHW), a not-for-

proﬁt cultural institution based in Athens that boasts

a unique technological infrastructure including the

Tholos, a dome-shaped virtual reality (VR) theatre

that delivers 3D contents rendered in real time. On the

one hand, the FHW is providing support from expert

historians to develop historically rigorous scripts for

the reenactments and sets of questions and topics for

replays and debates. On the other, their VR depart-

ment are contributing 3D models for the AR features

as well as some pictures and audio/video footage to

put into the contents repositories.

The core of our experimentation will be done dur-

ing the summer of 2013 in the Hellenic Cosmos (the

venue provided by the FHW in Athens), but this will

be supplemented with trials in the University of Vigo,

both ex ante (to get early feedback and thereby ﬁx de-

fects in the software or in the experimentdesign itself)

and ex post (to gather further evidence for the evalu-

ation or to assess questions that remain unanswered).

Due to EU privacy data protection policies, partici-

pants will be recruited from among the communities

of students, professors, researchers and other staff of

the University of Peloponnese and the University of

Vigo.

During the experimentation sessions, the REEN-

ACT software will be feeding data into the ECC, that

will be processed later to evaluate different parame-

ters of QoS, QoE and QoC. QoS parameters include

the following:

• CPU and memory consumption of the reenactors’

app.

• Quality and latency of the pre-recorded videos de-

livered to the reenactors’ app from the AVCC.

• Quality and latency of the video feeds transmit-

ted by the AVCC from the expert to the projection

screen.

• Battery consumption of the reenactors’ devices.

Data will be provided at the end of each stage by

the app itself.

QoE data will include both quantitative and quali-

tative measures:

• On the one hand, the software will keep track of

the movementsand actions of the participants dur-

ing the reenactments, and also of their interactions

during the replay and debate stages. Likewise, the

application will be providing stats about how and

when the participants use its different features and

interfaces.

• On the other hand, the mobile application will

provide brief questionnaires to gather opinions

about the REENACT approach and to rate dif-

ferent features of the experience: educational

value, level of entertainment, convenience of the

interfaces, quality and completeness of the con-

tents, preferences for certain types of contents,

etc. Those ratings will be matched against anony-

mous information about the participants’ educa-

tional background and interest in speciﬁc topics.

Halfway between quantitative and qualitative, the

voting and quiz games offered during the replay and

debate stages will be used as sources of information

about the participants’ level of engagement and learn-

ing about the historical events. As a research ques-

tion, it will be checked whether any of the afore-

mentioned parameters depends on the roles played by

the participants during the reenactment stage, since it

might happen that the QoE measurements are better

for someone who has played a main role (say, King

Xerxes in the Battle of Thermopylae) than for some-

one who has played a secondary role (e.g. a Persian

infantryman), or maybe that differences appear be-

tween winning and losing sides.

QoC measurements, again, may reﬂect both quan-

titative and qualitative aspects of the community of

people that participate in a REENACT session. To

SIGMAP2013-InternationalConferenceonSignalProcessingandMultimediaApplications

116

ECC

· Speciﬁcation

· Deployment & conﬁguration

· Data management

· Monitoring

SCC

· Social network analytics

· Common SN interface

· SN data management

PCC

· Location tracking

· Live games

· QoE measurements

· AR platform

AVCC

· Live metadata acquisition

· Input manager

· User-generated video

· Recorder/VOD manager

· AV repository

· Media distribution

REENACT server

Reenactors’ front-end

Expert’s front-end

Administrators’ front-end

Figure 5: Main blocks and features of the REENACT system.

this aim, the experimenters will primarily look at the

interactions among the participants during the replay

and debate stages, e.g. counting the number of rat-

ings and analyzing the length, mood and depth of the

comments they exchange using their tactile mobile

devices. Special attention will be paid to what hap-

pens among people who did not know each other be-

fore, for which they will all be asked to tick out the

nicknames of their acquaintances right before start-

ing the reenactment stage. Thus, it will be possible

to address questions like whether strangers keep dis-

tances during the reenactment, whether they comment

on the others’ arguments, or whether there is any ap-

parent bias in the ratings given to acquaintances and

strangers.

5 CONCLUSIONS ABOUT VALUE

IMPACT

Our experimentation is ultimately intended to assess

the value impact of the REENACT proposal for enti-

ties like the Foundation of the Hellenic World, aiming

to exploit the following facets:

• First-hand experimentation with an innovative

FMI application that makes the most of possibly

unused spaces, technological facilities, contents

and personnel.

• Offering of a new kind of collective experience

to reinforce the understanding of events that have

shaped the history of a certain area of the world.

• New means for remote interaction with

geographically-distributed actors towards the

organisation of new exhibitions, projections of

multimedia productions, collection of opinions

about new contents and activities, etc.

Notwithstanding, we will try to assess whether the

REENACT solution could be taken out of the muse-

ums, for example, to enable new pedagogical experi-

ences in primary and secondary schools.

The data gathered about QoE and QoC will be

used to assess the potential truth of the following

claims for the different people involved in the expe-

riences:

• Museum visitors or students will enjoy new edu-

tainment experiences aimed at improving the un-

derstanding of historic events. They will have the

opportunity of interacting with one another, and

also with geographically distributed experts via

user-friendly interfaces.

• Museum guides and educators will be able to par-

ticipate in a new type of collective experience,

supplementing the expertise and knowledge pro-

vided by the experts in replays and debates.

• Experts will be able to offer their services to col-

laborate with museum educators in new pedagogi-

cal experiences, interacting more closely than ever

before with people interested in knowing more

about major historical events. They will be able

to efﬁciently browse repositories of multimedia

contents to relate historical facts to speciﬁc situ-

ations raised during the reenactments, and to con-

duct live debates about the potential consequences

of the ﬁghts in the short, medium and long terms.

• Content creators/providers will ﬁnd an additional

outlet for the multimedia contents they produce,

which will be usable to provide historically-

meaningful explanations to the situations arisen

REENACT:AugmentedRealityandCollectiveRolePlayingtoEnhancethePedagogyofHistoricalEvents-An

EXPERIMEDIAExperiment

117

during the reenactments and to the arguments

raised during the debates.

• Last but not least, the experimenters (ourselves)

will draw useful conclusions from metrics pro-

posed to assess QoE and QoC from the data gath-

ered during the experiments, about the ease of use

of the game-like interfaces provided for the reen-

actment, the didactic value of the different stages,

the interest of engaging in social discussions, etc.

This valuable insight will serve to enhance our on-

going research activities in the area of informa-

tion services, which deal with various ﬂavours of

technology-enhanced distance learning.

Commercial exploitation could happen through

the selling of the technology, its implantation in the

venues, training courses for professors, implementa-

tion of reenactment scripts and production of multi-

media contents.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The research leading to these results has re-

ceived funding from the European Union Seventh

Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under grant

agreement no. 287966 and from the Conseller´ıa

de Educaci´on e Ordenaci´on Universitaria (Xunta de

Galicia) incentives ﬁle CN 2011/023 (partly sup-

ported by FEDER funds).

REFERENCES

Akkerman, S., Admiraal, W., and Huizenga, J. (2009).

Storiﬁcation in History education: A mobile game in

and about medieval Amsterdam. Computers & Edu-

cation, 52(2):449–459.

Arends, M., Weingartner, M., Froschauer, J., Goldfarb, D.,

and Merkl, D. (2012). Learning about Art History by

exploratory search, contextual view and social tags.

In Proceedings of the 12th IEEE International Con-

ference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT),

Rome, Italy.

Charsky, D. and Ressler, W. (2011). “games are made for

fun”: Lessons on the effects of concept maps in the

classroom use of computer games. Computers & Ed-

ucation, 56(3):604–615.

Fassbender, E., Richards, D., Bilgin, A., Thompson, W.,

and Heiden, W. (2012). VirSchool: The effect of

background music and immersive display systems on

memory for facts learned in an educational virtual en-

vironment. Computers & Education, 58(1):490–500.

Herodotus (author) and A. D. Godley (translator) (1922).

Herodotus, books V-VII: The Persian Wars. Loeb

Classical Library.

Jacobson, A., Militello, R., and Baveye, P. (2009). Develop-

ment of computer-assisted virtual ﬁeld trips to support

multidisciplinary learning. Computers & Education,

52(3):571–580.

L´opez-Nores, M., Blanco-Fern´andez, Y., Pazos-Arias,

J., Gil-Solla, A., Garc´ıa-Duque, J., and Ramos-

Cabrer, M. (2012). REENACT experiment - exper-

iment problem statement, requirements and PIA re-

view. EXPERIMEDIA project deliverable D4.9.1,

http://www.experimedia.eu/publications.

Sala, L., Vannini, S., and Rubegni, E. (2011). Mobile learn-

ing in cultural institutions through the use of an Ap-

ple iPad application prototype. a case study at Monte

Verit`a. In Proceedings of Red-conference - Rethinking

education in the knowledge society, Ascona, Switzer-

land.

Salama, D., Garrido Ostermann, E., Ljungstrand,

P., Softic, S., Prettenhofer, S., Boniface, M.,

Crowle, S., S.C.Phillips, Halb, W., and Kon-

stanteli, K. (2012). First blueprint architecture.

EXPERIMEDIA project deliverable D2.1.3,

http://www.experimedia.eu/publications.

Watson, W., Mong, C., and Harris, C. (2011). A case study

of the in-class use of a video game for teaching high

school History. Computers & Education, 56(2):466–

474.

SIGMAP2013-InternationalConferenceonSignalProcessingandMultimediaApplications

118