TOWARDS A MIXED REALITY LEARNING ENVIRONMENT

IN THE CLASSROOM

Santiago Gonz

alez-Gancedo

, M.-Carmen Juan

, Ignacio Segu

, Noem

ı Rando

and Juan Cano

Instituto Universitario de Autom

atica e Inform

atica Industrial (ai2), Universitat Polit

ecnica de Val

encia,

Camino de Vera, s/n, 46022 Valencia, Spain

AIJU, Ibi, Alicante, Spain

Escola d’Estiu, Universitat Polit

ecnica de Val

encia, Camino de Vera, s/n. 46022 Valencia, Spain

Keywords:

Mixed Reality Learning Environments, Augmented Reality, Handheld Devices, Education.

Abstract:

In this paper, we present a novel study that emphasizes the use of Augmented Reality (AR) as a natural

complement for the Virtual Reality Learning Environment (VRLE) model, towards a general acceptance of

Mixed Reality Learning Environment (MRLE) in the classroom. Handheld devices help this scheme serving

as general purpose computers available for use by other applications. AR has not been explored deeply enough

to have full acceptance of use in the classroom. We present an application in which a tablet PC was used to

evaluate our game, working with multimodal interaction provided by a tactile screen and an accelerometer. It

can be played in two modes: combining AR and non-AR (NAR), and only NAR. Seventy-three children of

primary school tested the system. For the learning outcomes, there were no statistically signiﬁcant differences

between both modes, but the AR mode enhanced highly user satisfaction and engagement. This conﬁrms our

hypothesis that AR can be an excellent complement to VRLE for the use in the classroom.

1 INTRODUCTION

Education is a ﬁeld of research that can beneﬁt ex-

traordinarily from technology. The Virtual Reality

Learning Environment (VRLE) is well established as

an educational tool (Lee et al., 2010), while Aug-

mented Reality (AR) is not as spread yet. AR could

be a strong complement to this traditional approach to

education, and learners could enrich their experience

with a Mixed Reality Learning Environment (MRLE)

(Pan et al., 2006) in the classroom.

Many VRLE applications have been developed

(Yang et al., 2010; El Sayed et al., 2011). However,

while some researches in the ﬁeld of education state

that VR is “extremely close to reality” (Inoue, 2007,

p. 1), such is not still the case of AR. We attribute this

to the fact that it is very modern in comparison to VR,

and to the few easy to use, low cost, updated AR tools

for educators that can be found.

Handheld devices offer excellent capabilities to be

used for education, and have a great perspective of fu-

ture (Billinghurst and Henrysson, 2006). In our opin-

ion, tablet PCs can be an excellent tool that helps AR

to have good acceptance as a complement to VRLE.

Tablet PCs are usually equipped with several sensors

Figure 1: Child playing one of the AR games, catching the

water drop main character.

and mechanisms for rich Human-Computer Interface.

They generally include a camera, a tactile screen and

inertial measure units such as accelerometer and gy-

roscope. Thus, they can be used in a wide range of ed-

ucation areas, reducing the cost of custom hardware.

As far as we are concerned, there is still too much

separation between the ﬁelds of AR research and edu-

cation inside the classroom. We believe that the latter

could beneﬁt from the great contributions of handheld

AR applications. Our initial hypothesis is that AR can

be a good complement to VRLE for educational pur-

434

González-Gancedo S., Juan M., Seguí I., Rando N. and Cano J..

TOWARDS A MIXED REALITY LEARNING ENVIRONMENT IN THE CLASSROOM.

DOI: 10.5220/0003836304340439

In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Graphics Theory and Applications (GRAPP-2012), pages 434-439

ISBN: 978-989-8565-02-0

 2012 SCITEPRESS (Science and Technology Publications, Lda.)

Figure 2: Child playing one of the NAR games, starting the

game of the falling suns.

poses to improve learning. With this study, we want

to prove or reject this hypothesis.

In this research, we propose the case of use of

a game. Many computer games have been devel-

oped for learning purposes, but very few perform a

deep analysis, as several researchers have highlighted

(Connolly et al., 2011; Freitas and Campos, 2008).

Some researchers have also pointed out the lack of a

coherent theory of learning and underlying body of

research in the development of educational applica-

tions (Shaffer et al., 2004).

In this paper, we present a handheld game that

not only uses AR, but also combines it with non-AR

(NAR) parts –including video games– as a case of

VRLE. Video games are a subject widely studied in

the past. For desktop computers, different subjects

can be learnt such as volcanoes (Woods et al., 2004),

mathematics and geometry (Kaufmann and Schmal-

stieg, 2003), organic chemistry (Fjeld et al., 2007), or

endangered animals (Juan et al., 2011a). For hand-

held devices, many AR applications have also been

presented. For example, for learning heritage temples

(Wang et al., 2009), math and literacy skills (O’Shea

et al., 2009), or how to recycle (Juan et al., 2011b).

The innovate aspect of this study relies on the re-

search of a scenario with practical usability in the

classroom. We emphasize the convergence between

AR and VRLE to form a MRLE, as a very suitable

tool for educators that can improve the outcomes of

VRLE and support meaningful learning. We also be-

lieve that tablet PCs are very appropriate to put MRLE

into practice, as they are affordable, allow AR appli-

cations and provide multimodal interaction.

This paper is structured as follows. Section 2 com-

ments the design and description of the game. Section

3 explains the materials and methods involved in the

study. Section 4 describes the study carried out and

the evaluation measures. Section 5 analyzes the sta-

tistical results. Finally, in section 6, we present our

conclusions and future work.

2 THE GAME

We developed our game following certain learning

theories and pedagogical background, that we explain

in this section.

2.1 Game Design

For the design of the game, the experiential learning

theory of Kolb was used, which stated that “learning

is the process whereby knowledge is created through

the transformation of experience” (Kolb, 1984, p. 38).

The experiential learning consists of the following

steps: a concrete experience (do), a reﬂective observa-

tion (observe), an abstract conceptualization (think),

and an active experience (plan or testing in new situa-

tions). Our game was designed based on the underly-

ing idea of using experience for learning.

In our game the player assumes the mission of

completing the cycle of water, and she has to per-

form different activities. For example, the player has

the concrete experience of collecting suns to raise the

temperature; with a reﬂecting observation with the

feedback of the game; creating an abstract concep-

tualization as a result of receiving all the information,

in this case, evaporation. And what is very important,

the student has an active experience using the game.

Our game also applies Gardner’s theory of multi-

ple intelligences (1983), in which at least seven types

of intelligence are considered: logical-mathematical,

visual-spatial, linguistic, bodily-kinesthetic, musical-

rhythmic, interpersonal, intrapersonal.

Some works have pointed out the importance of

considering national curricula to develop educational

computer games (De Freitas and Oliver, 2006; Law

et al., 2008). We have taken into account the na-

tional curricula for our game, as stated by the national

primary education law in the Spanish Royal Decree

2211/2007, on July the 12th.

2.2 Description of the Game

The aim of the game was to reinforce the learning of

children in the subject of water, including its compo-

sition, the water cycle and water pollution. These top-

ics were shown in the same way they had been studied

at school.

The game was divided in a series of mini-games,

several of which were for each step of the water cycle.

There were also video and audio explanations at the

beginning of mini-games that showed the rules and

goals to complete it, and at the end to show they com-

pleted them. These interludes helped linking all the

mini-games together in a story thread.

TOWARDS A MIXED REALITY LEARNING ENVIRONMENT IN THE CLASSROOM

435

The game could be played in two modes, called AR

and NAR. Both modes were essentially the same, but

the interface and the way the users played changed.

In AR mode some mini-games were played with AR

technology –not all mini-games were appropriate for

AR–, while in NAR mode all mini-games were played

as traditional video games.

All AR mini-games shared some common char-

acteristics. Children had to collect objects (suns to

evaporate, thermometers to allow the rain, water pol-

lutants to clean the river, etc.) that could be found

in one of the ten markers disposed in the surround-

ing area, focusing on the markers with the handheld

device in a see-through conﬁguration. As part of the

classroom decoration, markers were placed on deco-

rative pictures printed on paper. Once they pressed on

the correct object in the screen, if there were more ob-

jects to collect, they were rearranged to the markers in

the classroom in a systematic fashion.

The equivalent NAR version was developed im-

itating the behaviour and the user experience of the

AR mode. Objects were shown in the center of the

screen with one of the decorative pictures as back-

ground, and left and right arrows to pass to the next

or to the previous object in the same order as it would

in AR mode.

The game consisted on seven mini-games, includ-

ing an initial part that served as an introduction to the

game and gave the children a chance to familiarize

with the AR interface. Each mini-game represented a

step in the water cycle, and there were also two mini-

games where the children learned about the composi-

tion of water and water pollution. Three of the mini-

games could be played in AR and NAR modes, while

the rest were only NAR.

3 MATERIAL AND METHODS

For the evaluation of our study, we needed to build

both custom hardware and software to provide a mul-

timodal interface. This section explains the hardware

built and the software developed.

3.1 Hardware

For the evaluations we used the handheld device HP

Slate 500 Tablet PC. The dimensions of the device

were 23x15x1.5 cm, and it had a weight of 0.68 kg.

Its processor worked at 1.86 GHz, and it had a 2 GB

DDR2 SDRAM memory cell. Among its interfaces

we could ﬁnd a 8.9” capacitive touch screen and an

outward facing 3 Megapixel camera capturing at 30

fps.

The accelerometer board 1056 - PhidgetSpatial

3/3/3 from Phidgets (http://www.phidgets.com/) was

used to measure static acceleration accurately in two

axes. It was connected via USB to the tablet PC. The

dimensions were 36x31x6 mm, which made it to be

easily enclosed with the tablet PC. The need for this

device was due to technical problems with the built-in

accelerometer, for which HP did not provide any us-

able driver. At the time we bought this device, it was

one of the very few available in the market. Nowa-

days there are several alternatives that are known not

to suffer from this problem, such as the iPad 2 or the

Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1.

We had a total of two identical devices available to

use with the children during the evaluations of colors

blue and white.

3.2 Software

To develop the system we decided to use OpenScene-

Graph (OSG) toolkit 2.9.5 to use its high capabilities

to import, animate and render 3D objects with high

performance in C++ language. The registration was

made using the OSG plugin osgART 2.0 RC 3, which

used the ARToolKit library (Kato and Billinghurst,

1999), version 2.72.1. This plugin provided simple

access to the camera, and to certain OSG nodes which

applied the corresponding transformation matrices as-

sociated to markers when they were recognized.

4 DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY

The developed game described in section 2.2 was ex-

tensively played by a group of children who tested all

the possibilities offered. This section explains the par-

ticipants, the measurements and the procedure carried

out during the evaluations.

4.1 Participants

A total of 73 children from 8 to 10 years old –with

a mean age of 9.07±0.65– took part in the study: 37

boys (50.68%), and 36 girls (49.31%). They were at-

tending the Escola d’Estiu (Summer School) at the

Technical University of Valencia.

4.2 Measurements

Five questionnaires were used for the validation. The

ﬁrst one was the pretest, and the other four were the

combinations of playing AR or NAR, for the ﬁrst or

the second time.

GRAPP 2012 - International Conference on Computer Graphics Theory and Applications

436

The pretest (QPre) was composed of 6 questions

designed to evaluate the level of children’s knowl-

edge and remembrance about water (composition, cy-

cle and pollutants) from school lessons. The question-

naire also collected gender, age and the grade they had

ﬁnished.

The questionnaires QAR1 and QNAR1 were sim-

ilar. Both of them contained the knowledge questions

from QPre to be able to compare learning before and

after the AR and NAR games respectively. The rest of

the questions were about participants satisfaction with

the game. Some of them followed a Likert scale, pre-

sented as: a) Very much; b) Quite a lot; c) Somewhat;

d) Few; e) Nothing, with a numerical equivalency lin-

early ranged from 5-a) to 1-e). Other questions did

not have a possible numerical representation, as they

had to choose among several options (e.g. What did

you like the most? a) Searching objects with the cam-

era; b) Games that used the tactile screen; c) Games

that used the accelerometer).

The questionnaires QAR2 and QNAR2 were de-

signed to compare AR and NAR games preferences.

QAR2 shared the AR speciﬁc questions from QAR1.

The last question was subjective and children could

express their feelings about the game.

4.3 Procedure

The children who participated in the experience were

randomly assigned to one of two situations:

a) Children who played the AR game ﬁrst and then

the NAR game.

b) Children who played the NAR game ﬁrst and then

the AR game.

Both groups were counterbalanced: 38 children

were assigned to group a, and 35 to group b.

Before playing any game, every child ﬁlled in the

QPre questionnaire. Next, the ﬁrst group of chil-

dren played the AR game. After completing the

game, they ﬁlled in the QAR1 questionnaire. Then,

these children played the NAR game and ﬁlled in

QNAR2 when ﬁnished playing. The second group,

instead, played the NAR game ﬁrst. After complet-

ing the game, they ﬁlled in QNAR1 questionnaire.

Then, these children played the AR game and ﬁlled

in QAR2 when they had ﬁnished. Two children, one

of each group, could play simultaneously, since we

had two equal devices available.

The questionnaires were ﬁlled in in the same room

where the activities took place. Two people were in

the activities room to clarify doubts from the partici-

pants while they were playing the game.

In order to make the experience more immersive,

the room was decorated with wall posters and images

according to the subject. For the AR game, the play

area had water related prints where the markers were

placed. These prints were carefully chosen to avoid

possible false positives from the AR marker recog-

nizer.

5 RESULTS

After the evaluation with the children, all data was

transcribed to electronic format and analyzed with the

statistical open source toolkit R.

5.1 Learning Outcomes

Several t-tests were performed to check if there

were signiﬁcant differences in the degree of acquired

knowledge during the game. These tests were per-

formed over the knowledge variable, which con-

densed six questions about water counting the num-

ber of correct answers. This variable was compared

among the questionnaires QPre, QAR1 and QNAR1.

All tests in the text are showed in the format: (statis-

tic[degrees of freedom], p-value), and

∗∗

indicates sta-

tistical signiﬁcance at level α = 0.05.

From a paired t-test we obtained that the ratings

of the knowledge in QPre (mean 4.17 ± 1.21) were

signiﬁcantly different from QAR1 (mean 5.83±0.45)

(t[34] = −8.09, p < 0.001

∗∗

). Another paired t-test

revealed that the ratings of the knowledge in QPre

(mean 3.71 ± 1.25) were also signiﬁcantly different

from QNAR1 (mean 5.74±1.25) (t[37] = −9.28, p <

0.001

∗∗

). Moreover, a third unpaired t-test showed

that there were no differences in knowledge between

QAR1 and QNAR1 (t[71] = −0.82, p = 0.42). These

results mean that there was a signiﬁcant amount of

acquired knowledge in both modes in relation to the

pretest, and both achieved a similar amount of it.

The factor of school year was also studied. There

were no evidences of statistical signiﬁcant differences

on acquired knowledge between 3

grade students

(mean 5.87 ± 0.50) and 4

grade students (mean

5.80 ± 0.40) (t[33] = 0.43, p = 0.67). In addition,

there were no ﬁndings of statistical signiﬁcant differ-

ences in the factor of gender. Males (mean 5.78 ±

0.53) and females (mean 5.88 ± 0.32) had similar

scores (t[33] = −0.68, p = 0.50).

5.2 Satisfaction Outcomes

In order to determine if the experiment inﬂuenced par-

ticipants in regard to the level of amusement expe-

rienced and satisfaction between the two modes of

TOWARDS A MIXED REALITY LEARNING ENVIRONMENT IN THE CLASSROOM

437

game, the variable satisfaction was created. It con-

densed all information of several questions related

to fun during the game, ease of use, understanding

of the rules and goals and enjoyability of certain as-

pects of the game. The ﬁnal score of the variable as-

signed each question the same weight. An unpaired

t-test showed that the satisfaction ratings in QAR1

(mean 4.73 ± 0.47) were not statistically different

from QNAR1 (mean 4.66 ± 0.63) (t[71] = 0.28, p =

0.78). The scores were very high for both games,

from what we can say participants enjoyed the expe-

rience in both cases and they were engaged to learn in

a similar manner.

The preferences for AR or NAR were measured.

After playing in AR mode ﬁrst and then NAR, 65.7%

of the children chose AR over NAR, while 94.7%

of them chose the same when playing AR in second

place. The augment in the proportions was statis-

tically signiﬁcant (χ

[1] = 9.90, p = 0.002), but the

difference of proportions between AR and NAR in

the worst case (AR ﬁrst) was also signiﬁcant (χ

[1] =

6.91, p = 0.008), which means that AR was preferred

even if we do not take into account the effects of the

order of the games. We can see that AR was preferred

over other alternatives, and this was emphasized when

it was the last technology to be used.

5.3 Interaction

The preferences of the different types of interaction

were measured considering the accelerometer games,

tactile games and AR games using the device in a

video see-through conﬁguration. A question was

asked after playing games in AR mode. When AR

was played in ﬁrst place, the percentages of preferred

technology was: AR (54.3%), accelerometer (34.3%)

and tactile (11.4%), but when AR was played the last,

the order was: AR (73.7%), accelerometer (21.1%)

and tactile (5.3%). AR was always the favorite, and

relating this to the last question in the satisfaction part,

we can see a trend in which the AR preference ratings

raised when it was played in the last place. The pro-

portions of AR in both cases were signiﬁcantly dif-

ferent at level α = 0.1 (χ

[1] = 2.99, p = 0.08). We

believe this difference is due to the big impact AR

caused to the children. As a consequence, accelerom-

eter and tactile proportions dropped similarly without

signiﬁcant differences.

6 CONCLUSIONS

In this paper we have presented a study that em-

phasizes the use of AR as a natural complement for

VRLE, which is MRLE. Educational AR researches

typically focuses in Human-Computer Interfaces and

usability, and the applications are frequently intended

for museums. To our knowledge, AR has not yet been

seriously studied as a complement to VRLE to be

used in the classroom for a long-term use. We believe

that MRLEs are very suitable for the classroom and

we encourage future educational researches to take it

into consideration.

Handheld devices, and tablet PCs in particular are

an excellent tool for MRLEs. They usually provide

all the sensors needed to build interactive applications

and multimodal interfaces, such as cameras, tactile

screens and inertial measure units. This makes them

to be an exceptional tool that can be used for a wide

spectrum of interactive educational applications with

more possibilities and versatility than standard desk-

top applications. Moreover, tablet PCs are usually

comparable in prize to desktop computers, both be-

ing low cost solutions.

We developed a MRLE application for primary

school children, which consisted of a game about wa-

ter that included multiple interaction forms (tactile

screen and accelerometer). It could be played in a

combined mode with AR and NAR mini-games, or in

full NAR mode.

After playing to the game, children’s knowledge

was statistically higher than in the pretest, but no sig-

niﬁcant differences were found between AR and NAR

modes. However, the AR mode was much more pre-

ferred, and enhanced engagement highly. Further-

more, there was a high level of satisfaction in the two

games. This conﬁrms our initial hypothesis that AR

is an excellent complement for VRLE and that it can

improve some of its outcomes. In our game, this com-

bination of AR and NAR games throughout the story

thread and the links between them like the main char-

acter was very appreciated.

Playing in AR mode caused very good impression

to the children, who improved motivation and were

encouraged to be more dynamic during the activity,

not being so perceivable in the NAR mode. We could

see the big impact that AR caused, as the underlying

interaction –AR in a handheld device as a video see-

through– was signiﬁcantly more preferred than ac-

celerometer and tactile screen, specially when it was

played in second place.

With regard to future work, we believe that more

research in this direction is needed. MRLE in the ﬁeld

of education is still in an early stage. It could be used

for many subjects, including Natural Science, Math-

ematics, History, Technology and outdoor activities.

In addition, more engaging games and serious appli-

cations that use different input channels (AR marker

GRAPP 2012 - International Conference on Computer Graphics Theory and Applications

438

tracking, tactile screen, accelerometer, etc.) could be

developed with current handheld devices.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work was funded by the Spanish APRENDRA

project (TIN2009-14319-C02).

For their contributions, we would like to thank the

following:

• Severino Gonz

alez, M. Jos

e Vicent, Javier Ir-

imia, Patricia Limi

nana, Tamara Aguilar, Alfonso

opez, Roc

ıo Zaragoza, M. Jos

e Mart

ınez, Eloy

Hurtado, Juan Fernando Mart

ın for their help.

• The children that participated in this study.

• The ETSInf for letting us use its facilities during

the testing phase.

REFERENCES

Billinghurst, M. N. and Henrysson, A. (2006). Research

Directions in Handheld AR. Int Journal of Virtual Re-

ality, 5(2):251–58.

Connolly, T. M., Stansﬁeld, M., and Hainey, T. (2011). An

alternate reality game for language learning: ARGu-

ing for multilingual motivation. Computers & Educa-

tion, 57(1):1389–1415.

De Freitas, S. and Oliver, M. (2006). How can exploratory

learning with games and simulations within the cur-

riculum be most effectively evaluated? Computers &

Education, 46(3):249–264.

El Sayed, N. A. M., Zayed, H. H., and Sharawy, M. I.

(2011). ARSC: Augmented reality student card. Com-

puters & Education, 56(4):1045–1061.

Fjeld, M., Fredriksson, J., Ejdestig, M., Duca, F., B

otschi,

K., Voegtli, B., and Juchli, P. (2007). Tangible user

interface for chemistry education: comparative eval-

uation and re-design. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI

conference on Human factors in computing systems,

CHI ’07, pages 805–808, New York, NY, USA. ACM.

Freitas, R. and Campos, P. (2008). SMART: a SysteM of

Augmented Reality for Teaching 2nd grade students.

In Proceedings of the 22nd British HCI Group Annual

Conference on People and Computers: Culture, Cre-

ativity, Interaction - Volume 2, BCS-HCI ’08, pages

27–30, Swinton, UK, UK. British Computer Society.

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple

intelligences. New York: Basics.

Inoue, Y. (2007). Concepts, applications, and research of

virtual reality learning environments. International

Journal of Human and Social Sciences, 2(1):1–7.

Juan, M. C., Carrizo, M., Gim

enez, M., and Abad, F.

(2011a). Using an augmented reality game to ﬁnd

matching pairs. In Proceedings of the 19th Interna-

tional Conference on Computer Graphics, Visualiza-

tion and Computer Vision, pages 59–66.

Juan, M. C., Furi

o, D., Alem, L., Ashworth, P., and Cano, J.

(2011b). ARGreenet and BasicGreenet: Two mobile

games for learning how to recycle. In Proceedings

of the 19th International Conference on Computer

Graphics, Visualization and Computer Vision’2011,

pages 25–32.

Kato, H. and Billinghurst, M. (1999). Marker tracking and

hmd calibration for a video-based augmented reality

conferencing system. In Proceedings of the 2nd IEEE

and ACM International Workshop on Augmented Re-

ality ’99, pages 85–94. IEEE.

Kaufmann, H. and Schmalstieg, D. (2003). Mathematics

and geometry education with collaborative augmented

reality. Computers & Graphics, 27(3):339–345.

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as

the source of learning and development. Englewood

Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Law, E., Kickmeier-Rust, M., Albert, D., and Holzinger, A.

(2008). Challenges in the development and evalua-

tion of immersive digital educational games. In HCI

and Usability for Education and Work, volume 5298,

pages 19–30. Springer Berlin / Heidelberg.

Lee, E. A.-L., Wong, K., and Fung, C. (2010). How does

desktop virtual reality enhance learning outcomes? a

structural equation modeling approach. Computers &

Education, 55(4):1424–1442.

O’Shea, P., Mitchell, R., Johnston, C., and Dede, C. (2009).

Lessons learned about designing augmented reali-

ties. International Journal of Gaming and Computer-

Mediated Simulations, 1(1):1–15.

Pan, Z., Cheok, A., Yang, H., Zhu, J., and Shi, J. (2006).

Virtual reality and mixed reality for virtual learning

environments. Computers & Graphics, 30(1):20–28.

Shaffer, D. W., Squire, K. T., Halverson, R., Gee, J. P., et al.

(2004). Video games and the future of learning. Phi

delta kappan, 87(2):104.

Wang, K.-H., Chen, L.-C., Chu, P.-Y., and Cheng, Y.-M.

(2009). A study on the design of augmented reality

user interfaces for mobile learning systems in heritage

temples. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Con-

ference on Virtual and Mixed Reality: Held as Part

of HCI International 2009, VMR ’09, pages 282–290,

Berlin, Heidelberg. Springer-Verlag.

Woods, E., Billinghurst, M., Looser, J., Aldridge, G.,

Brown, D., Garrie, B., and Nelles, C. (2004). Aug-

menting the science centre and museum experience.

In Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on

Computer graphics and interactive techniques in Aus-

tralasia and South East Asia, GRAPHITE ’04, pages

230–236, New York, NY, USA. ACM.

Yang, J. C., Chen, C. H., and Jeng, M. C. (2010). Inte-

grating video-capture virtual reality technology into

a physically interactive learning environment for en-

glish learning. Computers & Education, 55:1346–

1356.

TOWARDS A MIXED REALITY LEARNING ENVIRONMENT IN THE CLASSROOM

439