Andrey Smorkalov, Mikhail Fominykh, and Mikhail Morozov: "Collaborative Work with Large Amount of Graphical Content in a 3D Virtual World: Evaluation of Learning Tools in vAcademia," in 16th International Conference on Interactive Collaborative Learning (ICL), Kazan, Russia, September 25–27, 2013, IEEE. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ICL.2013.6644587
UWB Technology for Enhanced Indoor and Outdoor Positioning in Physiological M...
Collaborative Work with Large Amount of Graphical Content in a 3D Virtual World: Evaluation of Learning Tools in vAcademia
1. Collaborative Work with Large
Amount of Graphical Content in a
3D Virtual World
Evaluation of Learning Tools in vAcademia
Andrey Smorkalov and Mikhail Morozov
Volga State University of Technology, Russia
Mikhail Fominykh
Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway
16th International Conference on Interactive Collaborative Learning (ICL)
September 25–27, 2013
Kazan, Russia
1
VSUT
2. Motivation and challenges:
Applying 3D VWs for learning
o 3D Virtual Worlds (VWs)
– Have great features…
… but not widely used
o Challenges
– Steep learning curve
– Demand for computational and network resources
– lack of features that educators use in everyday teaching
o Solution Proposal
– Enabling learning scenarios which require large amounts
of 2D graphical content displayed
2
VSUT
3. Related work: Large Amount of
Graphics in 3D VWs
o 3D Virtual Worlds
– Multiple workspaces or virtual screens
… but their performance is limited => oversimplification
– Small number of active screens (for example, Second Life
has a limit of five)
– Static images (for example, “Sametime 3D” has a sticky
notes tool, but notes are static, can be placed on slots,
their size is constant, and there is no possibility to use
any other tools on the same screen
– Individual use of screens
3
VSUT
6. Related work: Current
technological limitations
Usually, an image is calculated on a
CPU on client side (e.g., in Second
Life™ and Blue Mars™) or server side
(e.g., in Open Wonderland™) and then
loaded into the stream-processor
memory as a texture.
Therefore, the use of dynamic 2D
images in existing 3D VWs is very limited.
6
VSUT
10. Original methods for processing
large amounts of graphics in 3D VWs
o Sharing Changing Blocks
‒ Sharing application window
‒ Sharing screen area
‒ Sharing web-camera image
o Sharing Attributed Vector Figures
‒ Drawing figures and typing text
– Inserting text
o Processing Static Images
‒ Slideshow
‒ Image insert
‒ Sticky notes
10
– Area print screen
– Backchannel
VSUT
11. Original methods for processing
large amounts of graphics in 3D VWs
o Sharing Changing Blocks
‒ Sharing application window
‒ Sharing screen area
‒ Sharing web-camera image
o Sharing Attributed Vector Figures
‒ Drawing figures and typing text
– Inserting text
o Processing Static Images
‒ Slideshow
‒ Image insert
‒ Sticky notes
11
– Area print screen
– Backchannel
VSUT
15. Performance Evaluation
o Comparison of the algorithm
performance on SPs and CPU
o General efficiency of the system
We present average results acquired by running the system on
‒ 20 different hardware configurations with Intel CPU and
NVidia / ATI graphics adapters from the same price range
‒ On each hardware configuration 10 runs were conducted for
each image size.
15
VSUT
16. Performance Evaluation:
Algorithms on SPs and CPU
The rationale behind using SPs (instead
of CPU) for image processing in
vAcademia is confirmed
The improvement differs from the ratio
of the peaking performance of SPs to
the peaking performance of CPU not
more than twofold, which can be
considered satisfactory.
16
VSUT
17. Performance Evaluation:
General Efficiency of the System
Tested: performance degradation as a
function of the number of:
o VWBs (in one location)
o actively used VWBs
o simultaneous changes of images on
VWBs
17
VSUT
19. Performance degradation as a function
of the number of VWBs
Performance
100%
99%
98%
97%
Average
96%
Peaking
95%
94%
93%
92%
0
19
10
20
30
40
Number of whiteboards
50
VSUT
20. Performance degradation as a function
of the number of actively used VWBs
Performance
100%
95%
90%
Average
85%
Peaking
80%
75%
0
20
5
10
15
20
25
Number of actively used whiteboards
VSUT
21. Performance degradation as a function
of the number of simultaneous changes
of images on VWBs
Performance
100%
96%
92%
Average
88%
Peaking
84%
80%
1
21
2
3
4
5
Number of simultaneous changes of images
VSUT
22. User Evaluation
o Diagram designing task using
provided templates
o 23 second-year CS students
o No tutorials on vAcademia were
given
o All participants had experience
playing 3D video games
o Data: system logs, questionnaires,
and an interview
22
VSUT
24. User Evaluation
Question
It was clear what functions the VWB has and how to
access them.
It was comfortable "to look" at VWBs (to change the
view angle).
VWBs displayed the contents crisply and precisely
enough to understand them.
VWBs displayed the contents quickly enough, and
delays did not influence the process.
Increasing the # of VWBs in the virtual auditorium
during the class did not lead to visible delays.
VWB is a convenient (handy) enough tool for working
on similar tasks.
Working with vAcademia tools is more comfortable
than with traditional tools, for similar tasks.
It was clear how to work in vAcademia.
24
Str. agree Agree
16
7
15
8
14
9
14
8
13
10
13
8
15
8
19
4
N
VSUT
2
D
SD
25. Conclusions
o Original method for collaborative work
with large amount of graphical content
in 3D virtual worlds
o Design & implementation in vAcademia
o The algorithms we applied
– are superior to the commonly used ones
o The tools we designed
– have stable work and
– have educational value
25
VSUT
26. Future Work
o Designing scenarios for new learning
activities possible using our method
o Conducting a full-scale user
evaluation testing all designed tools
o Developing new tools based on our
method
26
VSUT