Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Peter C. LaFemina

dblp:262/4036 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
3ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2020
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Human-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 3Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 2Applied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging computing · 1

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Human-computer interaction and pervasive computing
2 papers
Learning and educational technologies · 100%
Computer graphics and multimedia
2 papers
Virtual and augmented reality · 100%

Topics — the 7 heaviest of 7, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Learning and educational technologies
immersive learning
0.522020
Learning in the Field: Comparison of Desktop, Immersive Virtual Reality, and Actual Field Trips for Place-Based STEM Education · VR 2020
Warping Space and Time-Reviving Educational Tools of the 19th Century · VR 2019
Learning and educational technologies › immersive learning
virtual field trips
0.522020
Learning in the Field: Comparison of Desktop, Immersive Virtual Reality, and Actual Field Trips for Place-Based STEM Education · VR 2020
Warping Space and Time-Reviving Educational Tools of the 19th Century · VR 2019
Learning and educational technologies
STEM education
0.412020
Learning in the Field: Comparison of Desktop, Immersive Virtual Reality, and Actual Field Trips for Place-Based STEM Education · VR 2020
Virtual and augmented reality
augmented reality
0.412019
Warping Space and Time-Reviving Educational Tools of the 19th Century · VR 2019
Virtual and augmented reality › augmented reality
mobile augmented reality
0.412019
Warping Space and Time-Reviving Educational Tools of the 19th Century · VR 2019
Virtual and augmented reality › virtual reality
desktop virtual reality
0.112020
Learning in the Field: Comparison of Desktop, Immersive Virtual Reality, and Actual Field Trips for Place-Based STEM Education · VR 2020
Virtual and augmented reality › virtual environment
immersive virtual environments
0.112020
Learning in the Field: Comparison of Desktop, Immersive Virtual Reality, and Actual Field Trips for Place-Based STEM Education · VR 2020

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

questionnaire · 0.9between-subjects study · 0.9mixed reality · 0.8360° imagery · 0.8
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2020 Learning in the Field: Comparison of Desktop, Immersive Virtual Reality, and Actual Field Trips for Place-Based STEM Education
abstract
Field trips are a key component of learning in STEM disciplines such as geoscience to develop skills, integrate knowledge, and prepare students for lifelong learning. Given the reported success of technology-based learning and the prevalence of new forms of technology, especially with immersive virtual reality (iVR) entering the mainstream, virtual field trips (VFTs) are increasingly being considered as an effective form of teaching to either supplement or replace actual field trips (AFTs). However, little research has investigated the implications of VFTs in place-based STEM education, and empirical evidence is still limited about differences between students’ learning experiences and outcomes in VFTs experienced on desktop displays and field trips experienced in iVR. We report on a study that divided an introductory geoscience laboratory course into three groups with the first two groups experiencing a VFT either on desktop (dVFT) or in iVR (iVFT), while the third group went on an AFT. We compared subjective experiences (assessed via questionnaires) and objective learning outcomes for these groups. Our results suggest that, although students reported higher motivation and being more present in the iVFT group, they did not learn more compared to those in the dVFT group; both VFT groups yielded higher scores for learning experience and perceived learning outcomes than the actual field site visit. These findings demonstrate positive learning effects of VFTs relative to AFTs and provide evidence that geology VFTs need not be limited to iVR setups, which lead to considerable equipment costs and increased implementation complexity. Discussing the results, we reflect on the implications of our findings and point out future research directions.
Jiayan Zhao, Peter C. LaFemina, Julia Carr, Pejman Sajjadi, Jan Oliver Wallgrün, Alexander Klippel
VR2
2019 Immersive Learning in the Wild: A Progress Report
Alexander Klippel, Danielle Oprean, Jiayan Zhao, Jan Oliver Wallgrün, Peter C. LaFemina, Kathy L. Jackson, Elise Gowen
iLRN5
2019 Warping Space and Time-Reviving Educational Tools of the 19th Century
abstract
xR has the potential to warp both space and time. We demonstrate this potential by designing a mixed reality application for mobile devices for the Penn State's Obelisk, a historic landmark on the main Penn State campus that artistically reveals the geological history of Pennsylvania. Our AR application allows for placing a model of the Obelisk on any surface, interacting with the individual stones to reveal their geological characteristics and location of excavation, and changing to an immersive VR experience of this location based on 360° imagery. Originally conceptualized as a teaching tool for the School of Mines, our xR application revives the Obelisk's long forgotten mission and allows educators to integrate it once more into the curriculum as well as creatively expand its potential.
Alexander Klippel, Jan Oliver Wallgrün, Arif Masrur, Jiayan Zhao, Peter C. LaFemina
VR5