View this PageEdit this PageUploads to this PageHistory of this PageHomeRecent ChangesSearchHelp Guide

Lonnie Harvel

Paper number: PC112

Title: Providing Natural Means for Teacher in Smart Classroom for Tele-Education

Submission type: Project Overview
/Research paper
Retrospective
Survey/Tutorial
Project overview
Other/


[All submission types]
Relevance to magazine: 3.7
/5 = Burning issue of the day; 4 = Timely and relevant;
3 = Worth reporting;
2 = Yawn; 1 = Much ado about nothing/


[All submission types]
Presentation and clarity: 3
/5 = Lucid and eloquent; 4 = Easily understandable;
3 = Could be improved;
2 = Hard to understand; 1 = Dense and impenetrable/


[All submission types]
Reviewer expertise: 4.5
/5 = I'm an authority on this topic; 4 = My work overlaps this topic;
3 = I'm know this stuff well, but don't work on it;
2 = I'm somewhat familiar with this stuff; 1 = This is new to me/


[Research papers only]
Depth of contribution: ???
/5 = Deep and Impressive; 4 = Good, but could be improved;
3 = Useful contribution, but not earthshaking;
2 = Ho Hum; 1 = Seriously flawed/


[Retrospectives only]
Historical accuracy and perspective: ???
/5 = Insightful and eye-opening; 4 = Accurate and useful;
3 = Useful, but lacks some balance or detail;
2 = Bland and boring; 1 = Serious distortions and/or omissions/


[Survey/Tutorials only]
Completeness and Balance: ???
/5 = Comprehensive and thorough; 4 = Covers almost everything relevant;
3 = Useful, but some notable omissions;
2 = Patchy and incomplete; 1 = Serious distortions and/or omissions/


[Project overviews only]
Integration: 3.5
/5 = Fits together like a perfect puzzle; 4 = A few missing pieces;
3 = Big gaps/omissions;
2 = A disjointed mess; 1 = Poorly-disguised research paper/


[All submission types]
Overall recommendation: 2.9
/5 = Award quality; 4 = Accept with minimal revision;
3 = Accept with major revision but no re-reviewing;
2 = Accept with major revision and re-reviewing; 1 = Reject/


Detailed comments for the authors:


Developing a remote delivery interface that does not create impediments for the teacher or detract from the local students experience is indeed needed and complicated. In this work, you show excellent progress in a system that may do just that. You need to be clearer on what interaction models and metaphors constitute a ?natural? interface and why. Then tell us how the technology selections you have made meet or approach those interactions. Though I realize the system is now in a prototype stage, you still need to provide us with some idea on how accurate, stable, and again ?natural? your individual modules are. How accurately does the voice interaction system work? Does the Smart Cameraman make mistakes? If so, how often, and what is the impact on the learning experience? Is it better than no technology, better than a human is? How accurate and natural is the laser pointer interface? Is there a significant learning curve to use the device?

You should spend less space on explaining the general concept of Smart Spaces and more space on some of the details of your system. What technology do students at the remote sites need? Is it being delivered by IP, ISDN, Cable? How are you doing speech recognition, your own software or a commercial package?

If you have any preliminary student or teacher feedback, that would make the paper more compelling. The work is well conceived and the individual components seem to function, but the open question of merging these pieces into a cohesive environment for natural teaching remains unanswered. The paper does not address whether a natural means for tele-teaching is provided by this set of technological components.

A final, picky note. The assertion that this technology will reduce the need for instructors does not apply to US or European institutions where accreditation requirements limit the teacher/student ratio regardless of geographic location.

Again, this is a real and important problem in need of a solution. Your work towards that solution is commendable.







/Error: this should not happenError: this should not happenError: this should not happenError: this should not happenError: this should not happenError: this should not happenError: this should not happenError: this should not happenError: this should not happenError: this should not happenError: this should not happenError: this should not happenError: this should not happenError: this should not happenError: this should not happenError: this should not happenError: this should not happenError: this should not happenError: this should not happenError: this should not happenError: this should not happenError: this should not happenError: this should not happenError: this should not happenError: this should not happenError: this should not happenError: this should not happen
Information below this line will NOT be seen by authors
Error: this should not happenError: this should not happenError: this should not happenError: this should not happenError: this should not happenError: this should not happenError: this should not happenError: this should not happenError: this should not happenError: this should not happenError: this should not happenError: this should not happenError: this should not happenError: this should not happenError: this should not happenError: this should not happenError: this should not happenError: this should not happenError: this should not happenError: this should not happenError: this should not happenError: this should not happenError: this should not happenError: this should not happenError: this should not happenError: this should not happenError: this should not happen/

Comments for EIC and AEICs only:


The paper raised more questions about the prototype system than it answers. From reading previous papers, seeing their presentations, and speaking with some of them at conferences, I know that the pieces needed to make this a good paper are there. The work they have done to weave these technological threads together into a natural interaction space is of interest beyond the classroom domain. They should be encouraged to discuss this in more detail instead of the short shrift it received in this version of their paper.

I would recommend acceptance of a rewrite that focused on how interaction between the components creates a natural interface for tele-education.



Reviewer: Lonnie Harvel