by Chris Byrne, Catherine Holland, Deborah Moffit, Steven Hodas, and Thomas Furness
As part of the educational mission at the Human Interface Technology Lab (HITLab), we have had over 150 young people create their own worlds in Virtual Reality (VR). Our purpose was to see if they could use the technology and if they enjoyed it. We found the answer to be a resounding yes (Bricken and Byrne, 1991; Byrne 1992). Students involved in a summer camp were able to build interesting worlds on a Macintosh computer using VPL's Swivel 3D· which we then programmed into our VR system at the HITLab. The students expressed strong enthusiasm for VR on the surveys that they filled out after visiting their world in our lab. Building on that research, we explored three questions in our next project. Can VR be used with a student population that is not attending a computer summer camp? How should we use VR with a different population? Can VR be used as part of a curriculum?
In our earlier work, we acknowledged that the students who were part of our summer camp did not necessarily represent students in general. These were children who were attending a $400 week-long day camp specializing in computers during their summer vacation. We were able to provide some scholarships due to the generosity of US West Communication, which helped the diversity of the student population, but overall we worked with students who had already expressed a strong interest in computers. Additionally, we knew that there are different ways to use VR as an educational tool. For example, we could present information first, and then have the students build their own world or we could build our own world and have the students learn from that. We wanted to at least discuss our options, even if we did not change anything. Finally, we realized that working with VR as a stand alone project could be different than using VR within a school subject.
For the first question of the project, the student population we chose to work with using VR were students who were not doing well in a traditional educational setting and typically would not be seen at a computer summer camp. This decision was based on our commitment to making VR as accessible and as useful as possible. which in turn is based upon the preponderance of educational research that states that people have different styles of learning and that the traditional school in the United States teaches mainly in one style. Students who learn best by listening and reading may be well served by the current model of lecture instruction, but those who are more visual or kinesthetic in understanding new information are at a distinct disadvantage. Students who are labeled "At Risk" often are better served by teaching styles which are more visual or kinesthetic. Our theory is that VR is more aligned with these non-traditional teaching styles. In VR, instead of reading text and listening to lectures, the students can see pictures and move around in a world of information. This could be a dramatic difference for all students, particularly for visual/kinesthetic learners.
For the second question, we had to decide on the manner in which to use VR as an educational tool. Our main schools of thought include: the students exploring an already built world (pre-fab); the students creating their own world on a 2-dimensional screen (such as a Macintosh) and then exploring it (Mac self-created); and the students creating their own world in VR and then exploring it (VR self-created). Although there has been very little study of the pros and cons of the different methods, we do have theories based on our experience with VR.
We feel that the benefit of a pre-fab world method of instruction is that the students could use VR for the whole learning process, instead of learning information the traditional way and then switching over to VR. If, we theorize that VR is better suited to a certain learning style, then we should try to teach everything from within VR for that style of learning, instead of first teaching by lecturing or text. Wtih the pre-fab method, students are not required to already know something about the topic being studied. Also, theoretically, worlds built by adult researchers can be more elaborate and interesting than worlds built by students. The problem with the pre-fab method is that the students are not as involved with their educational process as when they build the world themselves. Their involvement will vary depending on the interactivity of the pre-fab world. A highly interactive pre-fab world might require creativity from the students and therefore mimic a self-created world, but in general, less is expected of students. There are many theoretical benefits of the Mac self-created world technique. One is that the students are more involved in their process of learning. There is a sense of ownership and pride in the end product. We can involve many students since the building of the world takes place on a personal computer such as a Macintosh, which can be done at the school's own location. The time that is spent on the project can be longer than if the project is just a field trip to the lab, since instruction on the topic and Macintosh time can be spread out to fit the timetable of the teacher. This method of VR can also be used as a way to measure the students' understanding of the topic of study. Theoretically, the world they build will show quite clearly how well they understand the topic. The drawback to this approach is that the students have to understand the topic before they can build a world. Teachers will have to use a different method of instruction in originally presenting the material, which may or may not align with the students' style of learning. Also, building a world on the Macintosh is not the same as exploring a world in VR. While computers have become easier to use as evidenced by the poularity of the Macintosh, there is still a symbolic hurdle to overcome in using a computer. For example, creating 3-dimensional objects on a 2-dimensional computer screen, still requires people to extrapolate from 2-D to 3-D. Some people who may enjoy VR, could find this computer step to be quite difficult.
The third method, a VR self-created world is very appealing. The benefits of the Mac self-created world are maintained without requiring students to extrapolate from 2-D to 3-D. Instead of working in 2 dimensions, the participant actually creates objects while in VR. An analogy would be the difference between sculpting in clay and painting. The main problems with this method are software development and cost. The VR tools for building worlds within VR are not developed yet for a general population. Furthermore, even if the interface did exist, the cost of VR systems are so expensive that at this time the building of the world within VR is usually prohibitive. One way around this is to continue to build worlds off-line.
Clearly, the cost of a VR system is a driving force in how it will be used. Hopefully, given the trend in the computer industry, the cost of the system will become less of a factor in its application. The VCR is an example of a ubiquitous educational tool that was too expensive for schools when it was first introduced. Once computer costs come down, we should be able to combine the benefits of the different instructional methods. If VR systems were cheap and plentiful, a good use for VR in education would be to teach some of the lesson in VR and then have the students build their own, or add on to the existing world, from within VR itself. This would keep the instructional method the same throughout while still involving students in the educational process. However, we are not at that point right now.
For this project, given our theoretical pros and cons, we decided that the students would create their own world on a Macintosh, that the HITLab would transfer that world into VR, and the students would then explore their world within VR at the lab. We felt that a key goal of the project was to have student involvement in the process, in addition to what facts were to be learned. This method is the Mac self-created world process and is also the technique that we used for the computer summer camps.
To study our third question of VR's role within a curriculum, we collaborated with the Seattle Public Schools' Interagency Department which is responsible for students who are dropping out of the mainstream public schools. We worked with South West Youth and Family Services School (SWYFS) whose student population consists of children, ages 12 to 16. An instructor at the school approached the HITLab at the same time that we were looking for an "at risk" population. The school wanted a project with us because they had discovered that when material was presented in non-traditional forms, the students responded positively and showed up for school. In the past, projects have include creating music videos that combined art and technology. They saw VR as a natural extension of their success with art and technology and were eager to work with VR within their curriculum.
The instructors at the school decided that the most important topic that they were teaching was HIV/AIDS prevention. Their students are not only at high risk for dropping out of school, but are also at high risk for being infected with HIV. We all agreed that HIV/AIDS would be the theme of a VR world created by the students at SWYFS.
The first step in the project, after we decided on the topic was and what method to use, was to assemble an instructional team. The mix of people involved included: instructors from the SWYFS school; VR researchers from the HITLab; a grad student in the college of education at the University of Washington; community AIDS educators; a Seattle Public Schools' technologist; and a videographer. We met several times to discuss the scope and goals of the project. The goals differed, but were complementary among the members of the team. The school's goals were to give the students a positive self esteem building project, to have the students show up for school, and hopefully for the students to learn something. The university's goal was to learn more about students and VR. The HIV/AIDS educators wanted the students to know more about AIDS and hopefully protect themselves, although it was not thought that this would come out of VR.
We did not have extensive funding for the project. The VR researchers received grad stipends from a US West education grant. The teachers and technologist were employed by the Seattle Public Schools although they did a great deal of work on their own time. The AIDS educators and the education grad student volunteered their time and skills. The vidoegrapher received a small grant for his work. In terms of technology, VPL, a VR company in California donated their Swivel 3D· 3-D modeling software. The Seattle Public Schools provided 5 Macintosh LCII's and the HITLab donated use of the VR systems.
Once the infrastructure was in place, we began work with the students. We worked with about 10-12 students at any one time, however, due to the transitional nature of the school program, the 10-12 people we started with were not the same ones with whom we completed the project. We used a two prong approach in teaching the class. One aspect was teaching about AIDS/HIV and the other aspect was teaching about the technology. The two parts came together about half way through the project when the students used the technology to build their HIV/AIDS world.
The students had a long course on HIV/AIDS education. The community AIDS educator used a variety of methods to convey the information, from interactive lectures to visual aids to art work. Two of the most effective tools were passing out a ribbon to a different student every 6 minutes to reqresent the frequency with which people are dying of AIDS worldwide, and having the students work with clay and drawing materials to create imaginative images of immune cells involved in the struggle with HIV.
For the VR/technology instruction, we first explained briefly to the students what we wanted them to do, which was to build a VR game about HIV/AIDS and then we brought all of the students over to the HITLab to try out VR. We had found through another study (Byrne, 1992) that students who did not have a great deal of familiarity with technology had a difficult time relating world building on the Macintosh to world building in VR. In that study, students had expected to work with VR, and were quite excited about doing so. Some of the students, however, lost their enthusiasm when given the task of working on the Macintosh instead of experiencing VR. They regained their motivation after sampling VR and understanding the link between working on the computer and VR. For this reason, we felt it was important to demonstrate VR to the students very early in the project despite the absence of other students who would transition into the program at a later time. We felt that the essence and the "coolness" of VR would be passed on among the students. About 10 students attended the field trip and their responses were quite enthusiastic. While they frequently tended to look bored and uninterested in class, at the HITLab they were very animated. This matched our experience with other groups of students who have visited the lab.
The rest of the technology instruction concerned the Macintosh. The students had had some prior experience with Apple computers, so they were not starting from scratch. First, the school instructors taught them how to use software packages such as Paint and Hyperstudio. Then the instructors and U.W. grad students taught them the basics of using Swivel 3D·. The instructional method we used was to explain the general use of the package and then be available for specific questions. When someone asked a question from which everyone could benefit, we gathered the group together and discussed the topic. All of the students worked in groups of 2 or 3 to conform with the class concept of teamwork. The students worked on the computer for a few hours a week, as well as during free time if they so desired. Within 3 weeks the students were competently using Swivel 3D.
At the point at which the students could work with Swivel 3D comfortably and had learned enough information about HIV/AIDS, we gave them the task of building a VR game about HIV/AIDS. We brainstormed as an entire class, with about 15 students participating and then broke into 3 smaller groups to brainstorm some more. The adults had already done some thinking about the possibilities, in case the students needed some guidance. As it turned out, they did quite well on their own. Popular motifs for the game were cars and guns engaged in lots of shooting and crashing. We set boundaries on the type of world they could make due to the limitations of the technology and our own philosophy. The speed of the computers restrict the complexity of the world, since elaborate worlds run at too low of speed. The effect of that in VR is similar to watching a movie at too low of speed - one would see individual film clips instead of the whole movie. Therefore, complex cars in a world were ruled out. Guns and shooting were excluded due to the philosophy of some of the VR researchers. The current state of video games and some VR games rely heavily on a "shoot 'em up" theme, which not only shows a lack of imagination and a propensity for violence but also tends to attract primarily males. We were looking for a more inclusive game. The students took these limits in stride and did not vehemently protest. Some students wanted to "be" the HIV cell in the game, since HIV always wins. We asked them if they wanted to be rooting for AIDS; they quickly decided that that was not the side they wanted to be on.
The end agreement of the brainstorming session was an abstract world inside a body under the threat of HIV. The participant would "be" a T4 cell trying to avoid HIV and behave safely. The rate of thegame would start off slow, with HIV cells gradually appearing. If you were hit by an HIV cell, you would hear a car crash and lose energy, which is represented by how fast you could fly. After a few times of getting hit, your speed would go to zero and the game would be over. You could gain energy by grabbing "energy pills" representing safe sex/drug practices. You could grab a condom, clean needle, or bleach for cleaning needles and that would increase your speed. The hardest "energy pill" to grab, and the one worth the most fly speed, was abstinence which is represented by a pair of zipped up pants flying around the world. The VR researchers, for the purpose of running a lot of people through the game in a short amount of time, added a timer where all of the HIV cells increased in size after 5 minutes so you could not avoid getting stopped by them. This meant that no one could ever "win" the game. This decision also fit in with the information we were trying to convey about HIV/AIDS.
After the brainstorming, the students went back to the computers to build the components of the world. Different groups worked on different objects. The VR researchers then took the objects and the game concept to the lab and put the game into VR. For this world, about 80 labor hours at the lab were needed since some of the dynamics such as grabbing an "energy pill" had not been programmed before in the lab. Future worlds should be much faster to program.
The final piece of the project was the students' visit to the lab to see their world. Each student had one turn to spend about 5 minutes being inside VR by wearing the VR headgear and using a hand-held wand that controlled movement. Everyone else could see what was going on in the virtual world by watching a TV screen. On the day of the field trip, all 15 of the students showed up to school on time, which was quite unusual. While most of the students enjoyed being in the world that they helped to create, we did see different initial reactions. The differences actually followed a pattern that we often see at the lab with student groups, especially dividing along gender lines. Some of the students were very enthusiastic and wanted to go first and win the game; these students were mostly boys. Other students, mainly girls, hung back and did not even want to try the technology. We felt that this shyness was due to the competitive group dynamics at play, rather than to a fear of VR. We let the enthusiastic ones have their turns first, and they had a great time both being in the virtual world and also coaching and commenting when others were in the virtual world. After a while, they became bored with watching and start wandering around the lab, looking at the other computers that we have. At that point, we were able to coax the reticent students into at least trying on the headgear to see what viewing a virtual world would feel like. We assured them that they did not have to play the HIV/AIDS game, instead they could just fly and look around. Most of these students ended up playing the game once they were inside the world. Only one student (a boy) never tried VR at all.
Overall, we feel very positive about the project and the impact it had on the students. Although, we did not collect "hard data" with this project, we were able to gather information through anecdotal and personal observation. We felt that the "At Risk" students learned about AIDS and computers as demonstrated by their ability to create the HIV/AIDS world. They showed up to class more often and with more enthusiasm, particularly around the time of the field trip. Some of the students lectured about this project at other school locations and have volunteered to become part of a citywide AIDS peer education program. We felt they became more engaged in school. For this project, we discussed and decided on the way we wanted to use VR with this group as opposed to the way we used VR with the summer camp group. With the summer camp project, we did not have as much choice due to the short time frame in which we were working. We came to the conclusion that we would use the same technique that we used before, which was to have the students create the world on a Mac and the adults programming that world onto the VR system. Although we came to the same conclusion, it was still a worthwhile exercise, since we could have chosen other methods. Our evaluation of using VR within a curriculum is difficult, since we chose to work in a non-traditional school setting with a non- traditional subject of study. If we had studied chemistry at a regular high school, for example, we would have been able to use standardized tests on a fairly stable student population. In this case, many of the students who took a pre-test were not in attendance at the school by the end of the project. We do feel that we saw the potential of VR to work in a classroom setting. The VR portion did not conflict with the classroom balance and brought focus to the topic studied. We feel very encouraged by the success of this collaboration between VR and education and intend to continue to explore the use of VR in the educational field. This project was not comprehensive and all of the questions we posed deserve more study. Clearly, there are other student populations that could benefit from the use of VR. Those we have identified are the gifted, average, learning disabled, and rural student populations. In addition, other methods of using VR still need to be explored. The pre-fab world presentation offers potential in the field of education, and we are planning to present chemistry lessons using this method. Finally, assessment tools are important if we truly want to say anything meaningful about VR and education. We are planning next to develop these tools and use them in a systematic study of the effectiveness of VR in an educational setting.