![[Previous Page]](/icons/button-back.gif){kind=icon}
![[Table of Contents]](/icons/button-contents.gif){kind=icon}
![[Next Page]](/icons/button-next.gif){kind=icon}
In this dissertation, I wished to investigate the use of VR as an educational tool. This study is not intended to be the final word on VR and education. Rather, this dissertation is considered to be an early step in systematically exploring how VR can contribute to the field of education. The hypothesis of this dissertation is that VR is extremely useful for at least one particular topic of education since VR has a high degree of interactivity and immersion. The educational topic chosen to explore this hypothesis was atomic and molecular structure at the high school level. If this proves to be true, other studies will have to extend the hypothesis to include other topics. Questions included whether VR actually is useful in helping students improve their knowledge of chemistry and if so, whether VR's interactivity and immersion were the reasons for this improvement. These questions formed the basis for the experimentation. In the assessment section of this dissertation, I will define the metrics used to quantify the answers.
Different media were studied for comparison and will be fully explained in the experimental set-up section. The main difference among the treatments were the varying degrees of interactivity and immersion. The VR treatment consisted of high interactivity and immersion. The Mac Interactive treatment also consisted of high interactivity, but no immersion. The Video treatment and the Mac Run treatment were both treatments of no interactivity and no immersion. Figure 1 shows a graph of the relationship between the media treatments. There were two reasons why there was no treatment of high immersion and low interactivity. The first is that while interactivity is not inherently tied to immersion, immersion is closely tied to interactivity. In an immersed environment such as VR, if you move your head to change your perspective, you are interacting with the environment. So, it is problematic and artificial to eliminate all interactivity from an immersive treatment. I could have had the students look only in one direction in the virtual world while I operated the controls. However, this detracts from the feeling of immersion. Furthermore, this scenario leads to the second reason. Too many people would get sick in this scenario. From past experience of demonstrating many virtual worlds, I found that people need to be in control of their own movements while in a virtual world or they tend to become queasy. Since I was working with high school students who had volunteered for this experiment, I did not feel it was appropriate to expose them to a high probability of motion sickness. However, a great deal of information can still be gained in this experiment even without the high immersion, low interactivity treatment.
Figure 1: Immersion/Interactivity Chart
"Virtual Reality" (VR) is strictly defined in this dissertation as a specific technology. This technology is computer based and gives the illusion of being immersed in a 3-dimensional space with the ability to interact with this 3D space. The interface hardware components consist of a visual display apparatus, some sort of input device, and a position sensor. Typically, the visual display that is used is a helmet that places a television-like screen over each eye, blocking one's view of the physical world. Instead, of the physical world, one sees a 3-dimensional rendition of a place that is created by computer graphics. The 3D effect is obtained by taking advantage of depth clues such as occlusion and the correlation between distance and size. For stereographics presentations, the view from each eye is slightly different in order to utilize the depth perception capability of two eyes.
Input devices can range from a keyboard to a mouse to a wand to a fiber optic glove. The purpose of the input device is to allow the human participant to give electrical signals to the computer which can be interpreted as specific commands. Depending on how the software was programmed, one mouse button or hand gesture might represent "fly forward" while another button or gesture means "fly backward."
The position sensor in VR keeps track of the absolute physical position of the participant and gives that information to the computer. Usually, a position sensor is placed on the participant's helmet as well as on the input device. With the helmet tracker, the computer is programmed to know that the front of the tracker matches the direction in which the participant is looking, and then generates graphics to correspond to that direction. The input device tracker allows the computer to calibrate the position of the participant's hand. Therefore, the computer can generate a "virtual hand" that corresponds with the participant's real hand. That virtual hand can then grab virtual objects and move them around as the participant moves in the physical world.
The position tracker is a key technology in enabling the illusion of immersion. As participants turn around in the virtual world, the visual image changes. For example, in Virtual Seattle, they would see the skyline of the Seattle buildings in one direction. As they turned around, they would see the Olympic Mountain range behind them, giving them the feeling of being surrounded by the Puget Sound area. This is the illusion of immersion.
The computer technology of Virtual Reality (VR) offers educators a new way to teach effectively. At the Human Interface Technology Lab (HITLab), a part of the Washington Technology Center at the University of Washington in Seattle, several pilot studies had been performed to examine VR's potential in the field of education including, "Pacific Science Center 1991," "Pacific Science Center 1992," and "HIV/AIDS." While these studies were not comprehensive, they did offer guidance in our continuing examination of VR and education.
Most of the research in education at the HITLab involved having groups of students create their own virtual worlds by using 3D drawing software on a Macintosh computer. Researchers at the HITLab programmed the students' worlds into fully immersive virtual worlds that the students could "visit" by donning headgear and a glove at the HITLab. The Pacific Science Center studies used 10 to 15 year old students who were attending a week-long summer day camp. Some of these students had extensive computer knowledge, while others were novice computer users. As part of their camp, they learned about VR. In groups of 10 or so students, they brainstormed virtual world creations. In sub-groups of 2 to 3 students, they created objects for their world along with specifications as to how the objects should be placed and move in the virtual world.
While we enjoyed watching the children create their world, the most exciting part of the process for us as researchers was to see all of the students experiencing VR. Everyone said that they wanted to come back and try VR again. They all talked about how much fun it was. Clearly, VR was a motivating force for all the children. We had expected to see that students who loved computers would also love the next step in computer technology, but we had not been sure of what to expect from students who had expressed little interest in technology. We had a few theories as to why the children might enjoy VR. The most obvious reasons were that VR is new and different and it enables people to do things that they cannot do in the physical world, such as fly and go to places that do not exist. Furthermore, for people who get to build their own world, the creation process is a big draw. These reasons were substantiated by the students' answers when we asked them what they liked best about VR ("I liked being in control of my actions and experiencing the result of our designing for the world" "flying" "It was cool to be able to make a world and actually go in it.").
A deeper, more transparent reason may exist as to why the children, including those not typically engaged by computers, enjoyed VR. We theorized that due to the less symbolic requirement of VR, the frustration level with using this technology was reduced, thereby allowing the fun of the program through. Since symbols are highly related to the culture in which they are derived, people outside of that culture are at a disadvantage. In the VR world that the kids created, there were no esoteric metaphors to get in the way, and no highly coded commands to know. If people wanted to look behind them in VR, they merely turned around in the same way as they would in the physical world. Everyone has experience in the physical world and they can build on that knowledge in the VR world. The hurdle of "feeling stupid" is reduced.
From the experience of the summer camps, we had evidence that VR has a definite role to play in education, if merely from a motivational viewpoint. However, this should not be extrapolated to the idea that VR should be used for every aspect of education. While VR may offer something for every subject, the cost of the system, especially at current prices means VR is a heavy resource sink. VR should not be artificially forced into a subject when another method is available that teaches roughly as well for a lot less money. Not only is this a bad decision from an economic standpoint, but it also a bad decision for VR. The message is sent that there are not enough real ways that VR can help education, so fake situations are fabricated. For example, a world in VR could convey a foreign country for a social studies class. However, a film can convey much of the same information with better resolution for a dramatically lower cost. To use VR in this case, is to not acknowledge the power of VR.
There are many subjects that VR can fill a void that cannot be currently covered. For example, subjects that rely heavily on visualization of abstract concepts are a prime topic for VR use. While the social studies example does rely on visualization, the country is a real place that can be captured visually by relatively cheap equipment. A subject such as chemistry or physics requires visualization, but of a more abstract kind. What does an electron or atom really look like? A student may get to visit a foreign country and interact with other people, but will never get to interact with an electron on a human level. VR lets students "see" the subject who learn best that way instead of just reading or hearing about. That is a non-trivial use of VR in education. VR should not be used in superfluous ways at this time. If the resource drain of VR diminishes greatly in the future, then maybe an argument could be made for a more ubiquitous role for VR.
The other downside of VR is that not everyone likes it. A huge number of people do love it, but it is not unanimous. Of course, it is rather unrealistic to think that anything in the world would have full agreement and VR is no different. During the summer camp, we had almost 70 children go through VR and one girl just did not like it. We asked everyone to rank their feelings about going into VR again on a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is not at all and 10 is the equivalent of "yes, yes, yes, please let me go back in." The overall mean was 9.35 with a mode and median of 10. This particular girl answered with a 1. The next lowest score after hers was a 5. Maybe she would grow to like VR if she had more exposure. When questioned, she stated that she was scared to go into VR and would rather just build worlds on a computer. She was not able to articulate what aspects of VR frightened her. Interestingly, other students cited safety as their reason for liking VR. They felt safer in VR than in their real lives. Whatever the viewpoint, individual differences need to be respected. For the one girl, at this time VR is not a good learning tool and to force her to use it may not be beneficial.
The HIV/AID study extended the student population that was observed. We chose to work with 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. We used the same structure that we used with the summer camps with the students creating the objects on a Macintosh and the researchers transforming the objects into a virtual world. The difference was that the students did not choose the topic. Rather, their teachers decided that they would create a world about HIV/AIDS.
Again, with this project, we found that the students enjoyed participating. 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 for this population of students. 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 see at the lab with student groups, often 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 other things. 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 while they created their 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 that they became more engaged in school.
This dissertation was the natural extension of these studies. While these studies offered hope for the potential of VR, there was still the need to explore this potential in a more structured manner.
Educational theory and cognitive science support the exploration of VR as an educational tool. In the field of educational theory, the concept of constructivism powerfully articulates an effective strategy for teaching children. Its proponents advocate that students should be fully involved in their education instead of playing the role of passive sponges waiting to be told the correct answers. The actual methods that constructivist teachers may use vary greatly. At one extreme, teachers may propose that there are no correct answers and that individual students must discover their own truths. Jonassen writes,
"constructivism, on the other hand, claims that reality is more in the mind of the knower, that the knower constructs a reality or at least interprets it based upon his/her experiences. Constructivism is concerned with how we construct knowledge from our experiences, mental structures, and beliefs that are used to interpret objects and events. Our personal world is created by the mind, so in the constructivist's view, no one world is any more real than any other. There is no single reality or any objective entity" (Jonassen, 1991, p. 29).
Other constructivists do not have such a fluid belief in truth. Although they also label themselves as constructivists since they want the students to come to terms with the information themselves, these teachers believe in right answers. An example of this teaching method is "The Adventures of Jasper Woodbury," a videodisk program for teaching math that was developed by The Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (CTGV). "Jasper" consists of 4 adventure stories designed to provide students with real-world, open-ended problems that do have correct mathematical solutions. CTGV believes "that the realistic nature of our Jasper problems (including their complexity) helps students construct important sets of ideas and beliefs and refrain from constructing misconceptions" (CTGV, 1991).
Using constructivist theory, I created the virtual chemistry world to encourage students to learn by exploring and interacting with the information. Instead of sitting in a classroom and passively viewing images of atomic orbitals, students can place electrons into a atom and see the atomic orbital appear as the electron buzzes around. Like the Jasper problems, there are correct answers in the virtual chemistry world. Electrons must be placed in the atom according to the laws of chemistry with the correct energy and spin, otherwise a belching sound is heard and the electron floats back to its starting position. If constructivists' interpretations are valid, the chemistry students should learn much more about the rules of atomic structure with this method, than if they just passively watched the atom being built.
Cognitive science is another field of knowledge that guided my use of VR as an educational tool. Since cognitive scientists study how the human mind works, their theories can address how VR can help students learn. According to cognitive theories, VR can help humans process information and therefore learn, by making abstract concepts more concrete. This transformation from abstract to concrete is important because of the way we think. According to many cognitive scientists (Newell, 1990; Johnson-Laird, 1988) humans think symbolically. Furthermore, some symbols are referring to concepts that are more concrete than others, such as the proper noun, "Seattle" versus the label "city A." Johnson-Laird has shown in his syllogism studies that we process concrete symbols better than abstract ones (Johnson-Laird, 1983). This may be due to the way that humans are hard-wired. We may excel at pattern recognition of concrete symbols such as a tiger in our visual field, because of the evolutionary advantage of being aware of tigers. VR can present abstract information in concrete forms that humans have been processing for eons by immersing people in a visual computer-generated world.
To test the idea that VR is a good medium for making abstract concepts concrete, and therefore easier to learn, we needed a subject area to examine. The topic of atomic and molecular structure is an excellent example of an abstract topic that is difficult to learn. The difficulty of understanding scientific concepts is well researched (Garnett & Treagust, 1992; Ross & Munby). "Students' misunderstandings and misconceptions in school sciences at all levels constitute a major problem of concern to science educators, scientist-researchers, teachers, and, of course, students" (Zoller, 1990, pg. 1054). This difficulty is attributed to the abstractness of the scientific topic (Millar, 1991; Johnstone, 1991; Brown, 1992; Griffiths & Preston, 1992). Misconceptions can arise when students attempt to align what they know about the physical world from their experience of it and what they are taught in class. For example, students see ice melt into water and are taught in class that the velocity of the H2O molecules is increasing during that process. However, the students are not able to use their powers of observation to understand this chemistry concept. In the same way, the students cannot directly experience atomic and molecular structure.
In the virtual chemistry world, students experience abstract concepts taking shape in concrete forms. For example, the students can "grab" an electron represented by a spinning minus sign. Theoretically, this enables them to build a concrete mental model about the abstract information that electrons have certain spin and energy components. Some people may object to this representation, since electrons do not really look like spinning minus signs. However, since electrons are not visible to humans, any way we describe them is a model. Furthermore, as Johnson-Laird points out, "small-scale models of reality need neither be wholly accurate nor correspond completely with what they model in order to be useful" (Johnson-Laird, 1983; pg. 3). VR can present models that highlight the information deemed appropriate by the instructor.
Theoretically, the power of VR is more than simply presenting visual symbols in order to create concrete metaphors. A key aspect of VR is that people are immersed in a virtual world of these concrete forms. These forms produce the participant's environment. A Macintosh computer can display minus signs representing electrons, but the viewers do not typically feel like they are on the same plane as the objects. A reasonable assertion to make is that information presented in an immersive 3D spatial manner is more concrete than information presented in other ways. We use more than just our visual sense in moving through the world. A tiger is not just a 2D image on our retina. It is a 3D object that relates to ourselves in terms of mass, distance, etc. We process information by how it relates to ourselves and being immersed in a 3D world gives us more opportunities to use that skill. Comparing VR to other media will allow me to explore the veracity of this assertion.