Virtual Reality and Education: A Look at Both Sides of the Sword

Prepared by:
Kimberley M. Osberg
December 14, 1992

Abstract

Premise

In the summer of 1992, I had the opportunity to work with children aged 8 to 18 in the Pacific Science Center (PSC) Creative Technology Camp held in Seattle, Washington. A colleague and I were providing virtual reality as one of the technology options that the children could select as their focus. During the seven weeks the camp was in session, we saw seven different groups of children create and enjoy seven unique environments. If I were to sum up the experience in one word, it would be "engaged". The children were engaged with each other, with the process, and with the technology.

But the selected word is not necessarily indicative of learning or transfer in the educational sense. In other words, our goal was to provide exposure to the technology more than to test for a predetermined set of outcomes. Yes, the children learned how to work towards a common goal as a group, how to delegate responsibility, and to keep each other on task. But as yet, I personally don't feel comfortable touting virtual reality (at least using this project as a baseline) as an extemporary learning environment. The potential for virtual reality? Very high. Today's technology? Not quite there yet. Our role? Keep the focus on the needs of learner, not on the technology itself.

Given our history of embracing the "technology du jour", it would be very easy to allow the technological world to bowl everyone in the learning business over with the "sexy" nature of virtual reality. But frankly, we as yet don't know what the short term OR the long term effects of the technology are... and before we send a message to the world that every "Lisa" and "Josh" ought to have their own headset and hand puppet (i.e. an interactive interface device to the virtual world) so they can go learn and play in an immersive three-dimensional computer generated environment, I for one want to know what that means.

We are at a crossroads with respect to many aspects of our society; the environment, our social relationships, and the nature of education. The paradigm of the school as we know it is under attack, as is the "known" pedagological approach to education that has been in place for hundreds of years. As we move towards being an information/knowledge society, access to and ability to work with diverse sources and types of information will be very important. At minimum, it is my belief that the only way to accommodate the needs of the individual within such a society is through the use of technology; specifically the use of computers. As stated in an article on educational reform:

"It really doesn't matter whether kids learn more or less today than they did twenty or forty years ago; what matters is whether they are acquiring the skills, knowledge and attitudes today that they need to function as fulfilled and contributing citizens tomorrow." (Morgan, 1992, p. 47)

However, it is also true that there must be alternative mechanisms for integrating all of this information into our minds, and into our lives. We must develop our ability to use all of our perceptual senses, yet be able to discriminate what is necessary and what is not, essentially through higher-level thinking skills. As stated by Dede:

"In a world where data increases exponentially each year, a major challenge for schools is to prepare students to access and use information effectively...This requires a refocusing of current uses of multimedia in the curriculum, from engines for transmitting massive amounts of data to tools for structured inquiry based on higher-order thinking...Reconceptualizing multi-media now is important because, over the next decade, the fusion of computers and telecommunications will lead to the development of highly realistic virtual environments that are collaborative and interactive. The evolution of this "meta-medium" will enable artificial realities that immerse students in information-laden virtual worlds. Such learning environments risk overwhelming their users unless they incorporate tools that help students and teachers to master the cognitive skills essential to synthesizing knowledge from data." (Dede, 1992, p. 54)

Virtual reality, too, represents a break with the long line of technological "information providers" we have seen over the years, such as radio, television, video, computers, and multimedia. The break occurs because of the ability of the participant to interact in real time with a multi-perceptual, multi-dimensional, inclusive, potentially multi-participant environment; to change perspective at will, to make and implement decisions, to experience a "paradigm shift" in a wholly created system that exists only in the computer and the minds of the world designer and participants. Perhaps the most important potential aspect of VR is the possibility of creating new symbol systems, which can be used to better understand concepts and relationships. It's seductive and terrifying in the same breath; seductive because it is so engaging, and terrifying for the very same reason.

We in the field of Educational Technology are in the business of empowering the learner by maximizing the opportunity for learning; creating environments, materials, and processes to make learning fun and effective for everyone. Bill Winn, professor of Educational Technology at the University of Washington disagrees with this statement. He says "the aspect of fun is less important than effectiveness. Sometimes the most effective lessons are those that are most painful." Though I can agree with his statement, I feel that "fun" as a learning component can in fact be a very effective tool - the ever-popular "Sesame Street" is living proof my point.

At our most basic level, we are trying to assist the learner in developing meaning; about the world, about patterns and relationships, about themselves. Depending on your point of view, meaning may be constructed from information outside of the learner, or may be constructed by each individual using information from the environment, and from within. I personally subscribe to the latter position, and am interested in what type of information we as educators can provide to facilitate that constructive process. I feel that care needs to be taken with regard to the political nature of "who's opinion", and "what material" is provided to the learner during that process, because CONTROL is one of the central issues in VR. Bowers speaks eloquently to the non-neutrality of technology when he says:

"The interactive language of the computer is represented as the conduit through which the objective information (or haphazardly collected data) flows. But this view of objective knowledge and its transmission misrepresents how knowledge is humanly constructed over time in culturally specific ways and continually reconstructed as it is communicated to others." (Bowers, 1988, p. 43)

This is not to say that I feel that I have any better answer about what that information/process diet should be... but I do feel that we have a responsibility to take great care in determining who is telling what to our children, and for what purpose.

For example, when I look towards the potential use of VR as a "meaning maker", again I think it is important to take care with regard to exactly "who's meaning" we are discussing. Helsel makes the point well in comparing a conceptual versus a technological orientation to the educational potential of VR. She says:

"It is necessary to stress that serious technological and research questions must be answered before virtual reality is meaningfully available to any profession, including education...Social scientists believe that meaning is constructed by groups within cultures who create frameworks for conciousness-- frameworks which rely on common, shared symbols and representations. Many of those with a technological orientation to virtual reality have a vested economic interest in seeing VR defined in terms of their specific products.

But the concept vs. technology debate is important-- especially to educators. For it is quite different to "regard virtual reality as a mental phenomenon which can be orchestrated (via certain technological configurations) rather than regarding the technology(ies) as the most important element in virtual reality. In the conceptual orientation, the "human" processes (whether cognitive, social, emotional, spiritual, etc.) of the student are the focus of the designer, and the computer becomes merely a tool for expediting or replicating a process that causes the user to become a participant in an abstract space." (Helsel, 1992)

I am interested, then in exploring the conceptual orientation of virtual reality in education; its promise, as well as its associated pitfalls.

Regarding Technology in General

It is just as clear, however, that not everyone has the same warm and fuzzy feeling that I have about the computer environment. Whether this is a question of personal preference, or of education, or experience is not the point here, but the differences do need to be recognized, especially when contemplating implementation of computer technology in the educational environment. Malcolm S. Forbes Jr. speaks to these differences when he says:

"Now, some people regard technology as an enemy of individual freedom- the word conjures up huge, impersonal corporations, 1984-style totalitarian governments, and, according to Hollywood lore, berserk computers that want to take over the world. Nothing could be further from the truth. Technology is in reality the mortal enemy of tyrants and bureaucrats; it doesn't suppress ordinary people-it frees them from centralized control and gives them unprecedented power over their own destinies." (Forbes, 1991, p. 1)

This difference in attitude can have an incredible impact on the way technology is perceived and how it is utilized, regardless of the environment about which we are speaking. For example, the same attitudinal differences effect the way computers are used in Corporate America, as well as in Education. I submit that our use of computers in the educational environment will never be fully accepted, let alone maximized until everyone, top to bottom, inside and out, believes in the positive aspects that the technology can offer the learner, and is willing to sacrifice his or her own personal position in the interest of maximizing learner opportunity to gather and utilize information.

In adddition to attitude, we also need "right knowledge". All of the technology in the world will not make a difference if the knowledge to utilize the bells and whistles hasn't been acquired by the individual, let alone the institution. This requires more than just attitude - it requires a commitment to learning; to developing an understanding, and to applying what has been learned. But as with any example of concept introduction, acquisition and implementation, a good attitude is a great place to start.

Now, if we as a society are still at issue over the implementation of computers in the educational setting, it should be clear that virtual reality, by its very newness and its relatively high cost, is an even less-accessible cousin in the here and now.

That accessability, too is one of my primary concerns. For example, when the vaccine for polio was perfected, the powers-that-be used the vaccine in populations most at risk for contracting polio. Today, should an AIDS vaccine be perfected, I'm not completely convinced that the same altruistic and appropriate decision would be made.

The same holds true for technology. Equity and accessibility are educational issues that have not been fully addressed, let alone resolved. The children most at risk of educational failure are not necessarily those that receive the best "toolkit for success." Computer systems are more likely to be found in districts and schools that are willing and able to make the financial commitment necessary to procure the hardware and software. Notice that training and support are not included in that list, which is another very large issue that needs to be resolved if the technology is ever to be fully utilized.

In my view, technology should be available to everyone, not just those that can "afford" it. Also at stake with regard to this new technology are pedagogical issues. Use of VR as a learning environment requires an understanding of the shift from education as primarily a text-based experience to one that is multi-sensory. (Ferrington and Loge, 1992). In their article, Ferrington and Loge specifically ask:

• How is learning in virtual reality different than that of a traditional educational environment?
• What do we know about multi-sensory learning that will have application and be of value in determining the effectiveness of this technology?
• How are individual learning styles enhanced or changed by VR?
• What kinds of research will be needed to assist instructional designers in developing effective VR learning environments? To this list, I would add a few additional questions:

• What kind of infrastructure would be needed to support the use of such a technology?

• How can the learner also become the teacher, and how can VR help?

• How can we make sure that VR is an empowering learning environment, rather than a forum for failure?

In the (educational technology) industry at this time, there is great debate about what we as researchers should really be doing; developing educational theory, touting educational practices, or both?. Einstein is said to have had the idea that we cannot solve the problems of today by using the same level of thinking that created the problems to begin with. And so it is in our field with regard to implementation of technology as a learning environment. Many of us, though quite interested in empowering the learner, continue to try and develop a better delivery system for the same message. This does not indicate that the message is any more erudite; just that the delivery system is more technologically elegant.

VR offers a break from this tradition. Yes, the "box" is more elegant, but more importantly, it is the sense of immersion and inclusion in the virtual educational environment that may allow the student an opportunity to interpret and encode his or her perceptions and paradigms from a broader, deeper set of experiences than those that can be had in the "standard" educational environment. This does not come without risk, however, as we will see in the next section.

Potential Positive and Negative Aspects of VR

"The environment, when effective, invites user participation in problem solving, concept development, and creative expression...Though we can only speculate on the contributions virtual reality will make to education, it seems, from emerging evidence that students will participate in responsive environments in which they will become engaged in full body-mind kinesthetic learning. Such learning will combine cognitive, affective, and psychomotor skills as students pursue their own learning strategies. (Ferrington and Loge, 1992 p. 16-17)

In a perfect, politically neutral world; maybe so. Perhaps even in our own world, as long as we remain clear about who is in control of the base software. After a great deal of thought, I realized that my hopes for the technology, and my fears about the technology comprise the broad blades of the same sword; that the "potential" can turn either direction, at any time. These issues are discussed below, after which information gleaned from the Pacific Science Center project is presented.

Personal Power, Character and Sense of Self

Depending on the amount of control the individual has to change the world, it is percieved that the sensation of personal power will vary. As a participant, it is possible that the individual can only "look but not touch". As the individual gains (or is granted) more power, perhaps (s)he can modify entities or processes in the environment (permanently or temporarily), but not the base world. At the far end of the scale, an individual would have the ability to create worlds "from scratch", including the base environment.

Even as a basic participant in an unguided virtual world, there is a sensation of "being in control" because (generally speaking) you can move (fly) in the environment to any desired location. Dependent upon how the world is programmed, cause and effect relationships as they exist in the real world may or may not be present in the environment. The individual may feel very "powerful" in the virtual world, a key finding in the Science Center project. The key question with regard to personal power is this: If the perceived power base constantly shifts between the virtual and actual world, what does this do to real world power-based interaction between the individual and any "authority" figure? What does this do to the individuals' sense of self?

The flip side to this argument is that it can also be said that the ability to "gather" one's sense of personal power together in a "safe" environment may be helpful to the individual. For example, VR has been touted as a technique to desensitize individuals with phobias, and so on. Is confidence created in a computer generated three-space transferable?

Regarding character, much of what is discussed in self-improvement seminars today has to do with personal character; that set of values and principles that define us as individuals, and are manifested as our behaviors. Our character is also what others use to judge our worthiness as friends and associates. The rules for character development are dictated societally in terms of cultural norms. If there are worlds where there are no rules, no consequences, (no benefits?) how does this effect our behavior (and our character and sense of self) both in and out of VR? Am I who am I in the real world, or in the virtual world, or is it just a question of role? Is there dissonance? How will the dissonance be resolved? Are we potentially creating a generation of schizophrenics? Or are humans so adapatable that these concerns are in essence non-issues?

Turning again to the positive side of the issue, perhaps the opportunity to "experience" different personas with their associated different value systems will enhance the learner's ability to be strong in one's self, and yet be sensitive to the perspective of others. This is probably age and maturity dependent, but the classic description of the current buzzword "paradigm shift" certainly involves the ability to stand in someone else's shoes and look at a problem from a different perspective.

Here is another fear-- what if a learner is more comfortable with, or can only interact with computer-generated friends and associates? What if VR becomes more attractive than the real world? What if it's "easier" to be in VR? Does that mean its better? What if children get "lost?" (a la "Dungeons and Dragons"). A very important point made by a significant percentage of the children in the camp was that they would rather visit a place in VR than in the real world because it was more "safe". However, because the worlds they were creating were not multi-participant, we also heard that the children were lonely while in the world. I can easily see safe worlds with lots of participants, and can just as easily be hopeful that it will not become a replacement for real world communication and interaction, or become the only "safe" alternative because we as humans cannot or will not reconcile our own societal ills.

Also on the positive side, it may also serve as an alternate environment in which to "act out", alleviating the burden of inappropriate stress release from the teacher, and from others around the individual. We must be careful to consider that there are a variety of virtual environments that can be envisioned, including those that are primarily therepeutic in nature. The more important question is where do the functions (between entertainment, education and therapy, for example) overlap? Is it even desirable to have "overlap"?

Creativity

Cognition and Transfer

As an aid to understanding, I am hopeful that in multi-participant environments Mentors will be available, which would be either "real" people represented in the world (avatars), or computer-generated entities (knowbots) who serve as subject area or virtual world experts that can assist the learner in a guided fashion.

A potential problem for the learner would be the risk of learning relationships that might actually be incorrect, and having to unlearn them. But this occurs daily in the real world. VR will certainly not be infallible in this respect.

Transfer is the ability to map appropriate processes and analogies from one set of circumstances to another, developing a deeper understanding regarding the circumstances at hand. These are essentially a combination of pattern recognition and action-sequence skills, utilizing generalization, discrimination, proceduralization, and composition of sequences (Gagne, 1985). However, if we use VR strictly to mimic the real world by using concrete, realistic concept examples, this could limit the learner in terms of that individuals' ability to abstract concepts from the virtual environment to other situations where the concepts are applicable. There is the possibility that the technology may carry too much authority, and be taken too seriously, limiting the way the learner may look at a particular problem. However, the technology can just as easily be used to open doors of understanding as close them, just as a good teacher can provide additional ways of looking at a problem to facilitate greater understanding.

Transfer can occur both cognitively and behaviorally. On the dark side of the sword, it is possible that VR may be an environment where inappropriate models of behavior (and cognition) can be created, as noted above.

In, VR, we have the ability to create worlds without repercussions for socially reprehensible acts. What does this teach the learner? How does this type of transfer vary with age? Maturity? Experience? Gender?

For example, in Habitat world (created by Lucasfilms), avatars represent participants. What had started as an entertainment environment (in which to play adventure games) soon became a full fledged society, creating "new lifestyles and utopian societies". (Morningstar and Farmer, 1991) Interestingly, however, the participants treat the other avatars as imaginary beings (even though they themselves are represented as a avatar to all other participants). In this society:

"People can marry or divorce (without real-world repercussions), start businesses (without risking money), found religions (without real-world persecution), murder each others' avatars (without moral qualms), and tailor the appearance of one's own avatar to assume a range of personal identities." (Dede, 1992, p. 59)

Dede says that what people want from such societies is "magic"; that by giving participants magical powers, it opens up learning in ways that educators are just beginning to understand. Perhaps this is also indicative of VR as an alternative environment in which to experience the myths that are a part of growing up-- that instead of reading the story, you are in the story; that you can be scared, just as you are when you read; that you can be a hero(ine), or a witch, or a monster, and still be you when you are finished. ( Or will you be?)

Control

Let's discuss some potential world creators, and how what they create might not be quite what you had in mind in terms of your child's educational experience. Do you want a Neo-Nazi at the controls? How about Jim Bakker and Tammy Faye? Or perhaps Pat Buchanan? Hayduke and EarthFirst? Or maybe it should be a right-to-lifer, a feminist, or a pro-gay anti-hetero activist? Or maybe all of them, and your child can "tune-in" as you choose. Who's rule system? Who is the judge? What are the ramifications for breaking the rules, assuming that there are any?

This is why I feel it is important that participants should have the opportunity to create their own environments, using three-dimensional authoring tools. (Maufacturers are working on such toolboxes even as I write.) By being empowered to create worlds from scratch, the lines between fact and fallacy will become much more clear-- and an educated participant is much less likely to suffer from "entity intimidation".

We are all biased. Our biases are based on our culture, our age, our experience, our sex, our religion, our political beliefs...but children are as yet unformed in most of these respects. Who do you want to be in charge of providing information to your child, the learner? And why? What is the end goal? What sort of socio-educational example do you want to set, or have set for you?

Will adults always know where their children are in the virtual environment, and what they are doing? Probably not, unless they are right there with them. VR could well become the next "babysitter", just as some families use the TV for that purpose. And since the learner has a great deal of control, what does this do for discipline in the home? In the learning environment?

The bottom line-- I think the key here is the ability to discriminate, and yet be able to generalize what has been learned to larger context of the real world. Impressionable minds may not be able to distinguish between real and virtually real, but with more experienced individuals assisting them should be able to be participants nonetheless. Remember, this is only a program. Someone wrote it originally, and it is not value free. But neither are we.

Pacific Science Center Creative Technology Camp

This is the second year that VR has been offered as one of the technologies at the PSC Creative Technology Camp. The camp consists of a series of seven back-to-back week-long sessions, in which a group of up to 30 children attend camp every weekday between 8:30 a.m. and 3 p.m. Ages ranged between 8 and 18, with approximately 70% of the attendees being male. My colleague Chris Byrne and I were very interested in seeing if the perceived value, the ability, and desire to experience VR would vary between sexes, or between racial groups.

In the interest of guaranteeing variety in our study population, we were able to garner scholarship funding for up to four students per session, to be used to integrate both people of color and more females into the group. We thank U.S. West for their generosity and vision in this regard.

Our scholarship students came from many different parts of Western Washington as well as from different social groups. Most of the scholarship students were more than appreciative of the opportunity that had been given them, and we were just as happy to create a little variety in the VR classroom. Non-scholarship students were primarily from families who are members of the Pacific Science Center, and therefore recieve the class brochure as part of their membership benefits. These Technology Camp students have traditionally come from middle to upper class primarily white families.

The agenda each week was essentially the same-- on Monday, the students arrived at camp, got their name badges, asked all of the "where is the bathroom?", "who is the leader?", and "what group am I in?" questions out of the way, then immediately started on a round-robin of the four technologies offered in this particular camp; interactive video, MIDI music, robotics, and virtual reality.

The round-robin exercise, where each group spent 45 minutes of the first two days with each technology, was intended to give the children a fairly broad "taste" of each technology. After the children had had two chances to experience each of the four technologies, they selected one of the four in which to do a "special project." All three of the other technologies offered the individual an opportunity to work alone in developing a project. In this respect, VR was different, as we made it clear that designing and developing a world in this context was a group rather than an individual effort.

At the close of the second day, each child made their selection on a closed ballot, with the exception of the scholarship students who were predestined for the VR group. Based on last year's experiece, we knew that VR would be a very popular selection - at times up to 75% of the students had chosen VR as their project area. The closed ballot contained the child's first and second choices, which was done to alleviate potential strain on the VR instructors and to minimize logistical constraints at the Washington Technology Center's Human Interface Technology Lab, where the worlds would be experienced at the close of the week. Our maximum number in any group this year occurred in the first week; that group contained 14 people, and that was too many. We set the limit at 10-11 individuals after that first week, which was much less burdensome on the instructors, and on the Lab as a whole.

Children in the VR Group

Statistics regarding our study group composition are illustrated below. These are strictly data regarding our VR students, and are not racially representative of the larger technology camp population, mainly due to the inclusion of scholarship children.

Number	Sex	Ages	Race

of Children

3	F	12-16	African-American

4	M	12-16


2	F	11-13	Asian-American

3	M	10-12


1	F	12	Hispanic

2	M	12-13


3	F	11-14	Native American

1	M	10


3	F	10-14	Other

3	M	10-15


7	F	8-15	Caucasian

37	M	8-16

69 (Total Children)

Racial, Gender and Age Breakdown of All Children in the VR Class. Data represents all seven weeks of the 1992 Creative Technology Camp.

In the group, approximately 27.5% of our 69 students were female, and the remaining 72.5% male.

World Creation Process

The world design process I am about to describe encompasses weeks 2-7. The first week is not representative, as this was the week where we ironed out all of the bugs, and made some hard decisions about the type of children that we could accept into the scholarship program. It was also the week during which our hypercard questionnaire was incomplete, but the children's answers on 24 of the 27 questions are still valid, as they remained essentially unchanged.

As previously discussed, children made their technology choices on Tuesday afternoon, and on Wednesday, the children's special projects began in earnest. For the VR group, we immediately initiated a brainstorming session regarding the type of world they as a group would like to create, and what emotional content they wanted to inspire in their environment. Our thought as instructors was to enhance the "experiential" nature of the environment by focusing the children into a particular world theme and content analysis. Of course, by doing this, we opened a Pandora's Box. A psychoanalyst would have had a field day, listening to the children describe how to evoke a certain emotion. Results of some of the brainstorming sessions are included in Appendix A.

After the world theme and emotional content had been decided (using a majority rule voting system), the children began drawing their graphical contributions to the world on plain paper in an effort, again, to keep them focused. Focus was a particular problem for children under the age of 11. After that age, they seemed to be very directed in their task. Some of the children's drawings are included in Appendix B.

Once they were satisfied with what they had drawn, the children began to create their objects on the computer, using Swivel 3-D on a Macintosh platform, some of which are also contained in Appendix B. Almost all of the children attending the camp had used a computer before, and some of them had their own systems at home. It might even be safe to say that some of the children were more technologically savvy on the Mac than were the instructors! So, for the most part, the children had an understanding of how to use a mouse, what different icons on the screen represented, how to save a file, etc.

The children who had not used a computer before had a much tougher time. Not only were they trying to learn how to manipulate three-dimensional space, but they were also developing an understanding of the medium at the same time. This created a disparity between the technologically knowledgeable, and those that were not. This was not an easy problem to resolve, especially in the midst of the camp and in relation to other instructors who were also having a problem with these same children. What it did do was to create the need for us to tailor our scholarship search to those individuals with at least some computer background.

Drawing three dimensional objects continued throughout the day on Wednesday. The groups that got their individual objects done most quickly started the world amalgamation process Wednesday afternoon; the other groups started this secondary process Thursday morning.

We described the world amalgamation process (i.e. what had to happen before we could take the amalgamated disk back to the HIT Lab for processing), but essentially let them decide who would handle what tasks. These tasks included:

* Assigning attributes to specific entities (such as sound, movement, response to interaction, etc.

* Naming all components of all objects

* Creating a "linkage document" illustrating all of the links between object components

* Printing all of the individual objects, then transferring each child's contribution to computer used to put the world together

* Building the base world (if there was one)

* Adding each child's objects to the world, composing the space as this occurs

* Creating a world description document (In Appendix B)

* Creating a documentary Video for later display

Process vs. Product

The children spent, on average, 16 hours creating their worlds, a healthy portion of which was spent directly on task. They knew that if they didn't get their part completed, then no one would get to go in the world. (This wasn't technically true but it worked as a great disciplinary tool.)

The Product

The seven worlds and their associated emotions that were created are listed below in sequential order:

World Emotion

Peaceful Rainforest Peaceful

FORMS World Relaxation

Spike World Intense Fear

Future Dream Relaxation, Confusion and Curiosity

Space Paradise Terror, Joy

Free Space Free

Inca City Precarious

Experiences While in the World

We taped each of the children as they were interacting with their environment. Each child spent approximately 4 minutes in VR, in an enclosed room with all of the other children watching their progress on a large monitor. It was interesting to see the differences in how children would move while in the world; some were very dynamic, using their full body, and turning their head quite a bit. Others were very enclosed and strictly used the wand to move around, looking straight ahead. Some children were much more adept at picking up objects, even those that were moving. We have no information at this time to support why some children were better at this than others.

Responses from the Hypercard and Written Surveys

After the child had completed the hypercard survey, we also asked them to fill out a paper survey that asked open-ended questions that we hoped would generate more than a mono-syllabic response. A copy of the paper survey is contained in Appendix D.

The surveys were designed mainly to gather information about the experience in general, and about tool use and navigation issues. It is unfortunate that we couldn't gather information about every aspect of the technology, but the "kitchen sink" kept on getting bigger and bigger, and we had to cut it off somewhere. Regarding the issues discussed in the section entitled "Potential Positive and Negative Effects of VR", the children's experiences in this project support some of the issues raised, but can hardly be considered conclusive. The issues raised, and our observations are described below:

Personal Power, Character, and Sense of Self

The process of creating entities, then seeing them in 3-D was a very empowering process for many of these children. They exhibited pride in having been able to create something, especially something that could be shared in such a broad-based manner. For example, one of the students (John) created a cat's head, that traveled on a path above the main body of the world. When his mother came to the Friday-afternoon show and tell session, he couldn't wait to show her the entire creation process. Many children exhibited this desire to explain and illustrate what they had accomplished.

However, 16 hours plus 4 minutes is not enough time to really get a sense of how their character or sense of self might have been changed by their interaction. But I would feel comfortable in stating that for most of the children this was a very positive experience. They are part of a very small group (to date) that has had the opportunity to create their own world and experience it.

In answer to the question "How much would you like to be in VR again?", 78% responded with the most positive response possible (Very Much). Many children responded with a statement regarding that they enjoyed entering a world that they had created as what they liked best about VR.

There was one instance however, that, to me, was an example of how easily it can be to destroy a child's sense of accomplishment. One of the children (age 12) designed a very graphically complex and aesthetically pleasing space armada- it really looked as if it had just jumped off the screen from "Battlestar Gallactica" or "Startrek: The Next Generation". He received a great deal of praise from his group-mates, who also thought his contribution was particularly appealing. While in the world, everyone in his group "flew" around the armada. The child was obviously proud of his accomplishment.

However, when it came time to do the surveys, he did just fine on the hypercard stack, but was quite reluctant to fill out the paper version. He asked me three times if he "had to do it". I replied that no, he didn't HAVE to, but that his answers were very important to me, and that I valued his opinion. He completed the survey, but just barely. This child, who has such beautiful design skills, cannot express himself in written form.

When he left the lab, his head was lowered, and he would not look me in they eye, because he knew that I knew that he couldn't write. Out of all of the positive aspects of the camp, was this the way he would remember his experience? I still wonder, and am deeply affected by how one limiting aspect in a child's skill repertoire can have such a devastating effect. The question it raises for me is how much can success in VR really transfer to success (or at least motivation to succeed) in the real world? Was this experience indicative that it doesn't transfer? Granted, it is just one example, but it was a very disheartening one for me.

Creativity

In answer to the question "How much did you enjoy designing and building a virtual world?", 96% of the children rated the experience from 7-10, with the anchor statement at 10 being "Very Much". We had hoped to be able to separate out the design process from the experience, but the questionnaire become unwieldy when we tried to incorporate questions about both processes.

In the paper survey, many of the children gave creative responses to the question "What did you like best about VR?", such as "flying upside down", but we did not test for creativity per se. To me, most of the worlds were very engaging, containing all kinds of creatures. I thought they were very creative, and were certainly monuments to the kind of product that can be achieved in a very short time if the focus level and emotional buy-in is high.

Cognition and Transfer

As stated in the beginning of this paper, our goals related to exposure and experience, rather than to cognition and transfer. This is not to say that the children learned nothing- on the contrary. However, I would venture to say that they learned more about group process and design than they did about any particular subject matter. The world building process was not centered around the visual display of any particular curricular category- the entire effort was decided upon by the children themselves. Perhaps it is noteworthy that no one wanted to build "Physics World", or "Geometry World". But I must also point out the richness of the discussion that we had regarding the development of the Inca City.

This was the world created by the last group. The children in this group had a hard time selecting what type of world they wanted to build-- part of this may have been the product of a bubbling conflict within the group between several boys (scholarship and non-scholarship), regarding social class, personal wealth, and material possessions. We as instructors had to take additional measures to keep the children on-task than in previous weeks. However, once the world had been selected, there was a wonderful discussion about what should actually go in the world; whether Incas took part in human sacrifice, what their housing and temples looked like, how they farmed. It was a fascinating discussion, and I am sure that there was more than one individual who learned something new in the process. There was even a discussion about exactly what shade of green the mountains (covered in coffee bean plants?) should be. Some of the children actually went home and looked up the Incas in their encyclopedias, and came back with additional information for the group.

During other world-building discussions, it was very interesting to hear how children chose to combine objects, and what those objects meant to them. For example, in Space Paradise world, the technological aspect of the space armada was balanced with an environment containing a waterfall, lake and trees. They chose to juxtapose "terror" and "paradise"; this was the only world where opposing emotions were conveyed.

The most novel world in my opinion was Spike World. The only requirement here was that everything needed to be spiked, to instill "intense fear" in the participant. However, after all of the objects were combined, somehow the color scheme ended up in the pastel/bubble gum range, which made the world look more like Disneyworld rather than somewhere terrifying. However, the children were able to create an environment that did not map to earth, or earth-related objects at all, and therefore seemed to be especially fun for the children. Whether they learned anything from it is unclear.

Control

The last issue, control is an interesting one. In this case, most of my concerns about control are irrelevant, as the children were completely in charge of the entire event. As the implicit and explicit "authority", they seemed very comfortable experiencing that which they had created. Interestingly, the only individuals who were not entranced were those who had social concerns about "ruining their hair", or "looking stupid." These two personal issues came up just four times, and involved female people of color aged 13-15. Everyone else put on the helmet and dove right in. I have no rational support for why this happened, but it would make an interesting study topic.

It is unfortunate that children are not subject experts at such a tender age, because their creativity and limitless energy can add a great deal to the world-building process. Perhaps the opportunity is to build design teams that include children in the creation process, treating them with a level of respect that is generally not offered in the standard schoolroom. This type of student-teacher interaction, where at times the roles are reversed is actually working in a school district here in Washington State. The children are responsible for a fiber-optic network, and it is they who are teaching the teachers about network management! (Issaquah School District, Fiber Optic Project.)

Physical Issues

Another potential problem with VR is the tendency for participants to experience a sensation akin to "simulation sickness". The more immersed an individual is in a virtual world, the more (at our current level of human-computer interface technology) the body and mind experience disparate perceptions, in that what the mind is perceiving and what the body is actually feeling may be two entirely different things. The net result of this disparity can be disconcerting. In the words of Louis Brill:

"The symptoms of simulation sickness include nausea, visual fatigue, and spatial disorientation. Its root case stems from "cue conflict," which occurs when the body's senses receive mismatched cues between real-time reactions and the resultant physical motions and visuals of the participating simulation. This refers particularly to when participants are reacting in real time to an artificial situation, but the simulated results are time-delayed, thus creating confusion between the participants' actions and what appears as the results thereof." (Brill, 1992 p. 6)

These issues are much more prevalent for those activities requiring lengthy immersion, full-body, and multi-participant (real-time) interaction. It is also tied to level of photo-realism present in the environment... the assumption, as stated by Brill, is that "as more responsive virtual environments become available to the public, particularly whose with greater realism, this malady (of simulation sickness) will begin to disappear."

Of the children in the Creative Technology Camp, over 40% of them felt between somewhat and very confused or disoriented when they removed the headset. While in VR, 13% of the children felt somewhat sick to their stomach, and 20% felt somewhat nauseous after having removed the headset. Two children actually got ill after removing the headset, and there were several others who experienced headaches and general disorientation. One child was completely disoriented for 12 hours past the experience. We have no further information to indicate why this child was affected in this manner, though it is clearly important to understand who might be affected and why.

What these numbers indicate is that if this group is representative, perhaps a fifth of all people who experience VR will have some type of unpleasant physical effect. As for myself, depending on the length of time spent, and the type of activities pursued while in a world, I have been extremely nauseous and socially uncommunicative after exiting an environment. It is just such a different place to be; it's hard to get used to gravity again!

One of my good friends and colleagues was so entranced with the concept of flying around that he actually purchased a "Jet-Pack", so he could fly in the real world as well. Experiencing VR for him had been very compelling, and made him realize the limitations we as humans face in a gravity-bound world.

Hardware Issues

There are other systems that incorporate a video image layered into the virtual world, so that individuals' facial expressions can be mapped onto their avatars. This is less intrusive than using a headset, but also less engaging in terms of "immersion".

For children, the hardware is unwieldy. Most of the headsets available to date are fairly heavy; some even need to be counter-balanced with weights. The "glove" used to generate a virtual hand in VR is very appealing as a grasping metaphor, however not all of the gloves work well, especially with child-sized hands. It is also difficult to "teach" the glove an individuals signals, unless they are very distinct.

Other puppets include a wand device, or a palm-sized roller-ball, though undoubtedly others are coming on the market even now. In this year's camp, we used the wand as a puppet rather than a glove, which seemed to work better for the children, at least in flying though the environment.

The challenge for building hardware for kids is that it needs to fit their body size, and also suit their hand-eye coordination abilities. Many of the questions asked in the paper survey had to do with the type of tools that they would have liked to have had, and most of the children would have preferred to see a hand on-screen, rather than the arrow that represented the wand. The hand would have been a better tool (for them) to pick up entities in the virtual world; many of the children had difficulty with the grasping sequence used with the wand.

Other Issues

"People's perception of what VR is and what it can do are much stronger that what the field can actually produce now. It's an odd thing; people have a very clear idea of what you're talking about when you describe VR, but they tend to expect too much from it." (Emmett, 1992, p. 1)

Others, such as Vice-President Al Gore considers that VR is so crucial "to the way we design new products, reach our children, and spend our free time" that last year he chaired hearings on its value to American competitiveness. The conclusion: The U.S. in underinvesting in the technology. (BusinessWeek, 10/5/92)

To some, the idea that the term "virtual reality" conveys consensual meaning is premature. According to Stephen Porter, editor of Computer Graphics World:

"For some, the key defining element of virtual reality is interactivity. By this definition, if you can use a mouse to fly through the rendered model of a house on a computer screen, then you are dealing with virtual reality. Others say that's not enough, and maintain that a virtual reality must be a networked environment that allows several people to enter it at the same time. Still others limit virtual reality to those environments that make use of headmounted devices, which allow users to become more "immersed" in these artificial worlds. Yet still others say even that level of immersion is not enough to qualify as VR; what's needed is full-body immmersion...Today's different technologies may vary in the degree to which and manner in which they actually "immerse" us in some computer-generated world, but they all are part of similar desire to tighten the bond between humans and computers, and allow us to more directly enter those digital worlds that, until now, we could only passively observe through the window of the computer screen." (Porter, 1992, p. 1-2)

Others, such as Alan Kay, Jaron Lanier, and Tom Furness feel that consensual meaning is achievable. They see that "these systems should amplify the powers of the mind to see previously hidden relationships in complex sets of data and to absorb,. manipulate and interpret information more quickly and completely." (BusinessWeek, 10/5/92).

Conclusions

The technology is moving ahead, regardless of what we as educators may wish. So we can either become a part of the research and development effort, adding the cognitive component to the mix, or we can sit back and let the technology take the educational process by storm. I for one, choose to explore further.

Special thanks to Chris Byrne, Suzanne Weghorst, Max Minkhoff, Marc Cygnus and all of the other fine virtual realists at the HIT Lab, and to Andy Hamilton at Division Inc. for putting the worlds into motion.

Bibliography

Brill, Louis. "Virtual Reality; Special Report: Virtual Reality Part 2", Computer Graphics World, April, 1992, 15(4), 48-54.

BusinessWeek, October 5, 1992, "Cover Story: Virtual Reality"

Dede, Christopher. "The Future of Multimedia: Bridging to Virtual Worlds", Educational Technology, May, 1992, 54-60.

Emmett, Arielle, "Down to Earth; Commercial Applications of Virtual Reality; Special Report: Virtual Reality Part 1", Computer Graphics World, March, 1992, 15(3), 46-51.

Ferrington, Gary and Loge, Kenneth. "Virtual Reality: A New Learning Environment", Computing Teacher, April 1992, (19)7, 16-19.

Forbes, Malcolm S. Jr. "A New World Order...of Freedom", Imprimis, August, 1991, 1-4.

Gagne, Ellen. "The Cognitive Psychology of School Learning", 1985, Little, Brown & Company, Canada.

Helsel, Sandra. "Virtual Reality and Education", Educational Technology, May, 1992, 38-42

Morgan, Robert. "Educational Reform: Top-Down or Bottom-Up?", Educational Technology, November, 1992, 47-51

Morningstar, C. and Farmer, F.R. "The Lessons of Lucasfilm's Habitat". In M. Benedikt (Ed.) Cyberspace: First Steps. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1991, 273-302.

Porter, Stephen, "Virtual Reality; Special Report: Virtual Reality Part 1", Computer Graphics World, March, 1992, 15(3), 42-43.

Appendix A - World Content Brainstorming Sessions
Appendix B - Children's Drawings, and Computer Generated Three-Dimensional Images
Appendix C - Hypercard Survey
Appendix D - Paper Survey