![[Previous Chapter]](/icons/button-back.gif){kind=icon}
![[Table of Contents]](/icons/button-contents.gif){kind=icon}
![[Next Chapter]](/icons/button-next.gif){kind=icon}
As mentioned at the beginning of Chapter 5, subsequent research has been conducted (Winn, 1995, 1996, 1997; Taylor, 1996; Osberg, 1997; Dede, 1997) that supports the hypotheses presented for this pilot project. Based on the results of this additional work, further research opportunities are presented in this Addendum.
A.1.1. Research in Metaphysics, Semiotics and Constructivism
The metaphysics of virtual reality are a fascinating subject unto itself (Heim, 1993; Osberg, 1996; Gigliotti, 1996). Certainly, as our philosophical basis for understanding our environment changes, so too will the nature of our perceptions. I find this particularly fascinating when one considers what might be learned from ‘alternate realities’ in which our perceptions, indeed our belief systems may be engaged in ways we can only contemplate at this time.
Regarding the constructivist practice is collaborative learning, we have the opportunity to begin to understand how this technology both draws people together (Rheingold, 1993; McLuhan, 1964), but also separates them (Bowers, 1988, 1992). The research on virtual community development (Rheingold, 1993) appears to indicate that that virtual technologies can go beyond Internet-based chats, MUDs and MUE’s in building viable connections between participants. However, the gap between those that have access and those that do not continues to widen (Negroponte, 1995).
The effect of our cultural beliefs, values and mores have an overarching effect on our behaviors (Brislin, 1993; Shweder, 1991). This becomes clear in many avenues of life, whether we are talking about the perceived need to maintain constant contact with the world through our cellular phones, or participating in the entrenched nature of our cultural rituals, including the rituals of ‘school’ and ‘learning’.
But the very nature of virtual reality challenges us to develop alternative cultures; alternative ways of being that mirror our new experiences (Rheingold, 1995; Laurel, 1990). One does not arise from the other; they simultaneously and continuously forge each other. We must develop a place to integrate our alternative experiences into our knowledge construction process, providing new avenues through which to pursue both ‘teaching’ and ‘learning’.
In this study I was most interested in providing support for individual knowledge construction, as conducted within a specific learning community (Phillips, 1995), and within a given cultural environment (Bruner, 1990). In Bruner’s view, the "folk psychology" of signs, mores, beliefs and behaviors contributes heavily to the manner in which individuals come to create meaning. He states:
The central concept of a human psychology is meaning and processes and transactions involved in the construction of meanings. This conviction is based upon two connected arguments. The first is that to understand man you must understand how his experiences and his acts are shaped by his intentional states, and the second is that the form of these intentional states is realized only through participation in the symbolic systems of the culture. Indeed, the very shape of our lives¾ the rough and perpetually changing draft of our autobiography that we carry in our minds¾ is understandable to ourselves and to others only by virtue of those cultural systems of interpretation. But culture is also constitutive of mind. By virtue of this actualization in culture, meaning achieves a form that is public and communal rather than private and autistic. (p. 33)
At Kellogg Middle School, and at all the schools in which we assisted students in designing virtual environments, we discovered children are naturally adaptable to alternative experiences. Their eyes are not yet closed to certain possibilities, nor do they see the world in such concrete terms as many of the adults on our project did. Their conception of the design process incorporated a perspective that my more ‘trained’ approach did not take into account: they wanted to include objects and behaviors that to my way of thinking were inappropriate; for example, a rusted car in the lake, or a chain saw used to change a cow into a hamburger. In the case of the car in the lake, what I saw as an eyesore, i.e. something that ruined my aesthetic, was to these students a solid representation of pollution and over-development. When experiencing adverse reactions to students’ suggestions, it gave me pause to analyze my own values and beliefs, and to realize how often we overlay students’ learning with our own preconceived notions.
A.3.1. Multi-participant Environments
Though none of the environments generated during the first two years of the VRRV project were multi-participant, the HIT Lab is currently connecting Children’s Hospital and a public school, so that students can collaboratively study global warming (Winn, 1977). There are two ways to connect individuals and schools; either directly or via the Internet. We have not yet begun to tap into the existing power of the Internet, even though alternative technologies are currently being developed.
In the spirit of constructivist learning, it is my hope that we can begin to make better use of this connectivity, especially as we are developing better visualization tools for use (such as VRML) across the Internet as well. I can envision a day when there is a system that connects to, but runs in parallel with the Internet, that will be used for educational purposes alone. Our government is already seeking researchers to define and develop this system. We can expect that virtual reality will be one interface such a system has to offer.
Furthermore, there are issues of access (Negroponte, 1995) and appropriateness (Norman, 1993). Virtual reality is a wonderful tool when used to expand and inform. It should not be used as a reward, a source of social, intellectual or technological demarcation, or as a punishment. The doors are wide open, as this technology is relatively new. However, we are not well known in western society for our egalitarian or philanthropic uses of something that even now is considered relatively ‘elite’ (Osberg, 1994a).
In leaving the software on the computers at the school, we provided the students with a means to create 3-D environments, but we were unable to provide the technology with which to display the children’s 3-D creations stereoscopically. Their creations stayed trapped in 2-D on the screen of the computer.
However, with the advent of less expensive headsets, such as the VR-4 and Crystal Eyes shutter glasses, this too is also changing. The entire world building and experiencing process is coming closer to the desktop every day, instead of remaining a distant dream ensconced in equipment and software well beyond the means of most schools or individual families. A good example of the advances made over the past year is the development of the Ninetendo 64 game machine, which displays 3-D graphics with ease, and provides real-time interaction in a smooth, engaging fashion. Though the user has no control over development and display of content other than that which can be purchased, the retail price of this technology is about $300; a far cry from the $85,000 Division ProVision of the early 1990’s, or the $35,000 version currently in use at the Human Interface Technology Laboratory.
One of the most common complaints that the Kellogg Middle School teachers and students mentioned was the lack of sufficient time and ability to devote enough energy to the project. Subsequent to the Kellogg Middle School project, the VRRV team visited an additional 17 schools in which we conducted world building. In these other environments, teachers and students alike felt like they were continuously trying to ‘catch up’ to where they needed to be in the project.
It is my feeling that this is because in every case the project was seen as an ‘extra-curricular’ activity, rather than as a regular learning practice. One opportunity for further research would be to provide the training and the technology into a classroom environment where it could be used over the course of at least a year. This would provide an opportunity to analyze how the process of world-building could be truly integrated as a meaning-making process in a variety of subjects, and under a variety of circumstances.
By making the process and the technology available for a longer period of time, the effects of the learning curve inherent in any new undertaking would also be minimized. Instead of fighting the battle of trying to teach everything at once; process, design, new software skills, and so on, efforts could be focused instead on outcomes, such as the quality of the environments and of the process that students experienced to create them.
Research into developing meaningful virtual tools would be useful (Rose, 1996), as well as designing and testing new navigational paradigms. All of these opportunities involve the use of signs and metaphors to make meaning in a virtual space.
We faced incredibly tight deadlines on this project. We were constrained in terms of classroom time on task and the calendar as well. The project closed on the day before Thanksgiving break.
There are two issues here: how to make the best educational use of the world-building experience, and how much time to allocate for the process. We had the opportunity to test a variety of process models in subsequent school visits. The VRRV van visited over 70 schools in which over 3000 students got a taste of what virtual reality was all about. In 17 of those environments, we conducted world-building exercises, in elementary, middle and high schools, both public and private. I can attest that the world-building process in particular was a success, but the level of success varied considerably, based on how the project was managed in each school environment.
I would recommend to any school that wants to participate in virtual learning environment development integrate the process into the regular curriculum as much as possible. When it becomes a ‘special’ project, especially as an after-school project without a clear curricular end goal, it is very difficult to maintain momentum to the end of the development process. This is because it takes a lot of effort on both the teachers and the students part.
I would also recommend that the process be integrated into a special educational theme that runs for at least three weeks. Two weeks are not enough time to really explore and refine all of the ideas which were initially conceived, and in this respect the students at Kellogg were somewhat short-changed, from a Constructivist perspective in which iteration and refinement are an intended part of the process.
If we could have spent three weeks in the classroom at minimum, or perhaps even four, we could have more fully explored design options, and students could have constructed models commensurate with the increased skill that additional time would have bought. However, in subsequent world building projects, we had considerably more time, but less direct teacher/student/classroom involvement. Based on these experiences, the best scenario for classroom-based virtual environment development is one that provides both sufficient project time and ample direct interaction with teachers and students.