Virtual Reality and Education

By: Giti Javidi

Submitted to: Dr. James White

EME7938

University of South Florida

Fall 1999
 Virtual Reality and Education

Introduction

Background

One of the challenges in working with instructional media is that developers and

educators are confronted with a rapidly moving target in terms of information

technology’s capabilities. The business and entertainment sectors are driving a fast-

paced evolution of the devices people have in their workplaces and homes. Researchers

and educators are scrambling to assess the potential, develop pedagogical strategies,

create instructional materials, and implement a school- based infrastructure for today’s

technologies— only to find that computers and communications are “morphing” into new

media of even greater power. Students of today experience a society and a workplace

that is entirely different from those that their parents faced. To allow educational tools to

fall behind the pace of technological advance is to sell out a generation of learners.

People’s understanding of what computers can do has shifted dramatically as the

size and cost of these devices has decreased while their power has grown. First,

computers were seen as number- crunching machines, then came data processing, now

we live in the age of tools that manipulate symbols and information. Virtual Reality (VR)

research is based on the growing certainty that the next evolutionary stage is computers

and telecommunications fusing into virtual environments. “Cyberspace” is not simply a

channel within which content flows, but a virtual place to live that competes directly with

reality for the attention of many, especially new generation of students. For this reason,

charting the strengths and limits of virtual reality is vital for educational technology.

1
 Educating children now and in the future to live in an information society is

critical. There is also a need to provide life-long education for all citizens and to support

a flexible workplace. VR technology has been widely proposed as a major technological

advance that has potential to support for such education.

There are several ways in which VR technology is expected to assist learning.

Most importantly it allows students to visualize abstract concepts, to observe events at

atomic or planetary scales, and to visit environments and interact with events that

distance, time, or safety factor make unavailable. The types of activities supported by

this technology promote current educational thinking that students are better able to

master, retain, and generalize new knowledge when they are actively involved in

constructing that knowledge in a hand on learning environment.

There is evidence that, in suitable application areas, VR can offer an effective

medium for enhancing certain skills. For example, effectively coordinating sensory-

motor skills; gaining situation awareness through use of simulations; and training in

design skills. The commercial success of virtual environments in pilot training has led to

speculations about the application (Krueger, 1991) of virtual environments to other areas

of education, such as in virtual science laboratories. This kind of approach could give

students access to virtual experiments involving the use of otherwise prohibitively

expensive equipment. However, research concerning virtual environments to date has

focused on skill acquisition, i. e. the development of coordinated sensory motor skills and

situation awareness. Empirical evidence on the effectiveness of virtual environments for

promoting learning of rich subject matters is limited.

2
 Designers and evaluators of immersive VR systems have many ideas concerning

how VR can facilitate learning (Dede, 1996b), but there is little information concerning

which of the VR's features best enhance understanding or how to customize those

affordances for different learning environments. Other factors such as the concepts or

skills to be learned, individual characteristics, the learning experience, and the interaction

experience all play a role in shaping the learning process and learning outcome.

This paper discusses the potential value of VR to education, starting with a

description and an analysis of VR. Recent psychological theories of knowledge

construction are described and then the nature of the confluence of VR and constructivist

learning theory or the "goodness of fit" between the two is examined. A discussion on

whether constructivism is the best basis for building a theory of learning in virtual

environments is included. Finally, the effect of learner characteristics (e.g. learner age,

gender, etc.) on learning through VR is investigated.

Approach

The literature search is designed to answer some of the most obvious but critical

questions related to effectiveness of VR-based education. These questions include:

• Do learning in virtual learning environment offer advantages over more

traditional methodologies?

• What implications for learning do immersive virtual world offer?

• Which learning rationale is the most suitable for VR environments?

• How does student effectiveness of virtual world compares with other

instructional practices?

3
 • What is the impact of learner characteristics (e.g. age, gender, race, or

previous experience) on learning in VR? What types of learners benefit from

VR?

Scope of the Study

The term "Virtual Reality" has been applied more widely to include graphics

applications that allow users to walk through a simulated environment and, possibly, to

interact with objects in it. Therefore, this paper is concerned only with immersive VR.

In addition, this paper will include both educational uses of VR technology and

training applications, but not with those instances where VR technology itself is being

taught, but rather where VR technology is being used as the learning medium.

4
 Literature Review

What is Virtual Reality?

The early stages of development of any new technology or theory are often

confounded by controversy over what that technology actually involves. Any definition

of VR is further confounded by an assertion that it is not a technology, but other set of

emerging phenomena which are enabled by another set of rapidly developing

technologies and informed by yet another complex set of socio-cultural influences. VR is

a set of rapidly developing computer-generated phenomena in search of a definition.

Popular representations of VR (in advertising and movies) are unrelated to today's

VR capabilities. The technology's undeveloped state seems to be the only barrier to the

achievement of the science fiction fantasies that are provided by the current press. A

survey of the literature on VR does reveal some recurring themes.

VR may be seen as a form of human-computer interface characterized by an

environmental simulation controlled only in part by the user (Spring, 1991). VR requires

hardware and software that furnish a sense of (1) immersion, (2) navigation, and (3)

manipulation (Helsel, 1992). VR falls into three major categories: text-based, desktop and

immersive VR. Text-based networked VR involves real-time environments described

textually on the Internet where people interact by typing commands and "speak" by

typing messages on their computer keyboards. This has been valuable in distance

education (Psotka, 1994). Desktop VR is an extension of interactive multimedia

involving three-dimensional images and adds to the experience of interactive multimedia

without being considered immersive. Immersive VR, the focus of this paper, involves a

5
mixture of hardware, software and concepts that allow the user to interact with a three

dimensional computer generated "world" (Loeffler & Anderson, 1994).

The specific hardware that currently enables immersive VR includes:

(1) Head Mounted Displays (HMD or 'eyephones') which provide 3D vision

of 200 degrees horizontally and 120 degrees vertically (Winn, 1993);

(2) Datagloves which allow the user to interact with the environment by

tracking the users motion and giving tactile reinforcement to the visual

stimuli in the simulated world and,

(3) Wands or other devices which allow the user to manipulate objects in the

virtual world.

The major software required for VR includes high resolution image generators

which allow real time rendering so the virtual world is updated as the user acts upon it;

and software which allows localized stereo sound and in some cases smell and voice

recognition (Psotka, 1994).

In addition, Hedberg & Alexander (1994) include sensory and psychological

immersion and active learner participation as defining educational factors of VR. Winn

(1995) describes the result of VR's mixture of hardware, software and concepts as a

phenomenon known as "cognitive presence", involving a "conviction that the virtual

world is a valid, though different, form of reality". This phenomenon has been compared

to the "suspension of disbelief" we experience whilst watching a play or movie, but

appears to involve less effort on the part of the audience or user, with far more

convincing effects.

6
Virtual Reality and Simulation-Based Training

VR technology is an integrated technology of computer hardware and software

that requires the user to be fully immersed into the computer-generated, real-time, and 3D

virtual environment as an inside participant to look, listen, manipulate, interact, feel,

speak, and even smell if it is possible. It may be a networked or a stand-alone

technology.

The characteristics of simulations and VR can heavily overlap or even be

synonymous as well as remain distinct, depending on their design and most importantly

how they are used in a learning interaction. Simulations-based programs can become

VR-based programs with design changes.

According to Thurman & Mattoon (1994), the concept of VR and the wave of

research and development accompanying it are creating new form of simulation that may

lead to fundamental improvements in simulation-based training. They call this new form

of simulation "VR-based simulation". They also indicate that VR is a type of interactive

computer-based simulation that is controlled, in part, by the user. In a VR, users perceive

a synthetic environment instead of their immediate, physical surroundings, and they are

included as part of the simulation (Thurman et. al., 1994). Chiou (1995) supports this

claim by defining virtual environment as a simulated environment generated by reality

technology in which a learner could behave like an active participant and an active

constructor, not like an outside observer.

The main points of VR are full immersion and inside participation. A simulation

technology without immersing user as an insider in a simulated environment is not a VR

technology. There is much simulation software today that can simulate concrete things

7
and abstract concepts without requiring the user to be inside the simulated world.

However, Chiou (1995) considers them neither as VR technology nor as VR software.

He clarifies his point by arguing that today's multimedia software on personal computers

can simulate and present much information using a variety of forms, but a multimedia

system is not an immersive system and definitely not a VR technology.

VR involves a number of interrelated defining and variable concepts that make

VR different than other technologies including simulation programs. Thurman &

Mattoon (1994) summarize these as integration, interface and verity. They claim that VR

is a type of interactive simulation that includes the human user as a necessary component.

It is, however, fundamentally different from other interactive simulations, because the

user's sense are simultaneously partitioned from the real world and integrated with the

synthetic world of VR. Integration of the user in the virtual environment is claimed to be

an essential part of VR.

The concept of interface for VR is such that the interface disappears, allowing the

user to interact directly with the virtual world. Verity is defined as whether or not the

virtual world is "true to life", representing either real world or abstract concepts and

relationships. This concept is entirely variable and is one of the most important aspects

of VR in education.

For a simulation technology or any other technology to be considered an

immersive VR-based technology, immersive input and output devices are necessary.

Virtual worlds, like simulations, are programmed environments with which participants

can interact in real time. VR goes further than simulations, however, in that virtual

8
worlds can embody arbitrary objects, abstract or concrete, and can be programmed to

behave in ways that have no equivalence in the real world (Winn & Bricken, 1992).

Virtual Reality and Learning Theories

The development of models of learning has historically coincided with

technological developments, from Behaviorist theory's focus on mechanical control to

cognitive theory's focus on computer models of the mind.

Corresponding to the developments of educational theory and its correlation with

technological developments, Winn (1993) claims that, in instructional design at least,

there have been four generations of development. The first generation was shaped by

behaviorist theory. This theory developed traditional drill and practice tutorial

instructional design that focuses on imparting objective knowledge or content to the

learner. The second and third generations have been informed by cognitive theory's

focus on the processes involved in assimilating and encoding information. The second

stage of instructional design focuses on the designer and strategies he or she may use to

reduce the cognitive load on students thereby facilitating instruction. The third

generation focuses on the relationship between the user and the information presented.

This stage would include intelligent tutors that attempt to adapt to individual learning

styles by responding to the user's interaction with the program. The fourth generation

focuses on the constructivist assumption that the learner constructs the knowledge and is

characterized by discovery and experimental learning. Winn (1993) suggests that

constructivism has outdated all other forms of educational theory.

Perhaps the most well known computer application of constructivism is the

LOGO Microworld, developed by Papert, which is based on the concept of

9
constructionism learning. Papert (1993) uses the term "constructionism" to label his

favored approach to learning. Constructionism is built on the assumption that children

will do best by finding for themselves the specific knowledge they need. The goal is to

teach in such a way as to produce the most learning for the least teaching.

"Constructionism" differs from "constructivism" in that it looks more closely than other

educational -isms at the idea of mental construction. It attaches special significance to

the role of constructions in the world as a support for those in the head, thereby becoming

less of a purely mentalist doctrine.

Papert's philosophy of learning and his constructionism approach rely on the

computer for realization. He imagines a machine he refers to as "The Knowledge

Machine" which would allow children a rich exploration of the world. Primitive

examples of this Knowledge Machine would include "interactive video", "electronic

books" and "virtual reality". It seems that immersive VR is very much close to what

Papert has had in mind when discussing the concept of the "Knowledge Machine".

While discussing Microworlds and VR, one may wonder about the differences

and similarities between these two technologies. A Microworld has two essential

characteristics that may help in such analysis. First, a Microworld embodies the simplest

model of a domain that is deemed accurate and appropriate by an expert. Second, it

offers an initial point of entry that matches the user's cognitive state to allow interactions

to take place.

VR and LOGO are different in terms of interaction. VR represents real

experiences in a natural way where the interaction disappears due to the immersive nature

of VR. In LOGO, for instance, the keyboard, mouse, or screen comes between the

10
student and the program. In VR there is no interface (Bricken, 1991). Winn & Bricken

(1992) argue that interaction with the virtual world is intuitive because students interact

with objects in natural ways, by grasping, pointing, etc.

Microworlds can become VRs with design changes. Consider an Algebra

Microworld which involves the estimation of distances by using the LOGO command

FORWARD to move the turtle from one point to another on the screen with as few

commands as possible. In this context the Microworld can be improved into a VR

program where the learner can grab the object and move it from one location to another.

Constructivist Learning Theory

According to Papert (1993), constructionism involves two types of

construction. First, it asserts that learning is an active process in which people

actively construct knowledge from their experience in the world. It also adds the idea

that people construct new knowledge with particular effectiveness when they are

engaged in constructing personally meaningful products. The one obvious

commonality between LOGO Microworld and VR is the fact that both technologies

employ constructivism as the most feasible learning theory.

Constructivism is a broad area established on two assumptions. First, that

knowledge is constructed through social negotiation, and, second, that reality is to

some extent subjective (we all experience the same world but interpret it on the basis

of our own knowledge and beliefs) (Winn, 1993). Simply put, constructivists argue

for a learner-focused environment in which the learner can explore knowledge

domain and construct knowledge of that domain through a combination of

11
collaboration, discussions with their teacher, self-assessment, and reflection.

Constructivism, as noted by Jonassen (1994) proposes that learners construct their

own reality, or at least interpret it based on their perceptions of experiences, so an

individual's knowledge is a function of one's prior experiences. Furthermore, Jonassen

distinguishes between traditional instructional design and constructivist design implying

that the traditional instruction focuses on designing instruction that has predictable

outcomes and intervenes during instruction to map a predetermined conception of reality

onto the student's knowledge. Constructivism, on the other hand, focuses on instruction

that fosters the learning process instead of controlling it and it focuses on learning

environment rather than instructional sequences

The constructivist paradigm is relatively new, and many issues must be resolved

before it can become a sound educational framework. In particular, there are many

questions about how educational experiences can be designed that fit with the

constructivist epistemology. Jonassen (1994), among others, has identified a set of

principles to help with this process. He proposes six principles of constructivist learning

environments that are relevant to VR. Those principles are as follows:

• Provide multiple versions of reality, thereby representing the natural

complexity of the world.

• Focus on knowledge construction rather than reproduction.

• Present authentic Tasks.

• Foster reflective practice.

• Facilitate context and content-dependent knowledge construction

12
 • Support collaborative constructions of knowledge, rather than encouragement

of competition among learners for recognition.

According to Dede (1995), uses of information technology to enhance

constructivist learning environments have centered on creating computational tools and

virtual representations that students can manipulate. As learners interpret experience to

refine their mental models, computational tools that complement human memory and

intelligence are made available. In parallel, transitional objects (such as Logo's "turtle")

are used to facilitate translating personal experience into abstract symbols (Papert, 1993).

Thus, technology-enhanced constructivist learning currently focuses on how

representations and applications can mediate interactions among learners and natural or

social phenomena.

Dede (1995) argues that, constructivism theory fits very well in a virtual

environment. He claims that like Alice walking through the looking glass, learners can

immerse themselves in distributed, synthetic environments, becoming learners who

vicariously collaborate and learn-by-doing using virtual artifacts to construct knowledge.

Interactions between students and phenomena to technological instantiation of learners

themselves and reality itself shifts the focus of constructivism from peripherally

enhancing how a student interprets a typical interaction with the external world to

"magically" shaping the fundamental nature of how learners experience their physical and

social context.".

13
 VR Applications in Education

Many researchers and educational practitioners believe that VR technology offers

strong benefits that can support education. For some, VR's ability to facilitate

constructivist learning activities is the key issue (Rose, 1995). Others focus on the

potential to provide alternative forms of learning that can support different types of

learners, such as visually oriented learners. Some of the research seeks to locate learning

within a very general educational setting. Some studies have investigated the impact of

immersion on effectiveness of VR. Overall, most of the studies seek to investigate

whether VR is an effective educational technology.

Some of the research on applications of VR for learning involves short term

studies and other research is based on longitudinal case studies, while researchers are

developing virtual worlds for school use.

An overview of the current research on the effectiveness of VR for its educational

uses follows.

Impact of Immersive VR on Learning

Visiting Virtual environments (VE) help students learn content under some

circumstances (Byrne, 1996; Dede, 1992, 1995; Rose, 1995). There are three contributing

factors: immersion, interaction, and engaging (Winn, 1997).

Immersion: Immersion in a VE makes it possible for students to experience

what they are learning about in an entirely new way. VEs can simulate objects and

actions that occur in the real world. But in particular, VEs can represent in directly visible

forms, concepts and procedures that are intangible and invisible in the real world (Winn,

1997).

14
 According to Bricken (1991), for immersive VR, the interface has ceased to exist

altogether in an immersive VR environment. It has been recognized that the removal of

interface between computer and user is a necessary condition for immersion in VR. The

participant, in a sense, "wears the computer" and is "inside" the data. As a result, the

participants can interact with the virtual world, which might be the simulation of some

aspect of the real world, as naturally as they do with the real world

Bricken (1991) identified two other changes that take place as a result of

immersion that are very important for education. First, the subject-object distinction

between students and what they learn disappears. Immersion in a virtual world removes

the interface allowing us to cross the subject-object boundary that exists between the

machine and us. Second, immersion allows non-symbolic interaction with the world.

Immersive VR allows students to interact with the world using what Bricken (1991) calls

the "natural semantics" of the world. What Bricken meant by that is that the students can

interact with the objects and can actively experience phenomena in the virtual world in

ways that are more natural than those normally employed when interacting with

computers. For example, in Dede’s "Science Space", a student may experience what it is

like to be a ball that reacts to forces acting on, and to collisions with another ball, (Dede

at al., 1996). The student can learn Newtonian mechanics by becoming and by observing

a ball as it responds to student-induced changes in gravity, mass, velocity and elasticity.

Interaction: The second contributing factor to students learning in VEs is the

interaction that VEs foster. A study by Byrne (1996) suggested that interaction is a more

important facilitator of learning than immersion for some kinds of tasks. Educational

technologists have always understood that a student must interact with an environment

15
for learning to occur (Psotka, 1995). Psotka points out that naturalness of interactions

with objects in a VE makes interaction much easier and therefore more useful than in

other types of environment.

Engaging: The third factor that contributes to VR is that students find VEs

entirely engaging (Bricken & Byrne, 1993; Winn, 1997). Winn (1997) explained that part

of the reason for this is doubtless the novelty of VR and its association in children's

minds with computer and video games. Another reason is the uniqueness of the

experience and the empowerment it brings to young students who can control the

computer to do their bidding in complex and sophisticated ways. Winn (1997) also

believes that it also enables some students to understand concepts and principles that

have till now been opaque and baffling which is intrinsically motivating.

It has been argued that immersive VR allow students to learn concepts and to

solve problems non-symbolically. Learning in "traditional" classrooms often requires

students to master abstract and esoteric symbol systems before they can understand the

content (Winn, et. al., 1997). Indeed, the symbol system can be learned subsequently

once the concepts have been mastered (Winn, 1993).

Winn (1993) argued that traditional education requires learners to learn complex

symbols before concentrating on concepts that are imparted indirectly via educators.

Thus many learners may fail because they have problems with the symbolic nature of

education, rather than the concepts being communicated. Winn (1993) suggested that

non-symbolic interaction, where an individual experiences the world without deliberate

reflection and directly, is a possible powerful tool in VR for education, where learners

may grapple directly with the concepts.

16
 These claims are also supported by a study conducted by Winn and Bricken

(1992). The authors describe an interesting virtual world in which the relationships

between objects follow algebraic and arithmetic set of rules. In their proposal, the user

can directly manipulate the algebraic elements, and by physical placement the

environment can give them feedback on the correctness of the mathematical operations

which the user has available to solve the puzzle. Winn & Bricken (1992) argue that it is

perfectly possible for students to learn the conceptual basis of Algebra without learning

its conventional symbols provided that the learning experience is direct, personal and

implicit. If students learning Algebra in immersive VR are strained to symbolize their

experiences so that they can communicate it to a teacher or in a test, then, this

requirement may get in the way of the natural course of learning. The authors believe

that the proposed Algebra virtual world removes the impediments imposed by the

traditional text-based symbol system.

Having students construct their own VEs enables them to learn content (Osberg,

1997). Building a VE requires students to construct knowledge of the domain of

knowledge the VE embodies. The VE is a projection of students' understanding or mental

models, into an entire world of their own creation (Winn, et, al., 1997). Arriving at the

understanding necessary to build a VE offers all the advantages of allowing students to

construct knowledge for themselves, under guidance, rather than have it fed to them

(Dede, 1995; Winn, 1993). Constructing a VE engages those cognitive and perceptual

skills that are brought to bear when a student makes any physical construction (Harel &

Papert, 1991).

17
 The University of Washington's Human Interface Technology Lab (HITL) is one

of the research labs most involved in experimenting with students in real educational

settings using current VR technology. The HITL lab makes the following technology

available to it researchers. Therefore, the HITL studies reviewed in this paper use the

following hardware and software:

Platform: Silicon Graphics interface (SGI) & Division Workstation

Display: Head Mounted Device (HMD)
HMD is device where two miniature display screens, one for each eye, are
positioned in front of the users eyes and viewing through optical lenses that serve
to magnify images
Special I/O: Speech I/O (specialized sound) & Head devices
Software: Dvise (is the development package that comes with Division's VR
workstation.
Hardware: PC & Macintosh (used for student-developed world)
Impact of Immersion, Interaction & Presence

The Wetland project, an HITL project, (Byrne, 1996) serves as an example of a

study focusing on the impact of immersion and interactivity on effectiveness of VR-based

instruction. In this experimental study Byrne (1996) investigated to 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 and whether the

gains experienced by the students are retained after a period of time.

The main difference among the treatments was 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 (desktop version of VR treatment). The Video treatment and the Mac Run

treatment were both treatments of no interactivity and no immersion.

18
 For the VR treatment, 38 high school students, 25 females and 13 males, who

were in their second semester of junior level high school chemistry class participated.

They had been taught atomic and molecular structure in their first semester of class. They

were all novice users of VR. The Video treatment consisted of twenty high school

students, 10 females and 10 males, who were in their second semester of junior level high

school chemistry. The students for the Mac Interactive treatment were drawn from a

similar, but different population than for the VR and video treatments and consisted of 14

students, 7 females and 7 males. The Mac Run students were drawn from the same

population as the Mac Interactive group. There were 14 students, 5 females and 9 males.

The control group had 7 students, 5 females and 2 males drawn from the same population

as the VR and video treatments. The student population for the long-term retention study

was a subset of the students who participated in the VR, video, or control treatments. 18

students from the VR treatment, 17 students from the video treatment and 5 students from

the control group participated.

Byrne (1996) demonstrated empirically that her VE improved students'

conceptual understanding of how atoms are built; though not their recall of facts, relative

to other instructional strategies. However, she also found that the key to the success of

her VE was the interaction it permitted not the fact that students were immersed in the

VE. Students learning from Atom World performed no better than students learning in a

non-immersive interactive desktop version of the same program. The interactive desktop

program was more effective than a non-interactive, but still immersive version of the VE.

Immersion, therefore, may not always be necessary to improve student understanding.

This conclusion was due to the fact that students in the VR and Mac Interactive

19
treatments scored well on both of the tests. In most comparisons, their scores were

significantly better than the Mac-Run, Video, and Control groups. However, the VR and

Mac-Interactive students were not significantly different from each other, which leads to

the conclusion that interactivity is the important feature not the immersion. Issues of

training, world design, assessment, hardware resolution, and student population were

suggested as possible reasons for immersion's lack of significance.

Cell biology serves as another example of a test case to determine the impact of

immersion and interaction on effectiveness of VR-based instruction (Gay, 1994). This

study was conducted at the Computer Museum in Boston and hence the target audiences

for this project were the visitors to the museum. Participants' ages ranged 5 to 50, while

their education ranged from high school through graduate school. There were more

males than females in this study (percentage not reported). Only 26% had computer

related jobs, but 84% used computers in some way at work or at home. None of the

participants had much biology experience. The platform used for this study was 486/50

PC based system. The software used in this study was Sense8’s WorldToolKit (WTK).

The function of the VE was to teach how the different kinds of cells require different

organelles in order to perform their different functions. Gay (1994) wanted to test for

two characteristics: immersion and interaction. The same information was presented as

videotape and as a virtual world and the only difference in information was whether the

user was actively involved. This study presented the world in both immersive and the

monitor versions to see what differences could be found.

The initial application was designed much like a textbook in that the users first

learned about cell requirements and cell function before building a cell and testing its

20
structure. In the first part of the evaluation, the researchers realized that it took users a

while to get used to VR interface which distracted them from concentrating on the

content. Based on few findings, the cell biology was redesigned. The new design

allowed the users an opportunity to get familiar with the interface before any learning

began. In addition, it was improved to provide instant feedback their correct usage of the

system when building cells. The researcher compared the impact of immersive, desktop,

and videotape viewing of the refined application. Generally, the interactive (immersive

and desktop) users scored higher on post-testing of symbolic and graphic retention.

Desktop users performed slightly better than the immersive users, although researchers

suggest that the differing resolution between the HMD used and monitor might account

for this difference. However, immersive user did report more enjoyment, and these users

stated that they would be more likely to take a free biology class, as compared to users in

the other two groups. The users of the fully immersive system showed much less

"simulator sickness" than expected. Overall, this study concluded that people learn more

from an interactive learning experience than from a passive one. In addition, the results

show that immersion did not have significant impact on student' learning.

An evaluative study conducted by Wayne (1997) investigated the sense of

"presence". It measured the reactions of students in grades 4-12 to the experience of

being immersed in VR. The author sought to assess how learner’s ratings of presence in

the VE were related to their enjoyment of, navigation in and ability to perform tasks in

VEs. Subjects were 1001 elementary, 922 middle school and 949 high school students

from a range of social, economic, ethnic backgrounds and geographic areas in the states

of Nebraska and Washington. Students attended a presentation on VR, participated in a

21
brainstorming session, and they visited an immersive VE. In the presentation, the

students learned how 3-D computing was similar to conventional computing with the

exception of the addition of significantly more graphics processing power, a position

tracking system, the substitution of the HMD for a flat screen and the use of a wand

instead of a mouse. Students used a pointing device called a wand to “fly” from place to

place in the VE and could easily move large objects by inserting one’s virtual “hand” in

the object while depressing a button on the wand. After the visit they completed a

questionnaire featuring a five points rating scale. The questionnaire asked students to

rate their enjoyment of the experience, their sense of “presence”, whether they were

disoriented, and whether it was easy to move around and interact with objects.

The findings indicate that all students enjoyed their experience of VR. When

enjoyment were compared across type of school, the study revealed significant declines

from elementary to middle and from middle to high school students (all p’s < .05). Also,

data collected from Washington public school students indicated that boys enjoyed

immersion in VR more than girls did.

The findings also indicate that students experienced a high degree of presence in

VR. However, these convictions were significantly more marked in younger than older

students did. Students found it easy to identify objects in the VE and did not report any

disorientation. Based on the results of the study, Wayne (1997) suggested that VR is a

feasible tool to be used in classrooms. He also argued that any potentials for helping

student learn the content is likely to arise from the attribute of presence.

Immersive VR vs. Other Instructional Methods

22
 In an evaluative study, Bricken and Byrne (1992)(HITL scientists) evaluated the

potential of VR as a learning environment. The context of the study was the Technology

Academy, a technology-oriented summer camp for students ages 5-18. The academy

offered seven camp sessions. Student activities center on hands-on exploration of new

technology. A total of 59 students participated in the study. The average age of the

students was 13 years (72% male, homogeneous ethnic origin). None of the students had

any experience with or had even heard of VR. The camp allowed seven groups of

students, seven weeks to create their own virtual worlds. HITL provided students with

Macintosh modeling software package Swivel 3D and several Mac II computers for

students to construct their virtual world. Students were provided with a Swivel file

containing a “protoworld”, which consisted of two basic elements of a virtual world. The

first element was the participant’s virtual body, represented by a graphic head and hand.

The virtual head is the position responsive point-of-view, and the virtual hand is the

digital analogue of the participants physical hand, used for gesture commands such as

“fly” and “grab”. The second element was a ground play extended to the maximum size

that the rendering software could handle. On the last day of each session, the students

were taken on the 15 minutes ride to HITL at the Washington Technology Center, located

at the campus of University of Washington. At HITL, students were able to get inside

their worlds using VR interface technology. Bricken and Byrne (1992) used RB2

software on a Macintosh FX rendered by one Iris 320 VGX with a video splitter. First-

generation Eyephones were used for viewing and a right-handed datagloves was used for

gesture-command activity.

23
 In collecting information on both student response and system usability, the

authors used three different information-gathering techniques. They videotaped student

activities, elicited student opinions with surveys and collected informal observations from

teachers and researchers. The students' worlds were dynamic and interesting and the

collaboration was highly cooperative.

The themes of the worlds ranged from Cloudlands to a Moon Colony. For

instance, the students who created Cloudlands agreed to disagree on topics so each

created his/her own environment on a cloud. These environments ranged from an

elaborate house to a sea world. The moon colony project was a more collaborative

rendition of the moon in the future, complete with monorail, mountains, futuristic

buildings and spacecraft. The students experienced each other's worlds at the end of the

seven weeks. In using the worlds the students on the whole had no problems navigating,

though one student experienced severe disorientation leading to questions about

individual reactions to the virtual environment. Interacting with objects was considerably

more difficult, but Bricken and Byrne note that this may be due to the creator's lack of

experience. Behaviors such as bending down and reaching out were common, with

Bricken and Byrne noting an avenue for research into the implications of VR for

kinesthetic learners.

The findings of this study indicated that the students were fascinated by their

experience and entering virtual world. The students were motivated to achieve functional

competence in the skills to design and model objects, demonstrated a willingness to focus

significant effort toward finished product, and expressed strong satisfaction with their

accomplishments. The study also reports that students demonstrated rapid

24
comprehension of complex concepts and skills. They learned computer graphic concepts,

3-D modeling techniques, and world design approaches. Overall, Bricken and Byrne

found VR in this study to be a significantly compelling creative learning environment.

The most relevant work on the issue of how learning is mediated through the use

of VR to date is that of Dede, et. al.(1996b) on the ScienceSpace project at George

Mason University. Since February 1994, the project team has worked collaboratively to

build "ScienceSpace," a collection of virtual worlds designed to aid students in mastering

challenging concepts in science. ScienceSpace now consists of three worlds-

NewtonWorld, MaxwellWorld, and PaulingWorld-in various states of maturity.

NewtonWorld provides an environment for investigating the kinematics and

dynamics of one-dimensional motion. MaxwellWorld supports the exploration of

Electrostatics, leading up to the concept of Gauss' Law. PaulingWorld, the most recent

addition, enables the study of molecular structures via a variety of representations.

All three worlds have been built using a polygonal geometry. Colored, shaded

polygons and textures are used to produce detailed objects. These objects are linked

together and given behaviors through the use of NASA-developed software that defines

the virtual worlds and connects them to underlying physical simulations. Interactivity is

achieved through the linkage of external devices (e.g., a head-mounted display) using this

same software. Finally, graphics rendering, collision detection, and lighting models are

provided by other NASA-developed software. The key hardware items used are a high-

performance graphics workstation with two video output channels; a color, stereoscopic

head-mounted display (HMD); a high-quality sound system; a magnetic tracking system

for the head and both hands; and, in some cases, a haptic display. Interaction in these

25
worlds is principally carried out with a three-dimensional mouse. The software is called

Custom (Dede, et. al., 1996b). Haptic feedback has been employed in NewtonWorld and

MaxwellWorld, in evaluating the impact of multi-sensory feedback on learning

effectiveness. The haptic feedback was provided by two different haptic vests, both of

which operate by converting sound wave to vibrations.

Dede, et. al. (1996b) evaluated MaxwellWorld as a tool for (1) remediating

misconceptions about electric fields and (2) teaching abstract concepts with which

students are unfamiliar. During the sessions, they administered one to three lessons

centering on the construction and exploration of electric fields (electric force,

superposition, test charges, and field lines), learning experiences about electric potential

(potential and kinetic energy, potential difference, work, and potential vs. force), and the

concept of flux through surfaces (open and closed).

The authors claim that although these evaluations are still underway, they report

preliminary findings based on 14 high school students (and four college students) who

have participated in the evaluations thus far. Each session lasted for approximately two

hours. Students were scheduled on consecutive days for the first two sessions, while the

third session was conducted approximately two weeks later; thus providing a measure of

the retention over time.

The results of the study indicate that all of the students who were post-tested

enjoyed learning about electric fields in MaxwellWorld. When asked about their general

reactions to MaxwellWorld, a majority of the students commented that they felt it was a

more effective way to learn about electric fields than either textbooks or lectures.

Students cited the 3-D representations, the interactivity, the ability to navigate to multiple

26
perspectives, and the use of color as characteristics of MaxwellWorld that were important

to their learning experience. Pre- and post-lesson evaluations showed that students

developed a more in-depth understanding of the distribution of forces in an electric field,

as well as representations such as test charge traces and field lines.

The authors also report significant individual differences in the students' abilities

to work in the 3-D environment and with 3-D controls, as well as their susceptibility to

symptoms of simulator sickness (eyestrain, headaches, dizziness, and nausea). While

some students learned to use the menus, manipulate objects, and navigate very rapidly,

others required guidance throughout the sessions. Most students experienced nothing

more than slight eyestrain; however, two students experienced moderate dizziness and

slight nausea during the first session, and, consequently, did not return for the second

session. No student complained of any symptoms during the first 30-45 minutes of the

lesson, reinforcing our strategy of using multiple, short learning experiences.

Dede, et. al. (1996b), conducted formative learnability evaluations on

NewtonWorld, focusing on both the importance of the multisensory experience and

reference frame usage in learning. Thirty high school students with at least one year of

high school physics participated in this study. Each trial required 2 1/2 to 3 hours;

learning tasks in the HMD required 1 to 1-1/4 hours. During the sessions, students

thought aloud as they performed learning tasks that focused on relationships among

force, mass, velocity, momentum, acceleration, and energy during and between

collisions. For each task, students began by predicting what the relationships or behaviors

would be, then experienced them, and finally assessed their predictions based on what

they observed. To assess the utility of the multisensory experience, the authors formed

27
three groups of subjects differentiated by controlling the visual, tactile, and auditory cues

that students received while performing learning tasks: (1) visual cues only; (2) visual

and auditory cues; or (3) visual, auditory, and haptic cues.

The authors’ observations during the sessions, students' predictions and

comments, usability questionnaires, interview feedback, and pre- and post-test knowledge

assessments were used to determine whether NewtonWorld aided students in better

understanding relationships among force, motion, velocity, and energy. Most students

found the activities interesting and enjoyed their learning experience. Additionally, many

users stated that they felt NewtonWorld provided a good way to explore physics

concepts. When asked to list the features they liked most, almost all students cited the

ability to beam to various cameras and to navigate in the movable camera.

Students did appear to be more engaged in activities when more multisensory

cues were provided. In fact, students receiving sound or sound plus haptic cues rated

NewtonWorld as easier to use and the egocentric reference frame as more meaningful

than those receiving visual cues only. For example, students who received haptic cues in

addition to sound and visual cues performed slightly better than students in other groups

on questions relating to velocity and acceleration. Additionally, lesson administrators

observed that students receiving haptic and sound cues were more attentive to these

factors than students without these cues.

Overall, the students found the environment easy to use. The authors argue that

the analysis of the learnability data suggests that younger users might gain more from

virtual experiences in sensory immersive Newtonian environments than do high school

students. The findings MaxwellWorld and NewtonWorld studies reported here (Dede, et.

28
al. 1996b) demonstrate that students find virtual worlds attractive learning environments.

In some topical areas, especially abstract concepts in electrostatics, students did learn

from their experiences.

In another study, Salzman, et. al. (1999) designed an evaluation to compare the

learning, learning experience, and interaction experience in MaxwellWorld (MW) to

those of a highly regarded and widely used 2D learning environment, EM Field (EMF),

while tightly controlling the learning activities and instructional content of the lessons.

Lessons were designed to provide the same content and learning activities using each of

the application, focusing on concepts pertaining to the distribution of force and energy in

electric fields.

Stage one of the study compared MW and EMF on the extent to which

representational aspects of these environments influenced learning, learning experience,

and interaction outcomes. In the stage two of the study, MW’s full range of capabilities

(such as multisensory input) were utilized to ascertain the value these affordances added

to the learning experience. Fourteen high school students completed the lessons in both

MW and EMF. Seven of students came back after 5 months for completing the stage two

of the study. The authors examined pre- and post lesson understanding of each of the

groups. They also assessed retention for those students that returned to stage two. They

gathered information about individual differences such as domain experience, computer

and gaming experience, and motion sickness history. The also examined whether

learning experience (motivation and meaningfulness of the representation) and

interaction experience (sickness and usability) differed between the groups and whether

they predicted learning outcomes. At the end of the first stage, both groups demonstrated

29
significantly improved conceptual understanding, with MaxwellWorld students better

able to define concepts than students who used EMF. Also, MaxwellWorld students

performed better in demonstrating concepts in 3D, were able to predict how change to a

source would affect the electric field, and could recognize symmetries in the field.

Student ratings indicated that they felt significantly more motivated by MW than EMF (F

(1,12) = 7.66). On the scale from –3 to +3, mean ratings (and standard deviation) were

2.03 (.29) and 1.11 (.82) respectfully. Neither motivation nor meaningfulness of the

representation significantly predicted learning outcomes. The findings also report that the

more time the participants spent using computers, the higher usability was rated.

In the second stage of evaluation, a subset of students was given an additional

lesson in MaxwellWorld, this time supported by auditory and haptic cues. The results

showed that students gained a significantly better understanding of concepts, and

improved their ability in demonstrating these concepts in 2D and 3D representation (all

F-tests were significant at p < .05). Students learned more from the visual and

multisensory representations used in the lesson. Mean motivation was reported the same

as stage one. Overall, these results suggest that an immersive 3D multisensory world can

aid student in developing appropriate mental models better than 2D representations. In

stage two, the enhancement of visual representations with multisensory cues appeared to

facilitate learning, especially for students who had trouble grasping the concepts.

Salzman, et. al.(1999) report the following findings based on all their studies

discussed above:

• Evaluation outcomes indicate that VR’s features affect not only learning, but
the quality of the interaction and learning experiences

30
 • Outcomes show that 3-D immersive representations can be motivating and can
support learning
• VR’s features sometimes support the learning of one concept, but hinder the
learning of another
• Learning experience is affected by VR’s features
• The success or failure of VR learning environments in practice depends on the
web of relations among VR’s features, the concepts to be learned, learner
characteristics, the learning experience, the interaction experience and more
informed design.

Identifying VR as a full-immersion technology with head mounted display, data

glove, 3-D earphones and tracking equipment, Chiou (1995) felt there is potential for VR

as a learning medium. The author believes that constructivism rationale can be applied to

VR and that computer-based tools need to be under the learner's control. He argues that

we can expect the growth of VR to parallel that of multimedia in impacting education.

Finally, he calls for specific design models for VR-based learning.

Merickel (1992) conducted an experiment, Creative Technology Project, with 23

children between the age of 8 and 11 who were enrolled in an elementary summer school

program in Navota, California. Two different computer apparatuses were used: computer

workstation and VR system developed by Autodesk Inc. The abilities under investigation

were mental imagery, spatial relation, displacement and transformation, creativity and

spatially problem solving. The hypothesis was that children’s cognitive abilities could be

enhances by having them develop, displace, transform, and interact with 2D and 3D

computer generated models. Although children had some difficulties in using the

peripheral devices, they had become quite proficient in the system by the end of the

study. The results of the project showed that displacement, transformation, visualizing,

31
and mentally manipulating 2D objects were significantly related to spatially related

problem solving abilities of children (R=68, F= 8.05, ndf = 1.20, p = .00). Although

creative thinking was found not to be significantly related to spatially problem-solving

abilities, the relationship between the two is uncertain. The author concluded that VR is

highly promising and deserves extensive development as an instructional tool.

Andolsek (1995) suggests that since virtual worlds are totally engaging, they

immerse the student entirely, both cognitively and affectively. Passivity becomes

impossible. Virtual environments may have great potential in terms of increasing the

learner motivation. If learning is made more interesting and fun, students may remain

engaged in an activity for longer period of time. Bricken & Byrne (1992) claim that since

VR places learners in a 3D visual and auditory environment, the sensation the learner

receives are pervasive and convincing and indeed engaging and motivating. However,

the challenge would be, how to increase the learner motivation to stay engaged in a

virtual environment. This is where the design and usability issues become very important

factors in a virtual environment. If VR can provide such potential to actively engage

students in VE and motivate the learner to stay engaged, then it would provide solutions

to so many unanswered questions in education in terms of learner motivation and

learning.

Learner Characteristics & VR Learning

Due to the fact that VR is a new technology, its use as an educational tool is quite

new with very little empirical research related to learner characteristics. Various studies

have addressed the fact that it is important to investigate whether factors of gender, race,

or student experience impact their interaction with and enjoyment of VR. Dede (1996a)

32
identified several learner characteristics as important factors: gender, domain experience,

spatial ability, computer experience, motion sickness history, and immersive tendencies.

Gender, domain experience, and spatial ability are important factors because they

might influence a person’s aptitude for mastering abstract science concepts (Dillon, 1985;

Dillon & Schmeck, 1983). Spatial ability may be particularly important in influencing

how effectively students use the information provided by VR’s features (Egan & Gomez,

1985; Norman, 1995). Many researchers have implicated that spatial ability as one of the

strongest predictors of performance in math and science (Halpern, 1992). Spatial ability,

along with computer experience and motion sickness history, might also affect the

interaction experience (Dede et. al. 1999). In their work, Dede & colleagues (1999),

found that computer experience can be predictive of how students rate the usability of the

learning environment. Other researchers have found that there is a strong correlation

between spatial ability and computer-based performance (Egan, 1988; Gomez, Egan, &

Bowers, 1986). Immersive tendencies may be useful for explaining how immersed a

student will become in the VR learning environment (Singer & Baily, 1994).

In one exploratory study Winn & few other HITL’s researchers (1997)

investigated to see whether the unique experiences of building and visiting VEs would be

more useful to some students than others. They examined the extent to which students'

general ability, and secondary school students' spatial reasoning ability and spatial

orientation ability predicted performance after learning by building and visiting VEs and

after learning the same content in more traditional ways.

The subjects for this study were 365 students from grades 4 to 12 took part in the

world-building project. Students took post-tests over the content they had been studying.

33
Since each group of students built a different VE, there was a different post-test for each

group. Students also completed a questionnaire. This consisted of 24 five-point scale

questions in a number of areas. The questionnaire included questions concerning

enjoyment, the sense of` "presence" in the VE (the extent to which students felt they were

really in the VE and not in the classroom), and potential impediments to learning such as

difficulty seeing and moving around in the VE and tendency to nausea. Students who did

not build worlds and who were in a "traditional" class answered an eight-item subset of

these questions that were concerned with the VR experience not with building a world.

The results of posttest scores involving "World-building" and "Traditional"

groups crossing with high and low ability show no main effect for group. However, the

interaction of group with high ability was significant, F (1,44)=2.91, p<.10. Low-ability

students who did world-building (M=68.62%, SD=20.75) significantly outperformed

those studying in the traditional way (M=42.55%, SD=26.28), F(1,44)=8.67, p<.01. For

high-ability students, there was no difference in performance (MVR=60.16%, SD=18.75,

MTraditional=60.89%, SD=19.36).

Students were also blocked on their spatial ability and spatial visualization scores.

No significant main effects or interactions were found for either measure with content

posttest performance as the dependent variable.

The authors also reported that that high general ability students reported making

paper drawings and 3D models of objects before modeling them on the computer more

than low ability students, t(41) =1.82, p<.10. In addition, high spatial reasoning students

enjoyed visiting their world and experienced higher levels of presence than low spatial

students, t(22)=2.47, p<.05. Results also showed that high spatial reasoning students were

34
also likely to feel less nausea and less dizziness than low spatial students, t(22)=1.74,

p<.10. Furthermore, students with higher spatial visualization scores collaborated more

with other students with low spatial visualization scores, t(22)=1.72, p<.10.

The authors also conducted a two-way ANOVA involving two levels of gender

and two levels of spatial reasoning ability was performed on presence scores. For gender,

they reported F (1,53) = 6.53, p<.05. For spatial ability, they reported F (1,53) = 5.58,

p < .05. For the interaction of gender with spatial ability, they reported F (1,53) = 5.51,

p < .05. Spatial reasoning ability did not affect presence ratings for boys, (MLow Spatial

= 7.47, sd = 1.26, MHigh Spatial = 7.47, sd = 1.93). However, low spatial girls reported

lower presence than high spatial girls, (MLow Spatial = 5.14, sd = 1.96, MHigh Spatial =

7.38, sd = 1.41, t(20) = 2.82, p < .01).

Winn, et. al. (1997) report that in general the world-building activity improved the

posttest performance of low ability students who built worlds when compared to those

learning in a traditional manner. This implies that the collection of innovative learning

activities afforded by world building helped students understand the material who do not

have high general ability as measured using a traditional test. The lack of difference

between high ability students in both groups simply reconfirms that brighter students can

learn from a variety of approaches and therefore, for them, the innovative nature of the

world-building strategy had no effect.

Girls with low spatial reasoning ability reported experiencing less presence than

girls with high spatial reasoning ability. This difference was not found for boys, who

reported higher levels of presence than girls. It is possible that boys have different ways

from girls of becoming engaged in a VE. Maybe they have more exposure to computer

35
games and have developed better skills for manipulating the interface than girls. Maybe

they are more easily fooled into believing a VE is real than girls.

The Virtual Reality Roving Vehicles (VRRV) (Rose, 1995) is another project by

HITL scientists which takes VR technology into public elementary, junior high and high

schools and puts it in the hands of students and teachers. The goal of the project is to

evaluate VR as a tool for students to develop broad-based abilities including, but not

limited to: problem solving, building mental models, and developing effective meta-

cognitive strategies and visualization. The VRRV is applying a `constructivist' approach

to instruction that puts each student in charge of his/her own process of learning.

In November 1994, the VRRV undertook a month-long world building project

with 120 junior high school students at Kellogg Middle School in Shoreline, Washington.

According to Rose (1996), the purpose of this VRRV project was to look at the issue of

gender. The Kellogg Project integrated the building of virtual worlds into a specially

designed curriculum about Wetlands ecology. Four classes of thirty students participated;

each one was randomly assigned to focus on one of the wetlands life cycles: water,

carbon, energy and nitrogen. Students learned the fundamentals of their respective cycle

according to a constructivist curriculum designed by Kellogg teachers. Each class was

then divided into three working groups who each planned and designed a virtual world to

express their understanding of the wetlands cycle they studied (Rose, 1995). The

contributions of the three working groups in each class were brought together and a

single virtual world was constructed for each of the four life cycles. The virtual wetland

worlds were populated with plants, animals, objects and landscapes which students

created on desktop computers using 3D modeling software. As the final step of the

36
learning process, students put on a VR head mounted display and experienced two of the

wetlands worlds, their own plus one other.

At the elementary level, self-reports on the amount of learning that took place

indicated that boys benefited more than girls from world building activities. At the

secondary level, boy reported more enjoyment from the use of VR than did girls. With

respect to general abilities, the VRRV data indicated that students performed equally

well. However, students with high spatial ability reported more enjoyment, and feeling

of presence than did those with low spatial ability.

37
 Conclusion

This paper has reviewed the uses of VR in education and its implication for

learning. It is important to keep in mind that VR technology and its application to

education is still evolving. The studies described in this paper include the results of one-

time uses of virtual world by particular group of students, with only a few results reported

on the long-term use of the VR technology. As a result, the conclusions are not

generalizable to a larger population of students and reflect only the findings of current

studies. Hopefully they will serve to guide further research on the use of VR in

education. The summary of findings are addressed according to the questions initially

raised in this paper. The remainder of this section returns to the questions raised in this

paper to provide a summery of the findings.

• Do learning in virtual learning environment offer advantages over more

traditional methodologies?
• What implications for learning do immersive virtual world offer?
• Which learning rationale is the most suitable for VR environments?
• How does student effectiveness of virtual world compares with other
instructional practices?
• What is the impact of learner characteristics (e.g. age, gender, race, or
previous experience) on learning in VR? What types of learners benefit from
VR?

Summary

(1) Do learning in virtual learning environment offer advantages over more traditional

methodologies?

Unique capabilities of VR technology include allowing students to see the effects

of changing physical law, observe events at an atomic scale, visualize abstract

concepts, and visit environments and interact with events that distance, time, or safety

factor normally preclude. Studies show that these unique capabilities of VR

38
 technology allow virtual worlds to support a wide range of types of experiential,

conceptual, and discovery learning that is not otherwise available.

The literature review reveals the rudimental state of VR systems and to a certain

extent the subsequent difficulties in applying this technology to education. However,

existing data support that VR offers significant, positive support for education. They

indicate sufficient potential value to justify continuing research and development

activities particularly in learning theories and constructivism, and increasing practical

evaluations of technology uses. Such work needs to occur hand-in-hand with

research into learning theories, constructivism, in particular.

(2) What implications for learning do immersive virtual world offer?

Studies showed mixed findings for the impact of immersion on student learning.

Byrne (1996) as well as Gay (1994) concluded that interactivity is an important

feature but not immersion. Issues of training, world design, assessment, hardware

resolution, and student population were suggested as possible reasons for immersion's

lack of significance. In the case of both studies, the failure of positive findings in

terms of immersion might be due to one of the following factors:

- The lack of student familiarity with the VR interface

- An insufficient number of experimental trail

- Differences in the number of trail for each treatment, and/or

- Unreliability of one of the measures used.

Other research findings indicate that the value of VR for education lies within its

ability to provide immersion of the user in either realistic or novel and abstract

environments. The immersion allows the user to experience, interact with and

39
discover digital knowledge first hand while the manipulation of the verity of the

virtual world allows the user to make visual or kinesthetic relationships to help

understanding of the real world or concepts related to it.

Although, Byrne’s and Gay's findings show uncertain learning benefits for

immersion, it is important to note that the participants in the immersive conditions in

all of the studies (including Byrne’s) presented in this paper expressed more

enjoyment and motivation to learn than those exposed to the non-immersive

conditions.

Preliminary research at the Human Interface Technology Laboratory at the

University of Washington (Bricken (1991); Bricken and Byrne, 1993; Winn (1999);

Winn (1993); Winn (1995); Rose (1995); Byrne (1996) and elsewhere (Dede, C.,

Loftin, R.B., Salzman, M.C., Calhoun, C., Hoblit, J. & Regian, W.(1994); Dede, C.,

Salzman, M.C. & Loftin, R.B., Chen, J.(1999)) gives us an intuitive sense that VR

could be highly useful to promote skills and knowledge which students can apply

across many domains. The interactive and immersive qualities of VR suggest the

potential for an entirely new form of experiential learning.

In one study, the researchers (Salzman, M.C., Dede, C., & Loftin, R.B., Chen, J.,

1999) concluded that:

- VR’s features affect not only learning, but the quality of the interaction and
learning experiences,
- Three-dimensional immersive representations can be motivating and can support
learning,
- VR’s features sometimes support the learning of one concept, but hinder the
learning of another
- VR's features affect Learning experience

40
 Overall, all of the studies demonstrated that the technology known as VR is

highly promising and deserves extensive development as an instructional tool.

(3) Which learning rational is the most suitable for VR environments?

Almost all of the studies suggested that constructivism provides the best theory on

which to develop educational applications of VR. Research findings indicate that a

way to create learning experience and transference is to allow users to construct and

experience their own abstract worlds.

Studies also suggested that having students construct their own VEs enable them

to learn content. Building a VE requires students to construct knowledge of the

domain of knowledge the VE embodies. Arriving at the understanding necessary to

build a VE is believed to offer all the advantages of allowing students to construct

knowledge for themselves, under guidance, rather than have it fed to them (Dede,

1995; Winn, 1993; Osberg, 1997; Chiou, 1995).

The studies reported here provide initial findings that are suggestive of suitability

of constructivism in VR instruction and the majority of uses of the technology have

included aspects of constructivist learning. However, it is impossible to know

whether positive results are due to the use of this learning method, the use of VR, or a

combination of the two.

(4) How does student effectiveness of virtual world compares with other instructional

practices?

The studies that have addressed this question were constructed in very different

areas of curricula, with students in different age groups. However, the literature

shows that VR is a powerful tool for education and that it offers tools for increased

41
student participation. Studies indicated that classroom activities may use VR tools

for hands-on learning, group projects and discussions, field trips, and concept

visualization. Traditional teaching involves text, oral and screen-based presentations

which may not use a human's full capacity to learn.

The findings suggest that immersive VR can furnish experiences that are designed

to help students learn material. For instance, in an Algebra virtual environment,

(Winn & Bricken, 1992) in which instead of learning the symbols in Algebra,

students could explore the objects, learn the concepts and construct their own

knowledge. This study suggests that VRs promote the best and probably only

strategy that allows student to learn from non-symbolic experience. Great many

students fail in school because they do not master the symbol systems of the

disciplines they study, although they are perfectly capable of mastering the concepts

that lie at the heart of the discipline. VR provides a route to success for children who

might otherwise fail in our education system as it is currently constructed (Win 1993;

Winn & Bricken, 1992).

In most of the studies, students reported a positive attitude and enjoyed learning

through immersive virtual environments. Winn et. al., (1997) found that in general

the world-building activity improved the posttest performance of low ability students

who built worlds when compared to those learning in a traditional manner. In the

MaxwellWorld project (Dede, et. al., 1996b), the students felt that it was more

effective way to learn through VR than either textbooks or lectures.

In general, studies show that benefits of VR include the ability to incorporate

practices such a providing multiple representations and placing some instruction

42
 under learner's control. Also, students constructed their own knowledge in VR.

Provided in this paper are initial findings that suggest that these capabilities have

value.

(5) What is impact of learner characteristics (e.g. age, gender, race, or previous

experience) on learning in VR? What types of learners benefit from VR?

According to Salzman, Dede, et. al. (1999) the success or failure of VR learning

environments in practice depends on the web of relations among VR’s features, the

concepts to be learned, learner characteristics, the learning experience, the interaction

experience and more informed design. However, very few empirical studies look into

the issue of learner characteristics in VR. Only few studies investigated the issue and

gender and reported that boys enjoyed the use of VR more than did girls (Dede, et al.

(1996a,b); Win et al. 1997; Rose (1995), Byrne (1996); Wayne (1997); Bricken &

Byrne (1992)). These studies showed that students performed well in using VR and

enjoyed their experience. Winn (1995) reported few significant differences in terms

of race or gender.

Girls with low spatial reasoning ability reported experiencing less presence than

girls with high spatial reasoning ability. This difference was not found for boys, who

reported higher levels of presence than girls (Winn et. al., 1997).

The Wetland study (Bricken & Byrne, 1992) reported that as students get older,

they enjoy their experience, but slightly less than younger students. Elementary

students enjoyed themselves the most, followed by middle school students. High

school students seemed slightly more jaded about the technology, or at least inclined

43
 to be more cool in their response to their experience. In addition, boys reported

experiencing a greater sense of immersion than did girls.

VRRV (Rose, 1995) indicated a worrisome influence of gender, in at the

elementary level, self-reports on the amount of learning that took place indicated that

boys benefited more than girls from world building activities. At the secondary level,

boy reported more enjoyment from the use of VR than did girls. With respect to

general abilities, students performed equally well. However, students with high

spatial ability reported more enjoyment, and feeling of presence than did those with

low spatial ability.

It is possible that boys have different ways of becoming engaged in a VE. Maybe

they have more exposure to computer games and have developed better skills for

manipulating the interface than girls.

Concluding Remarks

It is important that researchers begin to identify and solve the issues concerning

VR now so that it can be used to its best advantage by all students in the future. As the

technology matures, VR will have the potential to become an extremely powerful

medium. However, as with every technology, it must be remembered that VR is a tool to

be used as a medium with other methods of instruction.

Most of the studies presented in this paper are on going. Therefore, the results

may change as the studies advance. These studies tend to be evaluative and although

have shown very encouraging results, do not provide quantified data to show, for

instance, how well VR works in comparison to other techniques.

44
 Numerous factors unrelated to the VR technology itself will undoubtedly have a

crucial impact on students' learning achievement. These factors include differences in

individual classroom environments, student characteristics such as personal history or

attitudes towards computers, teachers' attitudes and background in technology, and an

assortment of social, economic and political variables related to schools, education and

technology. A comprehensive assessment of VR technology must take account of how

these external factors contribute to the overall context in which VR is applied.

The future research must take closer look at the possible influence of gender and

other student characteristics on the effectiveness of different types of educational uses of

VR technology. As shown in this paper, there are very few studies that investigate

learner characteristics. This is, however, justifiable due to the fact that the application of

VR in education is a very new phenomenon. Researchers need to, for instance,

investigate whether different groups of students require different types of introduction to

VR technology or prior training in skills such as spatial skills. Investigation of these

issues is needed to ensure effective use of VR technology.

There are many unanswered questions related to the impact of VR on learning

that need to be addressed. Presence is clearly a key to learning in a VE and is related to

spatial reasoning ability (Wayne, 1997). Gender is a factor here and its precise role must

be determined.

Another important question that needs to be investigated is whether the effective

uses of technology change the teacher's role in the classroom. The fact that it is difficult

for teachers to monitor student's moment-by-moment activities can present challenges for

lesson administration. Also, current applications do not provide teachers with assistance

45
for assessing a student's learning or recognizing particular problems a student may have

with the material. The integration of intelligent tutors into educational VR applications

seems a logical next step that should help to resolve some of these problems. Given the

sophistication of some of the current VR application, it is surprising that no evidence of

such integration was found.

Research should investigate student and teacher reactions to the use of VR

technology. Few of the studies reported student enjoyment and motivation. But does this

enjoyment and increased motivation last? There is no data to answer this question,

although the ScienceSpace researchers felt that learner motivation will remain high, even

when the novelty factor of VR technology has worn off.

The issue of multi-sensory immersion also needs to be further investigated. In the

long run, research on immersion may produce a deeper understanding of the nature of

human learning. In the same context, an investigation of the interplay among VR and

other factors such as the concepts to be learned, learner characteristics, the learning

experience, and the interaction experience is needed. By understanding how these factors

work together to shape learning, we may be able to target learning and visualization

problems and to maximize the benefits of immersive VR. For example, in

MaxwellWorld project, if the researchers had not concerned with these factors, they

might have missed several potential findings and would have been less able to identify

the benefits of 3-D immersion for learning.

As the technology for building and learning in VE advances both the quality of

the VE and the ease of working in it, more carefully controlled studies will be possible.

46
Then researchers will be in a position to conduct studies of precisely which features of

VEs facilitate the learning of what kinds of content for which students.

By making VR tools and environments available to educators, we may discover

more about the very process of learning. By participating in the development of VR,

educators can guide the growth of this technology, and perhaps influence the course of

educational change.

47
 References

Andolsek, D. L., (1995). Virtual Reality in Education and Training, International

Journal of media, 22(2), 145-155

Bricken, M., (1991). Virtual Reality Learning Environments: Potentials and Challenges,
Human Interface Technology Laboratory, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
http://www.hitl.washington.edu/publications/

Bricken, M. & Byrne, C. (1992). Summer students in virtual reality: A pilot study on
educational applications of VR technology, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of
American Educational Research Association, San Fransisco.
ERIC Document, ED358853

Byrne, C. M., (1996). Water on Tap: The Use of Virtual reality as an Educational Tool,
Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
http://www.hitl.washington.edu/publications/dissertations/Byrne/home.html

Chiou, G. F., (1995). Learning Rationales and Virtual Reality Technology in Education,
Journal of educational technology Systems, 23(4), pp.327-336

Cornell, R., Bailey, D., & Bollet, R., (1994). Virtual Reality: Therapeutic Tool or Time
Bomb? Educational Media International, 31(4), pp.247-49

Dietzel, R., Bird, M., & Kohler, A., (1994). Adding Virtual Technology to the
Curriculum - A Fictional Example, Educational Media International, 31(4), pp.238-41

Dede, Christopher J., (1992). The Future of Multimedia: Bridging to Virtual Worlds,
Educational Technology, 32(5), pp.54-60.

Dede, C. (1995). The evolution of constructivist learning environments: Immersion in

distributed, virtual worlds. Educational Technology, 35(5), 46-52.

Dede, C., Loftin, R.B., Salzman, M.C., Calhoun, C., Hoblit, J. & Regian, W. (1994). The
Design of Artificial Realities to Improve Learning Newtonian Mechanics. In Brusilovsky,
P. (ed.), Proceedings of the East-West International Conference on Multimedia,
Hypermedia, and Virtual Reality, Moscow, Russia, pp.34-41

Dede, C., Salzman, M.C. & Loftin, R.B. (1996a). MaxwellWorld: Learning Complex
Scientific via Immersion in Virtual Reality. In Proc. 2nd International Conference on
learning sciences, Charlottesville, VA, pp. 22-29.

Dede, C., Salzman, M.C. & Loftin, R.B. (1996b). ScienceSpace: Virtual Realities for
Learning Complex and Abstract Scientific Concepts. In Proceedings of IEEE Virtual
Reality Annual International Symposium, pp. 246-253.
http://www.vetl.uh.edu/ScienceSpace/absvir.html

48
Dillon, R. (ED.), (1995). Individual Differences in Cognition. New York: Academic
Press.

Dillon, R., & Schmeck, R. (Eds.), (1983). Individual Differences in Cognition. New
York: Academic Press

Egan, D. E. (1988). Individual Differences in Human-Computer Interaction. In

Helander, M. (Ed.), Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction, New York: Elsevier
Science Publishing Company

Egan, D. E., & Gomez, L. M. (1985). Assaying, isolating, and accommodating

individual differences in learning a complex skill. In R. F. Dillon (Ed.), Individual
Differences in Cognition, vol. 2, pp. 173-217. New York: Academic Press.

Gay, E. (1994). Is virtual Reality a Good Teaching Tool? Virtual Reality Special Report,
Winter, pp. 51-59
http://www.net.org/html/resources/research/vr-research/vrtt.html

Grove, J. (1996). VR and History: Some Findings and Thoughts, VR in the Schools, 2(1),
pp. 3-9.

Gomez, L. M., Egan, D. E. & Bowers, C. (1986). Learning to use a text editor: some
learner characteristics that predict success. Human-Computer Interaction, 2, pp. 1-23

Halpern, D. (1992). Sex Differences in Cognitive Abilities. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates

Harel, I., & Papert, S. (1991) (Eds.). Constructionism. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Harmon, S. W. & Kenney, P. J. (1994). Virtual reality training environments: Contexts

and concerns, Educational Media International, 31(4), pp. 228-237.

Helsel, S. (1992). Virtual Reality and Education, Educational Technology, 32(5), pp.38-
42.
Hedburg, J., Alexander, S. (1994). Virtual Reality in Education: Defining Researchable
Issues, Educational Media international, 31(4), pp. 214-20.

Jonassen, David H. (1994). Thinking Technology: Toward a Constructivist Design

Model, Educational Technology, 34(4), pp. 34-37.

Krueger, A. (1991). Those Who Can Do Can Teach, Science & Children, 28(5), pp. 32-
33

49
Loeffler, C. E. (1993). Distributed virtual reality: Applications for education,
entertainment and industry.
http://www.nta.no/telektronikk/tema/nr4_93.html

Loeffler, C. E. & Anderson, T. (Eds.) (1994). The Virtual Reality Casebook, New York:
Van Nostrand Reinhold

Merickel, M. L. (1992). A Study of the Relationship between Virtual Reality (Perceived

Realism) and the Ability of Children To Create, Manipulate and Utilize Mental Images
for Spatially Related Problem Solving
ERIC Document, ED352942

Norman, K. (1995). Interface Apparency and Muipulatability: Cognitive Gateways

through the Spatial Visualization Barrier in Computer-Based Technologies
http:/www.lap.umd.edu/LAPFolder/NSFIA/proposal.html

Osberg, K. M. (1997). Constructivism in practice: the case for meaning-making in the

virtual world.
http://www.hitl.washington.edu/publications/r-97-47/index.html

Osberg, K. M. (1993). Virtual reality and education: A look at both sides of the sword.
http://www.hitl.washington.edu/publications/r-93-7/

Osberg, K. M. (1994). Rethinking educational technology: A postmodern view.

http://www.hitl.washington.edu/publications/r-94-4/index.html

Papert, S. (1993). The Children's machine: Rethinking School in the Age of the
Computer, New York: Basic Books.

Psotka, J. (1994). Immersive Tutoring Systems: Virtual Reality and Education and
Training.
http://alex.immersion.army.mil/

Rose, Howard. (1995). Assessing Learning in VR: Towards Developing a Paradigm

Virtual Reality Roving Vehicles (VRRV) Project.
http://www.hitl.washington.edu/publications/tech-reports/tr-95-/-rose/.

Salzman, M. C., Dede, C., Loftin, R. B., Chen, J. (1999). A Model for Understanding
How Virtual Reality Aids Complex Conceptual Learning. Accepted for publication in
Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments
http://www.virtual.gmu.edu/pdf/presence.pdf

Thurman, R. A. & Mattoon, J. S. (1994). Virtual reality: toward fundamental

improvements in simulation-based training. Educational Technology, 34(5), pp.56-64.

50
Traub, D. (1994). The promise of virtual reality for learning. In Loeffler, C. E. &
Anderson, T. (eds), The Virtual Reality Casebook. Van Nostrand Reinhold. New York.

Turoff, M. (1995). Designing a virtual classroom. 1995 International Conference on

Computer Assisted Instruction.
http://it.njit.edu/department/cccc/vc/papers/

Spring, M. (1991). Informing with Virtual Reality. In Helsel M. & Ruth J. P., Virtual
Reality: The Practice, and Promise, Westport, CT: Meckler

Winn, W. (1993). A conceptual basis for educational applications of virtual reality. HITL
Laboratory.
http://www.hitl.washington.edu/publications/r-93-9/

Winn, W. and Bricken, W. (1992). Designing Virtual Worlds for use in Mathematics
Education: The example of experimental algebra. Educational Technology, 32(12),
pp.12-19.

Winn, W. (1995). The Virtual Reality Roving Vehicle Project. T.H.E Journal, 23(5), pp.
70-75.

Winn, W., Hoffman, H., Hollander, A., Osberg, K., Rose, H., Char, P. (1997). The Effect
of Student Construction of Virtual Environments on the Performance of High- and Low-
Ability Students, Human Interface Technology Laboratory
http://www.hitl.washington.edu/publications/r-97-6/

Wayne, T. (1997). Student Responses to their Immersion in a virtual Environment, Paper

presented at the Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
Chicago, IL, 24-28, 1997, ERIC Document ED407931

51