second life ruminations #2

This is a reflection on the assigned reading:

Handbook_Research_Edu_Comm_Tech_Chp17_VirtualReality
McLellan

“Virtual reality (VR) can be defined
as a class of computer-controlled multisensor y communication
technologies that allow more intuitive interactions with data
and involve human senses in new ways”

This article starts with an overview of definitions of virtual reality and some really thinking about what immersive virtual environments are about. It then walks through the history of virtual worlds from the 1980s. .

one of the drawbacks of this article, is that it was published before the emergence of real Second Life and MUVE developments in the early 2000s, therefore although it serves as a historical reference and an interesting discussion of the different ways that virtual worlds have been envisioned and developed, it doesn’t address current development issues. For example, the huge chasm between what gamers live on a daily basis and immersive virtual worlds, and the development of multiuser experiences, and watch was understood at the end of the last decade.

Thurman and Matoon – propose three dimensions which to view the development of virtual reality
1. Provocative idea about Verity dimension — does the virtual worlds make reality, or does it encompass abstract and novel ideas that don’t correspond to reality? Another way of thinking of the development of virtual worlds…

integration dimension — how well the human is brought into the environment
interface dimension — scale ranging from natural to artificial

“To summarize, we will be examining 10 types of virtual re-
ality: (1) Immersive first-person, (2) Augmented reality (a vari-
ation of immersive reality), (3) Through the window, (4) Mir-
ror world, (5) Waldo World (Virtual characters), (6) Chamber
world, (7) Cab simulator environment, (8) Cyberspace, (9) the
VisionDome, and (10) the Experience Learning System.”

aside from Mark — the recent release of the Microsoft gaming experience has potential to elevate the sense of immersion higher by making natural body movements correspond to what’s happening in the immersive world.

There was some discussion of blog mentioned reality, and a recent TED lecture that had a demonstration of a small device that projects information onto objects as it senses them was a powerful indication of how real-time sensory feedback will in the short future allow a human cloud computer interface that will be a new way of thinking of augmented reality. I’ll try to post the link for that lecture when I get back online

It’s interesting to read about their sports augmented reality stories here, as this article predates the release on the Nintendo Wii platforms, I think it would have been provocative to see how the authors would have addressed the development of that tool in the schema.

The authors also talk about Azuma’s research and medical applications of augmented reality refer to the link here-
http://www.cs.unc.edu/∼azuma/azuma-AR.html

interesting points being made when the author talks about in your worlds: first of all, the obvious interest in the gaming world example given is shooting hoops. But more importantly, and mentioned secondarily surprisingly, is the observation that players in the mirror worlds since they stand apart from the world itself can have social interaction and therefore an opportunity for a more interactive environment. This precluded the nature of multiuser virtual environments as the most notable example of the importance of social learning and the real draw for users of being in such a world. It is somewhat surprising that as late as 2001 that the nature of social interaction in immersive worlds would turn out to be such an important draw for users (for example Second Life is more about the social interaction that it is about just the information). Sometimes we focus so much on the technology, that we miss the implication in the human setting entirely.

An interesting aside about the cab environment is that in 1997 I had an opportunity to “land the space shuttle” in the virtual motion simulator at NASA Ames research Center. The simulator, which had 6° of freedom in a 10 story tall building gave one a truce sense of motion and interface, and was used as a high fidelity way to train astronauts on the conditions of landing the Space shuttle. it is amazing to me now 10 years later and more staff the simulators have become so common, that pilots of Jets never trained in real jets anymore, but use simulators. As is often quoted, the first time a pilot lands a actual 747, she has a full complement of passengers aboard – a little unnerving, for sure, but a testimony to the fidelity and veracity of these simulators

The Virtual Reality and Education Lab (VREL) East Carolina
University, in Greenville, North Carolina is one organization that
provides leadership in promoting education in the schools (Auld
& Pantelidis, 1994; Pantelidis, 1993, 1994). The Web site for
VREL is http://www.soe.ecu.edu/vr/vrel.htm

Good idea from article:
It will be important to articulate a research agenda specif-
ically relating to virtual reality and education. Fennington and
Loge (1992) identify the following issues: (1) How is learning
in virtual reality different from that of a traditional educational
environment? (2) What do we know about multisensor y learn-
ing that will be of value in determining the effectiveness of this
technology? (3) How are learning styles enhanced or changed
by VR? and (4) What kinds of research will be needed to as-
sist instructional designers in developing effective VR learning
environments?

the authors talk a bit about “affordances” – in understanding the research of virtual worlds. good quote
Although a virtual world may differ from the real world, virtual objects and environments must provide some measure of the affordances of the objects and environments depicted (standing in for the real-world) in order to support natural vision (perceptualization) more fully.

interesting perspectives from a couple of authors about thinking our cyberspace as a theatrical medium — the notion that participants are playing out roles in creating stories in spaces. Authors include Brenda Laurel, and Randall Walser.

interesting perspective by McLellan one situated learning which I think is excellent perspective to draw on she defines it:
“Therefore,this knowledge must be learned
in context—in the actual work setting or a highly realistic or
“virtual” surrogate of the actual work environment. The situated learning model features apprenticeship, collaboration, reflection, coaching, multiple practice, and will articulation. It also emphasizes technology and stories.”

from that experience design perspective, there is a nice, simple model from Shedroff that talks about each experience needing attraction (something that draws us in) engagement (experiences that make us part of the world) and conclusion (some sort of resolution that let’s us know we’ve accomplished what is in front of us). This is a great place to think about maybe the learning activity we need to design, as we can build in I think good examples of these three views and experience in the virtual world.

there is a nice distinction made about services versus experiences as an economic perspective. For example they distinguish a service to a client versus experience for a guest (for example Disney) – interesting perspective

one of the articles quoted from 1993 Bricken and Byrne, had students construct objects in virtual worlds. Considering this was 16 years ago, the interface by nature was very rudimentary and clunky, which presented all kinds of problems. All the same new research indicates a powerful opportunities there. I’d be interested in seeing in the last four years what research if any exists on student learning with the same model and design. In particular, given the greater ease of graphic rendering, manipulation, and student facilities with 3-D worlds, I would think that the cognitive process and learning environment would be reduced which would improve the processing capability to think about implications of their design more.

It’s interesting in the conversation about attitudinal responses to virtual worlds, but research from 1992 (Heeter) indicated issues with the tension between creating a complex enough environment that is engaging, it is simple enough environment for easy entry point. The current crop of immersive games like World of Warcraft, indicate a way by which repetitive access to learning environments seem to trump some of the novice fear that used to exist almost 20 years ago. Also, it came out that playing against other humans was much more desired than against virtual opponents — something that seems to be playing out in social learning environments today. Wake up another interesting research finding was the difference in gender — boys much more likely to play the game battle tech – more gender-neutral activities in Second Life in World of Warcraft scene indicate that the gender differences are evaporating (Pew Center in Internet life data for example)

second life ruminations #1

Readings from ETEC 648D – Computer Authoring – Virtual Reality

Virtual or Virtually U: Educational Institutions in Second Life
Nancy Jennings, Chris Collins

2007 study looked at an overview of how institutions are using Second Life. In particular it examined as many institutions that could find — about 170 and looked at Onhow they structured the environment, the types of spaces that were located there in the kinds of activities that were being held.

The lit review was okay, although I do appreciate the inclusion of both Gartner’s trend analysis and a definite effort to include Roger’s work in diffusion of innovations. This is probably the most provocative piece in the article, as the authors quote an article by Moore from 1991 that applies Rogers work with diffusion to technology adoption, in particular defines characteristics for each of the steps of technology adoptions innovators, early adopters, etc.
The research questions for the article were to look at what institutions are using Second Life, what are the characteristics of spaces, and how institutions are using Second Life.
The authors then go through and list the main characteristics that were found in a variety of institutions, and used two particular institutions as case studies: INSEAD and Ohio University. Interesting comparison between these indicated a different vision for each one. The authors define different visions of virtual learning institutions: the operative and reflective, the difference being that operative environments exhibit characteristics of vision and self sustenance that stands apart from any brick-and-mortar institution, whereas reflective institutions mimicked the design of space in their bricks and mortar operation of the institution, and appeared more concerned with being an extension of their existing footprint.

Probably the thing that is most missing from this article in my mind, is the need to address the bridge between what early adopters have taken on in Second Life, who by Rogers analysis comprised 13% or so of the population and early majority who comprise 34%. The authors do a nice job of explaining that there are fundamental differences in the behaviors of these two groups, most notably that early adopters are risk takers and early majority are risk adverse, and early adopters are willing to experiment whereas early majority want proven applications. This is a very important lesson in Second Life adoption that I think is not being viewed as critically as it should. As an example, the Gartner article that the authors quote states the half by 2011 the early adopters, early majority, and late majority will have presence in Second Life (80%). I don’t see this as a remote possibility, given the behaviors of even the early majority, who need and want the technology they use to be invisible, by that I mean easy enough to use that it doesn’t require a few hours or more to understand. Immersive virtual worlds have incredible strengths and complex abilities to do things that are not possible face-to-face, but they are difficult to use, the requirement of high bandwidth and computing power, and a lack of added value are going to be main roadblocks to a higher adoption level in the immediate future (3 to 5 years). It could be that a common Gateway that allows all virtual worlds to become more powerfully enabled and interconnected may provide the opportunity, but it certainly doesn’t seem that this is going to be happening anytime in the near future (1 to 2 years). So for now, I believe we are looking at something on the order of 20% maybe 30% of technology users over the next 2 to 3 years. Another example of this, it is the number of students in my high school that I see who are Second Life users — relatively few. If this digital generation, comfortable with Facebook and virtual games does not yet see themselves as members of a community online in an immersive virtual world, I think Second Life for the time being will still be a novelty.