Εικονική πραγματικότητα: Τεχνολογικά χαρακτηριστικά και δυνατότητες Αναστάσιος Μικρόπουλος Εργαστήριο Εφαρμογών Εικονικής Πραγματικότητας στην Εκπαίδευση Πανεπιστήμιο Ιωαννίνων
Virtual Reality in Education VR technologies seem to be powerful and promising tools in education because of their unique technological characteristics that differentiate them from other ICT systems. These characteristics, afford certain actions, reflect the affordances of virtual reality.
[Affordances] An affordance signifies the perception of the environment of an agent in terms of the actions that can be afforded by it. [Gibson, 1979] Affordances are the actions permitted an animal by environmental objects, events, places, surfaces, people, and so forth. [Michaels 2003] Affordance is the property of objects to convey important information about how people could interact with them. [Norman, 2013]
VR affordances 3D spatial representations (Virtual Environments, VEs) Autonomy Participants representation through avatars Immersion of the participant in the VE (immersive VE) Multisensory intuitive and real time interaction Natural semantics for the representation of objects and facts First-person user point of view First-order experiences Size in space and time Presence Transduction and reification.
Learning affordances of Virtual Reality Learning affordances are action-referential properties of virtual environments that might lead to learning benefits.
Learning affordances of Virtual Reality Creation (building, scripting) Free navigation (virtual fieldtrips and tours) Modeling and simulation (visualization, virtual experiments) Multichannel communication (verbal, non-verbal) Collaboration and cooperation (problem solving, gaming) Content presentation and delivery (sloodle, shared IWB, lectures). Learning affordances imply certain learning activities in virtual environments.
Learning affordances and activities Designers of instruction can improve outcomes by taking advantage of the affordances of each type of laboratory (VR). [de Jong, Linn, Zacharia, 2013] Learning affordances lead to learning benefits when they are supported by a solid theoretical framework.
Our approach to VR in Education Virtual Environments as cognitive tools / mindtools. Environments that are created, modified or manipulated by the student in order to engage and facilitate critical thinking and higher-order learning, to construct and represent their knowledge. [Jonassen, 2000]
Learning affordances of virtual reality, pedagogical reasoning and action.
Learning affordance: creation Main VR affordances: multisensory intuitive, real time interaction natural semantics.
Creation: Interacting in EVEs A construction activity involving the assembly of simple models of primitive solid objects was designed. 32 primary school students (10 girls, 22 boys, mean age=8.69, SD=.931) had to create a house model by combining a cube and a pyramid, and a tree model by combining a cylinder and a cone. [Vrellis, Moutsioulis, & Mikropoulos, 2014)]
Creation: an educational laser laboratory A constructivist learning environment: Focuses on knowledge construction not reproduction Authentic tasks Real world, case based learning environment. An empirical study in higher education (Physics students). Purpose: to study the quality of interaction, the sense of presence, and the learning outcomes.
Learning affordance: free navigation Main VR affordances: 3D spatial representations first-person user point of view first-order experiences.
Free navigation: Factors That Influence Presence A constructivist learning environment: Focuses on knowledge construction not reproduction It is a real world, case based learning environment Concerns authentic tasks Fosters reflective practice.
Free navigation: Factors That Influence Presence The aim of the study was to investigate the sense of presence of 12-year-old pupils within an EVE representing an ancient Greek house through a sense of embodiment and the ability to handle task performance, while using various peripheral devices. Environmental richness and the high level of interactivity resulted in a high degree of presence. Presence was significantly correlated with pupils degree of association with their virtual bodies. [Mikropoulos & Strouboulis, 2004]
Learning affordance: modeling and simulation Main VR affordances: Size Transduction and reification.
Modeling and simulation A constructivist learning environment: Focuses on knowledge construction not reproduction Provides multiple representations of reality Fosters reflective practice Supports collaborative construction of knowledge. Pedagogical Reasoning [Kontogeorgiou, Bellou, & Mikropoulos, 2008]
Learning affordance: multichannel communication Main VR affordances: Multisensory intuitive and real time interaction Participants representation by avatars.
Multichannel communication Do children in the spectrum of autism interact with real-time emotionally expressive human controlled avatars? The child with high functioning autism showed an interest in interacting with the teacher in all modalities, although a better acceptance was observed in the modalities involving the ICT tools. The low functioning child did not interact at all with ICT modalities. He preferred only face to face interaction. [Mantziou, Vrellis, & Mikropoulos, 2015]
Learning affordance: collaboration and cooperation VR affordances: All
Collaboration and cooperation A constructivist learning environment: Focuses on knowledge construction not reproduction Provides multiple representations of reality Presents authentic tasks Provides real world, case based learning environments Supports collaborative construction of knowledge. [Vrellis, Mikropoulos, & Avouris, 2016]
Collaboration and cooperation The aim of the study was to compare a simple laboratory PBL activity implemented in both the real and virtual worlds, in terms of learning outcome, satisfaction, and presence. The sample consisted of 150 undergraduate university students. The results show that the MUVE (SL) provided similar learning outcome and satisfaction to the real-world condition. Presence was positively correlated to satisfaction but not to the learning outcome.
Learning affordance: content presentation and delivery VR affordances: All
Content presentation and delivery The aim was to study the impact of technological factors, user characteristics and didactic strategies on learning, attention and presence. The results show that the viewing condition (mono/stereo) does not affect attention allocation, suspension of disbelief, and spatial presence. Learning outcomes are better in the monoscopic viewing condition. Didactic strategy has an impact on suspension of disbelief and learning outcomes. [Natsis, Vrellis, Papachristos, & Mikropoulos, 2012]
Content presentation and delivery Stereoscopic perception of women in real and virtual environments This work presented comparative results of adult women on the effects of stereoscopic perception in three different static environments; a real, a 2D and a stereoscopic 3D, all with the same content. Electric brain activity of 36 female students was analyzed at θ, α, β and γ frequency bands. [Zacharis, Mikropoulos, & Priovolou, 2013]
Content presentation and delivery
Content presentation and delivery The participants experienced three similar and non-demanding environments. Statistical differences in theta activity showed that the real and 3D environments caused similar cognitive processes, while the 2D caused an increase of anxiety indicating that perhaps participants were looking for the third dimension. Beta and gamma activity showed that participants perceived the third dimension of the stereoscopic environment as in the real one, something that did not happen in the 2D environment. Our findings indicate that stereoscopic 3D virtual environments seem to approximate the real ones as far as it regards the cognitive processes they cause.
Concluding remarks We believe that virtual reality through its unique characteristics and affordances offers those learning affordances that introduce technology to pedagogical reasoning in a constructive way and lead to learning benefits. Virtual reality offers the (spatial) environments to navigate, to create, to model and simulate, to communicate, to collaborate, and present content in an engaging way. Virtual reality also offers the background to study intuitive and affective ways for students to interact with digital learning environments.
References de Jong, T., Linn, M.C., Zacharia, Z.C. (2013). Physical and Virtual Laboratories in Science and Engineering Education. Science, 340, 305-308. Gibson, J.J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Jonassen, D. (2000). Computers as mindtools for schools. NJ: Prentice Hall. Kontogeorgiou. Α. Μ., Bellou, J. and Mikropoulos, T. A. (2008). Being inside the Quantum Atom. PsychNology Journal, 6(1), 83-98, http://www.psychnology.org/328.php. Mantziou, O., Vrellis, I. & Mikropoulos, T. A. (2015). Do children in the spectrum of autism interact with real-time emotionally expressive human controlled avatars? Procedia Computer Science, 67, 241 251. Michaels, C.F. (2003). Affordances: Four Points of Debate. Ecological Psychology, 15(2),135-148. Mikropoulos, T. A. & Strouboulis, V. (2004), Factors that Influence Presence in Educational Virtual Environments, Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 7(5), 582-591. Mikropoulos, T. A. & Natsis, A. (2011). Educational Virtual Environments: A Ten Year Review of Empirical Research (1999 2009). Computers & Education, 56(3), 769-780. Natsis, A., Vrellis, I., Papachristos, N. M., and Mikropoulos, T. A. (2012). Technological Factors, User Characteristics and Didactic Strategies in Educational Virtual Environments. In I. Aedo, R. M. Bottino, N. Chen, C. Giovannella, Kinshuk, D. G. Sampson (Eds.), Proceedings of the 12 th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (pp. 531-535), July 4-6, Rome.
Norman, D. A. (2013). The design of everyday things. New York: Basic Books. Vrellis, I., Moutsioulis, A. & Mikropoulos, T. A. (2014). Primary school students attitude towards gesture based interaction. A comparison between Microsoft Kinect and mouse. In D. G. Sampson, J. M. Spector, N.-S. Chen, R. Huang, Kinshuk (Eds.), Proceedings of the 14th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies ICALT2014 (pp. 678-682) MA: IEEE. Vrellis, I., Mikropoulos, T. A., & Avouris, N. (2016). Learning outcome, presence and satisfaction from a science activity in Second Life. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 32(1), 59-77. Zacharis, G. K., Mikropoulos, T. A., Priovolou, C. (2013). Stereoscopic perception of women in real and virtual environments: A study towards educational neuroscience. Themes in Science & Technology Education, 6(2), 109-120.