iED Summit Europe 2011: Get Beyond Virtual Worlds

iED Europe Summit: Ghosts of VWs past not stamped out

It was really great to see the US-oriented Immersive Education (iED) group venture over to Europe to help kick-off the European iED Summit in Madrid at the Universidad Carlos III. The EU team did a solid job with the event and it should become an important forum for new media initiatives in education. 

The iED goals seem about right "Immersive Education is designed to immerse  and engage students in the same way that today’s best video games grab and keep the attention of players. Immersive Education supports self-directed learning as well as collaborative group-based learning."  (more on iED Mission here)

However, I would challenge the core notion that "immersive" is the ultimate goal, rather than just another tool. Students, it seems to me, are able to rapidly patch together various threads of content into their heads and immerse themselves (0r not) based upon the quality and mix of content.  The immersive platform is maybe their brains and what they need is higher quality content and interactivity inputs.

It is important to get beyond the point of proving that things could be done in a virtual world (actually in the commercial world people did move on since 2008.  Maybe it takes academics longer to digest changes? But isn't that a little scary if they are teaching "new technology" to students). It is time to critically consider what is most appropriate to do in a virtual world.  The bad news is, it seems like the sweet spot of virtual world for education is pretty small and that there are other cheaper, easier, better options available to improve the learning experience. Sadly this conference didn't get into any of the those alternatives--and there are many to consider.

I showed the ST.ART project demo and also go into our new Unity3D product Quest History. ST.ART is an opensim-based edu and collaboration project that ran for 2 years, where Quest History is a fresh new concept without avatars, but packed with serious education content and full of stunning visuals.

For me the most interesting presentations and discussions were around actual uses of immersive education solutions. Download the conference presentations here.  There were many points about how virtual worlds are still too hard to use, to get into schools and then ultimately that the actual use cases are not the exceptional. In the age of Facebook, do avatars add value or are they time-consuming distractions? In our experience, this was not a surprise. We have worked with teachers and students who get excited about virtual worlds, but then get mired in actually trying to use them for class lessons.  Perhaps virtual worlds are more suited to distance learning where the digital realm uniquely enables community and shared experience.

We had some good overviews of the lastest usages from opensim, second life, open wonderland and realxtend. I would have to say though that these platforms are not moving along too quickly and in general they all look pretty dated and far from commercially ready still. There just isn't enough funding/resourcing going into their core development. These VW platforms are really complicated and they are anchored to what is now old code and architecture.  I think it was really a shame that Sun had to abandon Wonderland when Oracle swallowed them. Probably that platform had the most potential for collaboration. Now it seems under-resourced like the rest of the them. But that didn't stop the OWL gang from getting a fairly disportionate amount of air time during the iED Summit.

Warren Sheaffer, from Saint Paul College in Minnesota, USA gave a lively presentation about his use of open wonderland for the MiRTLE project. It is a pretty cool "inside-out, outside-in" concept for mixing distance and phyically attending students and teachers. The teaching space is a sort of online arena. This usage enables a sense of community and action that reaches out beyond the wall of the classroom. I could see more generalized usage perhaps even in social shopping environments. Warren did also point out that he has a team of technicians scampering about on a daily basis to snuff out snags and help users access solutions. These techs sounded pretty busy.  Warren's Blog about MiRTLE /  Details on MiRTLE at Educase

Another interesting example Aaron Walsh, from Boston College, outline was the "Corner Cave" which is a low-ish cost immersive area set-up. You basically take a couple of projectors and aim them at a the corner of a room and then run streaming voice/video/gaming over the web. It seems like the kids love the scale and the potential interaction with objects and distance presenters. I did though think that the virtual content from realxtend looked poor when it got big and wondered if HD video wouldn't have been better. Check out this clip from the South Park School (no, not that South Park :0 ) 

Pilar Sancho, who like Warren, presented more of an enduser perspective than an academic one, shared the results and her conclusions about using multi-player virtual environments (MUVEs) for improving class results. She tried to ascertain whether or not using a MUVE tool would increase interest in staying in a course. Her data suggested there was some uplift, but her comments were that actually it was more the change in the style of teaching that generated the better results. She also detailed various problems and delays with using virtual world tools (they used Multiverse).  Her paper on the MUVE research.  I don't think she will be rushing back to the virtual world for her classes. 

Also of note, Pilar co-authored a very useful paper titled "A narrative metaphor to facilitate educational game authoring" which is thought provoking and could be handy for deploying learning games.  (We are currently looking tools like Inform7 to capture and manage interactive game content/stories). 

So while it was a bit of downer on the virtual worlds, the good news is that social games seem to be able to cover most of the good without any of the bad.  

Virtual worlds are ideal for multi-user and co-creation of new content. Yet, they are too open and disorient users.  They have too much overhead in terms of computer specs, bandwidth and also learning curve. And they don't look that great (=poor mesh, weak lighting control, bad physics).  Social games have the same potential for shared experiences, but also have (should have) more infrastructure for driving learning objectives and providing an acheivements system.  The issue is not the platform but how to get next generation content out.  And while the social games are easier for the enduser to use, they are more complicated for the content creators to package-up. 

So, my sense is that actually the gap is about organizing the learning content into a sort of LMS/CMS that can then drive more of a social game experience around a learning domain.  Otherwise all that "knowledge" will have to wound into the actual game code, making it really hard for educators to manage, edit, delete.  

The clever guys over at Daden have some take on enabling this. I am particularly interested in their chatbot system which is an AI with a web front-end that would (theoretically) allow non-tech people to manage content and interaction within a game environment. 

The entire iED Summit proceedings can be downloaded here. They promised a link to the .ppts which should come out soon.

By the way, Madrid was gorgeous with great food, many travel options, lots to do and not horribly expensive.  It is an ideal location for a conference.

Comments

"In the age of Facebook, do avatars add value or are they time-consuming distractions? "

I'd argue that Facebook is more likely the distraction...students rarely, on my campus, use social networking for course-work. Avatar-based virtual worlds, on the other hand, provide an unparalleled ability to build simulations, Jon. Ask the US Army about MOSES, for instance.

Having just finished a final exam project in an OpenSim grid, my class loved the exerience because they were helping to shape what future classes will do. 15 of my 17 students opted for the OpenSim exam/improv session, and they had fun and learned more about the subject matter by seeing it, and more importantly, interacting with it, in 3D. A number of observers have noted how users don't mind less-than-photographic verity in online games. We don't need "serious game" level graphics if Millennial students understand how the experience links to goals and outcomes in courses. Every demographic study of that age-cohort showed exactly this finding.

That was always the promise of something like Rezzable's Virtual King Tut experience. It saddens me that you moved on from a great bit of work that never got the marketing it merited.

Virtual worlds are a niche technology, not one for corporations to fatten the profit line. But that's not the mission for institutions of higher ed. We are in the business of helping students develop critical-thinking and content skills so they'll be better citizens and employees (in that order). I'd agree that the technology was over-hyped mid-decade, and many educators rushed in themselves, without clear pedagogical goals.

As the decade continued, and Internet use meant students using mobile devices, the niche continued to be ruled by firms with gaming and I.T. experience. Educators in the niche, however, began gaining skills to develop and deploy virtual worlds locally or in hosted settings. The emphasis could then shift to how to apply best practices to teaching, instead of how to make the tech stable. Truth be told, as with Web 1.0 and 2.0 sites, in a few years we won't need corporations to help or even host the content.

But then, many specialized apps on campuses work that way. Virtual worlds will be but another of them. They may never be mainstream, but that's not important. Mathematica and GIS software are not mainstream, either.

Jon Himoff's picture

Joe -- Hi ;) I am sure your students would love anything though! Of course opensim can deliver good experiences. I agree graphics aren't the major problem, but they also don't help adoption. My thought was more about showing a poorly rendered virtual bird vs a nice HD clip of a real bird flying around. What do we really want to expose kids to? Synthetic or real? 

On the social issue, it seems that we are justing starting to think about how that layer can add value to education. There are some projects like inkling which offer the benefit of social interaction around course materials. This looks like a big improvement over textbooks for both engagement and costs. I guess the issue is in recreating all the textbooks out there, but eventually that will be done somehow.

Virtual worlds are still a tech platform seeking the compelling use case in education. While VWs really have made small gains in the last few years other alternatives have come on faster. I am amazed at the power of Blender for instance. HTML5 is also very exciting. And of course look at how iPad has impacted the landscape. That would be a much better tool to teach to students as it gives them a more sophisiticated tool and more marketable skills.

Anyway, you probably know all that stuff. We will send you a link for the Quest History free beta test in a few weeks. It would be awesome to get your feedback!

(and yikes, does the US Army really have simulations called Moses? Who names stuff over there? ;) )

 

Jon, I've been lucky as a teacher who uses technology. I try to match the tech to the pedagogy, rather than letting tech drive the teaching. It has always worked so far, and my evals are good. The goalposts move for Millennials, however; they use some technologies richly and are not easily excited by a prof bringing in what he considers "new" technology. You made that point quite well in your ost.

I do fear that the "gee whiz" factor got too many teachers in VWs to warp it to the class. I admit to doing that one semester, Spring 2007, my least successful in a writing-intensive class using VWs. Like many teachers new to SL, I simply sent the students out to explore a new world that seemed to me a promising new communications technology.

Later, and wiser I hope, I backed off from that approach to targeted engagement: interviewing an owner of a successful virtual storefront, going to an art opening and interviewing an artist, analyzing VWs against other emergent communications or simulations technologies. Each served the larger course goals of exploring how technology changes communications, especially what we consider as "writing."

Now I use VWs very selectively, for limited simulations not embedded in a larger "world." As I do with digital stories and blogs in class, the VW practice gets linked, closely, to course goals, later assignments, and learning outcomes. Otherwise, students see it as "extra work."

The biggest hurdle that I see colleagues face is the UI issue on student devices. I see more and more students coming with iPads or other tablets, and our I.T. folk tell us that in a few short (very short!) years, that will be the primary computer from most students. Currently these devices are for consuming and not creating complex content, however; one won't be making things with Blender on a tablet for a while. So I recommend that faculty wanting to use complex apps for content creation do so in a lab setting...and treat that experience much as my colleagues in the Sciences treat their labs. They are experiences only possible with special equipment and orientations. I got lucky that way with VWs, by pitching it as "lab" that required a 45-minute orientation and then a 90-minute immersive experience. I'll say more when the current class submits their reflections on the current project. I got the sense that they all enjoyed it, and they told me so. But I want them to reflect and write about what such a simulation needs to make it enhance the reading experience of Poe's "The Fall of the House of Usher." I want them to get a sense of the author's inner demons and the structure of his tale by not only seeing it but being "in" it. I don't know how else we could accomplish this, though some LARP in one of our Gothic campus buildings would do the trick, I guess :)

Finally, naming is claiming. I don't know the meaning behind the acronym "MOSES," but at least the Army didn't choose "Goliath" for their simulation. There's some kid out there with a slingshot :)

Jon Himoff's picture

Joe -- great comments and your approach makes a lot of sense. Glad to see you came through the journey and out the other side to wiser and stronger ! No doubt your students will be the beneficiaries of your experiments. I like the concept of the Lab which allows for more experimentation and puts more pressure on the students to acheive some results--rather than the teacher to have to formalize the specific learning content which is really the hard part in these new tech tools.

Jon Himoff's picture

all the slides from the conference are now available http://europe.immersiveeducation.org/node/331 look for the presentation and click the link to download the ones of interest.

Pages