|
|
University of Southern Mississippi
Abstract
In researching virtual environments for
educational purposes, it has been found that there are no set
characteristic guidelines to develop educational material using
virtual environments. Recognizing this fact, this paper is an
attempt at listing and defining key characteristics for virtual
environments for education. The approach that was used to
identify these characteristics was a combination of literature
reviews and experimental exploration of virtual reality over the
Internet. The results from this project identify and document
four key categories, namely interaction, navigation, fidelity,
and components of education. Each of these key categories is
further divided into sub-categories that provide the needed
guidelines to develop educational materials using virtual
environments. It is the intent and desired impact of this paper
to establish criteria for virtual environments for education,
which will enrich collaboration and knowledge of this
technological resource for educational facilities. This is
important because with the ever-increasing technological
advancements available in most universities, virtual
environments could help education to reach new heights.
1. Introduction
Educational communities are facing many challenges. One of these
challenges is the lack of educational resources to accommodate
the ever-growing student population needs [1]. As more and more
students seek out education at all levels – primary, secondary,
and tertiary – educational institutions are hard pressed to
expand enough for accommodating their enrollment. However, with
this in mind, and the advent of the communication revolution,
distance education has begun its’ push to the forefront in
helping rectify this problem [1]. One emerging technological
resource in this push for distance education is the ability of
virtual reality to be used over the Internet on desktop
computers. The use of virtual reality over the Internet allows a
group of geographically separated users to interact in real time
for a broad expanse of educational applications such as physics,
archaeology, chemistry, astronomy, construction, engineering,
etc [2].
Research
results on the use of Virtual Reality Environment for
Educational communities are very encouraging [3,4]. However,
upon examination into virtual reality, it has been found that
desirable characteristics for an educational virtual environment
are not clearly stated or defined. This is a major concern in
that these defined characteristics are desperately needed for
proper implementation to be fully realized and the design
process is not one of confusion and probabilities.
The
importance of establishing characteristic guidelines for virtual
reality in educational communities is critical in promoting
understanding, collaboration, and acceptance. Without these
understood characteristics, educators are left without a proper
format in which to clearly design and implement a virtual
environment, and thus ambiguity and confusion take hold.
Therefore, this paper is an attempt at listing and defining key
characteristics for virtual environments for education. These
characteristics, while co-dependant on the content and goals of
the environments’ objective, should be fully understood,
utilized, and designed to help enrich the users experience, and
aid in eliminating any distractions and deterioration from the
learning goals. These characteristics can be categorized as:
1.
Educational Component
2.
Interaction
3.
Navigation
4.
Fidelity
It should
be noted that these categories define a broad expanse, and,
while some elements may overlap, are listed in such a manner to
aid in the implementation and understanding of their use. The
following sections are intended to cover the elements in each
category and the desired characteristics.
2. Educational Component
The implementations of Virtual Reality
environments in educational communities require detailed
analysis of the educational aspects. Although, there is not a
consensus regarding these educational aspects for the use of
virtual reality environments for education, following are some
ideas proposed by Johnson et. al. that could be used as a
starting point. Johnson et. al. states that there are four
criteria for the implementation of virtual reality, 1. The
learning goal must be important, 2. The learning goal must be
hard, 3. The learning goal must be plausibly enhanced by the
introduction of virtual reality technologies, 4. Virtual reality
based learning environments must be informed by contemporary
research in the learning sciences and educational practice [5].
Another concept that should be addressed is the implementation
of collaboration.
2.1 Learning Goal is Important
First and foremost, the goal of the
environment’s educational component must be important. Simply
stated, if the goal of the educational curriculum is
unimportant, why teach or learn it. Johnson’s et. al. “Round
Earth Project” addresses this element by citing AAAS Project
2061: Benchmarks for Science Literacy, stating that fifth-grade
graduating students should know “things on or near the Earth are
pulled toward it by the Earth’s gravity” and “the Earth is
approximately spherical in shape”, as two examples on how their
virtual environment meets this first educational element [5].
2.2 Learning Goal is Hard
The learning goal should be that
of one in which it is recognized in the national standards and
challenging enough that the user(s) benefit and gain knowledge
from exploration and interaction in the environment. The
environment should address a concept that the user(s) is not
already familiar or knowledgeable about and is accepted as one
in which the ease of comprehension is not quickly understood.
2.3 Learning Goal is Enhanced
Another important factor, and
the driving force behind the implementation of virtual reality
is whether or not virtual reality is actually lending itself to
the educational goal. Better stated, the learning experience
must be positively enhanced by the implementation of virtual
reality, which could be determined by the 3D nature of the
environment for better conceptualization, the usefulness of a
safe environment to practice and experience unsafe activities
and tasks, etc. “The Round Earth Project” is an example in
which virtual reality is well suited to giving a student the
sense of walking on a spherical object, as objects appear from
below the horizon and the student eventually returns to the
starting point after circumnavigating the sphere [5].
2.4 Grounded in Educational Practice
Finally,
the credibility of the environment must be fully established.
When being used for educational objectives, the virtual
environment must be grounded in an already established
educational practice and mode of educating students. This, if
for no other reason, will be the determining factor on
acceptance and use by educators. In essence, the understanding
that virtual reality should not be looked upon as a replacement
for already established educational practices, but rather, a
tool that lends itself to distance education and global learning
communities for challenging visual concepts, unsafe
environments, etc.
2.5. Collaboration
Another element that is beginning to be
fully explored is the ability of the environment to allow for
multiple users, or collaboration.
This, in large part, is due to collaboration encouraging
conversation, which in turn aids learning by presenting each
learner with a slightly different view of the subject matter
[5]. When introduced, collaboration can greatly increase the
sense of social interaction and teamwork. It should be stated,
that whether or not the virtual environment is to support single
users or collaboration, the purpose of the environment should be
the same in its’ underlying intention, and that intention should
be based on already recognizable educational goals.
3. Interaction
In
general, one may think that simply sitting at a PC, viewing the
virtual environment and attempting to move or explore within the
environment, can be defined as interaction. However,
interaction as a desirable characteristic is more narrowly
defined as, and subcategorized into “object selection” and
“object manipulation” [6]. “Object selection” is defined as
when the user acquires control of an object or group of objects,
and “object manipulation” is any operation performed on an
object or group of objects once selected [4], thus, object
selection is a precursor to object manipulation, or, it
establishes access to the object.
3.1. Object Selection
This may
seem simplistic at first glance, however, there are several
variables that come into play and are key for interaction inside
the environment. The first is the spatial relationship between
the user inside the environment and the object(s) being
selected. This should be determined by the objects’ behavior
and type of manipulation to be performed. For example, if the
object is a tower located somewhere in the distance, and the
user is selecting the object for a visual query, the spatial
relationship can be within the line of sight. This narrows the
definition of “object selection” to that of one where physical
contact inside the environment is not totally necessary. What
is necessary, however, is some form of targeting the object(s)
and feedback to the user that the object(s) have been selected
[6]. Some examples of this characteristic would be a crosshair
for targeting the object via a mouse cursor and highlighting the
object once selected. Another important factor in this
characteristic is that the bounding polygons for each object
should be adjusted appropriately for the size and accessibility
of the object(s), that is, while smaller objects may need large
bounding polygons for selection from a distance, a bounding
polygon should not be too large in that it may overlap nearby
objects, and thus introducing ambiguity [6].
3.2. Object Manipulation
“Object
manipulation”, and the types of actions available to users for
given objects, can be viewed upon as the qualifying element to
which defines the power and usefulness of the virtual
environment as a whole [2]. One mode of manipulating an object
has already been introduced in 2.1 in the tower example, in that
it may be necessary for a user to query an object and receive
some information, albeit textual or aural, based on that query.
Other forms of manipulation include the ability to rotate or
relocate an object(s), as well as changing said object(s)
attributes and behavior [6]. An example of rotating and
relocation can be envisioned in an educational environment where
it is necessary for the user to acquire the correct vial from
similar vials on a table by reading the various labels, and then
placing the vial on a separate table for further work. An
example of changing an object(s) attributes and behavior could
be described in construction education, where it is necessary to
take an existing wall and create a door and window. By dragging
the desired components onto the wall and releasing, the wall can
incorporate the door and window into its’ frame. Envisioning
these concepts, it can be seen how said environments are made
more beneficial by the power of “object manipulation”.
4. Navigation
What can
be one of the more frustrating components of virtual
environments is its’ ability to handle navigation. What good
does it to have a visually enriched environment, full of
educational resources and tools, if you can’t navigate through
the environment fully, and experience all of the given
material? Another problem introduced by this characteristic is
the time consuming and confusing instance in which the user(s)
must travel throughout the environment, however, continuously is
lost and often must backtrack in hopes of finding the correct
path. This, in turn, redirects the user(s) attention on the
continuous effort of having to find the proper path to take, and
the environments’ intent becomes overlooked. There are several
ways of handling this problem, all of which should be discreetly
introduced for the purpose of keeping the educational
environments integrity. These navigational aids should be
looked upon as having no hierarchical approach, each aiding the
environments’ navigation while not keeping the user(s) attention
off the intended purpose(s) of the environment. Besides the
need to keep a consistent layout/floor plan, other factors that
will properly aid navigation are open spaces, directional cues,
and key location points.
4.1. Layout of the Environment
Outside
the environment being a replication of a real world location,
such as the crawlspace of a pyramid, etc., the environment
should have a consistent layout/floor plan and be designed with
wide hallways and doors, and with enough room between objects
such as tables, chairs, trees, etc., so that a user may pass
freely between them. The user(s) should also have enough room
to turn around inside each area of the environment. By
considering these factors in the design of an environment,
navigation will be greatly enhanced and less problematic.
Another key factor in this facilitation, but one that should be
implemented for purposes later explained in the Fidelity section
is dividing a large environment into smaller segments. This
helps minimize the amount of information to be understood by the
user(s) in various forms such as on-screen maps discussed in the
next section 3.2, and thus, is not so overwhelming on the user(s)
and display screen.
4.2. Directional Cues
Another
key component that should be considered is the use of
directional cues, such as landmarks, signs, and on-screen maps
or compass. Landmarks can be prominent structures such as a
large statue, an individual, recognizable painting on the wall
placed at a key location, or anything else that is located at a
single instance inside the environment so that the user(s) can
refer to. Signs, such as street names or easily recognized and
understood <EXIT>, are obvious forms of directional cues and are
easily to incorporate inside the environment. One element that
takes a little more consideration if implemented, however, and
is a great reference for the user(s) to find their way through
the environment, is the use of on-screen maps or a compass. The
user(s) can access or view the on-screen map or compass to
determine where in the environment they are located. By
implementing these directional cues, the environment becomes
more navigation friendly and aids in keeping the focus on the
overall intent.
4.3 Key Location Points
The last
navigational aid mentioned is the use of key location points.
These are predetermined locations in the environment that hold
some order of importance. By accessing these points, the user
is automatically taken to that location, and thus, saves the
amount of time that would have been necessary to “walk through”
the environment to get there. These “jumps” in the environment
greatly aid the user(s) in navigating to key points, and enables
maintained focus on the educational purpose of the environment.
This concept can also be implemented so that these key location
points are the only means of exploring the environment, or
rather, the user(s) is only allowed to move through the
environment by jumping to the next viewpoint, such as the means
in which they are used in “Ocean Walk” [7]. By only allowing
navigation through the use of individual location points, much
of the problematic issues are eliminated, however, this confines
the user(s) ability to explore the environment, and should only
be implemented if the educational purpose is aided by this
static arrangement.
5. Fidelity
Fidelity
is used to cover a range of elements that individually determine
the realistic approach to the environment. These elements can
drastically affect how the environment is perceived, and
therefore, whether or not the overall intent of the environment
is being met. These elements are the frame rate, user(s) point
of view, introduction of avatars and agents, colors and
textures, sound, and temporal change.
5.1. Frame Rate
One of
the most important elements in media similar to virtual reality,
such as video and film (motion pictures), is the concept of
“persistence of vision”, or the ability for the brain to
conceive motion from still images. So much so, standards in
these forms of media have been set at 24 frames per second (fps)
for film and 30 fps for video. Ideally, the application of one
these standards, 24 fps, could be set for virtual reality as
well, but this is very unrealistic at this stage of virtual
reality and computing power. However, the environment should
strive for minimal to no lag so that this distracting element is
eliminated. With this in mind, a frame rate of 15 fps should be
achieved so that the human eye will view the images as fluid and
not a series of changing still pictures [8]. There are a few
techniques that can be used to help in this area, such as
texture mapping, adaptive rendering, and animated video clips
[6]. All of these are designed to speed up the rendering
process and aid in increasing the frame rate for the
environment, which in turn will allow the user(s) to interact,
explore, and achieve the desired educational goals without the
extreme distraction and frustration of a slow frame rate.
5.2. Point of View
There are
two ways of considering the user(s) point of view, egocentric
vs. exocentric [6]. Both have their usefulness inside
the environment and should be implemented as such. An
egocentric point of view is that of the first person, and an
exocentric point of view is the third person point of view, or
giving the user(s) the ability to see them-selves inside the
environment. A determining factor for the use of each would be
whether a strong sense of presence is needed, egocentric, or a
detailed relative position and understanding of motion between
the user(s) and other objects is needed, exocentric [6].
5.3. Avatars and Agents
While
being discussed in the same manner and location, these elements
are two different concepts. Avatars are the representation of
the user(s), whether full embodiment, or individual elements
such as an arm operating a lever. Agents are used to aid,
guide, and tutor the user(s) inside the environment. Both
avatars and agents should only be used when necessary,
otherwise, they could prove to be unnecessary distractions and
detour the user(s) focus away from the main goal. When using
these elements, it must be determined what representation is to
be presented. This is decided upon by the overall intent of the
learning environment and target audience, or rather, what
educational level of the user(s) will be exploring the
environment. If the educational level and goals are designed
towards early education, avatars and agents represented could be
implemented in a more cartoon-like or fun manner [9]. However,
this could be a distraction for use in higher education. Also,
while giving the user(s) the ability to decide what
representation is to be used for an avatar might be more
enjoyable, aid in the ability of the user(s) to relate to
oneself, and provide other users with a general understanding of
the user(s) personality, this can be an area in which the focus
and intention of the educational environment is once again taken
away from.
5.4. Colors and Textures
The
driving force behind these elements should be based on the
content and purpose of the environment. In most cases, these
elements should be addressed in an obvious and realistic
manner. Specifically, the problem arises when a user(s)
expectation is undermined for no reason other than a bad design
decision. To clarify, in choosing the environments color
scheme, it should be understood that, a green sky for example,
becomes a focal point for the user(s) attention because it is
outside the realistic norm, and thus, detours from the learning
objectives. An example of the use of colors and correlation of
the user(s) understanding and desired effect from the
environment is the choice of blue and green throughout the
virtual environment “Ocean Walk” [7]. While a simple design
choice, a different color scheme such as red would force the
loss of all desired effects because it is outside the user(s)
conception of what underwater should look like. This can be
manipulated for desired dramatic effects, as well, such as the
way in which brain damage can cause totally new perceptions
after severe medical trauma [10].
5.5. Sound
Often,
this is an underestimated element of a virtual environment.
However, this can be just as distracting as any other virtual
reality element. For example, using a crashing sound such as
pots and pans dropping to the floor for each time a user(s)
opens a door, can distract the user(s) and focus the user(s)
attention on this fact and take away from the environments
purpose. Another example would be background music that draws
the user(s) attention away from the goal and tasks at hand.
Once again, the use of sound(s) should be implemented with the
understanding of the dramatic effects it has on the user(s).
5.6. Temporal Change
One last
sub-category of Fidelity is the time quality in the virtual
environment. This temporal change can be understood as the
dynamic quality of the objects inside the environment. A plant
growing in a garden [9] or the propagation of water waves [11]
are just two examples of this concept. Another, more
recognizable idea of this concept is the changing from day to
night inside the environment, as well as weather properties such
as rain being introduced. This dynamic quality is often key in
the educational goals, allowing the environment to present
changes in time. In fact, without this characteristic, the
concept of virtual reality cannot be fully achieved, because we
live beyond a single moment.
6. Conclusion
Desirable
characteristics are easily recognized once some thought has been
placed into the implementation and outcome. However, not much
has been done in the labeling and setting of guidelines for
virtual environment characteristics for reaching new heights in
education. It should be understood that these guidelines are
important for the use and success of virtual reality in
educational practice, and must be placed in the forefront if
virtual reality is to succeed and grow in this area. Once set,
these guidelines will enable collaboration and understanding in
all sects of the educational field. With this collaboration,
understanding, and continual implementation, virtual reality
will offer tremendous benefits to global educational
communities, and thus improve as we move forwards each day.
7. References
[1]
O. Darkwa, and F.
Mazibuko, (2000, May) “Creating Virtual Learning Communities in
Africa: Challenges and Prospects” First Monday, Peer-Reviewed
Journal on the Internet, vol. 5, no.5,
http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue5_5/darkwa/, Accessed
July 31, 2003
[2]
C. Bouras, and A. Filopoulos, (1998) “Distributed Virtual
Reality Environments Over Web for Distance Education”
http://ru6.cti.gr/Publications/269.pdf
[3]
T. Sulbaran, N. Baker, (2002), "Early Comparison
of Virtual Reality, Web and Traditional Lectures on Engineering
Knowledge Retention". Proceeding of American Society of
Engineering Education Southeast Conference.
Gainesville, Florida
[4]
T. Sulbaran, N. Baker. (2000), "Enhancing
Engineering Education through Distributed Virtual Reality",
Proceeding of Frontier in Education Conference, Kansas City,
Missouri.
[5]
Johnson, T. Moher, S. Ohlsson, and M. Gillingham, “The
Round Earth Project – Collaborative VR for Conceptual Learning”
IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, vol. 19, no. 6,
pp. 60-69, Nov./Dec. 1999.
[6]
J.L. Gabbard, and D. Hix, “A Taxonomy of Usability
Characteristics in Virtual Environments” M.S. Thesis, Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University, Virginia Tech,
Blacksburg, VA, 1997.
http://csgrad.cs.vt.edu/~jgabbard/ve/documents/taxonomy.pdf,
Accessed on July 31, 2003
[7]
R. Debuchi “Ocean Walk” atom co., Ltd., (1999)
http://www.atom.co.jp/vrml2/ocean/index.html,
Accessed July 31, 2003.
[8]
C.H. Hsiung, “Optimizing Image Quality and Speed in
Virtual Reality” Final Project, ME 8103 C
http://www.ecrc.gatech.edu/~chsiung/career/ME8103C_Final_Project.pdf,
Accessed July 31, 2003.
[9]
A.Johnson, M. Roussos, J. Leigh, C. Vasilakis, C. Barnes,
and T. Moher, “The NICE Project: Learning Together in a Virtual
World” VRAIS ’98,
http://www.evl.uic.edu/aej/vrais98/vrais98.2.html,
Accessed July 31, 2003.
[10]
Rosenblum, L. (Ed.) (1995, March) “Detour: Brain
Deconstruction Ahead” IEEE Computer Graphics and Application,
pp. 14-17,
http://dlib.computer.org/cg/books/cg1995/pdf/g2014.pdf,
Accessed July 31, 2003.
[11]
J.H. Kim, S.T. Park, H. Lee, K.C. Yuk, and H.Lee,
“Virtual Reality Simulations in Physics Education” Interactive
Multimedia Electronic Journal of Computer Enhanced Learning,
Wake Forest University,
http://imej.wfu.edu/articles/2001/2/02/index.asp,
Accessed July 31, 2003.
Tulio Sulbaran
Tulio Sulbaran is an Assistant
Professor of Construction Engineering Technology at the
University of Southern Mississippi. He is the director of the
Innovation for Construction and Engineering Enhancement (ICEE)
center. He received his BS in Civil Engineering from the
University Rafael Urdaneta in Venezuela and his Ph.D in Civil
Engineering from Georgia Institute of Technology. His research
interest is on the impact of distributed virtual reality on
construction and engineering education and training.
Chad Marcum
Chad Marcum is a Graduate
Research Assistant of Software Engineering Technology at the
University of Southern Mississippi. He is currently working at
the Innovation for Construction and Engineering Enhancement (ICEE)
center. He received his BA in Radio, Television and Film from
the University of Southern Mississippi. His research interest is
on the development of distributed virtual reality.
|
