Virtual Reality

As classrooms and students move beyond the basic web-based instruction that has been around for the last twenty years, researchers and programmers must look at how to make technology more meaningful for the student and still get the curriculum across. The next step which has begun to take hold in classrooms is utilizing tools that would be considered part of Web 2.0. Podcasts, videos, chats, instant messages as well as online communities that break away from a more text based use of the web to graphic representations of the world and the student. Virtual Worlds are the next step beyond the text because they are able to graphically bring the items to life. The students are able to log in and see a street with other classmates there are graphic avatars. The students are able to interact with the avatars and travel around the street to get where they need to go. Students work in groups or teams and interact with each other instead of the more individualized web-based. As these worlds become more prominent in the classrooms, designers must make a “strong commitment to the idea in the world will actively engage pupils who were sometimes ‘hard to reach’ as well as providing a motivation to use literacy in a variety of purposeful ways” (Merchant, 2009).
While reviewing virtual worlds, it was discovered that Warburton and Perez-Garcia created a list of the pros of virtual worlds. They stated that it was important for participants to have interactions with other participants that would allow for discussion and interaction within the site. Visualization and contextualization is important because in a traditional WBI, the student had difficulty visualizing what they needed to know and lost the connection. There needs to be authentic content and culture as well as identity play. Immersion is essential to get the buy in and allow the participant to be connected in the world. Often web-based classes are missing the community presence and simulation that is needed to get the buy in also. Warburton and Perez-Garcia felt that one of the keys to ownership of virtual worlds was that the worlds could be modified to meet the needs of the situation and that there was ease it doing so (Warburton, 2008, Warburton &Perez-Garcia, 2009).
In keeping with Warburton’s research, researchers at Northern Illinois University conducted a study of students utilizing a virtual world for a class. The study focused on the use of avatars, 3D space and dialogue bubbles to test the acceptance of virtual worlds. The students were trained in the procedures of using the virtual worlds and were then given assignments that they had to post. It was discovered that students liked the use of avatars and spent time creating one that was most like them. Students used the 3D space to navigate around the site and felt that it was like having their classmates in the room with them. The use of dialogue bubbles allowed the students to show words in a more graphic version to get the idea. It puts an avatar to the words to better show who said it. Students did find they were more careful with their words because they didn’t want to get misquoted or be seen in a poor light since people could see avatar and connect them to the person (Omale, Hung, Luetkehans and Cooke-Plagwitz, 2009).
One of the goals of using a virtual world would be to allow the student to discover and express digital literacy. Digital literacy is defined as “reading and writing with new technologies-technologies that involve the semiotic of written representation-recognizing that on-screen texts invariably combine writing with other modes of representation” (Merchant, 2007). Within a virtual world students are gaining digital literacy through the environmental print of the signs and posters within it, the tool tip clues, hyperlinked texts, interactive chats with spelling revisions and thought expressions. Students were correcting their words before others could correct them and working to develop and explain their answers. Merchant stated that “These chat data are interesting in the way that they replicated the characteristic features of spoken discourse in classroom settings” (Merchant, 2009).
Virtual worlds do have some cons that have caused some problems for those classes that have been trying to utilize this new technology. Currently one of the major barriers to utilizing virtual worlds in classrooms is to ascertain what should be included into them. The teachers must sit down with designers to create what they envision. The teachers have to establish clear objectives and outcomes. There must be controls in place to bring the students back into focus as well as control what they can and can not do.
Warburton stated in 2008 that there were issues that factor into it such as the following: “technical, identity, culture, collaboration, time, economic, standards and scaffolding persistence and social discovery” (Warburton, 2008, Warburton &Perez-Garcia, 2009). The technical issues stem from the development of the software and worlds as well as navigation around the site. Identity issues stem from the search for the avatar’s character and reputation. This focuses on character reputation. Culture centers around creating a safe zone for students and teachers where the world has rules and norms of what is acceptable or not. Collaboration and cooperation is important so that students can work together with trust. Time goes back to the time it takes to design and modify the virtual world. Economics focus on who will pay for the site’s development and hosting. There needs to be standardization of what is acceptable in the worlds and what software is used to create the worlds. Scaffolding persistence and social discovery are key to the worlds in that the social networking that can be contained in the world. There is also the question of allowing other programs to connect with the world in such objects as creating avatars and chat. (Warburton, 2008, Warburton &Perez-Garcia, 2009).
The students would view this as just playing a video game instead of interacting with their classmates and teachers as they learn the curriculum. “innovative digital literacy practices such as those involved in virtual game play can easily disrupt classroom routines and call into question deeply held assumptions about literacy, literacy instruction and even teacher-pupil relationship that lies at the heart of the educational process” (Merchant, 2009).
As virtual worlds become more prominent in classrooms and the issues are worked out, it is time to look ahead and see what will it be like in ten to fifteen years? It has been reported that sites like Second Life are working with Moodle to create a more 3-D interactive website where the students can take classes and the information can be connected to their Moodle classes. New browsers on coming on line to handle open source creation of virtual worlds so that the educators are able to create a virtual world to meet their needs. I was just looking at metaplace as an example. Standards are being created to make it easier for the different programs to talk to each other and create avatars that can go from world to world and keep all the data. Iphone is set up to connect to the virtual world of AjaxLife so there will become a more portable and mobile connection. Connectivity and interaction will create a more interactive society with students and teachers being able to connect in a more meaningful interaction. It will be interesting to see what it next.