December 11, 2017

Ready or Not

The hallmark movie revolving around a VR theme and setting, Ready Player One, is coming out soon. Here’s a trailer:



Everyone in VR circles is touting this as a vehicle for advancing and promoting the use of VR worldwide. But have you read the book? Seen the ending? Is this wishful thinking? The conclusion of it all (spoiler alert) is not what these VR advocates suppose. I suspect they have not really read the book in its entirety. What do you think?

December 4, 2017

The VR Landscape

Ever wonder how big the VR phenomenon is becoming? Who is jumping into the VR pool? Here’s the data: The VR Fund recently evaluated in excess of 3,000 companies, identifying 450 that met a rigorous criteria (funding, revenue, press coverage, and/or partnership levels) for inclusion in this infographic.

November 27, 2017

VR production suggestions


We continue from last week's post:


For students making their own content, the team from NYTedu makes a number of suggestions:

Storytelling matters. Have students put the story first.

Presence matters. “Take us there. Mecca. Antarctica. Yes, take us to an environment, but instead of just seeing it, put us in the middle of it." And don’t just focus on a single experience, but find a way to focus on all that surrounds you.

Comfort matters. VR designers consider the participants as a “guest, not as a viewer." Design "as if you were literally holding your viewers heads." Kevin Alster recommends avoiding the PPS or "potential puke shot” in the design of VR content.

Journalistic integrity matters. “Be a journalist" first. That means designers need to "look and listen more” and “take time to decide what to tell your guests."

Learning matters. The speakers noted the importance of learning learn from each project you undertake. Each time you create, "come up with more…improve over time."

November 20, 2017

Make the Content

At a recent SXSWedu conference in Austin, however, some of the activities being conducted in the field of user-generated content came into clear sight. Kevin Alster, a learning designer, and Dr. Audrey Heinesen, the VP for product development, both working for the School of the New York Times, provided a presentation on the topic of best practices for user-generated VR content.

At the School of the New York Times, students, budding entrepreneurs, and other interested individuals are able to work with the award-winning New York Times VR Team to learn how to create VR content from scratch. Teaching virtual reality at NYTedu includes design, development, and production in the process, but after running their programs for a full year, they identified some interesting best practices in educational VR content development.


According to Dr. Heinesen, students become excited with “full-on engagement and presence in VR,” but that doesn’t last. Certainly, “VR is just so cool—then we see a drop off.”

 What I learned from NYTedu is that, while the content industry dawdles forward, another revolution is slowly gathering steam. Students are heartily learning to craft their own content. Dr. Heinesen concludes: "We have to move from consumers of high quality content to producers of high quality content.” “[We have to] be conscious creators, not conscious consumers.” Watch out, VR content industry! You may play second fiddle. 

November 13, 2017

Not Much Content

While recently perusing my LinkedIn feed, I encountered this softly repining graphic:

Of course there's more than a smidgen of truth in the notion being alluded to here. I completely get it. Lots of talk at VR conferences, not much content, though. But there may be some sleight-of-hand at play here. While everyone's eyes are on production companies, and their inability to churn out content fast enough for our virtual appetites, the real action is taking place behind the scenes, and on a hugely grand scale. You see, no one is paying attention to the users themselves, many of whom are busy creating the content needed to speed the virtual reality revolution along its way. That's a big mistake, to not pay attention to user-generated content. I guess you could miss if, if you weren't paying much attention. For more insight, see next week's post.

November 6, 2017

The Dark Side of VR

At a recent conference, I saw how virtual reality made its presence known with a collective shout. In today's post, I will spill the other part of the story: “the dirty, grimy, unspoken part.” Here we go...


I left the conference in Austin with an uneasy feeling. It’s that queasy uneven feeling you get when bandwagon carelessly thumps into powerful innovation. No—virtual reality’s coronation pathway to the palace of ed-market success is not paved with gold bricks—at least not just yet. Here’s a reasoned look at why:
  • Nearly all of the VR sims I viewed struggled with granular, lower-resolution imagery; resolution far less sharp than students demand;
  • Most of the VR sims I viewed demonstrated noticeable latency; and latency issues can lead to the distasteful “virtual reality sickness” phenomenon.
  • I witnessed an over-dependence on spherical photography for content, or at least defined as VR content.
  • Nearly all of the VR sims I viewed were passive observational experiences (viewing), and not particularly interactive.
  • In every single session, the presenter(s) grumbled about the need for more educational content. Clearly, there is not enough educational content available for critical mass adoption in schools and universities. Period.
  • Not a single presenter I interviewed had a proper answer to address the vision issues associated with binocular viewing of stereo virtual reality experiences. One presenter naively suggested that the solution depended solely on improved VR content. 
  • Nearly all VR presenters haled from university-level programs or the corporate world, not K-12.

As a result, I left the halls of the Convention Center, writhing in palpable uncertainty, the kind that occurs when hype collides with potential; when exposure to exciting new technology meets with equal parts shudder and disdain. 

October 30, 2017

Cool VR @ SXSW

The predictive education bazaar that we know as SXSWedu is held each year in Austin, Texas in the Spring. 

Over the last two years, virtual reality made its presence known in a big way at SXSWedu. The diversity of approaches and angles is mind-boggling, such as:
  • Mike Cuales and Bethanne Tobey (North Carolina State University) talking about the use of 360 spherical video as a teaching tool .
  • Ilan Bren Yakov (MidCET) demonstrating the empathy-creating potential of virtual reality by placing your own head/vision in the body of a dog, chasing cats and living a dog’s life in general.
  • Carlos Castaneda (University of Chihuahua MX) demonstratingvirtual reality combined with gesture control (using a jerry-rigged Leap motion controller creatively mounted on VR headgear.
  • Renee Hobbs (University of Rhode Island) demonstratingthe Google Cardboard phenomenon.
  • In their presentation, “Virtual Exchange Meets Virtual Reality”, Grace Lau and Hanna Weitzer (Global Nomads Group) introducing their innovative project combining virtual reality with distance learning, called “Reimagine: Syria”. " (In this project, students from Los Angeles were dropped into a virtual reality recreation to understand the realities of the Syrian Crisis, and then later, were connected with actual refugee youth in Amman, Jordan in a live skyped session.)
  • Jennifer Holland (Product Manager for Google Expeditions) and Benjamin Scrom (Project Manager, Google) conductinga two-hour workshop entitled“Explore Your Worlds with Google Expeditions”, designed to take students “places a school bus can’t go”. 
  • Dr. Jennifer Simonson and Len Scrogan providing a medical perspective about the intersection of virtual reality, reading, learning, and healthy vision for children. 
  • Emory Craig, (Director of eLearning at the College of New Rochelle) and Maya Georgieva, (Co-Founder, Digital Bodies) [see their interesting web site] conducting a workshop raising fundamental questions about future media, storytelling, and narrative using this new medium. 
  • Lizzie Edwards (Education Manager, Samsung Digital Learning Programme [Samsung Digital Discovery Centre at the British Museum]) describing the museum’s effort to host a “virtual reality” weekend in which families were able to explore the Museum’s first virtual reality environment—a bronze Age round house—set within a realistic landscape, and showcasing 3D scans of real objects from this period in history.
  • The Digital Media Academy demonstratinghow they help students learn to create virtual reality environments through their community-based programs.
  • A college demonstrating how they use virtual reality as a recruiting tool to attract new students to their campus by featuring innovative virtual reality walkthroughs of their innovative learning spaces, experiencing the look and feel of the campus before having to commit to a college site visit.

As you can see, VR can take on numerous roles in education. In a few months I will provide a preview of virtual-reality sessions being offered at the upcoming SXSW 2018 conference.

October 23, 2017

Case Study Conclusion 2

Taking a more contrary point of view, I see a number of problems with the Chinese VR study we have been covering for the past month:  
  • I am concerned any time I see for-profit sponsors/authors of a research project. (Both sponsors of this study are commercial interests.) Although the findings are helpful, it is clear to me that this study was designed to promote the expanded use of VR learning, not merely understand it. Little chunks of uncensored hyperbole spread throughout the study leave me with this sense.
  • The study has an extremely low sample size, or low n, ensuring that the findings cannot actually be as conclusive as suggested.
  • The low sample size, along with the small number of HTC Vive units employed brings into question the scalability of implementing this technology in actual school settings, where student numbers are higher, and equipment costs would clearly skyrocket.
  • The focus on retention is troubling. This is low-lying fruit in the minds of educators. We want deeper learning, critical thinking, analysis, and synthesis. Two-week retention tests also seem contrived. Why not a month or two months?  
  • The type of testing that was administered remains unstated. What kind was it? Multiple choice testing? Essay writing? Performance testing? Previous research in this field suggests that students using visualization technologies perform better on essay-type tests (requiring higher-order thinking) than they do on multiple choice tests (requiring factual regurgitation).
  • The refrain throughout the study is that VR works well in education and produces positive academic results because it is FUN. Is that notion the best this research can offer as an explanation for the value of this technology? I think not. Game research suggests that challenge, competition, and noble failure are more motivating to us than fun; recent neuroscience or brain research might point to curiosity, storytelling (narrative), relevance, vividness, and novelty as the primary motivators working in and through VR technology.  

For me, all types of research matter… I prefer to read and report on all of it. Each study, survey, action research effort, or anecdotal collection provides us with the clues, contacts, and stepping stones to learn more. Each enables us to grow wiser, gather fresh insight, and seize upon new perspective. So there you have it. As I pondered this research study, I remembered the Hindi proverb: “Even a drowning man catches a straw.” Yes, the results of this study are all “good to know.” They advance our knowledge another step or two forward.

October 16, 2017

Case Study Conclusion 1

For the last three weeks, we have been examining a case study on using virtual reality for instruction within the Chinese schools. Although the authors conclude: “Students from each grade level achieved more progress by VR-based learning than traditional teaching”, my own feelings are mixed. 

Let's begin with some positive points. This Chinese study:
  • offers a laudable focus on education. (We need as much insight as we can get into using virtual reality for educational settings.)
  • tackles a perfect subject area—astrophysics—and asks the perfect question: “Will visualization (in this case VR) help students learn this difficult and abstract content?”
  • is smart to focus on stubborn, recurring learning challenges. (Using a promising technology to tackle an “easy” topic is simply unimportant.)
  • takes a closer look at the notion of measuring learning efficiency, which here is defined as reducing the amount of reteaching necessary to push students toward content mastery. More studies should look at this solid “return on investment” for teaching with VR.


October 9, 2017

Case Study, Part 3

Continuing with the theme from the last two weeks, we now want to focus on some of the qualitative findings coming out of the Chinese VR case study:

As is common in other case studies I have examined, students in this study are entirely enthusiastic about the use of virtual reality in science instruction. “The introduction of the latest VR technology into education is very fascinating to students, who are looking forward to seeing VR-based teaching integrated in their classes,” report the study’s authors. 

Notably, the female students were more likely to recommend VR instruction to others than the male students were. That’s a pleasant surprise.

Students and teachers were also polled about which content areas they would most like to see peppered with VR content. The chart below shows their preferences. (In the U.S., I sense there would be higher interest in mathematics and social sciences.)



Overall, this study concludes on a high note: “Every child is a genius in his or her own way. VR can be the key to awakening the genius inside.” 

October 2, 2017

Case Study, Part 2


The Chinese case study introduced in last week's post provides both quantitative and qualitative findings.

Quantitative Findings
At first blush, the use of VR in teaching seems to have a positive effect on test scores: The average score of the VR group was 93%, while the traditional instruction group evidenced a 73% average.  The lowest Score of VR group was 75%, while the lowest score in the first post-test for the traditional instruction group was 40%. In another measure, the VR group demonstrated a 27.4% growth in scores.

Interestingly, the study spent some time analyzing learning efficiency: only one student in the VR group required repeated teaching and follow-up testing to achieve mastery, which, accounted for 10% of the group members; in comparison, six students in traditional teaching group required reteaching, accounting for 60% of those students. According to the researchers, this suggests a certain level of spent-time learning efficiency that advantages schools with limited resources.

The use of VR in learning also appeared to offer positive results for knowledge retention. In the second test, administered two weeks later, the average score of the VR group approached 90%, while that of the traditional teaching group settled in at 68%. According to the authors, this suggests that knowledge taught in a traditional fashion is more inclined to be forgotten quickly.
The study also unmasked, according to the researchers, an unexpected discovery: “The average score of C students in the VR group reached 88%, 15.8% higher than that of the A students in the control (traditional) group.” The researchers concluded: “Every student has a special gift. As we found in the experiment, the right teaching method helps to discover children’s unlimited potential.” Incidentally, past U.S. technology studies in the arena of 3D learning and visualization harmonize with this discovery: many technologies have a greater impact on struggling students than they do on highly successful students.

In next week's post, we will uncover some of the qualitative findings in this case study.

September 25, 2017

VR in Ed Case Study

A Case Study - The Impact of VR on Academic Performance, published jointly by the Beijing Bluefocus E-Commerce Co. and the Beijing iBokan Wisdom Mobile Internet Technology Training Institutions offers some promising, although limited, insight into the use of VR in education.


Purpose
The experiment sought to show the difference between traditional teaching and VR-based teaching in astrophysics, along with impact upon student learning.

Assumptions
The authors explain that, in astrophysics, students cannot really “conduct experiments” like they would in other classes. “Students can only try to understand it through their imagination and teacher’s explanation.” The study assumes that VR-based teaching is “vivid and interactive,” making it entirely possible for students to understand abstract concepts “in a three-dimensional way; conduct simulated operations; and let students experience the scenarios at different cosmic velocity.”

Another assumption was that VR would support both theoretical knowledge as well as practical skills training by providing an immersive learning experience, enhancing students' sense of active involvement in class, and simply making learning more fun. The authors kvetched: “Most students lack interest in boring teaching and learning.” Enter virtual reality.

Procedures

The study was conducted at two full-time high schools in Beijing, with equal numbers of male and female students. They represented from A to C students in their normal classroom performance. The students were divided into groups for this study: one group adopted VR-based instruction (defined as thirty minutes of VR-based teaching), while the other group approached the content from a traditional teaching perspective (defined as thirty minutes of lecture and PowerPoint).  The same teacher was employed in all groups to avoid any experiment deviation caused by the professional difference among teachers. Immediate post-tests were then administered after the teaching to contrast both the academic performance and learning efficiency between the two groups. A second test was administered two weeks later to see if new knowledge was retained. Three HTC Vive virtual reality headsets were used in this study.

See next week's post for the surprising conclusions...

September 18, 2017

Sensavis Refreshed

What's new these days with Sensavis, the 3D content manufacturer? I followed them over the years, and their recent efforts have lent themselves to a fresh perspective, a rebranding, if you will.

Sensavis continues their U.S. messaging, recalibrating their 3D offering in a smart way. Their previous product, called The 3D Classroom, is now simply called 'Sensavis'. This makes sense, because the nomenclature 3D sounds old-school these days, having been effectively replaced by a newcomer to the mat—VR. (See my past post about this evolution, "What's in a Name?") 


At the same time, Sensavis has reshaped and refocused their mission: “teach, create, activate.” This notion can be translated as better teaching (through visualization), easy content creation, and actively involving students in their own learning. A nice reverse move! Student content creation is the newest meme coming out of educational circles, and Sensavis is wise to make this transition.


September 11, 2017

Beyond the Cool

Every month, I have occasion to meet with many innovators in both the 3D and VR industry—especially with many of the innovators bringing new products, displays, and solutions to the U.S. or Eurasian market. My experience thus far is that they are largely unaware of the seminal work conducted by the American Optometric Association found in See Well, Learn Well

In my experience, most innovators new to the VR scene don’t have a satisfactory answer for the educator or consumer with the concern that “this gives me headaches” or “will this hurt my children?” (The common responses are overly dismissive: “don’t let those children use the technology”; or “there is no problem at all.”) I continuously ask exhibit hall representatives about this issue, and to date, few are able to respond well. Plainly, VR strategists cannot expect success if they are oblivious to vision health issues involving so many customers, as discussed in the previous four posts. 

Just because 3D virtual reality headgear is cool, or the stereoscopic 3D 360 content is eye-popping and captivating, that doesn’t make it impervious to what we know about the vision challenges of children or customers. No, the vision issue didn’t just go away with the advent of the next big technology. The takeaway here is that companies will never sell VR or other advanced display technologies in a sustained fashion unless they also handle this vision health issue well. You can start by reading or re-reading the American Optometric Association’s seminal report on 3D vision health, See Well, Learn Well.


September 4, 2017

The Missing Link

In last week’s post I mentioned there is a bigger problem, one that helps explain why VR may not provide a comfortable viewing experience for a larger subset of viewers. The guilty party is our own vision.


Vision. This is actually the elephant in the room. This is a lesson not learned. Any VR experiences that are stereoscopic can induce symptoms such as soreness, dryness of the eyes, fatigue, headache, eye irritation, blurred or double vision, dizziness or nausea. That’s quite a list. Simply stated, if our eyes are unable to see 3D, and these kinds of symptoms occur, it is an indication of an underlying vision issue. It is not necessarily the fault of the content, the VR experience, or the hardware. It's your vision. Any student with myopia, hyperopia, astigmatism, convergence, alignment, accommodation, tracking, or suppression issues can experience viewing problems with VR.

This is a bigger deal than you think; let me quantify it for you. I often demonstrate VR experiences at adult party gatherings, conference workshops, and my own undergraduate classes. In all of these settings, approximately 20% experience discomfort when viewing a stereoscopic virtual reality experience. (Medical experts suggest that the 3D vision syndrome affects anywhere from 14-20% of the population, worldwide.)

And since I constrain the user viewing approach and my selection of content, this is solid evidence of stereopsis problems, not virtual reality sickness or misguided content.) Also, since most people don’t avail themselves of regular vision care, most people won’t know they have these problems until they strap on their VR headgear.

August 28, 2017

Why VR Discomfits

From an educator’s perspective, there are four reasons why VR may not provide a comfortable viewing experience for all:

The Content. Content can be poorly designed. I am reminded of a display at  InfoComm that was making passersby sick. The culprit: they were showing crummy content: poorly constructed stereo—too much swirling, fast action motion, and montage work. Showing furious rollercoaster rides, wild river rapid trips, or spiraling, headturning motion is simply crazy. The solution: in classrooms, we quickly learned to use only content that was designed well, for comfortable viewing by children.

The Driver. One can easily make teachers or students sick simply by ‘driving’ the viewing experience too fast: rotating images to quickly or zooming in and out too abruptly. In fact, after investigation, this is what caused the two children to vomit in the Florida case mentioned last week. The students were spinning themselves around wildly, trying to take in the overwhelming visual experience of Google Cardboard at a perilous pace. The solution: an ounce of prevention by taking time to explain students how to comport themselves when wearing VR headgear is worth a pound of cure (or vomit).

The Technology. Let’s stop and mention the mysterious phenomenon of virtual reality sickness. I am aware of several technology-based reasons why virtual reality sickness may make some people hate VR. Let’s discuss just one such theory, the notion of visual lag caused by inadequate rendering due to the limitations of underpowered hardware or software.  Certainly, sensory conflict arises when our eyes recognize a mismatch to our proprioception and vestibular input. According to leading vision experts, when flow is overloaded, interrupted, or confused, a general disorientation will result.


But there is still a bigger problem, one that helps explain why VR may not provide a comfortable viewing experience for a larger subset of viewers. Stay tuned to find out the fourth reason next week!

August 21, 2017

The Janus Incidence

Last week we looked at the love/hate relationship the press has with virtual reality. This week, let’s continue with that theme, but view it from the lens of a school environment. To begin, consider this anecdote from the field of education, recorded and verified in Orlando:
Twelve schools in one Florida school district were selected as part of the Google VR Expeditions program, which brings VR-based virtual field trips to students along with class sets of Google Cardboard VR viewers. Excited to begin, one of these elementary schools began their efforts with a high visible rollout for their new VR initiative. Google Cardboard viewers in hand, children were excited and wowed by their virtual reality field trip experiences. Except the two children who immediately vomited and had to leave the classroom.

Or consider this classroom in Aurora, Colorado just this last semester:

After an exciting VR learning exposure—their first exposure—nearly all of the students in this 6-7th grade classroom complained that they were disoriented afterwards, that their eyes were tired or hurt.



What’s really happening here? Has VR already become—in the minds of the collective—a contranym or auto-antonym? Good and bad in the same package, if you will? A Janus particle of sorts? ('Janus' is the name of an ancient Roman God, who had two faces.) I’m really not surprised at all this. That’s because the nascent VR industry still has not learned a primary lesson from the digital 3D revolution, one we learned quite well in schools. Stay tuned next week for the answers you seek….

August 14, 2017

I Love VR / I Hate VR

With much fanfare and waves of excitement, VR has been heralded in the press as the “next big thing.” Each week at least one article appears in the press, creating a market energy not seen since the early days of the digital 3D revolution. Behind the scenes, just as XPAND created their VR division, NUION, other industry stalwarts seem intent on racing to create their own VR content or hardware divisions.


But if you read between the lines—hidden among all the bluster—there’s an ill wind blowing. Please allow me to make my case, prove my point.
Notice the contradictions housed in each of these quotations from recent articles covering the emerging VR phenomenon:
“...2016 is the year many of us will have our first experience with VR. Let’s not mince words: VR is awesome. It is also very likely to be nauseating or at least a little disorienting, an effect that hits most folks.” 
“A technology might finally have its commercial moment in 2016... [yet] the experience can cause nausea, eyestrain and headaches. 
“It’s marked on 2016 calendars everywhere. Virtual reality finally gets real. ..You may also want some Dramamine. 
”...highend headsets arriving this year require expensive PCs, while inexpensive smartphone viewers can give users headaches.


In the same breath, really, so much vicissitude? Is virtual reality really such an exciting/destructive technology?

August 7, 2017

A 3D Video Essay

Here’s a delightful little primer, a video essay on the Art of 3D Cinema, for your enjoyment. Ever wonder about the artistic tablature of the 3D medium? Grab your VR headgear and watch it!


The Art of 3D Cinema from Louis Pattinson on Vimeo.

July 31, 2017

More 2D-3D-VR

Here’s another look at the differences between 2D-3D-VR. This one comes from Germany.


July 24, 2017

Seeing 2D-3D-VR

Folks are often confused with the differences between 2D, 3D, and VR. I ran into this visual interpretation on LinkedIn, which I am reproducing here, for all to see. I thought it might help a few folks.
Still, this graphic has at least three problems:
  1. It represents 3D glasses as anaglyph only, which is anachronistic. It ignores passive and active 3D glasses and may therefore confuse novices.
  2. It does not represent auto-stereoscopic 3D at all in its limited taxonomy. Glasses-free 3D only requires a screen—no glasses.
  3. The graphic does not provide an accurate representation of most VR glasses


Can you identify any other problems with this chart?

July 17, 2017

Key Questions

Allow me to conclude the previous four posts with a set of critical questions about VR content.  Some key questions to ponder are:

  1. When you display VR content in your classroom, does your content look like everyone else’s VR content? Are you living in an instructional echo chamber?
  2. Are all your VR content experiences found at the lowest levels of the above VR taxonomy? Or are you enriching your instrction by featuring the possibilities at the top end of the spectrum?
  3. Are you featuring passive or active educational uses of VR? Interactive? Collaborative?
  4. Has your overall experience moved beyond the obvious (wow factor, engagement, retention, gadget infatuation) to the real educational advantages highlighted in our taxonomy?

I am interested in knowing what you think. Or suggestions for improvement. Let me know.  

July 10, 2017

The Way Forward

Concluding our VR content discussion for the last four weeks, where do we go? The way forward, the prerequisite secret sauce for VR in education, is in interactivity and collaboration. And not just interactivity via head turning. In his book Think in 3D, Clyde DeSouza submits that it’s time for more interactivity in 3D and VR. “Real-time, stop-and-look-around interactivity is the way forward for a truly immersive experience,” he says. “This emotes in the audience feelings of belonging and identifying with the world being presented.”  Of course, DeSouza is on target, as usual. Although interactivity already serves as the bread and butter in the video game industry, that is not yet so with VR in education. In VR-based learning, content must change. Interactivity must be reified—it must become the thing. Current VR content manufacturers produce interactive simulations as an afterthought. There aren’t very many. That needs to change.


July 3, 2017

Way Too Passive

In last week's post, I highlighted my new taxonomy for VR content:



Although some big content developers seem satisfied with plans to roll out passive content, this is the content least in demand by educational gatekeepers (who also control the money in schools).  Remember one thing: school gatekeepers—such as district administrators, principals, and lead teachers—ferociously fight to keep passive learning experiences out of classrooms.

 One wonders: are these VR content developers “barking up the wrong tree?” Jack Ganse, a highly respected Colorado science teacher, once reminded me that they indeed are: “It's always a challenge to be mindful of and responsive to taxonomy when incorporating technology into the classroom. We run the risk of losing student engagement if we rely too heavily on just one taxonomic level, especially passive content.” He added: “Just as too many empty calories dilute our senses and compromise our nutritional health, too many passive technology experiences will dull and weaken the educational well-being of our students.” And there is ample reason for concern: while recently analyzing seventeen VR conference sessions at an ed-tech conference, I realized the interesting notion about [these] offerings is the apparent “echo chamber” at play. Too many of these sessions sound like the same content: the field trip or the gadget.

June 26, 2017

A VR Content Taxonomy

As mentioned in last week's post, I recently developed a new and improved taxonomy, one specific to educational virtual reality content:


In this revised taxonomy (see this link to download a larger image), I added a content category for collaborative virtual reality, i.e., the kind that enables participants to meet together, explore together, or work together. This kind of involvement transforms virtual reality into a shared rather than a solo experience. (A solid example of this genre of virtual reality can be found in the educational company, High Fidelity.) I also made an attempt to differentiate between spherical photography and 360° video, which dominate the Google Cardboard platform.

With an improved taxonomy in hand, I felt much better. But what didn’t change, in my way of thinking, is the core challenge: nearly all of the educational VR content I have seen to date still slides only into the first three lanes: spherical photography, more passive 360° video or animations, or learning objects. (Imagine simple walkthroughs, immersive field trips, and objects that can be rotated.) Despite their immersiveness in a VR context, these learning opportunities are all passive experiences. Yet hardly any VR content in today’s educational marketplace reaches into the more interactive lanes of micro-simulation, complex simulation, collaboration spaces, and user-generated content. These latter lanes often work well addressing a ‘wicked’ challenge in education today—the need to teach complex thinking and problem solving, not just teach for memorization.  

June 19, 2017

Toward Better VR Content

In a previous post (Is educational VRcontent ready for prime time) I tackled the notion of educational content categories for both 3D and virtual reality. I wrote: “…3D educational content came in a diversity of approaches and design--six flavors, if you will,” adding that “contemporary VR content for the education market today still fits clearly into these same lanes.” See my original thinking in the chart below.



Upon further reflection, I knew I was wrong—or at least missing something in my taxonomy.  I refined my thinking and developed this new, improved taxonomy, one specific to educational virtual reality content:



Come back next week for a careful drill down on this new taxonomy.