A New Chapter Book on Virtual Learning

I opened the mail the other day and found a new book I’ve been expecting: Virtual Reality: Concepts and Applications, edited by Pramod Rao and Sameer A. Zodgekar. Way back in July last year, I noted that the Institute of Chartered Financial Analysts of India University Press picked up an article of mine, “The (Virtual) Classroom of Tomorrow” that originally ran in TechEdge. The article focuses on the educational aspects of Active Worlds, Second Life and Dr. Greg Jones’ Created Reality Group classrooms.

The book is divided into two sections, Concepts and Applications. My article leads off the applications section, which also has several other fine chapters. Find the complete table of contents here. If you’re in the states, and you don’t mind waiting for overseas delivery, the book is only $16.50.

TCEA 2008: Created Realities Group’s Chalk House Offers Virtual World Literacy

Dr. Greg Jones over at University of North Texas is part of a new generation of professors interested in researching gaming and virtual worlds for educational purposes. I had the distinct pleasure of attending classes in a virtual lecture hall hosted through his company, Created Realities Group. In 2006, I profiled CRG and the distance learning experience in an article for TechEdge, the journal for the Texas Computer Education Association. Here is a bit of what I wrote back then:

When UNT students meet together for a session in Dr. Jones’ Created Reality Group (CRG) virtual classroom, they have three primary ways to communicate. First, they can speak through microphones attached to their computers. When one talks, others listen. In this way, students can share with one another and professors can give lectures. If multiple groups of people need to carry on conversations at the same time, they can go into different classrooms in the virtual school building for private conversations.

Second, a text chat window is also available. This is particularly useful for those students without a microphone. It also allows students to type in questions while someone is lecturing. The software keeps track of written activity, allowing the professor the opportunity to review it at a later date. The chat window can be moved and resized on students’ screens.

Finally, presentation slides can be shown during lectures. Each student sees the same slides as the lectures progress. The teacher (or student) giving the presentation is in control of when the slides advance. This results in lectures similar to what we are used to hearing and seeing in real life, the difference lying in the remote location of the participants.

In short, teaching elements found in the typical classroom are replicated in the CRG virtual classroom. The question remains, how do students like it? In his research with UNT students using the software at a distance, Jones and his colleagues discovered new students displayed an almost universal urge to explore the environment their first time logging in (Jones, Morales, & Knezek, 2005). Other elements lent themselves to a need for familiarity with the new environment before settling down and using it as the teaching tool for which it was designed.

After getting used to the software, students have expressed enthusiasm with the idea of three dimensional virtual classrooms. Many students, both in high school and at the university level, are used to traditional distance learning software. Commercial titles include WebCT and Blackboard, which have now merged, and open source products including Moodle and Sakai. All these distributed learning environments offer a two dimensional replication of paper learning. Students read the assignments, submit papers, take online quizzes, and post to discussion forums. On occasion, a real time text chat may take place.

Software like Dr. Jones’ CRG environment offer the next step in online learning: a three dimensional representation of a school building users can meet in and take live courses from the teacher at a distance. As Dr. Jones’ research continues, he posts updates of papers on his site at UNT: http://courseweb.unt.edu/gjones/

In the last couple years, Dr. Jones’ CRG team has kept busy refining and adding to the company’s offerings. I was intrigued to discover a CRG booth at TCEA 2008, and dropped by to visit with my professor and see what his team has been up to. What I discovered was a brilliant concept for teaching students at the middle and high school levels, a new product from CRG called Chalk House. Here is the introduction from the CRG website:

Chalk House, the first in a series of situated learning modules being developed as a collaboration between Created Realities Group and the Design+Research Collective, is an online computer-based 3D environment in which game play and engaging narrative are used to improve student literacy skills, namely reading and writing, are the key focus of learning. Chalk House uses the CRG 3D online learning environment to deliver this learning module.

One thing became clear while I played through Chalk House at CRG’s booth: students used to modern videogames will feel right at home in the environment. Quest givers and fulfillers use common nomenclature and symbolism. The environment uses situated learning, placing students in the role of investigating a spooky house. Several literacy events ensue, involving an engaging narrative and requiring much reading and writing for students. A six step writing process is required of students in which they go through a pre-writing step, create rough drafts, revise their drafts, engage in peer editing and teacher editing, and finally turn in a polished product.

Chalk House offers a product specifically tailored for students resistant to traditional text teaching. By couching extensive reading and writing in a virtual world, the program offers pedagogical opportunities students won’t find in many other places. It’s a well-polished product backed by extensive research. For more info on Chalk House, and a bibliography of the papers backing up its philosophical and functional frameworks, visit http://created-realities.com/chalkhouse.html

References:
Jones, J. G., Morales, C., & Knezek, G. A. (2005). 3d online learning environments: Examining attitudes toward information technology between students in internet-based 3d and face-to-face classroom instruction. Educational Media International, 42(3), 219-236.

Rice, J. (2006, Spring). The (virtual) classroom of tomorrow. TechEdge 25(3). 14-15, 41.

Make Your Own Online Educational World with VastPark

Educators love to appropriate existing technologies for pedagogical purposes. And so we have educational radio programs, TV programs, videogames … and instructional applications in virtual worlds (VWs) such as Second Life and Active Worlds. However, there is an unfortunate lack of control in VW environments, as griefers manifest themselves with online terrorism, and students may potentially wander into explicit adult areas.

What educators really need are VWs they control completely, regulating who has access as well as the pedagogy that is covered. Dr. Greg Jones over at UNT is a pioneer of this idea. Now, the potential for teachers to easily create their own online education worlds is proffered with a new service from VastPark, which bills itself as a “distributed virtual worlds platform.” Essentially, you design your VW using VastPark’s tools, invite users to stroll your virtual realm with their avatars, and achieve your online objectives whether that be making money or teaching students at a distance.

VastPark is in closed beta, but is available by invitation. For those who’ve seen the tools in beta, such as Jason Stoddard over at Centric, the worlds are amazingly detailed, and remarkably easy to work with. I’ve taken a look at CEO Bruce Joy’s video of VastPark’s Creator Tool, and can attest that it looks fantastic. Its feature list is also impressive.

If VastPark can help teachers easily make their own VWs, we may see a surfeit of online worlds dedicated to educational purposes.

Stay Off the Grass: Bypassing Content Filters for Educational Gaming & Web 2.0

I recall hearing a story (somewhere down the line … probably in a college lecture) about an architect hired to design a cluster of buildings. Once built and ready for sidewalks connecting the entrances, he ordered grass seeded between the buildings and delayed sidewalk construction a while. In a few months the grass grew, and people going in and out of the buildings made their own pathways to the doors. At that point, the architect ordered the sidewalks constructed … following the elegant and efficient pathways created by the people.

I remember that story every time I walk through a college or school campus and see paths through the grass where people follow more efficient routes than the sidewalks. At UNT, despite signs pleading with students to stay off the grass, and rope barriers cutting off students’ favorite route between the two main education buildings, the powers that be finally relented and built a sidewalk for the most popular shortcut.

What a powerful idea it was for the architect to simply wait and let the people … the end users … figure out the best places for the sidewalks to go! Think of the money saved, and the aesthetics involved. What a powerful analogy the story is for educational technology, too. “Sidewalks,” or connections to information and resources, must be built for organizations. But, when the connections are dictated without input from those using the connections, efficiency suffers. And those connecting to resources within an organization (“walking to the doors between buildings”) often find their own ways that are more efficient than is what dictated from above.

This helps explain the ongoing conundrum Web 2.0 tools face in academic environments, including instructional gaming. I was reminded of the sidewalk story while catching up with some blogs recently. In late October, uber-blogger Robert Scoble noted during a discussion with his son’s high school buddies that Facebook and MySpace were blocked at school. This didn’t stop them, of course, and Scoble notes various tips the teens had to get around the filters. Scoble himself simply turns on his Verizon wireless data card and bypasses the filter altogether. Fooey on over-controlling administrators, Scoble says.

What is most interesting to me are the attitudes people have toward school filters. They follow the same patterns some people have in their attitudes toward instructional videogames in schools. Namely, some folks think that using the Web for anything besides serious purposes is a waste of time, and should not be allowed in school. The problem is, they want to dictate where to pave the sidewalks. What is “serious” is what they define as serious; anything else should be banned.

Reading the many comments Scoble received is more interesting than his original post. Some folks just don’t get it. One poster wrote: “I’m sorry, but why should we be encouraging kids to circumvent school policies?” Another suggested time would be better spent with teachers than on Facebook. Scoble pointed out that Ray Ozzie, Walt Mossberg, and Joi Ito are all on Facebook. But, because the school blocks the site, accessing these experts in their respective fields while at school is “inappropriate.” He sums up: “But, no, you keep thinking that Facebook is just for fooling around.” Ouch.

The arguments go downhill from there. They should access these sites on their time, not the teacher’s time. Scoble counters: they’re still blocked during recess, before and after school, and that is his son’s time. Teaching your son to circumvent policies he disagrees with may lead him to disregard policies on drugs and guns, too. Scoble dismisses this argument: “You think Wikipedia even belongs in the same sentence as guns and drugs. Discussion over.” Some sided with Scoble, stating that learning to circumvent filters is a good life skill to pick up in school.

The issue of filters and their impediment to teaching was brought up earlier in November by Miguel Guhlin. The Web 2.0 product at issue was Google Docs. An administrator on the Texas technology directors’ listserv noted that Google Docs was used by both teachers and students in their district, but had recently been blocked. Miguel has been railing against folks preventing the adoption of important technologies in school settings for years, and he used this opportunity to again deride those demanding we all stay on the sidewalk.

Finally, a poster on the Serious Games listserv, which is filled with academics and industry professionals, noted, in a tone of bemused frustration, that a game he had worked on for a school was now blocked at the very same school.

-*-

I have written two articles for TechEdge that address techniques students use for bypassing filters. These were aimed at helping educate teachers and administrators who are responsible for preventing students in their care from accessing inappropriate sites, and giving them the sense that filters are far from perfect. In the second article, I noted that educators are often more frustrated by the filters than their students. One teacher confided he used his own laptop and Internet connection to bypass the filter at school, essentially following the route Scoble suggested.

Here are some things I’ve noted in comments over on Miguel’s blog and in my articles:

1. Filters are in schools because Congress says they should be. The Child Internet Protection Act (CIPA) dictates that schools receiving federal funds must block objectionable content. It will literally take an act of Congress to get rid of filtering, so don’t hold your breath. Besides, it is “for the children,” and consequently few would want to vote against it. Never mind if it really is beneficial for children, or in fact detrimental. It has been labeled as “for the children,” ergo est. Folks peeved at filters should aim their frustration at politicians, not school personnel.
2. Most filters used by schools are run by the big filtering companies. When something is blocked, for better or worse, rightly or wrongly, save your ire for those companies, not the hapless school administrators. It is true IT personnel can “open” a site deemed harmful by the filtering company, but doing so will involve discussion with the appropriate administrator or committee.
3. The big filtering companies don’t block sites out of spite. They have automated spiders scouring the net, and looking at sites visited by subscribers. When a site fits the criteria for blocking, its URL is added to a list that is updated daily. There is (usually) no Grinch-like administrator hunting for good sites to block. The process is typically automatic. This leads to one of the primary criticisms against filters, that they are reactionary. It usually takes a real live person to go back and correct mistakes made by the bots.
4. As long as there are filters in schools, there will be ways around the filters. A Canadian reference book published in PDF by Citizenlab.org went up recently. Kids can set up proxy sites on their home computers and bypass the filters, use web-enabled devices, or use a host of other techniques. Barring access to anything online is akin to shouting at the wind. People will get irritated the sidewalk doesn’t go where they want, and will get their feet muddy anyway.
5. Unfortunately, along with sites advocating sax and violins, gambling and other vices, Web 2.0 sites are lumped in with the R rated stuff. The reason: liability. Schools don’t want students to make unregulated posts in public parts of the Web using school equipment.
6. Also unfortunately, “gaming” is lumped in with filtering companies’ “bad” categories, because gaming is seen as a waste of time on computers. This includes serious gaming, academic and educational gaming, and often even Google searches for gaming sites. And that’s too bad. The bots can no more distinguish an academically valuable game useful for the classroom from a flash arcade game that is pure drivel.

So there it is. Stay on the sidewalks. But, if you see a quicker, more efficient route to your destination … just follow the path.

Games In Education: An Interview with Eva Zadeh

Earlier in the semester, I was contacted by grad student and freelance writer Eva Zadeh and interviewed by e-mail for a paper on which she is working. I thought Zadeh’s questions were good ones on the topic of educational videogames, and she agreed to let me put my answers in this blog. Here, then, is the interview. (I’ve since brushed up my responses, but the content is substantially the same.)

Q: Why is it important to put video games in classrooms?
A: The question is still out as to whether or not video games are important for classroom use. Certain media hold advantages over other media, depending on the situation. For instance, books are good for preserving dense information. Lectures are good for transmitting brief information quickly. Videogames are good for simulated experiences that can be pedagogical in some way.

The best place for videogames may well be in after school or extracurricular programs where time is not as limited and there is less concern about traditional testing. This is backed up in Squire’s dissertation, and elsewhere.

Q: For how long have you been working on educational video games? Is it something new?
A: I’ve centered my doctoral work around educational videogames. In that regard, I’ve been in the field personally only a few years. I think Marc Prensky helped popularize the idea of instructional videogames with his book in 2001. I think James Paul Gee helped popularize the idea in the educational research establishment with his book in 2003.

Some might say that instruction through videogames has been occurring since videogames first appeared. They were introduced (although via tube technology and not true vector graphics that some folks define as video) at the Brookhaven Nuclear Laboratory in the 1950s.

Personally, I think the notion of instruction through gaming received its biggest boost when Microsoft introduced Windows Solitaire. This game “trained” computer users on a mouse. Up to that time, PC users mostly navigated without a mouse. Windows required a mouse for some activities. Folks who had never used a mouse before became quite proficient after a few rounds with Windows Solitaire.

Q: I read in one of your papers that it was “widely believed that much more learning can take place within active environments.” How widely? Numbers? Since when?
A: This is a key question for which we are awaiting more empirical data. As frustrating as that might be, one of the even more fundamental questions yet to be resolved is, What should we measure? If we are going to measure test scores, I suspect that videogames won’t show any more improvement than any other program or product. My personal theory on improved test scores is, it doesn’t matter what product is used. What matters are the teachers, and what they do to get students to learn. The product matters little, in my opinion, other than to help promote an initial burst of enthusiasm.

Now, the idea that active environments promote learning more than static ones falls back on constructivism, and that opens up another can of worms altogether. Constructivists will always come down on the side of active environments, with or without empirical data to back them up. There may well be some research on what students learn through active environments as opposed to static ones. I recall a survey of students who went through an interactive museum exhibit versus those going through static exhibits. If memory serves, the interactive group enjoyed their experiences more, although they came away with knowledge of fewer facts.

I believe the quote in question was a synthesis of arguments by Squire and Jenkins, from the Insight journal, around 2003. Since then, much more attention has been paid to the field, with multiple journal articles and research in both education and the medical field. One of the better summaries of papers detailing benefits of educational videogames down through the years can be found in Simon Egenfeldt-Nielsen’s article, “Third Generation Educational Uses of Computer Games,” in the latest issue of Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia. See Table 1 for his list.

Q: Video games are said to be more engaging. Where does that theory come from? Situated learning? Or something else? Role of the teachers and books?
A: I would argue videogame interaction is self evidently more interactive than sitting through a lecture. I have proposed a means of estimating the higher thinking potential of any game, in a paper published in January this year in the Journal of Technology and Teacher Education. This involves a melding of Bloom’s Taxonomy to videogame interaction. The article is entitled, “Assessing Higher Order Thinking in Video Games.”

As for the roles of teachers and books, some of the largest ongoing experiments have used both extensively with videogame environments. Indiana’s Quest Atlantis makes heavy use of hybrid learning, and the virtual world itself is quite text intense. In fact, I have discussed this with one of the lead developers, Dr. Scott Warren, now at UNT. My premise: Quest Atlantis is really a highly digitized, interactive text environment. If memory serves, Dr. Warren agreed, although he noted that much more than reading is involved with Quest Atlantis.

Nonetheless, text plays a key role in many of these games, which require reading and typing in order to engage in the environment. Books and teachers will never relinquish their key roles in the classroom. Videogames will increasingly offer supplemental educational vehicles, giving teachers additional resources to use in and out of the classroom.

Q: How do you measure the efficiency of video games in classrooms?
A: Again, efficiency of what? Efficiency of increasing knowledge? Higher test scores? Do videogames fall under the same media umbrella that other media do in Clark’s “delivery truck” argument, where he asserted media is immaterial in delivering the content? Or, do the interactions within games result in higher engagement and additional intrinsic motivation to discover new knowledge inside and outside the game, and school?

Q: Have scientists worked on the impact of learning through video games on the kids’ brains?
A: The major work in the hard sciences have centered around visual plasticity (Green & Bavelier) and glucose levels (Haier). Prensky is best known for postulating the digital natives / digital immigrants divide, but showed little in the way of experiments to back up the claim. Rosser showed that hand-eye coordination from videogame play has real world applications in modern surgery. Farrace-Di Zinno demonstrated that boys diagnosed with ADHD were more still and focused while engaged in videogames.

So, something is going on in the brain. Measuring the impact is somewhat difficult. Haier’s work with PET scans dates back to 1992, so at some point somebody will probably build on that work and give us a more detailed look at what is going on inside the brain during game play.

Here are the citations to the works above:
Farrace-Di Zinno, A.M., Douglas, G., Houghton, S. Lawrence, V., West, J. & Whiting, K. (2001, November). Body movements of boys with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) during computer video game play. British Journal of Educational Technology 32(5). 607-618.

Green, C.S., Bavelier. D. (2007). Action-video-game experience alters the spatial resolution of vision. Psychological Science 18(1), 88-94.

Haier, R. J. (2003). Positron emission tomography studies of intelligence: From psychometrics to neurobiology. In Nyborg, H. [Ed.]. The scientific study of general intelligence — Tribute to Arthur R. Jensen. 41-52. New York: Pergamon.

Prensky, M. (2001a, September/October). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6.

Prensky, M. (2001b, November/December). Digital natives, digital immigrants, part 2: Do they really think differently? On the Horizon, 9(6), 1-6.

Rosser, J.C., Lynch, P.J, Cuddihy, L., Gentile, D.A., Klonsky, J., Merrell, R. (2007, February). The impact of video games on training surgeons in the 21st Century. Archives of Surgery, 142(2). 181-186.

Q: What perspectives do you see for the future? Do you see any evolution in the field?
A: A defining groundwork, where everybody agrees to the same set of definitions, will help. I think we’ll see much more empirical data come out of the medical literature, with applications for education. Finally, we need a really killer app for education that meets the needs I spelled out at AECT 2005: a product with an appropriate cognitive load for students, aligned to standards, with problem solving germane to the subject; probably built on a rich 3D environment, and easily customizable by the teacher. I think we see a lot of this already in teachers tweaking the Neverwinter Nights engine for their own classroom use, but it takes an inordinate amount of time programming that game. If something out there could be offered that was easier for teachers to use in the classroom, I think considerable interest among educators and researchers would follow.

-*-

Zadeh’s questions were good ones, and I enjoyed having to think about the topics she brought up, and justify some of my positions in the field. All told, it was a very thoughtful exercise, and I appreciated the opportunity to respond.

JAET Article Cited in Adobe Serious Games Whitepaper

It’s always nice to see an article in the Journal of Applied Educational Technology get cited elsewhere. Earlier this year, I noted fellow UNT doc student Mary Jo Dondlinger’s paper on serious games. Recently, I noted with interest that Anne Derryberry, over at I’m Serious.Net, included a citation for Mary Jo’s article in her whitepaper for Adobe Systems on serious games. Best of all, “Serious Games: Online Games for Learning” is freely available online, and freely distributable. It’s in Adobe PDF format, of course.

Teens Exercise, Learn PE at Video Game Gym

Here’s an AP article by Rachel Konrad about a gym called Overtime in Mountain View, California that focuses on teen-aged clientele. To get them in the door, the gym offers a video arcade with the latest in kinesthetic video games. The key quote:

Investors and employees – including founder Patrick Ferrell, who launched GamePro Magazine and helped establish the video game conference E3 – say high-tech toys lure some teens. But they say the gym also offers nutritional counseling and academic tutoring that encourage lifelong health.

Ximena Urrutia-Rojas over at UNT also gets a nice quote, emphasizing that good health needs a whole family approach.

Sarah Barlow over at Saint Louis University gets the final quote:

“Even for adults, the treadmill and stationary bike don’t sustain interest over time,” Barlow said. “I like the idea of taking video games, which are so successful at engaging kids, and modifying them to get kids engaged in physical activity – now that’s fun.”

The ALA’s Gaming, Learning, & Libraries Symposium

The American Library Association is holding their Gaming, Learning, & Libraries Symposium (GLLS 2007) this week in Chicago and Paul Waelchli over at the Research Quest blog is doing a bang up job of reporting on the conference.

Check out his comments on Thom Kevin Gillespie over at Indiana on why serious games shouldn’t be taken so seriously. Also check out his posts on the James Paul Gee keynote and the Henry Jenkins keynote. Last but not least, check out his post about Annie Downey and Kristin Boyett from University of North Texas (shameless plug!) for their presentation on a library information literacy project involving serious video games.