Sunday, March 13, 2011

Class 8 Continued [1-3]: Research

MP3 on Commercial/Academic Research [1]

The first paper's abstract, which talks about the differences of "presence" in a game, specifically 3D vs. 2D experiences of the same simulation, BiLAT. I think the people's reaction to Avatar is completely idiotic. Fantasy settings have a certain draw to them, but NONE of them are utopian in execution. I think people down-play the issues that were present on Pandora, like fighting a war against another race is supposed to be fun? No, there's death involved on a scale way bigger than any war going on today. Reality may be shitty to these people, but these virtual worlds are just as bad, if not worse.[2a]

The paper goes into the effects of people interacting with the game in a 3D environment, speaking with a NPC (I'm guessing) and making decisions by clicking and such. The NPC responds with gestures and sounds. [2a]
The opposite of that would be a classic PC-type text adventure where you're typing in all your responses, like PC D&D [2a]

They don't really go into how the numbers are derived (more specifically, what does a difference of 1 really mean). I guess it's interesting, but I can't say I'm surprised at the results. It makes perfect sense that something that is more visually stimulating will provide better "presence." However, I think the focus changes quite a bit when you start to mess with adding/removing senses from the experience. [2a]

"Participants reported a significantly greater 
sense of presence with the  3D version, but measures of learning revealed that both 
conditions showed significant but statistically equal gains in terms of declarative and 
conceptual understanding of cultural knowledge."

Here's my gripe about the whole study. I don't believe "presence" is necessary for learning, not for every module at least. The more fancy layers and such you put into an experience (let's say Modern Warfare, for instance), the more distracting the shiny, exploding things are likely to distract you from whatever message is being presented. It might lead to a more visceral experience, but more often than not that leads to a different focus. It's hard to teach about the horrors of war when you're rewarded for mowing "enemies" down. It definitely works in ~some~ instances, but I hardly think virtual experiences with "presence" are better for education than text-only, or as a substitute for classrooms. [2a]

The second paper deals with similar topics. "But how realistic do problems need
to be in education for effective learning to occur? Some authors and 
researchers argue that problems should be real, or that simulations
should have ultra-realistic physical similarity to an actual context."

I'd once again argue against that. It all depends on context and what is being taught. It can be helpful or detrimental to the experience, it all depends. Air force, military, medical. These areas make sense, others not so much. [2b]

One reason why interactive learning is great for the military and medical areas is because people in the field need the practice, and need to be prepared for something similar if it happens IRL. It's not likely a fighter pilot can spar with another person to test and hone his skills, but IF a virtual environment is real enough then yes he can train for hypothetical encounters through VR. Same with medicine. Surgeons needs to be comfortable with procedures. Like a very complicated game of "Operation", it helps that they come prepared with steady hands and don't get freaked out if something happens. [2b]

These classes have a certain aspect of role-play. I think it's fine if it's a specific, focused class. All the ones they listed make sense to some degree. There are numerous methods for teaching, but they vary depending on the subject matter being taught. It all has to be relevant, real. Which I guess the authors do agree with. The thing is though, most of these methods can also be executed in-person, in a classroom. People just need to buy into the whole "pretend time" aspect of it.

The experience can be helped with these virtual environments, but I disagree with claims that it's just as effective as the real thing. Taking a class to some town may be possible, but nothing beats going there in person. That's almost like saying I don't need to travel around the world because I have Google Earth StreetView.[2b]

No comments:

Post a Comment