Friday , April 19 2024

Using Virtual Reality for Developing Design Communication

Gisli THORSTEINSSON1, Tom PAGE2, Andrei NICULESCU3,4
1 University of Iceland,
v/Stakkahlid, 101, Reykjavik, Iceland
cdt@khi.is
2 Loughborough University
Loughborough, Leicestershire, LE11 3TU, UK
t.page@lboro.ac.uk
3 Spiru Haret University,
13 Ion Ghica Street, Bucharest 3, Romania
andreiniculescu@hotmail.com
4 I C I Bucharest
(National Institute for R & D in Informatics)
8-10 Averescu Blvd.
011455 Bucharest 1, Romania

Abstract: This paper explores the possibilities of using a Virtual Reality for cooperative idea generation and then attempts to assess the relationship between a student’s cooperation and the design process, learning experiences and the pedagogy employed by the teacher. The researchers based their research around the following questions:

  1. How could collaborative idea generation be incorporated within the VRE?
  2. How does this relate to teaching and learning within the lesson?
  3. How do communications during the lesson support students’ work?

Keywords: Idea generation; Virtual Reality Environment; multiple communication; cooperative idea generation; cooperative learning; user interface; remote observation, and screen captured videos.

>>Full text
CITE THIS PAPER AS:
Gisli THORSTEINSSON, Tom PAGE, Andrei NICULESCU, Using Virtual Reality for Developing Design Communication, Studies in Informatics and Control, ISSN 1220-1766, vol. 19 (1), pp. 93-106, 2010.

1. Introduction

Conventional learning comes in a range of forms and is therefore difficult to characterise. However, learning is usually based on the idea of information provided by an instructor during lectures and printed course materials (McInnerney 2002). The primary modes of learner interaction, therefore, are learner-instructor and learner-content (Bricken 1990), with almost no learning taking place between the students. The Virtual Reality Environment (VRE) enables multiple online communications and thus supports different forms of learning within the classroom context (Thorsteinsson & Denton 2008).

The rapid rise of computers and networks has triggered the introduction of novel forms of communication in education: computer-mediated communications (CMC) can take many forms, but asynchronous threaded discussions give learners the time to think about problems and allow them the opportunity to discuss possible solutions within a group (McInnerney 2002). With Virtual Reality Learning, students can access other student’s responses and add to them over time (Thorsteinsson & Denton 2006), and actively participate in constructing new knowledge (Thorsteinsson 2002). This allows students to discuss ideas in groups and solve any problems, thus extending classroom time (McInnerney 2002).

Cooperative Learning is a teaching arrangement that refers to small, heterogeneous groups of students working together to achieve a common goal (Kagan, 1994); students work together to learn and are responsible for their team-mates’ learning, in addition to their own.

Hundreds of studies (including Kagan, 1994 & Johnson, Johnson, & Stanne 2000) have been undertaken to measure the success of cooperative learning as an instructional method with regards to social skills and student learning and achievement across all levels, from primary grades through to college. The general consensus is that cooperative learning can and usually does result in positive student outcomes in all domains (Johnson & Johnson 2001).

The authors observed the impact of students’ communication on their joint design during their work. Students’ different roles and initiative were studied, as was their ability to draw inside the Virtual Reality Environment.

A pilot study was undertaken in an elementary school, using a Virtual Reality (VR) to facilitate cooperative idea generation within the context of the classroom; this technology supports online communications and enables students to develop drawings and descriptions of their solutions. The VRE was connected to the Internet, and students were able to work both online and face-to-face during the lesson. The aim was to explore the ways in which idea generation was developed in students during their work; the produced data was qualitative and analysis based on grounded theory principles and an interpretive paradigm. Three data instruments were used to enable triangulation: observation, screen captured videos and the teacher’s logbook. Also, using remote observation software allowed the collection of a rich record of actual computer work activity in its natural work setting. A qualitative and inductive methodology, developed by Glaser and Strauss (1967), was used to analyse the data.

The authors firstly review the literature and introduce the pilot study. Then, they discuss the research design, the undertakings of the pilot study and the findings. Finally they analyse the outcome and draw their conclusions.

REFERENCES

  1. BRICKEN, W., Learning in Virtual Reality. Human Interface Technology Laboratory, University of Washington, 1990.
  2. *** Camtasia 3.0. Homepage for the software: http://www.camtasia.com (accessed 6. april 2009).
  3. COHEN, E. G., Making Cooperative Learning Equitable, Educational Leadership, 56, 1998, pp. 18-22.
  4. CROMBY, J., P. STANDEN, D. BROWN, Using Virtual Environments in Special Education. VR in the Schools, 1 (3), 1995, pp. 1-4.
  5. CRUZ-NEIRA, C., D. J. SANDIN, T. A. DEFANTI, Surround-Screen Projection-Based Virtual Reality: The Design and Implementation of the CAVE, ACM SIGGRAPH ’93 Proceedings, Anaheim, CA, August 1993, pp. 135-142.
  6. DEDE, C. J., The Future of Multimedia: Bridging to Virtual Worlds, Educational Technology; 32 (5), 1992, pp. 54-60.
  7. DEMEREST, M., Understanding Knowledge Management, Journal of Long Range Planning 30 (3), 1997, pp. 374-384.
  8. GUILFORD, J. P., Creativity. American Psychologist, 5(1), 1950, pp. 444-454.
  1. GLASER, B., A. STRAUSS, The Discovery of Grounded Theory, Chicago: Aldine, 1967.
  2. GOODWIN, M. W., Cooperative Learning and Social Skills: What Skills to Teach and How to Teach Them, Interventions in School & Clinic, 35, 1999, pp. 29-34.
  3. HAMIT, F., Virtual Reality and the Exploration of Cyberspace, Carmel, Indiana: Sams Publishing, 1993.
  4. JOHNSON, D., J. JOHNSON, Cooperative Learning. 2001, Retrieved on November 15, 2002 from the web site: http://www.clcrc.com/pages/ cl.html.
  5. JOHNSON, D. W., R. T. JOHNSON, M. B. STANNE, Cooperative Learning Methods: A meta-analysis. Retrieved July, 2000 from the World Wide Web: http://www.clcrc.com/pages/cl-methods.html
  6. JOHNSON, G. M., Principles of Instruction for At-risk Learners, Preventing School Failure, 42, 1998, pp. 167-181.
  7. JOHNSON, D. W., R. T. JOHNSON, M. B. STANNE, Cooperative Learning Methods: A Meta-analysis. Retrieved July, 2000 from the World Wide Web: http://www.clcrc.com/pages/cl-methods.html
  8. JOYCE, W. B., On the Free-rider Problem in Cooperative Learning, Journal of Education for Business, 74, 1999, pp. 271-274.
  9. KAGAN, S., Cooperative Learning. San Clemente, California: Kagan Publishing, 1994.
  10. KAGAN, S., Group Grades Miss the Mark, Educational Leadership, 52, 1995, pp. 68-72.
  11. KRUEGER, M., Artificial Reality II. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1991.
  12. LANIER, J., M. MINSKY, S. FISHER, A. DRUIN, Virtual Environments And Interactivity: Windows To The Future, 1989 ACM Siggraph Panel Proc., 1991.
  13. LOEFFLER, C. E., T. ANDERSON, (Eds.), The Virtual Reality Casebook. New York, Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1994.
  14. MAIER, N. R. F., Problem-solving Discussions and Conferences: Leadership Methods and Skills. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1963.
  15. MILLER, W. L., L. MORRIS, Fourth Generation R&D: Managing Knowledge, Technology and Innovation. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York, 1999, p. 347.
  16. MCINNERNEY, J. M., Collaborative or Cooperative Learning? Online Collaborative Learning: Theory and Practice Information Science Publishing. USA, 2002, pp. 218-229.
  17. MILLIS, B., Cooperative Learning. 1996, May, Paper presented at The University of Tennessee at Chattanooga Instructional Excellence Retreat, USA. Retrieved on February 25, 2002 from the web site: http://www.utc.edu/ Teaching-Resource-Center/CoopLear.html.
  18. OSBORNE, A. F., Applied Imagination: Principles and Procedures of Creative Problem Solving, New York, Scribner’s, 1963.
  19. PAGE, T., G. THORSTEINSSON, M. LEHTONEN, A. NICULESCU, Management of Knowledge in a Problem Based Learning Environment, Studies in Informatics and Control, 18(3), September 2009, ISSN 1220-1766, pp 255-262.
  20. PAGE, T., G. THORSTEINSSON, A. NICULESCU, A Pedagogical Consideration of Technology Enhanced Laboratory Work in Technology Education, Studies in Informatics and Control, 17(1), March 2008, ISSN 1220-1766, pp 85-94.
  21. PANTELIDIS, V. S., North Carolina Competency-based Curriculum Objectives and Virtual Reality. Unpublished document. Greenville, NC: Virtual Reality and Education Laboratory, School of Education, East Carolina University, 1993.
  22. PAULSEN, M. F., Online Education and Learning Management Systems. Oslo, NKI Forlaget, 2003.
  23. RAVITCH, D., Edspeak: a Glossary of Education Terms, Phrases, Buzzwords, and Jargon. Alexandria, Va.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 2007.
  24. SANTANEN, E. L., O. R. BRIGGS, L. ROBERT, G. JAN DE VREEDE, Causal Relationships in Creative Problem Solving: Comparing Facilitation Interventions for Ideation, Journal of Management Information Systems. Armonk: (20:4), 2004, p. 167.
  25. SCHWIENHORST, K., Co-constructing Learning Environments and Learner Identities – Language Learning in Virtual Reality, Proc. ED-Media/ED-Telecom, Freiburg, 1998.
  26. SLAVIN, R. E., Synthesis of research on cooperative learning, Educational Leadership, 48, 1991, pp. 71-82.
  27. SLAVIN, R. E., Cooperative Learning, Boston, Allyn and Bacon, 1995.
  28. SLAVIN, R. E., N. L. KARWEIT, N. A. MADDEN, Effective Programs for Students At Risk, Boston, Allyn and Bacon, 1989.
  29. SMITH, F. G., Towards a Logic of Innovation. The International Handbook on Innovation, Elsevier Science Ltd., 2001.
  30. *** The Oxford English Dictionary 2009. Accessed via http://www.oed.com/ (6 April 2009).
  31. THORSTEINSSON, G., Innovation and Practical Use of Knowledge, Data International Research Conference 2002, bls. 171-177.
  32. THORSTEINSSON, G., H. G. DENTON, Ideation in a Virtual Learning Environment: A Pilot Project from Iceland in Innovation Education, The Design and Technology Association International Research Conference 2006, Norman, E.W.L., Spendlove, D. and Owen-Jackson, G. (eds), DATA, The Design and Technology Association International Research Conference 2006, Telford, July 2006, ISBN 1 898788 80 4, pp 155-164.
  33. THORSTEINSSON, G., H. DENTON, Developing an Understanding of the Pedagogy of Using a Virtual Reality Learning Environment (VRLE) to support Innovation Education (IE) in Iceland: a Literature Survey. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 13(2), 2008, ISBN 1360-1431, pp 15-26.
  34. THORSTEINSSON, G., M. LEHTONEN, T. PAGE, H. RUOKAMO, A Virtual Learning Environment for the Support of Teaching, Studying and Learning in Technology Education (Winner of best paper prize) , Proc. of the 4th IASTED Int. Conf. on Web-based Education , (Ed) V. Uskov, WBE 2005, Grindelwald, Switzerland, ACTA Press. February 2005, pp. 109-118.
  35. *** Transana. The software’s homepage: http://www.transana.org/download/index.htm (accessed 6.april 2009).
  36. *** The Webster Dictionary: http://www.webster.com. (Accessed 6 April 2009).
  37. ZELTZER, D., Autonomy, Interaction and Presence, Presence, 1, 1992, pp. 127-132.
  38. WINN W., A Conceptual Basis for Educational Applications of Virtual Reality, Washington Technology Centre, University of Washington, 1993.

https://doi.org/10.24846/v19i1y201010

Designed by | ICI Bucharest
© Copyright 2024, All Rights Reserved