Why Visualization is Better

I learned a lot from the Pandemic, mostly from the epic educational fails I’ve observed. I’ve seen parents at their wit’s end, teachers pushed beyond their capacity, and technologies that don’t quite have the ‘umph’ to get the job done. I’ve also seen Zoom fatigue set in, lessons shortened to make weak learning experiences a bit more palatable, and student boredom reign supreme.

Isn’t there a better way to do remote learning / online teaching / blended learning or whatever other form of classroom learning we can expect to wrestle with in the coming school year? Isn’t there a better way for educators to prepare for the unexpected? There certainly is. One answer rests in using visualization as a powerful teaching method. John Medina, the author of the bestselling book, Brain Rules, explains it this way: “Vision trumps all other senses... We learn more, faster, and retain learning longer if we use image rich content.” According to Medina, this “phenomenon is so pervasive, it has been given its own name: the pictorial superiority effect, or PSE.

One of the new learning technologies now coming on to the scene—the expansive 3D visualization library from CubeDigiCo—enables such a richly visual learning experience. For example, imagine a science animation that conveys through rich animation the process of photosynthesis in glorious 3D.

More than words that are spoken or still pictures in an ebook, this delightfully visual and animated 5-minute video vignette can convey complex concepts to children in a way that registers with the way they truly learn. And it conveys the information quickly, so that learner attention spans are not strained. (My experience is that these 3D animations are so visually appealing that students will not mind watching them more than once. See this example vignette.)

The quiet explosion these 3D visualization technologies in K12 schools enable a richer learning experience, magically ushering the learning at hand into the “mind’s eye.” Let’s reduce repetitive drill and practice programs, dull e-book readings, take-home packets, and uncomfortable Zoom sessions and move forward using a more richly visual canvas.

VR and Empathy

“What if we could teach people about social issues so that they could not only learn facts, but they could also learn how to be more empathetic, to see things from another person’s point view?” asks Fernanda Herrera, a Stanford University PhD candidate. She wonders if it possible to employ virtual reality (crediting Chris Milk’s TED talk) as an “ultimate empathy machine”.

Citing some previous work at Stanford while presenting at an ed-tech conference, Herrera describes two interesting empathy-based studies:

Becoming the Superhero. In one virtual reality study, participants take on the role of a flying superhero who finds their city in a state of emergency. In the rush to evacuate the city, one child has inadvertently been left behind. Half of the study’s participants flew in to rescue the child in a helicopter, while half flew in as a full-fledged superhero. The research showed that participants who ‘became’ the superhero helped find the child faster and helped more thoroughly than those who flew in with a helicopter. Apparently, role models can be effectively ‘embodied’ in a VR experience.

An older version of me. In another study, the participants simply ‘inhabited’ an older avatar of themselves. Researchers were hoping to discover if the participants would become less prejudiced toward the elderly. One study was conducted using the medium of VR, while another experiment asked participants to simply ‘imagine’ themselves to be older. The results? Those participants who just imagined being elderly didn’t at all feel ‘connected’ to the elderly. But those who ‘embodied’ the age study group through VR felt more connected and also wanted to help. A follow-up study, with the same conditions, evidenced no difference if they felt their group was under threat. Evidently, the presence of competition may reduce the ability to empathize. 

Come back for more insight next week...

Another Perspective

Linda Bush (a past academic now working as an executive director for a Pearson) recently gave some solid insight on VR at a recent conference.  And it's always useful to see what Pearson, the huge educational publishing conglomerate, thinks about the AR/MR/VR market and where they are placing their business bets.

Bush played the role of a critical friend, yet at the same time revealing the inner thinking of a large publishing company, by asking: “Where do we see the most promise and potential; and how do we not lose time and stray too far by getting caught up in the shiny object of the moment.” She explained: “Every day I talk to faculty that wants a more immediate immersive learning experience for their students; they want experts students can go to at any time and interact with and learn.”

Still, Bush realizes that “almost every content area imaginable can be enhanced, improved, or fixed in some way with an AR/MR/VR experience.” “I have never heard the word ‘WOW’ expressed so much, as when students are viewing VR.” She added: “With AR/MR/VR in education I see an opportunity for synergy in which the whole can be greater than the sum of the parts; and we are approaching an incredibly exciting time, if we remember what our priorities are.”

Bush went on to provide some interesting higher ed survey data, and not all of it positive. Come back next week for a compelling follow-up post.

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.

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….

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.  

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.

A New Name

In January 2016, I penned a somewhat predictive post entitled “By Any Other Name.” At that time, I noted that the 3D world was significantly changing. It was rapidly transforming itself into the new stereoscopic world of Virtual Reality. In fact, VR has long since overtaken and swallowed the 3D movement, as we knew it. This has been especially true in the field of education . For this stark reason, I am renaming this long-standing legacy blog. It will become Future-Talk 3D VR.

I will continue to cover all relevant 3D related topics, research, and developments, but will move in a full-throated voice to the immersive future of virtual reality.

Where to go from here

The 3D/VR industry itself can help us move away from the unwarranted bandwagoning.  (See previous three posts.) Moving beyond the gratuitious hype of the exhibit hall booth, the VR industry can perform some of its own heavy lifting. Yes, the 3D/VR industry can speed up the momentum of VRin education.  How you ask? It can be stimulated by: 

• simplifying the technology; 
• establishing reasonable technical standards; 
• training school-facing distribution and support people; 
• implementing insightful and transportable case studies; 
• developing interesting use cases; 
• conducting both action research and more rigorous educational research; 
• providing recognition programs and publicity for successful educators; 
• providing recognition and momentum for effective educational s3D/VR content creation by carving out an educational category in industry awards; 
• providing platform stability and consistency; 
• committing to unceasing drip marketing and consistent messaging via social media; 
• deemphasizing hyperbole; and 
• talking to educators.

Yet, sadly, much of the industry is following hard after 3D, 4K and UHD in search of the “next big thing” for the education market. Déjà vu all over again.

Waiting for GenZ

Trying to push 3D VR to Generation X is like waiting for Godot. I find that, as far as 3D VR is concerned, older generations can take it or leave it. And for those Generation Xers in educational leadership positions, their timorousness can easily translate into defensive gatekeeping. (Their idea of the “next big thing” now demands  1:1 tablets and open educational resources.) 

Not so with Generation Y and Z. They enjoy 3D VR and yearn for more. (Except for those who cannot comfortably 'see' it, due to a personal vision issue.) Some of the heavy lifting required to move 3D VR toward its true educational promise will come from these younger generations, as they acquire more influence over the years. For now, they are nearly invisible.

Heavy Lifting

As 3D VR (see the post from two weeks ago) moves aggressively into the educational space, I remain worried. My extensive conversations with folks in the ed-tech or related industries suggest that these people are not interested in the heavy lifting required to push an innovation out of the trough of disillusionment upwards into Gartner’s slope of enlightenment and plateau of productivity.  This unwholesome attitude, this notion of 3D VR as a windfall, somehow sticks in my craw.

Again, they hope for the downwards gravity of an avalanche, anticipating that the “next big thing” in education will rush at them, money in hand. No, selling 3D VR in education will require some heavy lifting. It will require hard work to get this right. And Google cannot do it on its own...

Chasing the Hype

At every conference I attend., I try to either interview or investigate what is currently happening with the big “3D players” of the past—some of the largest vendors selling to the education market four-five years ago, when the hype was at a high point. 

These days, these firms are not featuring 3D in their booths. Frankly, many of these sales people and manufacturers felt burned and betrayed by the educational market. They expected an avalanche of 3D sales and got only a dusting of 3D snow; they anticipated a gold rush of activity and only extracted a few nuggets. Their viewpoint, as expressed to me, was simple: if 3D doesn’t generate considerable volume in sales in the education market, they must move on to new and more attractive opportunities. These well-meaning manufacturers, integrators, and sales reps live for an avalanche mindset, delighting in the hopes of selling the “next big thing.”

Unfortunately, these folks fell for the trap illustrated in the well-travelled Gartner Hype Cycle.  They built their business sandcastles in the ebb tide of inflated expectations, only to lose their faith as the flood tides of disillusionment washed away their expectations.  The “next big thing” never panned out, at least in the realm of 3D in education. As VR now moves aggressively onto the world stage, will things turn out any different? See next week’s post for an answer.

Before and After (2)

The evidence of the informal action research (cited in last week's blog post) gives us some useful insight as to how 3D learning actually works in a classroom. Here are samples of before and after (before 3D visualization, and after) with Ms. Hillman's students:

Water cycle before

Water cycle after

Another before/after

Another water cycle after

The Lesson Learned.

Perhaps one fourth grader described it best: “you can picture it in your head better." Ms. Hillman beamed: “the visualization is so rich that it provides an experience unlike anything you can provide through teacher talk, or even hands-on investigation.” She added : “[3D simulation] takes students on virtual field trips to places they would otherwise never be able to go; the color, imagery, and the depth is attractive and captivating.”

Holli Hillman then asks the reader a clever rhetorical question: “The difference in visual understanding speaks for itself, right?” Right. 

Fishbowl

The annual SXSWedu phenomenon has rapidly outpaced the TED talk as the most innovative, fresh, and prognostic venue for envisioning the future of the education and technology marketplace. This year, the SXSWedu® Conference & Festival will be held in Austin, Texas from March 6-9. 

The following ed-market trends emerging at SXSWedu are noteworthy, appearing in great frequency and with strident emphasis at this trailblazing conference:

• STEAM education
• Virtual Reality
• MakerSpaces
• Coding
• Learning Space Redesign
• Re-designing Schooling
• Social Justice

The remarkably stout presence of the virtual reality meme, one totally expected, now appears to be one of the biggest ed-tech footprints at 2017 SXSWedu conference. This meme has literally doubled or tripled since last year. 

If you are in the neighborhood, I’ll be presenting on Wednesday at 11am in Salon H of the JW Marriott hotel. Joined by Dr. Michael Duenas, the Chief Public Health Officer from the American Optometric Association, we will be pushing past the hype and executing a “deep dive” with our joint 2-hour workshop, Fishbowl: Virtual Reality in Education. See this link for a preview. This unique “deep learning” session addresses the challenges, logistics, scaling, classroom management, research, pedagogical strategies, and vision health (medical) issues surrounding the roll out of VR in U.S. classrooms. No breathless cheerleading here. Just the heavy lifting.

Good-Better-Best

Here is an insightful chart, which succinctly summarizes what we know to date about the instructional effectiveness of 3D (and to a lesser extent VR and HD visualization technologies):

It is interesting to note that the buzzwords of ‘engagement’ and ‘retention’ – the low-lying fruit—are  the most frequently and popularly employed terms for marketers and business development managers. For educators, however, the remaining categories are the findings that really draw their attention. The Good-Better-Best findings are very important to experienced teachers and educational leaders alike.

In the last few years, there has been a flurry of activity on the research front for 3D VR, and visualization technologies. But these reports and findings have little traction in the press, often replaced by more populist sound bites preferred by reporters and editors.  

For me, all types of research matter. I am not a purist. For example, when the European LiFe studies were first released---many experts I spoke with mocked them, due to their lack of rigor.  Not me. I prefer to read and report on all of it.

Each study, survey, action research effort, or anecdotal collection provide 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. Each grows our database of knowledge. 

The Research Chase

One of first questions people ask me about 3D (and sometimes VR or HD visualization technologies) is about instructional effectiveness and research. “What is the difference some of these technologies make in learning?” “How effective are these technologies with young learners?” they ask.

Of course, a key issue is “What kind of research are you talking about?” In school environments, there are many types of formal and informal research. There are survey data, focus group reporting, and case studies. There is also anecdotal evidence, which can provide very useful empirical insight, when collected well and over time. There is action research, informal classroom research, and even research on fidelity of implementation—how to implement well.  There is industry-conducted  research, sponsored external research, and independent research (if the latter exists!) There is also planned research, which is also quite insightful, because we get pre-knowledge about the upcoming purpose or key research questions being asked in an upcoming study.

Then, of course there is capital ‘R’ Research—the gold standard—with control groups and rigorous evaluative processes.  The most expensive kind, I must add. And let’s not forget my favorite type of research: the meta-analysis, or the compilation or big picture of what we have learned from many dozens of previous research studies.

But back to my kick-off sentence:  Regarding modern visualization technologies, the first question educators typically ask me is “How much does it cost?” But the second question invariably targets the effectiveness, or research, question. Of course, providing an answer for this question in the spare seconds that the listener is willing to offer becomes a difficult proposition, to say the least. I usually offer to send the requester an insightful chart, which succinctly summarizes what we know to date about the instructional effectiveness of 3D (and to a lesser extent VR and HD visualization technologies). I'll show you this chart in next week's post.

New Tools

Here are two tools for your consideration:

---

Bubbli                           WhooshVR

---

Enjoy!

NETP, zSpace, & VR

In last week's post, we highlighted some of future trends predicted in the National Education Technology Plan (NETP). Most notably to our blog readers, the interactive three-dimensional imaging software trend spotlights a well-known company frequenting U.S. educational conferences: zSpace. Quoting from page 16 of the 2016 NETP:

Interactive three-dimensional imaging software, such as zSpace, is creating potentially transformational learning experiences. With three-dimensional glasses and a stylus, students are able to work with a wide range of images from the layers of the earth to the human heart. The zSpace program’s noble failure feature allows students constructing a motor or building a battery to make mistakes and retry, learning throughout the process. Although the content and curriculum are supplied, teachers can customize and tailor lesson plans to fit the needs of their classes. This type of versatile technology allows students to work with objects schools typically would not be able to afford, providing a richer, more engaging learning experience.

It's important to realize that some visualization technologies, like zSpace, can multi-task in their purpose: they can serve several educational agendas at the same time.Take for example the NETP’s four categories for future technologies that offer educational promise (remembering that 3D visualization is mentioned in only the third category):

Increased use of games and simulations. The zSpace curriculum itself is designed around a rich collection of STEM-based games and simulations. 

New ways to connect physical and virtual interaction.   The “near-holographic” zSpace hardware platform makes the content appear not on a screen, but in the students’ own personal space, manipulated by a physical stylus. And the cooperative (paired) learning approach promoted by the zSpace STEM Lab also brings a physical presence and process to the visualized lesson. 

Interactive three-dimensional imaging software. ‘Interactive’ being the key word here, this tool is not just about viewing or watching—it’s mainly about doing, constructing, testing, evaluating, and rebuilding. 

Augmented reality. Interestingly, the zSpace zView enhancement lets an entire class—not just the students wearing passive glasses—see each simulation in starkly vivid augmented reality.

Although, in the 2016 NETP, the 3D visualization meme was positioned solely in the third category above, clearly some technologies work across lanes.  I am suggesting that some successful 3D visualization products, like zSpace, operate in all four of these domains.

NETP Meets 3D

The 2016 National Education Technology Plan (NETP), Future Ready Learning: Reimagining the Role of Technology in Education, by the U.S. Office of Educational Technology is already in motion. Past national education technology plans have been well received by U.S. K12 schools; their recommendations have slowly been adopted country wide, due to incentives and organic pressure from federal, state, local, and even foundation funding. Given the past impact of previous NETPs, this the 2016 NETP is due serious consideration.

Now—on to some interesting specifics. One of the chapters in the 2016 National Education Technology Plan (NETP) is necessarily more forward looking than the other sections, spotlighting some upcoming areas in cyberlearning. “The Future of Learning Technologies” section of the 2016 NETP is an attempt to move the reader beyond an “understanding of the current state of educational technologies; it also [identifies] the research being done on early-stage educational technology and how this research might be applied more widely in the future to learning.” In fact, the NETP highlights four promising avenues for future learning technologies, based chiefly on the investigative work of the National Science Foundation in “researching opportunities offered by integrating emerging technologies with advances in the learning sciences.” These auspicious avenues include:

• Increased use of games and simulations
• New ways to connect physical and virtual interaction with learning technologies
• Interactive three-dimensional imaging software
• Augmented reality (AR) 

No surprise here, in our next post we will highlight the the third bullet above, one that predicts the growth of interactive 3D in education. More to come next week...

FETC Preview

The Future of Education Technology Conference (FETC) is shaping up to be a must-attend event in Orlando, January 24-27. One of the largest and most innovative ed-tech conferences in the country, FETC has a long history of exceeding expectations. Here is a preview of what to expect in the arena of VR and 3D. I hope to see you there!

Expo

The exhibit hall this year will bring a number of players in both the 3D and VR fields to our attention. Samsung, Google, Nearpod, and Best Buy will likely be showing their popular VR solutions. Sensavis will return with their excellent 3D visualization content. A stalwart in the 3D and VR industry, Eon Reality will exhibit for the first time at FETC. And the venerable zSpace will be back in the house with their unique desktop virtual reality. (zSpace has won best of show at two consecutive ISTE conferences.)

Workshops

Four workshops will be offered with a VR meme: two by Samsung, one focused on Google Expeditions, a do-it-yourself virtual reality content creation workshop by Eon Reality, and my own in-depth VR workshop, described below.

Sessions

Concurrent sessions will offer a few interesting opportunities to learn about VR in education. One district will be presenting about their Nearpod immersive project, while innovators from North Carolina State University will do a deep dive into desktop virtual reality, focusing on zSpace technology. I will also be doing a session on Virtual Reality and a surprisingly positive connection to early learning/reading, entitled “See to Achieve: Virtual Reality, 3D, Vision, and Learning.”

My Sessions

Of course, I have to do a shameless plug for my own workshop. The FETC 3D VR Bootcamp (EDW070) is a distinctive experience, a very non-traditional workshop, to say the least. This workshop uses both a flipped learning model and a fishbowl approach to make for the ultimate in personalization. It will be offered from 5-7:30 pm on Thursday, January 26.  This highly popular

workshop will help you dig deeper, and go beyond the hype. We will explore 3D VR content, low cost options for VR headgear; teaching strategies; instructional weaknesses in the technology; how to deal with VR vision discomfort; managing VR in the classroom; disinfecting headgear; zSpace and their award-winning desktop VR; VR visualization spaces; and, of course, next-up developments to you can expect to see. Please join us!