3D in Education meets Brain Research

What do you get when you cross a 3D classroom with an advanced cognitive neuropsychology laboratory?  Find out for yourself by reading my recent Display Central article, which has been opened up for a limited time only....

To see the article, and answer the question, 

just click HERE

And if you have something to say on the matter, please come back here and submit a comment.

Comforting Stories

Dr. Dominick M. Maino

In our previous post, we discovered the touching story of Strabby’s journey toward 3D vision. A practicing optometrist and leading vision health researcher, Dr. Dominick M. Maino (OD, MEd, FAAO, FCOVD-A and Professor of Pediatrics/Binocular Vision at the Illinois College of Optometry/Illinois Eye Institute in Chicago, Il) suggests that 3D-related vision problems are common. He crafted a 2010 editorial estimating the number of adults and children in the U.S. affected by what he calls a “binocular vision pandemic”:

“A clinical trial to determine the prevalence of binocular vision dysfunction within the general population suggested the possibility of up to 56% or 60 million men, women and young adults with symptoms associated with a binocular vision (BV) dysfunction, 45 million (61%) with accommodative problems and 28 million (38%) demonstrating various vergence anomalies.” [Study conducted in Spain]

Dr. Maino’s blog is a remarkable read for those who desire to learn more.  He also recommends reading a compelling book by Susan Barry entitled: Fixing My Gaze: A Scientist’s Journey into Seeing in Three Dimensions.

With increased societal exposure to 3D movies, 3D home television, 3D gaming, and 3D education, comforting stories of identification, treatment, and eventual transformation are rapidly spreading.  You see, 3D projected images can now be used as a universal public health screening tool for vision problems that previously went undetected. 

3D Myth Busting II

Unfortunately, it’s time for another 3D myth busters posting, with the same hopes of correcting “some persistent inaccuracies, lest they lend themselves to the unfortunate role of myth-building.”

On September 7^th, I noticed an article published in the venerated Wall Street Journal: “Coming Soon to Schools: Dissecting Frogs in 3D.”  And then today, this news broadcast hit my email. I’d like to simply and briefly address three misconceptions:

“There are no health problems…as long as videos are kept to increments of 5-10 minutes.”

“No one wants to make our kids guinea pigs with new technologies”

“Financial concerns…”

So in the interest of further myth busting, here’s the truth, unembellished and straight up:

• Most educational 3D videos are already short in length (4 minutes on average—please refer to last week’s post). And classroom teachers don’t show 3D movies; they may use 3D vignettes or in-class simulations. Based on the See Well, Learn Well national health report being released in the first week of October, the only recommendation is to avoid showing 3D content for an entire class period, allowing the eyes to readjust to normal during the last ten minutes in class. There is no scientific evidence requiring such restrictive time limits (5-10 minutes) on viewing stereo 3D either in the classrooms, at the movies, or at home.

• Over my 37 year career in education, most often at the very vanguard of educational technology, I have kids have never seen kids become guinea pigs. Schools, teachers and classrooms take on the roles of pioneers, early adopters, followers, or late adopters. All is undertaken for the direct benefit of student learning.

• Costs are rapidly coming down. When I saw my first stereo 3D classroom in a community college 7 years ago, the cost of the project was $44,000 and funded by a federal grant. Three years ago, the cost fell to $15,000 per classroom in an Illinois school district. Two years ago, the cost approached $10,000 per classroom. At the start of our project in Boulder, I estimated the cost at much less than $7,500 per classroom ($4,500 without any software included). 3D glasses cost $150 a pair two years ago, and this summer I saw 3D active glasses offered in the low 30’s. Within two years, I expect the cost will approach approximately $2,500 a classroom, including software. (And remember one system was shared by 3 classrooms in one of our schools, by the way). Can you see the cost trajectory here? This happens with all cutting edge technologies, as they trace their pathway from innovation to systematic adoption. Costs come down.

3D Myth Busting

A recent magazine article features an old western ‘shootout’ between 3D and 2D projector technology. The article, published on August 1, 2011 in Tech&Learning magazine, highlights two districts and why they chose either 3D technology or 2D technology in their projectors. I was one of the individuals being interviewed. The premise of this article is a good one, but I’d like to correct some persistent inaccuracies, lest they lend themselves to the unfortunate role of myth-building:

"There is a lot more content" for a 2D projector.

"The direct cost of a 2D projector is less than" a 3D unit.
"3D [projectors] need to be kept sterile"

2D— “It’s what you expect in a classroom.”

So in the interest of myth-busting, here’s the truth, unembellished and straight up:

• All DLP 3D-ready projectors are first and foremost, 2D projectors at the same time. In fact, a 3D projector is used as a 2D projector most of the day—and when you want to see 3D, your software simply tells the projector you are in 3D mode.  
• Since all DLP 3D-ready projectors are also 2D projectors, they have access to all available content, whether 3D or 2D. The reverse is true for 2D-only projectors—they cannot project 3D content!
• Our 3D projector cost $520 with 3D. If we had purchased it without 3D built in, it was $520. Do the math.
• 3D projectors do not need to be kept sterile. Neither do glasses. The word "sterile" is a bit overstated. The recommendations found in the coming See Well, Learn Well report suggest the following common-sense guidelines: "Disinfect the 3D glasses thoroughly after viewings. This is most easily accomplished by using anti-bacterial sprays or wiping down each unit with a single disposable alcohol pad after use." And by the way, kids like the glasses.
• “2D is what you expect in a classroom.” Over my career, I have been involved in the design and building of nine new schools and over twenty-six major remodeling projects. Over the span of those years, I often heard this kind of statement. It usually referred to such technologies as chalkboards, overhead projectors, analog clocks, VCR players, and CRT monitors. We build for the future, not the past.

Past Research

More than twenty-four years ago, the US National Science Foundation (NSF) convened a panel to report on the potential of visualization, including both 2D and 3D projection. This initial effort created a tremendous surge of research by greatly boosting funding for computer-based visualization. I've spent many hours skimming through some of the educational research specific to 3D visualization, which is chiefly focused on the post-graduate environment, and have generally seen learning gains in the 20-30% range, as well as favorable determinations in terms of learner retention and transfer. You can review much of this research by using Google Scholar or generic Google Search and the following search keyword string:  stereoscopic “3D visualization” research study findings NSF. (Scholar will give you a higher class of refereed publications, while Search will open a broader set of public resources for your examination. And please, if you have a better search string—post it in the blog comments area—so that we can all benefit.)

In 2004, the NSF and US National Institutes of Health convened the Visualization Research Challenges Executive Committee to develop a key report on visualization's potential, whether 2D or 3D, as a technology. Two other interesting papers on some of the challenges we face with 2D and 3D visualization are attached or referenced below:

Is there science in visualization? (2007)

The second surge of visualization research (2007)

Research in K12

Until recently, research on stereoscopic 3D in K-12 education has been noticeably sparse. Two of the limited research efforts to date have involved a study out of UC Davis and another out of Illinois. The most recent UC Davis Tahoe Environmental Research Center Study (2010) demonstrated some interesting results in terms of knowledge gains and attitude/perception benefits. It also has a useful literature review (see page 11).

The second study involved a large, state-funded effort focused on the use of 3D interactive simulation in math and science, The study, entitled the Classroom Cubed Illinois Initiative, was conducted by Dr. Lloyd Kilmer from Western Illinois University (2007). The pre- and post-test results of over 1,070 students provided the following subgroup data, indicating some potential for reducing stubborn historical achievement gaps:

• Free/reduced lunch students: 32% increase

• Full paid lunch students: 31% increase
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

• Non-white students: 32% increase

• White students: 32% increase
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

• Special Education students: 31% increase

• Non-special education students: 32% increase
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

• Female students: 35% increase

• Male students: 29% increase
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

• Math ISAT students currently below state standards: 31% increase

• Math ISAT students currently meeting state standards: 33% increase

• Math ISAT students currently exceeding state standards: 30% increase
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

3D Comes to School

Here's an unabridged version of my recently published article, "3D Comes to School." This article highlights some of the best approaches in exploring 3D, and it highlights the benefits of using various content providers and folks who can help you get started (integrators). The magazine-published version suffered through the excessively sharpened scalpel of seasoned editor, so this version will serve you with much better detail.

3D TV

In January, 2010, the world witnessed the fanfare-laden arrival of 3D television in the consumer marketplace.

Most 3D TV content is initially coming from Discovery and ESPN, it appears. You can read about it in this CNN article. I know one BVSD teacher who has already purchased this new type of TV set, but the price is still prohibitive: $3000 per set. Where will this head?