VR and the Idealism/Realism Tussle

The case study I have related in the previous two posts is a fairly positive one. This school district is definitely on the right track toward addressing the achievement gap problem. But I routinely like to temper these feel-good anecdotes with just a dab of scrutiny. It's part of my job—to be a "critical friend" of otherwise successful efforts at classroom innovation. 

Here are some key reservations that worry me about VR in classrooms:

• In order to be effective, VR must be inset within the curriculum and not stand on its own;
• High costs ($7000 for a classroom set,as described in last week's post) is simply and arguably unsustainable in today's classrooms. Neither is it scalable.
• In many case studies, I often notice the presence of more than one eudcators. The presence of so many adult ‘guides’ (3 in the previous case study) in a single classroom also forestalls true scalability and sustainability. 
• Safety concerns (that students stay in their seats and not bump into each other), is a real problem; 

Closing the achievement gap is a worthy goal for the use of VR in today's classrooms. I encourage a contnued research. However, let's measure and report on the gains of disadvantaged students in relationship to more privileged students, so we know how big a difference we are actually making.

Case Study Findings

In last week's posting, we looked at an interesting case study on the use of VR to address the achievement gap in learning. For a quick background, start there, and then return here to review the findings. 

Findings

Three outcomes were notable:

• Before the VR experience, class conversations about the marine world were shallow and lacking, because the students had never been to the ocean before. After the treatment, class conversation lit up. Students were far more willing to share ideas and talk about the things they saw.
• According to Seymour, the 30 minute virtual trip seemed to have a lasting effect on most students. They constantly referred back to things they saw, heard or learned during their virtual trips.
• Overall, writing was more descriptive, vivid and detailed after the VR treatment.

Interestingly, these results are consistent with past research using stereoscopic 3D in classrooms, not just the more recent VR phenomenon. In fact, they are almost identical. None of these findings should surprise us, though. VR merely leverages the cognitive principles and advantages of visualization and ‘transfer’ of learning.

A VR Case Study

"Can virtual-reality help close the achievement gap?" For those not fluent in this topic, in the United States the "achievement gap" signifies the persistent gap we see in the academic performance levels of students of differing social economic status, race/ethnicity, and gender. In U.S. schools, the efforts to shrink this gap are relentless.

Brian Seymour, Director of Instructional Technology with the Pickerington Local School District Ohio, campaigns passionately about reducing some of these disparities with the help of virtual reality. Seymour, named the Ohio IT IP Outstanding Technology Using Administrator for 2017, laments that “educators around the world are looking for ways to close the achievement gap that exists between privileged students in disadvantaged students” and has acted on the hunch that “virtual-reality [could do] a fantastic job of allowing students to have virtual experiences that they might not have otherwise.” This is his story, his case study.

Background

Seymour began by rolling out a two-part case study on using VR to reduce the achievement gap at Tussing Elementary, a diverse school where 58% of students receive free or reduced lunch and more than 25 languages are spoken at home. The plan was to use VR within a three-week unit on oceans and marine animals. “For students in Ohio, going to the beach is no easy outing”, he explained. “Those with means can fly to the East or West Coast during summer vacation. But many will never see the ocean up close." The lack of ocean experience for these landlocked students would ordinarily “leave students disengaged with the material.” With VR, however, they hoped to take students on a field trip to the beach, try a bit of snorkeling, and experience the inside of a shark cage.

Procedures

Using Viewmaster VR goggles, purchased in four classroom sets (28  goggles per set, at roughly $7000 per kit), a core group of educators first learned how to use them and then matched up the best content possible in order to meet their unit learning objectives.

At first, students were taught traditionally for two weeks. When the first day of VR instruction arrived, the goggles were set up in the classroom while the kids were at lunch, and the app was loaded, and launched for use. The kids returned from lunch and recess and, after just 3 minutes of how-to instruction, the children were off exploring the ocean. (Yes, today's students are bright, able to learn what they need to know and proceed on their own in minutes.)

Three adults facilitated the learning in the room, ensuring that students stay in their seats and not bump into each other. These educators also circulated around the room, asking questions and reminding the children kids to explore in all directions, not just what was in front of them.

In a second experience, the educators pursued a blended learning approach, having half of the students on the VR goggles, while the remaining children read a story related to their VR experience and then switched.  This technique had only half of the students on the VR goggles at any one time. (Note that these classroom sets are a shared resource, travelling around the district.)

What were the results? Come back next week for the interesting findings...

Empathy for the Homeless

Let's continue with the work of Fernanda Herrera and her research in the arena of virtual reality. In the last two posts in this series, we laid some preliminary groundwork. Now, let’s fast forward to Herrera’s most recent scholarly work. Herrera’s current research, still in process, focuses on two central questions, instantiated in two separate studies:

Can VR interventions be used to teach empathy and prosocial behaviors toward the homeless?

How long do these effects last, given three follow-up assessments at 2, 4 and 8 weeks after the intervention?

Can VR interventions be used to teach empathy and prosocial behaviors toward the homeless? The scenario in this research study begins in the present: 

...our landlord knocks on the door. When you open it, he says you have until the end of the day to pay your past-due rent or you will lose your apartment. You owe $750. [The VR simulation then requires you to choose what objects in your apartment you will sell to stay. But the items you sell simply won’t add up to the necessary amount.] 

 Next, you receive an eviction notice, and soon you’ve run out of time. You get kicked out of your apartment and start living in your car. In your car, you struggle looking around for a misplaced toothbrush and discover, in general, how hard it is to do mundane things while living in a small vehicle. [Unfortunately, in San Francisco, there is a law if you get caught sleeping in your car three times, you get your car impounded.] 

One moment, while rustling through your belongings, trying to find your toothbrush, you get caught--and cited. Your car gets impounded. At this time you are now sleeping on a bus, experiencing the dangers of not having shelter, and not being able to get to a community shelter before they close the doors [Most shelters are full by 4:00 pm. Although many homeless do indeed have jobs, they cannot always get off work to make it to a shelter on time]. 

While on the bus, someone tries to get close to you Once, you have your belongings stolen. There is even an interactive scene where you talk to others on the bus, people who are also homeless, learning why they became that way [spousal abuse or loss of a job, as an example].

Herrera summarized the overall experience  when she stated that “VR is really a good perspective-producing machine.” Although the findings are preliminary (the study is still ongoing), she summarized the key points of her latest research project using virtual reality to impart empathy:

• Just receiving information about the homeless problem doesn’t appear to lead to action in addressing those challenges
• Simply ‘imagining’ the above presented scenario narrative also fails to lead toward active, prosocial behaviors
• New and previously unknown information, however, can indeed promote more prosocial behaviors (Information such as the notion that many community shelters close by 4:00 pm, already filling to capacity by that time)
• Immersive and experiential conditions (VR) enable study participants to feel closer to the homeless and their plight
• Participants in the experiential VR condition evidence heightened movement toward becoming engaged and making a difference

Apparently, the narrative of virtual reality outperforms simple information-giving in the ecology of empathy.  How long this empathy, prosocial behavior, and inclination to act will linger, however, remains to be seen. Herrera has not yet completed the second study. But we may be well on the way to observing the demonstrable emergence of Milk’s “ultimate empathy machine”.

VR and Empathy (2)

Continuing from last week's post, there are not many actual studies in empathy using VR, according to Herrera, who also cites related research from the field of Psychology: “If we imagine being a part of a group, we become more empathetic to that person, but also to that entire group and more empathy leads to an altruistic motivation to help.” She asserts that “VR is good for perspective taking: we can have any experience from any point of view,” since VR works by replacing perceptual input from the real world with perceptual input from the virtual world. She adds: “We can take on different skin tone, become shorter or taller, and we can achieve body transfer and body schema.” She explains:  “We start having body cognition, adopting these virtual characteristics into our own. We start thinking of a ‘new self.’” Instead of just being told what someone’s life is like, what their struggles are like, “now we can struggle with them.”

The problems with many empathy studies are typical to the challenges faced in other studies: small sample sizes and/or required college student participation in the studies may skew the results.  I hate to end with a teaser, but please come back for part 3 of this series, as I tackle some groundbreaking new research just coming out of Stanford University, research now being conducted by the delightful Fernanda Herrera. 

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...

Research: Just a Bit

At a past SXSWedu, I found myself in a delightful summit, “From Information to Experience: AR/MR/VR”, conducted by three experts on visualization in education. The speaker and the breakout session that by far drew the most interest involved Fernanda Herrera, a PhD candidate out of Stanford University. In her breakout, Herrera spotlighted the use of VR in education, highlighting several well-accepted benefits of employing VR, based on extant research:

• learning physical tasks
• enabling presence and social presence
• providing interactivity

Learning physical tasks. Herrera documented the knack of virtual reality to aid with mastering physical tasks, such as flight simulation, medical training, and even Tai Chi. Herrera explained: “People who try to learn physical tasks—let’s  say Tai Chi, for example—via VR versus just having to read about it or see videos about it, are better able to perform the task.” “The VR users can also perform those tasks faster or better than their video or reading only counterparts”, she added.

Enabling presence and social presence. Herrera reminded attendees that both presence and social presence are indeed important in learning. This was especially true with sharing an environment with someone else. “People who had high levels of presence and social presence told us they liked the experience more”, she clarified. “And people who learned via VR with someone else performed better, paid more attention, and learned more than those who learned without VR than those who learned with a computer or an agent.” (An agent is an avatar controlled by the computer.) According to Herrera, social presence is key.

Providing interactivity. According to Herrera, Interactivity within the educational VR experience really counts for something. “The more an experience is interactive, the more students feel agency, the [sense of being] in control. She explains: “the more students personalize the experience and are able to determine what they need to do to get the most out of that experience, then they feel their actions matter more.” She continues: “[Therefore] they pay more attention, and are more likely to finish that experience, and are more likely to come back for more of the same type of experience in the future.”

Herrera concluded, “We know a little bit about VR as a learning tool” while moving on quickly to another question: “But 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?” Stay tuned for part 2 of this short series, as we take a closer look at the capacity of virtual reality to enable empathy and prosocial behaviors. 

Will VR impact student outcomes?

As virtual reality grows increasingly bullish today, the key question now becomes “Is it really worth it?" In a past SXSWedu conference session entitled "Will VR really impact student outcomes?” this topic came under long-deserved consideration. The scholarly panelists included Eric Sheninger (Fellow, ICLE or International Center for Leadership in Education); Jennifer Holland, (Senior Program Manager for Expeditions and Classrooms, Google); Elizabeth Lytle, (Director of Education and Product Experience for zSpace); and Rebecca Girard, Science chair, Notre Dame High School, Belmont CA).

Sheninger delicately warned about the current tendency to view “VR as a miracle.” Too much time is spent, he suggests, merely “exposing students” to it. And too much effort is expended on excitedly identifying "what is possible" with this new technology. He suggested we need to look deeper and think more effectively about virtual-reality as it will play out in schools. “We need to take a critical lens about this. We can’t let this become another gimmick,” he argued.

The last two speakers, Holland and Girard, together attempted to answer the key question: "Will VR really impact student outcomes?” They highlighted some of the ‘observed’ benefits for students when using virtual-reality in the classroom:

• deeper questioning
• a better sense of scale
• conducting experiments not possible due to safety, distance, or time constraints
• increased motivation
• learning that is extended outside of the classroom
• better comprehension of concepts

Although these observed benefits represent only low-lying fruit, and are typical to most informal studies and industry-sponsored case studies, they still remain informative. The most interesting refrain coming from students and teachers is the notion of “deeper questioning”, a theme we have heard echoed for the last seven years in other related 3D visualization studies.

Case Study Conclusion 2

Taking a more contrary point of view, I see a number of problems with the Chinese VR study we have been covering for the past month:  

• I am concerned any time I see for-profit sponsors/authors of a research project. (Both sponsors of this study are commercial interests.) Although the findings are helpful, it is clear to me that this study was designed to promote the expanded use of VR learning, not merely understand it. Little chunks of uncensored hyperbole spread throughout the study leave me with this sense.
• The study has an extremely low sample size, or low n, ensuring that the findings cannot actually be as conclusive as suggested.
• The low sample size, along with the small number of HTC Vive units employed brings into question the scalability of implementing this technology in actual school settings, where student numbers are higher, and equipment costs would clearly skyrocket.
• The focus on retention is troubling. This is low-lying fruit in the minds of educators. We want deeper learning, critical thinking, analysis, and synthesis. Two-week retention tests also seem contrived. Why not a month or two months?  
• The type of testing that was administered remains unstated. What kind was it? Multiple choice testing? Essay writing? Performance testing? Previous research in this field suggests that students using visualization technologies perform better on essay-type tests (requiring higher-order thinking) than they do on multiple choice tests (requiring factual regurgitation).
• The refrain throughout the study is that VR works well in education and produces positive academic results because it is FUN. Is that notion the best this research can offer as an explanation for the value of this technology? I think not. Game research suggests that challenge, competition, and noble failure are more motivating to us than fun; recent neuroscience or brain research might point to curiosity, storytelling (narrative), relevance, vividness, and novelty as the primary motivators working in and through VR technology.  

For me, all types of research matter… I prefer to read and report on all of it. Each study, survey, action research effort, or anecdotal collection provides 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. So there you have it. As I pondered this research study, I remembered the Hindi proverb: “Even a drowning man catches a straw.” Yes, the results of this study are all “good to know.” They advance our knowledge another step or two forward.

Case Study Conclusion 1

For the last three weeks, we have been examining a case study on using virtual reality for instruction within the Chinese schools. Although the authors conclude: “Students from each grade level achieved more progress by VR-based learning than traditional teaching”, my own feelings are mixed. 

Let's begin with some positive points. This Chinese study:

• offers a laudable focus on education. (We need as much insight as we can get into using virtual reality for educational settings.)
• tackles a perfect subject area—astrophysics—and asks the perfect question: “Will visualization (in this case VR) help students learn this difficult and abstract content?”
• is smart to focus on stubborn, recurring learning challenges. (Using a promising technology to tackle an “easy” topic is simply unimportant.)
• takes a closer look at the notion of measuring learning efficiency, which here is defined as reducing the amount of reteaching necessary to push students toward content mastery. More studies should look at this solid “return on investment” for teaching with VR.

Case Study, Part 3

Continuing with the theme from the last two weeks, we now want to focus on some of the qualitative findings coming out of the Chinese VR case study:

As is common in other case studies I have examined, students in this study are entirely enthusiastic about the use of virtual reality in science instruction. “The introduction of the latest VR technology into education is very fascinating to students, who are looking forward to seeing VR-based teaching integrated in their classes,” report the study’s authors. 

Notably, the female students were more likely to recommend VR instruction to others than the male students were. That’s a pleasant surprise.

Students and teachers were also polled about which content areas they would most like to see peppered with VR content. The chart below shows their preferences. (In the U.S., I sense there would be higher interest in mathematics and social sciences.)

Overall, this study concludes on a high note: “Every child is a genius in his or her own way. VR can be the key to awakening the genius inside.” 

Case Study, Part 2

The Chinese case study introduced in last week's post provides both quantitative and qualitative findings.

Quantitative Findings

At first blush, the use of VR in teaching seems to have a positive effect on test scores: The average score of the VR group was 93%, while the traditional instruction group evidenced a 73% average.  The lowest Score of VR group was 75%, while the lowest score in the first post-test for the traditional instruction group was 40%. In another measure, the VR group demonstrated a 27.4% growth in scores.

Interestingly, the study spent some time analyzing learning efficiency: only one student in the VR group required repeated teaching and follow-up testing to achieve mastery, which, accounted for 10% of the group members; in comparison, six students in traditional teaching group required reteaching, accounting for 60% of those students. According to the researchers, this suggests a certain level of spent-time learning efficiency that advantages schools with limited resources.

The use of VR in learning also appeared to offer positive results for knowledge retention. In the second test, administered two weeks later, the average score of the VR group approached 90%, while that of the traditional teaching group settled in at 68%. According to the authors, this suggests that knowledge taught in a traditional fashion is more inclined to be forgotten quickly.

The study also unmasked, according to the researchers, an unexpected discovery: “The average score of C students in the VR group reached 88%, 15.8% higher than that of the A students in the control (traditional) group.” The researchers concluded: “Every student has a special gift. As we found in the experiment, the right teaching method helps to discover children’s unlimited potential.” Incidentally, past U.S. technology studies in the arena of 3D learning and visualization harmonize with this discovery: many technologies have a greater impact on struggling students than they do on highly successful students.

In next week's post, we will uncover some of the qualitative findings in this case study.

VR in Ed Case Study

A Case Study - The Impact of VR on Academic Performance, published jointly by the Beijing Bluefocus E-Commerce Co. and the Beijing iBokan Wisdom Mobile Internet Technology Training Institutions offers some promising, although limited, insight into the use of VR in education.

Purpose

The experiment sought to show the difference between traditional teaching and VR-based teaching in astrophysics, along with impact upon student learning.

Assumptions

The authors explain that, in astrophysics, students cannot really “conduct experiments” like they would in other classes. “Students can only try to understand it through their imagination and teacher’s explanation.” The study assumes that VR-based teaching is “vivid and interactive,” making it entirely possible for students to understand abstract concepts “in a three-dimensional way; conduct simulated operations; and let students experience the scenarios at different cosmic velocity.”

Another assumption was that VR would support both theoretical knowledge as well as practical skills training by providing an immersive learning experience, enhancing students' sense of active involvement in class, and simply making learning more fun. The authors kvetched: “Most students lack interest in boring teaching and learning.” Enter virtual reality.

Procedures

The study was conducted at two full-time high schools in Beijing, with equal numbers of male and female students. They represented from A to C students in their normal classroom performance. The students were divided into groups for this study: one group adopted VR-based instruction (defined as thirty minutes of VR-based teaching), while the other group approached the content from a traditional teaching perspective (defined as thirty minutes of lecture and PowerPoint).  The same teacher was employed in all groups to avoid any experiment deviation caused by the professional difference among teachers. Immediate post-tests were then administered after the teaching to contrast both the academic performance and learning efficiency between the two groups. A second test was administered two weeks later to see if new knowledge was retained. Three HTC Vive virtual reality headsets were used in this study.

See next week's post for the surprising conclusions...

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.

3D and Headaches (2)

In last week's post, we introduced a recent Estonian study claiming that 3D cinema can contribute to headaches, and by association, this would hold true for experiencing virtual reality. In confronting this concern head on, I interviewed some international medical experts in the field of 3D, stereoscopic, and virtual reality vision. Find their analyses below:

Dr. Simonson

Dr. Jennifer Simonson, clinical director of the Boulder Valley Vision Therapy center and Senior Research Optometrist for Gerull Labsan  (OD, FCOVD) is an expert in using 3D to diagnose and treat vision disorders (and headaches). She explains the 'headache' problem in this way:

"This study takes in to account eyesight, but not vision. The key difference between 3D and 2D is the amount of coordination required of the eye muscles to align and focus the eyes at multiple distances. It is also more cognitive work in the brain for processing the difference in information presented to each eye to combine two different images into 3D perception. Stereopsis - depth perception - causes common 3D Vision Syndrome symptoms such as headaches, blurred vision and tired eyes. When a person has difficulty seeing 3D in a movie theater, it is commonly due to a vision problem with the coordination of the eyes. A normal movie is viewed on the screen, but in a 3D movie, the images appear to float off of the screen. Even with normal eyesight, if there is a difficulty with tracking, eye teaming, or focusing a person will be symptomatic with 3D Vision Syndrome."

Dr. Simonson concludes: “It may not be the media itself, but the visual dysfunction which contributes to headaches.”

Dr. Sheedy

That brings us to Dr. Jim Sheedy ( OD, PhD.), Director of the Vision Performance Institute at Pacific University, and an internationally recognized researcher. Dr. Sheedy worries about sample size, and he also points to vision disorders as the culprit, not the 3D stimulus itself:

“The findings presented in the article by Braschinsky et al., concerning 3D Cinema and Headache, cannot be conclusive because of the poor response rate of 21.6% (1293 respondents of 6000 questionnaires distributed).   Despite this shortcoming, the results are interesting.  The subjects were asked only about the symptom of headache.  We know that subjects with disorders of the visual system have symptoms such as eyestrain, double vision, blurred vision, and others related to the eyes.  The subjects in the study by Braschinsky et. al. were not given opportunity to differentiate these symptoms from those of headache."

Dr. Sheedy concludes: “The results are those that would be expected on the basis of vision disorders and the symptoms they cause.”

Dr. Maino

Dr. Dominic Maino (OD, MEd, FAAO, FCOVD and  Professor, Pediatrics/ Binocular Vision, Illinois College of Optometry/Illinois Eye Institute Distinguished Practitioner, National Academies of Practice, Leonardo da Vinci Award of Excellence in Medicine) offered his view in more detail, wondering about the five main points of the Estonian study:

1.)  Can 3D movies provoke headaches?  Dr. Maino explains: 

“I found it interesting that the reviewer did not say 3D movies actually caused the headache, as was often stated in earlier articles on this topic. Current research indicates that a faulty binocular vision system (vergence (eye teaming), accommodation (focusing), and oculomotor (eye movement)) dysfunction appears to be etiology of the headache when viewing a 3D stimulus.”

2.)  Do individuals who view 3D movies report headache during or after the movie 1.61 times more often than 2D movie viewers?  Dr. Maino concurs: 

“Those with binocular vision dysfunction are not usually adversely affected by 2D movies, so this finding should come as no surprise. “

3.)  Are the people at risk are mostly younger? Again, Dr. Maino agrees: 

“Younger populations typically have a higher rate of functional vision problems.”

4.)   Are 3D movie visitors with a previous history of headaches 4.17 times more prone to get a cinema-induced headache? Dr. Maino suggests: 

“Those with a history of headaches may also have undiagnosed vision problems as their non-3D movie related head pain.”

5.)  Is risk the highest for persons with a history of migraine headaches?  Dr. Maino explains: 

“Migraine headaches can have many different triggers. These triggers can include stress, consumption of different foods and how light is perceived (e.g. flickering) by the individual. A dysfunctional visual system is known to cause stress as well. Also those who experience migraines may just be more in tune and sensitive to all head pain no matter the etiology.”

Dr. Maino, in concluding, recommended that readers pursue more information on this topic by exploring the public health report issued by the American Optometric Association: 3D in the Classroom (http://aoa.uberflip.com/i/203445-3d-in-the-classroom ). He also recommended that folks having difficulty seeing 3D cinema find doctors who can help by going to the College of Optometrists in Vision Development website (COVD.org) or the American Optometric Association website (AOA.org). 

Next week I will provide some of my own thoughts and conclusions on this matter...

3D Gives Me Headaches

I have to confess: something scared me. It scared me a lot. The source of my fear could be found in a recent Display Daily entitled “The Relationship Between 3D Cinema and Headaches.” What scared me were the cross-technology implications of the original Estonian study cited in this article. You see, the title could easily have been reworded in this way: “The relationship between 3D Virtual Reality and Headaches.” Given that much of the virtual reality world is also stereoscopic, I doubt the findings for a VR study would have been any different. And that’s not at all a helpful recommendation for a technology just now getting its legs in the industry.

So, I tapped into some high level expertise in order to bring a medical and scientific perspective to the table on this matter. I contacted some of the leading vision health experts in the world, asking them to respond to the Estonian research, hoping their advice would rescue us from this unwanted pseudodox. In next week's post, you will find their thoughts about this Estonian research, lest it be bruited about further. Stay tuned...

Gimmick or Godsend (2)

In the research presented in last week's post. Dr. Green is now moving toward some new research along two probative dimensions: First, she explains “we are hopeful that through our research we can guide publishers towards some heuristics for creating 3D VR because at this point it seems like they are publishing what they think we need [for augmented  reality and virtual reality extensions].”  Second, Dr. Green’s team hopes to use these heuristics to develop an even more effective rubric for removing the ‘wow’ factor from resource consideration. Dr. Green laments: “Google cardboard VR is putting people INTO a virtual environment, but there is no inquiry involved.” She is certain than gamifying some of this VR content will also help. Identifying these requirements in a rubric is key in both regards.

The Side Story.

Although the efforts of Dr. Green initially involved a small sample of preservice educators, current samples of educators are much larger. And as a result, they are also starting to notice some other interesting observations. Anecdotal at this stage, these casual findings are certain to lead to additional research questions for 3D content in the near future. 

It is beginning to appear that AR/VR resources in classrooms may:

• make it easier for the students to recall their learning.
• enable students to notice things in 3D format that they would not see in the 2D format. (Students then feel compelled to go back to the book to find the answer themselves).
• facilitate comprehension of abstract ideas. (For example,  Dr. Green describes a teacher who tried and tried to explain to students what the dark side of the moon was about: acting it out, drawing pictures—but nothing seemed to help the students understand until they saw the 3D image. “All of a sudden it clicked with them.”)

An interesting question and hypothesis she would like to posit in the future is: “Why is 3D effective in the classroom?” Does 3D visual learning reduce the cognitive load on learners?” These are all good breadcrumbs to follow.

A Must-See Webinar!

The ISTE 3D Network (formerly known as SIG 3D) has slated a unique webinar entitled “3D Comes to School.” The webinar will be held on Tuesday, May 20 at 8 PM ET / 5 PM PT. It will feature Kristin Donley, one of the original teachers in the Boulder 3D in Education (BVS3D) research project. According to Donley, “the ‘3D Comes to School’ presentation will focus on recent research supporting the use of stereoscopic 3D in the classroom, lesson ideas, and best practices.” She plans to share the continued results of a 4-year pilot study in Colorado where teachers and students were introduced to stereoscopic 3D videos, simulations and interactives in the classroom. After this webinar, you'll know why 3D technologies can make a big impact on teaching and learning in schools.

Donley, the presenter, is no lightweight in the field of education. She is a highly effective science and STEM instructor at Monarch High School with the Boulder Valley School District (BVSD). Due to her passion, innovative teaching methods and commitment to her students, Kristin was recognized as the 2012 Colorado Teacher of the Year and 2011 Colorado Top Technology Teacher of the Year. She has recently expanded her work to include serving as an adjunct professor at the University of Colorado-Denver and as a District Science Research Seminar Coordinator. To register for the May 20^th seminar, please follow this link.

3D @ COVD (3)

I must say that much of the interesting action of the 2013 COVD Annual Meeting occurred away from the speakers' hall, in the exhibit hall. Here were a plethora of exhibits, products, and research posters suited to every taste. The resources most relevant to our blog readers included:

• Mature 3D-based automated Vision Therapy systems (see picture below)
  
• A new iPad-based diagnostic and therapy from G labs. (See this video featuring Dr. Jen Simonson explaining the new product. Also see their Facebook site)
• An interesting research poster suggesting that 3D technology can be a powerful tool in the early detection of visual disorders such as amblyopia and anisometropia in children (using the Playstation 3D, in this case)
• A compelling research poster suggesting that vision therapy should be considered for those younger patients exhibiting visual symptoms, a diagnosis of ADD, and anxiety associated with poor school performance. Vision therapy, may well reduce unnecessary medication for these children, as well as a misdiagnosis of ADD