Content uploaded by Heather Elizabeth Dodds
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Heather Elizabeth Dodds on Oct 22, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
(3) Instructional Design in the Metaverse Part 4
Edit article
Welcome to Part 4 of this series that proposes instructional design principles for the metaverse.
Hopefully, you've read Parts 1 - 3 because we need to remember this:
Learning outcomes are expected to be equal to other media.
So what are the characteristics that predict success for an XR educational experience? Read on.
Characteristics of Success
By the time IDs are often introduced to learning projects, the decision to incorporate XR technologies
might already be made. Yet, IDs might be tasked with evaluating choices for
off-the-shelf XR
experiences
or do-it-yourself (DIY) projects. Both choices have possibilities and limits and this part
will point out what characteristics predict that an XR solution should work for a given
implementation.
IDs should complete a thorough market analysis for off-the-shelf experiences. However, learning
standards and ratings have not moved from early research to implementation (
Dreimane, 2020).
Thus, the experiences vary in quality with some being quite poor. On the other hand,
XR experiences
not tagged as educational can be successfully used for learning
with careful implementation.
In a DIY project, IDs could be asked to learn 3D programming, such as Unity or Unreal. Artificial
intelligence (AI) is beginning to be used for 3D development and this could assist IDs. If IDs do
engage primarily in programming and building assets, there is a risk that they will take their eyes off
the goal of representing the learner.
An ID should be constantly asking the question,“what is
the learner experiencing?”
and making sure that all decisions align to the planned purpose.
In general, the research up to this point indicates these three characteristics predict a successful XR
educational experience:
it saves or manipulates time
it saves money
it reduces danger
(Bailenson, 2018; Ziker, Truman, & Dodds, 2021).
While having one of these characteristics is good for continuing development, having two or all three
characteristics can lead to very successful full implementation. For example, an XR experience for
Access Mars by NASA
It Saves or Manipulates Time
XR experiences can manipulate time for instruction. For instance, an experience could involve time
travel, speeding up, slowing down, or pausing time.
Credit: River City Project, Harvard, Chris Dede
[Editor Heather interjects: the
River City Multi User Virtual Environment (MUVE) is a great example
of
time manipulation. Learners had to determine the cause of 3 diseases in a city on a river. This
built pedagogically went where learners often struggle: determining cause in a multi-variable (READ:
REAL WORLD, messy, wicked) biological & physical system. The experience could pause or speed up
time--very helpful while waiting for bacteria to grow.
With time paused in the middle of a process, visual cues can add positively to the instruction (
Clark &
Mayer
, 2016). Research below from here.
Navigation research that showed that getting navigation instructions from an avatar was better than
just arrows. Note: VERY early research.
XR experiences can also reduce instructional time overall because the training can be delivered more
efficiently to the learners. For example, workplace training that has been preloaded onto VR headsets
can be shipped to remote workers, saving travel time.
Treating sea sick ship captains with VR at sea
IDs should be aware that with this characteristic,
many 2D simulations can do the same time
manipulation and savings
for possibly lower costs.
It Saves Money
XR experiences can save money over other forms of learning. For example, it would cost a lot of
money to take your learners to the Moon in real life. In XR, space travel is much cheaper.
Capture from Mission: ISS. Space travel that is much cheaper than being an business oligarch.
Those unfamiliar with development trends might comment that the metaverse is not currently
cheaper than other media. As of this writing, costs are dropping with the arrival of artificial-
intelligence (AI) developed resources.
[Editor Heather reminds you that 1 of the 2 things
I actually liked about the PwC study was the
calculation
that if you make an experience for more than 3,000 users, it will be cheaper overall to do it
in XR versus e-learning]
Immersive web (WebXR) options allow approximately 20 learners to join one virtual space with a web
browser, no additional equipment. Development prices do rise with more complexity.
One final note: the ‘time is money’ statement does hold true here. Often, an XR experience that saves
time also saves money. So it's a twofer.
It Reduces Danger
This characteristic, the metaverse reduces danger, also includes impossible activities. While
Alger
(2015) properly suggested that any content that was inherently 3D in the first place is ideal for XR
development, XR is not limited to the real and actual. It can expand to the phantasmagorical and
impossible. For instance, taking learners to look inside of an operating nuclear reactor would be
dangerous in real life. This can be replicated in XR with no added danger for the learners.
How a nuclear reactor generates electricity. Don't try this at home unless you are in VR.
IDs should remember that some environments in the metaverse can still represent
psychological
risk
if not real danger. In the Proteus Effect, learners could change their behavior depending on what
their avatar is experiencing (
Praetorius, & Görlich, 2020). As a result, a learner’s avatar walking into
fire might be a frightening experience even if it is physically safe. Examples of risks include
claustrophobia, fear of heights, hostility, prejudices, and negative social pressures.
In all cases, IDs should keep the learner primarily in mind. If it scares a learner
and it was not meant
to
, it should be removed from the design.
Let's take a short pause here-- we're about halfway through these articles and let's propose some
questions.
Q: I know of some educational experiences that were VERY expensive to build, they cost a lot now,
and they work great. Your formula would NOT necessarily predict their success.
A: The 'saving money' part is
compared to the real world. So while I respect that some
experiences are VERY expensive, I'm happy they work great. I just bet they are a LOT cheaper in XR
than doing whatever it is in real life.
Q:
Jeremy Bailenson has his DICE formula: Dangerous, Impossible, Counterproductive, and
E
xpensive. Why should we remember your shorter "time, money, danger" version instead?
A: With all respect to Jeremy, he has a lot of advantages at getting his message out (white, male,
Stanford, and so on). But I developed my list -- as best as I can tell-- simultaneously to his (my 1st
publication on it is 2013). So I'm claiming
co-evolution because I believe we were looking at the
same pile of research up to that time. What I don't like about his list (even though yes, he's got an
acronym and I don't) is that his list is counterintuitive to understand. The 4 conditions he lists are
what should be present in the real world
to then consider using VR. They are not 'when
you should use VR'--- because if they were, how would "counterproductive" make sense? BTW, if you
don't understand his use of counterproductive, watch the video I linked to his name above.
Q: But you don't have Impossible on your list?
A: I subsume the impossible inside the dangerous. Cause it is
really dangerous to do the impossible. ;)
Q: OK, last question. What if an experience does not save time, does not save money, and isn't less
dangerous (relatively) than the real thing?
A: Besides realizing that Parts 1-3 basically advised against even thinking to make that experience, I
say "even a broken clock is right twice a day." There is always a chance, however low. These 3
guidelines are based on years of watching experiences rise and fall. Odd, surprising builds still happen
and more luck to them.
I've seen more success that I can chalk up to the people present than the tech present.
Part 5 is where the real meat-and-potatoes begins for Instructional Designers. Hope you are hungry.
Part 1
was the Introduction.
Part 2
covered Theory and Scope.
Part 3
was Myths versus Reality.
Part 5
was What is the same between 2D and 3D design?
Part 6
is What is different between 2D and 3D design?
Part 7
is Design and Build.
Part 8
is the Finale.
Want to see my full references?
Have at it.
#InstructionalDesign #XR #Multimedia #Principles #Mayer #LXD #ID #InstructionalDesigner
#WebXR #3D #2D #Time #Money #Danger #DICE #LearningStandards #OffTheShelf #DIY
#RiverCity #MUVE #Vertigo #SeaSickness #MissionISS #AccessMars #NASA #ProteusEffect
I almost always create alt artwork to the one I settle on. So I've been placing it at the end, so you can
see it.