Types of Immersion
March 16th, 2010
With the constant mention of IMMERSIVE ENVIRONMENTS, I thought it may be fun to take a more in-depth view of the types of immersion. These highly experiential applications offer a higher level of cognition and the benefit of capturing and holding a player’s attention.
From Wikipedia: According to Ernest Adams, author and consulter on game design, immersion can be separated into three main categories:
1) Tactical immersion
Tactical immersion is experienced when performing tactile operations that involve skill. Players feel “in the zone” while perfecting actions that result in success.
2) Strategic immersion
Strategic immersion is more cerebral, and is associated with mental challenge. Chess players experience strategic immersion when choosing a correct solution among a broad array of possibilities.
3) Narrative immersion
Narrative immersion occurs when players become invested in a story, and is similar to what is experienced while reading a book or watching a movie.
Staffan Björk and Jussi Holopainen, in Patterns In Game Design, divide immersion into similar categories, but call them sensory-motoric immersion, cognitive immersion and emotional immersion, respectively. In addition to these, they add three new categories:
1) Spatial immersion
Spatial immersion occurs when a player feels the simulated world is perceptually convincing. The player feels that he or she is really “there” and that a simulated world looks and feels “real”.
2) Psychological immersion
Psychological immersion occurs when a player confuses the game with real life.
3) Sensory immersion
The experience of entering into the three-dimensional environment, and being intellectually stimulated by it. The player experiences a unity of time and space as the player fuses with the image medium, which affects impression and awareness.
The Value of Online Learning
September 30th, 2009
A colleague of mine recently sent me a link to the Mashable blog article that outlined “What is the Future of Teaching?” although I found the article very interesting my fear of college statistics class suddenly came rushing back to me. Here are the key points of the write-up:
According to the New York Times Bits blog, a recent study funded by the US Department of Education (PDF) found that on the whole, online learning environments actually led to higher tested performance than face-to-face learning environments. “On average, students in online learning conditions performed better than those receiving face-to-face instruction,” concluded the report’s authors in their key findings.
The report looked at just under one hundred studies that compared the performance of students in online learning environments (or courses with an online study component) to those who were given strictly face-to-face instruction for the same courses. What they found was that students who completed all or some of their coursework online tested on average in the 59th percentile, compared to the 50th percentile for those who received only classroom instruction, and that the results are statistically significant.”
So why bring up the haunting of college stats class? “While the study certainly provides a vote of confidence for online learning, it’s important to note that it doesn’t necessarily demonstrate that online learning is more effective as a medium than classroom learning. “In many of the studies showing an advantage for online learning, the online and classroom conditions differed in terms of time spent, curriculum and pedagogy. It was the combination of elements in the treatment conditions (which was likely to have included additional learning time and materials as well as additional opportunities for collaboration) that produced the observed learning advantages,” writes the authors of the report (emphasis theirs). “At the same time, one should note that online learning is much more conducive to the expansion of learning time than is face-to-face instruction.”
In other words: all things are not equal. Students spending three hours per day in an online environment under the guidance of a great professor are likely, and not surprisingly, going to be better prepared than those spending an hour per week in a classroom with a mediocre one. And because the study’s results were correlational and not causal, it is impossible to say for certain whether it was actually the online learning environment that caused better tested performance. We can conclude that those in online learning environments tested better, but not necessarily why.
Further, the meta-study did not look at enough K-12 research to draw any conclusions — simply because it doesn’t exist. Researchers warned that “various online learning implementation practices may have differing effectiveness for K–12 learners than they do for older students,” which seems plausible. A major part of the job of a good educator is to equip students with the necessary mental tools to be able to continue learning on their own. Those skills are likely to be less developed in younger students, making face-to-face teacher intervention more necessary.”
Online education is becoming more and more prevalent. A growing number of college campuses are offering online courses- hey who wants to get out of their jammies and pink bunny slippers to hassle finding a parking spot and carrying books to class when you can just login from your home computer?! In summary, the article outlined significant findings on the proven applications of online learning, although much like the article says “all things are not equal.”
The Next Generation of Trainees
September 21st, 2009
Are we listening to today’s learner? With new (and ever younger) talent entering today’s workforce, does this change training demands? Why yes it does! Bridging the generational gap is at the forefront of many training directors’ minds today- how to mix ‘old’ and new technologies in order to make all trainees happy. And we all know that a happy trainee is a trainee that adds value to an organization. The key to this is to make training informational for the younger generation (and not too remedial), live up to their digitally demanding expectations, while currying favor with the older generation that may be less familiar with today’s ever-evolving training technologies.
“One of the most prevailing and misguided excuses for inertia: “We have mature employees who wouldn’t embrace new learning approaches.” Why have I NEVER heard someone from a company that actually uses social networking and virtual worlds express this concern? The reality is that older workers are usually the most enthusiastic users of social media, virtual worlds and podcasting. Join our weekly Train for Success meetings in Second Life and the average age is probably around 50. Here are my top-three theories why mature workers embrace next gen learning:
1. Mature workers have a greater network of colleagues to draw insights from. Social networks are designed for those of us who need to stay in touch with our college friends and professionals colleges from years past. The fastest growing demographic of Facebook is women over 55.
2. Older people enjoy being a young avatar in Second Life with a full set of hair and the body of a 19-year old.
3. Older people have spent decades in asbestos homes gulping Aspartame sodas, and it’s beginning to take its toll. They can’t concentrate on boring lectures, they need learning that is fun and engaging! ”- According to a recent ASTD article.
A lot of organizations claim that they find some resistance initially with older generations for implementing new and innovative training methods. Sometimes referred to as the “Digital natives vs. Digital immigrants” a digital divide is created where the key is to bridge the generational gap that is now transforming many organizations training initiatives. Let’s define: Generation Y’ers. Gen Y can be defined as employees born between 1981 and 1995. They are extremely tech savvy, allowing them to easily pick up new methods of training.
From an article posted on ZD Net Asia :
“What is different about the way that they think?
The eight norms of this generation are:
1. Freedom of choice. Choice is like oxygen. I had three media choices as a kid. There is also freedom of mobility. The goal in the past was to have one job for your whole life, where today in the U.S., by the time they’re 27 they’re on their third job. Freedom is a huge norm.
2. Customization. I never got to customize TV. You can change your world today, with your screensaver, your blog.
3. Scrutiny. They are a generation of authenticators. A picture used to be a picture. You see a woman on a magazine today, and you wonder how she’s been photoshopped.
4. Integrity. It’s just not true that this generation doesn’t care. Youth volunteering in the U.S. is at an all-time high. And specific activities. They care about the world, about social justice.
5. Collaboration. Everybody collaborates, but these kids are natural collaborators. When I grew up, everything was a hierarchy, and I was used to being broadcasted to. One-size-fits-all. School and lectures and my parents broadcasted. Now there’s a huge clash. These kids are sharing information, peer-to-peer, that’s how you spend your time, instead of being a passive recipient.
6. Entertainment. They want to have fun. Having fun with a product or service is more important than what they do. Having fun in your first job is now more important than how much you get paid. The kids have got it right, learning and work can be the same thing.
7. Innovation. The speed of innovation when I was a kid was glacial. Today, people demand new improvement.
8. Speed. They want things to happen fast and quickly.”
Is learning and adapting to new technologies really a generational thing? I think that no matter what one’s age- anything is possible. So here’s to embracing new (and old) types of learning technologies across the great generational divide. And now onto training technologies that satisfy Generation Z; or otherwise referred to as ‘Millennials’…
Experience Experiential Learning
August 26th, 2009
I hear, and I forget
I see, and I remember
I do, and I understand.
-Ancient Chinese proverb
Following Visual Purple’s tagline of “Understand Everything” I thought it may be fun to detail experiential learning and how it relates to training in a simulation type of environment.
By definition: Experiential Learning is the process of making meaning from direct experience.
There are many different experiential learning models out there. I will outline a few for you here:
David A. Kolb’s on experiential learning
“David A. Kolb (with Roger Fry) created his famous model out of four elements: concrete experience, observation and reflection, the formation of abstract concepts and testing in new situations. He represented these in the famous experiential learning circle (after Kurt Lewin):
Kolb and Fry (1975) argue that the learning cycle can begin at any one of the four points – and that it should really be approached as a continuous spiral. However, it is suggested that the learning process often begins with a person carrying out a particular action and then seeing the effect of the action in this situation. Following this, the second step is to understand these effects in the particular instance so that if the same action was taken in the same circumstances it would be possible to anticipate what would follow from the action. In this pattern the third step would be understanding the general principle under which the particular instance falls.”
And now for Peter Jarvis on his approach to experiential learning…
“Jarvis (1987, 1995) set out to show that there are a number of responses to the potential learning situation. He used Kolb’s model with a number of different adult groups and asked them to explore it based on their own experience of learning. He was then able to develop a model of which allowed different routes. Some of these are non-learning, some non-reflective learning, and some reflective learning. To see these we need to trace out the trajectories on the diagram he produces.
Non-learning:
Presumption (boxes 1-4). This is where people interact through patterned behavior. Saying hello etc.
Non-consideration (1-4). Here the person does not respond to a potential learning situation.
Rejection (boxes 1-3 to 7 to 9).
Non-reflective:
Pre-conscious (boxes 1-3 to 6 to either 4 or 9). This form occurs to every person as a result of having experiences in daily living that are not really thought about. Skimming across the surface.
Practice (boxes 1-3 to 5 to 8 to 6 to either 4 or 9). Traditionally this has been restricted to things like training for a manual occupation or acquiring particular physical skills. It may also refer to the acquisition of language itself.
Memorization (boxes 1-3 to 6 and possibly 8 to 6 and then either to 4 or 9)
Reflective learning:
Contemplation (boxes 1-3 to 7 to 8 to 6 to 9). Here the person considers it and makes an intellectual decision about it.
Reflective practice (boxes 1-3 (to 5) to 7 to 5 to 6 to 9). This is close to what Schön describes as reflection on and in action.
Experiential learning (boxes 1-3 to 7 to 5 to 7 to 8 to 6 to 9). The way in which pragmatic knowledge may be learned.”
Top 5 Learning Technologies for 2009- Are We Still on Track?
August 20th, 2009
Earlier this year Chief Learning Officer magazine published the top 5 learning technologies for 2009. Of the 5 I still think that virtual worlds and games/ simulations are at the top of my list.
1. Mobile learning
2. Do-it-yourself (DIY) learning
3. Flexible learning environments
4. Virtual worlds
5. Games and simulations
Is There a Blur Between Virtual Worlds, Games and Simulations?
August 17th, 2009
I recently attended a webinar put on by Training Magazine Network featuring Clark Aldrich on “The Unifying View of Highly Interactive Virtual Environment (HIVE) Learning.” I wanted to take a moment to highlight a few of the key take aways for those that were not in attendance.
One of the first questions that Clark asked was: “What is the relationship between virtual worlds, games and simulations and when should each be used?” This resulted in some confusion, and even led to further confusion when screen shots were presented. Clark would show a screen shot of a virtual world, game, or simulation and each attendee would enter a text response as to what they thought the screen shot represented. For the most part participants were able to differentiate each one (but note there still were a few confused people out there) and I must admit even one of those screen shots made me scratch my head. Why? It was just a pool with a float in it and 2 lounge chairs beside it. What did this represent? (Where I would rather be, well, yes). But back to the topic at hand: Was it an image from a virtual world, game or simulation? Mr. Aldrich further went on to explain that it could be any of the three depending upon what elements were added in. For example, if you added a volleyball net and some people playing volleyball it would be conceived as a game. However, if one added in a lifeguard then it may be represented as a possible training simulation. So you get the point. Each has its own unique attributes that define it. They are interconnected to some degree (each are unique but similar to one another).
Educational simulations=Less flexibility
Virtual worlds=More flexibility
But this circles the question: How big is the blur between these (virtual worlds, games and simulations) and what specific attributes define each? Well let me highlight some defining features of virtual worlds that were brought up in the webinar:
-Synthetic
-Ability to interact with objects
-Own set of rules
A few metrics outlined to evaluate success in a virtual world:
-Involvement/ engagement
-Learning
-Performance of tasks
-Navigation
-Retention
Clark Aldrich also suggests that: All environments should have self-paced introductory levels: Utilization of a light game to get the user comfortable with the environment. A lot of organizations are so focused on investing in expensive virtual world platforms that they forget that content is key (and this holds true with all training)! Also, he is seeing a transition occurring from the age of linear content to the age of dynamic content.
Decision Integration Visualization and Support (DIVAS™) – A Monthly Review of Visual Purple Technologies
August 5th, 2009
Decision Integration Visualization and Support (DIVAS™)
DIVAS™ is a highly advanced modeling application allowing simulation users and facilitators to use provided tools to manipulate and analyze highly variable scenarios. Using Visual Purple’s FloChart™ technology, DIVAS™ reveals the format of the simulation model with a graphic map and set of authoring tools, thus allowing non-programming savvy users to analyze possible outcomes through experimentation and manipulation of newly acquired information, multiple decision possibilities, and various unique events. Within a simulation, DIVAS™ supports randomization of the environment to enhance realism while leading users through information collection and informed decision making based on likely outcomes.
Push vs. Pull Learning
July 27th, 2009
By Ed Heinbockel, President and CEO, Visual Purple, LLC
Are you focusing on learner engagement and learning experience take-aways within current solutions? E-Learning can result in a hard pressed “push” of the learner’s results.
Let’s further examine a comparison of push vs. pull training… Within a virtual world environment the learner is able to “pull” content as they see fit with various types of overlays on top of the technologies driving the simulation. Logics are embedded to reveal specific information when needed. Virtual world training environments allow the general ability to watch what people are and are not doing while still honoring the different process styles associated with learning. Whereas within an e-Learning “push” environment the learner is pushed directly through the experiences, without the ability to alter the outcome and make decisions on their own.
Visual Purple and BTS transformed a traditional “push” e-Simulation into a “pull” virtual world environment. By leveraging existing training investments one can generate a higher learner/trainee retention rate, apply to wider range of audience and reap benefits from the significant cost savings. A virtual world approach will result in reduced training time, and improvement of overall learning effectiveness for the learner. By utilizing persistent world applications to guide the learner to succeed through decision-based scenarios enabling active participation, virtual world applications allow for engaging and realistic 3D training environments that are directly applicable to business needs. The key is to unlock potential from an existing “push” e-Learning solution and evolve it into a realistic and sticky “pull” virtual world training medium. Many top organizations are transitioning to virtual world based training solutions. Beginning from square one or utilizing an existing e-learning or CBT solution and transferring it into a successful virtual world training application. Virtual worlds offer the learner the foremost in freedom, interactivity and adaptability where specially tailored environments ensure realistic interaction and imagery to promote full emotional and intellectual engagement in any scenario.
View the trailer of the transformation from a “push” learning module to an immersive “pull” learning environment.
“- Link to”
YouTube Visual Purple Winning in Wireless Virtual World trailer
Questions You Should Ask Before Choosing A Training Provider
June 29th, 2009
Well most people just don’t go out and buy a car without asking what type of warranty is associated with it. Although training simulations don’t provide a 3 year/36,000 mile warranty they should have some type of guarantee/warranty behind them. For Visual Purple we stand behind every product we produce, leading to ultimate customer satisfaction. Each business has specific needs and unique training ideas and challenges; before selecting a training provider ask questions…lots of questions! Here is a good primer:
Checklist of Questions to Ask:
-Can we see your company’s past performance?
-How long will it take to build?
-How can you assure on time delivery?
-Is a project work plan provided?
-Any hidden costs?
-Creativity & SMEs – Can you dedicate the right people in your organization to be available at predetermined windows to provided critical input to the build process?
-Is any technology support provided?
-Will the solution be specifically tailored to fit my organizations needs?
-Ability to enhance/ add onto existing courses…can the training solution be easily extended or re-vamped?
-Any recurring costs for maintenance/ hosting?
-Technology license fully paid up or recurring?
-Language support- localize into a variety of languages?
-Is there transparency during the development process?
What is the end result that your organization is looking for? At Visual Purple we build effective and trusted solutions from the ground up, no off-the-shelf products here. Most organizations are looking for a training solution that gets results… at Visual Purple our advanced training simulation technologies get results (road tested and proven…your mileage may vary).
Training 4-1-1 Part 2
June 24th, 2009
In a follow-up blog post to the prior Training 4-1-1 Part 1 which addressed measuring training support I thought it important to post further proven statistics on learning outcomes from learning games. These stats are encouraging evidence that serious games do make a real difference.
The below statistical references are from the Kauffman Foundation in the Kauffman Thoughtbook 2009 excerpt.
Can We Prove It?
What proof do we have that any or all of this is true, that games can produce
superior learning outcomes? Well, the proof is precious little because the field is
so new, but at least it is positive. Witness these games:
• Supercharged! [electrostatics]—a 28 percent increase in learning outcomes
over lecture (K. Squire et al, 2004).
• Geography Explorer [geology]—a 15 to 40 percent increase in learning
outcomes over lecture (P. McClean et al, 2001).
• Virtual Cell [cell biology]—a 30 to 63 percent improvement in learning
outcomes over lecture (ibid).
• Dimenxian [algebra]—an average increase of one test grade (e.g., from B to
A) for most kids, up to three grades for underachieving kids (N. Etuk, 2006).
• River City [ecology, scientific inquiry]—a 370 percent increase in test
scores over lecture for D students; a 14 percent increase in test scores over
lecture for B students (D. Ketelhut, 2007).
• NIU Torcs [numerical methods]—twice as much time spent by gameplaying
kids on their homework, much more highly detailed concept
maps (B. Coller, 2006).