1
Virtual immersion: The role of CAVE and PC technology
Abstract:
Given the reality that they are ubiquitous in everyday life, researchers (Goodwin-Jones, 2005; Purushotma, 2005) are realizing the potential of making use of computer games in the second language classroom. In the current paper, we situate virtual reality (VR) technology within an L2 pedagogical framework and argue that it is a viable resource for enabling students to experience the target culture in ways that are impossible through the use of other technologies. In addition, we compare the effectiveness of two VR environments (CAVE and PC technology) on a variety of measures of student engagement: cultural awareness, collaboration, and overall experience. We argue that although the CAVE technology is perhaps the more exciting medium, its exorbitant cost and large scale make it an impossible prospect for most schools. The PC version of the game is readily accessible, can be run at no additional cost to the end user, and provides a positive experience for students.
Introduction
Despite educators’ misgivings, computer games may be the next important trend in language learning technology (Chun, 2007; Goodwin-Jones, 2005; Purushotma, 2005). Simpson (2005) states that “games are empowering, motivating, individualized differentiated learning environments with set rules which value the efforts of the individual” (20). Buckingham (2006) reports that computer games represent the fastest-growing sector of the media and entertainment industries (p. 79), and the National Institute on Media and the Family (2006) cites research showing that 83% of 8 to 18-year-olds have at least one video game player (e.g., PlayStation, XBox, Wii) in their homes. Given the prevalence of video games in our students’ lives and the possibility to create and modify them to align with pedagogical goals, it behooves us as educators to bring more realistic educational, or serious[1], computer games into the classroom (e.g., Buckingham, 2006, p. 79–80). In the current study, we situate virtual reality (VR) technology within an L2 pedagogical framework and examine the linguistic and experiential outcomes of making use of a video game in a high school German classroom.
Virtual world technology
Video games make used of virtual reality (VR), or virtual world, technology. This technology is an “immersive environment that completely surrounds the participant in which sights and sounds … are stable and locatable in three-dimensional space” (Winn, Hoffman, & Osberg 1995, p. 2). As opposed to watching videos, for example, participants in virtual worlds truly experience the situation. In addition to this sense of ‘presence’ (e.g., Winn et al. 1995, p. 11) that differentiates virtual reality from other forms of technology, Whyte (2002, p. 3) states that VR stands apart from other forms of computer technology in three ways:
1. interactivity. Participants are actively involved in the experience.
2. spatiality. The world is presented three dimensions.
3. real-time. Users receive immediate feedback.
VR has been utilized in classrooms for teaching biological concepts (Bakas & Mikropoulos 2003), properties of water (Trindale & Fiulhais, 2000) and has allowed students to experience environments such as rain forests and space stations (Winn 1995). Schweinhorst (2002, p. 197) argues in theoretical terms that VR technology is ideal for the L2 classroom as it “can support learners in becoming more autonomous language learners who can select and organize their own learning resources.” In spite of the optimistic outlook, researchers have not yet examined the effects of utilizing VR technology for learning a second language.
Simpson (2005) lays out general aspects of computer games that make them ideal for the classroom. A number of these features are closely linked to pedagogical approaches and research themes in the L2 classroom (see table 1). None of the L2 pedagogical counterparts has been tested via VR technology.
Aspects of video games(Simpson, 2005, p. 19–20) / L2 pedagogical counterpart
Object to the game / Task-Based Language Teaching (e.g., Willis, 1996)
Trial and error / Corrective feedback (e.g., Ellis, 2006)
Collaboration / Social-interactive view of language learner (e.g., Vygotsky, 1978)
Autonomy / Learner autonomy (e.g., Little, 1991)
Availability of various tools / Learning styles (e.g., Skehan, 1991) and strategies (e.g., Oxford, 1990)
Table 1. Aspects of video games and corresponding L2 pedagogical approach or theme.
A number of elements of video games make them ideal candidates for many classrooms. Simpson (2005) notes that video games present students with a problem requiring a solution. In the language classroom, many have embraced Task-Based Language Teaching, in which “the target language is used by the learner for a communicative purpose (goal) in order to achieve an outcome” (Willis, 1996, cited in Littlewood, 2004, p. 321). Thus, completing the task takes precedence over the manipulation of language forms. Doughty and Long (2003) provide examples of a number of materials—both authentic (e.g., CyberPatient) and CALL—that support the principles of Task-Based Language Teaching. One such case in point is a computerized simulation[2] in which students are expected to play roles, through writing in English, in various situations.
Secondly, Simpson points to the importance of trial and error: “failure is a learning experience, not an end to a result” (2005, p. 19). In the language classroom, we have seen the effectiveness of providing students with corrective feedback on L2 production errors (see Ellis 2006 for an overview). A number of possibilities exist for providing students with feedback in CALL. These range from explicit comments (e.g., “Try again!”) to repetition and rephrasing to help screens. A range of CALL studies (e.g., Heift, 2004 for grammatical errors; Tsubota, Dantsuji, & Kawahara, 2004 for pronunciation errors) examine the effectiveness of various types of error correction. Heift (2004), for example, found that feedback that both highlights and provides an explanation of the error is the most effective.
In her discussion of the collaborative nature of video games, Simpson (2005) points out that collaboration exists in a symbiotic relationship with competition, which provides the motivation that participants need to succeed. This correlates well with the social nature of language learning and Vygotsky’s (1978) notion of the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD): “the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving . . . in collaboration with more capable peers” (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 86). Therefore, it is hypothesized that students achieve higher performance levels when they work meaningfully with their peers than when they work on their own. Studies examining the effectiveness of computer-mediated communication (e.g., Vandergriff, 2006) often appeal to the ZPD when interpreting measures of student success.
While video games are on the one hand collaborative efforts, they do offer students the opportunity to work independently at their own rates. Little (1991) defines autonomy as “’a capacity—for detachment, critical reflection, decision-making and independent action.’” (cited in Schweinhorst, p. 197). Little (1991, p. 4) stresses the importance of knowledge transfer and the ability of applying what is learned to new situations. Researchers such as Blin (2004) and Hernard (2006) have examined the notion of learner autonomy in CALL, and Hernard bemoans that fact that what is often perceived of autonomy in CALL research is actually unguided, repetitive, and teacher-independent, both authors point out that when care is taken on the part of the pedagogues, students can truly work autonomously in CALL settings.
Finally, the availability of various tools in video games (Simpson, 2005, p. 19) appeals to different learning styles, or “general predisposition[s], voluntary or not, toward processing information in a particular way” (Skehan, 1991, p. 288). Teachers also realize that students possess and are able to learn new strategies to be successful language learners (e.g., Oxford, 1990). Leakley and Ranchoux (2006) found those CALL environments that are differentiated according to learning styles are the most effective, and Vinther (2005) found that computer software can assist students in the development of learning strategies.
Although research has not been performed in the area, we argue, based upon the match between L2 pedagogical goals and the aspects present in video games, that the language classroom is the ideal setting for the utilization of VR technology. Students participate in a motivating experience with a clear goal, receive feedback, are able to work autonomously while relying upon the types of tools that best fit their personal learning styles and are able to rely upon one another when necessary.
VR technology
RML: Please discuss here the creation of the world and the ease with which they can be created (Teachers want to know if they can do it themselves, for example. Is there anything that exists for them.) Please also discuss CAVE vs. PC technology generally (e.g., cost, availability, etc. and not as it relates to our project specifically.)
The virtual world for this game was created in a 3D modeling environment (StudioMAX). The architectural backdrop for the game is based on photos, drawings and maps of Salzburg, Austria. The completed 3D model built in StudioMAX was imported into Virtools. Virtools is a game-making application useful for building interactive worlds complete with navigation, environmental sound, interactive characters and objects. In this game, the interactive world includes a cast of characters (e.ga. a hip-hop dancing teenager and the proprietors of a bakery), a flower shop and a fruit stand that present clues to the students playing the game. The game was designed to track each student’s progress through the virtual space as the game is played. By recording the students’ position in space and time, researchers are able to analyze movement though the game space. (game design is briefly mentioned on p. 12)
In today’s marketplace a large number of applications are available to those interested in creating games for teaching and training. The simplest to use employ templates for creating crosswords and board games that can be played on a computer. In Canada, Sage ( Simulation and Advanced Gaming Environments for Learning, http://sageforlearning.ca/ ) provides teachers with free templates for building a variety of games including Tic Tac Toe, Snakes and Ladders, and Trivial Pursuits. Simple interactive worlds can also be made using relatively inexpensive applications like “3D Gamermaker” ( http://t3dgm.thegamecreators.com/?f=features and “RPG Maker”, (http://www.enterbrain.co.jp/tkool/RPG_XP/eng/). For a nominal cost, these applications can be used to create complete interactive worlds using stock characters and scenes. Teachers can use these game applications to introduce the basic concepts of gaming. However, to build a game of similar quality to those played by students after hours requires using either commercial game development applications or free editors provided for creating “mods” or scenes. Free editors, provided by games like “Unreal Tournament”, offer an inexpensive solution to purchasing software for building games for educational distribution. However, the real cost of building any game comes with writing of the script, creating and animating characters scenes and objects, and recording the audio tracks and programming of behaviors and navigation. It is not surprising that commercial game development requires a team of artists, 3D modelers, character animators, writers and computer programmers. Most commercial games require funding comparable to the production of a full length a movie. Even a game that will demand the attention of a student for only an hour can be relatively expensive, requiring hundreds of hours of modeling and programming. It is unlikely that we can expect teachers, given the many demands placed on their time, to develop a game with the production values demanded by students today.
For the game player today, PC’s and game platforms provide excellent displays. In most schools PC’s are available in either a language or design lab. Unfortunately, in the desire to economize, school boards will often acquire the least inexpensive computers, unsuitable for playing games with high fidelity graphics. In this research both PC’s and an immersive CAVE were used as testing environments. A CAVE is multi-screen projection system that provides the user with a high level of immersion. CAVE’s are built around an active or passive stereo projection system, giving the user a 3D experience. Other features of a CAVE can include virtual tracking of the subject and surround sound. The most common applications of CAVE technology are in military training, medical education and manufacturing and design. Their costs can range from $100,000 for a low-end commercial installation to several million dollars, not including the space required for their equipment. Given the tight funding for most school computer labs, acquiring resources for a CAVE is probably outside the funding envelope of most educational institutions. However, for teachers interested in a large format display that can bring interactive worlds into a classroom, a data projector and a large screen in darkened room can provide an economical solution.
Dannen and Branch (1995) “As a variable, immersion should be determined by need” (104)
Culture in the L2 classroom
Levy (2007) reminds us that the notion of culture has been interpreted, defined and interpreted in a variety of ways over the last three centuries. Robinson-Stuart & Nocon (1996), and Tseng (2002) argue that culture learning should be approached as a dynamic process “rather than an external knowledge to acquire incidental to the ‘facts’ of language” (Tseng 2002, p. 13). While we recognize that no definition of culture can include all aspects that the term entails, for the purposes of the current paper, we take direction from Levy (2007), who relies on Kramsch’s (1998) definition of culture: “’In summary, culture can be defined as membership in a discourse community that shares a common social space and history, and common imaginings’” (p. 105). This definition allows for the negotiation of meaning and understanding of differences in perspective set forth by Furstenberg REST OF AUTHORS (2001) as a goal of cultural understanding and takes into consideration the background of the individual in defining culture.
Policymakers stress the necessity of cultural understanding for language learners. The Standards for Foreign Language Learning in the 21st Century (1996, 1999, 2006) include culture as a central aspect of language study. The goal of cultural understanding is expressed through two Standards:
· Standard 2.1: “Students demonstrate an understanding of the relationship between the practices and perspectives of the culture studied” (Standards, 2006, p. 50) .