Virtual Reality

, Volume 16, Issue 2, pp 105–120 | Cite as

The Virtual Trillium Trail and the empirical effects of Freedom and Fidelity on discovery-based learning

  • Maria C. R. HarringtonEmail author
Original Article


The Virtual Trillium Trail is a new kind of desktop virtual reality application that crosses over into the area of geospatial, educational simulations. Visual fidelity significantly impacts intrinsic learning, activity in situ, and knowledge gained, independent of other factors. The main empirical contribution of this report is on the impact of the user interface design parameters of graphical fidelity and navigational freedom on learning outcomes. A planned orthogonal contrast, Two-way ANOVA with the factors of Visual Fidelity and Navigational Freedom—both scaled, and set to high and low levels—shows significant impacts on the variables of Salient Events, a proxy for discovery-based learning, and Knowledge Gained, as measured between a pre-test and a post-test. Thus, there is strong empirical evidence to support the use of desktop virtual environments, built with high-fidelity, photo-realistic, and free navigational game engine technology, as educational simulations for informal education. The high-level Visual Fidelity combined with the high-level Navigational Freedom condition showed a mean learning gain of 37.44% and is significantly superior to the low-level Visual Fidelity, low-level Navigational Freedom condition, ceteris paribus.


Virtual reality Serious games Educational simulations Child–computer–environment interface Discovery-based learning Ecology education User interfaces Three-dimensional graphics and realism 



The author wishes to thank Dr. Susan Kalisz, Professor of Biology at the University of Pittsburgh; Ms. Gabi Hughes, Coordinator of the Environmental Education Program, Audubon Society of Western Pennsylvania; and all of the teachers, parents, and students who volunteered.


  1. Aggarwal R, Ward J, Balasundaram I, Sains P, Athanasiou T, Darzi A (2007) Proving the effectiveness of virtual reality simulation for training in laparoscopic surgery. Ann Surg 245(5):771–779CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allison D, Wills B, Bowman D, Wineman J, Hodges LF (1997) The virtual reality gorilla exhibit. Comput Graph App IEEE 17(6):30–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barab S, Zuiker S, Warren S, Hickey D, Ingram-Goble A, Kwon E-J, Kouper I, Herring SC (2007) Situationally embodied curriculum: relating formalisms and contexts. Sci Educat 91(5):750–782CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beechwood Farms Nature Reserve (2005) Beechwood farms outdoor discovery hike (Unpublished manuscript of the Audubon Society of Western Pennsylvania. Pittsburgh, PA)Google Scholar
  5. Bobick A, Intille S, Davis J, Baird F, Pinhanez C, Campbell L, Ivanov Y, Schutte A, Wilson A, KidsRoom The (1999) A perceptually-based interactive and immersive story environment. Pres Teleoperat Vir Environ 8(4):369–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bowman DA, North C, Chen J, Polys N, Pyla PS, Yilmaz U (2003) Information-rich virtual environments: theory, tools, and research agenda. In: Proceedings of VRST’03, ACM Press 81–90Google Scholar
  7. Brusilovsky P, Sosnovsky S (2005) Individualized exercises for self-assessment of programming knowledge: an evaluation of QuizPACK. J Educat Res Comput 5:3 Article No 6Google Scholar
  8. Cruz-Neira C, Sandin Daniel J, DeFanti T (1993) Surround-screen projection-based virtual reality: the design and implementation of the CAVE. In: Proceedings of ACM SIGGRAPH 1993, ACM Press 135–142Google Scholar
  9. Darken RP, Sibert JL (1996) Navigating large virtual spaces. Int J Human Comput Int 8(1):49–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dede C, Clarke J, Ketelhut DJ, Nelson B, Bowman C (2005) Students’ motivation and learning of science in a multi user virtual environment In: Proceedings of AERA 2005, American Educational Research AssociationGoogle Scholar
  11. Dill KE, Dill JC (1998) Video game violence: a review of the empirical literature. Aggres Viol Behav 4(4):407–428MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Druin A (1999) Cooperative inquiry: Developing new technologies for children with children, In: Proceedings CHI 1999, ACM Press 592–599Google Scholar
  13. Gibson JJ (1979) The ecological approach to visual perception. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, USAGoogle Scholar
  14. Glass G, Hopkins K (1996) Statistical methods in education and psychology, 3rd edn. Allyn and Bacon, Needham Heights, MA, USAGoogle Scholar
  15. Harrington MCR (2009) An ethnographic comparison of real and virtual reality field trips of trillium trail: the salamander find as a salient event. Children Youth Environ 19(1)
  16. Harrington MCR (2010) Empirical evidence of priming, transfer, reinforcement, and learning in the real and virtual trillium trails, IEEE transactions on learning technologies, 28 Jul. IEEE computer society digital library. IEEE Computer Society,
  17. Jacobson J (2008) Ancient architecture in virtual reality: does visual immersion really aid learning? Dissertation Abstracts InternationalGoogle Scholar
  18. Johnson A, Moher T, Ohlsson S, Gillingham M (1999) The round earth project. Comput Graph App IEEE 19(6):60–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kalisz S (1996–2006) [Plot study of Trillium Trail Wild Life Reserve]. Unpublished raw data. University of PittsburghGoogle Scholar
  20. Mikropoulos TA, Katsikis A, Nikolou E, Tsakalis P (2003) Virtual environments in biology teaching. J Biol Edu 37(4):176–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Morie JM, Iyer K, Luigi D, Williams J, Dozois A, Rizzo A (2005) Development of a data management tool for investigating multivariate space and free will experiences in virtual reality. Exp Psycol Biomet 30(3):319–331Google Scholar
  22. Nash E, Edwards G, Thompson J, Barfield W (2000) A review of presence and performance in virtual environments. Int J Human Comput Interact 12(1):1–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Nehring W, Lashley F (2009) Nursing simulation: a review of the past 40 years. Simulat Gam 40(4):528–552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pausch R, Proffitt D, Williams G (1997) Quantifying immersion in virtual reality. In: Proceedings of ACM SIGGRAPH 1997, ACM Press 13–18Google Scholar
  25. Roussos M, Johnson A, Moher T, Leigh J, Vasilakis C, Barnes C (1999) Learning and building together in an immersive virtual world. Pres Teleoperat Vir Environ J 8(3):247–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Roussou M, Oliver M, Slater M (2006) The virtual playground: an educational virtual reality environment for evaluating interactivity and conceptual learning. Virt Real 10(3–4):227–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Salzman M, Dede C, Loftin B (1996) Science space: virtual realities for learning complex and abstract scientific concepts. In: Proceedings of IEEE virtual reality annual international symposium, IEEE Press 246–253Google Scholar
  28. Scharver C, Evenhouse R, Johnson A, Leigh J (2004) Designing cranial implants in a haptic augmented reality environment. Commun ACM 47(8):33–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Schell J (2005) Understanding entertainment: story and game play are one, ACM pres computers in entertainment (CIE) 3 1Google Scholar
  30. Schell J, Shochet J (2001) Designing interactive theme park rides. IEEE Comput Graph App 21(4):11–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. UnReal Technology (2008) Retrieved September 17, 2009, from
  32. Winn W (1993) A conceptual basis for educational applications of virtual reality. University of Washington Press, Seattle, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  33. Winn W, Windschitl M, Fruland R, Lee Y (2002) When does immersion in a virtual environment help students construct understanding? In: Proceedings of the fifth international conference of the learning sciences 497–503Google Scholar
  34. Yoon S, Laffey J, Oh H (2008) Understanding usability and user experience of web-based 3D graphics technology. Int J Human Comput Interact 24(3):288–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Information SciencesUniversity of PittsburghPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations