Advertisement

Instructional Science

, Volume 39, Issue 3, pp 227–254 | Cite as

Visual perspectives within educational computer games: effects on presence and flow within virtual immersive learning environments

  • Jon Scoresby
  • Brett E. SheltonEmail author
Article

Abstract

The mis-categorizing of cognitive states involved in learning within virtual environments has complicated instructional technology research. Further, most educational computer game research does not account for how learning activity is influenced by factors of game content and differences in viewing perspectives. This study is a qualitative exploration into the nature of flow—the state of being absorbed by an activity, and presence—the sense of “being there” in a virtual learning environment. This study follows players’ experiences within an immersive environment, with the notion of “immersive” being the extent to which the computer system delivers a surrounding environment. The data analysis includes videotaped activity, transcripts and interviews of six different games, three of which have explicit learning objectives derived from two different genres. While viewing perspective was previously thought to have significant influence on presence, flow, and learning, these findings suggest that four emergent categories (content, emotion, motivation, engagement) have more influence than perspective.

Keywords

Games Perspective Presence Flow Immersion Virtual environments 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We appreciate the efforts of the Utah State University Spring 2005 Instructional Games class (a.k.a. Luscious Sanguine Stratum) for their work in developing VOSR. We would also like to thank Tim Stowell for his work in the development of VOSR 3D. This research was partially funded by the office of the Vice President for Research Office at Utah State University.

References

  1. Azuma, R. T., Baillot, Y., Behringer, R., Feiner, S., Julier, S., & MacIntyre, B. (2001). Recent advances in augmented reality. IEEE Computers and Graphics, 21, 34–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baños, R. M., Botella, C., Alcañiz, M., Liaño, V., Guerrero, B., & Rey, B. (2003). Immersion and emotion: Their impact on the sense of presence. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 6(5), 467–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barab, S. A., Hay, K. E., Barnett, M., & Keating, T. (2000). Virtual Solar System project: Building understanding through model building. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(7), 719–756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown, E., & Cairns, P. (2004). A grounded investigation of game immersion. In Extended abstracts of the 2004 conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1297–1300). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bystrom, E. K., Barfield, W., & Hendrix, C. (1999). A conceptual model of the sense of presence in virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 8(2), 241–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Crawford, C. (1982). The art of computer game design. Berkeley, CA: McGraw-Hill/Osborne Media.Google Scholar
  7. Crawford, C., (1997). Chapter 2: Why do people play games? The Art of Computer Game Design: Washington State University. From http://www.vancouver.wsu.edu/fac/peabody/game-book/Chapter2.html. Accessed 1 Dec 2008.
  8. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1988). The flow experience and human psychology. In M. Csikszentmihalyi & I. S. Csikszentmihalyi (Eds.), Optimal experience (pp. 364–383). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Finding flow. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  10. Dede, C. (2009). Immersive interfaces for engagement and learning. Science, 323(5910), 66–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dede, C., Salzman, M. C., Loftin, R. B., & Sprague, D. (1999). Multisensory immersion as a modeling environment for learning complex scientific concepts. In W. Feurzeig & N. Roberts (Eds.), Computer modeling and simulation in science education (pp. 282–319). New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  12. Epic Games, Digital Extremes (2003) Unreal Tournament 2003. GT Interactive.Google Scholar
  13. Fjeld, M., Schar, S. G., Signorello, D., & Krueger, H. (2002). Alternative tools for tangible interaction: A usability evaluation. Paper presented at the IEEE and ACM International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR), Darmstadt, Germany.Google Scholar
  14. Fontaine, G. (1992). The experience of a sense of presence in intercultural and international encounters. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 1(4), 482–490.Google Scholar
  15. Gallagher, I. (2000). Philosophical conceptions of the self: Implications for cognitive science. Trends in Cognitive Science., 4, 14–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Goldman, R., Pea, R., Barron, B., & Derry, S. J. (2007). Video research in the learning sciences. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1983). Epistemological and methodological bases of naturalistic inquiry. In G. F. Madaus, M. S. Scriven, & D. L. Stufflebeam (Eds.), Evaluation models: Viewpoints on educational and human services evaluation (pp. 311–334). Boston, MA: Kluwer-Nijhoff Publishing.Google Scholar
  18. Hargadon, D. Y. (2001). The pleasures of immersion and engagement: Schemas, scripts and the fifth business. Digital Creativity, 12(3), 153–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hedley, N. R., Billinghurst, M., Postner, L., May, R., & Kato, H. (2002). Explorations in the use of augmented reality for geographic visualization. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments.Google Scholar
  20. Jackson, S., & Marsh, H. (1996). Development and validation of a scale to measure optimal experience: The flow state scale. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 18, 17–35.Google Scholar
  21. Johnson, P. (1996). FooM. dI Software.Google Scholar
  22. Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(1), 39–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lindgren, R., Fournier, E., & Lopez, J. C. (2008). Perspective-based feedback in a virtual world training simulation and the effects on learning. Paper presented at Games, Learning & Society, Madison, WI.Google Scholar
  24. Marsh, H., & Jackson, S. (1999). Flow experience in sport: Construct validation of multidimensional, hierarchical state and trait responses. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(4), 343–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. McMahan, A. (2003). Chapter 3: Immersion, engagement, and presence: A method for analyzing 3-D video games. In M. J. P. Wolf (Ed.), The medium of the video game (pp. 135–158). Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
  26. Paras, B., & Bizzocchi, J. (2005, June 16–20). Game, motivation, and effective learning: An integrated model for educational game design. Paper presented at the Digital Games Research Association (DiGRA): Changing Views—Worlds in Play, Vancouver, BC.Google Scholar
  27. Rieber, L. (1996). Seriously considering play: Designing interactive learning environments based on the blending of microworlds, simulations, and games. Educational Technology Research and Development, 44(2), 43–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Robillard, G., Bouchard, S., Fournier, T., & Renaud, P. (2003). Anxiety and presence during VR immersion: A comparative study of the reactions of phobic and non-phobic participants in therapeutic virtual environments derived from computer games. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 6(5), 467–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rogue Entertainment. (2000). American McGee’s Alice. Redwood City, CA: Electronic Arts.Google Scholar
  30. Scoresby, J., Duncan, S. M., & Shelton, B. E. (2006). Voices of Spoon River: Exploring early American poetry through computer gaming. Paper presented at Games, Learning & Society, Madison, WI.Google Scholar
  31. Shelton, B. E. (2007). Designing educational games for activity-goal alignment. In B. E. Shelton & D. Wiley (Eds.), The design and use of simulation computer games in education (pp. 103–130). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  32. Sheridan, T. B. (1992). Musings on telepresence and virtual presence. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 1(1), 120–125.Google Scholar
  33. Shute, V. J., Ventura, M., Bauer, M. I., & Zapata-Rivera, D. (2009). Melding the power of serious games and embedded assessment to monitor and foster learning: Flow and grow. In U. Ritterfeld, M. J. Cody, & P. Vorderer (Eds.), The social science of serious games: Theories and applications (pp. 295–321). Mahwah, NJ: Routledge, Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  34. Slater, M. (1999). Measuring presence: A response to the Witmer and Singer presence questionnaire. Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments, 8(5), 560–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Slater, M. (2003). A note on presence terminology, from http://presence.cs.ucl.ac.uk/presenceconnect/articles/Jan2003/melslaterJan27200391557/melslaterJan27200391557.html. Accessed 1 Dec 2008.
  36. Slater, M., & Wilbur, S. (1997). A framework for immersive virtual environments (FIVE): Speculations on the role of presence in virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 6(6), 603–616.Google Scholar
  37. Stowell, T., Shelton, B. E. & Scoresby, J. (2006). Voices of Spoon River 3D. http://cle.usu.edu/CLE_VOSR_3D.html.
  38. Stratum, L. S. (2006). Voices of Spoon River. http://cle.usu.edu/CLE_IF_VOSR.html .
  39. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  40. Taylor, L. N. (2002). Video games: Perspective, point-of-view, and immersion. Unpublished Masters Thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville.Google Scholar
  41. Vogeley, K., & Fink, G. R. (2003). Neural correlates of first-person-perspective. Trends in Cognitive Science, 7, 38–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Vora, J., Nair, S., Gramopadhye, A. K., Duchowski, A. T., Melloy, B. J., & Kanki, B. (2002). Using virtual reality technology for aircraft visual inspection training: Presence and comparison studies. Applied Ergonomics, 33, 559–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Winn, W., & Windschitl, M. (2002, April). Strategies used by university students to learn aspects of physical oceanography in a virtual environment. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
  44. Winn, W., Windschitl, M., Fruland, R., & Lee, Y. (2002, October). When does immersion in a virtual environment help students construct understanding? Paper presented at the International Conference on the Learning Sciences (ICLS), Seattle, WA.Google Scholar
  45. Witmer, B. G., & Singer, M. J. (1998). Measuring presence in virtual environments: A presence questionnaire. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 7, 225–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Woods, E., Billinghurst, M., Aldridge, G., & Garrie, B. (2003). Augmenting the Science Centre and Museum experience. Paper presented at the Association for Computing Machinery Conference 2003, Sydney, Australia.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Instructional Technology and Learning SciencesUtah State UniversityLoganUSA

Personalised recommendations