Advertisement

TechTrends

, Volume 62, Issue 1, pp 119–125 | Cite as

Mirror Worlds: Examining the Affordances of a Next Generation Immersive Learning Environment

  • Aakash GautamEmail author
  • Daron Williams
  • Krista Terry
  • Kelly Robinson
  • Phyllis Newbill
Original Paper

Abstract

As technologies continue to develop and evolve, it is imperative that instructional technologists, learning scientists, and educators involved with examining learning affordances of emerging technologies investigate the potential of innovative environments to promote and facilitate learning. This paper, as such, will describe a newly developed immersive, mixed-reality learning environment at Virginia Tech. The Mirror Worlds project, a cutting edge mixed-reality virtual world will be described in terms of the potential for this type of environment to engage participants in authentically situated social and embodied learning activities.

Keywords

Immersive learning Virtual environments Mixed reality Social presence Embodied learning Social constructivism 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the Mirror Worlds project team, especially Drs. Nicholas Polys and Todd Ogle, for allowing us to interact with the team and the project and for providing us with supporting information and resources. For more information on the ongoing project and for contact information for team members, please see: http://icat.vt.edu/impact/project/mirror-worlds

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Ethical Approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

References

  1. Allmendinger, K. (2010). Social presence in synchronous virtual learning situations: The role of nonverbal signals displayed by avatars. Educational Psychology Review, 22, 41–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Argyle, M., & Dean, J. (1965). Eye-contact, distance and affiliation. Sociometry, 28, 289–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baker, C. (2010). The impact of instructor immediacy and presence for online student affective learning, cognition, and motivation. Journal of Educators Online, 7(1), n1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.  https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X018001032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dalgarno, B., & Lee, M. J. W. (2010). What are the learning affordances of 3-D virtual environments? British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(1), 10–32.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.01038.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dawley, L., & Dede, C. (2014). Situated learning in virtual worlds and immersive simulations. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 723–734). New York: Springer Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5_58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Doolittle, P. E., & Camp, W. G. (1999). Constructivism: The career and technical education perspective. Journal of Career and Technical Education, 16(1) Retrieved from: https://ejournals.lib.vt.edu/index.php/JCTE/article/view/647/692.
  8. Driscoll, M. P. (2005). Psychology of learning for instruction (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc..Google Scholar
  9. Eisenberg, M., & Pares, N. (2014). Tangible and full-body Interaces in learning. In The Cambridge Handbook of the learning sciences (2nd ed., pp. 339–357). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Gardner, M. R., & Elliott, J. B. (2014). The immersive education laboratory: Understanding affordances, structuring experiences, and creating constructivist, collaborative processes, in mixed-reality smart environments. EAI Endorsed Transactions on Future Intelligent Educational Environments, 1(1), e6.  https://doi.org/10.4108/fiee.1.1.e6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gelernter, D. (1993). Mirror Worlds: or: The Day Software Puts the Universe in a Shoebox... How it Will Happen and What it Will Mean. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Goldin-Meadow, S. (2003). Hearing gesture: How our hands help us think. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Grinberg, A. M., Serrano Careaga, J., Mehl, M. R., & O’Connor, M. (2014). Social engagement and user immersion in a socially based virtual world. Computers in Human Behavior, 36(2014), 479–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hill, J. R. (2012). Learning communities: Theoretical foundations for making connections. In D. Jonassen & S. Land (Eds.), Theoretical Foundations of Learning Environments (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Hong, S., Ahn, J. G., Ko, H., & Kim, J. (2009). Acquiring a physical world and serving its mirror world simultaneously. In Virtual and Mixed Reality (pp. 445–453). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  16. Huang, H., Rauch, U., & Liaw, S. (2010). Investigating learners’ attitudes toward virtual reality learning environments: Based on a constructivist approach. Computers & Education, 55, 1171–1182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kim, J., Song, H., & Luo, W. (2016). Broadening the understanding of social presence: Implications and contributions to the mediated communication and online education. Computers in Human Behavior.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.07.009.
  18. Kožuh, I., Jeremic, Z., Sarjaš, A., Bele, J. L., Devedžic, V., & Debevc, M. (2015). Social presence and interaction in learning environments: The effect on student success. Educational Technology & Society, 18(1), 223–236.Google Scholar
  19. Mayer, R. E. (1999). Designing instruction for constructivist learning. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models (volume II) (pp. 141–159). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  20. McMahan, R. P., Bowman, D. A., Zielinski, D. J., & Brady, R. B. (2012). Evaluating display fidelity and interaction fidelity in a virtual reality game. Visualization and Computer Graphics, IEEE Transactions on, 18(4), 626–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Miyake, N., & Kirschner, P. A. (2014). The social and interactive dimensions of collaborative learning. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Polys, N. F., Knapp, B., Bock, M., Lidwin, C., Webster, D., Waggoner, N., & Bukvic, I. (2015). Fusality: An open framework for cross-platform mirror world installations. In Proceedings of the 20th international conference on 3D web technology (pp. 171–179). New York: ACM.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Short, J. W., Williams, E. E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  24. Tilden, D., Singh, A., Polys, N. F., & Sforza, P. (2011, June). Multimedia mashups for mirror worlds. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on 3D Web Technology (pp. 155–164). ACM.Google Scholar
  25. Tu, C. H., & McIsaac, M. (2002). The relationship of social presence and interaction in online classes. The American journal of distance education, 16(3), 131–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher mental process. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Wiener M., Mehrabian A. (1968). Language within language: Immediacy, a channel in verbal communication. London, England: Ardent Media.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications & Technology 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Virginia TechBlacksburgUSA
  2. 2.Appalachian State UniversityBooneUSA

Personalised recommendations