Education and Information Technologies

, Volume 5, Issue 4, pp 277–289

Perfect presence: What does this mean for the design of virtual learning environments?

  • Denise Whitelock
  • Daniela Romano
  • Anne Jelfs
  • Paul Brna
Article

Abstract

One of the advantages of building a virtual reality system is that it allows students to enter new worlds which in these instances include trips to the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean, a field visit to an Oak Wood and a close encounter in a 3D maze. In all these environments the factors affecting a sense of ‘being there’ or presence was investigated. Enhanced audio feedback increased a subjective sense of presence but did not increase students' conceptual learning scores. We have also found that a sense of social presence enhanced the notion of ‘being there’ together with measures of collaboration. However ‘being there’ can take its toll on students and our findings suggest it imposes a cognitive overload. Where students have a choice, they try and reduce this overload by asking for conceptual tools to assist them in their learning tasks. The studies reported in this paper provide some benchmark data about these issues which deserve further investigation if we are to design effective virtual environments for conceptual learning.

virtual reality presence conceptual learning collaborative virtual environments conceptual tools 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bass, E.J., (1998). Towards an Intelligent Tutoring System for Situation Awareness Training in Complex, Dynamic Environments. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1452, Intelligent Tutoring Systems, Proceedings of the 4th International Conference, ITS 198, San Antonio, Texas, USA, August 1998, pp 26-35.Google Scholar
  2. Brna, P. (1999). Collaborative virtual learning environments for concept learning. International Journal of Continuing Engineering Education and Life-Long Learning, 9, Nos. 2/3/4, 315-327.Google Scholar
  3. Burton, M., Brna, P. and Treasure-Jones, T. (1997). Splitting the Collaborative Atom: How to Support Learning About Collaboration. In Artificial Intelligence in Education: Knowledge and Media in Learning Systems, du Boulay, B. and Mizoguchi, R. (eds) Amsterdam: IOS. pp 135-142.Google Scholar
  4. Jelfs, A. and Whitelock, D. (1999). Activity Theory and Virtual Learning Environments: A lever to understanding the role of Presence. In Proceedings of the Sixth UK Virtual Reality Special Interest Group Conference. Edited by T. Fernando. Salford University, September. pp. 1-10.Google Scholar
  5. Kalawsky, R.S. (1991a). Pilot integration and the implications on the design of advanced cockpits. In Conference on the Man-Machine Interface in Tactical Aircraft Design and Combat Automation, Agard, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
  6. Kalawsky, R.S. (1991b). From visually coupled systems to virtual reality: an aerospace perspective. In Proceedings Computer Graphics '91, Blenheim On-line.Google Scholar
  7. Kalawsky, R. (1993). The Science of Virtual Reality and Virtual Environments. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  8. Laurel, B. (1993). Computers as Theatre. Addison Wesley, New York.Google Scholar
  9. Lombard, M. and Ditton, T. (1997). At the Heart of it all: The Concept of Telepresence. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 3(2).Google Scholar
  10. Rheingold, H. (1991). Virtual Reality. Simon & Schuster, London.Google Scholar
  11. Romano, D.M. and Brna, P. (2000). ACTIVE World: Manipulating Time and Point of View to Promote a Sense of Presence in a Collaborative Virtual Environment for Training in Emergency Situations. 3rd International Workshop on Presence, Delft University of Technology, Delft.Google Scholar
  12. Steuer, J. (1992). Defining Virtual Reality: Dimensions Determining Telepresence. Journal of Communication, 42(4), 73-93.Google Scholar
  13. Whitelock, D. (1999). Investigating the role of task structure and interface support in two virtual learning environments. International Journal of Continuing Engineering Education and Life-Long Learning, 9, Nos. 2/3/4, 291-301.Google Scholar
  14. Whitelock, D., Brna, P. and Holland, S. (1996). What is the Value of Virtual Reality for Conceptual Learning? Towards a Theoretical Framework. In Brna, P., Paiva, A. and Self, J.A. (eds.) Proceedings of the European Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education, pp 136-141, Edicoes Colibri, Lisbon.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Denise Whitelock
    • 1
  • Daniela Romano
    • 2
  • Anne Jelfs
    • 3
  • Paul Brna
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute of Educational TechnologyThe Open University, Walton HallMilton Keynes
  2. 2.Computer Based Learning UnitUniversity of LeedsEngland
  3. 3.Behavioural StudiesUniversity College NorthamptonNorthampton

Personalised recommendations