Approved-By:  "EDTECH Moderator" <21765EDT@MSU.BITNET>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.edtech
Date:         Tue, 10 Nov 1992 00:11:52 EST
From:         stan kulikowski ii <STANKULI@UWF.BITNET>
Subject:      re: education and virtual reality

>>
>>  From:         "M. Young" <MYOUNG@UCONNVM.BITNET>
>>
>>  I disagree with STANKULI@UWF when he states that VR is just for
>>  "low level" sensory information.  Recent ideas in cognitive psychology
>>  suggest that ALL learning (including higher level conceptual
>>  understanding) is "situated" in perceptual learning and experience.
>>

  i have been reading the control systems group (CSG-L@uiucvmd.BITNET) for
some years now, and i find their discussions far from convincing.
ocassionally some bit of insight, enough to tantalize but not enough for
thorough work.  like the behaviorists before them, elemental linguistics
eludes them.

  good, give us some examples of how concepts can be taught through sensory
data, no matter how complex.  i did admit to the benefit of VR in sensory
translation when the relevant phenomena is otherwise imperceptible.  but
these are, by and large, exotic topic areas.  if there is really a need for
basic perceptual training in some area, there are usually enough of the real
objects around for realtime manipulation.  if the objects are not readily
available, how is the need for the training so significant?   the effort to
establish virtual environments will be cost effective only in uncommon
cases.

  in semantics we have what is called a denotational definiton, often used
for the simplest concrete concepts.  you define a concept by giving a series
of examples, allowing the user to generalize the definition.  dictionaries
need to supply little pictures of these basic types.  i admit that a VR
dictionary would be neat, being able to reach in to feel, hear and taste the
objects thus defined.  but even in the middle ages, they recognized that
connotative meanings escape denotive definition.  that is why they are always
marked on the side, defined with symbolic structures (usually linguistic,
sometimes mathematic).

  what sensory data would you use to define 'truth'?  it is a kids joke
the when the dictionary defines 'ugly' they put in a picture of you. :-)
one of the earliest concepts acquired in child language is the genitive.
no amount of sense data defines the concept of possession, yet it appears
fairly commonly in verbrete and some arthopoid life forms.  symbolic
manipulation is our best method of representing those meanings which do
not have definition by example.  virtual realities are not going to aid
much in those areas, and most of education (beyond the elementary) is
concerned with such.

>>
>>    Consider the "mental models" used by experts when solving physics
>>    problems.
>>

  yes, consider expert knowledge.  it is valued because it does not resemble
common sense.  again we are talking about exotic, peripheral areas of
curriculum.  that will be the forte of VR, the heart will remain in symbolic
textual structures for considerable time to come.
                                                 stan

        .      1: the check is in the mail             stankuli@UWF.bitnet
       ===     2: i will respect you in the morning
       | |     3: i won't ...(well, you know this one)...
       ---     4: he's only just a good friend
               5:
                                    -- universal lies
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU