Virtual Gorilla Modeling Project: Two Case Studies of Middle-School Students Building Computational Models for Inquiry

This paper describes the Virtual Gorilla Modeling Project (VGMP), a prototype summer camp for middleschool students that took place at a large metropolitan zoo, in which students constructed models of gorilla behavior within an inquiry framework. The students, working in groups of four to five, conducted field observations of the gorillas in their zoo habitat, used virtual reality modeling software to construct virtual models of observed gorilla behaviors, and explored their models in an immersive virtual gorilla habitat where they played the role of a juvenile gorilla. For this study, we used both qualitative and quantitative research methods to evaluate student learning about the social behavior of gorillas, as well as the ecological systems in which they live. This analysis has allowed us to augment and extend the educational experience provided in the informal (zoo) learning environment. Virtual Gorilla Modeling Project 3 Introduction The objectives of the VGMP are twofold. First, we are interested in learners’ development of richer conceptual understandings of gorilla behavior (i.e., beyond both the factual understanding typical of classroom-based learning and the idiosyncratic observations of zoo-based learning). Through extensive interviews with scientists, we have developed a rubric for evaluating learner understanding of gorilla behavior: Biomechanics: The understanding of the physical parameters of gorilla behavior (e.g., sitting, walking, reaching, etc.). These behaviors represent a primarily physiological understanding of gorilla behavior. Interaction with the world: The understanding of gorilla interactions with inanimate objects (e.g., gathering, eating, throwing, self-grooming, object manipulation, etc.). These behaviors represent the first interactional set of behaviors. Intra-social interactions: The understanding of gorillas interacting with members of their own gorilla troop (e.g., grooming, playing, taking food, etc.). These behaviors represent the first social set of behaviors. Inter-social interactions: The understanding of gorillas interacting with members of another gorilla troop (e.g., boundary setting, gathering, demonstrating, aggression, etc.). Second, we are interested in successfully engaging learners in using computational models as an authentic practice of science. Our previous work suggests that although engaging learners in modeling may be difficult, it is accessible through the use of virtual reality (VR). Virtual reality creates concrete-theoretical objects learners can simultaneously relate and, through the use of high level, easy-to to-use authoring interfaces, recognize and understand the connections between abstract concepts (e.g. planetary orbit dynamics [Hay & Barab, in press; Barab, Hay, Squire, & Barnett, in press]). Thus, modeling is transformed from a process of manipulating abstract symbol systems to one of making identifiable objects behave as they should, whether it be making the moon revolve around the earth, or in this case, correctly interacting with a silverback gorilla. Virtual Reality Overview -History and Educational Applications We can trace the educational application of “virtual reality” back to the Link Trainer in 1929. The Link Trainer was a mechanical cockpit simulator “pod” designed to train pilots that claimed to “shorten the essential air training by more that 50%. ” We have come a long way from this mechanical pilot trainer to the VR systems of today. This Virtual Gorilla Modeling Project 4 historical connection to the current proposal is important for two reasons. First, it created the connection between VR and learning, that there was an important and profound relationship between the experience of VR environments and learning in a deep and more efficient way. Second, the Link Trainer created the primary mindset of VR learning environments -the training simulator. Even today, it training simulators is are the most developed educational application of VR technology. Pushed by enormous investments from the military and the aerospace industry, the most complex and well studied VR learning environments are battle and flight simulators, direct descendents of which the Link Trainer. Today’s vision of an electronic VR had its start with Ivan Sutherland’s seminal paper of 1965: “The Ultimate Display. ” Sutherland proposed and eventually developed the trademark of the VR experience -the head-mounted display (HMD). He foresaw the need for user tracking, stereoscopic images, and wearable displays to create an immersive, synthetic 3-D experience. More recently, the CAVE room-sized VR was developed at the Electronic Visualization Laboratory of the University of Illinois at Chicago. This synthetic walk-in, immersive environment allows users to take a walk in the 3-D environment unencumbered by the heavy HMD. Virtual reality promises to allow learners to become immersed in various situations (the surface of the moon or a delicate strand of DNA), to visualize information (the temperatures of a frontal system), to see hidden unseen phenomena (forces directed on an object or a tumor in a body), to collaborate with people thousands of miles away (in adventure educational games or projects), and to “touch” artifacts from museums they may never actually visit. Only recently have educators working with K-12 students begun to explore the educational possibilities of VR learning environments. In a recent review of the educational uses of VR (Youngblutt, 1998), two primary models of educational VR were identified: predeveloped virtual worlds (PRED-VW) and student developed virtual worlds (ST-VW). There were 40 PRED-VW projects identified. These virtual worlds are somewhat patterned after the simulator, but are usually not focused on narrow skill-based learning. They put learners into situations and foster an inquiry approach to develop understanding through exploring these worlds. Often these situations are not even possible in the real world, but are pedagogically useful in learning. These PRED-VW projects include tours of historical contexts (Virtual Egyptian Temple and Pompeii, CMU’s SIMLab and, Learning Sites' Vari House Greece), environmental science simulations where the learner can manipulate and analyze variables (Global Change, Human Interfaces Technology Laboratory; and Energy Conservation, University of Portsmouth), and walkthroughs Virtual Gorilla Modeling Project 5 of famous scenes from literature (O’Connor and Updike Worlds, Haywood Community College), to name just a few. The second model of educational VR is the student development of virtual worlds (ST-VW). There were 21 STVW projects identified in Youngblutt (1998). In these environments, the pedagogical framework is that students have the opportunity to build their own worlds. Using generic VR construction tools, student construct 3-D worlds in architectural design (building a new stadium, Evans Bay Intermediate School), portray scenes in literature, build a world that teaches about the dangers of HIV/AIDS (HILT), or build an atom (Slaton Independent School Distinct). Research on Educational Applications of Virtual Reality Research on educational applications of VR falls into four basic areas. These areas address four fundamental questions: (a) Are learners able to use the technology? (b) Can learners interact with the virtual worlds? (c) How can we improve the virtual environment? (d) What did learners learn from the environment? We briefly review the research literature in each of these areas, with a focus on the last one. We then conclude this section by reviewing the fundamental questions that need to be addressed. Using the Technology Hardware The technology has made enormous leaps in recent year and is at the point now where serious consideration can be made to educational applications. The technology itself has been one focus of research in educational applications. The 1991 Pacific Science Center Camp 91 was the first educational group to explore the use of HMDs with 10 to 15 year olds and determined that HMDs provide a viable technology for learning (Bricken, 1992). Because NewtonWorld (Salzman, Dede, Sprague, & Bowen Loftin, 1997) required longer periods in the HMD, the researchers looked at the issues of simulator sickness. They found that all users reported significant levels of discomfort and eyestrain after 1.25 hours of immersion in the HMD world. However, there were not significant differences between users of a similar 2-D world in symptoms of nausea. As the length of learner immersion rises, issues of ocular strain, simulator sickness, neck strain, and so on will be important research questions. However, it would be same to assume that as the technology improves, and brings lighter and better displays and faster computers, these hardware questions, while still important, will become less and less of an issue. Virtual Gorilla Modeling Project 6 Interacting with the Virtual Worlds Interface Virtual reality is billed as the “ultimate interface,” that is the interface that you cannot see. To anyone that has been immersed in a VR environment, this is not the case. In fact, adding the 3-D to the interface adds a huge amount of complexity. There has been research conducted on the interface issues in these VR educational applications. The interface plays an obviously necessary, but not sufficient role in learning. That is, if learners cannot interact with the environment easily and effectively, then they cannot easily learn from the environment. However, interacting with the environment is not sufficient for learning. In an informal study, researchers at Georgia Tech found that in an architectural design project, students found that making small changes in position, size, color, or texture were easily done, but that making changes in geometry or conceptual changes were difficult and cumbersome (Youngblutt, 1998). In NewtonWorld, (Salzman, Dede, Sprague, & Bowen Loftin, 1997) although the met