Virtual Learning Worlds

Game designer Marcus Andrews recently authored a nice user-interface (UI) article over on gamasutura. The article breaks down UIs from several popular games over the last few years, including Far Cry 2, Team Fortress 2, Dead Space and World of Warcraft. The article begins by breaking down 4 distinct UI categories, but the bulk of the article deals with diegetic vs. non-diegetic interface elements. Diegetic elements are those that are rendered in the game world, where your character or avatar is aware of them. For instance, when you check the map in Far Cry 2, your character actually gets out a map and the camera zooms to specific interest points. In a non-diegetic fashion, the player might press “M” for the map, and the game will pause and bring a map up over the game world (like in Bioshock and many other games).

The article is worth reading to get a sense of how different, extremely popular games put together UI’s, some diegetic, some non-diegetic and some mixed. Ultimately, Marcus delves into the value of a diegetic UI, and if it leads to more immersion.

The success of World of Warcraft sends a strong signal that immersion might not, or at least not always, be in the consumer’s best interest. Maybe they just want to perform at the peak of their ability in harmony with the game.

I couldn’t agree more. A game should strive to be a good game, first and foremost. For me, I do not believe immersion is tightly tethered to a UI category or the quality of graphics. I still consider the original Doom and Contra to be some of the most immersive games I’ve every played.

Immersion has been a huge focal point in the last 10 years with games, but designers really need to be cognizant of what to sacrifice vs. what to maintain when trying to create a highly immersive environment. The same holds true for those of us designing games or simulations for learning. How accurate do our environments need to be to immerse the learners? Should we give up some of the immersive qualities to make the environment easier to navigate and work within? I don’t think there is a clear cut answer here, much the same as there is no clear answer to the usability vs. familiarity balance when using 3D virtual spaces for learning.

I was recently alerted that Virtual Learning Worlds was ranked in the top 50 educational blogs for 2010 by Sir Learnalot’s Knowledge Blog, which appears to be part of a site dealing with online college rankings.

I can’t say I’ve ever been to this site or heard of Sir Learnalot…but thanks all the same!

In other news, I’ve updated the Presentations page with recent talks from Educause last month, as well as a NATO talk I gave in late 2009 on virtual worlds and games with military applications. I also updated the About page with timely information on my current job and a few other musings.

In my new position I’m working with a LOT of institutional data. The first of what might be many did you knows:

Did you know that, since 2000, females tend to graduate almost a semester quicker than their male counterparts at PSU?

As part of the Learning in 3D Blog Book Tour, I wanted to focus on a few themes that I’ve encountered during my time working with, and researching, different types of virtual worlds. Instead of focusing on a specific chapter or attempting to summarize parts of the book, I selected three different categories that are all touched on (some more than others) in Learning in 3D.

1. User Interfaces (UIs)
I find the interface obstacle very interesting. I’ve designed many interfaces (mostly in 2D) as well as researched UIs in the context of emergency response scenarios. Interfaces come up throughout the book. One quote I particularly like is from Karen Keeter (IBM), in Chapter 9:

At the same time, I believe that the onus is on developers to design for
new users, while still enabling advanced users.

Karen identifies UIs as one of the primary obstacles for newcomers experimenting in virtual worlds, and I couldn’t agree more. In the past, I remember reading about the “typical Second Life experience” for first time users. Nearly 90% of people that create a Second Life account NEVER come back. I believe the UI has a lot to do with this statistic.

One idea around this obstacle is the use of Phased interfaces.

Chapter 8 deals with the diffusion of innovation, touching on typical fears people have about entering a virtual world:

People know what to expect in a 2D virtual class session or in a face to face classroom. Not so with a VIE. The interface, functionality, and experience level with VIEs are not universally high, and the lack of familiarity causes resistance and/or fear among potential users and decision makers.

In addition to the interface and functionality obstacles, a huge trade-off exists between what’s FAMILIAR in a virtual world, and what’s USABLE. People might know what to expect in a face-to-face class session on the human heart. They also might know what to expect from a 2D virtual class session on the human heart. Both of these scenarios might involve diagrams of the heart, maybe a small model of the heart for students to pass around and discussions on blood flow and the major heart compartments. But in 3D, you can do all sorts of wild things like make the avatar a red blood cell, funnel the avatar through the heart, pointing out compartments along the way, allowing the avatar to stop and examine different things, measure blood flow, capture data from the simulation…if designed right, these are powerful, very usable experiences. But trying to mimic a f2f or 2D lesson or activity in 3D is generally NOT very usable…but it is familiar. Avatars passing around a small virtual model of a heart is something familiar, something we might experience naturally. Flying through a heart at high speeds as a red blood cell, not so much.

* NOTE: worth pointing out at this point is that I contributed to Chapter 7 of this book, specifically addressing design decisions and usability vs. familiarity when designing 3D spaces.

2. Informal Learning
Chapter 2 addresses concerns around formal learning vs. informal learning in virtual worlds.

The autonomous learner problem has two core issues: (1) where the need for learning typically arises and (2) how web technologies make it increasingly easy for people to become on - demand learners.

I think it’s too early to tell how virtual worlds play into this. I consider myself an on-demand learner, and I find myself relying on Google, Facebook and my IM contacts to provide critical information on-demand. I struggle to envision a scenario where I open up a virtual world and go seek information on-demand. I have been told that virtual IBM’ers often interact informally in Second Life, and managers of virtual teams are finding value in “management by virtually walking around”, similar to how managers in co-located, physical spaces communicate to team members.

Still, virtual worlds (specifically MMOs) are fantastic training environments for meta-skills such as problem solving, collaboration, teamwork, leadership and basic mathematics (see Steinkuehler, J.Gee, C.Aldrich, C.Quinn, J.Bower and several others). One interesting aspect of this learning comes from things that happen OUTSIDE the virtual world, such as through VoIP, Discussion Boards, IMs and other communication where people are talking about the virtual world and their experiences within.

With training professionals reporting anywhere from 50% to 95% of learning occurring informally, this is an interesting space that virtual worlds will play a role. Design will play a critical role in this evolution (from Chapter 3):

Even if the goal is to foster informal learning, the VIE must be structured appropriately to encourage and enable interaction between and among learners. If not, the result is a virtual ghost town. No one comes to visit, and the place is empty

3. Characters
This comes a bit more from game design, but also applies to virtual worlds. One thing that connects us to learning and our learning environment are the characters, or people, we interact. Sometimes it’s an instructor that tells great stories about his or her experiences that allows you as the learner to relate better and put more context around the content. Perhaps it’s a friend, that pushes you in a course to perform better.

The beautiful thing about virtual worlds is that we can fabricate characters (sometimes called non-player characters or NPCs) with artificial intelligence (AI). The last three years has seen an explosion in the depth of story and character development in video games, to the point that the player starts to care about their virtual, AI-controlled companions (for example, check out either Mass Effect game or Dragon Age: Origins). Even in MMOs like World of Warcraft, Blizzard is placing more priority on creating characters with deep back stories, providing a new, higher-level of engagement between the player and the game world.

These are three areas I find critical to the adoption and success of virtual worlds as learning/training environments. If we figure out how to create phased interfaces, quality informal learning spaces and characters the learner can empathize with, we’ll have a learning environment unlike any other.

Valve recently announced some statistics around Steam, their digital distribution system (and so much more) for games.

Userbase: over 25 million
Peak concurrent users for 2009: 2.5 million
Sales increase in 2009 over 2008: 205%

What astonishes me is the year-to-year growth. Steam is now 5 years old, and EVERY YEAR since its debut, year-to-year sales has increased over 100%. Is this trend going to continue another 5 years or will we start to see a leveling out?