![\"Decorative](\"https:\/\/blogger.googleusercontent.com\/img\/b\/R29vZ2xl\/AVvXsEhSf-yTwOGJt7AeDvVcpn_xx4En-7K0e2jO6Oh1udPgqmQcQr9IEAfg32ckFzU8h6JFnrLoC7OovH5peJqDLDiL5HAD112Fg659r7kLkDXhNdY9FW9W7RhaRYvR3pH9wIRDQKfSotG02kSvPnz9f4wHVkW67v04j2Mi9dgiA07KuwEqqkU_CQuZclLzyqo\/w640-h360\/ID%20in%20the%20Metaverse%20Blog%20Banner%202(4).png\")
<\/a><\/div>\nCredit: Midjourney and Me. Prompt: retrofuturistic city, monorails, glowing lights, nighttime, blue and green color scheme, mysterious –style raw –ar 16:9<\/p>\n
\n This conceptual series proposes instructional design principles <\/span><\/p>\n <\/span><\/h2>\n <\/span><\/p>\n <\/span><\/p>\n <\/span><\/p>\n <\/span><\/p>\n \n \n \n <\/span><\/p>\n <\/span><\/p>\n \n <\/span><\/p>\n \n <\/span><\/p>\n <\/span><\/p>\n \n Pasteur’s Quadrant: The type of research that quests for fundamental <\/span><\/p>\n \n This series is fundamental because it draws primarily from the <\/span><\/p>\n <\/span><\/p>\n <\/span><\/h2>\n <\/span><\/p>\n \n <\/span><\/p>\n <\/span><\/p>\n Part 3 will approach research myths surrounding the metaverse in <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n <\/span><\/p>\n Did you miss Part 1? Here it is!<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n <\/span><\/p>\n Theory, theory everywhere.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n #InstructionalDesign #Metaverse #XR #MR #Multimedia #Principles #Mayer <\/p>\n <\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" <\/p>\n Credit: Midjourney and Me. Prompt: retrofuturistic city, monorails, glowing lights, nighttime, blue and green color scheme, mysterious –style raw –ar 16:9<\/p>\n \n This conceptual series proposes instructional design principles <\/span><\/p>\n <\/span><\/h2>\n <\/span><\/p>\n <\/span><\/p>\n <\/span><\/p>\n <\/span><\/p>\n \n \n \n <\/span><\/p>\n <\/span><\/p>\n \n <\/span><\/p>\n \n <\/span><\/p>\n <\/span><\/p>\n \n Pasteur’s Quadrant: The type of research that quests for fundamental <\/span><\/p>\n \n This series is fundamental because it draws primarily from the <\/span><\/p>\n <\/span><\/p>\n <\/span><\/h2>\n <\/span><\/p>\n \n <\/span><\/p>\n <\/span><\/p>\n Part 3 will approach research myths surrounding the metaverse in <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\nfor the metaverse. You’ve arrived at Part 2 where I cover theory,
\napplication, and scope. <\/p>\n
\n If you are a theory nerd like me, you’ll love this part. If not, hang on to your butts. <\/span><\/p>\n
\n Theory and application<\/p>\n
\n Metaverse educational experiences, as replications of known reality, can draw from every major learning theory already in existence<\/i> because metaverse experiences are often copies<\/b> of the real world. Checa and Bustillo<\/a>
\n asserted that constructivism, behaviorism, cognitivism, and
\nconnectivism can be foundations for a wide variety of XR pedagogical
\napproaches (2023). However, the specific affordances of presence and
\nembodiment in the metaverse indicate that existing approaches that
\ninclude simulations and experiential learning are applicable (Checa
\n& Bustillo, 2023; Johnson-Glenberg, 2018<\/a>; Reigeluth, & Carr-Chellman, 2009<\/a>). Specifically, cognitivism and constructivism theories are often cited for the metaverse. <\/p>\n
\n On the other hand, there is new research calling for more
\nnuanced theories that reflect the social and learner-centered
\nenvironments in the metaverse, e.g. connectivism or complexity theory
\n(Checa & Bustillo, 2023; Schmidt & Glaser, 2021<\/a>).
\n Cognitivism and constructivism will be expanded upon here as they
\nrelate to research and application, beginning with cognitivism. <\/p>\n
\n Cognitive learning theory historically reflects the strong
\ninfluence from the computer science discipline wherein XR applications
\nare understood as input\/output platforms controlled by programming.
\nLearner experiences are transactional and computational. A learner is
\nfaced with a choice, they take that choice, and the program reacts. As
\nsuch, the experiences appear to have a cause-and-effect flow with
\ncomputers and learners both mediating the processing. For instructional
\ndesigners specifically, a deeper understanding of the cognitive theory
\nof multimedia learning, where visuals and audio have been studied with
\nrespect to learning, is required to apply the advice within Section 4 of
\n this series.<\/p>\n
\n Theories begin with a set of assumptions based on observation. Mayer\u2019s (2020<\/a>) cognitive theory of multimedia design has three critical assumptions:<\/p>\n\n
\n Humans have neuronal limits as to how fast information can be sensed,
\nkept in working memory, and then moved to long-term memory.<\/span><\/li>\n
\n Based on those assumptions, the cognitive theory of multimedia design focuses on the human processing system. <\/span><\/p>\n<\/a>Mayer’s Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Design (2014 edition)<\/span><\/div>\n<\/p>\n
\n There are two input channels (eyes and ears) where words and
\npictures enter sensory memory, then processing through working memory
\nwhere sounds and images may interchange and conflict, finally moving to
\nlong term memory where information is integrated into prior knowledge.
\nWords can be sensed by both eyes and ears. Selecting which words to
\nfocus on can cause conflict because the brain converts words to sounds
\ninside of processing. This increases cognitive workload if an external
\nvoice is speaking while the learner\u2019s internal voice is reading. This
\ntheory is relevant in that immersive experiences can provide words,
\nvoices, and graphics which, when simultaneously present<\/b><\/i>
\n in working memory, can increase cognitive workload, making long-term
\nlearning difficult. Because XR can provide an immersive environment of
\nwords, text, and sound surrounding learners, the risk is high that
\nlearners could be exposed to these cognitive conflicts. Section 4 will
\nexplore these pitfalls and how to avoid them. I will look briefly at
\nconstructivism next. <\/p>\n
\n Constructivist learning theory postulates that learners
\nconstruct their knowledge through experience; learners do not arrive as
\nblank slates. With a wide variety of possibilities of the metaverse, IDs
\n can think that constructivism represents a constantly growing approach
\nto learning – learners could even create objects in 3D to construct
\ntheir knowledge. However, a closer examination of this theory is
\nrequired. In constructivism, new knowledge is connected to older
\nknowledge in a way similar to the act of construction, just as boards
\nare attached one upon another to build up a building. For IDs,
\nconstructivist theory appears both while designing step-wise learning
\nexperiences and in knowing that learners arrive in XR with preconceptions from prior experiences<\/i>
\n (Checa & Bustillo, 2023). It is in these preconceptions that
\nlearners will recognize and begin to process the experience. For
\nexample, if a learner arrives in an office building XR environment, they
\n may begin to process the experience as work training. In this way, the
\nlearner might not need to be prompted that work behaviors are expected. <\/p>\nGivens<\/span><\/h2>\n
\n It is important to note that both of these theories keep the learner,<\/b> not the technology, primarily in mind<\/b>
\n when thinking of how learning will occur. Drawing from the indicated
\nresearch, two further assumptions are held in this series and will be
\ntreated as givens:<\/p>\n\n
\n Understanding how theory informs daily practice and design
\nrequires some finesse as rarely does an ID wake up and say, \u201cI\u2019m going
\nto design pure cognitivist lessons today.\u201d <\/p>\n
\n Instead, theory provides the guide when the ID is facing a decision where the better path is not apparent. <\/b><\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\n Theories offer \u201cguidelines on motivations, learning processes
\nand learning outcomes for the learners\u201d (Checa & Bustillo, 2023,
\np.5). A theory can point to methods, approaches, and strategies. Indeed,
\n the mistake of not drawing upon a learning theory that is apparent in
\nearlier research should not be repeated (Beck, Morgado, & O\u2019Shea<\/a>, 2023; Checa & Bustillo, 2023; Fowler, 2015<\/a>).<\/p>\n
\n Overall, this series lands squarely within Pasteur’s Quadrant<\/a>, contributing to both fundamental and practical applications (Shi & Evans, 2023<\/a>). <\/span><\/p>\n<\/a><\/div>\n
\nunderstanding AND can be used every day, like pasteurization. This
\narticle series lands in that sweet spot.<\/span><\/p>\n
\ncognitive theory of multimedia design and it examines research designs
\nand results. It is practical in that it provides many examples based on
\nthe author\u2019s XR design experiences. (You’ll see, it’s coming in a
\nfuture Part.) As Mayer suggested, this type of approach is \u201cbasic
\nresearch in applied situations\u201d (2020, p. 22). Pasteur\u2019s Quadrant lends
\nlight on exploratory topics. In this case, I have some basic theory from
\n 2D learning, but there is much more 3D nuance unknown. Progress in this
\n field will require that theory and applied research move forward hand
\nin hand. <\/p>\n
\n Fortunately, being in Pasteur\u2019s quadrant provides hints at
\nfurther unanswered puzzles beyond this series. For example, what is the
\nconnection between the popular XR game emotional coinage of fear and
\nsuccessful XR applications for the training of the emergency services:
\nfire, police, military, and medical personnel? The answer to that quest
\nwill wait for another day. Before I begin an examination of research
\nmyths (upcoming Part 3), I need to explain what can and cannot be
\ncovered in a series of this breadth.<\/p>\n
\n Scope<\/p>\n
\n This series leaves many topics by the wayside: defining the
\nmetaverse in education, qualifying and categorizing experiences,
\naffordances and constraints, and accessibility options. Doubtless, each
\nof those topics deserves a series of its own [note to self] but there is
\n no space to address them here. This series does provide insight into
\nfour areas:<\/p>\n\n
\n The specific research gap that this series addresses is the
\nmissing connection between known design principles and practical
\napplications of ID in the metaverse. Makransky<\/a>
\n commented on the lack of connection between the cognitive theory of
\nmultimedia design and instructional design in virtual reality, stating
\nthat \u201cresearch that has investigated instructional design implications
\nin immersive learning environments is severely limited\u201d (2023, p. 5).
\nBeck, Morgado, and O\u2019Shea surveyed that \u201cmostly papers discuss
\nopportunities and challenges or compare outcomes, rather than expose
\ndetails on educational practices or strategies\u201d (2023, p. 2). Reigeluth
\n and Honebein suggested that research-to-prove should be replaced with
\nresearch-to-improve when a technology is in its early developmental
\nstage (2023). Such research should limit itself to suggesting \u201cpossible
\nideas for actions and improvement\u201d (Reigeluth & Honebein, 2023<\/a>, p. 2). Finally, the emergent use of XR technology has precipitated haphazard designs lacking guidance:<\/p>\n
\n “In these early days, trial and error plays an outsized role in
\ndesign. Education researchers borrow heavily from the entertainment
\ndesigners, who focus on engagement, and not necessarily on retention of
\ncontent. The dearth of studies highlights the urgency for a set of
\nguidelines for designing content that allows users to make appropriate
\nchoices in a spherical space.” (Johnson-Glenberg, 2018, p. 7).<\/p>\n
\n It is hoped that this series lends to two facets of instructional design. First, the thinking<\/b> side of design, when a designer must choose one approach or another. This series strives to give the best advice. Second, the implementing<\/b>
\n side of design where designers arrive directly into the metaverse to
\nsee what their learners will experience. This series, then, points the
\nway. <\/span><\/p>\n
\neducation. <\/span><\/p>\n<\/a><\/div>\n
\n#LXD #ID #InstructionalDesigner #WebXR #3D #2D #Cognitive #Theory
\n#Design #Principles #Virtual #VR #Reality #Connectivism #Complexity
\n#ComputerScience #DualChannel #LimitedCapacity #ActiveProcessing
\n#Constructivism #PasteursQuadrant #Thinking #Designing<\/p>\n<\/a><\/div>\n
\nfor the metaverse. You’ve arrived at Part 2 where I cover theory,
\napplication, and scope. <\/p>\n
\n If you are a theory nerd like me, you’ll love this part. If not, hang on to your butts. <\/span><\/p>\n
\n Theory and application<\/p>\n
\n Metaverse educational experiences, as replications of known reality, can draw from every major learning theory already in existence<\/i> because metaverse experiences are often copies<\/b> of the real world. Checa and Bustillo<\/a>
\n asserted that constructivism, behaviorism, cognitivism, and
\nconnectivism can be foundations for a wide variety of XR pedagogical
\napproaches (2023). However, the specific affordances of presence and
\nembodiment in the metaverse indicate that existing approaches that
\ninclude simulations and experiential learning are applicable (Checa
\n& Bustillo, 2023; Johnson-Glenberg, 2018<\/a>; Reigeluth, & Carr-Chellman, 2009<\/a>). Specifically, cognitivism and constructivism theories are often cited for the metaverse. <\/p>\n
\n On the other hand, there is new research calling for more
\nnuanced theories that reflect the social and learner-centered
\nenvironments in the metaverse, e.g. connectivism or complexity theory
\n(Checa & Bustillo, 2023; Schmidt & Glaser, 2021<\/a>).
\n Cognitivism and constructivism will be expanded upon here as they
\nrelate to research and application, beginning with cognitivism. <\/p>\n
\n Cognitive learning theory historically reflects the strong
\ninfluence from the computer science discipline wherein XR applications
\nare understood as input\/output platforms controlled by programming.
\nLearner experiences are transactional and computational. A learner is
\nfaced with a choice, they take that choice, and the program reacts. As
\nsuch, the experiences appear to have a cause-and-effect flow with
\ncomputers and learners both mediating the processing. For instructional
\ndesigners specifically, a deeper understanding of the cognitive theory
\nof multimedia learning, where visuals and audio have been studied with
\nrespect to learning, is required to apply the advice within Section 4 of
\n this series.<\/p>\n
\n Theories begin with a set of assumptions based on observation. Mayer\u2019s (2020<\/a>) cognitive theory of multimedia design has three critical assumptions:<\/p>\n\n
\n Humans have neuronal limits as to how fast information can be sensed,
\nkept in working memory, and then moved to long-term memory.<\/span><\/li>\n
\n Based on those assumptions, the cognitive theory of multimedia design focuses on the human processing system. <\/span><\/p>\n<\/a>Mayer’s Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Design (2014 edition)<\/span><\/div>\n<\/p>\n
\n There are two input channels (eyes and ears) where words and
\npictures enter sensory memory, then processing through working memory
\nwhere sounds and images may interchange and conflict, finally moving to
\nlong term memory where information is integrated into prior knowledge.
\nWords can be sensed by both eyes and ears. Selecting which words to
\nfocus on can cause conflict because the brain converts words to sounds
\ninside of processing. This increases cognitive workload if an external
\nvoice is speaking while the learner\u2019s internal voice is reading. This
\ntheory is relevant in that immersive experiences can provide words,
\nvoices, and graphics which, when simultaneously present<\/b><\/i>
\n in working memory, can increase cognitive workload, making long-term
\nlearning difficult. Because XR can provide an immersive environment of
\nwords, text, and sound surrounding learners, the risk is high that
\nlearners could be exposed to these cognitive conflicts. Section 4 will
\nexplore these pitfalls and how to avoid them. I will look briefly at
\nconstructivism next. <\/p>\n
\n Constructivist learning theory postulates that learners
\nconstruct their knowledge through experience; learners do not arrive as
\nblank slates. With a wide variety of possibilities of the metaverse, IDs
\n can think that constructivism represents a constantly growing approach
\nto learning – learners could even create objects in 3D to construct
\ntheir knowledge. However, a closer examination of this theory is
\nrequired. In constructivism, new knowledge is connected to older
\nknowledge in a way similar to the act of construction, just as boards
\nare attached one upon another to build up a building. For IDs,
\nconstructivist theory appears both while designing step-wise learning
\nexperiences and in knowing that learners arrive in XR with preconceptions from prior experiences<\/i>
\n (Checa & Bustillo, 2023). It is in these preconceptions that
\nlearners will recognize and begin to process the experience. For
\nexample, if a learner arrives in an office building XR environment, they
\n may begin to process the experience as work training. In this way, the
\nlearner might not need to be prompted that work behaviors are expected. <\/p>\nGivens<\/span><\/h2>\n
\n It is important to note that both of these theories keep the learner,<\/b> not the technology, primarily in mind<\/b>
\n when thinking of how learning will occur. Drawing from the indicated
\nresearch, two further assumptions are held in this series and will be
\ntreated as givens:<\/p>\n\n
\n Understanding how theory informs daily practice and design
\nrequires some finesse as rarely does an ID wake up and say, \u201cI\u2019m going
\nto design pure cognitivist lessons today.\u201d <\/p>\n
\n Instead, theory provides the guide when the ID is facing a decision where the better path is not apparent. <\/b><\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\n Theories offer \u201cguidelines on motivations, learning processes
\nand learning outcomes for the learners\u201d (Checa & Bustillo, 2023,
\np.5). A theory can point to methods, approaches, and strategies. Indeed,
\n the mistake of not drawing upon a learning theory that is apparent in
\nearlier research should not be repeated (Beck, Morgado, & O\u2019Shea<\/a>, 2023; Checa & Bustillo, 2023; Fowler, 2015<\/a>).<\/p>\n
\n Overall, this series lands squarely within Pasteur’s Quadrant<\/a>, contributing to both fundamental and practical applications (Shi & Evans, 2023<\/a>). <\/span><\/p>\n<\/a><\/div>\n
\nunderstanding AND can be used every day, like pasteurization. This
\narticle series lands in that sweet spot.<\/span><\/p>\n
\ncognitive theory of multimedia design and it examines research designs
\nand results. It is practical in that it provides many examples based on
\nthe author\u2019s XR design experiences. (You’ll see, it’s coming in a
\nfuture Part.) As Mayer suggested, this type of approach is \u201cbasic
\nresearch in applied situations\u201d (2020, p. 22). Pasteur\u2019s Quadrant lends
\nlight on exploratory topics. In this case, I have some basic theory from
\n 2D learning, but there is much more 3D nuance unknown. Progress in this
\n field will require that theory and applied research move forward hand
\nin hand. <\/p>\n
\n Fortunately, being in Pasteur\u2019s quadrant provides hints at
\nfurther unanswered puzzles beyond this series. For example, what is the
\nconnection between the popular XR game emotional coinage of fear and
\nsuccessful XR applications for the training of the emergency services:
\nfire, police, military, and medical personnel? The answer to that quest
\nwill wait for another day. Before I begin an examination of research
\nmyths (upcoming Part 3), I need to explain what can and cannot be
\ncovered in a series of this breadth.<\/p>\n
\n Scope<\/p>\n
\n This series leaves many topics by the wayside: defining the
\nmetaverse in education, qualifying and categorizing experiences,
\naffordances and constraints, and accessibility options. Doubtless, each
\nof those topics deserves a series of its own [note to self] but there is
\n no space to address them here. This series does provide insight into
\nfour areas:<\/p>\n\n
\n The specific research gap that this series addresses is the
\nmissing connection between known design principles and practical
\napplications of ID in the metaverse. Makransky<\/a>
\n commented on the lack of connection between the cognitive theory of
\nmultimedia design and instructional design in virtual reality, stating
\nthat \u201cresearch that has investigated instructional design implications
\nin immersive learning environments is severely limited\u201d (2023, p. 5).
\nBeck, Morgado, and O\u2019Shea surveyed that \u201cmostly papers discuss
\nopportunities and challenges or compare outcomes, rather than expose
\ndetails on educational practices or strategies\u201d (2023, p. 2). Reigeluth
\n and Honebein suggested that research-to-prove should be replaced with
\nresearch-to-improve when a technology is in its early developmental
\nstage (2023). Such research should limit itself to suggesting \u201cpossible
\nideas for actions and improvement\u201d (Reigeluth & Honebein, 2023<\/a>, p. 2). Finally, the emergent use of XR technology has precipitated haphazard designs lacking guidance:<\/p>\n
\n “In these early days, trial and error plays an outsized role in
\ndesign. Education researchers borrow heavily from the entertainment
\ndesigners, who focus on engagement, and not necessarily on retention of
\ncontent. The dearth of studies highlights the urgency for a set of
\nguidelines for designing content that allows users to make appropriate
\nchoices in a spherical space.” (Johnson-Glenberg, 2018, p. 7).<\/p>\n
\n It is hoped that this series lends to two facets of instructional design. First, the thinking<\/b> side of design, when a designer must choose one approach or another. This series strives to give the best advice. Second, the implementing<\/b>
\n side of design where designers arrive directly into the metaverse to
\nsee what their learners will experience. This series, then, points the
\nway. <\/span><\/p>\n
\neducation. <\/span><\/p>\n