.png)
Credit: Midjourney and Me. Prompt: retrofuturistic city, monorails, glowing lights, nighttime, blue and green color scheme, mysterious –style raw –ar 16:9
This conceptual series proposes instructional design principles
for the metaverse. You’ve arrived at Part 2 where I cover theory,
application, and scope.
If you are a theory nerd like me, you’ll love this part. If not, hang on to your butts.
Theory and application
Metaverse educational experiences, as replications of known reality, can draw from every major learning theory already in existence because metaverse experiences are often copies of the real world. Checa and Bustillo
asserted that constructivism, behaviorism, cognitivism, and
connectivism can be foundations for a wide variety of XR pedagogical
approaches (2023). However, the specific affordances of presence and
embodiment in the metaverse indicate that existing approaches that
include simulations and experiential learning are applicable (Checa
& Bustillo, 2023; Johnson-Glenberg, 2018; Reigeluth, & Carr-Chellman, 2009). Specifically, cognitivism and constructivism theories are often cited for the metaverse.
On the other hand, there is new research calling for more
nuanced theories that reflect the social and learner-centered
environments in the metaverse, e.g. connectivism or complexity theory
(Checa & Bustillo, 2023; Schmidt & Glaser, 2021).
Cognitivism and constructivism will be expanded upon here as they
relate to research and application, beginning with cognitivism.
Cognitive learning theory historically reflects the strong
influence from the computer science discipline wherein XR applications
are understood as input/output platforms controlled by programming.
Learner experiences are transactional and computational. A learner is
faced with a choice, they take that choice, and the program reacts. As
such, the experiences appear to have a cause-and-effect flow with
computers and learners both mediating the processing. For instructional
designers specifically, a deeper understanding of the cognitive theory
of multimedia learning, where visuals and audio have been studied with
respect to learning, is required to apply the advice within Section 4 of
this series.
Theories begin with a set of assumptions based on observation. Mayer’s (2020) cognitive theory of multimedia design has three critical assumptions:
- Dual channel: Humans can accept information only via sight and sound inputs.
- Limited capacity:
Humans have neuronal limits as to how fast information can be sensed,
kept in working memory, and then moved to long-term memory. - Active processing: Humans bring prior experiences to their learning and actively think about information as they are processing it.
Based on those assumptions, the cognitive theory of multimedia design focuses on the human processing system.
Mayer’s Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Design (2014 edition)
There are two input channels (eyes and ears) where words and
pictures enter sensory memory, then processing through working memory
where sounds and images may interchange and conflict, finally moving to
long term memory where information is integrated into prior knowledge.
Words can be sensed by both eyes and ears. Selecting which words to
focus on can cause conflict because the brain converts words to sounds
inside of processing. This increases cognitive workload if an external
voice is speaking while the learner’s internal voice is reading. This
theory is relevant in that immersive experiences can provide words,
voices, and graphics which, when simultaneously present
in working memory, can increase cognitive workload, making long-term
learning difficult. Because XR can provide an immersive environment of
words, text, and sound surrounding learners, the risk is high that
learners could be exposed to these cognitive conflicts. Section 4 will
explore these pitfalls and how to avoid them. I will look briefly at
constructivism next.
Constructivist learning theory postulates that learners
construct their knowledge through experience; learners do not arrive as
blank slates. With a wide variety of possibilities of the metaverse, IDs
can think that constructivism represents a constantly growing approach
to learning – learners could even create objects in 3D to construct
their knowledge. However, a closer examination of this theory is
required. In constructivism, new knowledge is connected to older
knowledge in a way similar to the act of construction, just as boards
are attached one upon another to build up a building. For IDs,
constructivist theory appears both while designing step-wise learning
experiences and in knowing that learners arrive in XR with preconceptions from prior experiences
(Checa & Bustillo, 2023). It is in these preconceptions that
learners will recognize and begin to process the experience. For
example, if a learner arrives in an office building XR environment, they
may begin to process the experience as work training. In this way, the
learner might not need to be prompted that work behaviors are expected.
Givens
It is important to note that both of these theories keep the learner, not the technology, primarily in mind
when thinking of how learning will occur. Drawing from the indicated
research, two further assumptions are held in this series and will be
treated as givens:
- Learners experience the virtual as real. (Bailenson, 2018, p. 46)
- Learning outcomes are expected to be equal to other media. (Mayer, 2020, p. 357)
Understanding how theory informs daily practice and design
requires some finesse as rarely does an ID wake up and say, “I’m going
to design pure cognitivist lessons today.”
Instead, theory provides the guide when the ID is facing a decision where the better path is not apparent.
Theories offer “guidelines on motivations, learning processes
and learning outcomes for the learners” (Checa & Bustillo, 2023,
p.5). A theory can point to methods, approaches, and strategies. Indeed,
the mistake of not drawing upon a learning theory that is apparent in
earlier research should not be repeated (Beck, Morgado, & O’Shea, 2023; Checa & Bustillo, 2023; Fowler, 2015).
Overall, this series lands squarely within Pasteur’s Quadrant, contributing to both fundamental and practical applications (Shi & Evans, 2023).
Pasteur’s Quadrant: The type of research that quests for fundamental
understanding AND can be used every day, like pasteurization. This
article series lands in that sweet spot.
This series is fundamental because it draws primarily from the
cognitive theory of multimedia design and it examines research designs
and results. It is practical in that it provides many examples based on
the author’s XR design experiences. (You’ll see, it’s coming in a
future Part.) As Mayer suggested, this type of approach is “basic
research in applied situations” (2020, p. 22). Pasteur’s Quadrant lends
light on exploratory topics. In this case, I have some basic theory from
2D learning, but there is much more 3D nuance unknown. Progress in this
field will require that theory and applied research move forward hand
in hand.
Fortunately, being in Pasteur’s quadrant provides hints at
further unanswered puzzles beyond this series. For example, what is the
connection between the popular XR game emotional coinage of fear and
successful XR applications for the training of the emergency services:
fire, police, military, and medical personnel? The answer to that quest
will wait for another day. Before I begin an examination of research
myths (upcoming Part 3), I need to explain what can and cannot be
covered in a series of this breadth.
Scope
This series leaves many topics by the wayside: defining the
metaverse in education, qualifying and categorizing experiences,
affordances and constraints, and accessibility options. Doubtless, each
of those topics deserves a series of its own [note to self] but there is
no space to address them here. This series does provide insight into
four areas:
- interpreting research to rout out myths
- looking for the characteristics of success in XR educational designs
- using ID theory to inform the building blocks of design
- tips for implementing an XR design project.
The specific research gap that this series addresses is the
missing connection between known design principles and practical
applications of ID in the metaverse. Makransky
commented on the lack of connection between the cognitive theory of
multimedia design and instructional design in virtual reality, stating
that “research that has investigated instructional design implications
in immersive learning environments is severely limited” (2023, p. 5).
Beck, Morgado, and O’Shea surveyed that “mostly papers discuss
opportunities and challenges or compare outcomes, rather than expose
details on educational practices or strategies” (2023, p. 2). Reigeluth
and Honebein suggested that research-to-prove should be replaced with
research-to-improve when a technology is in its early developmental
stage (2023). Such research should limit itself to suggesting “possible
ideas for actions and improvement” (Reigeluth & Honebein, 2023, p. 2). Finally, the emergent use of XR technology has precipitated haphazard designs lacking guidance:
“In these early days, trial and error plays an outsized role in
design. Education researchers borrow heavily from the entertainment
designers, who focus on engagement, and not necessarily on retention of
content. The dearth of studies highlights the urgency for a set of
guidelines for designing content that allows users to make appropriate
choices in a spherical space.” (Johnson-Glenberg, 2018, p. 7).
It is hoped that this series lends to two facets of instructional design. First, the thinking side of design, when a designer must choose one approach or another. This series strives to give the best advice. Second, the implementing
side of design where designers arrive directly into the metaverse to
see what their learners will experience. This series, then, points the
way.
Part 3 will approach research myths surrounding the metaverse in
education.
