One of first questions people ask me about 3D (and sometimes VR and even HD visualization technologies) is about its instructional effectiveness, based on available research. “What is the difference some of these technologies make in learning?” “How effective are these technologies with young learners?” they ask.
Of course, a clarifying reaction is “What kind of research are you talking about?” In educational environments, there are many types of formal and informal research. There are survey data, focus group reporting, and case studies. There is also anecdotal evidence, which can provide very useful empirical insight, when collected well and over time. There is action research, informal classroom research, and even research on fidelity of implementation—how to implement well. There is industry-conducted research, sponsored external research, and independent research (if the latter exists!) There is also planned research, which is also quite insightful, because we get pre-knowledge about the purpose or key research questions being asked in an upcoming study.
Then, of course there is capital ‘R’ Research—the gold standard—with control groups and rigorous evaluative processes. The most expensive kind, I must add. And let’s not forget my favorite type of research: the meta-analysis, or the compilation or big picture of what we have learned from many dozens of previous research studies.
But back to my kick-off sentence: Regarding modern visualization technologies, the first question educators typically ask me is “How much does it cost?” But the second question invariably targets the effectiveness, or research, question. Of course, providing an answer for this question in the spare seconds that the listener is willing to offer becomes a difficult proposition, to say the least. I usually offer to send the requestor the following chart, which succinctly summarizes what we know to date about the instructional effectiveness of 3D (and to a some extent VR and HD visualization technologies):
It is interesting to note that the buzzwords of ‘engagement’ and ‘retention’ – the low-lying fruit—are the most frequently and popularly employed terms for marketers and business development managers. For educators, however, the Good-Better-Besst categories are the findings that draw their attention. These findings are very important to experienced teachers and educational leaders alike.
In the last few years, there has been a flurry of activity on the research front for 3D VR, and visualization technologies. But these reports and findings have little traction in the press, often replaced by more populist sound bites preferred by reporters and editors. For me, all types of research matter. I am not a purist. For example, when the European LiFe studies were first released—many experts I spoke with mocked them, due to their lack of rigor. Not me. I prefer to read and report on all of it. Each study, survey, action research effort, or anecdotal collection provide us with the clues, contacts, and stepping stones to learn more. Each enables us to grow wiser, gather fresh insight, and seize upon new perspective. Each grows our database of knowledge.
For that reason, I am starting a new article series for the coming year: a series dedicated to the effectiveness research on 3D, VR, and other dynamic visualization technologies. I am calling this series Quick Search: Research. In each article, I am going to zero in on the newest findings—across all types of research, both formal and informal—and paint a canvas that will help you sell your products to educators world-wide. I’ll report it. You can sort it out. Len Scrogan
