Instructional Design in the Metaverse Part 2 Theory and Scope
.png)
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).
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.
Did you miss Part 1? Here it is!
Theory, theory everywhere.
#InstructionalDesign #Metaverse #XR #MR #Multimedia #Principles #Mayer #LXD #ID #InstructionalDesigner #WebXR #3D #2D #Cognitive #Theory #Design #Principles #Virtual #VR #Reality #Connectivism #Complexity #ComputerScience #DualChannel #LimitedCapacity #ActiveProcessing #Constructivism #PasteursQuadrant #Thinking #Designing