Instructional Design in the Metaverse Part 5 Building Blocks
This conceptual series proposes instructional design principles for the metaverse. This is Part 5. Today we start the building blocks of design. And the best news for instructional designers? So much of what we already know from two-dimensional learning will work in three-dimensions. Grab your toolbox, IDs!
2D to 3D: What Is the Same
Technology can benefit learning when the affordances are leveraged towards effective and evidence-based learning principles (Yeung, Carpenter, & Corral, 2021). Instructional design already has a depth of theory and research that shows that a learning experience is a “systemic, complex design” (Honebein & Reigeluth, 2023. p. 14).
Yet, instructional designers (IDs) interested in the metaverse in education can be at risk for two unhelpful mindsets: first, thinking that IDs must become developers or second, succumbing to a ‘buy first, find a use for it later’ mentality. The first creates a substantial learning curve with the end result mostly being scenes or environments and 3D objects. Currently, AI is able to create scenes and objects (Sahu, Young, & Rai, 2021). As a consequence, the need for programmers may decrease. The second mindset leads to IDs to search for educational resources to justify the expense and bother of entering the metaverse.
Both of these mindsets miss the main point of instructional design. They sacrifice the learner-centric stance for a technology-centric stance (Mayer, 2020). Many of the 2D-based instructional design models, structures, and principles apply towards 3D learning (Dodds, 2021).
What we already know should inform us as we make future 3D designs because as Alger stated, “Principles and processes of design are pretty universal because we're usually designing for humans” (2020, 3:06).
A further extension of this thought would be that IDs are not designing for technology. An ID focusing on 3D design for the first time can have an advantage because their experience will be from a novice’s viewpoint. Learners are novices. Thus, the ID experiences what the learners will later experience for the first time.
Keeping the learner-centric point of view is key.
This section emphasizes the use of Mayer’s Principles of Multimedia Design (Mayer, 2020, pp. 400-402, [Reminder, I covered the basics in Part 2]) because they are based on research. This list is not meant as a checklist. This is meant to remind IDs of what the correct design choice would be within a 3D experience.
1 Reduce extraneous processing
The Coherence, Signaling, Redundancy, Spatial Contiguity, and Temporal Contiguity Principles will assist in decisions about types of media (visual, text, audio) and where it will be placed or made available in XR experiences. Because of the enveloping nature of the 3D environment upon the learner, extra unnecessary material could interfere with the learning.
1.1 Coherence
Summary: “Weed out extraneous material”.
ID: Minimize text, sounds, and movement that is not directly related to the learning goal.
1.2 Signaling
Summary: “Highlight important material.”
ID: Use slow pulsating glows, arrows, or narrative prompts to focus the learner on the content.
1.3 Redundancy
Summary: “Do not add printed text that duplicates narration.”
ID: Accessibility concerns dictate that information available via vision or sound should be made available in an alternate form. To follow the spirit of this principle, default settings can be set to include both alternates as activated, which could then be toggled off by the learner at will. XR accessibility research organizations such as XR Access or Virtual Ability should be consulted for further guidance.
1.4 Spatial Contiguity
Summary: “Place printed text near to the corresponding part of the graphic.”
ID: There is more space to work with in 3D than 2D. The key with this principle will be to find just the right place to put the text. Some user experience (UX) testing in the form of A/B testing can help find the best placement.
1.5 Temporal Contiguity
Summary: “Present corresponding graphics and narration at the same time.”
ID: Sound and action triggers can be timed within 3D programming.
2 Managing essential processing
The Segmenting, Pre-training, and Modality Principles help the designer place the necessary material in the right place and time for the learner to move the content into sensory memory, short-term memory, and into long-term memory.
2.1 Segmenting
Summary: “Break a lesson into learner-paced parts.”
ID: Plan lessons with storyboards with scenes where the learner moves through the experience. Always provide an escape button that saves learner progress. If that is not possible, a confirmation dialog message can indicate that the learner upon re-entry will be returned to a certain spot.
2.2 Pre-training
Summary: “Provide pre-training in the names and characteristics of the key terms.”
ID: Plan for pre- and post-experience briefing. Pre-training is analogous to reading the box when considering buying a game or reviewing choices in an online store. The learner experience starts there.
2.3 Modality
Summary: “Present words in spoken form.”
ID: Especially for key vocabulary, provide sound files of pronunciation. This especially matters if the experience is designed for solo learner use.
3 Fostering generative processing
The Multimedia, Personalization, Voice, Image, Embodiment, Immersion and Generative Activity Principles help encourage learners to cognitively engage with the material and exert effort to make sense of it. It is this area of design where the ID is making sure that the learners are not passively accepting information but must do mental work with it.
3.1 Multimedia
Summary: “Use corresponding words and graphics to explain the material.”
ID: XR is a natural fit for this principle because it nearly always contains simultaneous visuals and sounds. These can be timed together within 3D programming. An interesting design exercise for IDs, however, is to isolate certain aspects of a design and think through how it might work if only one channel of input was working. For example, in a tour of XR spaces, there might be a period of a few seconds of complete darkness between scenes. How are the learners guided by sound only during this time?
3.2 Personalization
Summary: “Put words in conversational language.”
ID: Recorded audio should sound comfortably natural.
3.3 Voice
Summary: “Present spoken words in an appealing human voice.”
ID: This applies most logically in XR to human sources of the spoken words. Poor sound can ruin an XR experience.
3.4 Image
Summary: “Do not put the instructor’s static image on the screen.”
ID: The keyword in this principle is ‘static’. This would rarely be needed in XR. Exceptions might include biographies or eulogies.
3.5 Embodiment
Summary: “Have instructors display human-like gestures, eye contact, facial expressions, and body movements.”
ID: The Proteus Effect shows that users change their behaviors depending on their avatars (Praetorius, & Görlich, 2020). Employers are becoming more interested in the use of the metaverse for meetings (Jaehnig, 2022). It is reasonable to predict that educators will be holding meetings that are now on-campus or in Zoom with their learners in the metaverse within five years. Due to the demand for these human-like behaviors, avatar creators and platforms are adding more movements like blinking, sitting, or gesturing.
3.6 Generative Activity
Summary: “Add prompts to engage in generative activities such as summarizing, mapping, drawing, imagining, self-testing, self-explaining, teaching, and enacting.”
ID: Interestingly, here the research reaches a nexus; several different sources point in the same direction. Mayer called these generative activities and points to their use within the learning act, as a guided form of practice, “Insert prompts to engage in generative learning activities within the instructional episode” and “learners must use the material from the lesson rather than simply remember it” (2020, p. 371). From this, an activity within XR would be ideal. However, generative activities are not exclusive to happening within XR. Wallace stated in Washburn (2023) that all learning points to some place in the future where the results are played out–ideally in a workplace or high stakes setting; it is the final performance that counts. Dede (2021) pointed out the importance of onboarding and off-boarding as where the learning occurs primarily. Mayer conceded that generative activities likely need to be taught first as behaviors before asking a learner to perform them (2020). That is, learners need to be taught what summarizing is before being asked to summarize. This is a valid and somewhat overlooked point. D. Clark referred to these activities as “effortful learning” or “desirable difficulties” (2022, p. 3) and Thalheimer (2006) supported retrieval practice, spaced practice, or interleaving approaches. Each of these researchers has a slightly different view into the same problem.
They seem to point to the need for a certain amount of learner effort (not just clicking), with guidance, that should occur within XR and then a follow-on amount of learner effort after leaving XR.
What might this look like? Here, we reach the edges of known ID in the metaverse universe [Editor Heather here: fresh off the presses! This just hit ResearchGate last month: Collaborative generative learning activities in immersive virtual reality increase learning], but we can take with us what we already know.
The key question to ask is: In real life, where do learners practice in place and later perform when the stakes really matter? How something is done in real life should be the template that we use to start thinking of how the behavior should be prompted in the metaverse.
Here is an example: Learners do science labs in real life. They practice doing a procedure under the watchful eye of an instructor. It is usually fine if they fail because they can start again but there is some risk and limitation of resources. In XR, the same lab can be set up as practice where learners can repeat interactions, control the speed, and engage in plausible manipulations of scientific equipment (Asare, Annan, & Ngman-Wara, 2022). The scripted practice available within XR should be added to other generative activities which could be inside and/or outside of XR such as learners self-explaining what is happening in the experiment during a video recording of the experience or learners teaching what would happen if the variables changed or if there was a chemical spill.
3.7 Immersion
Summary: “Do not convert lessons into 3D immersive virtual reality.”
ID: At this point, this article series would appear to come to a stop.
This last principle basically states do not use 3D. This article series posits, do use 3D, if it is the right thing to do. Returning to the beginning assumptions:
Learners experience the virtual as real.
Learning outcomes are expected to be equal to other media.
It goes to follow, therefore, that if the designs will be accepted by the learners as real experiences and if the learning outcomes are the same as for other forms of media, the decision to go forward with the design should only occur if the lesson cannot reasonably be done in 2D and meets at least one of the conditions of saving time, money, or danger. Stepping outside of the learning objective decision, one could argue that 3D allows for added immersion and presence. But in that case, the ID should ask “Is immersion or presence critical to the learning objective?”
Acknowledging the affordance of immersion, Mayer pointed out that the case for immersion is often wrapped into the learner's feelings of interest and motivation (2020, p.361). The logic goes that if a learner is motivated, they will learn more. Research shows that interest and motivation wane and learning performance drains away with it.
The case for presence can be tied with a personal feeling of being there. The more a learner takes on the experience as real and really happening to them, the more the learning should stick with them. Contrarily, research shows that distraction due to extraneous processing seems to cancel any benefit that might be gained (Mayer, 2020). In sum, the research does not predict at this time that presence will increase learning.
Finally, this tidbit might tip the scales for a decision. Clark and Mayer recommended this strategy from e-learning: “Use facilitative techniques that support social presence” (2016, p. 313). This tips the balance of synchronous versus asynchronous learning towards synchronous and shows an affordance not before mentioned: the benefit of social learning in XR.
Wise uses of XR seem to contain elements of bringing learners together.
This should be leaned into in designs, if possible. Therefore, if learning designs can minimize extraneous processing and are best done in 3D, next we should ask what is different about designing for 3D.
That will be Part 6. Stay tuned!
Part 1 was the Introduction.
Part 2 covered Theory and Scope.
Part 3 was Myths versus Reality.
Part 4 covered the Characteristics of Success.
Want to see my full references? Have at it.
.png)
#InstructionalDesign #XR #Multimedia #Principles #Mayer #LXD #ID #L&D #InstructionalDesigner #WebXR #3D #2D #ExtraneousProcessing #Coherence #Signaling #Redundancy #SpatialContiguity #TemporalContiguity #EssentialProcessing #Segmenting #PreTraining #Modality #GenerativeProcessing #Multimedia #Personalization #Voice #Image #Embodiment #GenerativeActivity #Immersion #Presence #EffortfulLearning #DesirableDifficulties #RetrievalPractice #SpacedPractice #Interleaving #LearnerCentric #edtech