Virtual immersion: The role of CAVE and PC technology in



Virtual immersion: The role of CAVE and PC technology

Abstract:

Given the reality that they are ubiquitous in everyday life, researchers (Goodwin-Jones, 2005; Purushotma, 2005) are realizing the potential of making use of computer games in the second language classroom. In the current paper, we situate virtual reality (VR) technology within an L2 pedagogical framework and argue that it is a viable resource for enabling students to experience the target culture in ways that are impossible through the use of other technologies. In addition, we compare the effectiveness of two VR environments (CAVE and PC technology) on a variety of measures of student engagement: cultural awareness, collaboration, and overall experience. We argue that although the CAVE technology is perhaps the more exciting medium, its exorbitant cost and large scale make it an impossible prospect for most schools. The PC version of the game is readily accessible, can be run at no additional cost to the end user, and provides a positive experience for students.

Introduction

Despite educators’ misgivings, computer games may be the next important trend in language learning technology (Chun, 2007; Goodwin-Jones, 2005; Purushotma, 2005). Simpson (2005) states that “games are empowering, motivating, individualized differentiated learning environments with set rules which value the efforts of the individual” (20). Buckingham (2006) reports that computer games represent the fastest-growing sector of the media and entertainment industries (p. 79), and the National Institute on Media and the Family (2006) cites research showing that 83% of 8 to 18-year-olds have at least one video game player (e.g., PlayStation, XBox, Wii) in their homes. Given the prevalence of video games in our students’ lives and the possibility to create and modify them to align with pedagogical goals, it behooves us as educators to bring more realistic educational, or serious[1], computer games into the classroom (e.g., Buckingham, 2006, p. 79–80). In the current study, we situate virtual reality (VR) technology within an L2 pedagogical framework and examine the linguistic and experiential outcomes of making use of a video game in a high school German classroom.

Virtual world technology

Video games make used of virtual reality (VR), or virtual world, technology. This technology is an “immersive environment that completely surrounds the participant in which sights and sounds … are stable and locatable in three-dimensional space” (Winn, Hoffman, & Osberg 1995, p. 2). As opposed to watching videos, for example, participants in virtual worlds truly experience the situation. In addition to this sense of ‘presence’ (e.g., Winn et al. 1995, p. 11) that differentiates virtual reality from other forms of technology, Whyte (2002, p. 3) states that VR stands apart from other forms of computer technology in three ways:

1. interactivity. Participants are actively involved in the experience.

2. spatiality. The world is presented three dimensions.

3. real-time. Users receive immediate feedback.

VR has been utilized in classrooms for teaching biological concepts (Bakas & Mikropoulos 2003), properties of water (Trindale & Fiulhais, 2000) and has allowed students to experience environments such as rain forests and space stations (Winn 1995). Schweinhorst (2002, p. 197) argues in theoretical terms that VR technology is ideal for the L2 classroom as it “can support learners in becoming more autonomous language learners who can select and organize their own learning resources.” In spite of the optimistic outlook, researchers have not yet examined the effects of utilizing VR technology for learning a second language.

Simpson (2005) lays out general aspects of computer games that make them ideal for the classroom. A number of these features are closely linked to pedagogical approaches and research themes in the L2 classroom (see table 1). None of the L2 pedagogical counterparts has been tested via VR technology.

|Aspects of video games |L2 pedagogical counterpart |

|(Simpson, 2005, p. 19–20) | |

|Object to the game |Task-Based Language Teaching (e.g., Willis, 1996) |

|Trial and error |Corrective feedback (e.g., Ellis, 2006) |

|Collaboration |Social-interactive view of language learner (e.g., Vygotsky, 1978) |

|Autonomy |Learner autonomy (e.g., Little, 1991) |

|Availability of various tools |Learning styles (e.g., Skehan, 1991) and strategies (e.g., Oxford, |

| |1990) |

Table 1. Aspects of video games and corresponding L2 pedagogical approach or theme.

A number of elements of video games make them ideal candidates for many classrooms. Simpson (2005) notes that video games present students with a problem requiring a solution. In the language classroom, many have embraced Task-Based Language Teaching, in which “the target language is used by the learner for a communicative purpose (goal) in order to achieve an outcome” (Willis, 1996, cited in Littlewood, 2004, p. 321). Thus, completing the task takes precedence over the manipulation of language forms. Doughty and Long (2003) provide examples of a number of materials—both authentic (e.g., CyberPatient) and CALL—that support the principles of Task-Based Language Teaching. One such case in point is a computerized simulation[2] in which students are expected to play roles, through writing in English, in various situations.

Secondly, Simpson points to the importance of trial and error: “failure is a learning experience, not an end to a result” (2005, p. 19). In the language classroom, we have seen the effectiveness of providing students with corrective feedback on L2 production errors (see Ellis 2006 for an overview). A number of possibilities exist for providing students with feedback in CALL. These range from explicit comments (e.g., “Try again!”) to repetition and rephrasing to help screens. A range of CALL studies (e.g., Heift, 2004 for grammatical errors; Tsubota, Dantsuji, & Kawahara, 2004 for pronunciation errors) examine the effectiveness of various types of error correction. Heift (2004), for example, found that feedback that both highlights and provides an explanation of the error is the most effective.

In her discussion of the collaborative nature of video games, Simpson (2005) points out that collaboration exists in a symbiotic relationship with competition, which provides the motivation that participants need to succeed. This correlates well with the social nature of language learning and Vygotsky’s (1978) notion of the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD): “the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving . . . in collaboration with more capable peers” (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 86). Therefore, it is hypothesized that students achieve higher performance levels when they work meaningfully with their peers than when they work on their own. Studies examining the effectiveness of computer-mediated communication (e.g., Vandergriff, 2006) often appeal to the ZPD when interpreting measures of student success.

While video games are on the one hand collaborative efforts, they do offer students the opportunity to work independently at their own rates. Little (1991) defines autonomy as “’a capacity—for detachment, critical reflection, decision-making and independent action.’” (cited in Schweinhorst, p. 197). Little (1991, p. 4) stresses the importance of knowledge transfer and the ability of applying what is learned to new situations. Researchers such as Blin (2004) and Hernard (2006) have examined the notion of learner autonomy in CALL, and Hernard bemoans that fact that what is often perceived of autonomy in CALL research is actually unguided, repetitive, and teacher-independent, both authors point out that when care is taken on the part of the pedagogues, students can truly work autonomously in CALL settings.

Finally, the availability of various tools in video games (Simpson, 2005, p. 19) appeals to different learning styles, or “general predisposition[s], voluntary or not, toward processing information in a particular way” (Skehan, 1991, p. 288). Teachers also realize that students possess and are able to learn new strategies to be successful language learners (e.g., Oxford, 1990). Leakley and Ranchoux (2006) found those CALL environments that are differentiated according to learning styles are the most effective, and Vinther (2005) found that computer software can assist students in the development of learning strategies.

Although research has not been performed in the area, we argue, based upon the match between L2 pedagogical goals and the aspects present in video games, that the language classroom is the ideal setting for the utilization of VR technology. Students participate in a motivating experience with a clear goal, receive feedback, are able to work autonomously while relying upon the types of tools that best fit their personal learning styles and are able to rely upon one another when necessary.

VR technology

RML: Please discuss here the creation of the world and the ease with which they can be created (Teachers want to know if they can do it themselves, for example. Is there anything that exists for them.) Please also discuss CAVE vs. PC technology generally (e.g., cost, availability, etc. and not as it relates to our project specifically.)

The virtual world for this game was created in a 3D modeling environment (StudioMAX). The architectural backdrop for the game is based on photos, drawings and maps of Salzburg, Austria. The completed 3D model built in StudioMAX was imported into Virtools. Virtools is a game-making application useful for building interactive worlds complete with navigation, environmental sound, interactive characters and objects. In this game, the interactive world includes a cast of characters (e.ga. a hip-hop dancing teenager and the proprietors of a bakery), a flower shop and a fruit stand that present clues to the students playing the game. The game was designed to track each student’s progress through the virtual space as the game is played. By recording the students’ position in space and time, researchers are able to analyze movement though the game space. (game design is briefly mentioned on p. 12)

In today’s marketplace a large number of applications are available to those interested in creating games for teaching and training. The simplest to use employ templates for creating crosswords and board games that can be played on a computer. In Canada, Sage ( Simulation and Advanced Gaming Environments for Learning, ) provides teachers with free templates for building a variety of games including Tic Tac Toe, Snakes and Ladders, and Trivial Pursuits. Simple interactive worlds can also be made using relatively inexpensive applications like “3D Gamermaker” ( and “RPG Maker”, (). For a nominal cost, these applications can be used to create complete interactive worlds using stock characters and scenes. Teachers can use these game applications to introduce the basic concepts of gaming. However, to build a game of similar quality to those played by students after hours requires using either commercial game development applications or free editors provided for creating “mods” or scenes. Free editors, provided by games like “Unreal Tournament”, offer an inexpensive solution to purchasing software for building games for educational distribution. However, the real cost of building any game comes with writing of the script, creating and animating characters scenes and objects, and recording the audio tracks and programming of behaviors and navigation. It is not surprising that commercial game development requires a team of artists, 3D modelers, character animators, writers and computer programmers. Most commercial games require funding comparable to the production of a full length a movie. Even a game that will demand the attention of a student for only an hour can be relatively expensive, requiring hundreds of hours of modeling and programming. It is unlikely that we can expect teachers, given the many demands placed on their time, to develop a game with the production values demanded by students today.

For the game player today, PC’s and game platforms provide excellent displays. In most schools PC’s are available in either a language or design lab. Unfortunately, in the desire to economize, school boards will often acquire the least inexpensive computers, unsuitable for playing games with high fidelity graphics. In this research both PC’s and an immersive CAVE were used as testing environments. A CAVE is multi-screen projection system that provides the user with a high level of immersion. CAVE’s are built around an active or passive stereo projection system, giving the user a 3D experience. Other features of a CAVE can include virtual tracking of the subject and surround sound. The most common applications of CAVE technology are in military training, medical education and manufacturing and design. Their costs can range from $100,000 for a low-end commercial installation to several million dollars, not including the space required for their equipment. Given the tight funding for most school computer labs, acquiring resources for a CAVE is probably outside the funding envelope of most educational institutions. However, for teachers interested in a large format display that can bring interactive worlds into a classroom, a data projector and a large screen in darkened room can provide an economical solution.

Dannen and Branch (1995) “As a variable, immersion should be determined by need” (104)

[pic]

Culture in the L2 classroom

Levy (2007) reminds us that the notion of culture has been interpreted, defined and interpreted in a variety of ways over the last three centuries. Robinson-Stuart & Nocon (1996), and Tseng (2002) argue that culture learning should be approached as a dynamic process “rather than an external knowledge to acquire incidental to the ‘facts’ of language” (Tseng 2002, p. 13). While we recognize that no definition of culture can include all aspects that the term entails, for the purposes of the current paper, we take direction from Levy (2007), who relies on Kramsch’s (1998) definition of culture: “’In summary, culture can be defined as membership in a discourse community that shares a common social space and history, and common imaginings’” (p. 105). This definition allows for the negotiation of meaning and understanding of differences in perspective set forth by Furstenberg REST OF AUTHORS (2001) as a goal of cultural understanding and takes into consideration the background of the individual in defining culture.

Policymakers stress the necessity of cultural understanding for language learners. The Standards for Foreign Language Learning in the 21st Century (1996, 1999, 2006) include culture as a central aspect of language study. The goal of cultural understanding is expressed through two Standards:

• Standard 2.1: “Students demonstrate an understanding of the relationship between the practices and perspectives of the culture studied” (Standards, 2006, p. 50) .

• Standard 2.2: “Students demonstrate an understanding of the relationship between the products and perspectives of the culture studied.” (Standards, 2006, p. 51).

Three central aspects of the target culture are included within these Standards: the behavioral practices (i.e., ‘patterns of social interactions’ (Standards, 2006, p. 47) such as forms of discourse and the use of space), philosophical perspectives (i.e., ‘meanings, attitudes, values, ideas’ (Standards, 2006, p. 47)) and both tangible and intangible products (i.e., ‘books, tools, foods, laws, music, games’ (Standards, 2006 p. 47)).

Dubriel (2006) notes the importance of CALL for bringing the target culture to foreign language learners: “it offers students immediate access to images and native speakers” (243). Chun (2007) notes that culture is among the “’hot’ topics” featured in two of the major CALL journals, CALICO and Language Learning & Technology. Researchers have shown the value of CALL for intercultural learning (Furstenberg et al. 2001; Ware & Kramsch, 2005). Among the researchers, Hager (2005) studied the use of German websites to develop cross-cultural understanding in German courses, and Liaw (2006) looked at use of e-forums for intercultural discussions. In his examination of five CALL projects and their effectiveness for culture learning, Levy (2007) expressed the sentiments of many researchers in the field: “care with which it needs to be managed in the language classroom if culture learning is going to be successful” (120).

Unlike other forms of CALL, VR technology enables students to truly experience the target culture. Dannen and Branch (1995) recommend that VR be used “[w]hen a setting that would otherwise be inaccessible is involved” (p. 105). . LeLoup and Ponterio (2004) note the possibility of making use of online VR museums in the language classrooms, which allow students to “explore…cultural perspective[s] instead of just memorizing names and dates associated with works of art” (p. 3). Goodwin-Jones (2005) and Purushotma (2005) put forth a number of VR resources that can be manipulated for use in the L2 classroom. Most of these games (e.g., SIM COPTER), however, have not been created for language learners and therefore may not meet the specific pedagogical goals of the L2 classroom. Goodwin-Jones (2005) does, however, mention a project by W. L. Johnson and his colleagues[3]. The virtual world has been created to assist learners of Arabic in the acquisition of “tactical languages”, that is a set of mission-specific skills that are required by soldiers who are deployed to new environments. Although cultural skills are targeted in the program, the researchers have focused their effectiveness studies on the acquisition of linguistic abilities, especially as the pertain to pronunciation as evaluated by the speech recognizers. Thus far, studies on the use of virtual reality in the classroom have focused on what we would argue are the two main benefits of VR: the acquisition of cultural knowledge and the evaluation of various forms of VR technology available to the end user (CAVE vs. PC technology).

The virtual world experienced by students in the current study is set in a German-speaking European town based on Salzburg, Austria. At the outset of the game, students are informed that the mayor’s daughter is missing and that it is their goal to find her in order to collect the 1,000 Euro prize. Students took part in the adventure in one of two possible environments: in the computer lab, in which each student sat in front of his or her own PC; or with a group of classmates in the three-dimensional CAVE setting explained above. There are two main research questions that guide the current study:

1. Are there differences in students’ linguistic gains in the CAVE vs. computer lab environment?

As no previous studies have examined the linguistic ramifications of the use of VR technology, we cannot base our hypotheses on previous research; however, given the more interactive and immersive nature of the CAVE environment, and the results of studies (e.g., Huebner, 1995; Spenader, 2005) that indicate that immersion can have a positive impact on language gains, we expected that students who experienced the world in the CAVE format would show greater linguistic gains on a linguistic post-test.

2. Do students experience the reality differently, depending on whether they were in the CAVE vs. computer lab?

Dannen and Branch (1995) call for studies to look at the effectiveness of different types of virtual environments. In this study, we assess the differences between the CAVE and PC subjects on three measures: mentions of cultural products vs. practices, degree of collaboration, and general evaluation of the virtual world. Based on studies examining the retention of cultural information from journalistic videos (e.g., Herron, Dubreil, Corrie, & Cole, 2002), we expect those in the CAVE environment to notice more cultural practices because they have more of an immersion experience. Buckingham (2006) notes that studies of game playing have one serious limitation: “[f]ew effects studies pay attention to the social interaction that characterizes most game playing: they are solely concerned with the interaction between mind and screen” (p. 81). We attempt to address this shortcoming in the sudy and hypothesize that, due to the collaborative nature of the groups in the CAVE environment, students who made use of that technology to: interact more with other students, regardless of language spoken, speak more of the target language, and complete the game in less time than students who took part in the experience on the PC. In addition, we expected that students in the CAVE environment would generally rate the experience more positively, given the novelty of the experience.

II. Methodology

Subjects

Subjects in this study were high school students in their first (N = 41) and third (N= 32) semesters of German (L1 = English) from two high school German programs in a large urban center in western Canada. Students in one school took part in the virtual world experience with a group of students in the CAVE environment (N = 23), and those from the other made use of the PC version (N = 50) of the game on their own in the language laboratory. Students ranged in age between 15 and 18 years, and the median age was 16.12 years. Students reported a range of grades in their German courses (70-95%), and the average current grade was 84.1% (SD = ) (Variable: Mark, Mean 84.37, std 8.0661, st error .9506, skewness -.8121. Students reported that they were quite motivated to learn German: the median motivation rating was 5.3 on a 7-point scale, in which a rating of seven indicated that students were ‘extremely motivated’ to learn German. There were no significant differences in student average grades or level of motivation by grade level or by VR environment.

Students in the study were avid game players. Of the seventy-three, 20 of the students play video games at least once a day, and a further 16 play at least once a week. Only 10 of the students noted that they either never play or have only played a game once in the last year. On average, students who play video games play them 12.4 hours per week. Most report playing video games because they are fun (N = 21), challenging (N = 14), or interactive (N = 8). When students were asked to list their favorite educational games, nineteen of the 73 students listed games, although the educational value of such games (e.g., those based on television trivia games or popular board games) is often questionable. Interestingly, twenty-six of the students indicated specifically that they either do not have a favorite educational game, that they do not know of any educational games, or that they do not play such games. When asked, students were generally favorable toward using video games in the classroom, providing an average usefulness rating of 5.72 (SD = ) (variable SchoolG: Mean 5.73 , Std 1.341, Std Error .14, skewness -.324 on a 7-point scale. Those who believe they should be used noted most often that video games are fun, entertaining, or interesting. Some said the following:

• Playing video games “provides for escape from the monotony of the everyday classroom.”

• “Students are very interested in games, [and they] will be more attentive.”

• Making use of video games “would be break from general monotony & boredom.”

• “[W]ith the amount of time people spend on games, it could help them be actively engaged in the class.”

• “[W]e are a technological generation.”

On the other hand, those who were opposed made the following remarks:

• “[V]ideo games are expensive to develop & buy due to school budgets. [I]t wouldn't be effective…video games can't give the same interactions as a teacher.”

• It’s “[h]ard to ask a game about something you don't understand.”

• “I think they will help some students understand some concepts but most education games are boring.”

Like Schweinhorst (2002), Chun (2007) is optimistic about the role that video games can play in the language classroom. She notes that “we cannot ignore the fact that many of our students spend inordinate amounts of time playing video games, and, if we could integrate some aspects of gaming with language learning, we might at least increase our learners’ time on task with the L2” (Chun 2007, 241). The subjects in the study are of the “video game generation” described in Simpson (2005) and Buckingham (2006). Most play games regularly, which means that they will approach the experience with a critical eye, but they are open to the possibility of making use of video games in the classroom. This group is, therefore, an ideal test group.

Tasks

On the day before the VR experience, students were taught the basics of the grammatical focus of the game: German commands (formal for students in first-semester and informal for students in third-semester German). Following this, they were introduced to the basics of the vocabulary that would be used in the VR environment through the use of PowerPoint slides and a series of partner activities. Students were then given a pre-test map task in which they were expected to follow a series of six commands in German. At the end of class, they were given a pre-study questionnaire (appendix A) in which they were asked questions about their goals for learning German and their habits and attitudes surrounding video games.

The virtual world that the students experienced was created in 3D modeling environment (StudioMAX) and imported into Virtools, an interactive gaming application. It is a European city center and marketplace based on those in Salzburg and Vienna. The storyline of the game involves the kidnapping and rescue of Laura, the mayor’s daughter. Students are given a series of clues—mostly commands—and are instructed through the city to find the missing girl. Clues take a number of forms including spoken commands given directly to the participants, television and radio announcements, written clues on signs, and cell phone messages. In addition, when students were lost, they were directed to find the police, who then gave them instructions to return to the point of their last clue. Examples of the types of clues are given in the figures below.

RML: ABOUT 3 SCREEN SHOTS (DIFFERENT FROM THOSE WE’VE USED IN OTHER PAPERS) THAT SHOW TYPES OF COMMANDS

As noted above, students took part in the game in one of two possible environments: in the computer lab in front of individual PCs or as small groups in the CAVE environment.

On the following day, students completed a map post-task similar to that given to them on the day before the virtual world experience. Again, they were given a series of six commands and were asked to mark their routes and specific locations on maps given to them. Following this, they were asked to answer a series of free-response questions about the experience and to rate the VR environment (appendix B).

Data analysis

The pre- and post-treatment map tasks were rated in the following manner: students were given one point for reaching the final destination and one point for each of the commands they successfully carried out. Notes were made as to where they experienced difficulties. SUMMARY ABOUT HOW THEY WERE COMPARED. In order to determine retention of cultural information from the experience, we analyzed student responses to the following free-response prompts:

• What do you think was the goal of the activity you just performed?

• Please write down any aspects of the world that you can remember.

• How is the world similar to an experience you might have in a Canadian city? Please list as many items as you can.

• How does it differ from a Canadian city? Please list as many items as you can.

[pic]

[pic]

General concepts from free-response questions were classified into categories (i.e., “categories that stand for phenomena”, Strauss and Corbin, 1998) and then differentiated along the cultural product vs. practice continuum. We remind the reader of the definitions for these concepts provided in the Standards for Foreign Language Learning (2006): behavioral practices are defined as “patterns of social interactions” (Standards, 2006, p. 47), and tangible and intangible products include “books, tools, foods, laws, music, games.” (Standards, 2006 p. 47). Thus, for example, objects such as clothing or even architecture are classified as products, whereas any mention of daily living patterns such as hand shaking or the use of formal vs. informal pronouns are classified as cultural practices. In addition, we provide researcher observations of the student interactions during participation in the experience.

Results

On a pre-task questionnaire, students were asked to rank which aspects of German language and culture are most important to them in their studies. They ranked two aspects of the language as most important: vocabulary and general fluency. It is interesting that the three aspects that they ranked lowest were related to culture: knowledge of geography, history, and daily life of German speakers.

Linguistic gains

In general, students did well following the commands on both the pre- and post-treatment map task. On the pre-treatment task, students in XXX. These results are presented in table 2 below.

| |Pre-treatment goal attained |Post-treatment goal attained |

|PC |% (N = XX) |% (N = XX) |

|CAVE |% (N = XX) |% (N = XX) |

Table 2. Results on pre- and post-treatment map task by media group.

One can also note from table XX above that students performed similarly on the post-treatment task. The results are broken down by grade level in table 3 below.

| |Pre-treatment goal attained |Post-treatment goal attained |

|First-semester German |% (N = XX) |% (N = XX) |

|Third-semester German |% (N = XX) |% (N = XX) |

Table 3. Results on pre- and post-treatment map task by German level.

STATS ON THE STUDENTS IN EACH GROUP:

SUMMARY OF THE STATS

ALSO PROVIDE STATS ON THE NUMBERS OF STUDEINTS BY MEDIA GROUP AND THE NUMBER OF THE COMMANDS THEY FOLLOWED CORRECTLY

On the post-task questionnaire, students noted that they found the VR experience useful. Just more than half (N = 38) of the students stated that they believed that this experience improved their knowledge of German. RML: STATISTICAL DIFFERENCES BY ENVIRONMENT? The comments provided regarding why this activity improved students’ German did not differ greatly according to environment. Students in both groups indicated that they were able to apply their knowledge while playing the game. When students were asked to rate the usefulness of the software for learning various aspects of German, students noted that this was especially helpful for improving their listening skills. (RML: IS THIS DIFFERENCE SIGNIFICANT?, ARE THERE SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES ACCORDING TO PC vs. CAVE FOR THE VARIOUS ASPECTS?).

Mary

In the ANOVA below you will see there is only one statistically significant difference between CAVE and PC environments when the semantic scales are used. This is the variable (Soft-Loud) which is measuring audio levels (mean 3.9 PC vs mean 3.23 CAVE). Though it is significant the values are very close. I think the earlier analysis which is slightly different was done in EXCEL which doesn’t always give you the correct answer. These were run in SPSSv10. In summary I think we can say that the differences in the actual experience is very small. Perhaps with larger samples it might be possible to see a small difference using these scales. In conclusion, the CAVE doesn’t offer any real advantage over a PC environment. When I ran the entire data set I only found a few variables where there was a significant difference between the two groups:

SOFTSPEAK (significant .006, Mean PC 4.68 Mean CAVE 3.55

HIST (significant .037, Mean PC 4.9 Mean CAVE 4.17

3Dcomp (significant .009, Mean PC .49 Mean CAVE .29

That being said, there probably are differences if we had larger samples.

Reality experience

Mention of cultural products vs. practices

AO: PLEASE LOOK OVER THIS SECTION

On the post-task questionnaire students were asked to list the aspects of the virtual world experience they remembered. Their responses can be categorized into the following categories:

• buildings & other structures: includes responses such as buildings, fountains, and specific names and types of stores;

• people: incorporates any mention of the characters in the VR world;

• marketplace: includes any references to the market itself as well as the listing of food stands;

• gameplay/software: consists of any comments about the task students were asked to carry out and about game- (e.g., the task they carried out) or software-specific (including glitches) remarks.

The differences in responses by VR environment are included in table 4 below.

|Aspects Remembered |PC |CAVE |

|Buildings & other structures |60% (N = 31) |73% (N = 17) |

|Marketplace |54% (N = 28) |54% (N = 12) |

|Cobblestone & streets |17% (N = 9) |23% (N = 5) |

|Modes of transportation |46% (N = 24) |27% (N = 6) |

|People |65% (N = 34) |59% (N = 14) |

|Gameplay/Software |43% (N = 22) |36% (N = 8) |

Table 4. Aspects of VR world remembered by students by testing environment.

At first glance, it seems that the differences are only minor, and it is rather difficult to determine distinct differences in students’ responses. Irrespective of the medium, students commented on the same cultural products[4]. Nonetheless, students who played the game in the CAVE commented more often on the cobblestone roads, a fact that we contribute to CAVE-specific features. That is, students who experienced the world in the CAVE were able to physically stand on the cobblestones. Most differences that are noticeable, for example the results in the category “modes of transportation,” were caused by the testing circumstances: students in the CAVE had to work as a group and often did not wander around as students who played on their own on the PC. In order to encounter buses and streetcars more closely, students had to leave the intended way and explore the VR on their own—an experience on which many students in the lab commented positively, while students in the CAVE did not include such remarks as often.

When students were asked to remark on which aspects of the virtual world experience was similar to and different form an experience in Canada, they mentioned the same broad categories for both: buildings and other structures, people, marketplace, modes of transportation, the overall experience (i.e., wayfinding, language spoken), and the cobblestone streets. Students mentioned, for example, that Canadian cities and the Austrian city depicted in the game have similar stores such as flower shops and McDonald’s restaurants but that the architecture in the virtual world is much older than that of a Canadian city. Students also felt that the characters of the VR resembled people they might encounter in a Canadian city, for example the police officers; however, students then noted that they would most likely not meet as many police officers in Canadian cities. A relatively high number of students believed that the experience of “finding one‘s way,” “getting lost” and “trying to figure out where to go” resembled experiences one might have in Canadian cities; however, the major difference in experience noted by students was that one would not hear German in a Canadian environment.

A summary of responses to the similarities between the virtual city and a Canadian city by testing environment are presented in table 5 below.

|Similiarities |PC |CAVE |

|Buildings & other structures |33% (N = 17) |23% (N = 5) |

|Marketplace |23% (N = 12) |14% (N = 3) |

|Cobblestone & streets |3% (N = 2) |- |

|Modes of transportation |36% (N = 19) |9% (N = 2) |

|People |56% (N = 29) |27% (N = 6) |

|Experiences (behaviour) |31% (N = 16) |54% (N = 13) |

Table 5. Student perceptions of similarities by testing environment.

The hypothesis that the medium through which the VR is experienced influences students’ responses to the VR only slightly is substantiated by a comparison of aspects that students believed to be similar to an experience in a Canadian city. Irrespective of the medium, students generally viewed the same cultural products and practices as similar to experiences they might have in a Canadian environment. However, a greater proportion of students in the CAVE than students in the language lab wrote about the experience of “finding one’s way.” In other words, these students focused more on a cultural practice than students on the PC. AO: LOOK CLOSER AT ANSWERS AND ANALYZE

We obtained similar results when students were asked to discuss the aspects of the virtual world experience are similar to those they might have in a Canadian city. A summary of these responses is provided in table 6 below.

|Differences |PC |Cave |

|Buildings & other structures |21 |10 |

|Marketplace |19 |10 |

|Cobblestone & streets |20 |8 |

|Modes of transportation |10 |3 |

|People |17 |3 |

|Gameplay/Software |10 |2 |

|Experiences (language) |16 |3 |

|Other |5 |2 |

Table 6. Student perceptions of differences by testing environment.

AO: PROVIDE PERCENTAGES, DISCUSS; AND PRODUCTS vs. PRACTICES

In short, our results do not show any major discrepancies in students’ responses. The medium in which students experienced the VR did not have a profound impact on the students’ perception of cultural products and practices.

Collaboration (According to videos)

As noted above, level student collaboration while taking part in the virtual world experience was possible through researcher observation. Although quantifiable data are unavailable, we feel it is valuable to make the following comments about student interaction by environment. A summary is provided in table 7 below.

| |PC |CAVE |

|interaction | | |

|target language use | | |

|average time on task | | |

|other | | |

Table 7. Evidence of collaboration by media environment.

While it was our intention to have students in the PC environment work individually, it is interesting to note that they did not do so. The ‘collaborative’ nature of video game playing was apparent even for the students working on their own computers. MGO: MORE, BASED ON THE VIDEOS; DISCUSS ALSO CULTURE

General evaluation and presence

RML: Students spent approximately XXX minutes on the game (RANGE) AS WELL AS DISCUSSION OF DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE GROUPS. INFORMATION ON THE NUMBERS OF STUDENTS WHO MADE IT TO THE END AND THE TYPES OF PROBLEMS THEY ENCOUNTERED.

RML: The general evaluation of the virtual world provided by students in the two groups (CAVE vs. PC) differed very little. The main difference between the two groups can be seen in the analysis (TYPE of ANALYSIS) of the aesthetics of the imagery. Students with the CAVE experience rated the aesthetics as significantly more exciting than did students who had the PC version of the game (STATISTICS). On all other factors, the differences between the groups were non-significant. Thus, the CAVE environment may have enhanced the “wow” factor for these students, but this was the only area in which the groups differed. An examination of students’ responses regarding which aspects of the game were their favorites supports this analysis, as 21% (N = 5) of students in the CAVE environment mentioned the 3D nature of the game. It may be that their experience was more lifelike, given that students in the CAVE group mentioned that “it felt like we were there” and that it was “realistic.” Nonetheless, students in both groups clearly enjoyed exploring the city (CAVE: 26% (N = 6); PC: 20% (N = 10)). A larger number of students in the PC group mentioned their interactions with people (18% (N = 9)), but only one CAVE student mentioned the people as her favorite aspect of the game. Only students in the PC group mentioned that they enjoyed applying their skills at following directions (12% (N = 6)) and achieving the goal (8% (N = 4)).

When asked whether they believe activities like this should be used in their classroom, students gave an average rating of 5.04 (RML: SD?) on a 7-point scale in which a rating of 7 = always, indicating that they believe that such activities are useful. RML: STATISTICAL DIFFERENCES ACCORDING TO PC vs. CAVE?

There is no real difference between these two group for SCHOOLG : Significance .88 PC Mean 5.74, CAVE Mean 5.70 (analsysis: ANOVA)

Most students who believe it should be used noted that it was a fun (N = 20) or interesting (N = 9) experience that allowed them to apply their knowledge of German (N = 6). Of the students who were opposed to using the software in the classroom, the greatest number (N = 4) indicated that they prefer the traditional classroom setting. As one student stated, “It was fun but I think the educational value isn’t as high as regular teaching.” It is perhaps interesting to note that all students who indicated that they prefer classroom teaching to the VR world took part in the experience in the CAVE environment.

We would now like to examine the notion of ‘presence.’ Both groups of students made comments about the ‘realness’ of the VR. When they did so, they relied on different vocabulary to convey their experiences. First, students who experienced the CAVE environment stated that their favorite part of the activity was that “it was fun & real”, that “it felt like you were there” and that “it was realistic.” Students clearly felt they were present and engaged with the L2 culture. On the other hand, students who used a PC did not use the word “real” to describe their experience; however, their comments also suggest that they actually participated in the VR. Students commented repeatedly on the friendly people and the friendly environment. They compared the VR to real cities, such as Salzburg or Vienna. They believed that the experience of finding one’s way and following directions resembled interactions they might have in real cities. The aspect of “realness” is also evident in any remarks regarding the language: “they [the characters] spoke German.”

AO: NOTION OF PRESENCE BY GROUP ( ACCORDING TO WHAT THEY REMEMBERED ( DOES IT SEEM THAT ONE GROUP IS MORE “PRESENT” THAN THE OTHER?

Discussion

The results of the current study indicate that the setting (computer lab vs. CAVE) has little, if any effect on students’ experience, both in terms of linguistic gains as well as the cultural experience of the learners. The main significant difference between the two media environments relates to the novelty of the 3D CAVE technology. In fact, it may be that students who have a chance to experience the world on their own, while still being able to consult with other students, may actually have a fuller learning experience. This is substantiated by XXX.

We would now like to return to the arguments for making use of video games in the classroom generally and their L2 pedagogical counterparts provided in table 1 at the outset of the article. Simpson (2005) posits that video games can be useful in the classroom because participants have a goal at the outset of the game. We stated that this correlated well with Task-Based Language Teaching (e.g., Willis, 1996). Doughty and Long (2003, p. 52) provide 10 methodological principles (MPs) of Task-Based Language Teaching. Of those, a number are realized (“pedagogic procedures”, Daughty and Long, 2003) through the use of VR technology. These are summarized along with supporting questionnaire and observational data from our study in table XX below. (THIS WILL BE FILLED IN WITH DATA FROM THE VIDEOS)

|Methodological principle |Realization through VR |

|MP1: Use tasks, not texts as the unit of analysis |92% of students stated a goal to the game |

| |45% stated a game-related goal |

|MP2: Promote learning by doing |All students participated, most mentioned ‘presence’ |

|MP3: Elaborate input (do not simplify; no not rely solely on |Modified discourse provided by police officers |

|‘authentic texts’) | |

|MP4: Provide rich, not impoverished, input |Variety of clues available to students (cell phone, written clues, |

| |etc.) |

|MP5: Encourage inductive learning |Students produced language chunks |

|MP7: Provide negative feedback |Police let students know when they were on wrong path |

|MP9: Promote cooperative / collaborative learning |All students worked with others |

Table 8. Realization of Methodological Principles (MPS) of Task-Based Language Teaching through Virtual Reality.

Doughty and Williams (2003) point to the importance of “meeting the real-world needs of learners”, and state that this “offers a motivating alternative to the dismal prospect of grammar-based, drill=and-practice” (p. 55) language instruction. We argue that our virtual environment does allow students to feel as though they are using their language as a means to an end. When students were asked to name cite the goal of the task they performed, all but 6 of the 73 were able to name a goal, and nearly half (N = 34) of the students mentioned a goal that was external to language: finding the mayor’s daughter. Of those (N= 33) who mentioned a language-related goal, a number had insightful comments regarding the goal of the experience:

• “to learn how to understand directions and commands and follow them.”

• “to help us understand German in a funner, easier way.”

• “to test knowledge of German commands and learn about German cities.

• “to learn comprehension in a real-world situation”

Of the students who mentioned an aspect related to German grammar, 33% of them (N = 11) used the verb ‘understand’ in their responses, and a further 52% of them (N = 17) spoke of ‘learning.’

In their discussions of the importance of ‘doing’ in order to learn, Daughty and Williams (2003, p. 58) state the importance of real-world events activities for integrating knowledge into long-term memory. As noted in the discussion of ‘presence’, we argue that students felt as though they participated in real-world events in the virtual world. While Whyte (2002, p. 43) notes that “[v]irtual reality cannot be naively conceived of as reality, as there are many ways in which virtual reality masks or distorts underlying realities”, we argue that with proper follow-up tasks that remind the students to abstract away from the VR experience, they are able to obtain a number of the essential aspects of what would otherwise be an inaccessible experience for many of them (Dannen and Branch, 1995). Based on the results that indicate that the PC students spent more time in the world, we argue that those students who utilized the PC technology may have learned more because they were able to experience the task according to their own goals. ( TIE INTO LEARNER AUTONOMY

In the virtual environment, we were able to provide both modified and rich input, thereby making meaning more “comprehensible” (Daughty and Long, 2003, p. 59) to students. The police officers in the game, who let students know when they were on the wrong path, provided alternative versions of directions to students. In addition, the various clues—spoken commands, television and radio announcements, newspaper headlines, written clues on signs, notes, and cell phone messages—provided “quality, quantity, variety, genuineness, and relevance” (Daughty and Long, 2003, p. 62) to the language input received by the students. Moreover, the language produced by students while they were playing the game (PROVIDE EXAMPLES) provide evidence that students were engaged in inductive learning. They produced language chunks (e.g., XXXX) when engaging with one another.

Finally, we have evidence of collaborative learning from all students. DATA FROM VIDEOS

Conclusion

Students were able to take part in everyday life in Salzburg. They were engaged in a dynamic process of learning not just about culture but actually experiencing the target culture. The VR, regardless of whether encountered in the lab or in the CAVE, “engage[d] the learner cognitively, behaviorally, and affectively” (Paige et al., 2000, p. 50). Students in the CAVE as well as in the lab felt that they participated in German culture and experienced a German city by being present in this German-speaking VR.

As supporters of VR technology, Dannen and Branch (1995) provide us with the following words of advice: “[a]s a variable, immersion should be determined by need” (p. 104). Our study tested whether the more flashy and indeed more expensive CAVE technology is necessary for students to exhibit greater linguistic and cultural learning, and we determined that complete immersion via CAVE technology does not provide a significantly better experience for students. Therefore, our recommendations stand in line with those of Chun (2007), who argues for the “judicious” use of technology. She posits further that “[t]echnology should not be used simply because it exists” (Chun, 2007, p. 248). Virtual world technology holds great promise, but for the time being the investment belongs in the creation of new, more realistic worlds that support classroom pedagogical goals, and not in the flashier CAVE technology.

In future studies, we hope to examine through a pre- delayed post-test methodology whether students exhibit gains in cultural understanding as a result of taking part in the VR experience. Additionally, we hope to determine whether the “wow” effect experienced by students in the CAVE environment is simply due to the novelty or whether the effect remains over time. Additionally, we hope to create additional worlds that focus on the cultural practices of German-speaking people. XXX.

RML: LINKS TO VIRTOOLS AND TO WORLD

References

Bakas, C., & Mikropoulos, T. A. (2003). Design of virtual environments for the comprehension of planetary phenomena based on students’ ideas. International Journal of Science Education, 25(8), 949–967.

Blin, Françoise. 2004. “CALL and the development of learner autonomy: Towards an activity-theoretical perspective.” ReCALL 16:2.377-395.

Buckingham, David. 2006. “Children and new media.” In Leah A. Lievrouw and Sonia Livingstone, eds. The handbook of new media. London: Sage Publications, pp. 75-91.

Chun, Dorothy M. 2007. “Come ride the wave: But where is it taking us?” CALICO Journal 24:2.239-252..

Dannen, Vanessa Paz, & Robert C. Branch. 1995. “Considerations for designing instructional virtual environments.” In Eyes on the Future: Converging images, ideas, ad instruction. Selected readings from the Annual Conference of the International Visual Literacy Association (Chicago, IL, October 18-22, 1995), pp. 101-110. URL?

Doughty and Williams. 1998 --. Cite chapter in book

Doughty, Catherine J. and Michael H. Long. 2003. “Optimal psycholinguistic environments for distance foreign language learning.” Language Learning & Technology 7:3.50-80.

Dubreil, S. (2006). Gaining perspective on culture through CALL. Calling on CALL: From theory and research to new directions in foreign language teaching. In L. Ducate & N. Arnold (eds.), (pp. 237–268). San Marcos, TX: CALICO.

Ellis, Rod. 2006. “Current issues in the teaching of grammar: An SLA perspective.” TESOL Quarterly 40:1.83-107.

Furstenberg, Gilberte, Sabine Levet, Kathryn English, & Katherine Maillet. 2001. “Giving a virtual voice to the silent language of culture: The Cultura project.” Language Learning & Technology 5:1.55-102.

Goodwin-Jones, Robert. 2005. “Messaging, gaming, peer-to-peer sharing: Language learning strategies & tools for the Millennial Generation.” Language Learning & Technology 9:1.17-22.

Hager, Michael. 2005. “Using German web sites to teach culture in German courses.” CALICO Journal 22:2.269-284.

Heift, Trude. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in CALL. ReCALL, 2004, 16, 2, Nov, 16(2), 416-431

Herron, Carol, Sebastien Dubreil, Cathleen Corrie, & Steven Cole. 2002. “A classroom investigation: Can video improve intermediate-level French language students’ ability to learn about a foreign culture?” Modern Language Journal 86:1.36–53.

Huebner, Thom. 1995. “A framework for investigating the effectiveness of study abroad programs.” In Claire Kramsch, ed., Redefining the boundaries of language study, 185–217. Boston: Heinle and Heinle.

Kovalik, Doina L., and Ludovic M. Kovalik. 2002. “Language learning simulations: A Piagetian perspective.” Simulation & Gaming 33:3.345-352.

LeLoup, J. W., & Ponterio, R. (2004). On the net: Virtual museums on the web: El Museo Thyssen-Bornemisza. Language Learning & Technology 8(3), 3–8. Retrieved on February 2, 2006 from

Levy, Mike. 2007. “Culture, culture learning and new technologies: Towards a pedagogical framework.” Language Learning & Technology 11:2.104-127.

Liaw, Meei-ling. 2006. “E-learning and the development of intercultural competence.” Language Learning & Technology 10:3.49-64. Accessed on June 15, 2007 at

Little 1991. (SEE SCHWEINHORST 2002)

Littlewood, William. 2004. “The task-based approach: Some questions and suggestions.” ELT Journal 58:4.319-326.

LoCastro, V. (2001). Individual differences in second language acquisition: Attitudes, learner subjectivity, and L2 pragmatic norms. System, 2001, 29, 1, Mar, 29(1), 69-89. Retrieved June 12, 2007, from CSA Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts database.

Magnin, Michèle Claude. 2002. “An interdisciplinary approach to teaching foreign languages with global and functional simulations.” Simulation & Gaming 33:3.395-399.

National Institute on Media and the Family. 2006. REST

Oxford, Rebecca. 1990. Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. New York: Newbury House.

Paige et al. (2000)

Pannese, Lucia, & Maria Carlesi. 2007. “Games and learning come together to maximise effectiveness: The challenge of bridging the gap.” British Journal of Educational Technology 38:3.438-454.

Purushotma, R. (2005). Commentary: You’re not just studying, you’re just … Language Learning & Technology, 9(1), 80–96. Retrieved on December 19, 2005 from

Schweinhorst, Klaus. 2002. “Why virtual, why environments? Implementing virtual reality concepts in computer-assisted language learning.” Simulation & Gaming 33:2.196-209.

Simpson, Elizabeth S. 2005. “Evolution in the Classroom: What teachers need to know about the video game generation.” TechTrends: Linking Research and Practice to Improve Learning 49:5.17-22.

Skehan, Peter. 1991. “Individual differences in second langaueg learning.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition 13.275-298.

Spenader, A. J. (2005). Cross-cultural adaptation and language acquisition in high school study abroad. 66 (6), 2094-A. (Available from UMI, Ann Arbor, MI. Order No. DA3180027.) Retrieved June 12, 2007, from CSA Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts database.

Standards for Foreign Language Learning: Preparing for the 21st Century. (1996). Yonkers, NY: Standards for Foreign Language Learning Project.

Standards for Foreign Language Learning in the 21st Century. (1999). Yonkers, NY: Standards for Foreign Language Learning Project.

Standards for Foreign Language Learning in the 21st Century. (2006). Lawrence, KS: Allen Press.

Trindale, J. F. & Fiulhais, C. (2000). Using virtual environments for studying water phases and phase transitions. In S. Young, J. Greer, & H. Maurer (Eds.), Proceedings of ICCE/ICCAI 2000 – 8th International Conference on Computers in Education/International Conference on Computer-Assisted Instruction Learning Societies in the New Millennium: Creativity, Caring & Commitments. 413–416.

Tsubota, Y., Dantsuji, M., & Kawahara, T. (2004). An english pronunciation learning system for japanese students based on diagnosis of critical pronunciation errors. ReCALL, 2004, 16, 1, May, 16(1), 173-188.

Vandergriff, Ilona. 2006. “Negotiating common ground in computer-mediated vs. face-to-face discussions.” Language Learning & Technology 10:1.110-138. Retrieved July 19, 2007 from llt.msu.edu/vol10num1/pdf/vandergriff.pdf

Vinther, J. (2005). Cognitive processes at work in CALL. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 2005, 18, 4, Oct, 18(4), 251-271.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge,MA: Harvard University Press

Whyte, Jennifer. 2002. Virtual reality and the built environment. Oxford: Architectural Press.

Ware, Paige, & Claire Kramsch. 2005. “Toward and intercultural stance: Teaching German and English through telecollaboration.” Modern Language Journal 89:2.190–205.

Willis, XX (1996)( See Littlewood 2004

Winn, W. (1995). The Virtual Reality roving vehicle project. T H E Journal 23:5.70–74.

Winn, William, Hunter Hoffman, and Kimberley Osberg. 1995. “Semiotics and the design of objects, actions and interactions in virtual environments.” Paper presented at the Symposium “Semiotics and cognition: Issues in the symbolic design of learning environments.” Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, April 22, 1995.

Zeiss, E., & Isabelli-Garcia, C. L. (2005). The role of asynchronous computer mediated communication on enhancing cultural awareness. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 2005, 18, 3, July, 18(3), 151-169. Retrieved June 12, 2007, from CSA Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts database.

Appendix A: Pre-study questionnaire

CULTURE IN THE LANGUAGE CLASSROOM: A VIRTUAL WORLD MARKETPLACE

I. This questionnaire concerns your language experiences over the course of your lifetime. Feel free to elaborate where you think it would be helpful to the study. All responses are confidential.

Thank you for your participation.

name: ___________________________________ gender: M ____ F ____

age: ______________________ current German class: ________________

expected mark in your current German class: _______________

1. Are you a native speaker of English? Yes No

If not, what is your native language? ________________________

2. Why have you enrolled in German classes?

3. How would you rate your motivation for learning German on the following scale?

not motivated extremely motivated

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

4. On a scale of 1 (not very important) to 6 (very important), rate the importance to you (in your own

German speech) of:

not very important very important

knowledge of German history 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

nativelike pronunciation in German 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

knowledge of German geography 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

grammatical accuracy in German 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

knowledge of German vocabulary 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

knowledge of social aspects of German 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

language use

general fluency in German 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

knowledge of daily life of German speakers 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

being treated as an equal by native 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

German speakers

general cultural knowledge of German 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

speaking countries

being mistaken for a native speaker of German 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

5. How often do you play video games?

___At least once a day ____hours per week

___At lease once a week___ hours per week

___At least Once a Month ___hours per month

___More than once in the last year

___Once In the last year

___never

6. What are your favorite video games. Please list them below.

1.________________________________ (Your most favorite game.)

2.________________________________

3.________________________________

4.________________________________

Why do you enjoy these games?

7. In evaluating a video game what do you consider important (Circle)

not very important very important

Game Play 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA

Graphics 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA

Audio (Sound and voice tracks) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA

Story line 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA

Character animation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA

8. What are your favorite educational video games?

1.________________________________ rank, 1 is your most favorite game of all time

2.________________________________

3.________________________________

4.________________________________

9. In evaluating an educational game (video only) what do you consider important (Circle)

not very important very important

Game Play 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA

Graphics 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA

Audio (Sound and voice tracks) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA

Story line 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA

Character animation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA

10. Have you ever experienced a 3D stereo environment (check all that apply)

____3D Movie

____3D Video

____3D Computer Display

____3D CAVE

11. Do you think that video games can be used in classes in school?

Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Why or why not?

Appendix B: Post-study questionnaire

CULTURE IN THE LANGUAGE CLASSROOM: A VIRTUAL WORLD MARKETPLACE

name: ______________________________________ computer #: _____________________

Please complete the following after you have completed the virtual world tasks.

1. What do you think was the goal of the activity you just performed?

2. Please write down any aspects of the world that you can remember.

3. How is the world similar to an experience you might have in a Canadian city? Please list as many items as you can.

4. How does it differ from a Canadian city? Please list as many items as you can.

5. Which kinds of clues did you follow most (e.g., spoken commands, signs, radio broadcasts)?

6. What was your favorite part of the activity?

7. What did you like least about it?

8. What features would you add to the virtual environment?

9. On a scale of 1 (least helpful) to 10 (most helpful), rate the usefulness of the software you just used:

not helpful extremely helpful

for learning grammar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

for developing listening skills 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

for learning about culture 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

for learning vocabulary 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

for gaining speaking fluency 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

for improving pronunciation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

for improving reading skills 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

for improving your ability to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

write in German

10. Do you think that this activity improved your knowledge of German? yes no

Why or why not?

11. Do you think that activities like this should be used in your German classroom? (Circle one.)

never always

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Why or why not?

Please evaluate the virtual environment by answering the following questions.

1. How attractive do you consider the imagery as a whole?

Unattractive Attractive

1 2 3 4 5

2. How did the environment represent the actual audio levels

Not Accurate Accurate

1 2 3 4 5

3. Please rate the following relating to the aesthetics of the images.

Exciting Dull

1 2 3 4 5

4. How would you rate the ornateness of the images?

Ornate Plain

1 2 3 4 5

5. How would you rate the coloring?

Colorful Subdued

1 2 3 4 5

6. How would you rate the lighting?

Bright Dim

1 2 3 4 5

7. How would you rate the sound level?

Soft Loud

1 2 3 4 5

Please make any additional comments in the space below.

-----------------------

[1] Serious games are designed for purposes other than entertainment.

[2] Simulations, like role play, encourage students to carry out a specific role. Unlike role play, however, “participants do not necessarily consider their activity a simulation but rather a real experience” (Crookall & Oxford, 1990, cited in Kovalik & Kovalik, 2002, p. 346). Schweinhorst (2002) points out that such situated language learning is problematic for two reasons:

1. “the distance to the target language culture and its speakers seem to present and insurmountable obstacle”; and

2. “situated learning emphasizes at its core the importance of sociocultural context for language learning” (199–200).

Virtual reality, on the other hand, actually places participants within the target context.

[3] A summary of the project, the “Tactical Language Training System” can be found at

[4] None of the students in the study provided a cultural practice as a response to this question.

-----------------------

[pic]

Figure 5: Flower Stand. Here students get another clue to Laura whereabouts from a friend.

Figure 4: Market Near Residence Square. Here students learn a little about fruit and vegetables before getting their next clue. This market was based on the Naschmarkt in Vienna.

[pic]

[pic]

Figure 6: At the cafe, a note and cell phone message give the next clue

[pic]

Figure 7: In the Old Market, where the mystery is resolved

Figure 10: CAVE with a group of 3 students

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download