Virtual Reality, Virtual Worlds – Virtual Teaching Staff?

This article was published in the Advocate, journal of the National Tertiary Education Union, December 2016

Stuart Bunt

Virtual (VR) and Augmented Reality (AR) have been around for decades but have only recently reached the crucial transition point to commercial viability.  When we see Google cardboard glasses on sale in airport shops or given away with newspapers, and virtual reality glasses on sale in Harvey Norman; we know their time has come. The proliferation of these “disruptive technologies” raises the question: what will their impact be in the tertiary education sector?  At the recent National Council meeting I ran a workshop on this issue and there was a clear wish to know what all the hype was about, as for many in academia, it is still all mystery.  It is difficult to convey in words or 2D the nature of AR and VR.

In short, by wearing special goggles with built-in motion sensors, VR immerses you in a 360 degree world.  This can be video of real life places such as Paris, a completely artificial scenario such as a recreation of the Pueblo Ruins in New Mexico, or a fully “functional” chemistry lab.  Sitting down at your desk you look down and see, not a well-worn carpet, but the dusty floor of the American desert, look up in “Paris” and not see the air-conditioning vent but cloudy skies partially obscured by the Eiffel tower rising up above you.  In its simplest form this virtual environment can be created simply by placing a smartphone in a goggle-like holder ($20) and running an app that splits the screen into stereo pairs; while at the top end the likes of HTC Vive ($1300) allow the wearer to physically walk around and “touch” (with handsets) objects in a virtual room.

AR is a different beast.  With this technology extra information is overlaid on the real world.  This requires a camera on the phone or tablet, which shows the real world on the device, and then the AR app adds an overlay.  Pokemon Go has brought this to public attention, overlaying monuments and parks with small creatures you can virtually “collect”.  Google translate is a more practical application when pointed at, for example, a Chinese menu, overlays the image with text in your native language so you can avoid ordering the fried snake testicles by mistake.  The first time you use the app it is quite astonishing, as you find yourself peering behind the phone to confirm that the menu is still inscrutable, the Chinese characters unaltered.

At the high end of AR equipment we had the unsuccessful Google glasses that projected AR information onto the user’s field of view; causing paranoia as people envisioned the user checking their LinkedIn and Facebook Profile while they talked to them!   Microsoft is trying again with the Hololens, on sale in Australia for $A3500.  Similar in operation to the Google glasses, the Hololens is sold for indoor, private use only.  Hololens applications include a dramatic projection of whole body anatomy in space to a virtual toolkit allowing users to build virtual machines or buildings in the empty space in front of them.  These can then be printed and turned into concrete 3D objects (literally since we now have enormous 3D printers that can print concrete houses).

There are (for now?) severe limitations to the technology.  The more advanced viewers are expensive, and therefore impossible to provide for large classes.  Individuals must be seated and monitored, as they are effectively blind while immersed in the virtual world.  Each headset requires a dedicated computer with decent graphics.  With HTC vive it can take three helpers to monitor the movement of the mobile “VR adventurer” and prevent them crashing into unseen walls.  One of the biggest restrictions is that perhaps 1 in 3 students rapidly succumb to motion sickness.  Not surprisingly most applications are restricted to hard core gaming.

Mobile phone based VR is simpler to use and more affordable – but also more restricted in its application, providing limited graphics capability and low resolution.  For equity we may have to provide the small percentage of students without phones the correct devices.

So what is the potential impact of this technology on Tertiary Education?  As some of the above examples indicate, AR and VR have enormous potential, particularly in disciplines with complex technical, ethical or health and safety requirements. However, it is concerning that these technologies are already being hyped by ignorant management as the cure for all ills.  No more costly, messy chemistry labs where students can burn themselves or set fire to the building, no more dangerous microbiology labs with real bacteria and viruses.  Of course no real world skill acquisition either….  When the programs are written management might reach that holy grail of NO AWKWARD, COSTLY STAFF!

How feasible is this Orwellian vision of teaching without teachers?  The unique features of AR and VR are still being explored.  There are clearly many niches where it can provide things that other approaches cannot; however, it is costly to produce quality products for VR.   Education, with its limited budget, will always struggle to match the multimillion dollar budgets of game producers.  The Danish government has invested heavily in producing a virtual laboratory but it has cost millions to produce what is still a pale imitation of the real thing.  As is the case with MOOCs, VR may have a place where students cannot access the real thing either because of cost, time or geography.  It should not be forgotten that the much-maligned PowerPoint can be shown to hundreds of students, whether live or by video for the cost of a few hours’ work.  It remains a very limited teaching tool, but is by far the cheapest option.