Slashdot Mirror
Could VR Field Trips Replace the Real Thing? (theindychannel.com)
turkeydance shares a report from RTV6, which cites a new editorial in the journal Science that explores the question, "Could VR field trips replace the real thing?" Virtual field trips have been around for a while, but they used to be pretty boring: some photos, some text -- basically a Wikipedia entry. But they've come a long way. Nearpod and Google Expeditions let students immerse themselves in places they couldn't normally visit, like Antarctica or even Mars. These virtual field trips are safer and easier to organize than real outings, and they might soon be cheaper, too. Douglas McCauley, assistant professor of ecology at the University of California, Santa Barbara, says traditional field trips have already declined under budget constraints, so schools might be tempted to simply make a switch. McCauley says he's excited about the possibilities of VR. Taking students back to prehistoric times or forward to witness the results of climate change could be a powerful teaching tool.
By definition.
Never falling for that bullshit again. What a waste of money and time my HTC Vive turned out to be. Never again.
There's no reason to "replace" anything. VR can be an immensely powerful learning tool. Kids can do a guided tour, then be left to their own devices to explore things that weren't covered, without fear of losing anyone. I say just start organizing three times as many fields trips, but make all the extra ones virtual.
However, real world experience in certain places is also important. Young students should visit a real fire station and see and talk with the real people working. Middle school and high school students could probably replace trips to places like Washington DC, but could the grand canyon really be experienced properly in VR? University trips to dangerous places should still exist, for the experience necessary to learn how to act and survive there if you have to lead your own group some day.
Field trips haven't just declined, they've been decimated. VR would be an improvement over nothing. VR that allows group participation (similar to conference type VR) with the teacher in the VR would be very useful.
But, it would be better to look at this as something new that opens up doors that field trips never could. VR can take you anywhere from inside a molecule or cell to visiting anyplace on Earth at any time in history to walking on the moon. It's a potential boon to the learners that have to see things, walk around them, etc.
no. Add to them, ok. Replace them? Only for people that don't care.
Anyone else.
places they couldn't normally visit, like Antarctica or even Mars. These virtual field trips are safer and easier to organize than real outings, and they might soon be cheaper, too
The guy claims that the reason (OK, one reason) for the decline in field trips is budgetary. Then the article tells us that VR trips might be cheaper?
Well if they only "might" be cheaper (though I would expect them to be a dam' sight cheaper than a trip to Mars - or Antarctica) then that doesn't sound like they are addressing the issue claimed.
However, the real reason field trips have declined is simply because of all the litigious parents and liabilities that schools incur, need to insure against and have to account for. Trips are simply not worth the hassle of organising and dealing with the fallout.
Though I expect there are already parents gearing up to sue the arse of schools and teachers for the "stress" of making their little darlings wear a VR helmet - or the cost of their "destroyed" hair-do.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
"You'll go where I go, defile what I defile, eat who I eat"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1_bp8YKUPU/
the question is the same as "Could VR Field Trips be better than not doing it at all?" because there's no way they're going there in any way otherwise.
But seriously, why would anyone want a VR "woods simulator" instead of taking them to the woods, for example?
Doesn't mean you're actually there. Please pull your pants back up and stop looking like you're about to do it in my living room.
VR will replace the screen for space and mecha games. In short, it will replace where it makes the experience *more* real, not less.
So, no, VR is not a replacement for field trips and never will be.
Captain Obvious was glad to help.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
I bet that most people that freak out over the global warning go for their holiday to Florida or the south of Spain. So, maybe warm weather is not that bad after all?
then it can replace real field trips. In its current state, it's just a slightly better version of a 3D movie.
Nowadays everything is supposed to replace something. This is stupid.
In theory, sure, you could make detailed 3D scans of everything and do it all in VR. But for that to happen, somebody must first put in the effort to create those virtual 3D tours as well as get the permission to produce them to begin with. Neither of which are easy. Museums like to keep their things under lock, they want the visitors to come and spend money there, not make themselves obsolete by having some amazing digital reproduction. Producing those 3D scans, that are detailed enough to replace a real visit, would also need a lot of money and technology.
People have been making those same claims about revolutionizing teaching with every new technology. They did it with the radio, the TV, they did it with the multimedia CD-ROMs, with the Internet and so on. It never had all that much impact. If you really want to figure out how stuff works, you still need to go to a library and get a book. It's not that new technology couldn't do it better, but simply the result of there not being a viable business model to produce that kind of content on a scale that could impact teaching at large. People protecting their already established business models doesn't help either.
Does a Real-doll replace sex with a real person? (Considering this is Slashdot, perhaps not the best comparison)
(On a non-related subject. Does sex with a real person actually feel like having sex with a real-doll? Asking for a friend.)
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Answer: never completely. Part of the reason people go places isn't just to use their senses to experience the environment, but also to experience tangentially-related things. For example, going to Mount Rushmore is more of a "to say you've done it and cross it off your bucket list" thing; if you saw it in VR, could you really say "I've been there"? You can't bring back souvenirs, and there'll be limits to the area's size and how you can interact with it (scooping up sand, taking a swim, etc.)
Good luck simulating Las Vegas in VR. How're you going to license the wide variety of music/comedy/magic acts? And wouldn't VR magic shows be kinda against the entire point? VR casino gambling will be simulated soon if it isn't already... but that won't give you free drinks or a nice hotel room. I'm waiting for the first drunken VR wedding where one of the avatars is a different sex from their actual one... accidental gay marriage, that'll be a hoot if one party is conservative (or accidental straight, even funnier?).
Many people go on cruises or to certain exotic islands in part for the hookups. That isn't close to being simulated yet... and when it can, some people will skip the 'VR cruise' part and go straight to the 'VR brothel', although I guess that'd raise the question of why those people don't just go to a real brothel in the first place.
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
It's called the "Early 21st Century History" course, so you can see for yourself how our ancestors ruined the planet and started WW3.
Yes.
Would it be any good and offer real education value?
Probably not.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
Could it? Sure. And monkeys might fly out of my butt.
Will it? No, not in your lifetime -- unless you happen to live long enough to witness the birth of the first ASI (Artificial Super Intelligence).
p.s. But don't hold your breath, since we haven't even made it to the first AGI (Artificial General Intelligence).
Nothing to see (alledgedly).
Anyone?!?!
I tend to rant.
Same answer as always to "could?" questions.
How would VR trips be cheaper than a normal field trip, when a single VR headset is 2-3x the price (to a district) of renting a school bus?
-Styopa
it still sucks.
It just seems sleazy considering that there is a political component to it. Like he wants to force kids to share his fears about a possible future.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I'm totally sure we'll keep sending students to places like Antarctica and Mars instead of using VR.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
This brings us one step closer to the world of "Ready Player One". On the plus side, if we end up in that big of an energy crisis, we'll already have this technology available before it gets to the point where no one but the top 1% can afford to travel anywhere. Maybe we could look at figuring out the best way to stack trailers on top of each other next.
Not yet. The VR technology will have to improve significantly before that is sellable.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
It can cause damage to the development of their eyes according to Nintendo.
This is gay as fuck
VR experiences can give you a (lo-fi) experience of places you could never actually go, such as dangerous industrial or natural environments (inside a nuclear power plant or a volcano), or international travel destinations we can't afford to send our millions of inner city students (Paris, Kuala Lumpur). So sure - go crazy with cheap VR and help kids get a larger view of the world. That's fine, and it can also coexist with "real" field trips where you see/hear/smell and there's opportunity to ask questions of a live human being.
That said, I would like to extend my sincere scorn toward the climate change agenda slipped into the OP. No doubt the Manns and Gores of the world would love to propagandize our children with dramatic (and entirely fictional) apocalyptic 3D scenes to whitewash their own consistently poor ability to predict the future.
Sure, now that VR systems are good enough to make you as nauseous as a bumpy yellow school bus, sure, why not let the kids lose their lunches in the comfort of the classroom?
The next advance in the education systemâ(TM)s brainwashing.
You're going to have scans done not because of VR, but for doing the work research entails.e.g. archaeology, etc.
I'm a teacher, first of all I would say field trips are still relatively common. I don't have any numbers, but they happen pretty frequently. They don't happen more, because they're kind of a pain in the ass: the one day off for the Spanish class to go to the local museum means they have to make up work for everything else.
Secondly, I run Google Cardboard field trips for English. For "Farewell to Manzanar," for instance, I had them look around the National Parks where the Japanese were interned and answer some questions on it. It was fun, and I think the students got something out of it, but it's not really a replacement for a real field trip, and I can't see this happening within the next few decades. It's just far more convenient.
Why bother with choppy and mass produced VR when you can go to Rekall and get a memory of your vacation? Cheaper, safer, and better than the real thing!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Yeah sure just keep everyone locked up in some room somewhere all the time. No so-called 'VR' experience is going to ever be as rich as the real thing. If you're going to have a mindset of 'why not have virtual field trips instead of REAL field trips?' then why ever go anywhere for any reason? Why not take your 'vacation' at your desk at work, and pretend to be on a beach in Fiji with a headset on and a glass of warm salt water to stick your hand in? More and more like Wall-E, where people never even get out of their chair their entire lives. No thanks.
It was only a matter of time before this would happen. Computers have damaged school like nothing could ever do. And I'm not talking just about the Internet.
Back in the early 1980s when "personal computers" and "home computers" were still toys (and we wish they had remained that way) there was no room in school for such nonsense. School was not only about learning but about experience, and teaching kids how to actually learn and behave in the world they would inherit. We did our best to instill curiosity about the world, even with the limited means at our disposal. We strove to give them a humanist view of the world. Computers are the antithesis to this approach and fortunately the only computer in school was relegated where it belonged: in the principal's office, churning numbers on Visicalc.
Things however would soon take a turn for the worse.
The endless advertisement hammering by the fledgling home computer industry drove some pupils to have their parents buy them those useless machines. I wish parents could have had the wisdom to see where it would lead, but this was sadly not the case. Kids started talking about those "home computers" not just in their spare time but in class. Soon enough more kids were entranced, hypnotized by the new toys. Some wanted to take their computers in class to demonstrate them.
We refused. There was no reason to demonstrate toys in the classroom and we made this absolutely clear. Unfortunately some vocal parent's group got bamboozled by the "computers are the future" ad campaigns and we had to relent. This only had the effect of entrancing more kids, leading them away from serious learning and into the new toys. There were talks of introducing computer "science" and programming to school.
It was at this point that we really started to worry. We introduced new policies that severely punished discussing matters unrelated to learning during class time, and we subtly started downgrading the pupils that expressed interest in computing. Some of us began tolerating - and with heavy heart encouraging - bullying against those pupils, who were berated for being "computah kids" and "nerds". It sounds terrible, I know, but we were trying to save the school, and our children's future.
It was all to no avail, unfortunately. In the end, the school's administration was pressured to have a "computer club", a "computer room" and, of course, "classes" (how can you teach kids to play with a toy?) which took time away from valuable lessons and depleted our budget. The funds carefully saved to finance a class trip to Europe evaporated overnight into a row of shiny, useless machines. Now, instead of walking the streets of Paris and breathing the cultured air of the place, seeing places and works of art with their eyes, and understanding the world in all its differences, pupils would stare at screens watching low resolution renditions of wondrous locales and landmarks. They thought "Carmen Sandiego" was a valid substitute for real-life travel.
From them on things went downhill. Grades went down fast, and we were pressured to "bump" them up a little because it was just not possible that everybody had become stupid so quickly. We knew better but had to relent. In the end, I did the unthinkable and accepted an offer to teach at a private school. I left public school behind forever with an overbearing sense of sadness and went to teach privileged kids who were at least motivated to get a quality education.
This was a long time ago. Now retired, I sometimes hear the lament of the youngest teachers, who have to endure being challenged every day by upstart kids with their smartphones and wikipedia. I know we were right. Computers destroyed American school.
Yeah, let's separate kids even MORE from the real world. Because they don't get enough screen time as it is...
I guess I thee the biggest future for VR in home entertaining systems. ...
Imagine you have a sports arena projected around you, are via internet connected with your friends or family, who appear inside of your VR simulation and you in theirs.
You could define where you sit in the stadium and have part of the real audience for atmosphere reasons be projected into your simulation, probabaly with changed faces
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
putting your feet into the water and letting the waves lap at them
"Goldfish shoals, nibbling at my toes!
Fun, fun, fun, in the sun, sun, sun..."
Still remember all classes going to the gym to watch the nature films. Not a field trip replacement, but another tool for teachers to use when they don't want to plan an actual lesson, the the kids are tired of listening to the teacher drone on.
These virtual field trips are safer and easier to organize than real outings...
Sure! By all means let's insulate kids even more from the natural world, the realities of travel, the navigation of strange places, the social and psychological challenges of membership in large unruly groups, and the opportunity for casual exercise. Let's extend our micromanagement of their lives even farther, make their learning more targeted, and further decrease their independence and autonomy by ensuring that they acquire only approved knowledge in the approved fashion.
Fuck all that! Let kids get dirty and stressed and stretched in the REAL world so they'll have some confidence and imagination and self-direction in the absence of computers and 'superiors' telling them what to do and how to do it.
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
Yeah, they'll promise amazing, interactive VR, resolution and details and infinite possibilities. When it comes time to actually implement the tech and deliver on the promises, it'll turn out to be 'Murica's speciality; minimum viable product from the lowest bidder. Sorely disappointing.
Debate is a form of harassment. Do not question my truth.
"Ah, yes, Anacweon. I have just come from theah. Most bahbawous planet." ...
... and the analysis afterwards by Salvor Hardin
Hardin continued: "It isn't just you. It's the whole Galaxy. Pirenne heard Lord Dorwin's idea of scientific research. Lord Dorwin thought the way to be a good archaeologist was to read all the books on the subject – written by men who were dead for centuries. He thought that the way to solve archaeological puzzles was to weigh the opposing authorities. And Pirenne listened and made no objections. Don't you see that there's something wrong with that?"
Asimov answered the headline question with "no".