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.
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.
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
then it can replace real field trips. In its current state, it's just a slightly better version of a 3D movie.
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.
Fuck yes. By definition.
Let's see... boring, tedious, about as educational as watching the wall paint dry... if they now somehow first add a bus ride that makes you throw up, they're pretty much already on par with a real field trip.
And that should be easy in VR, most VR games already pull that off without even trying.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
You may not throw up from the bus ride, but the VR experience will get the same output.
If it's for big and well known things, fuck yes indeed .... completely ruining the experience
- most of those museums/sights/... are completely overrun by tourist, tourist shops,
- and even if you get a nice look at it, you can't stand there for a few minutes enjoying it since there are hundreds of people waiting behind you...
- and just the ecological sense of going somewhere for seeing something like that etc...
- and indeed, all the practical shit that comes along with it
give me a decent virtual tour of any big monument/museum/... over going there! i might actually enjoy just being able to look at an important work for more than a few minutes, not be tired of a stupid travel to get there, not be bothered by tons of other people also wanting to see it and having to make photographs with their flash on, etc... etc... etc...
now if it's for a nice relaxing vacation on some remote place just enjoying the fresh air and sitting in a tent, i doubt VR will replace that XD.