Abstract
THE DEVELOPMENT of immersive learning technologies in the form of virtual reality and advanced computer applications has meant that realistic creations of simulated environments are now possible. Such simulations have been used to great effect in training in the military, air force, and in medical training. But how realistic do problems need to be in education for effective learning to occur? Some authors and researchers argue that problems should be real, or that simulations should have ultrarealistic physical similarity to an actual context. This paper proposes that physical verisimilitude to real situations is of less importance in learning than “cognitive realism,” provided by immersing students in engaging and complex tasks. The paper presents a description of the theory and research that provide the foundations for this approach. Examples of courses employing cognitive, rather than physical, realism are presented together with the views of teachers, authors and instructional designers. Finally, the implications of this approach are discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alessi, S. (1988). Fidelity in the design of instructional simulations.Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 15(2), 40–47.
Barab, S.A., Squire, K.D., & Dueber, W. (2000). A co-evolutionary model for supporting the emergence of authenticity.Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(2), 37–62.
Barrows, H.S., & Tamblyn, R.M. (1980).Problem-based learning: An approach to medical education. New York: Springer.
Bransford, J.D., Vye, N., Kinzer, C., & Risko, V. (1990). Teaching thinking and content knowledge: Toward an integrated approach. In B.F. Jones & L. Idol (Eds.),Dimensions of thinking and cognitive instruction (pp. 381–413). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc..
Brown, J.S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning.Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.
Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1990). Anchored instruction and its relationship to situated cognition.Educational Researcher, 19(6), 2–10.
Dede, C. (2003). Multi-user virtual environments.EDUCAUSE Review, 38(3), 60–61.
Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1990). Anchored instruction and its relationship to situated cognition.Educational Researcher, 19(6), 2–10.
Duchastel, P.C. (1997). A Web-based model for university instruction.Journal of educational technology systems, 25(3), 221–228.
Fosnot, C.T. (Ed.). (2005).Constructivism: Theory, perspectives and practice (2nd ed.). New York: Teacher's College Press.
Gordon, R. (1998). Balancing real-world problems with real-world results.Phi Delta Kappan, 79, 390–393.
Green, M.E., & Sulbaran, T. (2006). Preview of using distributed virtual reality in construction scheduling education. In T.C. Reeves & S.F. Yamashita (Eds.),Proceedings of ELearn Conference 2006 (pp. 51–56). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
Greenhalgh, M. (2002). Learning art history in context: A model of Borobudur and the limits of reality.The Journal of Education, Community and Values: Interface on the Internet, 2(6), 1–14. Online journal: http://www.bcis.pacificu.edu/journal/2002.
Herrington, J., & Herrington, A. (1998). Authentic assessment and multimedia: How university students respond to a model of authentic assessment.Higher Education Research and Development, 17(3), 305–322.
Herrington, J., Reeves, T., Oliver, R., & Woo, Y. (2004). Designing authentic activities in Web-based courses.Journal of Computing and Higher Education, 16(1), 3–29.
Jonassen, D. (1991). Evaluating constructivistic learning.Educational Technology, 31(9), 28–33.
Kay, A. (1991).Computers, networks and education. Retrieved October 19, 2006, from http://www.artmuseum.net/w2vr/archives/Kay/Computers.html.
Lebow, D., & Wager, W.W. (1994). Authentic activity as a model for appropriate learning activity: Implications for emerging instructional technologies.Canadian Journal of Educational Communication, 23(3), 231–144.
Macedonia, M.R., & Rosenbloom, P.S. (2001). Entertainment technology and virtual environments for training and education. In M. Devlin, R. Larson, & J. Meyerson (Eds.),The Internet and the university: 2000 forum (pp. 79–95). Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE.
McLellan, H. (1991). Virtual environments and situated learning.Multimedia Review, 2(3), 30–37.
Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994).Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd. ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Min, R. (2006). Methods of learning in simulation environments. In C. Juwah (Ed.),Interactions in online education: Implications for theory and practice (pp. 117–137). London: Routledge.
Murnane, J. (2000).Simulating reality: mouse-clicks or bottle-tops? Retrieved October 1, 2006, from http://www.ifip.org/con2000/iceut2000/iceut10-06.pdf.
Murray, C., & Cox, C. (1989).Apollo: The race to the moon. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Myers, S. (1993). A trial for Dmitri Karamazov.Educational Leadership, 50(7), 71–72.
Oblinger, D.G. (2004). The next generation of educational engagement.Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 8, 1–18.
Oliver, R., & Omari, A. (1999). Using online technologies to support problem based learning: Learners responses and perceptions.Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 15, 158–179.
Quinn, C. (2005).Engaging learning: Designing e-learning simulation games. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.
Rabkin, M.T. (2002). Patient simulators: Is it real or is it ultrasim?Prospective, 1(3). Retrieved November 2, 2006, from http://www.bidmc.harvard.edu/prospective/vol1/ver3/sims.asp.
Reeves, T.C., & Okey, J.R. (1996). Alternative assessment for constructivist learning environments. In B.G. Wilson (Ed.),Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design (pp. 191–202). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
Rist, R. (1973).The urban school: A factory for failure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Rosenberg, M.J. (2006).Beyond e-learning. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.
Savery, J.R., & Duffy, T.M. (1996). Problem based learning: An instructional model and its constructivist framework. In B.G. Wilson (Ed.),Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design (pp. 135–148). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
Smith, P. (1986).Instructional simulation: Research, theory and a case study [ED 267 793].
Smith, P.E. (1987). Simulating the classroom with media and computers.Simulation and Games, 18(3), 395–413.
Steketee, C. (2002). Students' perceptions of cognitive tools and distributed learning environments. In A. Goody, J. Herrington, & M. Northcote (Eds.),Quality conversations: Research and Development in Higher Education, Vol. 25 (pp. 626–633). Jamison, ACT: HERDSA.
Sternberg, R.J., Wagner, R.K., & Okagaki, L. (1993). Practical intelligence: The nature and role of tacit knowledge in work and at school. In J.M. Puckett & H.W. Reese (Eds.),Mechanisms of everyday cognition (pp. 205–227). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Van Eck, R. (2006). Digital game-based learning. It's not just the digital natives who are restless.EDUCAUSE Review, 41(2), 16–30.
Young, M.F. (1993). Instructional design for situated learning.Educational Technology Research and Development, 41(1), 43–58.
Young, M.F., & McNeese, M. (1993). A situated cognition approach to problem solving with implications for computer-based learning and assessment. In G. Salvendy & M.J. Smith (Eds.),Human-computer interaction: Software and hardware interfaces. New York: Elsevier Science Publishers.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
ABOUT THE AUTHOR Jan Herrington is Associate Professor in IT in Education at the University of Wollongong, Australia. Recent research and development interests have focused on the design of Web-based learning environments for higher education and the use of authentic tasks as a central focus for Web-based courses. Dr. Herrington was awarded the Association of Educational Communications and Technology (AECT)Young Researcher of the Year Award in Houston in 1999 and won a Fulbright Scholarship in 2002 to conduct research at the University of Georgia, USA. The authentic tasks Web page (developed with Tom Reeves and Ron Oliver) can be accessed at: www.authentictasks.uow.edu.au.
Thomas C. Reeves is Professor of Instructional Technology at The University of Georgia. After completing his PhD at Syracuse University in 1979, he spent a year as a Fulbright lecturer in Peru. His research interests include evaluation of instructional technology, socially responsible educational research, mental models and cognitive tools, authentic learning models, and instructional technology in develo** countries. In 2003, he was the first person to receive theAACE Fellowship Award from the Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education. HisInteractive Learning Systems Evaluation book (with John Hedberg) was published in 2003. His URL is: http://it.coe.uga.edu/∼treeves/
Ron Oliver is the Foundation Professor of Interactive Multimedia at Edith Cowan University in Western Australia. He has wide experience in the design, development, implementation, and evaluation of technology-mediated and online learning materials. He uses technology extensively in his own teaching, and his ideas and activities are all typically grounded in practical applications. Dr. Oliver has won a number of awards for his innovative teaching and research, including the inauguralAustralian Award for University Teaching for the use of multimedia in university teaching. His URL is http:// elrond.scam.ecu.edu.au/oliver
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Herrington, J., Reeves, T.C. & Oliver, R. Immersive learning technologies: Realism and online authentic learning. J. Comput. High. Educ. 19, 80–99 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03033421
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03033421