December 1995
Volume 1 Number 3

******************************************************
*                                                    *
* _VR in the Schools_ is published quarterly, in     *
* both print and electronic forms, by the Virtual    *
* Reality and Education Laboratory (VREL).  For      *
* Further Information, please contact:               *
*                                                    *
*   Dr. Veronica S. Pantelidis or                    *
*   Dr. Lawrence Auld                                *
*   Co-directors                                     *
*   Virtual Reality and Education Laboratory         *
*   School of Education                              *
*   East Carolina University                         *
*   Greenville, NC 27858-4353 USA                    *
*                                                    *
*   Telephone:  919-328-6621                         *
*   Fax:  919-328-4368                               *
*   Email:  lspantel@ecuvm.cis.ecu.edu               *
*           lsauld@ecuvm.cis.ecu.edu                 *
*                                                    *
******************************************************

If you wish to receive _VR in the Schools_, please send
us the following information, indicating whether you
prefer the ____ print and/or the ____ electronic
version:

Name    ___________________________________________

Address ___________________________________________

        ___________________________________________

City __________________   State ___________________

Zip Code _____________   Country __________________

email _____________________________________________

phone __________________   fax ____________________

*******************************************************
*                                                     *
*  The first issues of _VR in the Schools_ are        *
*  available in print form from VREL and electron-    *
*  ically at:  ftp.hitl.washington.edu/pub/scivw/     *
*  pubs/VR-in-Schools-v1-n1 and -v1-n2                *
*******************************************************

In this issue:

- EDITORS' COLUMN
- USING VIRTUAL ENVIRONMENTS IN SPECIAL EDUCATION
- INCREASING RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT OF VIRTUAL
  REALITY IN EDUCATION AND SPECIAL EDUCATION:  WHAT
  ABOUT MENTAL RETARDATION?
- HISTORIC MURFREESBORO PROJECT
- TEXT-BASED VR:  THOUGHTS AFTER VISITING ALASKA
  (VIRTUALLY)
- IS VR REALLY USEFUL IN THE SCHOOLS ??? OR HOW TO PLUG
  IT IN ???
- VIRTUAL REALITY AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE,
  AUSTRALIA
- VIRTUAL REALITY - ITS COMING CHALLENGE TO EDUCATION
- ADULT STUDENTS' REACTIONS TO LOW-COST VR
- USING VIRTUAL REALITY TO TEACH LOCAL HISTORY
- HAYWOOD COMMUNITY COLLEGE'S VR LAB GROWS
- EXPERIENCING A REAL EXAM IN A VIRTUAL WORLD
- DIFFERENCES BETWEEN 3D COMPUTING AND VIRTUAL REALITY
- HARDWARE MENTIONED IN THIS ISSUE
- SOFTWARE MENTIONED IN THIS ISSUE

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

EDITORS' COLUMN

With this issue of _VR in the Schools_, we are beginning the transition from a newsletter to a journal.  This recognizes both the size and the substantial nature of several of the items appearing in _VR in the Schools_.  The publication is evolving. Drs. Lawrence Auld and Veronica Pantelidis continue to serve as editors, and Dr. Alan Evans, Kent State University, and Mr. Tony Gaddis, Haywood Community College, have agreed to read selected papers and otherwise advise the editors in their work. Subscriptions, both print and electronic, continue to be free.

Thanks to Dr. Diane Kester and her students, the Virtual Reality and Education Laboratory (VREL) now has a home page.  Visit us at http://150.216.8.1/vr/vrel.htm.  Although we are still, as they say, þunder construction,þ we believe you will find a number of interesting items as well as some useful links.  Please advise us of other links that you think we should consider adding.

This issue of _VR in the Schools_ features two major articles, "Using Virtual Environments in Special Education," by John Cromby, Penny Standen, and David Brown, and "Increasing Research and Development of Virtual Reality in Education and Special Education: What About Mental Retardation?" by Melissa Salem Darrow.  Andreas Schaefer and Gonzalo Velez Jahn raise many thought-provoking questions.  If you respond, we can begin a letters to the editor column.

Co-editors
Dr. Lawrence Auld 
email:   lsauld@ecuvm.cis.ecu.edu
 Dr. Veronica S. Pantelidis
email: lspantel@ecuvm.cis.ecu.edu

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

USING VIRTUAL ENVIRONMENTS IN SPECIAL EDUCATION

by John Cromby, Penny Standen, and David Brown
email:  mvzjjc@mvn1.ldisab.nottingham.ac.uk
mvspjs@mvn1.nottingham.ac.uk
epzdjb@epn1.nottingham.ac.uk

For the past three years, researchers at the University of Nottingham in England have been developing and evaluating desktop virtual environments (VE) for students with severe learning disabilities (also known as severe mental retardation or handicap). Psychologists from the Department of Learning Disabilities are working in collaboration with the VIRART virtual reality applications team to produce a range of educational VE designed specifically for students with learning disabilities and to carry out a series of experiments to evaluate their effectiveness.

_Students with severe learning disabilities_ In the United Kingdom about three or four people in every thousand are described as having severe learning disabilities, defined as having an IQ of less than 50. They are an extremely heterogeneous group.  About 80% have some additional physical impairment, in addition to being learning disabled.  Mobility problems, sensory impairments and heart defects are all common.  Some have no speech and must use signing systems to communicate.  About 20% have recognised medical/genetic conditions such as Down Syndrome or Fragile X, and others are know to have been subject to pre- or perinatal injury or abuse, but the majority have no more specific medical diagnosis than "learning disabled."  Students with severe learning disabilities pose many problems for teachers.  A class of such students typically encompasses a much broader spread of ability than a class in a mainstream school.  They will also have a wide range of sensory and physical impairments, which the teacher has to take into consideration.

_The software_
The educational virtual environments (VE) we use were developed using the Superscape package from Dimension International.  They fall into three groups:

- A series of VE to assist in the teaching of Makaton, a sign language used in the UK by people with learning disabilities

- A series of experiential VE (e.g., a house, a city, or a ski slope) intended to make available to students with severe learning disabilities analogues of experiences which they would never have in real life

- VE to teach specific life skills and to facilitate empirical research:  a virtual supermarket, and a virtual model of the school where our research takes place

Our virtual worlds are built by a psychologist working closely with a programmer at all stages of the construction process, so that important decisions about the finished virtual environment are taken jointly. These decisions involve striking an acceptable balance between detail or verisimilitude and speed or smoothness of interaction, and at the same time taking account of educational issues such as:

- the appropriate levels of structure, direction or control to program into the virtual environment in order to ensure that the intended lessons are learned

- the "selective articulation" of real world features in the virtual environment:  which relationships or associations to omit, exaggerate or transform; which qualities of objects to alter, isolate, highlight, or remove

When educational VE are intended for use by students with severe learning disabilities, additional considerations arise because of the specific deficits associated with this condition.  Issues such as redundancy of information, speed of presentation, and the relative dominance of different sensory channels must all be considered.  So, just as decisions involving educational content have programming implications, what may appear to be purely design decisions may also have significant educational effects.  A programmer and a psychologist working together are able to address these issues synergistically and to produce virtual environments tailored closely to the educational needs of their intended users.

_Desktop vs. "total immersion" systems_ All of the virtual worlds we have produced are "desktop" VE, using an ordinary computer for display and a joystick, touch screen, or mouse for movement and input.  There are a number of reasons for this.  First, we consider it unethical at this stage to use head-mounted displays with students with learning disabilities, because there are unresolved health and safety issues associated with such devices.  Second, because the VE are publicly displayed on the computer monitor, they make it easier for tutors and other students to interact with the user whilst learning. Third, desktop systems are well within the budgets of schools and other institutions, while total immersion systems, by contrast, are hugely expensive.  There is little point in producing educational software if no one can afford to buy the computers to run it!  Since we are using a desktop system we have had to investigate the suitability of a range of input devices:  keyboard, mouse, joystick, touch screen, spaceball, spacemouse, and dataglove.  This research is still ongoing, but our experience so far suggests a joystick for movement and a touch screen for interaction is optimal for work with severely learning-disabled students.  This combination provides relatively intuitive input that is largely insulated from the problems that can occur due to the prevalence of hand tremors and motor-skills deficits amongst these students.

_Theoretical background_
From the outset we have attempted to ground our work in theories of cognitive development and education, in order to derive a coherent framework to guide our research.  In this way we have identified a number of reasons why VE may be especially valuable in the education and training of students with severe learning disabilities.

Self-directed activity:  VE encourage self-directed
activity because they give a large amount of control
over what happens to the student.  Self-directed
activity is important in the developmental-
psychological theories of Piaget, Vygotsky, and Bruner.
It has also been shown to play an important part in the
development of perceptual abilities.  Students with
learning disabilities typically have very little
control over the circumstances of their daily lives;
not surprisingly, then, they are often described as
passive and lacking in curiosity and motivation.
Properly used, VE give these students a rare chance to
initiate actions for themselves and to take control
over aspects of their own learning.

Play:  VE make it possible for students with learning
disabilities to learn by making mistakes without
suffering the real consequences of their errors.  For
non-learning disabled children, play fulfils this
function, but a combination of protective parenting,
prejudice, and discrimination, plus the effects of
physical and sensory impairments, means that learning
disabled students' access to play is usually limited.
In VE, by contrast, students with learning disabilities
can have the freedom to take risks, to do something
unusual or new, simply to see what happens, literally
to find out for themselves what lies around the next
corner.

Abstract thinking:  In VE, rules, concepts, and
relationships can be conveyed without the need to use
any abstract symbols.  Objects in VE have what William
Bricken called "natural semantics" -- their qualities
can be discovered by direct interaction and experience,
just like in the real world.  We all struggle to think
in abstract or conceptual terms, but students with
learning disabilities seem to have a particular problem
in this area.  These students are often described as
"concrete thinkers", largely unable to comprehend
abstract ideas or to move beyond the immediate context
of learning.  By making it possible to learn through
practical activity, VE might diminish the need for a
mode of thinking which students with learning
disabilities find especially difficult.

Physical impairments:  Provided they are accessed
through a carefully designed interface and use an
appropriate input device, VE can minimise the effects
of many physical disabilities.  Despite any physical
impairments or mobility problems, students can travel
and navigate at will in a virtual environment, with no
need to use potentially stigmatising mobility aids such
as wheelchairs.  VE might allow physically impaired
people with learning disabilities literally to adopt
new perspectives and new roles:  to see how the world
looks from a standing perspective rather than from a
wheelchair, or to take part in activities or visit
places which in real life are inaccessible to them.

Consistent feedback:  In common with other
computer-based teaching tools VE do not tire of
students attempting the same task over and over again,
nor get impatient because students get engrossed in
particular details.  VE respond to students in
predictable ways and always give consistent feedback.
This is especially important for students with learning
disabilities, who often receive ambiguous or dishonest
feedback from others.

Empowerment:  These features of VE combine to make them
a uniquely empowering educational tool.  This is a
vital point, since there is much evidence that students
and adults with learning disabilities are a uniquely
disadvantaged group whose disempowerment extends to
every area of their lives.  By giving control to the
learner, facilitating playful activity, avoiding
abstract language, negating or minimising the effects
of physical impairments, and ensuring that feedback is
consistent and appropriate, VE can be an empowering
medium for students with learning disabilities,
allowing them to practise and acquire new skills.

The ability of VE to empower students with learning
disabilities is illustrated by an incident which
occurred during our research.  Teachers reported how a
group of students exploring an experiential virtual
environment called "House World" had been unable to
make water flow from the taps in the kitchen.  With no
prompting from staff, the students decided to go back
to a room they had visited earlier which contained a
phone, and call for a plumber.  When they later
returned to the virtual kitchen and found that they
were now able to make the taps work, they decided that
their "phone call" was responsible.  A random
misplacement of the cursor on the screen, which caused
them to fail to work the virtual tap correctly in the
first instance, led to the spontaneous joint
construction and playing out of a narrative in which
these severely learning disabled students assumed the
relatively powerful role of responsible housekeepers,
able to use the telephone to make complex household
arrangements.

Research findings

Generalisation:  For VE to be useful in education and
training, learning obviously has to be generalised to
the real world.  This is a particular problem with
students with learning disabilities, where studies
repeatedly show that skills acquired in training are
generalised imperfectly, if at all, to the real world.
To see if skills acquired in VE can be generalised to
the real world, we constructed a virtual supermarket
and examined whether students with learning
disabilities improved at a real-world shopping task
after using it.  We chose the supermarket because it
has high "ecological validity" (the students could
easily see for themselves the usefulness of learning
how to go shopping), and because it was relatively easy
to measure performance at both the real and the virtual
shopping task.  A group of students with severe
learning disabilities were nominated for the research
by school staff, following these criteria:

- they had sufficient motor skills and visual ability
to be able to use the computer terminal and joystick

- they were able to carry out a real shopping trip with
minimal staff support

- they had used virtual environments on at least three
previous occasions

- their parents or carers gave consent for them to take
part in the research.

On this basis 23 students were included in the study.
They were taken to a real supermarket and asked to
carry out a shopping task which involved selecting four
items from the shelves (matching them against a
"shopping list" which contained pictures of the items)
and taking them to the checkout.  We recorded both the
time it took them to do this and the number of items
they got correct.  For each student, teachers then
completed the "Vineland Adaptive Behaviour Scale", a
measure of ability, and on the basis of these
questionnaires two groups of equal average ability were
formed.

The experimental group then had twice weekly sessions
using the virtual supermarket, whilst the control group
were permitted to use other experiential VE (house,
city, ski slope) but not the supermarket.  Whilst using
the virtual supermarket, the performance of the
experimental group was closely monitored.  As well as
recording the time taken for each successive trial,
their searcher also recorded the amount of time each
student spent not looking at the screen as a
quantitative measure of engagement with the task.

The virtual supermarket consisted of a two-aisle store,
and its shelves were filled with a representative
selection of goods found in the local supermarket.
After an average of six successive trials, the
experimental group ceased to improve their performance
with one layout of goods on the shelves.  At this point
we introduced four more layouts, using the same goods
but in different places.  This was to prevent the
students from simply learning the order of items as
they went around the supermarket, forcing them,
instead, to recognise items by their appearance and
packaging.  In the last two days before the return
visit to the real supermarket, students in the control
group played a game with the shopping lists to ensure
that they were not disadvantaged in familiarity with
the shopping lists when they returned to the real
supermarket for the second real shopping trip.

The second visit to the real supermarket involved
simply repeating the original shopping task.  Before
the results were analysed the performance of individual
students in the experimental group was examined.  Two
students, who had spent large amounts of time not
engaged with the task, had failed to show any
significant performance gain in the virtual
supermarket.  If no learning had taken place, there
would obviously be nothing to  generalise, so these two
students were excluded from the analysis.  The analysis
showed that the students who had used the virtual
supermarket were significantly faster and significantly
more accurate on the return visit to the real
supermarket than the control group.  On average, the
experimental group were five minutes quicker on the
return visit.  They also averaged more items correct
than the control group, a result which cannot be
explained by them simply placing more goods in their
trolleys since they also got significantly closer to
the target value of four items on arrival at the
checkout.

Self-directed activity:  One of the more important
claims made for VE in education is that they promote
self-directed activity by students.  To examine this
question we used videotape to record interactions
between staff and students with severe learning
disabilities whilst using VE.  Eighteen teacher-student
pairs had between 4 and 10 twice-weekly sessions using
a series of VE to assist in the teaching of Makaton
sign language.  The order in which the students
proceeded through the programmes, the number of
sections that they explored, the number of times each
section was explored, and the length of the sessions
were all left entirely to the teacher or student.

Analysis of the videotapes showed significant decreases
in time over repeated sessions for all of the teachers'
activities, with the more didactic categories (such as
instruction and physical guidance) decreasing at a
faster rate than more open-ended assistance, such as
suggestion or pointing.  For the students, a
significant increase in learning speed was found for
each of the categories into which their self-directed
activities were coded.  By the end of the study, the
students also showed a significant increase in the
number of Makaton symbols that they knew.

Research in progress:  We have now developed a bigger
virtual supermarket with more aisles and a much wider
selection of goods, which we are using to investigate
which of the many abilities involved in successful
shopping are most improved by using a virtual
environment.  Using the result of this research, we
hope to further refine and optimise the supermarket
program for educational use by learning- disabled
students.

We are also in the final stages of constructing a
virtual model of the school where our research takes
place.  One purpose of this is to allow mobility-
impaired, learning-disabled students to practice using
an electric wheelchair in the virtual school before
they do so in real life.  Usually, students take about
two weeks to learn to drive their new electric
wheelchairs effectively, and for them this is a
frustrating and disappointing experience, since it
comes just when they expect to become independent.  It
also puts pressure on the school staff, since the
students need continual supervision whilst they are
learning if they are not to get trapped in doorways or
at the ends of corridors.

So that students can practice wheelchair driving, the
virtual school has a viewpoint programmed into it with
the same dimensions and properties as a wheelchair, and
the chair suppliers have provided us with a joystick
controller from one of their chairs which is being
patched into the computer, to mimic better the physical
feedback of a real wheelchair.

This virtual environment will also enable a wide range
of research.  Further studies of generalisation can be
conducted easily, and the use of the virtual school to
assist in the teaching of a variety of specific skills
and competencies can be assessed relatively easily.

Conclusion

Our research so far has shown that desktop VE can be
used successfully to teach important life skills to
students with severe learning disabilities.  Also, we
have demonstrated one of the more important claims made
for VE, that they promote self-directed activity by
students.  In addition, we have begun to develop a firm
theoretical base for our work, enabling us to integrate
both our research methodology and the design of our VE
with concepts and approaches common in special
education and developmental psychology.

----------

Dr. John Cromby is a Research Psychologist in the
Department of Learning Disabilities at the University
of Nottingham.

Dr. Penny Standen is Director of Research and Deputy
Head of the Department of Learning Disabilities at the
University of Nottingham.  Telephone:  0115-970-9247

Dr. David Brown is Director of Educational Applications
and is a member of VIRART (Virtual Reality Applications
and Research Team) in the Department of Occupational
Ergonomics at the University of Nottingham.  Telephone:
0115-951-4040

Drs. Cromby, Standen, and Brown may be addressed in
their respective departments at The University of
Nottingham, Nottingham NG7 2RD, England.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

INCREASING RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT OF VIRTUAL REALITY
IN EDUCATION AND SPECIAL EDUCATION:  WHAT ABOUT MENTAL
RETARDATION?

by Melissa Salem Darrow
email:  eddarrow@eastnet.ecu.educ.edu

ABSTRACT:   Just a few years after the first gathering
of the Virtual Reality (VR) and Disabilities
professional and advocacy communities in 1992, research
and development of virtual reality applications for
persons with disabilities have changed from
speculative, distant possibilities for the future, to
flourishing, concrete actualities.  Yet, even in the
midst of this exciting increase in the number of VR
applications for persons with disabilities, it is
impossible to ignore an obvious dearth of VR research
and development specifically for persons with cognitive
impairments.  This paper provides a brief summary of
virtual reality applications thus far developed for
persons with disabilities, and some discussion of how
positive predictions for VR as an assistive technology
and as a learning tool have held true for those persons
with sensory, physical and even emotional impairments.
Some reasons for the marked lack of research and
development for persons whose impairments are
specifically intellectual are postulated. Finally,
categories of learning needs specific to persons with
cognitive impairments to which VR technology might be
effectively applied are suggested.

I.  Introduction:  Virtual Reality Research and
Application Development Continue to Gain Momentum:
Three years ago,  I sat mesmerized at the first Virtual
Reality and Persons with Disabilities Conference
(1992),  imagining a world where people with mental
retardation and other cognitive impairments could
receive types of training that had never before been
possible.  Among ideas shared at that conference were
ways to provide situational training in safe
environments for community living skills, and games
that would teach social skills - both in ways that have
never been possible in the "real" world.  A year later,
at the First International Virtual Reality and Persons
with Disabilities Conference (1993), I presented a
paper that discussed the great deal of speculation
concerning the feasibility of using virtual reality
applications in educational settings, and especially
with students who were receiving special education
services.  At that time, the military, entertainment,
medical, chemistry, architecture, and interior design
industries had already found applications of this new
technology that enhanced training and production
(Darrow & Powers, 1993). Applications of VR have
continued to find utility in other industries. Higher
education has begun to use VR technology to deliver
various types of curriculum. An "OpenUniversity" system
in Great Britain uses "video tunneling" for interactive
distance education (Burd, 1994; Wilson, 1992; Anderson,
1991). Virtual reality has been used to assist
acrophobes in overcoming fear of heights, to present
legal evidence in support of a lawsuit, and even to
store top secret CIA files (Stephenson v. Honda, 1992;
Waller, 1995; Whole Life Update, 1995).

Exploration of the use of VR technology for persons
with a variety of disabilities has continued, and many
applications have been put into practice. While a great
deal of discussion continues regarding the promising
future of using this technology with persons with
mental retardation and other cognitive impairments
(Vanderheiden & Mendenhall,1993; Middleton, 1992),
research on actual VR applications for this population
has been disappointingly limited.  The following
section summarizes some recent developments in research
on virtual reality, cognitive disabilities and learning
that point to a need for development of new
applications based on developer/educator collaboration
in addressing unique learning characteristics.

II.  Applications of Virtual Reality to Disabilities:
It is almost impossible to keep up with all of the VR
applications being developed for persons with
disabilities.  A search of the currently published
literature resulted in the summary that follows.
Unfortunately, this list can only report on those
applications that have been written up and published.
Others are currently in progress.   For the sake of
organization and easy reference, they have been
organized here by disability category and purpose.

A.  Physical Disabilities
ACCESSIBILITY:  The Movement Analysis System
(Greenleaf, 1992); the Electromyogram for Man-Machine
Interface for musical performance (1993); and the Dart
Target System (Tivona & Young, 1993).

ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL:  The Gesture Control System
(Greenleaf, 1992).

MEDICAL CARE ENHANCEMENT:  BioMuse (Knapp & Lusted,
1992; Knapp, 1993)

B.  Hearing Impairments
IMPROVED COMMUNICATION:  GloveTalker (Greenleaf, 1992);
and the Sign Language Recognition System (SLARTI)
(Vamplew & Adams, 1992).

C.  Vision Impairments
MOBILITY:  Personal Guidance Systems (Loomis, Bolledge,
& Klatzky, 1993).
IMPROVED COMMUNICATION:  The Tactile Braille Keyboard
Cursor-Control Interface (Johnson, 1993).

D.  Dual Sensory-Impairments
COMMUNICATION:  Dexter (Gilden & Smallridge, 1993).

E.  Severe Emotional Disturbance
BEHAVIOR:  Conflict Resolution Games (Oliver & Rothman,
1993).

F.  Cognitive Impairments
CAVE: Automatic Virtual Environment (Browning, 1993);

CRIS-MAN (Cabanyes,1992) (Both are generally suggested
for use with all disability categories, but there has
been no specific research on cognitive impairment
application.)

III.  Virtual Reality and Learning:  Teaching
Approaches Well Suited to Persons with Cognitive
Impairments:
A surprising number of research projects exploring
applications of VR to K-12 education have appeared.
Ingenuity and innovation have all but replaced prior
speculations as to the infeasibility of VR in schools
due to fears, costs, accessibility, and so forth. In a
1992 report to the United States Department of
Education, Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP),
Woodward predicted that VR would find its way into K-12
environments within 5 to 10 years.  Three years later,
his prediction is well on its way to being realized.
In addressing the cost and availability obstacles, a
Virtual Reality Roving Vehicle (VRRV) is already being
used to assess learning in immersive VR environments in
public schools, and to provide experience in such
environments for school children (Rose, 1995). Virtual
reality laboratories are finding support from local
industry, and one training project that uses VR to
learn about safe building design has even begun to take
on commissioned projects (Aldridge, 1995). It is
repeatedly suggested that educators begin to take a
proactive, planning stance in the growth of this
important new technology, rather than the reactive
stance many have taken with other educational
technology developments up until now.  If educators
want VR to meet learning needs, especially of those
students who have unusual learning needs, they must
play an active role in development of applications,
offering to developers their unique understanding of
learning styles and good teaching practices (Powers
&Darrow, 1994).

Some of the most commonly encountered learning needs of
persons with cognitive impairments include: control
over environment; self-pacing; repetition; ability to
see or feel items or processes in concrete terms
(difficulty with abstract concepts); safe training
scenarios for potentially dangerous or humiliating
work, social or daily living tasks; motivation; and
repeated successes. Some selected findings that
particularly address these learning needs are
summarized below.  The list should be perused keeping
in mind that the focus in developing teaching
applications ought to remain not on the technology, but
on the needs of learners.

Motivation:  A number of researchers find that use of
VR in training is extremely motivating to students,
especially when they are involved in shaping the
training, and when they perceive the technology as
"fun" to use (Pantelidis, 1995; Bricken & Byrne, 1993,
Osberg, 1992).

Concrete Training, Repetition, Self-Timing:  Pantelidis
(1995) points out the ability of VR to make the
abstract more concrete by providing close-up or distant
views of processes not available in the real world.
She also points out the flexibility with which VR can
be used in repetition and self-pacing. Middleton (1992)
points out how VR can make abstract items concrete and
visible in a virtual environment in ways never before
possible in training.  For example, Vanderheiden and
Mendenhall (1993) suggest the use of graphics within a
task  to illustrate steps rather than words, as in a
step-by-step virtual cookbook that requires no reading.

Control Over Environment, Success:   Bricken (1993)
points out that the ability of VR to provide perceptual
expansion, creative construction and unique social
interactivity makes it fulfill teaching functions
suggested by theorists as best teaching practices for
over thirty years. Flexibility, ability to support a
feeling of presence, the control the user has over
virtual environments, and the physical feedback a user
can experience are particularly important for persons
with disabilities.  Work, social, and daily living
skills training might be carried out in controlled,
virtual settings, that neither humiliate, nor are
dangerous to the user to practice, as the same training
scenarios might be in real life.  A"scaffolding"
training process has even been suggested so that
persons may experience high levels of success in a safe
environment, and then have assistance with transfer of
the information to more realistic settings (Pantelidis,
1995; Middleton, 1992). Rose's (1995) research also
suggests potential for VR applications for supporting
problem solving techniques such as concept mapping,
various metacognitive strategies, cooperative learning,
interviewing, and reciprocal teaching.   Potential
problems cited for using this technology for training
with this population include difficulty with transfer
and  generalization of knowledge, the possibility of
preference of virtual environments over real ones,
inability to discriminate between real and unreal rules
or terms, and potential fostering and teaching of
negative values (Osberg, 1992).  Research is currently
underway to assess the strengths and weaknesses of VR
as a teaching tool, as it relates to what has been
learned in the past about learning and cognition (Rose,
1995).

IV.  Cognitive Impairments: The Step Child of the
Disability Community?
Given the preceding discussions of characteristics of
VR and learning needs of persons with cognitive
impairments, it is natural to assume that this
technology and population are ideally suited to one
another.  Nevertheless, although much attention has
been placed on the use of VR for other types of
disabilities, development for this population is
somewhere between scarce and nonexistent.

Some of the history of the disability rights movements
might help to explain this trend.   There have been a
number of movements within the disability community in
which persons with cognitive impairments have come last
in receiving attention.  For example, although Section
504 of the Vocational Rehabilitation Act Amendments of
1973 allowed Vocational Rehabilitation efforts to
assist persons with disabilities who were non-veterans
in obtaining employment, until just a few years ago,
persons with mental retardation did not receive
services from Vocational Rehabilitation unless they
could first prove their employability.  More recent
Amendments call for assisting persons with the most
severe disabilities, whatever supports that may entail
(Vocational Rehabilitation Amendments of 1986; 1992).
Even the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 calls
for concrete ways to create access for other areas of
disability, while little concern is given to access for
persons with cognitive impairments.  Even the assistive
technology movement of the last 20 years has been slow
to develop both hardware and software that specifically
addresses the needs of persons with cognitive
disabilities (Church & Glennen, 1992).

This slowness to include persons with cognitive
impairments has also been seen in the Independent Living
movement.  Since the 1960's the Independent Living
movement has continued to facilitate movement of most
people with physical or sensory disabling conditions into
normal housing situations within communities that are
either independent, or interdependent.  Unfortunately, a
majority of the population with mental retardation is
still living in mostly dependent environments.  These
tend to be segregated (from nondisabled persons), and
highly regulated settings (as with group homes) or
hospital type environments (like institutions or
intermediate care facilities). Waiting lists continue to
grow for placements in these "home-like" environments,
and ironically, most people, were they given a choice,
would prefer to live in a real home.

Finally, in the category of recreation and leisure,
communities have made great strides in assisting persons
with most types of disabling conditions in participating
in normal community events.  Unfortunately, most persons
with mental retardation are relegated primarily to
participation in "special" leisure and recreation
programs and activities, "safely" segregated from the
rest of the community.

It can be speculated that some of this lack of attention
is due to discrimination based upon stereotypical ideas
concerning persons with mental retardation or brain
injury, dating back to the Eugenics movement of the early
20th century or to medieval myths and early superstitions
from long before. Ideas of separating the "bad stock",
and protecting families from evil spirits seem to die
hard.  A number of the beliefs about persons with
cognitive impairments that keep them from being served
appear to be due to ignorance of the needs of this
population. The core of this problem probably stems from
the lack of self advocacy that comes from this very
vulnerable population.  Historically, this population has
had great difficulty making its needs and rights known in
a powerful and visible way.  School and adult placement
practices continue to fuel negative stereotypes, which
also affect funding patterns and practices.  Attitudes of
even caregivers and parents may become beaten down after
years of abuses from schools and other service agencies
that appear to be acceptable to the rest of the
community.

The cognitively impaired population is only recently
beginning to make gains in the area of public attitude.
The community concerned with virtual reality and persons
who have disabilities have an opportunity to break this
chain of stereotypes and resulting discrimination. To do
so, developers of applications and service providers for
this population must educate each other, and then take
the initiative to work together to develop and test
appropriate applications of this exciting technology.

REFERENCES

Aldridge, S. (1995, January).  Reading, writing and
virtual reality.  _Omni_, p. 32.

Anderson, A. (1991).  Video-tunneling to school.
_Science_, v. 263, p. 1090.

Bricken, M., & Byrne, C. (1993).  Students in virtual
reality:  A pilot study. In Alen Wexelblat (Ed.),
_Virtual Reality:  Applications and Explorations_
(pp.199-217). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Browning, D., Cruz-Neira, Sandin, D., & DeFanti, T.
(1993).  CAVE Automatic Virtual Environment:  Projection-
based virtual environments and disability.  In H. J.
Murphy (Ed.), _Proceedings of the First Annual
International Conference "Virtual Reality and
Disabilities"_ (pp. 17-22). Northridge, CA:  California
State Center on Disabilities.

Burd, S.(1994, September 14).  Into a computer landscape:
Carnegie Mellon researcher invites you on a trip to
"virtual reality".  _The Chronicle of Higher Education_,
p. A48.

Cabanyes, C. (1993). CRIS-man:  An intuitive, ergonomical
and natural virtual reality interface.  In H. J. Murphy
(Ed.), _Proceedings of the First Annual International
Conference "Virtual Reality and Disabilities"_ (pp.27-
41).  Northridge, CA:  California State Center on
Disabilities.

Church, G., & Glennen, S. (1992).  _The Handbook of
Assistive Technology_. San Diego, CA: Singular
Publishing.
Darrow, M. & Powers, D. (1993).  A promising future for
applications of virtual reality to special education best
practices.  In H. J. Murphy (Ed.), _Proceedings of the
First Annual International Conference "Virtual Reality
and Disabilities"_  (pp. 42-46).  Northridge, CA:
California State Center on Disabilities.

Gilden, D. & Smallridge, B. (1993).  Touching reality:
A robotic fingerspelling hand for deaf-blind persons.  In
H. J. Murphy (Ed.), _Proceedings of the First Annual
International Conference "Virtual Reality and
Disabilities"_ (pp. 50-54).  Northridge, CA:  California
State Center on Disabilities.

Greenleaf, W. (1992).  DataGlove, DataSuit and virtual
reality:  Advanced technology for people with
disabilities.  In H. J. Murphy (Ed.), _Proceedings of
Virtual Reality and Disabilities_ (pp. 21-24).
Northridge, CA:  California State Center on Disabilities.

Knapp, R. (1993).  Biosignal processing in virtual
reality applications.  In H. J. Murphy (Ed.),
_Proceedings of the First Annual International Conference
"Virtual Reality and Disabilities"_ (p. 58).  Northridge,
CA:  California State Center on Disabilities.

Knapp, R. & Lusted, H. (1992).  Biocontrollers for the
physically disabled:  A direct link from nervous system
to computer.  In H. J. Murphy (Ed.), _Proceedings of
Virtual Reality and Disabilities_ (pp. 25-30).
Northridge, CA:  California State Center on Disabilities.

Loomis, J., Golledge, R., & Klatzky, R. (1993).  Personal
guidance system for the visually impaired using GPS, GIS,
and VR technologies.  In H. J.Murphy (Ed.), _Proceedings
of the First Annual International Conference "Virtual
Reality and Disabilities"_ (pp. 71-74).  Northridge, CA:
California State Center on Disabilities.

Middleton, T. (1992).  Applications of virtual reality to
learning. _Interactive Learning International_, v. 8, pp.
253-257.

Oliver, D. & Rothman, P. (1993).  Virtual reality games
for teaching conflict management with seriously
emotionally disturbed and learning disabled children.  In
H. J. Murphy (Ed.), _Proceedings of the First Annual
International Conference "Virtual Reality and
Disabilities"_ (pp. 99-102).  Northridge, CA:  California
State Center on Disabilities.

Osberg, K. (1992).  Virtual reality and education:  A
look at both sides of the sword. _Human Interface
Technology Laboratory, University of Washington_, Dec.
14, 1992, TR-Osberg-R937.

Pantelidis, V. (1995, June).  Reasons to use virtual
reality in education.  _VR in the Schools_, v. 1, p. 9.

Powers, D. & Darrow, M. (1994).  Special education and
virtual reality:  Challenges and possibilities.  _Journal
of Research on Computing in Education_, v. 27, pp. 111-
121.

Rose, A. (1992).  Access for persons with disabilities
through hypermedia and virtual reality. In H. J. Murphy
(Ed.), _Proceedings of Virtual Reality and Disabilities_
(pp. 47-54).  Northridge, CA:  California State Center on
Disabilities.

Rose, H. (1995).  Assessing Learning in VR:  Towards
developing a paradigm Virtual Reality Roving Vehicles
(VRRV) Project.  _Human Interface Technology Laboratory_,
University of Washington, Feb. 16, TR-95-1.

Carolyn Stephenson v. Honda Motors Ltd. of America, No.
81067 (Cal. Sup. Ct. Placer County, June 25, 1992).
Honda offered the video into evidence, represented by
McKenroth, Seley & Ryan of Sacramento, Ca.

Tivona, E. & Young, D. (1993).  The Dart Target System,
virtual reality for the physically challenged.  In H. J.
Murphy (Ed.), _Proceedings of the First Annual
International Conference "Virtual Reality and
Disabilities"_ (pp. 118-119).  Northridge, CA:
California State Center on Disabilities.

Vamplew, P. & Adams, A. (1992).  The SLARTI system:
Applying artificial neural networks to sign language
recognition.  In H. J. Murphy (Ed.), _Proceedings of
Virtual Reality and Disabilities_ (pp. 71-80).
Northridge,CA:  California State Center on Disabilities.

Vanderheiden, G. & Mendenhall, J. (1993).  Analyzing
virtual reality applications as they relate to disability
access. In H. J. Murphy (Ed.), _Proceedings of the First
Annual International Conference "Virtual Reality and
Disabilities"_ (pp. 126-131).  Northridge, CA:
California State Center on Disabilities.

Waller, D. (1995, March 20).  Spies in cyberspace.
_Time_, pp. 63-64.

Whole Life Update (1995). Phobias: Virtual Therapy,
_Psychology Today_, v. 28, p.8.

Wilson, D. (1992, April 22).  Researchers hope to lead
students into "virtual reality".  _The Chronicle of
Higher Education_, pp. A23-A25.

Winn, W. (1993).  A discussion of the Human Interface
Technology Laboratory (HIT) and its educational projects.
Paper presented at the Virtual Reality Expo, '93: New
York.

-----------

Dr. Melissa Salem Darrow is in the Department of Special
Education, School of Education, East Carolina University,
Greenville, North Carolina 27858-4353, USA

Telephone:  (919) 328-6400; (919) 758-6499
Fax:  (919) 328-4219

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

HISTORIC MURFREESBORO PROJECT

by Lynn Norris
email:  l_norris@ncsu.edu

Every other Saturday, eight eighth-graders and one
seventh grader from the Hertford County Middle School,
representing six Hertford County communities, meet to
help formulate the goals and designs for the Jefcoat
Museum in Murfreesboro, North Carolina.  The goals of the
project are to help youth develop a knowledge and
appreciation of their community, and, through learning
the variety of skills of the museum builder, practice
critical thinking and visual learning skills as they
provide a service to their community.

Over the past four months, students have conducted and
compiled audience research and worked alongside
architects, exhibit designers, and graphic artists to
develop exhibit and architectural plans.  They have
conducted research in university libraries and helped
prototype future exhibits for Exploris: The Children's
Museum About the World.  In the coming months they will
begin to explore electronic tools such as virtual reality
to help turn their exhibit and architectural ideas into
concrete exhibit and architectural plans.  This project
was begun by Lynn Norris, a graduate student at North
Carolina State University in Library Studies under the
direction of Dr. James Clark of the Humanities Extension
Service and receives support and funding from the
Hertford County Cooperative Extension Service in
cooperation with the Murfreesboro Historical Association.

-----------

Lynn Norris may be reached at Exploris, Children's Museum
About the World, 615 Willard Street, Raleigh, North
Carolina 27603 USA.
Telephone:  919-834-4040               Fax:  919-834-3516

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

TEXT-BASED VR:  THOUGHTS AFTER VISITING ALASKA
(VIRTUALLY)

by John Leone
email:  johnl@inch.com
        Jleone@rdz.stjohns.edu

Hi Everyone, I just came back from a wonderful virtual
visit to Alaska.  Check out Ryan Miller's school
district's home page:  http://www.nsbsd.k12.ak.us/.
It's really wonderful!  Or, visit Finland at Kaisa's
school home page:  http://www.ttl.fi/pmk.  Thus far,
I've been to visit Finland and Alaska.  They were
virtual visits, but they felt like the real thing.
Great trips!

I was really surprised by seeing the different places
and watching the strides they've made in distance
education.  I sit in my apartment, connected to the
system, giving tutorials and lessons to teachers from
all over the globe.  Remarkable!  It makes the hours
spent on improving the system worthwhile.  This is a
viable educational medium, and it can help a wide
variety of students.

The nature of the computer is that you can learn at
your own pace.  If students can master logging in,
working the help system, and understanding the basics
of communication, then they can develop at their own
pace.  I think the trick is teaching them how to find
the information, which, of course, has to be available.
I find the first major hurdle with this system is the
editor, while the second is understanding objects and
that they can be manipulated and examined.  Then
there's "heritage," how one object has parents, and
that it is made up of the traits of those parents.  If
we can get that far in tutorials, and then that gets
passed along, we will accomplish a lot.  Some will go
on to program their own objects, but that may be just
for those that have the calling.  With these basic
skills, simulations can be formed.  Honing the quality
of the simulations will lead to advancements in writing
as well as in science, mathematics, history, languages,
and art.  Maybe not physical education, but there could
be rooms devoted to sports statistics and such.  I
think the trick to making this MOO* succeed will be to
pool our resources.

I'm the computer expert.  I can't tell you how to plan
a science exhibit, but if you come to me with one, I
can tell you what tools we have to help you make it
come to life.  The basic tool we have that has been
used successfully in simulations like Five Forks, is
the robot.  Learn how to use a robot, and you will have
interaction.

Enough about my thoughts on distance ed.  I just wanted
to tell everyone that I enjoyed visiting the web pages
and would like to know of others.  I know our MOO page
has a ton of schools, but it means something more to me
to know I work with the people involved with a
particular page.  Hope all is well with everyone.

* MOO (MUD Object Oriented) is a virtual environment
created with text rather than with graphics.  MOO is
derived from MUD (Multi-User Dungeon).  Both MOOs and
MUDS support almost real-time interactive use among
multiple users.

----------

John Leone is Gardener (i.e., System Administrator) of
GrassRoots MOO, in which he assumes the character role
of John.

MOO address:  GRASSROOTS@SJUVM.STJOHNS.EDU

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

IS VR REALLY USEFUL IN THE SCHOOLS ??? OR
HOW TO PLUG IT IN ???

by Andreas Schaefer
email:  A.Schaefer@intervr.ruhr.de

I would like to invite you to a world-wide discussion
about the use of VR in the schools, especially
kindergarten through twelfth grade.

Do you believe that there is a need to put little
children into a virtual world?  How about the status of
VR?  Should it be a class on its own, or should it be
implemented into mathematics, physics, and so on in
order to visualize things better?  To my mind, I see
the danger of reducing the abilities and capabilities
of VR to the level of just a better visualization
technique.  Right now (in Europe) pedagogics has a fair
chance to create a new class: the VR-class.  This can
only be realized if the educators do not point with the
lifted forefinger and talk about the dangers all the
time as they did for such a long time about new media
and computers in general.  For sure, there are dangers,
but these evil things do NOT lie in the use of VR in
the schools; rather, they lie in the home-entertainment
market and cafes, where the people are not under
control and the applications are just for
entertainment.  But I see another problem (here in
Germany).  VR is a new term and most work with VR is
being done in research institutes and universities.

Educators as teachers are not well-trained concerning
VR in general nor its use, particularly low-cost-VR in
the classroom.  The general German character of being
sceptical of anything new is another brake in
developing things to be learned in the schools.  I
believe that there is a need here to create a new
consciousness in the teachers' minds if we to make them
really interested in what's going on.  Teachers must
have a chance to update and renew their teaching
skills, schools must have a chance to integrate new
(and important) themes into instruction, and students
must have a chance to be informed about new and actual
themes such as VR, because they are growing up,
surrounded by new media and technologies.

With VR, there is fine opportunity to create
cooperative ventures between schools and universities.
I see a big advantage in this cooperation idea, because
theory and practice could be combined so that all
involved could learn from each other.  University
faculty and students will not lose the practical side
of teaching, will see the actual discussions about
schools from another point of view, and will have a
closer relationship to the pupils.  School teachers
using virtual reality will get more insight into lesson
topics, they will be better able to stay in touch with
evolving technologies, and they will have a closer
connection to new educational and pedagogical ideas,
interests, and theories.  Finally, the school children
will be better informed and are more able to be
critical consumers, because factual information about
new media technologies will be learned in the
classroom, not just from advertisements from industry.
And, maybe, students can see job possibilities while
finding themselves with their individual interests in
the wide-field of VR.

This might be my goal, to help develop a theory of
Educational Virtual Reality.  I'm not on my own in this
endeavor.  I have a close relationship to the
University of Dortmund, and I have done research in
virtual reality the last three years with a close
friend, Mr. Karsten Wassermann, who is as enthusiastic
as I am.  I think that we just need time to build up a
good team.

If this endeavor is to succeed, we need access to
information, e.g., papers, films, and other things, on
current projects.  All of those people who want to
participate in developing such a concept are welcome.
(VREL at East Carolina University is already a primary
participant.)  Beside the fundamental exchange of
knowledge, we can give you materials about tests of
low-cost-VR we did and a course syllabus of the
VR-course we taught at an adult education evening
college.  The latter provides (in German) a detailed
survey of VR and low-cost VR equipment and software in
clear and easy language.

If you are interested in participating, providing
support, or exchanging knowledge, send fax, E-Mail, or
papers to the address below.

----------

Andreas Schaefer is a graduate student at the
University of Dortmund.  He says, "In the part of
Germany where I live, where I grew up, where I went to
school, where I do my studies (the so-called
"Ruhrgebiet") live about 17 million people, although
the area is not large.  Lots of the Germans call this
area the largest city of our country because there are
no frontiers.  When I drive to the University of
Dortmund, I pass two other universities (Essen and
Bochum) although I travel only about 30 kilometers.
Some of the cities of the Ruhrgebiet are Duesseldorf,
Duisburg, Essen, Bochum, and Dortmund."  He may be
reached at Max-Reger Strasse 9, 45128 Essen, Germany.

Telephone: 49-201-200264    Fax: 49-201-468041 or
606038

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

VIRTUAL REALITY AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE,
AUSTRALIA

by John P. Costella
email:  jpc@physics.unimelb.edu.au

The University of Melbourne is currently considering
the establishment of a Virtual Reality Centre, which
would both provide centralised facilities for virtual
worlds technology for the various research and teaching
departments throughout the University, as well as
coordinating the evaluation and purchasing of dedicated
technology that may be required by individual
departments and research groups.

To assist in the planning of the Centre, we are seeking
input and information both from commerical virtual
worlds hardware and software suppliers, as well as from
other institutions throughout the world currently
implementing virtual reality in fields of research and
teaching common to those at the University of
Melbourne.

The University of Melbourne is a large institution by
Australian standards; of moderate size by international
standards (30,700 students, 1,900 academic and 2,200
non-academic staff; 91 academic departments).

1. Commerical virtual worlds technology suppliers:
We are using the many sources of information about
virtual worlds software and hardware products already
available on-line and in print, but would welcome
further input from suppliers or distributors. We aim to
start the centre with a small number of low-end, PC-
based products, with a view to ramping up to higher-
performance and higher-volume installations as the
various departments assess their needs. Of particular
importance are answers to the following questions:

   * Who is your Australian distributor, or who do we
     contact?
   * What are your products and current prices? (US$ or
     A$)
   * Do you have other customers in Melbourne or
     Australia?
   * How much will it cost to ship to Melbourne?
   * Is product support feasible from this distance?

Contact information is listed at the end of this
posting.

2. Existing Virtual Reality applications in research:
We are aware of the large number of high-quality
installations of virtual worlds technology in diverse
fields of research, and are keen to prevent individual
departments or research groups from unnecessarily
"reinventing the wheel". Again, we are making use of
the numerous excellent lists of information about these
projects, but we would also welcome direct contact from
groups with current VR research applications who may be
open to proposals for collaboration, or the sharing,
licensing or selling of developed applications to the
University of Melbourne. The key questions are:
   * What projects have you developed / are developing?
   * Would you be interested in collaborative projects?
   * Are you permitted to share your experiences with
     us?
   * Would we need to license/buy products from you?
     How much?

As a guide to the research and teaching interests of
the University, I include here an abbreviated list of
the academic departments and research centres in the
University that may be interested in virtual worlds
technology:

    Accounting & Finance     Forestry
    Adv. Minerals Products   Genetics
    Agriculture              Geographic Info. Systems
    Anatomy                  Geography
    Anthropology             Geology
    Archaeology              Glaciology
    Architecture             Health Sciences
    Behavioural Science      History
    Biochemistry             Horticulture
    Biology                  Industrial Plant Polymers
    Botany                   Information Technology
    Building & Planning      Interactive Multimedia
    Catchment Hydrology      Library Services
    Cell Biology             Manufacturing Engineering
    Chemical Engineering     Mathematics
    Chemistry                Mathematics Education
    Civil Engineering        Mechanical Engineering
    Clinical Sciences        Medicine
    Computer Engineering     Metallurgy
    Computer Science         Meteorology
    Conservatorium of Music  Microbiology
    Creative Arts            Molecular Biology
    Criminology              Music
    Dental Science           Optometry
    Earth Sciences           Pathology
    Economics & Commerce     Pharmacology
    Education Faculty        Photonics
    Electrical Engineering   Physics
    Electronic Engineering   Physiology
    Epidemiology             Physiotherapy
    Environmental Hydrology  Signal Processing
    Extractive Metallurgy    Statistics
    Farm Planning            Transport Research
    Fine Arts                Veterinary Science
    Food Science & Engr.     Zoology

Please send information to jpc@physics.unimelb.edu.au,
preferably in the form of WWW URL's to information
pages on your products / projects, or else in plain
text.  Printed material should be sent by airmail to
the author at School of Physics, The University of
Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria 3052, AUSTRALIA.  Visit
his home page at http://www.ph. unimelb.edu.au/~jpc
Telephone: +61 3 9344-5435
AH: +61 3 9768-9268             Fax: +61 3 9347-4783

----------

Dr. John P. Costella is a physicist at the University of
Melbourne.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

VIRTUAL REALITY - ITS COMING CHALLENGE TO EDUCATION

by Gonzalo Velez Jahn
email:  gvelez@dino.conicit.ve

Editors' note:  Professor Velez Jahn is trained as an
architect, and he also does consulting on computer
applications in health, housing, and public building.
The questions he raises here are presented as a stimulus
to discussion.

Introduction:  Gradually, Virtual Reality is evolving,
conceptually, technologically, and commercially.  Like
the great sequoias of the Californian forests, the
process of growing up, of maturing, in such a long-
living, far-reaching technology will take time.  But the
results, even at this early stage, have already begun to
show.  There is a popular appeal (and sometimes a love-
hate relationship) in its very name that transcends
traditional, technological barriers and generates in the
common citizen an emotional reaction out of a mixture of
curiosity and empathy, unheard of in other parallel
computer technologies.  As the popularity of VR
increases, competition will lower acquisition costs, and
nascent concepts will turn into blossoming applications.

And, in due time, education, of all society's driving
forces, will be facing the most important technological
challenge it has ever met:  the proper use of VR, an all-
powerful but ambiguous instrument, the likes of which
have no historical precedent.

For what is really the essence of Virtual Reality?  What
is its subtler meaning?  What will come out of the
imminent marriage of the Internet and VR as they travel
over the Information Superhighway?  As VR evolves from a
private experience to a collective, shared one, how  will
values, ethics, and communication patterns be affected?

Let us take a closer look, through a number of questions
(by no means complete), at what the impact of VR on
education may be:

Scope:  The door to fantasy and imagination is truly
swinging wide open on magic hinges!:  to visit foreign
lands and to observe their habits and cultures; to travel
into past and future sceneries, to witness brilliant (or
horrid) pages of history; to conduct teamwork thousands
of miles apart, building models, carrying on experiments,
competing in sports or indulging in creative discussions;
or to avidly watch the world's greatest performers inside
a virtual auditorium; or to descend into fathomless
maelstroms to rescue forlorn damsels in distress.  To
walk through fire walls or to lift mountains or to re-
create life conditions in dead planets.  To become ghosts
or beasts or misty shores in nonexistent lands.  To be
part of an atom or to encompass the universe...  The list
grows and grows to truly staggering proportions.

But, on the other side: are we doing enough to
recondition the sluggish gears of educational mechanisms
to cope with the incoming challenge?  Have we THOUGHT
enough about it?  Meditation should prevail before
action, or at least keep abreast with it.

Environment:  How will the learning environment be
transformed?  Will VR simulations provide smooth meadows
and gentle brooks and great oaks underneath which class
activities will take place?  Or will bucolic settings be
superseded by a hyperactive time-traveler's observation
command module or by the grandeur of soft-treading
galleries at great museums?  Or, instead, will extreme
conditions prevail while young explorers find their way
in arctic regions and steamy jungles or dry-bone deserts?
Or will underwater exploration vehicles cruise the
innards of wayward planets?  And how shall we interlace
different settings and experiences in order to attain the
best results from a learning point of view?  And should
these future environments be produced ready-to-order, or
should they be the result of personal, interactive,
customizing processes?

Process:  Being what it is, Virtual Reality holds the
promise of incorporating itself gradually into the
overall educational pattern as a powerful tool that may
deeply alter our current perception and practice of the
learning process.

--Approaches:  What general orientation should be given
to VR applications in education?  To what extent should
educators rely on an intuitive progress on the part of
students?  When will be the proper time for wise and
massive acquisitions in the area ?

What new methods and instruments shall we use in order to
make the most out of this new technology?  What type of
abilities and attitudes should be honed keenly in the
younger groups?  How shall the new resources be used in
order to guarantee continuity and order within diversity
in experiencing and learning?  When will it be
appropriate to invest heavily on VR infrastructure.

--Communication:  And how about the language, gestural or
spoken, that seems to be the domineering factor in this
coming age of VR?  How will it alter the communication
patterns we have been using to interact with computers?
Already, it seems that, at this primitive initial stage
of telecommunications in the classroom, spelling and
writing and the learning of foreign languages are
benefitting greatly from the new ways of collective
participation.  But what will happen when the tsunami of
the full potentialities of network VR falls upon us?

When free-wheeling 3-D animated graphics take command,
will the rekindled interest in reading and writing recede
into oblivion?  Should we allow that to happen?  Will VR
turn into a blessing or just a crutch for illiterate
participants?

Above all, who will be doing the teaching chores?  What
should be their projected profile?  How much time and
effort will be delegated to activities at home which are
oriented toward completing the initial induction and
training that is to be given at school?  Can school
training successfully compete and keep abreast of the
growing trend of do-it-yourself education that is
beginning to blossom via emerging technologies and the
Internet.  What will be the strategy to counteract these
trends, and is it desirable to proceed thus?  What types
of exercises should be fostered in order to obtain
maximum benefits of the new VR tools?  Who will massively
re-train the educators, and how?

--Human factor:  What provisions should be made to cope
with the early symptoms of discomfort and so-called
cybersickness in young trainees (and trainers!)?  How
should proper feedback be established with health
agencies and institutions?  How should exceptional
behaviors be dealt with?

Product:  What sort of new citizens could begin to take
shape out of all that potential volley of experiences?
How could their values and ethics be affected
individually and collectively?  Could their new awareness
of reality establish permanent changes in their behavior?

Could extreme escapism be one of the outcomes?  How early
should children be introduced to Virtual Reality and its
effects?

Final Reflections:  Were it not for the fact of the
enormous and unique future importance of Virtual
Reality on human society, many of the above questions
could be left unanswered.  But we are heading toward
new and hitherto unpredictable transformations, and the
sooner we can rely on proper beacons to light the way
ahead, the better for all.  And Virtual Reality is one
of these paramount beacons, perhaps the greatest.

----------

Professor Gonzalo Velez Jahn is a member of the faculty
at the Universidad Central de Venezuela, Caracas.  He
may be reached at Laboratorio de Technicas Avanzadas,
Facultad de Arquitectura y Urbanism, Universidad
Central de Venezuela, Apartado Postal 47170, Los
Chaguaramos, Caracas, 1041-A, Venezuela.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

ADULT STUDENTS' REACTIONS TO LOW-COST VR

by Andreas Schaefer and Karsten Wassermann
email:  A.Schaefer@intervr.ruhr.de
        K.Wassermann@viremax.ruhr.de

To obtain data in our research on the use of low-cost
VR systems in the schools, we decided to do a
presentation to an adult-education night class.  But
that was not our only purpose, because we are the first
teachers to work with VR at an adult college in
Germany.  We also wanted to bring the idea of VR, with
its pros and cons, to a broad public group, and we
wanted to check out the general interests of the public
concerning low-cost-VR and to test some systems loaned
to us by Pearl Agency.

With our studies at the University of Dortmund, our
interests are of a scientific nature.  The students
recognized the global structure and problems of virtual
reality very quickly, so we were able to obtain good
empirical data.  Never-the-less, there were many things
we had to give to our audience before we could start
with the practical exhibition, because we found by
testing that there was no knowledge about VR in
general.  For example, only 20 percent knew what VR is,
and only 10 percent knew about a HMD (head-mounted
display).

The following steps had to be done beforehand:

- 1. showing the different attitudes toward and
definitions of VR (system- and hardware-oriented, or
more global and philosophical),

- 2. explaining the different kind of systems
(desktop-VR, fully-immersive systems, fish-tank VR,
augmented reality, mixed reality, and so on),

- 3. viewing the history of VR to show that its
development is a blending of several research areas and
not an absolutely new idea,

- 4. explaining important elements such as
illustration, intention, immersion, and intuition,

- 5. showing applications of VR in medicine,
architecture, art, entertainment, psychology, and the
like,

- 6. viewing the different uses of VR in Europe and
America.

These steps, which provided basic knowledge, were
illustrated with films, photographs, prints, and
computer graphics.  Now the students, who had no
previous experience with VR, were well prepared.  The
next step was to explain what cheap-VR is, what its
pros and cons are, and how it operates.  We took some
devices into the classroom and explained their
functions without a computer-generated world.  They had
some days off to think about cheap-VR in the whole VR
context and to prepare themselves for their first
experiences in a virtual world.  We prepared five
different systems to show them:

- 1. three anaglyphic systems (Software: VWorld 1.8 3D;
VR-device: red-blue-glasses; Hardware: 386DX40 PC),

- 2. a full-immersive system (Software: Heretic, Darker
and other; VR-device: Forte VFX-1 headset with
Cyberpuck; Hardware: 486DX4/100 PC),

- 3. three desktop-VR-systems (Software: Worldbuilder,
REND386; VR-device: PowerGlove; Hardware: 386DX40 PC).

- 4. one desktop-VR-system (Software: Rings; VR-
device: RingMouse; Hardware:  486DX2/50 PC)

- 5. one fish-tank-VR-system (Software: Criterion
Demonstration Set; VR-devices: 3D-Max ShutterGlasses
and RingMouse; Hardware: 486DX4/100 PC).

First of all, we introduced these systems to the group
and explained the differences they could expect in
experiencing them.  The first two systems would show
two different solutions in the output of a virtual
environment, whereas the systems 3 and 4 would give an
insight into different low-cost-input devices.  The
fifth system was installed to show a combination of in-
and output, because the user should not only look at a
three-dimensional computer generated world but should
operate inside this world, using its three-
dimensionality (i.e., hand-to-eye coordination
training).  In the process, we unintentionally
demonstrated some practical problems:  the monitors
were incompatible with the ShutterGlasses, and the
ultrasonic field produced by the PowerGlove was so
strong that a RingMouse wouldn't work at the same time.
Even so, the students felt that they had a positive
experience even though we spoke critically of the
systems.

Positive Observations:

- The RingMouse seems to be an intuitive input device
using the X- ,Y-, and Z-pitches, available in no other
commercial input device.  There's no disturbing cable
attached to it, and it can be used while writing and
doing other things at the computer.

- The VFX-1 headset was considered adequate for one to
be fully immersed in a virtual world, although the user
does need some time to feel immersion.  (In other
words, the  user has to believe that it works.)

- The principle of using the human hand as an
input-device was supported.

- All the demonstrated virtual environments were
understood at an intuitive level.

Negative Observations:

- In general, technical disadvantages were noted.  One
example was the lack of realtime representation and
interaction when using the headset.

- The headset was too uncomfortable, had a low
resolution, and seemed to be too expensive to be used.
(The price of 1,800 DM = $1,250 US.)

- The students spoke of health risks in using the
headset, such as vertigo, persistent dizziness, and
swollen and red eyes.

- When using the PowerGlove, the students complained
that it is uncomfortable and too heavy to make the
exact gestures to be understood by the system.

General Observations:

- None of the students would buy the low-cost devices
that were presented.  They are too expensive in
contrast to what can be done with computer-games.

- The students said that they would possibly have
bought a device before the class, when they had less
knowledge, because they would not have seen so many
problems, such as developing a virtual world,
inadequacies of software, and so on.

- They would like to consume virtual environments, not
to construct them, because they see no exact goal they
could reach with these worlds.

In our study of cheap-VR which could be used in the
schools, we learned the following:  We believe that we
have to do another presentation in a school to find
exactly which system should be used in K-12.  Our
personal preference is to use the fish-tank-system,
because it provides both high-resolution and full, true
color.  This is a big advantage, whereas the
fully-immersive system has to use much lower resolution
and fewer colors.  There seems to be a health risk in
using the headset and, in contrast to the
ShutterGlasses, it seems to be too expensive.  The
problems of the 3D-Max lie in the development of a
virtual environment, for right now there are just some
demonstration programs or C-routines for importing
animations from other professional development tools
into the 3D-Max environments.  These limitations seem
to be too great for children to overcome on their own,
and it would be too expensive to buy new, high-cost
software such as 3D-Studio.

Maybe it is better to use red/blue anaglyphic glasses.
There is no real 3D-effect as in the use of the
ShutterGlasses, nor is there the same degree of
immersion as when using the VFX-1 headset.  But we can
create a more comfortable world which can easily be
manipulated and designed by children.  The advantage in
working with children is their ability to fantasize so
that (possibly) the worlds they create do not have to
be photorealistic.

The PowerGlove system is too difficult, too.  Because
it needs physical strength as well as exact
coordination from the user, it is beyond the
capabilities of many children.

So, this report has to to be continued.

----------

Andreas Schaefer and Karsten Wasserman are graduate
students, working on a diploma at the University of
Dortmund, Dortmund, Germany.  They can be reached at:

Andreas Schaefer        Telephone: 49-201-200264
Max-Reger Str. 9        Fax: +49-201-468041 or
45128 Essen, Germany                 606038

Karsten Wassermann
Gerscheder Weiden 45
45357 Essen, Germany    Telephone: 49-201-19603

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

USING VIRTUAL REALITY TO TEACH LOCAL HISTORY

by Veronica S. Pantelidis
email:  LSPANTEL@ecuvm.cis.ecu.edu

Virtual reality is a natural for teaching about local
historic sites.  Here is an example of how it can be
used and how several groups can work together to teach
and learn about history.

East Carolina University has been excavating Fort
Neoheroka, a Tuscarora (native American) archaeological
site in neighboring Greene County built in 1713.  This
site, which is about 35 miles from Greenville, is
particularly interesting as the dwellings were dug six
feet into the ground, protecting the occupants from
musket balls and other forms of attack.  Nevertheless,
six months after it was constructed, the fort was
overcome and burned.  The log roofs burned and fell
into the dwelling holes, marking the spot for the
future.  Although the site has been farmed and plowed
continuously for many years, the site has survived
since the plow-zone is only 18 inches deep.

We at the Virtual Reality and Education Laboratory met
with one of the professors involved in the excavation,
Dr. John Byrd, who gave us photocopies of a map of the
original site and pictures taken of the site, as well
as drawings of a typical dwelling and some of the
recovered artifacts.

I gave copies of the drawings, photographs, and
information to our graduate and undergraduate virtual
reality classes.  Working in groups and using Virtus
WalkThrough, they produced both Macintosh and PC
walkthroughs of one of the dwellings.  When Dr. Byrd,
colleagues, and eight graduate students from the
Department of Anthropology visited VREL and viewed the
walkthroughs, they were amazed to see how realistic it
felt to go through an underground dwelling using
virtual reality, and they have decided to buy some
virtual reality software to use to illustrate other
sites.

A week later, Emily Harrison, Academically
Gifted/Enrichment teacher at Greene County Middle
School in Snow Hill, North Carolina, brought groups of
students on two consecutive days to visit VREL and to
use the walkthroughs.  Many of the students were
familiar with the site, because they often travel the
adjoining road or live in the vicinity.  Before they
viewed the walkthroughs, the students were shown the
drawings, photographs, and map, and were told some of
the background history of the fort.  Students were able
to look at several different versions of the dwellings,
comparing different ideas of how they may have looked
originally.  There was much enthusiasm, and their
walkthrough produced many questions about how people
could have lived there originally.  Using virtual
reality they were becoming familiar in a new way with
an old site.

This project was especially exciting, since it brought
together university professionals, students, and
facilities to teach middle grade students about their
heritage.  Such cooperative efforts can be accomplished
with no extra funding.

----------

Dr. Veronica  S. Pantelidis, is Co-director of the
Virtual Reality and Education Laboratory, School of
Education, East Carolina University, Greenville, North
Carolina 27858-4353 USA.  She may be reached at:

Telephone: (919)328-6621  Fax: (919)328-4368
http://150.216.8.1/vr/vrel.htm

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

HAYWOOD COMMUNITY COLLEGE'S VR LAB GROWS

by Tony Gaddis
email:  tony@daystrom.haywood.cc.nc.us

The Virtual Reality Laboratory at Haywood Community
College in North Carolina continues to grow.  Thanks to
grants awarded to the college's Regional High Technology
Center, students will have an impressive array of tools
available for the development of desktop and projected VR
applications. Two new VR development packages, Superscape
VRT and Sense8 World Up, will become the primary software
platforms in the lab.  SuperscapeVRT will be running
under DOS on a Pentium system.  Sense8 World Up will be
running on a Pentium Windows NT workstation equipped with
an Intergraph GLZ5 OpenGL graphics package.  Along with
the platforms already in the lab, students will use the
new systems to develop educational and visualization
applications. In the past, the lab has developed
immersive desktop applications.  With only one head-
mounted display, however, the applications have had
limited availability.  A second HMD, the Virtual I/O i-
glasses, will make the lab's immersive applications more
accessible.  To create 3D applications that an entire
class of students may simultaneously view, a new VRex VR-
2000 projection system was acquired.  The projector
interfaces to a computer system and displays a
stereoscopic view of the virtual world on a large screen.
Students wear inexpensive glasses with polarizing light
filters to see the 3D images.  The new hardware and
software will fully complement HCC's collection of
desktop VR tools. The lab's existing platforms include
systems running Sense8's WorldToolKit for the i860,
WorldToolKit for Windows, VREAM, and the Autodesk
Cyberspace Developer Kit.  Students and staff use a
General Reality CyberEye HMD, CyberTrack head tracker,
CrystalEyes goggles, and a set of 5DT Data Gloves to
create immersive applications.

----------

Tony Gaddis is the Computer Systems Coordinator for
Haywood Community Collegeþs Regional High Technology
Center.  Address:  Regional High Technology Center, 10
Industrial Park Drive, Waynesville, North Carolina 28786
USA

Telephone:  704-452-1411       Fax:  704-452-3353

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

EXPERIENCING A REAL EXAM IN A VIRTUAL WORLD

by Alan D. Evans
email:  aevans@emerald.educ.kent.edu

During the fall semester, 1995, I taught a graduate level
virtual reality course for the first time.  Because the
class was new and the number of students was small, the
class was structured informally, with mini-lectures,
demonstrations, student reports, and student projects.
(The first time, we neared the end of the semester,
project presentations were extremely interesting, so I
elected to allocate extra time for this activity.
Because of this, I did not have time to demonstrate a
"chat" program on the Internet.

Realizing an oral exam could be a good assessment and a
learning experience for all students, I asked the class
to prepare for an oral exam, and I prepared to use Worlds
Chat as a vehicle for the exam and as a demonstration of
a format rapidly multiplying on the Internet.

On the night of the exam, I provided an overview of
Worlds Chat by explaining operating procedures and by
discussing the possibility of unwanted sexual or
otherwise offensive interactions.  The plan was for me to
operate one computer and for the students to share
another computer.  The students selected an avatar, and
I selected an avatar to represent the professor.  The
shared computer allowed me to "whisper" questions to one
student at a time and have all students "hear" the
question and the student's answer.  During the process,
I would sometimes provide hints, feedback about
correctness of response, and additional information where
appropriate.

The student response to the "chat" exam was
overwhelmingly positive.  It gave students an opportunity
to participate in the use of the medium rather than just
see a demo.  Because of the nature of typed, on-line
responses, answers tended to be shorter than an oral exam
in a real world.  On one occasion, a typed question was
not delivered - perhaps operator error!  Overall the
experience was very positive and a contextually
appropriate way to end a virtual reality course.

Worlds Chat is available at:  http://www.worlds.net/

My last question on the exam was addressed to any student
for bonus points:  What is the origin of the term Avatar?
Can you answer it?

----------

Dr. Alan E. Evans is Director of the Instructional
Resources Center in the College of Education, 220 White
Hall, Kent State University, Kent, Ohio 44242-0001 USA

Telephone:  216-672-2256            Fax:  216-672-3407

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN 3D COMPUTING AND VIRTUAL REALITY

by Lawrence Auld
email:  lsauld@ecuvm.cis.ecu.edu

Visitors to VREL have asked about the difference between
3D Computing and Virtual Reality, and Dr. Bob Jacobson
says some of his WorldDesign clients have asked him the
same question.  (See his posting on the Sci.Virtual-
Worlds listserv <scivw@HITL.WASHINGTON.EDU>, 8 December
1995.)  The obvious similarities and overlap between the
two terms readily lead to confusion, while the various,
often conflicting definitions of virtual reality compound
the confusion.

Three-dimensional (3D) computing results in images that
represent objects along x, y, and z coordinates, whether
represented on a flat screen or projected as in a
hologram.  While objects can be shown in perspective and
often can be rotated, providing views of all sides, it is
the objects that move, while the viewer appears to remain
stationary.

Our work in VREL is based on the following operational
definition of virtual reality:  The computer simulation
of an environment with which a participant can interact.
The environment can be real or imaginary, it can be
represented with text or with graphics, and there is an
implicit element of interaction between the participant
and the computer-generated environment.

This definition is limited, requiring that a virtual
environment be computer-generated.  At the same time it
is broad enough to embrace a variety of approaches,
ranging from total-immersion body suits and head-mounted
display units to flat-screen window-on-the-world
displays.  Importantly, it also embraces text-based
virtual environments.

Neither 3D computing nor virtual reality is a subset of
the other as can be seen if we label 3D computing "A" and
virtual reality "B."  We see that there is a definitional
area of intersection in which "A" and "B" overlap:  much
of graphics-based (but not text-based) virtual reality
qualifies as 3D computing, but not all of 3D computing
qualifies as virtual reality.  (For a visual
representation of this relationship, draw a Venn diagram
with two overlapping circles, one representing 3D
computing, the other, both graphics- and text-based
virtual reality.  The overlapping area represents the
area of intersection.)

             _____________
            /    /   \    \
           º  A º     º B  º
            \____\___/____/
           /               \
        3D                 Graphics- and
    Computing              Text-Based VR

It is only fair to note that there are other, conflicting
definitions of virtual reality.  One definition would
require use of a head-mounted display unit or,
preferably, full immersion via a body suit, anticipating
realization of the special effects shown in _Lawnmower
Man_ but excluding the flight simulators used by the
military and the airlines.  Another definition equates
reading, and the concomitant imagination/visualization,
with virtual reality, but this omits a key point, that
virtual reality is computer-based.  Historically,
computers have been the central element of VR research
and development.

Still more definitions of VR appeared in the thread
following Bob Jacobson's note alluded to above.  A few of
the key words and concepts that appear in various
persons' definitions include "perception" (Schiniotakis,
11 Dec 1995), "presence" (Snow, 11 Dec 1995; Costella, 18
Dec 1995), "immersion" (Bernatchez, 13 Dec 1995),
"perceptual" (Wann, 18 Dec 1995), and "real time
interaction" (Isdale, 19 Dec 1995).  (Readers interested
in following this thread in detail can access the
listserv archive.)

Although elegant, precise, and sometimes contradictory,
these definitions delineate a developing area of study in
which individuals are pursuing different approaches to VR
and slowly comparing their ideas and different
approaches.  Only when much of the exciting groundwork is
completed will a single, unified definition emerge.  In
the meantime, the different terms contribute to
operational definitions that are useful, indeed
necessary.

3D computing, too, is developing.  As definitions for 3D
computing and VR are developed, it will become possible
to identify with some consensus the differences as well
as the similarities between the two.

----------

Dr. Lawrence Auld is Co-director of the Virtual Reality
and Education Laboratory at East Carolina University,
Greenville, North Carolina 27858-4353, USA.
Telephone:  919-328-6621       Fax:  919-328-4368
http://150.216.8.1/vr/vrel.htm

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

HARDWARE MENTIONED IN THIS ISSUE

CrystalEyes Goggles
StereoGraphics Corporation
2171 East Francisco Boulevard
San Rafael, California 94901 USA
Telephone:  415-459-4500
Fax:  415-459-3020
web:  http://infolane.com/infoland/stereog/sghp.html

5DT DataGlove
CyberEye Head Mounted Display
CyberTrack head tracker
General Reality Company
124 Race Street
San Jose, California 95126 USA
Telephone:  408-289-8340
Fax:  408-289-8258
web:  http://www.genreality.com/
email:  sales@genreality.com

Forte VFX-1 Headgear (Head Mounted Display)
Forte Technologies Inc.
2615 West Henrietta Road
Rochester, New York 14623 USA
Telephone:  716-427-8595
Fax:  716-292-6353
web:  http://www.fortevr.com/
email:  support@fortevr.com

Intergraph GLZ5 OpenGL Graphics Accelerator
Intergraph Corporation
Huntsville, Alabama 35894, USA
Telephone: 800-763-0242 (US and Canada)
           Europe 31-23-5666576
           Other  1-205-730-5441
web:  http://www.intergraph.com/ics/accel.shtml

PowerGlove
informatica
3805 Bilbao Court
Cameron Park, California 95682 USA
Telephone:  916-676-3530
email:  antonio@informatica.com

RingMouse
Kantek Inc.
15 Main Street
East Rockaway, New York 11518 USA
Telephone:  516-593-3212
Fax:  516-593-3295
See information and photograph at Pegasus Technologies
Ltd. web page: http://www.netvision.net.il/~peg/

VRex VR-2000 Projector System
VRex Inc.
8 Skyline Drive
Hawthorne, New York 10532 USA
Telephone:  914-345-8877
Fax:  914-345-9558
web:  http://www.vrex.com
email:  info@vrex.com

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

SOFTWARE MENTIONED IN THIS ISSUE

Cyberspace Developer Kit (CDK)
Autodesk Inc.
2320 Marinship Way
Sausalito, California 94965 USA
Telephone:  415-332-2344
fax:  415-491-8303

REND386
available free at ftp site:
        ftp://sunee.uwaterloo.ca/pub/rend386

Sense8 World Tool Kit (WTK)
Sense 8 World Up
Sense8 Corporation
4000 Bridgeway, Suite 101
Sausalito, California 94965 USA
Telephone:  415-331-6318
Fax:  415-331-9148
web:  http://www.sense8.com/
email:  info@sense8.com

Superscape VRT
Superscape Ltd.
Zephr One
Calleva Park
Aldermaston, Berkshire, RG7 4QZ
England
Telephone:  44-734-810077
Fax:  44-734-816940
United States address:
Superscape, Inc.
2483 East Bayshore Road, Suite 103
Palo Alto, California 94303 USA
Telephone:  415-812-9380
Fax:  415-812-9390
web:  http://www.superscape.com/
email:  npenning@us.superscape.com

Virtus WalkThrough
Virtus Corporation
118 MacKenan Drive, Suite 250
Cary, North Carolina 27511 USA
Telephone: 919-467-9700
Sales:  800-847-8871, ext. 21
Fax:  919-460-4530
email:  sales@virtus.com
web:  http://www.virtus.com

VREAM
Vream Incorporated
2568 North Clark Street, Suite 250
Chicago, Illinois 60614 USA
Telephone:  312-477-0425
Fax:  312-477-9702
web:  http://www.vream.com
web:  http://www.vream.com/vream/index.html
email:  info@vream.com

VWorld
Skopinski Software
Gummertstr. 25
45131 Essen
Germany
For a German-documented, demo-version, contact
Karsten Wassermann
Gerscheder Weiden 45
45357 Essen, Germany
Telephone:  49-201-19603
email:  K.Wassermann@viremax.ruhr.de

workSpace - Worldbuilder
Developed through the Computer Science Department,
Worcester Polytechnic Institute.  Executable and source
code and 30-page manual plus tutorial (in postscript
format) are available.
web: ftp://cs.wpi.edu/pub/projects_and_papers/graphics_
         and_vision/vrmgp
direct questions to Bob Mason:  bob@redstar.com

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Anaglyphic glasses are available from:
Rainbow Symphony, Inc.
6860 Canby Ave., # 120
Reseda, California 91335 USA
Telephone:  818-708-8400
            800-821-5122
Fax:  818-708-8470

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

_