Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Put On Your 3D Glasses — Class Is About To Start

timothy posted about 3 years ago | from the smell-o-vision-also-very-valuable dept.

Education 80

First time accepted submitter sydneyhype writes "Seven schools across Europe have been testing the effectiveness of 3D learning tools — specifically 3D projections of body organs in biology class. A study found test results jumped up by 17%. Prof Bamford says, 'Children can see how things function. Instead of learning about the heart statically they can see it in a solid way, literally see blood passing through the valves, see exchange of oxygen, rotate it, tilt it and zoom in.'"

cancel ×

80 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Novelty. (4, Informative)

dgatwood (11270) | about 3 years ago | (#37560560)

Anything significantly different from what people are used to will have this effect because things that are novel tend to capture people's attention.

In twenty years, when everybody has a 3D TV set, I doubt it will have nearly the same effect.

Re:Novelty. (1)

Hotweed Music (2017854) | about 3 years ago | (#37560672)

That's why we need more "ooh-ahh" distractions! MORE!

Re:Novelty. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37560744)

I worked in a school on their IT systems and was part of the roll out of these 3D sets, the one we looked after was very very good.
Much better than most 3D setups you've seen before, that was over 4years ago, yeah it's novel but if it works then why not...

Re:Novelty. (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | about 3 years ago | (#37560870)

Because after a while class stops being new and revolutionary and back to boring old class. It's like taking an online class, at first it is new and exciting and you get to do all sorts of things you never could do in a traditional classroom, than after a while it becomes evident that in reality it is no "better' than traditional classrooms, especially with the way that some teachers teach it (with deadlines and certain times where you -must- log in). Or, if you are old enough, remember when teachers first started using PowerPoint? It was new, it was exciting, you could watch movie clips and sound clips and teachers could send you their slides and after the first 2 weeks it really was no more exciting than with transparencies and lectures.

Re:Novelty. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37561022)

O' I see, you're trying to make the point that it will, in time be no better than traditional teaching styles so it shouldn't be used?

Really, is that your whole point?

Re:Novelty. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37561988)

There is a whole school of thought that goes something like this: "if the proposed solution doesn't completely solve the problem in all ways and for all time, then it is not worth pursuing." It seems like an obvious logical fallacy to me, but a lot of people seem to subscribe to it.

Re:Novelty. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37564698)

He is trying to make the point that it will, in time be no better than traditional teaching styles and cost extra so it shouldn't be used

It's like giving every student a rolex so they will come to class on time.

Re:Novelty. (1)

Patch86 (1465427) | about 3 years ago | (#37564050)

Didn't mean it wasn't worth doing though. New technology can be useful.

There would have been a point, like you say, when projectors were a sexy and novel new technological replacement for blackboards. After a while, they stopped seeming sexy and novel, and just became part of the standard classroom tool kit. But people still use them, because they're still far better than a blackboard.

If 3D projection is better than 2D projection for some uses, then even after it stops being novel it will still have a place in the lecture hall.

On the other hand, it could just be a passing fad.

Re:Novelty. (1)

ancienthart (924862) | about 3 years ago | (#37574884)

As a teacher, if you have the time to write start-of-lesson notes up before a class, a blackboard is better than a projector.

1. About 1/4 of students (Those with vision problems.) find blackboards easier to read than projected images (or whiteboards) as they have less glare.
2. Written board notes allow a teacher to teach dynamically - if the students are having difficulty with a given concept, you can change the content of the lesson immediately. My worst uni teacher came in with a set of pre-prepared overheads and read them to the theatre. My best uni teacher wrote everything down during the lecture.
3. In order to write notes up, you have to think about your lesson structure, each and every lesson.
4. It's possible to shade on a blackboard. For scientific and mathematical diagrams, this makes it easier to show 3D structure. Shading is much more difficult on overhead projectors and whiteboards.

Now it's possible to use a digital projector and achieve 2 through 4 using a tablet, but you better hope the software or the hardware doesn't die halfway through a lesson. :(

Re:Novelty. (1)

ackthpt (218170) | about 3 years ago | (#37560890)

Anything significantly different from what people are used to will have this effect because things that are novel tend to capture people's attention.

In twenty years, when everybody has a 3D TV set, I doubt it will have nearly the same effect.

I don't think the first few times I sat in a computer lab the presence of computers helped me in the study of the subject - I was too distracted, trying to figure out what made them tick and how I could make my own applications and stuff.

Anecdotal, but I still feel your theory isn't more than than a theory.

Re:Novelty. (1)

dgatwood (11270) | about 3 years ago | (#37561544)

Sitting in a lab isn't the same thing as directed instruction.

When I was in elementary school, educational games were the new "cool" way to teach, and teachers deployed them. The kids found them were fun and exciting at first, but after a few years, everybody just wanted to play Oregon Trail. It lost a lot of its power to captivate when people got used to it.

YMMV.

Re:Novelty. (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 3 years ago | (#37565380)

It lost a lot of its power to captivate when people got used to it.

Oregon trail was as good as most commercial games of the day. No one has made an "A" grade educational game since the Carmen Sandiego series was state of the art. It's been a long time.

Re:Novelty. (1)

tepples (727027) | about 3 years ago | (#37569750)

No one has made an "A" grade educational game since the Carmen Sandiego series

Civilization series?

Re:Novelty. (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 3 years ago | (#37573838)

That's kind of educational, I guess. I've only recently got Civ IV, so now I can comment on more of the series. I regularly played 2 until I got IV, used to play the original a lot, have been playing IV plenty, and played the board game related by name and background concept once :)

Re:Novelty. (1)

skids (119237) | about 3 years ago | (#37560910)

Well, there's an argument to be made that more realistic visualizations have their own merit. So we'll see whether there is a retained effect after the first generation of kids who grew up with 3D TVs arrives.

Re:Novelty. (1)

TheCouchPotatoFamine (628797) | about 3 years ago | (#37560922)

Are you NUTS? A full 3D course work for biology, MATH (did i say MATH, not LOUD ENOUGH!), geology, etc. would be awesome! You're quite the curmudgeon, and, I suppose, unaware that for some people, a picture is worth a thousand words.

Re:Novelty. (1)

scottrocket (1065416) | about 3 years ago | (#37564632)

Are you NUTS? A full 3D course work for biology, MATH (did i say MATH, not LOUD ENOUGH!), geology, etc. would be awesome! You're quite the curmudgeon, and, I suppose, unaware that for some people, a picture is worth a thousand words.

Back in school I took a geology sequence, and one of the aids we used were these stereoscopic maps. 'Course you had to lay the maps flat, position a viewer over the top,& for some of the students it wouldn't work - but when it finally popped it could be quite useful, if one were viewing unvisited terrain. Also, just made the course more interesting, and full-bodied.

Re:Novelty. (1)

copponex (13876) | about 3 years ago | (#37560982)

This is not the same thing. It's the difference between trying to learn how to change an oil filter by looking at a series of pictures of an engine, versus looking at the engine itself.

To put it in another way, if a picture is worth a thousand words, a three dimensional moving model is worth a thousand pictures.

Re:Novelty. (1)

ancienthart (924862) | about 3 years ago | (#37574924)

But you're not giving them the engine, you're still giving them an image albeit a 3D one.
Is there any reason we can't give the students a physical rock, a real fossil, get them to do a dissection?

As a teacher, I'm concerned that computer technology is being used to replace real experiences in schools, rather than supplement them. And I'm in my 30's and a Linux user, so it's not because I dislike technology or anything like that. It's just every time a new piece of software shows up, I've noticed a tendency to decrease exposure to real experiments. (Lack of time. Less expensive. It's been covered by the software.) I've been guilty of this myself, but try to fight it more and more.

Re:Novelty. (1)

Twinbee (767046) | about 3 years ago | (#37561198)

Possibly. Or instead it could just be more fun, and information is clearer in a 3D format (as it often is when presented in stereo generally).

Make classes entertaining, exciting and involving, and kids will want to learn more.

Re:Novelty. (1)

ancienthart (924862) | about 3 years ago | (#37574982)

Yeeeessss. But as dgatwood pointed out, any new and novel technology will become old and boring given enough time. Using multiple teaching technologies and experiences will counteract this, but at some point kids will have to bear down and learn something they find dull. (Especially when they're learning basic skills for a topic.)
I agree that a good teacher tries to make a class exciting as possible, but I've noticed more and more kids expect to be entertained at school rather than taught.

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&hl=en&q=mathematics+exams+from+30+years+ago [google.com]

I think that discovery learning has come up with some good stuff, but I can't help wonder if we've taken things a bit too far in making it the ONLY teaching method to use. Most research suggests that students do better if you just _teach_ them basic concepts rather than get them to _discover_ EVERYTHING. True discovery learning occurs best after students have mastered basic concepts and are then given something complex to work on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_instruction [wikipedia.org]

Re:Novelty. (1)

Beorytis (1014777) | about 3 years ago | (#37562144)

Anything significantly different from what people are used to will have this effect because things that are novel tend to capture people's attention.

Maybe a bit of the Hawthorne Effect [wikipedia.org] too?

Re:Novelty. (2)

MidnightBrewer (97195) | about 3 years ago | (#37562180)

I disagree. This is about visualization of 3D objects students are traditionally forced to study using 2D illustrations and text descriptions. Allowing them to see something like a human heart from every angle as it operates is a killer application. Your argument is similar to saying that showing kids color images over black and white will lose its effectiveness because color is just a fad. The better we can visualize things the easier they are to comprehend. Finally, a real use for 3D!

Re:Novelty. (1)

avandesande (143899) | about 3 years ago | (#37568492)

I think that examining other advanced visualizations such as real MRI and CAT scans would be interesting to any audience as well.

Re:Novelty. (1)

ancienthart (924862) | about 3 years ago | (#37574990)

Or you can give them a real heart to dissect!!! Gaaaahhhhh.

Re:Novelty. (1)

MidnightBrewer (97195) | about 3 years ago | (#37575186)

Not as good. As the article points out, the benefit is in showing the students a working heart. Typically they're not as functional by the time they hit the dissection table.

Re:Novelty. (1)

ancienthart (924862) | more than 2 years ago | (#37581182)

Yes but you can't touch a 3D visualisation, so things like "the aorta is made of elastic connective tissue to help it deal with the high blood pressure from the heart" doesn't have the immediacy of feeling it stretch like a rubber band. If you see a couple of posts above, you will see that my objection is not with the use of 3d visualisations, but with the replacement of hands-on activities.

Re:Novelty. (1)

MidnightBrewer (97195) | more than 2 years ago | (#37581506)

I get your point; hands-on is always the best when possible. However, resources are a consideration; real hearts aren't always available. Also, the heart is only one example. What about in the macro? Architecture, geography, astronomy. There are a ton of applications where hands-on isn't just impractical, it's impossible.

Re:Novelty. (1)

ancienthart (924862) | more than 2 years ago | (#37581632)

However, resources are a consideration; real hearts aren't always available.

Yeah, but as a teacher, I find that schools and districts use this as an excuse to cut resources. "Real hearts are better, but we've got this 3D simulation which is almost as good, so why should we use hearts any way?" And if the 3D software is commercial, the conversation becomes "Well we've paid for this software's annual license out of our budget, we'll have to cut back on photocopying, etc." Don't get me started on the $2000 solutions to $200 problems. (Interactive whiteboards and projector as opposed to whiteboard, projector, wireless mouse and whiteboard marker.)

I agree with the geography and astronomy examples, as they are pretty hard to get into a classroom any case, but I'm still concerned that in poorer districts 3D will replace field excursions and night viewings completely. Don't agree with the architecture example though - there are few enough opportunities for students to do papercraft and model-building as it is. :D

As it is, I have to fight hard (Not against the school administration so much, as lack of time, resources, facities, etc.) to ensure my science students get to do titrations, chemical experiments (They were going to ban sodium in Australian schools a few years ago!), roller coaster experiments, etc. 3D is a good supplement in science education, but science is based on observing the real world, which is always more complicated than simulation.

Recently we had our students do a scientific investigation involving colligative properties - specifically that salt will cause ice to melt faster, and we suggested the kids test this by timing how long ice cubes took to melt in salt and fresh water. Guess what? The ice takes longer in the salt water and the students spent about three weeks investigating why. (And man it was hard biting my tongue to not tell them the answer.)
On the other hand, I have seen simulations of scientific phenomena that get things flat-out wrong. Hydrogen-producing reaction on a scale with a balloon over the opening of the flask, and the simulation shows the scale reading staying the same. Not true.

Re:Novelty. (1)

avandesande (143899) | about 3 years ago | (#37568380)

Going along the same meme I think examining real imaging(with explanations) of the human body such as MRI and CAT scans would be a fascinating for any audience and a great learning tool.

Surprise (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37560582)

This sort of experiment is a classic for the Hawthorne Effect [wikipedia.org] . Excited children having a chance to try out the latest technology... of course their test results went up.

Re:Surprise (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37561072)

Mod this (wo)man up to 5... exactly what I was thinking, too. Nailed it.

The big red flag ... (1)

MacTO (1161105) | about 3 years ago | (#37560640)

The article mentions that test scores went up and suggested that it was due to improved concentration. In other words, the children were probably more engaged in class due to the novelty of the technology.

They would probably find similar results if they replaced the regular classroom teacher with a guest speaker for a week or incorporated a variety of instructional strategies (i.e. going beyond the traditional reading, problem solving, and chalk & talk). Oh, and those instructional strategies wouldn't cost a dime.

Just a thought (1)

elvesrus (71218) | about 3 years ago | (#37560680)

Shouldn't we be focusing more on the possible health effects of 3d tech before we start teaching kids with it?

Re:Just a thought (3, Insightful)

MidnightBrewer (97195) | about 3 years ago | (#37562196)

Optometrists have already said that children below the age of five may be at risk if they use 3D for several hours a day non-stop, because their true depth perception is still developing. After that age, however, the risks are slight to none. As someone who has no depth perception, I've had the reasons why explained to me pretty thoroughly.

Re:Just a thought (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | about 3 years ago | (#37564824)

As someone who has no depth perception, I've had the reasons why explained to me pretty thoroughly.

Agent 1BDI, is that you?!

Re:Just a thought (1)

avandesande (143899) | about 3 years ago | (#37568408)

There are already studies blaming near-sightedness on children not spending enough time outdoors.

Reality is in 3D (1)

asdbffg (1902686) | about 3 years ago | (#37560694)

We just need to give students real, live human hearts to study. MWUAHAHAHAA!!

Re:Reality is in 3D (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37560718)

A useful role for the religious and AGW deniers!

Re:Reality is in 3D (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37561402)

In fact a human model, that can be taken apart might work well enough. Hell even scan the kids in an MRI and then 3D print small scale models of their bodies and hand it to them like a puzzle. Tell them that if any piece is left over after they put the model together, the same piece will be removed from their own bodies.
That should make 'em sit up and pay atention, I think

Re:Reality is in 3D (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37565938)

This is *HD* TV it has better resolution than the real world.

You need a longitudinal study (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37560698)

Second the mention by the first posters about this being an effect of novelty. You need a longitudinal study covering a couple of years of school work to eliminate that effect. When I was a boy, TV in the classroom was going to revolutionize everything - like the filmstrip before it. Alas, scores did not prove this out.

A new technology works well in some areas... (2)

skine (1524819) | about 3 years ago | (#37560702)

But I'm fairly certain that school boards will expect all teachers to find uses for it.

17% improvement (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 3 years ago | (#37560736)

17% improvement would have been 25% but the couple of kids who got a splitting headache bombed out on the test.

Re:17% improvement (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37561332)

That splitting headache is your brain being unable to cope with novel sensory input. Children are far more adaptable in that regard. People get the same thing with 2D images (i.e. they don't really exist in nature, so our brain isn't built for them), it's just that most of us work with them almost every waking hour, so we adapted. Some people a little too well obviously. It's a little unfortunate that you're impaired in that regard, but with the number being similar to those who are colorblind, technology will be advancing without you.

Re:17% improvement (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37561890)

The headache is because you can't focus. The image is displayed 3m away, but the 3D effect says it is 0.5m away. The eyes go into ultra-strain mode as brain fails to decide which is which is real. The side effect is you get a headache and your eyes major strain damage.

2D images do not suffer from this, hence no headache.

Anyway, good luck with the fake 3D... I prefer pictures in 2D, unless 3D means holographic 3D.

Break out the scalpels! (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 3 years ago | (#37560748)

I'm pretty sure that dissecting a model organism is even more engaging, and quite possibly less expensive, than this "3D"nonsense... I for one would certainly want my hypothetical surgeon to be elbow deep in a variety of actual dissections before getting to me...

Re:Break out the scalpels! (1)

flimflammer (956759) | about 3 years ago | (#37561358)

I don't think I'd want kids operating on me no matter how many times they've been elbow deep in a variety of actual dissections.

Re:Break out the scalpels! (1)

TheInternetGuy (2006682) | about 3 years ago | (#37561724)

They could just do a survivor game out of it. Every semester the kids get to vote which one of them should be dissected. I mean school is already a popularity contest, so why not make it official? Btw, this is probably one of those times my sig really needs to be considered.

Re:Break out the scalpels! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37568138)

It's a legal nightmare though. Have you any idea how many risk assessments would be needed? Sharp objects, raw meat, possible psychological impact, discrimination against those with religious objections to the animal used. I've seen a dissection in a school - it was done by the teacher, behind a thick plexiglass safety screen, with all students seated at least two meters away struggling to see what he was doing.

Conceptual Learning vs Visualisation (1)

ackthpt (218170) | about 3 years ago | (#37560766)

I was pulling a low C in calculus until I had that moment .. the one where I visualised the volume of a circle of a certain radius, rotated around another radius, forming the inside of a torus. At that moment I realised Calculus was easy and I had been making hard work of it by trying to memorise every rule or theorem without understanding their applications. Pulled that grade up into an A and sailed merrily along the seas of math thereafter.

I certainly can appreciate how observing something animated in three dimensions can be of use (though even 2 dimensions would suffice for most subjects.) Well done them.

Now of someone can figure out how to get kids to succeed in taking tests on computers (which isn't as simple or effective as it sounds.)

Re:Conceptual Learning vs Visualisation (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | about 3 years ago | (#37560964)

The 2 biggest barriers to kids using computers is:

A) Typing speed

and B) Special input characters.

Kids generally can't type quickly. Until kids learn qwerty and have a normal typing speed, it is usually hunt and peck. A kid can write with their hand much faster until their typing speed changes. Unfortunately it isn't really possible to decide /when/ that is because it changes depending on the kid.

And input often isn't coded correctly. For example, on a question asking who the first president of the United States was, a kid answering George washington might be counted as incorrect, as would a kid answering george washington, similarly a kid answering Geogre Washington (obviously a minor spelling mistake) would also be wrong. A teacher grading these when they were hand written would realize that all of the kids knew the answer.

Similarly, in special applications like math, it simply is faster to write things out by hand. Writing a formula using symbols like pi by hand is really quick, navigating to a special characters page and clicking on pi really isn't.

Re:Conceptual Learning vs Visualisation (1)

Hentes (2461350) | about 3 years ago | (#37561708)

Kids type slowly because they aren't taught to type. After you learn it, typing is way faster and more correct then writing. This is why it's so sad that children still get wasted years of their lives by forced to learn cursive (a torture to a lot of them) wich they will never use outside of school, instead of using that time to teach them to type properly that they will have to use everyday. I don't understand why do you think that moving from paper to digital would mean that teachers are also replaced by computers, they will still be needed. Special formulas can be solved by TEX or just drawing notes on a touchscreen like a piece of paper.

I am really looking forward to the time when first graders won't have to deal with 10kg bags (causing many of them scoliosis later). Also, it would be much more easier to organize all information in a single ebook/netbook. And there is a lot of knowledge that we consider obvious but in fact acquired by spending a lot of time with digital devices. Ever wondered how can you move your mouse lightning fast and with pixel perfection, how can you solve most errors that arise or how can you spot scams on the Internet? These look like trivial skills now but in fact they took a lot of practice. Wich is why kids need to spend more time with digital devices as being able to use them will be essential to their future. Schools should move with the times and embrace technology.

Re:Conceptual Learning vs Visualisation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37562366)

typing is way faster and more correct then writing

Re:Conceptual Learning vs Visualisation (1)

Belial6 (794905) | about 3 years ago | (#37563012)

Bingo. There was not a singe day of my child's life that he could write faster than he could type. Sure he is only 7, but his typing is increasing in speed faster than his writing. While the numbers don't seem to be authoritative, it seems that most people fall somewhere between 14 and 30 wpm for writing with a pen. At 20 wpm, my son is already as fast a typist as a good portion of the adult population is at writing. By the time he gets to 20 wpm writing, it is likely that he will already be typing faster than he will ever achieve with writing. I suspect that this would be true of most children if typing were considered the first form of input and writing was considered the secondary form.

Funny enough, my son has shown an interest in learning cursive, and has asked us to teach it to him. We are approaching it the same way that we would approach learning calligraphy. It is also interesting that he learned to read cursive shortly after learning to read print. From his point of view, it was just another font.

Re:Conceptual Learning vs Visualisation (1)

jezwel (2451108) | about 3 years ago | (#37561982)

I had the exact same conceptual epiphany on a different subject (some structural analysis thing about bending moments and external forces), however it was years after I failed the subject twice and went on a different track so I wasn't kicked out of university.

Each person learns things differently - I would guess that the increase was due not just to the novelty of the interface, but also that those unable to understand the concepts of what was taught using traditional methods were able to understand using this method.

Please don't do this.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37560780)

For the love of the FSM don't put this in my college classes or actually use it like this. I can't see the type of 3D used in t.v's, 3DS's , movies (unless it's the red and blue kind), etc due to needing a prism in my left eye. Even trying to see it just makes me see double and gives me a headache. There are quite a few people who can't see 3D in that manner.

I have a feeling though the reason test scores went up was because you actually made the kids interested and engaged them in the classroom. Instead of just blurting out facts and expecting them to pay attention like they are robots.

Old news (1)

thegarbz (1787294) | about 3 years ago | (#37560820)

I had a 3D class room back in the 90s.

Back then we learnt about the human body by looking at a 3D model skeleton which could be disassembled organ by organ. Need more detail and want to know how a heart works, well grab a sheep's heart and a knife and get cutting.

Still not good enough? I spent my university life and now my real life working with highly complicated 3D models for production and I don't think I've ever once thought that it would benefit from having depth on screen. The human brain has a remarkable power of analysing what it sees. I don't think having a set of 3D glasses would be any more beneficial (actually probably quite the opposite) from viewing the same 3D model blood flow on a 2D screen.

Re:Old news (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | about 3 years ago | (#37561274)

We had a 3D heart model back in the 60s & 70s & 80s. You could hold it and take it apart and throw it to your friends when the teacher wasn't looking.

Awesome for us without depth perception (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37560888)

Being basically blind in one eye, I love 3D. Err wait, no, I don't. Also, please stop throwing things at me as I am terrible at catching them.

Practical Joke (1)

PPH (736903) | about 3 years ago | (#37561912)

Get a plastic eyeball and conceal it. When someone bumps you or slaps you on the back, you drop the eyeball on the ground and start chasing it. When they look horrified and apologize, you scream, "Damn you! That was my good eye!"

Children can see how things function (1)

datavirtue (1104259) | about 3 years ago | (#37560938)

I have found the same thing is true about math. If I can see how an equation or function performs in action I "get it" instantly. Staring at someone trying to "explain" it with practice stifled by numerous barriers often discourage many. Animated or life-like modeling will help any learning endeavor.

Applications in sex education? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37560992)

Add your own punchline.

Revell models for kids! (1)

elbiatcho1 (1554817) | about 3 years ago | (#37561286)

I miss my old Revell see-thru plastic human body model.
Great for ripping the guts out and putting them back in!

3D can cause memory creation (1)

poly_pusher (1004145) | about 3 years ago | (#37561466)

James Cameron believes that 3D aids in memory creation. He stated that “ 3D is so close to a real experience that it actually triggers memory creation in a way that 2D viewing doesn’t.” An Advertising study showed approx. the same increased retention in relation to 3D advertising.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/19/idUS209878+19-May-2011+MW20110519 [reuters.com]

I don't doubt that it can help education.

Oh please. There are better ways. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37561546)

Want to rotate an image without the messiness / lost parts of model kits?

one word:
TABLET

Study funded by equipment manufacturer (3, Insightful)

raaum (152451) | about 3 years ago | (#37561650)

It's hardly surprising that the study found such an amazing effect, since any study that did not would never have been released to the public.

"The study, conducted by researchers from the International Research Agency on behalf of Texas Instruments" was destined to find that Texas Instruments 3D tools are amazing. What's left unsaid is that the 30 other studies that TI funded didn't find any effect.

rent the glasses for $50 pre class or bundled (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | about 3 years ago | (#37562182)

rent the glasses for $50 pre class or make them bundled with the $250 book.

Already done, almost two decades ago (1)

maugle (1369813) | about 3 years ago | (#37562552)

Does anyone else here remember "3D Body Adventure" for DOS?

Sex ed usage... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37562638)

The "Miracle of Life" video will suddenly become that much more horrifying.

Coming soon to sex ed near you: The Miracle of Life 3D

Seen it! (1)

L1B3R4710N (2081304) | about 3 years ago | (#37563636)

My school (Lansing Community College) has a 3D learning lab. It's actually really cool, but I never have a reason to be in there. D:

Am I the only one... (1)

wertigon (1204486) | about 3 years ago | (#37564000)

Who finds it strange that you need stereoscopic vision goggles to look at what basicly is a 3D mesh of a human heart displayed on a 2D-screen? What's everyone so riled up about? Liek, srsly...

Re:Am I the only one... (1)

ancienthart (924862) | about 3 years ago | (#37575010)

And why do we need the expensive circularly polarised goggles. Is there a reason we can't use Red/Blue glasses and images? Then we can print them out in books, put them up on normal TV, computer screens and projectors.

Can we stop calling it "3D"? (1)

quenda (644621) | about 3 years ago | (#37564746)

Since we are getting academic here, can we be serious and call it stereoscopic? - unless it really is a hologram.

And isn't the 3D-glasses fad a bit lame compared to the virtual-reality fad we had back in the 90's?
Back then you got to put on a headset and walk around in a 3D environment, - WAY more cool than just looking at a stereoscopic TV.
What ever happened to VR?

Re:Can we stop calling it "3D"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37570050)

Sega said it abandoned the research on VR once they found out it negatively affected young kids' eye development.

Personally speaking, I'd be happy if a decently priced VR set would be available with some good applications to back it up.

Do you need the glasses? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37566030)

I could see how a 3D model, which can be rotated, etc. could be really useful as a tool. I'm less sure about the usefulness of 3D glasses. You don't need it actually popping out at you, you just need to be able to turn it, move it so you can see what's underneath, behind it.

Migraines (1)

nurb432 (527695) | about 3 years ago | (#37566692)

So now kids wont have to lie when they say 'school makes me sick'.

Good, unless you have poor eyesight/wear glasses. (1)

AdamJS (2466928) | about 3 years ago | (#37567274)

The Jocks shall finally Rise Again!

3D Education (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37569838)

Well, it will certainly make sex ed more interesting...

Enrollment goes up (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37571570)

In related news the same school has record enrollment in the "women's studies" department.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?