CENTRO DE ESTUDIOS INGLESES 44 ANIVERSARIO
Make sure you have liked us this year on FACEBOOK
馃槉馃槉
The following is an article of the use of virtual reality and IT TOOLS in EDUCATION : A CASE STUDY
Read, prepare a summary and explain how this was applied , what for and its results . Your speech should not last shorter than 8 minutes . Practice your speaking at home and measure your time .
ADD INFO ABOUT THE CASE FOR LANGUAGE LEARNING
Impact of virtual reality use on the teaching and learning of vectors
Esmeralda Campos
Irving Hidrogo
Genaro Zavala- 1Institute for the Future of Education, Tecnologico de Monterrey, Monterrey, Nuevo Le贸n, Mexico
- 2Innovation in Educational Technology, Tecnologico de Monterrey, Monterrey, Nuevo Le贸n, Mexico
- 3Institute for the Future of Education, School of Engineering and Sciences, Tecnologico de Monterrey, Monterrey, Nuevo Le贸n, Mexico
- 4School of Engineering, Universidad Andres Bello, Santiago, Chile
The use of virtual reality in education has enabled the possibility of representing abstract concepts and virtually manipulating them, providing a suitable platform for understanding mathematical concepts and their relation with the physical world. In this contribution, we present a study that aims to evaluate the students’ experience using a virtual reality (VR) tool and their learning of three-dimensional vectors in an introductory physics university course. We followed an experimental research design, with a control and an experimental group, for measuring students’ performance in a pre-post 3D vectors questionnaire. We surveyed the experimental group about their perception of VR use regarding their learning objectives, their experience using VR as a learning tool during the sessions, and the value of using VR in class. We found that on the items in which visualization was important, students in the experimental group outperformed the students in the control group. Students evaluated the VR tool as having a positive impact on their course contents learning and as a valuable tool to enhance their learning experience. We identified four hierarchical categories in which students perceived the use of virtual reality helped them learn the course contents: Visualization, 3D Visualization, Identification, and Understanding. Overall, this study’s findings contribute to the knowledge of using virtual reality for education at the university level. We encourage university instructors to think about incorporating VR in their classes.
Introduction
Over the last decade, several universities with the common goal of pushing educational innovation forward have invested in centers for educational innovation with a focus on emerging technologies (Hidrogo et al., 2020a). Some of the most popular emerging educational technologies are virtual reality, blockchain, internet of things, artificial intelligence, among others. Particularly, virtual reality is in a crucial moment to be implemented massively, due to several reasons. Some characteristics of virtual reality make it a favorite candidate for its application for teaching and learning in higher education; (i) as a technological tool, it can be directly applied to the teaching-learning process. (ii) Its current technological maturity stage has allowed for the development of hardware and software that can be incorporated into the educational context. At the same time, the costs have been generally reduced, making the incorporation into the educational context more viable. (iii) It can boost curiosity among students (Hidrogo et al., 2020b); and (iv) for most students, the university is the only place where they can access this technology.
Virtual environments are becoming relevant in different areas of science education, including natural, medical and computer sciences (Chou et al., 2001; Broisin et al., 2017; Paxinou et al., 2020). Many studies about the use of VR in science education focus on students’ learning outcomes, motivation, and attitude when using VR (Arici et al., 2019). The literature reports no significant differences in learning outcomes when comparing VR with other active learning experiences (Klahr et al., 2007; Moro et al., 2021), but some studies do report learning gains when comparing VR with traditional learning (Johnson-Glenberg and Megowan-Romanowicz, 2017; Liu et al., 2020). The literature on the use of VR about abilities and attitudes in science students reports improvements in students’ achievement, interests and learning experience in STEM education (August et al., 2016; Al-Amri et al., 2020). The relevance of the use of VR to improve certain scientific skills, such as visualization of abstract concepts, has been highlighted by some studies (G眉ney, 2019; Hite et al., 2019).
The use of virtual reality in education has enabled the possibility of representing abstract concepts and virtually manipulating them, providing a suitable platform for understanding mathematical concepts and their relationship with the physical world. Many physical quantities, such as force and acceleration, are mathematically modeled with vectors for describing, computing, and predicting the physical world. Therefore, understanding and working with vectors is necessary for learning physics. The literature highlights the benefits of using VR in science learning. Different studies have reported the development of AR applications for learning vectors, their properties, and operations (Martin-Gonzalez et al., 2016; Langer et al., 2021). In this contribution, we present a study with the objective of evaluating students’ learning and experience when using a virtual reality tool to learn about three-dimensional vectors in a university physics course. We first present a literature review on the basic concepts of virtuality and educational technology. We define the context of the study and present the research questions. We provide the methodology for the study, the description of the participants, instruments, data collection, and analysis. We present the quantitative and qualitative results and discuss the relations between them. Finally, we conclude the article with some recommendations for implementing educational technologies in the science classroom.
Literature review
When working with virtual reality (VR) it is essential to review the definitions of mixed reality, augmented reality, and virtual reality to portray our stand on these concepts. Mixed reality is a type of hybrid environment that blends the physical environment with virtual objects (Tang et al., 2020). It describes a linear continuum that ranges from real environments (reality) to fully virtual environments (virtuality) (Milgram and Kishino, 1994 as cited by Tang et al., 2020). In mixed reality, the real and virtual contents allow for data contextualization, they provide real-time interactivity, and the content needs to be mapped and correlated with the 3D space (Tang et al., 2020). Within this continuum, we find augmented reality, which integrates virtual objects into real-life environments, usually using devices such as smartphones or wearable smart glasses (Chuah, 2018). The real-life environment and the virtual objects interact through the augmented reality device in real-time (Dodevska and Mihic, 2018). For example, when taking a real-life picture with a camera on a smartphone, AR can attach virtual objects to the photograph (Sahin and Yilmaz, 2020). It has been found that augmented reality helps students to visualize abstract concepts, allowing them to observe phenomena that would be impossible otherwise (Sahin and Yilmaz, 2020).
At the end of the reality-virtuality continuum, we find virtual reality. VR blocks out the real world and creates a fully virtual setting to immerse the users into the virtual world (Chuah, 2018). Since VR represents only three-dimensional virtual environments generated with computers, it is necessary to use the appropriate hardware and software to experience VR (Dodevska and Mihic, 2018). VR is an experience in which the user is physically in the real world, entering a three-dimensional virtual environment using a headset and a computer or with a mobile device (Frost et al., 2020). The VR market nowadays has contributed to academic research, engineering, and education, among other areas (Tang et al., 2020).
To design and develop VR learning experiences, it is necessary to consider key educational process elements, such as effective pedagogy, considering the time for teaching and learning activities, using appropriate tools and resources, and promoting student engagement (Tang et al., 2020). Buentello-Montoya et al. (2021) highlighted the importance of having an adequate pedagogical design when implementing VR and AR in the learning of mathematics. Research has found that virtual learning environments can enhance, motivate, and stimulate learning that the traditional approach could not achieve easily (Pan et al., 2006 as cited by Tang et al., 2020). Educational technologies can improve science courses by implementing effective scientific activities and bringing students closer to abstract situations that are difficult to recognize in real life (Sahin and Yilmaz, 2020). The development of virtual experiences in science teaching should be designed to enhance student learning and motivate positive attitudes in students.
Dodevska and Mihic (2018) highlight some advantages and disadvantages of using VR. As advantages, VR can help make decisions in complex projects, reduce time and efficiency, and provide simulations that could lower costs and improve experiences. The main disadvantages are that the initial costs of the hardware and software requirements and changing platforms may not be quite straightforward.
Virtual and augmented reality in science education
Virtual environments are becoming relevant for science education in different areas, such as computer science education (Broisin et al., 2017), nanotechnology education (Xie and Lee, 2012; Sch枚nborn et al., 2016), biology education (Poland et al., 2003; Paxinou et al., 2020), building sciences education (Setareh et al., 2005), health science education (Chou et al., 2001), chemistry education (Miller et al., 2021), among others. Research suggests that VR can be effectively implemented as a virtual class for web-based science education (Shin, 2002). Pre-service science teachers become aware of the potential advantages and disadvantages of using virtual reality within a classroom setting after using a multi-user virtual environment (Kennedy-Clark, 2011). Cowling and Birt (2018) emphasize the need to put pedagogy before the technology to create mixed-reality simulations that satisfy students’ pedagogical needs with a design-based research approach.
The trends in mixed reality studies show that most studies focus on learning achievement, motivation, and attitude and that there is a lack of qualitative research in this area (Arici et al., 2019). Most research compares students’ learning outcomes when using VR to other approaches such as AR, hands-on experiences, and/or traditional education. Research suggests that VR is more effective for visual educational content, while AR is a better option for auditory learning (Huang et al., 2019).
The research has found no significant differences in learning outcomes between VR, AR and hands-on experiences. Research has shown that hands-on activities performed in virtual and physical environments are equally effective in producing significant learning outcomes regarding learners’ knowledge and confidence in early science education (Klahr et al., 2007). Other studies have found that there is parity between using hands-on learning and virtual reality in learning outcomes and cognitive processes (Lamb et al., 2018). In the teaching of medical sciences, several studies have found that there is no significant difference in learning outcomes between using VR, AR or tablet-based simulations; however, using VR participants reported adverse effects, such as dizziness (Moro et al., 2017a,b, 2021).
However, when comparing the use of VR with traditional approaches, the literature reports learning gains. McElhaney and Linn (2011) found that students experiment with virtual environments as intentional, unsystematic and exhaustive experimenters, and that these students had significant learning gains on physics understanding. Collaborative embodied learning in mixed-reality environments leads to increased learning gains compared to regular instruction in science learning (Johnson-Glenberg et al., 2014; Johnson-Glenberg and Megowan-Romanowicz, 2017). Using whole-body, immersive simulations of critical ideas in physics leads to significant learning gains, high engagement, and positive attitudes toward science (Lindgren et al., 2016). Using VR in the science classroom improves academic achievement and engagement scores compared to traditional courses (Liu et al., 2020).
Several studies have found that the use of VR improves specific abilities and attitudes in science students. Implementing a 3D Virtual reality learning environment improved female students’ physics achievement and motivation toward physics learning (Al-Amri et al., 2020). Scherer and Tiemann (2012) found three problem-solving abilities in virtual environments, achieving a goal state, systematic handling of variables, and solving analytical tasks. Motivation and students’ learning attitudes in immersive virtual environments for science education are related through the constructs of intrinsic value and self-regulation, while students’ attention and enjoyment relate to students’ learning in the immersive virtual environment (Cheng and Tsai, 2020). Implementing a Virtual Engineering Science Learning Lab (VESLL) has proven to improve student interest and learning experience in STEM education (August et al., 2016).
G眉ney (2019) highlights the relevance of visualization and visual literacy in instructional design for implementing technology in learning environments through a literature review on visual effects, visual literacy, and the design of multimedia instruction. Using a haptic virtual model with visual and tactile sensorimotor interactions may provide students with the opportunity to construct knowledge about submicroscopic phenomena (Sch枚nborn et al., 2011). Using VR environments and technology for science learning, it is essential to consider students’ spatial acuity, since the learners’ cognitive development plays an important role in students’ perception of virtual reality (Hite et al., 2019). In the learning of mathematics, Schutera et al. (2021) highlighted the relevance of using AR in developing spatial visualization when learning vectors.
