Special Issue: Augmented and Virtual Reality in Education: Immersive Learning Research

Abstract

Keywords

augmented reality games virtual reality X reality

Introduction

The goal of this Special Issue is to publish research on the potentialities, affordances, and challenges of immersive learning environments. The focus is on the optimal use of immersive worlds and environments for educational purposes through innovative research that covers technologies and tools to enable successful services and products of immersive environments to foster learning, training, and other activities in motivational and engaging ways. The objective is to uncover emerging trends and technologies, sound research and best practices, and successful products and services within an international and interdisciplinary community. Another focus is on virtual and augmented worlds; learning and motivational games; educational simulations; mixed/augmented reality; and related learning and teaching tools; techniques, technologies, and standards.

This Special Issue contains some substantially expanded versions of conference papers that were originally presented at the Immersive Learning Research Network’s (iLRN) 2018 conference, along with others outside of the conference. iLRN is an international organization of developers, educators, and research professionals collaborating to develop the scientific, technical, and applied potential of immersive learning (https://immersivelrn.org). The mission and purpose of iLRN are interwoven throughout the articles in this Special Issue. In particular, you will notice the theme that effective immersive learning experiences are created across multiple media using myriad techniques and employing a wealth of knowledge that spans many disciplines. This Special Issue reflects iLRN’s vision to share the evidence and potential for immersive learning in order to narrow three significant gaps in the research literature: (a) immersive learning in specific academic subject areas, (b) the use of different pedagogical approaches in immersive learning environments, and (c) technical affordances of immersive learning environments.

Immersive Learning in Specific Academic Subject Areas

Research findings are inconclusive in terms of the learning effectiveness of immersive learning in specific academic subject areas. Immersive learning appears to promote increased performance in business knowledge application (Cheng & Wang, 2011), anatomy and biology learning (Lee & Wong, 2014; Petersson, Sinkvist, Wang, & Smedby, 2009), matching diagrams and models (Stull, Barrett, & Hegarty, 2013); calligraphic writing skills (Wu, Yuan, Zhou, & Cai, 2013), spatial thinking (Cohen & Hegarty, 2014; Dünser, Steinbügl, Kaufmann, & Glück, 2006; Hauptman, 2010), and affective outcomes (Lee, Wong, & Fung, 2010). On the other hand, no significant differences were found in learning outcomes in chemistry (Urhahne, Nick, & Schanze, 2009; Merchant et al., 2013) and genetics (Annetta, Minogue, Holmes, & Cheng, 2009). Much more research is needed related to immersive technologies in specific subject areas. Based on this limited review, research findings on the effectiveness of immersive learning are inconclusive in some subject areas.

This Special Issue helps to address a gap in the literature on the use of immersive learning technologies in specific academic subject areas through the inclusion of five articles. The following list provides brief information on each of these articles along with the academic subject area participant group studied:

In “A Case Study: Visualizing Coulomb Forces With the Aid of Augmented Reality,” Marina Tomara and Dimitris Gouscos present a study on the use of an augmented reality mobile application to teach physics to secondary level students.

In “A Usability and Acceptance Evaluation of the Use of Augmented Reality for Learning Atoms and Molecules Reaction by Primary School Female Students in Palestine,” Ahmed Ewais and Olga DeTrover describe results of their research with female primary level students using an augmented reality application to learn chemistry.

In “An Immersive Learning Platform for Efficient Biology Learning of Secondary School Level Students,” Dhawaleswar Rao and Sujan K Sahan explore the use of an immersive biology simulation with secondary level students.

In “Effect of Mobile Augmented Reality on Learning Performance, Motivation, and Math Anxiety in a Math Course,” Yu-Ching Chen explains the results of a study dealing with student anxiety and learning outcomes using augmented reality applications to teach mathematics to primary school students.

In “A Design Model for Using Virtual Reality for Behavioral Skills Training,” Ünal Çakıroğlu and Seyfullah Gökoğlu present their research on virtual reality-based fire safety for primary level students.

The Use of Varying Pedagogical Approaches in Immersive Learning Research

Advances in immersive learning technologies have provided opportunities for exploring a variety of pedagogical methods in immersive environments. A key aspect of many pedagogical methods and theories involve how students learn through observation, imitation, and interactions with other students and the instructor. Learning can be limited when students only focus on their own efforts. Instead, students learn best when observing the people around them and imitating their actions (Bandura, 1986). Students also interact with teachers and more advanced peers who can assist in the learning process by modeling correct behavior and scaffolding student learning (Vygotsky, 1978). Also, students who are on a similar learning level can coconstruct meaning and share knowledge (Garrison, 2011), even in online learning environments. Interacting with other students as well as the instructor is positively correlated with social presence, which is a prerequisite to more cognitively focused outcomes in online learning environments (Borup, West, Graham, & Davies, 2014; Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2001; Shea & Bidjerano, 2009). Moreover, student interactions stimulate creativity and other important skills that are becoming increasingly valuable in the workplace (Sawyer, 2007). In contrast, the lack of meaningful interactions can leave students feeling isolated and unmotivated to learn (Palloff & Pratt, 2007).

Although desktop virtual worlds have often been used for student–student interactions (Boughzala, De Vreede, & Limayem, 2012; Petrakou, 2010; Yilmaz, Baydas, Karakus, & Goktas, 2015), much educational research using virtual reality environments has eschewed the use of multiuser immersive environments, especially in areas where there is a need to have a high level of artificial control over the quality of the visual scene produced, variables used, and interactivity. This is especially true when working with vulnerable populations such as special education students (Rutten et al., 2003; Trepagnier, Olsen, Boteler, & Bell, 2011). Multiuser immersive environments can be ideally customized to promote discussion, negotiation, and social embodiment (Schmidt, Laffey, & Stichter, 2011).

This Special Issue helps to address this gap in the literature on the use of specific pedagogical methods in immersive learning environments through the inclusion of four articles. The following list provides brief information on each of these articles along with the type of participant studied:

In “Transforming Earth Science Education Through Immersive Experiences––Delivering on a Long Held Promise,” Alexander Klippel et al. communicate their research on virtual reality field trips for undergraduate geosciences students.

In “Comparing the Efficacy of Virtual Simulation to Traditional Classroom Role-Play,” Sally Spencer, Talya Drescher, Jennifer Holbrook, Angelica Fulchini Scruggs, and Jillian Schreffler explain their research on the effectiveness of role-play in a mixed reality environment on collaboration skills for preservice teachers.

In “Using Augmented Reality Flashcards to Learn Vocabulary in Early Childhood Education,” Ruo Wei Chen and Kan Kan Chan share their research on using augmented reality vocabulary flash cards with preschool children.

In “Change of Teacher Beliefs, But Not Practices, Following Integration of Immersive Virtual Environment in the Classroom,” Kelly Mills, Diane Ketelhut, and Xiaoyang Gong present their research study on secondary science teachers’ scientific inquiry practices within an immersive virtual environment.

Technical Affordances of Immersive Learning Environments

Even a cursory examination of immersive learning technologies reveals some obvious technical affordances of the technologies and environments. (a) Researchers can use immersive technologies to customize learning spaces for specific groups of students. (b) These environments also can reflect real-life interactions with people, places, and locations. (c) Also, the immersive environments allow the user to run through time much quicker than real life, so learners can simulate days, weeks, or even years of a process in seconds. This time-based affordance in turn enables a learner to evaluate the long-term consequences of any changes and decisions they make. (d) Finally, users also develop identities within immersive environments that can align with the community of practice that researchers seek to establish (Gee, 2000; Turkle, 2011).

This Special Issue helps to address this gap in the literature on specific technical affordances of immersive learning environments through the inclusion of two articles. The following list provides brief information on each of these articles along with the type of participant studied:

In “Educational Technology and Its Contributions in Students’ Focus and Attention Regarding AR Environments and the Use of Sensors,” Fabricio Herpich et al. discuss their research on the attention level of STEM undergraduate students when using an augmented reality application.

In “Effect of Pokémon GO on Cognitive Performance and Emotional Intelligence of Primary School Students,” Chia-Yen Hsieh presents research results of the Pokémon GO augmented reality game on the cognitive performance and emotional intelligence of Taiwanese primary school students.

Conclusion

I have highlighted how each article in this Special Issue of the Journal of Educational Computing Research addresses a specific gap in the research literature related to (a) immersive learning in specific academic subject areas, (b) the use of different pedagogical approaches in immersive learning environments, and (c) technical affordances of immersive learning environments. Narrowing these gaps aligns with iLRN’s mission, which is to invite and organize scientists, practitioners, organizations, and innovators from across the disciplines to explore, describe, showcase, and apply the optimal use of immersive worlds and environments for formal and informal educational purposes.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Dennis Beck is an associate professor of educational technology at the University of Arkansas. His research focuses on and advocates for digital, educational equity for vulnerable populations, with an emphasis on culturally and linguistically diverse and special education students at the primary and secondary levels. In this stream, he has studied the influence of student and teacher avatar gender and race on expectations, perceptions, and evaluations. He has also examined the use of immersive learning environments for providing life skills training for low-functioning young adults on the autism spectrum. In addition, in order to better understand the impacts of immersive environments in cyber schooling on vulnerable populations, he has studied an immersive art curation environment in partnership with a local museum. He has published in several venues, including Computers & Education, American Journal of Distance Education, Educational Administration Quarterly, and the Journal of Educational Research.

References

Annetta

L. A.

Minogue

Holmes

S. Y.

Cheng

M.-T.

(2009) Investigating the impact of video games on high school students’ engagement and learning about genetics. Computers & Education 53(1): 74–85.

Bandura

(1986) The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 4(3): 359–373.

Borup

West

R. E.

Graham

C. R.

Davies

R. S.

(2014) The adolescent community of engagement framework: A lens for research on K-12 online learning. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education 22(1): 107–129.

Boughzala

De Vreede

G. J.

Limayem

(2012) Team collaboration in virtual worlds: Editorial to the special issue. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 13(10): 714.

Cheng

Wang

S.-H.

(2011) Applying a 3D virtual learning environment to facilitate student’s application ability—The case of marketing. Computers in Human Behavior 27(1): 576–584.

Cohen

C. A.

Hegarty

(2014) Visualizing cross sections: Training spatial thinking using interactive animations and virtual objects. Learning and Individual Differences 33: 63–71.

Dünser, A., Steinbügl, K., Kaufmann, H., & Glück, J. (2006, July 6–7). Virtual and augmented reality as spatial ability training. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Seventh ACM SIGCHI New Zealand Chapter’s International Conference on Computer-Human Interaction, Christchurch, New Zealand.

Garrison

D. R.

(2011) E-learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and practice, London, England: Routledge.

Garrison

D. R.

Anderson

Archer

(2001) Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education 15(1): 7–23.

10.

Gee

J. P.

(2000) Identity as an analytic lens for research in education. Review of Research in Education 25: 99–125.

11.

Hauptman

(2010) Enhancement of spatial thinking with Virtual Spaces 1.0. Computers & Education 54(1): 123–135.

12.

Lee

E. A. L.

Wong

K. W.

(2014) Learning with desktop virtual reality: Low spatial ability learners are more positively affected. Computers & Education 79: 49–58.

13.

Lee

E. A.-L.

Wong

K. W.

Fung

C. C.

(2010) Learning with virtual reality: Its effects on students with different learning styles. Transactions on Edutainment, IV 79–90.

14.

Merchant

Goetz

E. T.

Keeney-Kennicutt

Cifuentes

Kwok

Davis

T. J.

(2013) Exploring 3-D virtual reality technology for spatial ability and chemistry achievement. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 29(6): 579–590.

15.

Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2007). In R. Luppicini (Ed.), Online learning communities (pp. 3–15). North Carolina: Information Age Publishing.

16.

Petersson

Sinkvist

Wang

Smedby

Ö.

(2009) Web-based interactive 3D visualization as a tool for improved anatomy learning. Anatomical Sciences Education 2: 61–68.

17.

Petrakou

(2010) Interacting through avatars: Virtual worlds as a context for online education. Computers & Education 54(4): 1020–1027.

18.

Rutten, A., Cobb, S., Neale, H., Kerr, S., Leonard, A., Parsons, S., & Mitchell, P. (2003). The AS interactive project: single-user and collaborative virtual environments for people with high-functioning autistic spectrum disorders. The Journal of Visualization and Computer Animation, 14(5), 233–241.

19.

Sawyer

(2007) Group genius: The creative power of collaboration, New York, NY: Basic Books.

20.

Schmidt, M., Laffey, J., & Stichter, J. (2011). Virtual social competence instruction for individuals with autism spectrum disorders: Beyond the single-user experience. In Proceedings of the CSCL, Hong Kong, China.

21.

Shea

Bidjerano

(2009) Community of inquiry as a theoretical framework to foster “epistemic engagement” and “cognitive presence” in online education. Computers & Education 52(3): 543–553.

22.

Stull

A. T.

Barrett

Hegarty

(2013) Usability of concrete and virtual models in chemistry instruction. Computers in Human Behavior 29(6): 2546–2556.

23.

Trepagnier

C. Y.

Olsen

D. E.

Boteler

Bell

C. A.

(2011) Virtual conversation partner for adults with autism. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking 14(1-2): 21–27.

24.

Turkle

(2011) Life on the screen, New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.

25.

Urhahne

Nick

Schanze

(2009) The effect of three-dimensional simulations on the understanding of chemical structures and their properties. Research in Science Education 39(4): 495–513.

26.

Vygotsky

(1978) Interaction between learning and development. Readings on the Development of Children 23(3): 34–41.

27.

Yuan

Zhou

Cai

(2013) A mobile Chinese calligraphic training system using virtual reality technology. AASRI Procedia 5: 200–208.

28.

Yilmaz

R. M.

Baydas

Karakus

Goktas

(2015) An examination of interactions in a three-dimensional virtual world. Computers & Education 88: 256–267.