Shawn Ming Yang LEE1,*, Raudhah Thongkam2, and TAN Wei Ling, Stella1
1Department of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Science (FoS), National University of Singapore (NUS)
2TEL Imaginarium, NUS Libraries
Sub-Theme
Building Technological and Community Relationships
Keywords
Virtual Reality, STEM, Classroom integration
Category
Lightning Talks
Over the past decade, Virtual Reality (VR) has been explored as a tool to support conceptual learning and engagement in STEM education (Freina and Ott, 2015). Recently, with the improvement of VR headset technology and the revival of buzz words like ‘spatial computing’, it is even more likely that VR headsets could become the computers of tomorrow. Instead of being tools that facilitate certain activities or visualisation exercises, VR headsets could become primary devices used to conduct and attend lessons, potentially redefining the dynamics and interactions in the classroom.
Around the world, a plethora of reviews have been conducted, highlighting the diverse applications of VR, including a typical slideshow lesson (Parong & Mayer, 2018) and simulation training (Feng et al., 2018). While some of these papers looked at the outcomes on the effectiveness of VR, most other papers merely address the usability and interest of the technology. Hence, there is a need to understand how (and why) VR is currently being used in the classroom, and to evaluate the effectiveness of its use in achieving the desired outcomes. This talk presents ongoing work that explores how VR is currently being integrated into a variety of STEM courses, with a focus on how implementation context (such as seminars, tutorials/practicals, assessments, etc) can shape its effectiveness.
With the understanding that successful VR integration depends not only on the technology itself but on how well it aligns with pedagogical goals and learner readiness, this study will record information from participants of the VR activity (students) and its implementors (educators/facilitators/designers).
Prior to the VR activity, students will complete a survey measuring perceived usefulness, ease of use and behavioural intentions toward VR technology, using validated Likert Scale items adapted from the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM; Davis, 1989). After the activity, a second survey is conducted to capture student perspectives based on Liz Kolb’s Triple E framework (engagement, enhancement and extension; Kolb, 2011). In addition, students will self-report any observable skills that they have demonstrated (based on Bloom’s taxonomy), such as analysis, synthesis or evaluation of ideas.
For the implementors of the VR activity, they are surveyed post-implementation using the Triple E Framework to reflect on how well the session engaged learners, enhanced understanding, and extended learning beyond traditional methods.
One example of how VR is in a Forensic Science course—FSC4203 “Forensic Toxicology and Poisons”. This course has used VR as part of a practical/assessment for the past five iterations of the course, where students (as a team) are tasked to identify the relevant evidence, document and collect them in a virtual crime scene. Subsequently, the students will need to analyse the items collected in the perspective of a Crime Scene Specialist and a Forensic Toxicologist, and eventually present the findings of the evidence as an expert in the court of law.
.
Based on previous iterations of the above-mentioned course, student feedback is often positive in relation to the adoption of VR. However, the feedback mainly reflects the “fun” and “novel” factor, with few reflecting about the learning outcomes. Conversely, looking at the “what I did not like” of the course, a desire for a longer time for VR is also found every year.
Hence, with the implementation of the abovementioned surveys for the course this year, it aims to move the conversation beyond the novelty of VR and toward evidence-informed strategies for its integration in STEM education from both the perspectives of the student and the educator.
While only one course has been explored thus far, it is the hope that a wider variety of courses and implementations of VR is explored to evaluate the diverse uses of VR, and to hopefully provide recommendations of how and when to adopt VR in the classroom.
References
Davis, F.D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
Feng, Z., González, V.A., Amor, R., Lovreglio, R. & Cabrera-Guerrero, G. (2018). Immersive virtual reality serious games for evacuation training and research: A systematic literature review. Computers & Education, 127, 252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.09.002
Freina, L. & Ott, M. (2015). A literature review on immersive virtual reality in education: State of the art and perspectives. eLearning and Software for Education (eLSE). https://doi.org/10.12753/2066-026x-15-020
Kolb, L. (2011). Triple E Framework. University of Michigan, School of Education. https://www.tripleeframework.com/
Parong, J., & Mayer, R. E. (2018). Learning science in immersive virtual reality. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110(6), 785. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2018-03101-001