Implementing Virtual Reality in University Courses: Student Perspectives and Issues Exploring the "Effects With" Virtual Reality

• In Event: Learning With Virtual and Augmented Reality: Examining the Theoretical, Technological, and Assessment Factors for Learning

Abstract

Theory
New technologies arrive with big promises to impact learning (Cuban, 1986), and VR is no exception. Previous VR work on training (Bailenson, 2018) focused on contexts like medicine (Difede & Hoffman, 2004) and behavior change (Ahn, Bailenson, & Park, 2014), but more mainstream VR technology is leading to wider VR classroom implementations (McMurtrie, 2019), and a need to understand the learning impact of VR. Many experimental studies compare VR and non-VR conditions to gauge learning, i.e., the “effects of” a technology (Salmon, Perkins, & Globerson, 1991). However, such approaches provide less insight into how student use of VR can guide educational design, i.e., the “effects with” a technology (Salomon et al., 1991).

Design & Implementation
We examined the “effects with” VR by studying two pilot mini-courses at a research university. Research data included student observations, classroom observations, student survey data, and student responses to reflective prompts and questions about VR.

Assessment
Our qualitative analyses of these data began to identify themes about classroom VR use, including:

The “fit” of VR representations: Student identity and support within VR
Virtual reality is immersive, but that alone does not insure learning. Student comments described instances where VR representations conflicted with their personal identity and expertise. For example, female students who took on a male role in a VR experience described difficulty in identifying with the character (e.g., when female students looked in a VR mirror to see a male character). Another example was when voiceovers explaining aspects of the VR experience frustrated students who felt they already knew that information, and they could not customize the voiceovers. These are reminders that (1) classroom VR enactments should consider how VR fits students’ own identities in ways that keep them focused on learning activities, and (2) classroom VR may require multiple representations, including scaffolded representations to tailor VR experiences with appropriate educational interventions.

Considering the learning impact of VR fidelity—and perceived fidelity—by students
Similarly, the high fidelity of VR representations--and the way students perceive them--may not always be conducive to learning. Students used different types of VR equipment, and they commented on the different levels of immersion. Higher levels of immersion were more engaging than less immersive experiences that students described as movie watching rather than a full VR experience. We need to understand how different levels of VR immersion and fidelity can impact learning and engagement.

Physical space and technology support matters
Finally, there are logistical and support issues as physical classrooms need to be congruent with the VR activities students will enact. As students move around the classroom, physical barriers and classroom seating need to be adjusted to avoid obstacles and distractions from other students. Time spent using the VR was also important as students felt that limited VR time in class interfered with fully understand VR experiences. Also, support staff are vital, as a number of support-staff were needed to set up equipment, troubleshoot equipment in class during activities, support the professor with the VR activities, etc.

Authors

• Chris Quintana, University of Michigan

• Jinzhi Zhou, Indiana University - Bloomington