Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Implementation of a desktop virtual reality field trip in public outreach settings

  • Published:
Multimedia Tools and Applications Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study investigated how the VR experience (immersion and presence) and design features (narrative, guidance, and feedback) were related to participants’ engagement and perceptions of learning with a desktop Virtual Reality field trip (dVFT) in public outreach settings as used by environmental education centers. Data was collected from 139 participants at three different types of public outreach settings. The results found that immersion, presence, engagement, learning about local environment, VR design features, and affective learning were perceived favorably by the majority of the study’s participants. Design features, engagement, learning about the local environment, and affective learning were significantly lower for young participants (≤ 18 years old) compared to adults. Environmental education center festival participants had higher favorable mean responses for each subscale followed by Web location participants, followed by Homework Club participants. Results from the path analysis highlighted the importance of presence and the design features for engagement and perceived learning. Our findings support that learning about one’s local environment with a dVFT can have a positive impact on engagement and learning, particularly in public outreach learning environments.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, Alec Bodzin, upon reasonable request.

References

  1. National Research Council (2009) Learning science in informal environments: People, places, and pursuits. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  2. Allen S (2007) Secrets of circles summative evaluation report. Report prepared for the Discovery Museum of San Jose. https://www.informalscience.org/sites/default/files/report_252.PDF Accessed 1 August 2022.

  3. Borun M (2003) Space Command summative evaluation. Franklin Institute Science Museum. https://www.informalscience.org/space-command-summative-evaluation. Accessed 1 August, 2022.

  4. McLean K (1993) Planning for people in museum exhibitions. Association of Science-Technology Centers, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  5. Goldowsky N (2002) Lessons from life: Learning from exhibits, animals, and interaction in a museum. UMI#3055856. Dissertation, Harvard University.

  6. Bodzin A, Araujo Junior R, Schwartz C, Anastasio D, Hammond T, Birchak B (2022) Learning about environmental issues with a desktop virtual reality field trip. Inno Sci Teac Edu 7. https://innovations.theaste.org/learning-about-environmental-issues-with-a-desktop-virtual-reality-field-trip/

  7. Jennett C, Cox AL, Cairns P, Dhoparee S, Epps A, Tijs T, Walton A (2008) Measuring and defining the experience of immersion in games. Int J Hum Comp Stu 66:641–661. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2008.04.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Leung GYS, Hazan H, Chan CS (2022) Exposure to nature in immersive virtual reality increases connectedness to nature among people with low nature affinity. J Env Psyc 83:101863. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2022.101863

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Klippel A, Zhao J, Oprean D, Wallgrün JO, Stubbs C, La Femina P, Jackson KL (2020) The value of being there: toward a science of immersive virtual field trips. Virt Real 24:753–770. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-019-00418-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Dolphin G, Dutchak A, Karchewski B, Cooper J (2019) Virtual field experiences in introductory geology: Addressing a capacity problem, but finding a pedagogical one. J Geo Edu 67:114–130. https://doi.org/10.1080/10899995.2018.1547034

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Zhao, JY, LaFemina P, Carr J, Sajjadi P, Wallgrun JO, Klippel A (2020, March 22–26) Learning in the field: Comparison of desktop, immersive virtual reality, and actual field trips for place-based STEM education, 2020 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR) 893–902. https://doi.org/10.1109/VR46266.2020.00012

  12. Fung FM, Choo WY, Ardisara A, Zimmermann CD, Watts S, Koscielniak T, Blanc E, Coumoul X, Dumke R (2019) Applying a virtual reality platform in environmental chemistry education to conduct a field trip to an overseas site. J Chem Edu 96:382–386. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00728

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Anderson MS, Klingenberg S, Petersen GB, Creed PA, Makransky G (2023) Fostering science interest through head mounted displays. J Comp Ass Lear 39:269–379. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12749

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Mead C, Buxner S, Bruce G, Taylor W, Semken S, Anbar AD (2019) Immersive, interactive virtual field trips promote science learning. J Geo Edu 67:131–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/10899995.2019.1565285

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Petersen GB, Klingenberg S, Mayer RE, Makransky G (2020) The virtual field trip: Investigating how to optimize immersive virtual learning in climate change education. Brit J Edu Tech 51:2099–2115. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12991

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Cheng KH (2022) Teachers’ perceptions of exploiting immersive virtual field trips for learning in primary education. J Res Tech Edu 54:438–455. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2021.1876576

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Cheng KH, Tsai CC (2019) A case study of immersive virtual field trips in an elementary classroom: Students’ learning experience and teacher-student interaction behaviors. Comp Edu 140:103600. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103600

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Han I (2020) Immersive virtual field trips in education: A mixed-methods study on elementary students’ presence and perceived learning. Brit J Edu Tech 51:20–435. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12842

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Litherland K, Stott TA (2012) Virtual field sites: Losses and gains in authenticity with semantic technologies. Tech Ped Edu 21:213–230. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2012.697773

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Clary RM, Wandersee JH (2010) Virtual field exercises in the online classroom: Practicing science teachers’ perceptions of effectiveness, best practices, and implementation. J Col Sci Teach 39:50–58

    Google Scholar 

  21. Markowitz DM, Laha R, Perone BP, Pea RD, Bailenson JN (2018) Immersive Virtual Reality Field Trips Facilitate Learning About Climate Change. Front Psyc 9:2365. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02364

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Bibic L, Druskis J, Walpole S, Angulo J, Stokes L (2019) Bug off pain: An educational virtual reality game on spider venoms and chronic pain. J Chem Edu 96:1486–1490. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00905

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Kersting M, Steier R, Venville G (2021) Exploring participant engagement during an astrophysics virtual reality experience at a science festival. Int J Sci Edu Part B 11:17–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2020.1857458

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Renee JL, Hoerman S, Koleini A (2021) Visualizing sea level rise impacts to transportation infrastructure using virtual reality. J Tran Geo 93:103077. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2021.103077

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Huang X, Huss J, North L, Williams K, Boyd-Devine A (2023) Cognitive and motivational benefits of a theory-based immersive virtual reality design in science learning. Comp Edu Open 4:100124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2023.100124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Carini RM, Kuh GD, Klein SP (2006) Student engagement and student learning: Testing the linkages. Res High Edu 47:1–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-005-8150-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Dorph R, Cannady MA, Schunn CD (2016) How Science Learning Activation Enables Success for Youth in Science Learning Experiences. Elec J Sci Edu 20:49–83

    Google Scholar 

  28. Finn JD, Pannozzo GM, Voelkl KE (1995) Disruptive and inattentive-withdrawn aquarium visitor learning. J Res Sci Teac 40:163–176

    Google Scholar 

  29. Fredricks JA, Blumenfeld PC, Paris AH (2004) School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Rev Edu Res 74:59–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Fredricks J, McColskey W, Meli J, Mordica J, Montrosse B, Mooney K (2011) Measuring student engagement in upper elementary through high school: A description of 21 instruments. Issues & Answers. REL 2011-No. 098. Regional Educational Laboratory Southeast

  31. Reeve J (2013) How students create motivationally supportive learning environments for themselves: The concept of agentic engagement. J Educ Psychol 105:579–595. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032690

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Reeve J, Tseng C-M (2011) Agency as a fourth aspect of students’ engagement during learning activities. Contemp Educ Psychol 36:257–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2011.05.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Bodzin A, Araujo Junior R, Hammond T, Anastasio D (2021) Investigating engagement and flow with a placed-based immersive virtual reality game. J Sci Educ Technol 30:347–360. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-020-09870-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Hidi S, Renninger KA (2006) The four-phase model of interest development. Educ Psychol 41:111–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Jensen L, Konradsen F (2018) A review of the use of virtual reality head-mounted displays in education and training. Educ Inf Technol 23:1515–1529

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Slater M (2003) A note on presence terminology. Presence Connect 3:1–5

    Google Scholar 

  37. Freina L, Ott M (2015) A literature review on immersive virtual reality in education: State of the art and perspectives. In: The 11th International Scientific Conference ELearning and Software for Education, pp 133–141

  38. Sanchez-Vives MV, Slater M (2005) From presence to consciousness through virtual reality. Nat Rev Neurosci 6:332–339

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Wirth W, Hartmann T, Bocking S et al (2007) A process model of the formation of spatial presence experiences. Media Psychol 9:493–525

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Cummings JJ, Tsay-Vogel M, Cahill TJ, Zhang L (2022) Effects of immersive storytelling on affective, cognitive, and associative empathy. New Media Soc 24:2003–2026. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448209868

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Semken S, Ward EG, Moosavi S, Chinn PWU (2017) Place-based education in geoscience: Theory, research, practice, and assessment. J Geosci Educ 65:542–562. https://doi.org/10.5408/17-276.1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Sobel D (2004) Place-based education: Connecting classrooms and communities. The Orion Society, Great Barrington

  43. Nasir NS, Rosebery AS, Warren B, Lee CD (2006) Learning as a cultural process: Achieving equity through diversity. In: Sawyer RK (ed) The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences, pp 489–504

  44. Rogoff B (2003) The cultural nature of human development. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  45. Langran E, DeWitt J (2020) Navigating placed-based learning. Springer, Cham

    Book  Google Scholar 

  46. Alon NL, Tal T (2015) Student self-reported learning outcomes of field trips: The pedagogical impact. Int J Sci Educ 37:1279–1298

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Dale RG, Powell RB, Stern MJ, Garst BA (2020) Influence of the natural setting on environmental education outcomes. Environ Educ Res 26(5):613–631. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2020.1738346

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Bodzin A (2008) Integrating instructional technologies in a local watershed investigation with urban elementary learners. J Environ Educ 39:47–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Fisman L (2005) The effects of local learning on environmental awareness in children: An empirical investigation. J Environ Educ 36:39–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Vander Ark T, Liebtag E, McClennen N (2020) The Power of Place: Authentic Learning Through Place-Based Education. ASCD

  51. Bleiwas DI, DiFrancesco C (2010) Historical zinc smelting in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, and Washington, D.C., with estimates of atmospheric zinc emissions and other materials. (U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 2010–1131). U.S. Department of the Interior. https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1131/pdf/OF10-1131.pdf

  52. National Research Council (2011) Learning science through computer games and simulations. Committee on Science Learning: Computer Games, Simulations, and Education. Honey MA, Hilton ML (Eds.). Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. The National Academies Press, Washington

  53. Azevedo R, Aleven V (eds) (2010) International handbook of metacognition and learning technologies. Springer, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  54. de Jong T (2005) The guided discovery principle in multimedia learning. In: Mayer RE (ed) The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 215–228

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  55. Pirker J, Riffnaller-Schiefer M, Tomes LM, Gutl C (2016) Motivational active learning in blended and virtual learning scenarios: engaging students in digital learning. In: Pinhiero M, Simoes D (eds) Handbook of Research on Engaging Digital Natives in Higher Education Settings. IGI Global, Hershey, pp 416–437

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  56. Chung J, Cannady MA, Schunn C, Dorph R, Bathgate M (2016) Measures technical brief: Engagement in science learning activities. Retrieved from http://www.activationlab.org

  57. Pituch KA, Stevens JP (2016) Applied multivariate statistics for applied sciences: Analyses with SAS and IBM’s SPSS, 6th edn. Routledge

    Google Scholar 

  58. Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS (2001) Using multivariate statistics, 4th edn. Allyn and Bacon

    Google Scholar 

  59. Muthén LK, Muthén BO (1998–2017) Mplus User’s Guide. Eighth Edition. Muthén & Muthén, Los Angeles.

  60. Fritz MS, Taylor AB, MacKinnon DP (2012) Explanation of two anomalous results in statistical mediation analysis. Multivariate Behav Res 47:61–87 https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2012.640596

  61. Cummings JJ, Bailenson JN (2016) How immersive is enough? A meta-analysis of the effect of immersive technology on user presence. Media Psychol 19:272–309. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2015.1015740

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Habgood MPJ, Ainsworth SE, Benford S (2005) Endogenous fantasy and learning in digital games. Simul Gaming 36:483–498

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Makransky G, Terkildsen TS, Mayer RE (2019) Adding immersive virtual reality to a science lab simulation causes more presence and less learning. Learn Instr 60:225–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.12.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Novak E (2015) A critical review of digital storyline-enhanced learning. Educ Res Dev 63:431–453. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-015-9372-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Southgate E, Smith SP, Cividino C, Saxby S, Kilham J, Eather G, Scevak J, Summerville D, Buchanan R, Bergin C (2019) Embedding immersive virtual reality in classrooms: Ethical, organisational and educational lessons in bridging research and practice. Int J Child-Comput Interact 19:19–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2018.10.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Johnson-Glenberg MC, Megowan-Ramanowicz C, Bircgfield DA, Savio-Ramos C (2016) Effects of embodied learning and digital platform on the retention physics content: Centripetal force. Front Psychol 7 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01819

  67. Jenkins H (2002) Game design as narrative architecture. In: Harrington P, Frup-Waldrop N (Eds.), First Person. MIT Press

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Sarah Kiel, Tyler Hogue, Austin Lordi, Brad DeMassa, Challen Adu, Kanaruj Chanthongdee, Yolanda Liu, Max Louissaint, Anthony Blakely, and Brantley Balsamo for their development work with us on the dVFT. The authors are grateful for the Office of Creative Inquiry at Lehigh University and its continued support. Special thanks to the Lehigh RiVR Immersive Learning lab members. In addition, the authors appreciate the collaboration from Lehigh Gap Nature Center, Nurture Nature Center, Jacobsburg Environmental Education Center, and D&L National Heritage Corridor.

Funding

Partial financial support was received from the Office of Creative Inquiry at Lehigh University for the development of the dVFT. No funding was received for conducting the study.Competing interests.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Education and Human Services, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA, USA

    Alec M. Bodzin, Qiong Fu, Robson M. Araujo-Junior & Thomas Hammond

  2. Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA, USA

    David Anastasio

  3. Lehigh Gap Nature Center, Slatington, PA, USA

    Chad Schwartz

Authors
  1. Alec M. Bodzin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Qiong Fu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Robson M. Araujo-Junior
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Thomas Hammond
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. David Anastasio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Chad Schwartz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alec M. Bodzin.

Ethics declarations

Declarations

This study involved only voluntary participation. We obtained passive consent from all the participants. This study did not collect any personally identifiable data. This study was reviewed and approved by the Lehigh University’s IRB (Bethlehem, PA) under the IRBNet ID 1730392–5.

Conflict of interest

The authors have no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix A. Survey Measure Items

Appendix A. Survey Measure Items

1.1 Engagement subscale items:

I felt excited when I used the VR field trip.

My mind was elsewhere when I used the VR field trip. (reverse code).

I was focused on the VR field trip most of the time.

I felt bored when I used the VR field trip. (reverse code).

Time went by quickly when I used the VR field trip.

I was doing other things when I used the VR field trip. (reverse code).

When I used the VR field trip, I talked to others about things not related to the VR field trip. (reverse code).

1.2 Presence subscale items:

I had a sense of “being there” when using the VR field trip.

I was able to concentrate easily when using the VR field trip.

I felt present in the VR field trip.

1.3 Immersion subscale items:

The VR field trip had a realistic-looking environment.

My seeing and hearing senses were fully used during the VR field trip.

I felt immersed when using the VR field trip.

1.4 VR design features subscale items:

I enjoyed the storyline of the VR field trip.

I enjoyed receiving guidance and feedback during the VR field trip.

1.5 Perceptions of learning about one’s local environment subscale items:

I learned about my local environment with the VR field trip.

I learned about local history while using the VR field trip.

I learned about local environmental issues when using the VR field trip.

The “real-life” context of the VR field trip made learning about the local environment interesting.

The things I learned while using the VR field trip were relevant to my daily life.

1.6 Affective learning subscale items:

Using this VR field trip was a rewarding experience.

Using this VR field trip was a worthwhile experience.

This VR field trip did not hold my attention. (reverse code).

I would describe this VR field trip as very interesting.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bodzin, A.M., Fu, Q., Araujo-Junior, R.M. et al. Implementation of a desktop virtual reality field trip in public outreach settings. Multimed Tools Appl 83, 55405–55426 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-023-17729-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-023-17729-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation