Virtual Reality in Curriculum and Pedagogy

Evidence from Secondary Classrooms

Erica Southgate

• Editore: Routledge
• Anno: 2020
• ISBN:
  9781000064506
• Edizione: 1
• Argomento: Education
• Categoria: Inclusive Education

Virtual Reality in Curriculum and Pedagogy explores the instructional, ethical, practical, and technical issues related to the integration of immersive virtual reality (VR) in school classrooms. The book's original pedagogical framework is informed by qualitative and quantitative data collected from the first-ever study to embed immersive VR in secondary school science, ICT, and drama classrooms. Students and scholars of technology-enhancing learning, curriculum design, and teacher education alike will find key pedagogical insights into leveraging the unique properties of VR for authentic, metacognitive, and creative learning.

1

Introduction

From the Germ of an Idea to a Gem of an Idea (or How This Book Came About)

In August 2016, I met with teachers from the junior high school campuses of Callaghan College to brainstorm a project that would use highly immersive virtual reality (iVR) in classrooms. By chance, a few months earlier, I had sat next to the principal of Callaghan College and we had struck up a conversation about technology and learning. I discussed the newly commercially released Oculus Rift, describing the wonders of fully interactive virtual reality (VR) that transported users to amazing environments like no other technology and which, in some cases, even allowed students to create their own unique worlds to demonstrate mastery of learning objectives. I told him that I wanted to do research on using the technology in schools but was unsure what the research would look like because putting high-end VR in classrooms was relatively untested. I had a germ of an idea with no funding to resource its development, and high-end VR was (and still is) expensive, especially for low-income school communities like Callaghan College. Unperturbed, the Callaghan College team worked tirelessly to progress the VR School Study. Over the following two years, a participatory research project unfolded, gradually sharpening its focus on using highly iVR in science and technology classrooms. In 2018, the study was expanded to include a performing arts class at rural Dungog High School.

While there were several decades of educational research on using screen-based VR (delivered via desktop computers or mobile devices), and teachers had been experimenting with Google Expeditions since 2014, research on using iVR (VR delivered via a head mounted display or headset) in schools was (and is) only just emerging. When the VR School Study began there were no research or practical models to draw upon. We needed to imagine, invent, and problem-solve what using high-end iVR – with its spatial requirements, ethical and safety implications, and unique pedagogical potential – might look like in low-income school communities. It was, to quote a teacher from the Callaghan College study, an ‘arduous’ journey.

It was precisely the ‘ups and downs’ of the research journey that have yielded the most valuable findings. The aim of this book is to stimulate a deeper conversation about the pedagogical value of iVR by sharing insights into what happens when you take this emerging technology out of the controlled conditions of a laboratory and put it into the dynamic natural setting of the school. This is a story that is far removed from the evangelism that permeates the EdTech space. This book offers an evidence-informed narrative in the tradition of critical studies of technology in education. Selwyn (2008) articulates a fundamental premise of the critical stance when he argues that far more attention should be paid to the ‘state-of-the-actual’ in the field educational technology rather than the ‘state-of-the-art’ (p. 83). This means moving away from a position of trying to ‘prove’ a technology is good for learning to scrutinising what is ‘actually taking place when technology meets classroom’, especially from the perspectives of teachers and students and in settings that do not fit the well-resourced ‘model’ schools in which technologies are often tested (Selwyn, 2008, p. 83).

Adopting a critical position when researching educational technology does not involve stymieing enthusiasm, curiosity, or a spirit of adventure. Rather, it is about maintaining a disposition of passionate distance: The joy and engagement that a technology can bring into classrooms should not be confused with the need to understand, through rigorous inquiry, its myriad implications and complications for diverse groups of learners and their teachers. Passionate distance involves honestly and credibly accounting for a technology’s impact on an intricate, interrelated set of individual and social dynamics influenced by curriculum and pedagogical context and technical capability.

Technical Terms Explained

There are a number of technical terms which appear regularly in this book. The first is virtual reality (VR) which refers to a 3D computer-generated environment which can be a highly imaginative or an accurate simulation of something in the real world. VR can be experienced via a computer or mobile device screen, a CAVE (a room that surrounds the user with projection screens), or a head mounted display (HMD) commonly called a VR headset.

In scholarly circles, VR that is delivered or mediated via a headset and has positional tracking is called immersive virtual reality (iVR) (Slater and Sanchez-Vives, 2016). The term iVR is used to differentiate it from screen-based VR. iVR hardware includes motion tracking systems which detect the orientation of a user. Positional tracking can be ‘outside-in’ (that is the position of the user’s headset is tracked by sensors/cameras which are positioned in the room) or ‘inside-out’ (that is the position of the user headset is tracked by sensors/cameras within the headset itself). In addition, different iVR equipment allows for different degrees of freedom (DoF) of movement and this affects interaction and navigation opportunities within a virtual environments. DoF denotes the number of ways an object can move through 3D space (Google, 2019). To simplify, some VR headsets allow for 3DoF which means that tracking accounts for whether a user’s head is moving forward/backward, up/down, or left/right. Other (higher-end) headsets allow for 6DoF which means that in addition to 3DoF, the head’s rotational movements of pitch, yaw, and roll are tracked. 6DoF hardware allows for a greater range of interaction and navigation opportunities in a virtual environment usually generating a more immersive experience.

From a hardware perspective there are a range of headsets available. These include 3DoF headsets designed to have smartphones slide into the front of them with the combination of phone and headset producing the iVR experience. Some of these headsets are handheld while others are fitted with a head strap, and some have handheld controllers that enable navigation and interaction in the virtual environment. Some high-end VR headsets are ‘tethered’ or attached with a cable to a computer that has powerful graphics capacity. These have sophisticated ‘outside-in’ tracking systems external to the headset and controllers that usually allow for 6DoF navigation and (gestural) interaction in virtual environments. Recently, ‘stand-alone’ or ‘all-in-one’ headsets have been released. These wireless headsets have the computing power to run iVR in the headset and do not require an external computer. The positional tracking is ‘inside-out’ coming from the headset itself rather than external sensors. This type of equipment also has controllers. Some of these ‘stand-alone’ headsets offer 3DoF (e.g. Oculus Go headset) while others offer 6DoF (e.g. Oculus Quest or Vive Focus headsets).

Depending on the combination of hardware and software application and the DoF, there can be different modes of interaction for selection and manipulation of virtual objects and navigation in virtual environments. For example in gaze-based applications, users look at objects or hotspot for pop-ups to activate and/or for teleporting travel to occur. Controllers that come with headsets can allow for ray-casting (or point and pick up) interaction and teleporting in some applications, while more sophisticated gestural controllers with 6DoF hardware provide virtual hands to use in some applications. In 2020 hand tracking technology will come to high-end iVR systems so that controllers will no longer be required for all applications: A person’s natural hands will be used to pick and manipulate virtual objects opening up the medium to people who are not comfortable with mechanical controllers.

The combination of iVR headset, tracking systems, and software applications can create a feeling of actually being in a virtual environment – when you put the headset on, it’s not like looking at a movie on a screen, it’s like being in a movie and, in some cases, you can enact your own plot. The term immersion is key to understanding iVR. Immersion reflects the technical capabilities of a system to approximate movement and interaction in a virtual environment while the intense sense of actually ‘being there’ in a virtual environment is called presence (Slater and Wilbur, 1997). In networked VR such as multi-player computer games (also called multi-user virtual environments [MUVEs]), the feeling of ‘being there with others’ is called co-presence (Slater and Sanchez-Vives, 2016).

The primary focus of this book is iVR although it is sometimes just referred to this as VR. iVR covers a variety of experiences. These range from those where a seated user can passively look around at an environment to more ‘bounded’ tour experiences that involve guided navigation and interaction to fully realised (seemingly endless) virtual worlds and studio environments that provide the user with a high degree of agency and autonomy through navigation, manipulation, interaction, verbal and non-verbal communication, creative activity, and free play by oneself and sometimes with others. This latter type of VR is sometimes called highly immersive virtual reality (highly iVR). The VR School Study, detailed in chapters 4, 5, 6, and 7, was an exploration of learning using highly iVR, specifically ‘sandbox’ applications which included content creation tools for users without the need to ‘code-to-create’ in a virtual world.

Interaction in all types of VR is often mediated through an avatar. An avatar is a virtual representation of the user in human, animal, cartoon, or icon form. Users can often customise their avatar’s appearance and sometimes even modes of interaction. Depending on the type of virtual environment, a person’s avatar can interact with other user’s avatars or ‘non-player characters’ which are computer controlled characters, for example the livestock which populate the game Minecraft. In some virtual environments, a user can have first person viewpoint; that is, they can see through the eyes of their avatar and interact in the environment as the avatar. Alternatively, users can have a third person view in which they adopt a ‘disembodied’ perspective where the user has a removed view of objects, characters, and action but may still be able to control an avatar and elements of the virtual environment (Gorisse, Christmann, Amato, and Richir, 2017).

In some virtual environments, users can switch between first and third person viewpoints, and this can help some people experience less cybersickness, a condition that has symptoms similar to motion sickness (headache, nausea and dizziness, and clamminess) (Rebenitsch and Owen, 2016). While there are a number of theories about why people can get cybersick in VR, and technical solutions to mitigate this, educators should be aware that it is difficult to predict if a student will have an adverse reaction (see chapter 5).

A central concept in this book is learning affordance. In the technology field, the term affordance refers to the actual or perceived properties or attributes of a thing which suggest to a user how it might be interacted with (Kaptelinin and Nardi, 2012). Extending on this, the term learning affordance has been used to refer to the action potential (utility) of a technology for learning (Bower, 2008). To apply this to VR, learning affordances are specific properties or attributes within a virtual environment that suggest or allow for certain learning tasks or type of learning to occur (Dalgarno and Lee, 2010). For example, the 3D affordance of virtual environments can enhance a learner’s knowledge of spatial concepts (chapter 2 outlines this concept in detail). The learning affordance perspective recognises that the technology itself does not necessarily cause learning to occur but that it can afford certain tasks or experiences that can result learning (Bower, 2008; Dalgarno and Lee, 2010).

Key Ideas In This Book

A number of key ideas that emerged from the VR School Study have been explicated throughout this book. Arguably, some of these ideas are applicable to the practice of and research on embedding emerging technology in schools more generally. In the VR School Study, learning through iVR was approached from multiple perspectives. There was interest in the usual question of whether the technology assisted students with content knowledge acquisition especially when compared to conventional pedagogical approaches. However, learning through iVR was also envisaged as a social activity involving collaborative research, problem-solving, and creativity, a cluster of ‘skills’ commonly associated with 21st century learning (National Research Council, 2012), and as a means to develop self-directed, metacognitive behaviour (Berk, 2012). This multi-faceted conception of learning influenced the methodological approach used in the study, the way VR experiences were woven through the curriculum, and the choice of 6DOF hardware and ‘sandbox’ virtual environments that offered content creation tool without the need to learn coding.

Foremost was a consideration of the learning affordances (or specific properties) of the hardware and software that could allow for an embodied sense of interaction, navigation, creativity, verbal and non-verbal communication, and collaboration within networked (multi-user) virtual environments. Teachers who are considering the use of emerging technology often ask the question, ‘What equipment and/or software should my school invest in?’ I would suggest that educators ask more pedagogically valuable questions – What are the learning affordances of iVR applications and how can these be used to create educational opportunities that are not readily accessible or different from those currently available for my students?

This book demonstrates the benefits of asking pedagogical questions through theoretical and empirical insights into how iVR can enrich student learning, curriculum offerings, and the instructional repertoire of the teacher. At its pedagogical heart, this book is not about inanely inciting educators to innovate, as if this were some decontextualised function of an individual educator’s inspirational thinking. Instead, I argue that educators should leverage the established instructional strategies of their field and their deep pedagogical knowledge of this, or signature pedagogies (Shulman, 2005), to create immersive learning experiences that resonate with the curriculum and students.

Another important idea arising from the study is that emerging technologies should be carefully incubated in place so that the relationship between the technology and the material realities of different types of educational contexts can be better understood. The common position on evidence of ‘What works?’ should be reframed in terms of the social realist position of ‘What works for whom, in which circumstances and why?’ (Nielsen and Miraglia, 2017). As Wong, Greenhalgh, and Pawson (2010) explain:

(N)o deterministic theories can always explain nor predict outcomes in every context. Instead (a realist approach) it is based on the principle that, though human agency and interaction is involved, in certain contexts or situations, individuals are likely, though not always certain, to make similar choices about which resources they will use (so that) … particular contexts influence human choice such that semi-predictable reoccurring patterns of behaviour … occur. (p. 2)

Biesta (2007) argues that the practice of, and by extension research on, pedagogical interventions should not be thought of in a technicised, causal ‘input-output’ way but as opportunities to understand how students respond to interventions. Incubation of emerging technologies entails bringing together educational practice with research to explore and problem-solve in situ in the dynamic setting of the school. This is likely to yield a greater understanding of the various ways students approach the technology especially where there is less than ideal access to hardware and software and teachers are required to design curriculum within material constraints. Importantly, incubation involves reflective practice which allows educators to identify and respond to safety and ethical issues. This is crucial when the technology and/or its applications are profoundly immersive or opaque (for example machine learning applications) in their function or likely to elicit powerful physical, emotional, moral, or social responses related to stages of child development.

This book seeks to highlight the comp...

Indice dei contenuti

• Cover
• Half Title
• Series Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Table of Contents
• List of illustrations
• Acknowledgements
• 1. Introduction: From the Germ of an Idea to a Gem of an Idea (or How This Book Came About)
• 2. A Brief History of Virtual Reality and a Review of Research On Its Use In Schools
• 3. The Pedagogy of Immersive Virtual Reality
• 4. The Methodology of the VR School Study
• 5. The ‘Nuts and Bolts’ of Embedding Immersive Virtual Reality in Classrooms
• 6. ‘It Makes You Actually Interact With the Things You Are Learning About’: Secondary School Science Through Immersive Virtual Reality
• 7. ‘Bring What’s Going On In Your Mind To Life!’: Using Immersive Virtual Reality in the Drama Classroom
• 8. Schooling Virtual Futures: What We Need to Know and Do to Ensure Powerful Learning Through Immersive Virtual Reality
• Index