Virtual Reality to the Classroom: Lessons Learned about Teaching STEM with IVR

Framework

IVR has the potential to support improvements in Math and Science education by providing students with engaging, immersive, and authentic feeling experiences to help students translate Math and Science phenomena into concrete Math and Science processes. Students experiencing IVR may have a greater sense of presence and agency in the virtual environment which may lead to increases in interest, motivation, self-efficacy, embodiment, and/or self-regulation. These aspects of the student experience may lead to improved content learning. This is encapsulated in the Cognitive Affective Model of Immersive Learning (CAMIL), a theoretical framework to describe the process of learning in IVR. Most of this model is based on evidence from research with less immersive media and has not been thoroughly testing with IVR.

Methods

Researchers conducted nine classroom studies with three developers of various IVR based curricula between 2019 and 2023. The purpose of each study was to explore the potential impact of an IVR curriculum on students’ content knowledge, engagement, and interest in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Research questions for each study typically examined the functionality of the learning tool, impact on student learning, impact on student engagement, alignment to content standards, and areas for improvement. Table 1 summarizes the content and grades covered by each study.

Table 1. Overview of IVR classroom studies between 2019 and 2023.
Developer
Study Type
Content Covered
Grade Levels
A
Classroom Feasibility
Genetics
9th Grade
A
Classroom Feasibility
Genetics
9th Grade
A
Randomized Control Trial
Genetics
9th Grade
A
Randomized Control Trial
Cell Biology
9th Grade
B
Classroom Feasibility
Algebra I
8th-9th Grade
B
Implementation Study
Algebra I
8th-9th Grade
B
Randomized Control Trial
Algebra I
8th-9th Grade
C
Classroom Feasibility
Chemistry
7th-8th Grade
C
Implementation Study
Chemistry
7th-8th Grade

Each study followed similar design structures, though the exact number of participants and dosage varied. Typically teachers for each study were provided with some degree of preparation and support prior to and during implementation. Teachers participated in a study orientation and training session before beginning instruction, and received support with troubleshooting technology from the developers and research staff for the duration of the study. Teachers implemented IVR lessons with their students during the regular school day. Each study primarily focused on general education classrooms, though some science electives were included. In addition some classrooms included students who receive extra support services such as IEPs and students who are learning English.
Participants
Researchers recruited participants from schools in a variety of states, including California, Massachusetts, and Ohio. Recruitment criteria included the subject and grade level relevant to the program and technology capacity of the district such as WiFi. All schools included in the studies were publicly funded, and over half received Title I funds. Classroom sizes ranged from 10-35 students, with the majority of classrooms containing 25-30 students.
Data Sources
Each study included multiple sources of qualitative data, including classroom observations, brief online lesson logs and teacher interviews.

Teacher Interviews: Researchers interviewed teachers within one week of completing all IVR lessons. Interview protocols generally included questions pertaining to implementation of the lessons, use of the IVR technology, alignment to their curriculum, perceived impact on student learning, and feedback on implementation and instructional supports.

Instructional Log: In all of the studies teachers were asked to complete either a daily or weekly instructional log over the course of implementation. Logs included amount of time spent on instruction, challenges and successes, as well as observations on student engagement.

Classroom Observation: In most of the studies researchers observed one to two lessons either in-person or via video conferencing software (i.e. Zoom). Researchers collected data on student learning and teacher facilitation.

Methodology
Teacher interviews were transcribed and analyzed using qualitative analysis software. Interviews were coding with a combination of a priori and posteriori codes, which were reviewed and agreed upon by the research teams. Instructional logs were analyzed descriptively for feedback on implementation, and identifying areas of success or challenges. Data from instructional logs was also considered in the interpretation of student assessment and survey results.

Results

Training and Preparation
All nine studies involved some degree of teacher preparation, though the depth of training provided varied by developer and study design. Overall feedback from teachers stressed the importance of adequate teacher preparation, both in regards to using VR technology successfully, as well as the specific lesson activities.

Teacher training ranged from 1.5 hours to 4 hours depending on the program and stage of development. Most studies conducted the teacher training remotely, however one study took place in a single large district and as such were able to train teachers in person. When asked about the training and supports received prior to implementing the IVR lessons, teachers generally found that the longer training sessions were more helpful. Teachers also felt that, while they benefited from a comprehensive introduction to VR headset technology, the area they needed most support in was in the teaching and facilitation of the IVR activities. Teachers across several studies emphasized the need for a cohesive lesson guide or outline for working through the IVR activities, and were particularly concerned with how best to facilitate student learning when not everyone could see what was going on in the IVR environment at the same time.

Teacher feedback across multiple studies also suggest that, while virtual training may be more scalable, teachers strongly benefited from in-person onboarding and hands-on training with the headsets prior to classroom use. Teachers also strongly benefited from training and supports geared towards facilitation of lessons and integration of the IVR technology in the classroom, and not simply an overview of activities or and the basics of headset usage.
Classroom Instruction
Each IVR based curriculum included in the study was designed to be implemented during a regular class period. Two developers focused more heavily on aligning IVR content to existing curriculum content, while the third prioritized student engagement and open exploration of broader STEM categories. In four of the studies, teachers who were implementing full length science lessons often found it easier to implement lessons during block periods, or split across two 45 minute periods. Reasons given were time needed for instruction and the logistical demands of setting up and putting away the IVR headsets. In later studies researchers worked with teachers to develop more streamlined technology management strategies, such as investing in rolling storage with built-in charging stations. During two studies the activities were designed to be able to be completed with larger groups of students in 20-30 increments, reducing the time needed for technology management. Of the full-length mathematics lessons, the content was designed to be implemented in three-day increments – two days of IVR activities and one day of non-IVR synthesis such as whole group facilitated discussions.

Two of the three developers included introductory materials and suggestions for lesson structures in their classroom materials, such as supplementary videos, vocabulary lists, or reflection prompts. However, teachers in these studies found that it was still necessary to develop introductory materials or additional synthesis activities for their students. In interviews, teachers noted that students were often unfamiliar with the content specific vocabulary, and that the materials often assumed a basic understanding of the subject matter. Teachers shared that, in order for students to successfully complete activities, they often needed to spend 5-10 minutes introducing students to the content prior to starting the lessons. Most IVR experience also lacked responsive learning scaffolds, such as hints, identifying learning mistakes, and an easily accessible tutorial. As a result teachers sometimes found themselves needing students to explain their reasoning in order to identify areas of confusion and correct misconceptions. This was made challenging at times, due to the fact that for all but one IVR program teachers could not concurrently monitor what students were viewing in the headset.
Classroom Management
Of the nine studies, six involved students working in pairs or small groups while three involved students working primarily independently while using a headset. Both methods of instruction presented various successes and challenges to instruction.

Teachers observed that students who participated in collaborative IVR activities demonstrated increases in peer support, whether through troubleshooting technological issues or understanding content, as well as increased communication. In interviews and observation notes students were described as actively discussing the IVR experience with their partners, and using relevant scientific vocabulary.

However, teachers shared that IVR headsets presented unique challenges to managing student behavior in a full sized classroom. Teachers shared that it was often difficult to provide individualized support for students when the technology did not include some sort of dashboard or companion viewer, as they needed students to either describe the point of confusion or put the headset on themselves. Of the three developers, two developed a mobile or web-based portal in which partnered students could observe the IVR environment without a headset. Teachers also found it challenging at times to manage student behavior such as time spent off task. One solution shared was to ensure that every student, regardless of whether they were wearing a headset, had a specific role or task. This included roles such as note taking, timekeeping, and providing information or support to the student in the headset. Teachers also felt that this practice reinforced learning goals pertaining to communication, collaboration, planning, and problem solving.

Importance

Immersive Virtual Reality (IVR) has seen a rapid boom in development in the past five years. With the advent of more flexible, affordable, and computer-free IVR headsets such as the Oculus Quest and Pico, developers and educators have been working to realize the vast potential of IVR as a classroom tool for learning science and mathematics (Beck, 2019). In particular, development has focused on designing learning experiences which allow students to participate in learning experiences that would otherwise not be feasible, whether due to a lack of physical materials, location, time, or physical scale.

Teacher instruction has been a major mediating factor in the successful deployment of new curriculum, and the success of students overall (Nelson, Voithofer, and Cheng, 2019). Despite this, thus far the majority of research and development has focused solely on learning outcomes for students with limited research on teacher facilitation and instruction. The results from these studies indicate the promise of IVR tools in the classroom setting to positively impact student learning. However, these studies also highlight that the promise of IVR is unlikely to be fully realized through the development of IVR applications and learning environments alone. Developers need to make further teacher instructional support and training in deploying these new technologies to achieve the greatest impact with students. This paper will present the findings and teacher perspective on using IVR technology across several different subjects, grades, locals and IVR products. Particular emphasis will be placed on the teacher’s voice in the potential benefits to instruction and student learning, and the needs and supports for successful implementation of IVR lessons. School leaders, classroom educators, and developers attending ISTE will benefit from an increased understanding of the supports and strategies necessary for successful deployment of IVR in the classroom, and gain insight into how to prepare teachers to apply this new technology with their students.

References

Beck, D. (2019). Special issue: Augmented and virtual reality in education: Immersive learning research. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 57(7), 1619–1625. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633119854035

Nelson, M. J., Voithofer, R., & Cheng, S. L. (2019). Mediating factors that influence the technology integration practices of teacher educators. Computers & Education, 128, 330-344.