View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Using Virtual Reality in the Classroom: Preservice Teachers' Perceptions of Its Use as a Teaching and Learning Tool

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Using Virtual Reality in the Classroom: Preservice Teachers' Perceptions of Its Use as a Teaching and Learning Tool
Language: English
Authors: Cooper, G. (ORCID 0000-0003-3890-0947), Park, H. (ORCID 0000-0003-3287-2199), Nasr, Z. (ORCID 0000-0003-2502-6728), Thong, L. P. (ORCID 0000-0001-7255-3921), Johnson, R. (ORCID 0000-0002-3949-2255)
Source: Educational Media International. 2019 56(1):1-13.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 13
Publication Date: 2019
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Tests/Questionnaires
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Computer Simulation, Preservice Teacher Education, Preservice Teachers, Student Attitudes, Teaching Methods, Computer Uses in Education, Foreign Countries, Self Efficacy, Costs, Program Implementation, Technology Integration, Learner Engagement, Cooperative Learning, Knowledge Level, STEM Education
Geographic Terms: Australia
DOI: 10.1080/09523987.2019.1583461
ISSN: 0952-3987
Abstract: Virtual reality (VR) platforms act as a potentially transformative tool in learning and teaching. The aim of this study was to examine pre-service teachers' (PST) perceptions about VR, inclusive of their beliefs about its capacity to be used as a teaching and learning tool. A case-study, conducted at an urban university in Australia involved a sample of n = 41. Participants' positive perceptions of VR in their teaching relate to its potential to engage learners, the immersive potential of the platform and the scope of VR to offer students experiences they might otherwise not have with other learning tools. Concerns expressed by PSTs include their relatively low self-efficacy to use VR in their teaching, monitoring-related matters, financial cost and implementing the technology in a safe and supportive way. There was a significant difference in PSTs' amount of self-efficacy to teach using VR when compared to their overall confidence to use digital technologies. PSTs typically had greater awareness of the immersive and engagement potential of VR and less awareness about its potential to foster and promote collaborative learning. This paper contributes to an emerging discourse regarding the possible applications of VR in educational environments and particularly in relation teacher-educator contexts.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2019
Accession Number: EJ1210357
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwE_ClwrKm_-QQuHhwFi3LpgAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDItK1yBYIaDrhyXU-gIBEICBm55Q5mdkzvzjKw_cnX-wnT6a0JfSQw2Y54wn3DVEw_vyVtyNyUQiSmDAtSHpKtlroKY02ilP_UFpj1MeYuIx8DGCgBWLWXqqr92G8h5bgxrtO-e9hHO5o_0xs7LupNTbzn-KbaQazgaB72Tj0wCDS8nfCi9uOX4kPnl8dZsskjIi7Es2j0b0wgkd_2JBlDtS1udv4slet7ROuVF_
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0135587597;5b101mar.19;2019Apr01.08:18;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0135587597-1">Using virtual reality in the classroom: preservice teachers' perceptions of its use as a teaching and learning tool </title> <p>Virtual reality (VR) platforms act as a potentially transformative tool in learning and teaching. The aim of this study was to examine pre-service teachers' (PST) perceptions about VR, inclusive of their beliefs about its capacity to be used as a teaching and learning tool. A case-study, conducted at an urban university in Australia involved a sample of n = 41. Participants' positive perceptions of VR in their teaching relate to its potential to engage learners, the immersive potential of the platform and the scope of VR to offer students experiences they might otherwise not have with other learning tools. Concerns expressed by PSTs include their relatively low self-efficacy to use VR in their teaching, monitoring-related matters, financial cost and implementing the technology in a safe and supportive way. There was a significant difference in PSTs' amount of self-efficacy to teach using VR when compared to their overall confidence to use digital technologies. PSTs typically had greater awareness of the immersive and engagement potential of VR and less awareness about its potential to foster and promote collaborative learning. This paper contributes to an emerging discourse regarding the possible applications of VR in educational environments and particularly in relation teacher-educator contexts.</p> <p>Keywords: Virtual reality; education; STEM education; pre-service teachers; teaching/learning tools</p> <hd id="AN0135587597-2">Background</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0135587597-3">The Fourth Industrial Revolution and VR</hd> <p>The increasing digitisation of societies has the potential to disrupt and revolutionise various elements of our lives, including, but not limited to, future job roles and growth, societal equality, health and security matters. Such digitisation is part of a broader movement, labelled as the Fourth Industrial Revolution, representing new ways in which digital technologies are predicted to be embedded and used within societies (Schwab, 2017). As part of the growing digitisation of our communities, immersive virtual reality (shortened to virtual reality or VR herein) is viewed as a transformative tool, with the potential to impact various facets of our lives. Some estimates predict that the VR market, including hardware, networks, software and content, will reach $692 billion (US) by 2025 and will be a trillion-dollar (US) industry by the year 2035 (Citigroup, 2016). Mark Zuckerberg, the chief executive officer of Facebook, has claimed that VR will be the main social media platform in five to ten years, adding that technology changes in constant time waves and the next wave will be VR (Baig, 2016).</p> <p>Virtual reality can be broadly defined as an experience in which agents interact within a three-dimensional (3D) world with movement of their body, experiencing images and sounds (Sherman & Craig, 2002). This 3D environment is an attempt to replicate reality or the "real world" in some way. Distinguishing VR from all preceding technology is the sense of immediacy and control, a feeling of "being there" that comes from a changing visual display that is dependent on one's movements (Psotka, 1995). For example, to move an object in a VR environment, you may grab the object with your hands, lift it as you normally lift objects in the physical world, and put it down where desired inside the virtual environment. Within these VR environments, the user can manipulate "digital objects" in the same manner as they would manipulate them in the real world, as opposed to typing/pointing/clicking traditionally used in computer environments (Fällman, Backman, & Holmlund, 1999).</p> <p>At the time of writing, the two main platforms of VR include desktop and mobile platforms. Through head-mounted displays connected to desktop computers, users are able to actively engage in high-fidelity virtual environments - for instance, interact with virtual objects with their hands, dynamically changing views and position within the virtual world through head and body movements, etc. (Bowman & McMahan, 2007). With a 360 degree display and head tracking, users are able to view through a pair of virtual eyes - no longer confined within standard frames or screen sizes often associated with other digital media devices (e.g., television, computer screens, mobile devices). More sophisticated desktop VR technologies offer higher fidelity, shorter latency (short delays in the visual update as users pivot their head) and wider field-of-views (how much the users see within the head mounted display). In addition to head tracking, headphones are often used to utilise binaural and 3D audio to experience the digital soundscape of the environment - enabling users to not only listen to realistic environmental and ambient sounds, but also detect directional audio effects (e.g., listening to a bird chirping at the back, or a car driving past their left, etc.).</p> <p>Mobile VRs often involve different input methods to interact with the environment - such as gaze-input (users turn their head and gaze at the interactive element within the scene to trigger an action) and game controllers. In desktop VRs like the Oculus Rift and HTC Vive, the experience is further enhanced with controller and positional tracking. With tracking capabilities on controllers, users are able to view digital representations of objects physically being held in their hands. The controllers could be displayed as "ghost hands" - a common VR design pattern which enables users to see their virtual hands within the digital environment, and in some instances - even finger movements and gestures could be detected via the controllers and displayed within the virtual scene. With positional tracking, users are able to also physically walk within the vicinity of a targeted space, simulating a sense of space within the digital environment.</p> <p>Learning institutions commonly mirror societal trends including the use and adoption of digital technologies (Schuck & Aubusson, 2010). Therefore, it is conceivable to see how VR will increasingly become an educational tool used by schools. How VR is integrated into educational systems, particularly its use within classrooms, presents as a timely question to consider, especially considering an emerging STEM education discourse. Associated with the use of VR in education, Governments and industry stakeholders in many countries have championed the benefits of greater participation and engagement in STEM education. As many countries shift economies and labour markets towards higher-skilled, knowledge and service-based industries (Powell & Snellman, 2004), building STEM-related competencies is viewed as a priority for many countries. The STEM education movement has been labelled as a global policy juggernaut (Carter, 2017), in-part underpinned by the belief that boosting citizens' STEM competencies is crucial to remaining globally competitive, increasing productivity, promoting innovation and maintaining standards of living (Office of the Chief Scientist, 2013; UNESCO, 2017). Preparing students to effectively navigate, contribute to and participate in virtual environments appears to be an important future set of STEM-related skills and knowledge. Cooper and Thong (2019) have conceptualised the <emph>VR Education Model</emph> (VEM), detailing four important elements of VR in its application as an educational tool including:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Experiencing: In VR environments, people commonly respond physically (e.g., facial reactions, movement of arms) and emotionally (e.g., shock, surprise) to a range of stimuli. The immersive nature of the learning environments offers students the potential to investigate distant locations, explore hidden phenomena and manipulate otherwise immutable structures (Lee & Wong, 2014).</item> <p></p> <item> Engagement: When comparing the immersive and multi-sensory experience of VR environments, other linear forms of digital media (e.g., video, audio, websites) may not be as effective in sustaining students' engagement.</item> <p></p> <item> Equitability: VR presents as a transformative technology in how students and institutions view and respond to sameness and differences in schools and beyond.</item> <p></p> <item> Everywhere: VR technologies offer exciting possibilities in relation to where, when and how learning occurs.</item> </ulist> <p>The potential of VR to transform learning environments is significant. One important stakeholder in the debate, including the uptake and use of educational tools such as VR, are pre-service teachers (PSTs). The aim of this study is to examine PST's perceptions about VR, particularly in relation to their pedagogical beliefs about its capacity to be used as a teaching and learning tool. If predictions about the potential of VR are true, this technology could transform teaching pedagogy in ways presently unimaginably. While previous research has focused more on the incorporation of a virtual environments into PST coursework (Domingo & Bradley, 2018; Orit & Gila, 2016), however, much less is known about PST's perceptions of VR, particularly in relation to its potential to be used as a teaching and learning tool. This represents a significant gap in the literature. To address such a gap, the following research questions were asked in this research. At an urban Australian university:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> What is PSTs' reported use of VR technologies?</item> <p></p> <item> What are the levels of PSTs' self-efficacy to use VR in their pedagogy and does this differ significantly to their overall confidence to use digital technologies?</item> <p></p> <item> What are PSTs' perceptions of VR as a learning and teaching tool inclusive of its perceived positives, efficacy and concerns or barriers to its use in their future pedagogy?</item> </ulist> <p>The paper is structured into three sections. First, the authors outline and justify the research design along with participants' demographics in <emph>method and participants</emph>. Second, we present the <emph>results</emph> of the analysis. Last, there is a <emph>discussion</emph> about the implications of this study, the contribution of this investigation to the field, associated limitations and future research directions.</p> <hd id="AN0135587597-4">Method and participants</hd> <p>A total of 41 survey responses were received from a possible cohort of approximately 500 eligible recipients of the online survey, which represents ≈8% of the population of interest. The case-study design is suitable for this study because it is sensitive to the essential role context plays in this research and aligns with the interpretivist analysis of participants' perceptions (Creswell, 2005). Qualitative data from the survey were analysed to determine key and emerging themes. Some representative quotes have been included in the analysis to add richness to the discussion. Additionally, quantitative data were analysed by calculating descriptive (e.g., totals and percentages) and inferential statistics (e.g., <emph>t</emph>-test). The survey comprised of three parts including demographic information (Section 1), self-efficacy and usage of digital technologies/VR (Section 2) and perceptions of VR as a learning and teaching tool inclusive of its potential positives, efficacy and concerns or barriers (Section 3). All Likert questions in the survey were on a 7-point scale. The design of the VR experiences evaluation (Question 8 in the survey instrument) was influenced by previous research by Samsung (2018) examining in-service teachers' pedagogical perceptions of VR technology. In total, 76% (<emph>n </emph>= 31) were identified as female and 24% (<emph>n </emph>= 10) as males. Categorised into year levels, approximately 10% (<emph>n </emph>= 4) reported being first-year students, 29% (<emph>n </emph>= 12) were second-year students, 10% (<emph>n </emph>= 4) third-year students and 51% (<emph>n </emph>= 21) fourth-year students (in a 4-year Bachelor of Education degree). This research was approved by the RMIT Human Research Ethics Committee (Ref: B 20855-05/17).</p> <hd id="AN0135587597-5">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0135587597-6">PSTs' use of VR</hd> <p>The first element of the survey instrument focused on PSTs' use of VR and their self-efficacy associated with its pedagogical use and digital technologies more broadly. Of the participants who responded to this item, 36% (<emph>n </emph>= 12) of participants reported use of VR, with 64% (<emph>n </emph>= 21) indicating that they have never used VR. Of those who responded yes, participants indicated that they had mostly used mobile VR platforms such as the... "Google cardboard" (PST8) and "Google daydream" (PST10). Only one participant stated that they have had an experience with a desktop VR platform, the HTC Vive (PST28).</p> <hd id="AN0135587597-7">Self-efficacy to use it in their pedagogy</hd> <p>Students' confidence to teach using digital technologies was, on average, higher (<emph>x̅ </emph>= 4.67) when compared to their confidence to teach using VR (<emph>x̅ </emph>= 2.55), indicating relatively low levels of participant self-efficacy to use VR in their teaching when compared to their use of other digital technologies in their teaching. There was a significant difference between PSTs' average amount of self-efficacy to teach using VR compared to using other digital technologies in their pedagogy (<emph>t</emph>[<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref1">32</reflink>] = 7.93, <emph>p </emph>< .001).</p> <hd id="AN0135587597-8">Perceptions of VR as a learning and teaching tool</hd> <p>When participants were asked about their willingness to use VR in a classroom if they were presented with the opportunity, 96.97% (<emph>n </emph>= 32) responded yes, indicating a relatively high level of interest in using VR within the sample. Qualitative responses in the section highlighted why some participants thought VR will have a positive effect on students' learning. For example, 50% (<emph>n </emph>= 14) of the free-text responses discussed the potential of VR to engage learners, one participant noting that: "Very engaging strategy that could benefit reluctant learners" (PST41). Others discussed the possibilities associated with the types of learning experiences educators could offer with VR; 25% (<emph>n </emph>= 7) of the participants' responses in this section discussed potential for "immersion in a new environment to learn about the elements of that environment and explore a new space without having to leave the classroom" (PST39). Others discussed the potential of VR to offer students experiences they could not otherwise have, with 21% (<emph>n </emph>= 6) of the participants' responses in this section exploring this theme. For instance,</p> <p>It would be amazing to teach maths with VR and to have students plot points on a 3D grid, literally being able to SEE the relationship between the formulas and the location of these points in space. For history, students could actually [explore] artefacts from our history to examine them, to understand the perspectives of other people be seeing the world through their eyes. They could also walk around the base of the great pyramids and spend an hour understanding our system of Government viewing the senate debate a bill and then seeing (with graphic overlays) how a law is passed. Every student could have a personal language coach with lessons and techniques differentiated to their individual needs and abilities. The possibilities are endless, but people won't understand this until they use the technology. (PST11)</p> <p></p> <p>As shown in Figure 1, 50% (<emph>n </emph>= 16) of the respondents to this question reported that <emph>exploring inaccessible locations</emph> was the most useful way to use VR in the classroom, while 12.5% (<emph>n </emph>= 4) of participants ranked this as the least useful way to use the hardware. A total of 25% (<emph>n </emph>= 8) of respondents to this section indicated that <emph>virtually traveling to new countries</emph> was the most useful way they could use VR in their teaching pedagogy, whereas 9.38% (<emph>n </emph>= 3) classified this as the least useful way to use the hardware. Only 9.38% (<emph>n </emph>= 3) of participants in this section ranked <emph>connect with students and people inside/outside school</emph> as the most useful way they could use VR in the classroom, while 50% (<emph>n </emph>= 16) categorised it as the least useful way to incorporate the platform into their teaching.</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR): Figure 1. PSTs' VR experiences evaluation.</p> <hd id="AN0135587597-9">PSTs' concerns about VR</hd> <p>In contrast to the perceived benefits of using VR in the classroom, participants also expressed concerns about its use and implementation. For example, 37% (<emph>n </emph>= 12) of participants in this section expressed concerns about their own self-efficacy, as typified in the following response: "My fear would be that I am inexperienced in using virtual reality, and I think it would be hard to manage/control in a classroom" (PST37). This result echoes similar results discussed previously, reaffirming participants relatively low-levels of self-efficacy to use VR in their teaching. Participants were also concerned about safety and monitoring-related matters, with 34% (<emph>n </emph>= 11) of participants in this section expressing concerns about... "how to implement them (VR platforms) in a safe and supportive way" (PST36). Four participants in this study raised concerns about "the cost of implementing it in the school, training the teachers to use it/teach it. What would be taken out of the school budget because of the cost of implementation and maintenance?" (PST23). Another participant stated that... "students may feel unwell with the VR sensation" (PST6) or had questions about how educators'... "control(s) what the students see and can do?" (PST32). Below, the implications of this study are positioned more broadly within the research literature.</p> <hd id="AN0135587597-10">Discussion</hd> <p>PSTs in this study generally had a favourable disposition towards the use of VR in their teaching. An overwhelming majority of participants were willing to use VR in their teaching if offered the opportunity; yet, approximately two-thirds of the sample have not used VR technology before. Participants' positive perceptions of VR in their teaching relate to firstly, its potential to engage learners. VR environments can be highly motivating for students, leading them to spend more time on the learning task (Winn, Windschitl, Fruland, & Lee, 2002). VR may be considered by some to appeal to students because of its novelty. While novelty may promote engagement, educators should focus on the pedagogical potential of the technology. Educators are encouraged not to see VR as simply a gimmick in the classroom, but as a tool that has the potential to radically transform teaching and learning (Cooper & Thong, 2019). Second, participants acknowledged the immersive potential of the VR platform, offering students the potential to investigate distant locations, explore hidden phenomena and manipulate otherwise immutable structures (Lee & Wong, 2014). Last, some participants accepted that VR platforms may offer students experiences they might otherwise not have with other learning aids. When comparing the immersive and multi-sensory experience of VR environments, other linear forms of digital media (e.g., video, audio, websites) may not be as effective in sustaining students' engagement or result in the same meaningful learning (Cooper & Thong, 2019). An important factor to keep in mind is the varying quality, at present, in VR app design. It is one thing to be positive about the use of VR technology, but ultimately content is crucial - and without well-designed content (e.g., VR apps) that brings increased and long-term learning benefits/engagement to students, it falls back to novelty of the use of technology rather than purposing it for a better learning experience. As of now there is still a lack of VR content across any platforms developed to fit specifically/or be used as a complementary resource for current teaching syllabus. Most of the current VR content are for casual out-of-classroom uses/experiences.</p> <p>When participants were asked to consider the kinds of VR experiences that would be most and least useful in their teaching, three-quarters of the sample identified "exploring inaccessible locations" (e.g., Space, the Titanic) and "virtually travelling to new countries" as the most useful ways to use the technology. Less than 10% of the sample classified "connect with students/people inside/outside the school" as the most useful way to use VR from the categories provided, while half of the sample categorised this category as the least useful way to use VR in their teaching. This result suggests that PSTs generally had greater awareness of the immersive and engagement potential of VR and less awareness about its potential to foster and promote collaborative learning. The collaborative potential of VR has been discussed at length in the literature. For instance, Collaborative Virtual Environments (CVEs) allow interaction with students, teachers and with digital content (e.g., 3D models, video files) (Churchill, Snowden, & Munro, 2002). VR learning environments have the potential to allow students to problem solve in teams, potentially comprising of learners from all around the world. While it could be argued that online teaching environments may achieve similar outcomes to CVEs, the opportunities to interact and manipulate 3D objects in real time with others arguably surpass the kinds of experiences currently possible (Cooper & Thong, 2019). When one considers the possible implications of CVEs in terms of its implications for learners, it is potentially an "everywhere" learning medium, where learning can occur <emph>anywhere</emph>, at any <emph>anytime</emph> with potential input from physical or virtual peers, teachers and facilitators, unbounded by the possible restrictions of other learning modalities (Cooper & Thong, 2019). VR has the potential to radically blur the lines between school and other domains of students' lives (e.g., home, sports, hobbies), allowing students to easily move between environments of their choosing from the one physical location. The emerging use of social VR software such as Sansar, AltspaceVR, Facebook Spaces and vTime could be well purposed as CVEs that enable immersive, interactive and real-time meetings and collaborations without geographical limitations. While the immersive and engaging potential of VR are important to consider, it is also necessary to think about the collaborative potential of the platform when considering possible educational outcomes.</p> <hd id="AN0135587597-11">PSTs' concerns or barriers about the use of VR in their future pedagogy</hd> <p>There may however be a range of factors that may limit or inhibit PSTs' use of VR in their teaching. Participants' self-efficacy to use VR, particularly in its use as a pedagogical tool, was relatively low when compared to other digital technologies and commonly raised as a barrier in the survey. Self-efficacy can be defined as an individual's perception that they are sufficiently knowledgeable, skilful, disciplined and able to perform a particular behaviour (Kraft, Rise, Sutton, & Røysamb, 2005). Low levels of teacher self-efficacy in teaching STEM-related content are linked to poor teaching practices including teacher-centred pedagogies, poor questioning and avoidance of teaching concepts considered too difficult (Cooper & Gilbert, 2016). Whilst VR devices are getting increasingly accessible, partly due to decreasing prices on the market, at present there appears to be limited opportunities for PSTs to use them in their teacher programs or in schools. Therefore, the low self-efficacy to use VR could be attributed to relatively limited exposure to the technology and insufficient familiarity with its use or potential. Other factors that may limit or inhibit PSTs' use of VR include concerns related to safety and monitoring-related matters including who monitors students' behaviour in virtual environments, purchasing and implementation costs, the potential of VR to make users feel unwell and implementing the technology in a safe and supportive way. The implementation of virtual and mixed realities may be a considerable pedagogical shift for educators, both pre-service and in-service. Stakeholders may need to invest considerably in comprehensive professional learning for in-service teachers. The kind of VR hardware is another important consideration for stakeholders. There may be a range of possibilities here, with current options including, for example, students bringing their smartphone to a headset provided by the school or dedicated VR headsets.</p> <p>The apprehension that some PSTs indicated in their responses may represent the classroom environment that they imagine - a four-walled classroom made up of groups of 30 or so students with one teacher in charge of the learning and teaching. If the possibilities of VR as a transformative tool in learning and teaching are to be realised, then maybe the learning environment will need to be imagined and enacted differently. Equally for teacher educators, their assumptions of what they think the classroom environment should look like will impact the kinds of technology they introduce to PSTs during their training.</p> <p>The case study design and relatively small sample in this study limits the generalisability of the findings noted. It is an exploratory study, examining participants' perceptions of a technology that participants reported relatively limited exposure to, yet, have a relatively strong awareness and generally favourable perceptions of its future use in their teaching, despite the concerns voiced by some. Nevertheless, a substantial contribution of this research is the elicitation of participants' perceptions regarding the use of VR as a learning tool. Future research may examine if, and how, PSTs intend to implement VR in their teaching, particularly in relation to the potential of VR to promote immersive, engaging and collaborative environments. If the use of VR becomes more accepted by educators across all sectors of education, examining how in-service and PSTs integrate this technology into their pedagogy is likely to be of interest to various stakeholders. Teacher educators may need to adapt and lead innovation in the ways VR could potentially impact pedagogy. The inclusion of VR experiences in the university component of teaching courses may be an important initial step towards increasing PSTs' exposure and self-efficacy in relation to the use of VR in their pedagogy.</p> <p>Preparing students to effectively navigate, contribute to and participate in virtual environments appears to be an important future set of skills and knowledge. VR platforms act as a potentially transformative educational tool. The aim of this study was to examine PSTs' perceptions about VR, inclusive of their beliefs about its capacity to be used as a teaching and learning tool. Participants' positive perceptions of VR in their teaching relate to its potential to engage learners, the immersive potential of the platform and the scope of VR to offer students experiences they might otherwise not have with other learning tools. Concerns expressed by PSTs include their relatively low self-efficacy to use VR in their teaching, safety and monitoring-related matters and implementing the technology in a safe and supportive way. There are complex considerations about the integration of VR across all levels of education.</p> <hd id="AN0135587597-12">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.</p> <ref id="AN0135587597-13"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Baig, E. ( 2016 ). Mark Zuckerberg: Virtual reality can become the most social platform. Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/columnist/baig/2016/02/21/mark-zuckerberg-vr-can-become-most-social-platform/80706338/">www.usatoday.com/story/tech/columnist/baig/2016/02/21/mark-zuckerberg-vr-can-become-most-social-platform/80706338/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Bowman, D., & McMahan, R. ( 2007 ). Virtual reality: How much immersion is enough? <emph>Computer</emph>, 40 ( 7 ), 36 - 43.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Carter, L. ( 2017 ). Neoliberalism and STEM education: Some Australian policy discourse. <emph>Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education</emph>, 17 ( 4 ), 247 - 257.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Churchill, E., Snowden, D., & Munro, A. ( 2002 ). <emph>Collaborative virtual environments</emph>. London : Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Citigroup. ( 2016 ). Virtual and augmented reality. Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.citi.com/commercialbank/insights/assets/docs/virtual-and-augmented-reality.pdf">www.citi.com/commercialbank/insights/assets/docs/virtual-and-augmented-reality.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Cooper, G., & Gilbert, A. ( 2016 ). Using moments of wonder in science with pre-service teachers. <emph>Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching</emph>, 17(2). Retrieved from  https://<ulink href="http://www.eduhk.hk/apfslt/v17%5fissue2/cooper/index.htm">www.eduhk.hk/apfslt/v17%5fissue2/cooper/index.htm</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Cooper, G., & Thong, L. P. ( 2019 ). <emph>Implementing virtual reality in the classroom: Envisaging possibilities in STEM education, an emerging field of enquiry.</emph> Leiden: Brill.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Creswell, J. W. (ed.). ( 2005 ). <emph>Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research</emph> ( 2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ : Merrill.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Domingo, J., & Bradley, E. ( 2018 ). Education student perceptions of virtual reality as a learning tool. <emph>Journal of Educational Technology Systems</emph>, 46 ( 3 ), 329 - 342.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fällman, D., Backman, A., & Holmlund, K. ( 1999 ). VR in education: An introduction to multisensory constructivist learning environments. Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/VR-in-Education-An-Introduction-to-Multisensory-CF%C3%A4llman/f71bddbba8fe4d040433b7b10587978af618f7a9">www.semanticscholar.org/paper/VR-in-Education-An-Introduction-to-Multisensory-CF%C3%A4llman/f71bddbba8fe4d040433b7b10587978af618f7a9</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kraft, P., Rise, J., Sutton, S., & Røysamb, E. ( 2005 ). Perceived difficulty in the theory of planned behaviour: Perceived behavioural control or affective attitude? <emph>British Journal of Social Psychology</emph>, 44 ( 3 ), 479 - 496.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lee, E. A., & Wong, K. W. ( 2014 ). Learning with desktop virtual reality: Low spatial ability learners are more positively affected. <emph>Computers & Education</emph>, 79, 49 - 58.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Office of the Chief Scientist. ( 2013 ). <emph>Science, technology, engineering and mathematics in the national interest: A strategic approach</emph>. Canberra : Australian Government. Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/STEMstrategy290713FINALweb.pdf">www.chiefscientist.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/STEMstrategy290713FINALweb.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Orit, Z., & Gila, Z. ( 2016 ). Feelings of challenge and threat among pre-service teachers studying in different learning environments - virtual vs. blended courses. <emph>I-Manager's Journal of Educational Technology</emph>, 13 ( 1 ), 7.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Powell, W., & Snellman, K. ( 2004 ). The knowledge economy. <emph>Annual Review Of Sociology</emph>, 30 ( 1 ), 199 - 220.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Psotka, J. ( 1995 ). Immersive training systems: Virtual reality and education and training. <emph>Instructional Science</emph>, 23 ( 5-6 ), 405 - 431.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Samsung. ( 2018 ). Teachers ready for virtual reality in education. Retrieved from https://insights.samsung.com/2016/06/27/teachers-ready-for-virtual-reality-in-education/</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schuck, S., & Aubusson, P. ( 2010 ). Educational scenarios for digital futures. <emph>Learning, Media and Technology</emph>, 35 ( 3 ), 293 - 305.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schwab, K. ( 2017 ). <emph>The fourth industrial revolution</emph>. USA : Random House.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sherman, W. R., & Craig, A. B. ( 2002 ). <emph>Understanding virtual reality: Interface, application, and design</emph>. Burlington, MA : Morgan Kaufmann.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> UNESCO. ( 2017 ). Cracking the code: Girls' and women's education in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM). Retrieved from <ulink href="http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0025/002534/253479e.pdf">http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0025/002534/253479e.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Winn, W., Windschitl, M., Fruland, R., & Lee, Y. ( 2002 ). When does immersion in a virtual environment help students construct understanding. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the International Conference of the Learning Sciences, ICLS, Seattle, WA.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By G. Cooper; H. Park; Z. Nasr; L. P. Thong and R. Johnson</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref1"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1210357
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Using Virtual Reality in the Classroom: Preservice Teachers' Perceptions of Its Use as a Teaching and Learning Tool
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Cooper%2C+G%2E%22">Cooper, G.</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3890-0947">0000-0003-3890-0947</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Park%2C+H%2E%22">Park, H.</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3287-2199">0000-0003-3287-2199</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Nasr%2C+Z%2E%22">Nasr, Z.</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2502-6728">0000-0003-2502-6728</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Thong%2C+L%2E+P%2E%22">Thong, L. P.</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7255-3921">0000-0001-7255-3921</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Johnson%2C+R%2E%22">Johnson, R.</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3949-2255">0000-0002-3949-2255</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Educational+Media+International%22"><i>Educational Media International</i></searchLink>. 2019 56(1):1-13.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 13
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2019
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research<br />Tests/Questionnaires
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Computer+Simulation%22">Computer Simulation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Preservice+Teacher+Education%22">Preservice Teacher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Preservice+Teachers%22">Preservice Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Attitudes%22">Student Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teaching+Methods%22">Teaching Methods</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Computer+Uses+in+Education%22">Computer Uses in Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Self+Efficacy%22">Self Efficacy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Costs%22">Costs</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Program+Implementation%22">Program Implementation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Technology+Integration%22">Technology Integration</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Learner+Engagement%22">Learner Engagement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Cooperative+Learning%22">Cooperative Learning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Knowledge+Level%22">Knowledge Level</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22STEM+Education%22">STEM Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Australia%22">Australia</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/09523987.2019.1583461
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0952-3987
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Virtual reality (VR) platforms act as a potentially transformative tool in learning and teaching. The aim of this study was to examine pre-service teachers' (PST) perceptions about VR, inclusive of their beliefs about its capacity to be used as a teaching and learning tool. A case-study, conducted at an urban university in Australia involved a sample of n = 41. Participants' positive perceptions of VR in their teaching relate to its potential to engage learners, the immersive potential of the platform and the scope of VR to offer students experiences they might otherwise not have with other learning tools. Concerns expressed by PSTs include their relatively low self-efficacy to use VR in their teaching, monitoring-related matters, financial cost and implementing the technology in a safe and supportive way. There was a significant difference in PSTs' amount of self-efficacy to teach using VR when compared to their overall confidence to use digital technologies. PSTs typically had greater awareness of the immersive and engagement potential of VR and less awareness about its potential to foster and promote collaborative learning. This paper contributes to an emerging discourse regarding the possible applications of VR in educational environments and particularly in relation teacher-educator contexts.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2019
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1210357
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1210357
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/09523987.2019.1583461
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 13
        StartPage: 1
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Computer Simulation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Preservice Teacher Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Preservice Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teaching Methods
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Computer Uses in Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Self Efficacy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Costs
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Program Implementation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Technology Integration
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Learner Engagement
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Cooperative Learning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Knowledge Level
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: STEM Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Australia
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Using Virtual Reality in the Classroom: Preservice Teachers' Perceptions of Its Use as a Teaching and Learning Tool
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Cooper, G.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Park, H.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Nasr, Z.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Thong, L. P.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Johnson, R.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2019
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0952-3987
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 56
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Educational Media International
              Type: main
ResultId 1