Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A Framework for Aligning Instructional Design Strategies with Affordances of CAVE Immersive Virtual Reality Systems

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
TechTrends Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Increasing availability of immersive virtual reality (IVR) systems, such as the Cave Automatic Virtual Environment (CAVE) and head-mounted displays, for use in education contexts is providing new opportunities and challenges for instructional designers. By highlighting the affordances of IVR specific to the CAVE, the authors emphasize the importance of establishing new instructional strategy guidelines to mitigate the risk of designing lessons with CAVEs and other IVRs that simply overload learners with unnecessary information and impede overall learning. This information is then applied to create a framework of best practices for designing IVR lessons and instructional materials to effectively incorporate the technology and create opportunities for positive learning. This framework focuses on areas of content, differentiated instruction, interactivity of instruction, presentation of learning materials, virtual and physical spaces, and technical knowledge.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ayres, P., & Paas, F. (2012). Cognitive load theory: new directions and challenges. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26, 827–832. doi:10.1002/acp.2882.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bailenson, J., Yee, N., Blascovich, J., Beall, A., Lundblad, N., & Jin, M. (2008). The use of immersive virtual reality in the learning sciences: digital transformations of teachers, students, and social context. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17, 102–141. doi:10.1080/10508400701793141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bamford, A. (2011). Evaluation of innovation in learning using emerging technologies. London: Report for LiFE: Learning in Future Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blascovich, J., & Bailenson, J. (2005). Immersive virtual environments and education simulations. In S. Cohen, K. E. Portney, D. Rehberger, & C. Thorsen (Eds.), Virtual decisions: Digital simulations for teaching reasoning in social science and humanities immersive virtual environments (pp. 229–253). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowman, D. A., & McMahan, R. P. (2007). Virtual reality: how much immersion is enough? Computer, 40(7), 36–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, C. J., Toh, S. C., & Fauzy, W. M. (2004). The theoretical framework for designing desktop virtual reality-based learning environments. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 15, 147–167.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crosier, J. K., Cobb, S., & Wilson, J. R. (2002). Key lessons for the design and integration of virtual environments in secondary science. Computers & Education, 38, 77–94. doi:10.1016/S0360-1315(01)00075-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dalgarno, B., & Lee, M. J. W. (2010). What are the learning affordances of 3-D virtual environments? British Journal of Educational Technology, 41, 10–32. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.01038.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Jong, T. (2010). Cognitive load theory, educational research, and instructional design: some food for thought. Instructional Science, 38, 105–134. doi:10.1007/s11251-009-9110-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dede, C. (2009). Immersive interfaces for engagement and learning. Science, 323(5910), 66–69. doi:10.1126/science.1167311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dickey, M. D. (2005). Engaging by design: how engagement strategies in popular computer and video games can inform instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53, 67–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunleavy, M., Dede, C., & Mitchell, R. (2009). Affordances and limitations of immersive participatory augmented reality simulations for teaching and learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18, 7–22. doi:10.1007/s10956-008-9119-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finkelstein, N. D., Adams, W. K., Keller, C. J., Kohl, P. B., Perkins, K. K., Podolefsky, N. S., et al. (2005). When learning about the real world is better done virtually: a study of substituting computer simulations for laboratory equipment. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 1(1), 1–8. doi:10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.1.010103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordin, D., Polman, J., & Pea, R. (1994). The climate visualizer: sense-making through scientific visualization. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 3, 203–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gu, X., Zhu, Y., & Guo, X. (2013). Meeting the “digital natives”: understanding the acceptance of technology in classrooms. Journal of Educational Technology and Society, 16(1), 392–402.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hew, K. F., & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55, 223–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hew, K. F., & Cheung, W. S. (2010). Use of three-dimensional (3-D) immersive virtual worlds in K-12 and higher education settings: a review of the research. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41, 33–55. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00900.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hinze, S. R., Williamson, V. M., Shultz, M. J., Williamson, K. C., Deslongchamps, G., & Rapp, D. N. (2013). When do spatial abilities support student comprehension of STEM visualizations? Cognitive Processing, 14, 129–142. doi:10.1007/s10339-013-0539-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Höffler, T. N., & Leutner, D. (2011). The role of spatial ability in learning from instructional animations – evidence for an ability-as-compensator hypothesis. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(1), 209–216. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.07.042.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huk, T. (2006). Who benefits from learning with 3D models? The case of spatial ability. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22, 392–404. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2006.00180.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keengwe, J., & Onchwari, G. (2011). Fostering meaningful student learning through constructivist pedagogy and technology integration. In L. A. Tomei (Ed.), Learning tools and teaching approaches through ICT advancements (pp. 239–249). Hershey: IGI Global.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lau, K. W., & Lee, P. Y. (2015). The use of virtual reality for creating unusual environmental stimulation to motivate students to explore creative ideas. Interactive Learning Environments, 23, 3–18. doi:10.1080/10494820.2012.745426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, E. A., & Wong, K. W. (2014). Learning with desktop virtual reality: low spatial ability learners are more positively affected. Computers & Education, 79, 49–58. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.07.010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lim, C., & Tay, L. (2010). An activity theoretical perspective towards the design of an ICT-enhanced after-school programme for academically at-risk students. Educational Media International, 47, 19–37. doi:10.1080/09523981003654951.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Limniou, M., Roberts, D., & Papadopoulos, N. (2008). Full immersive virtual environment CAVE in chemistry education. Computers & Education, 51, 584–593.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (1997). Multimedia learning: are we asking the right questions? Educational Psychologist, 32, 1–19. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3201_1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (2002). Cognitive theory and the design of multimedia instruction: an example of the two‐way street between cognition and instruction. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2002(89), 55–71. doi:10.1002/tl.47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mechdyne Corporation. (2012). Enter the CAVE. Retrieved October 19, 2015 from http://www.mechdyne.com/filesimages/Hardware/CAVE/Cave%20Diagram%202012.pdf

  • Meissner, B., & Bogner, F. (2013). Towards cognitive load theory as guideline for instructional design in science education. World Journal of Education, 3(2), 24–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merchant, Z., Goetz, E. T., Cifuentes, L., Keeney-Kennicutt, W., & Davis, T. J. (2014). Effectiveness of virtual reality-based instruction on students’ learning outcomes in K-12 and higher education: a meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 70, 29–40. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2013.07.033.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mikropoulos, T. A., & Natsis, A. (2011). Educational virtual environments: a ten-year review of empirical research (1999–2009). Computers & Education, 56, 769–780. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.10.020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ritz, L. (2015). Teaching with CAVE virtual reality systems: Instructional design strategies that promote adequate cognitive load for learners. (Unpublished Masters thesis). University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming.

  • Robinson, W. R. (2004). Cognitive theory and the design of multimedia instruction. Journal of Chemical Education, 81(1), 10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spector, J. M. (2009). Adventures and advances in instructional design theory and practice. In L. Moller, J. Huett, & D. Harvey (Eds.), Learning and instructional technologies for the 21st century. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J. (2005). Discussion of ‘emerging topics in cognitive load research using learner and information characteristics in the design of powerful learning environments. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 353–357. doi:10.1002/acp.1251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J. (2008). Cognitive load theory and the use of educational technology. Educational Technology, 48(1), 32–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Merriënboer, J., Schuurman, J., De Croock, M., & Paas, F. (2002). Redirecting learners’ attention during training: effects on cognitive load, transfer test performance and training efficiency. Learning and Instruction, 12, 11–37. doi:10.1016/S0959-4752(01)00020-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Merriënboer, J., Kester, L., & Paas, F. (2006). Teaching complex rather than simple tasks: balancing intrinsic and germane load to enhance transfer of learning. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 343–352. doi:10.1002/acp.1250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Windschitl, M. & Winn, B. (2000). A virtual environment designed to help students understand science. Fourth International Conference of the Learning Sciences. In B.J. Fishman & S.F. O’Connel-Divelbiss (Eds.), Paper presented at the International Conference of the Learning Sciences in Ann Arbor, MI, June 14–17. (290–296).

  • Winn, W. (2002). Research into practice: current trends in educational technology research: the study of learning environments. Educational Psychology Review, 14, 331–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Wyoming, 842 S. Durbin St. #14, Casper, WY, 82601, USA

    Leah T. Ritz

  2. University of Wyoming, Dept. 3992, 1000 E. University Ave, Laramie, WY, 82071, USA

    Alan R. Buss

Authors
  1. Leah T. Ritz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alan R. Buss
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alan R. Buss.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ritz, L.T., Buss, A.R. A Framework for Aligning Instructional Design Strategies with Affordances of CAVE Immersive Virtual Reality Systems. TechTrends 60, 549–556 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0085-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0085-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation