Advertisement

Investigating educational affordances of virtual reality for simulation-based teaching training with graduate teaching assistants

Abstract

This study investigated the affordances and constraints of a VR-based learning environment for the teaching training of university graduate teaching assistants in relation to the task, goal-based scenarios, and learning support design. Seventeen graduate teaching assistants participated in a multiple-case study with an OpenSimulator-supported, simulation-based teaching training program. The study indicated that the VR-based learning environment fostered participants’ performance of interactive teaching and demonstrative instruction, while training them to notice and attend to students’ actions/reactions during the instruction. On the other hand, there is a competition between physical reality and functional intelligence in the VR environment. We propose the integration of experience, affordance, and learner analyses in planning and designing a VR-supported learning intervention.

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

We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

References

  1. Alexander, A. L., Brunyé, T., Sidman, J., & Weil, S. A. (2005). From gaming to training: A review of studies on fidelity, immersion, presence, and buy-in and their effects on transfer in pc-based simulations and games. DARWARS Training Impact Group,5, 1–14.

  2. Badilla Quintana, M. G., & Fernández, S. M. (2015). A pedagogical model to develop teaching skills. The collaborative learning experience in the Immersive Virtual World TYMMI. Computers in Human Behavior,51, 594–603.

  3. Badilla Quintana, M. G., Vera Sagredo, A., & Lytras, M. D. (2017). Pre-service teachers’ skills and perceptions about the use of virtual learning environments to improve teaching and learning. Behaviour and Information Technology,36(6), 575–588.

  4. Berliner, D. C. (1988, October). Implications of studies of expertise in pedagogy for teacher education and evaluation. New Directions for Teacher Assessment.Conference proceedings of the ETS Invitational Conference. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Retrieved March 5, 2019, from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED314432.pdf#page=44.

  5. Bower, M. (2008). Affordance analysis—Matching learning tasks with learning technologies. Educational Media International,45(1), 3–15.

  6. Bulu, S. T. (2012). Place presence, social presence, co-presence, and satisfaction in virtual worlds. Computers & Education,58(1), 154–161.

  7. Burdea, G. C., & Coiffet, P. (2003). Virtual reality technology. New York: Wiley.

  8. Buttussi, F., & Chittaro, L. (2017). Effects of different types of virtual reality display on presence and learning in a safety training scenario. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics,24(2), 1063–1076.

  9. Cook, D. A., Hamstra, S. J., Brydges, R., Zendejas, B., Szostek, J. H., Wang, A. T., et al. (2013). Comparative effectiveness of instructional design features in simulation-based education: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Medical Teacher,35(1), e867–e898.

  10. Cruickshank, D. R., & Armaline, W. D. (1986). Field experiences in teacher education: Considerations and recommendations. Journal of Teacher Education,37(3), 34–40.

  11. Dalgarno, B., Gregory, S., Knox, V., & Reiners, T. (2016). Practicing teaching using virtual classroom role plays. Australian Journal of Teacher Education,41(1), 126–154.

  12. Dalgarno, B., & Lee, M. J. (2010). What are the learning affordances of 3-D virtual environments? British Journal of Educational Technology,41(1), 10–32.

  13. Dede, C. (2009). Immersive interfaces for engagement and learning. Science,323(5910), 66–69.

  14. Dickey, M. D. (2005). Brave new (interactive) worlds: A review of the design affordances and constraints of two 3D virtual worlds as interactive learning environments. Interactive Learning Environments,13(1/2), 121–137.

  15. Hamstra, S. J., Brydges, R., Hatala, R., Zendejas, B., & Cook, D. A. (2014). Reconsidering fidelity in simulation-based training. Academic Medicine,89(3), 387–392.

  16. Hedberg, J. G., & Brudvik, O. C. (2008). Supporting dialogic literacy through mashing and modding of places and spaces. Theory Into Practice,47(2), 138–149.

  17. 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(1), 33–55.

  18. Kirschner, P. A. (2002). Can we support CSCL? Educational, social and technological affordances for learning. In P. A. Kirschner (Ed.), Three worlds of CSCL: Can we support CSCL? (pp. 7–47). Heerlen: Open University of the Netherlands.

  19. Lee, K. M. (2004). Presence, explicated. Communication Theory,14(1), 27–50.

  20. Luck, M., & Aylett, R. (2000). Applying artificial intelligence to virtual reality: Intelligent virtual environments. Applied Artificial Intelligence,14(1), 3–32.

  21. Ma, T., Brown, I., Kulm, G., et al. (2016). Constructing and role-playing student Avatars in a simulation of teaching algebra for diverse learners. Urban Education,51(5), 534–555.

  22. Mahon, J., Bryant, B., Brown, B., & Kim, B. (2010). Using second life to enhance classroom management practice in teacher education. Educational Media International,47(2), 121–134.

  23. McMahan, A. (2013). Immersion, engagement, and presence: A method for analyzing 3-D video games. In M. Wolf & B. Perron (Eds.), The video game theory reader (pp. 67–86). New York: Routledge.

  24. 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.

  25. Mikropoulos, T. A., & Natsis, A. (2011). Educational virtual environments: A ten-year review of empirical research (1999–2009). Computers & Education,56(3), 769–780.

  26. Muir, T., Allen, J. M., Rayner, C. S., & Cleland, B. (2013). Preparing pre-service teachers for classroom practice in a virtual world: A pilot study using Second Life. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 3, 1–17.

  27. Nissim, Y., & Weissblueth, E. (2017). Virtual reality (VR) as a source for self-efficacy in teacher training. International Education Studies. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v10n8p52.

  28. Norman, G., Dore, K., & Grierson, L. (2012). The minimal relationship between simulation fidelity and transfer of learning. Medical Education,46(7), 636–647.

  29. Okita, S., Turkay, S., Kim, M., et al. (2013). Learning by teaching with virtual peers and the effects of technological design choices on learning. Computers & Education,63, 176–196.

  30. Pentecost, T. C., Langdon, L. S., Asirvatham, M., Robus, H., & Parson, R. (2012). Graduate teaching assistant training that fosters student-centered instruction and professional development. Journal of College Science Teaching,41(6), 68–75.

  31. Ragan, E. D., Sowndararajan, A., Kopper, R., & Bowman, D. A. (2010). The effects of higher levels of immersion on procedure memorization performance and implications for educational virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments,19(6), 527–543.

  32. Ryan, M. L. (2001). Narrative as virtual reality: Immersion and interactivity in literature. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press.

  33. Sadowski, W., & Stanney, K. (2002). Presence in virtual environments. In K. Stanney (Ed.), Handbook of virtual environments (pp. 791–806). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

  34. Sherman, W. R., & Craig, A. B. (2003). Understanding virtual reality. San Francisco: Morgan Kauffman.

  35. Slater, M., & Sanchez-Vives, M. V. (2016). Enhancing our lives with immersive virtual reality. Frontiers in Robotics and AI. https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2016.00074.

  36. Taylor, L. (2002). Video games: Perspective, point-of-view, and immersion. Master’s Thesis. University of Florida. Retrieved June 10, 2019, from http://purl.fcla.edu/fcla/etd/UFE1000166.

  37. Theelena, H., van den Beemt, A., & den Brok, P. (2019). Classroom simulations in teacher education to support preservice teachers’ interpersonal competence: A systematic literature review. Computers & Education,129, 14–26.

  38. Van Es, E. A., & Sherin, M. G. (2002). Learning to notice: Scaffolding new teachers’ interpretations of classroom interactions. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education,10(4), 571–596.

  39. Witmer, B. G., Jerome, C. J., & Singer, M. J. (2005). The factor structure of the presence questionnaire. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments,14(3), 298–312.

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the National Science Foundation, grant 1632965. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in these materials are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

Author information

Correspondence to Fengfeng Ke.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ke, F., Pachman, M. & Dai, Z. Investigating educational affordances of virtual reality for simulation-based teaching training with graduate teaching assistants. J Comput High Educ (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-020-09249-9

Download citation

Keywords

  • Virtual reality
  • Teaching training
  • Graduate teaching assistant
  • Simulation-based learning
  • Educational affordance analysis