A One-year Case Study: Understanding the Rich Potential of Project-based Learning in a Virtual Reality Class for High School Students

Abstract

This paper presents a qualitative case analysis of a new and unique, high school, student-directed, project-based learning (PBL), virtual reality (VR) class. In order to create projects, students learned, on an independent basis, how to program an industrial-level VR machine. A constraint was that students were required to produce at least one educational application of VR. This study incorporated in-depth classroom observations, interviews with students, analyses of student projects, and surveys of parents and teachers to examine the social and learning processes in the class, and the nature of content learning represented in student projects. The results demonstrated that PBL can be effective even with minimal teacher guidance. The findings substantiate an educational approach rich with promise, for at least some students, that deserves considerable additional study to maximize its powerful potentials for independent and peer-mentored learning.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  1. Barab S, Hay KE, Squire K, Barnett M, Schmidt R, Karrigan K, Johnson C (1999) Virtual solar system project: developing scientific understanding through model building. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association

  2. Barab SA, Hay KE, Barnett M, Keating T (2000) Virtual solar system sroject: building understanding through model building. J Res Sci Teach 37(7):719–756

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Barab SA, Barnett M, Yamagata-Lynch L, Squire K, Keating T (2002) Using activity theory to understand the systemic tensions characterizing a technology-rich introductory astronomy course. Mind Cult Act 9(2):76–107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Barab S, Thomas M, Dodge T, Carteaux R, Tuzun H (2005) Making learning fun: Quest Atlantis, a game without guns. Education Tech Research Dev 53(1):86–107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Barab SA, Gresalfi M, Dodge T, Ingram-Goble A (2010a) Narratizing disciplines and disciplinizing narratives: games as 21st century curriculum. Int J Gaming Comput Mediat Simul 2(1):17–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Barab SA, Gresalfi M, Ingram-Goble A (2010b) Transformational play: using games to position person, content, and context. Educ Res 39:525–536

    Google Scholar 

  7. Barnett M, Yamagata-Lynch L, Keating T, Barab S, Hay K (2005) Using virtual reality computer models to support student understanding of astronomical concepts. J Comput Math Sci Teach 24(4):333–356

    Google Scholar 

  8. Boulos MNK, Hetheringtont L, Wheeler S (2007) Second Life: an overview of the potential of 3-D virtual worlds in medical and health education. Health Info Libr J 24:233–245

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Bradsford JD, Brown AL, Cocking RR (2000) How people learn brain, mind, experience and school. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  10. Brown J, Duguid P (2000) The social life of information. Harvard Business Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  11. Christensen C, Horn M, Johnson C (2008) Disrupting class. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  12. Crotty M (1998) The foundations of social research: meaning and perspective in the research process. SAGE Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA

    Google Scholar 

  13. Dede C (2007) Introduction: a sea change in thinking, knowing, learning, and teaching. In: Salaway G, Borreson Caruso J (eds) The ECAR study of undergraduate students and information technology, 2007. EDUCAUSE, Boulder, CO, pp 19–26

    Google Scholar 

  14. Dede C, Salzman M, Loftin B (1996) The development of a virtual world for learning Newtonian mechanics. In: Brusilovsky P, Kommers P, Streitz N (eds) Multimedia, hypermedia, and virtual reality. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  15. Dede C, Salzman M, Loftin RB, Ash K (1997) Using virtual reality technology to convey abstract scientific concepts. In: Jacobson MJ, Kozma RB (eds) Learning the sciences of the 21st century: research, design and implementing advanced technology learning environments. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  16. Dewey J (1938) Experience and education. Macmillan, London & New York

    Google Scholar 

  17. Dey I (2005) Qualitative data analysis: a user friendly guide for social scientists. Routledge, New York, NY. Retrieved from http://www.drapuig.info/files/Qualitative_data_analysis.pdf

  18. Elen J, Clark RE (2006) Handling complexity in learning environments. Elsevier, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  19. Fleming D (2000) A teacher’s guide to project-based learning. AEL, Inc., Charleston, WV

    Google Scholar 

  20. Gibson D, Aldrich M, Prensky M (eds) (2007) Games and simulations in online learning: research and development frameworks. IGI Global, Hershey, PA

    Google Scholar 

  21. Gordin D, Pea R (1995) Prospects for scientific visualization as educational technology. J Learn Sci 4(3):249–279

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Greeno JG (2006) Learning in activity. In: Keith Sawyer R (ed) The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 80–96

    Google Scholar 

  23. Horn M, Staker H (2011) The rise of K-12 blended learning. Innosight Institute. Retrieved from http://www.innosightinstitute.org/mediaroom/publications/educationpublications/the-rise-of-k-12-blended-learning

  24. Kafai YB (2006) Constructionism. In: Keith Sawyer R (ed) The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 35–46

    Google Scholar 

  25. Kant I (2004) The critique of pure reason. Kessinger Publishing, LLC., Whitefish, MT

    Google Scholar 

  26. Kilpatrick W (1922) The project method: the use of the purposeful act in the educative process. Teachers College Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  27. Knoll M (1997) The project method: its vocational education origin and international development. J Ind Tech Educ 34(3):59–80

    Google Scholar 

  28. Krajcik JS, Blumenfeld P (2006) Project-based learning. In: Keith Sawyer R (ed) The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 317–334

    Google Scholar 

  29. Lave J, Wenger E (1991) Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  30. Liu E, Noppe-Brandon S (2009) Imagination first: unlocking the power of possibility. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA

    Google Scholar 

  31. Markham T, Larmer J, Ravitz J (2003) Project based learning handbook: a guide to standards focused project based learning for middle and high school teachers. QuinnEssentials Books and Printing, Inc., Hong Kong

    Google Scholar 

  32. Marques J, McCall C (2005) The application of interrater reliability as a solidification instrument in a phenomenological study. Qual Rep 10(3):439–462. Retrieved from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR10-3/marques.pdf

  33. Means B, Olson K (1995, April) Technology’s role within constructivist classrooms. SRI International Reports, pp 3–17

  34. Meyer DK, Turner JC, Spencer CA (1997) Challenge in a mathematics classroom: students’ motivation and strategies in project-based learning. Elem Sch J 97(5):501–521

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Miles MM, Huberman AM (1984) Qualitative data analysis: a sourcebook of new methods. Sage, Newbury Park, CA

    Google Scholar 

  36. Monahan T, McArdle G, Bertolotto M (2008) Virtual reality for collaborative e-learning. Comput Educ 50:1339–1353

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Nersessian NJ, Patton C (2009) Model-based reasoning in interdisciplinary engineering. In: Meijers AWM (ed) The handbook of the philosophy of technology & engineering sciences. Springer, Berlin, pp 678–718

    Google Scholar 

  38. Nicholson DT, Chalk C, Funnell WRJ, Daniel SJ (2006) Can virtual reality improve anatomy education? A randomised controlled study of a computer-generated three-dimensional anatomical ear model. Med Educ 40:1081–1087

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Osberg KM, Winn W, Rose H, Hollander A, Hoffman H, Char P (1997) The effect of having grade seven students construct virtual environments on their comprehension of science. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Retrieved from http://www.hitl.washington.edu/pubs/hitlpub.php

  40. Papert S (1991) Situating constructionism. In: Harel I, Papert S (eds) Constructionism. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, pp 1–14

    Google Scholar 

  41. Parry M, Young J (2010, November 28) New social software tries to make studying feel like facebook [The Chronicle of Higher Education]. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/New-Social-Software-Tries-to/125542

  42. Phillips DC (1995) The good, the bad and the ugly: the many faces of constructivism. Educ Res 24(7):5–12

    Google Scholar 

  43. Phillips DC (2000) Constructivism in education, ninety-ninth yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, part I, (Ed.). University of Chicago Press, Chicago

  44. Piaget J (1952) The origins of intelligence in children. International Universities Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  45. Salzman M, Dede C, Loftin L, Ash K (2008) Using VR’s frame of reference in mastering abstract information. Retrieved from http://www.virtual.gmu.edu/SS_research/rpapers/ICLS2pdf.htm

  46. Sawyer RK (2008) Optimizing learning: implications of learning sciences research. In: CD OE (ed) Innovating to learn: learning to innovate. Center for Research and Innovation, OECD, Paris, pp 45–62

    Google Scholar 

  47. Schwartz D, Heiser J (2006) Spatial representations and imagery in learning. In: Sawyer R (ed) Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 283–298

    Google Scholar 

  48. Thomas JW (2000) A review of research on project-based learning (Online). Retrieved from http://www.bobpearlman.org/BestPractices/PBL_Research.pdf

  49. Tobias S, Duffy T (2009) Constructivist instruction: success or failure. Routledge, New York

    Google Scholar 

  50. Von Glaserfeld E (1991) Radical constructivism in mathematics education. Kluwer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  51. Vygotsky L (1978) Mind in society: the development of the higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  52. Weber M (2003) The protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. Routledge, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  53. Willis J (2007) Foundations of qualitative research: interpretive and critical approaches. SAGE Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA

    Google Scholar 

  54. Winn W (1997) The impact of three-dimensional immersive virtual environments on modern pedagogy. (Technical Report) Human Interface Technology Lab, Seattle. http://www.hitl.washington.edu/pubs/hitlpub.php

  55. Winn W, Hoffman H, Hollander A, Osberg K, Rose H, Char P (1997, March) The effect of student construction of virtual environments on the performance of high- and low-ability students, human interface technology laboratory. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. Retrieved from http://www.hitl.washington.edu/pubs/hitlpub.php

  56. Yin RK (2003) Case study research: design and methods, 3rd edn. SAGE Publications, Inc, Thousand Oaks, CA

    Google Scholar 

  57. Youngblut C (1998) Educational uses of virtual reality technology. Institute for Defense Analyses, IDA Document D-2128, Retrieved from http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA339438

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors of this paper would like to extend a sincere thank you to all the students, parents, and teachers who participated in this study. A special thank you also goes to Tyler whose expertise guided us to a firm understanding of the technical aspects of this research. We would also like to extend an additional thank you to Principal Rex Kozak, and to the Mayo Clinic, for planting the very first seeds of the Virtual Reality Design class in the state of Iowa.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to EunJin Bang.

Appendix

Appendix

See Table 4.

Table 4 A rubric for analyzing student projects and learning

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Morales, T.M., Bang, E. & Andre, T. A One-year Case Study: Understanding the Rich Potential of Project-based Learning in a Virtual Reality Class for High School Students. J Sci Educ Technol 22, 791–806 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-012-9431-7

Download citation

Keywords

  • High school science
  • Project-based learning (PBL)
  • Virtual reality (VR)
  • Social dynamics