1 Introduction

Global climate change is a complex and often controversial topic. It frequently brings with it heated arguments regarding its origin and the human capacity to stop or at least stimy its impact on the environment. Teaching about climate change is challenging as it has become a geopolitical topic and contentious to some who argue for or against its very existence and/or who/what is responsible for said changes. Additionally, the scope and time frame associated with climate change creates challenges for educators seeking to create authentic experiences for learners. Often the effects of climate change occur incrementally and on such a large scale that it is difficult for students to comprehend. Consequently, many do not get to see the impact of climate change beyond overly sensationalized media leading to misconceptions about the causes and validity of climate change. This is noteworthy because people’s beliefs in the causes of climate change influence both their risk perceptions and their mitigating behaviors (Hoogendoorn et al., 2020). People who perceived climate change to be anthropocentric perceived the impact of hurricanes to be more severe and suffering to be greater to both humans and animals than those individuals who believed that climate change was strictly caused by natural processes. In turn, these feelings influence people’s judgments about policy and pro-environmental behaviors (Hoogendoorn et al., 2020).

As a result, education for sustainable development has become an international goal. As part of their 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development education goal, the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) has identified the need to “ensure the provision of learning opportunities so that all youth and adults acquire functional scientific literacy and numeracy and so as to foster their full participation as active citizens” (UNESCO, 2015, p. 29). This builds off UNESCO’s previous call to develop engaging interdisciplinary science education experiences (Mermer, 2010).

One approach that has been advocated in the literature is the use of the Socioscientific Issues (SSI) Framework (see Newton, 2016; Chowdhury et al., 2020; Herman, 2018). The interdisciplinary nature of climate change makes it an ideal focus for socioscientific issue (SSI) instruction. Any potential resolution of climate change requires individuals to weigh scientific information along with cultural, economic, political, and moral/ethical considerations. The SSI Framework positions an issue, like climate change, at the center of instruction. In this regard, SSI instruction takes advantage of the complexity of the issue to help learners understand the different types of knowledge that are considered and how they are related (Billingsley et al., 2018). Effective SSI instruction introduces the issue using appropriate media (e.g., digital, audio, print) while also identifying the science and social considerations related to the issue. Learners are then given scaffolded opportunities to analyze information from various sources, while also developing the skills necessary to resolve the issue. Finally, a culminating experience is completed that allows learners to synthesize the information and offer a solution to resolve the issue (Presley et al., 2013). Some scholars have also advocated place-based experiences embedded with SSI instruction to allow learners to become immersed in the area impacted by an SSI to gain a deeper understanding of those impacted by the issue (Herman, 2018; Sadler, 2009). However, these place-based experiences have shortcomings (e.g., cost, time, liability, inaccessibility) that are preventative (Dolphin et al., 2019; Klippel et al., 2020).

One solution for overcoming the shortcomings associated with place-based SSI is the integration of technology to engage learners. Large mobile companies such as Google, Microsoft, Meta, and Apple have heavily invested in both hardware and software development over recent years with a keen focus on extended reality (XR). XR is operationalized as an umbrella term that encompasses virtual reality (VR), mixed reality (MR), and augmented reality (AR). To further clarify these terms, it is important to note the differences and similarities of each. Virtually reality completely immerses the user in a 360-degree environment generally while wearing a head mounted display unit (e.g., Quest, Cardboard). Often, the environment in VR is completely artificial, while other times, a 360-degree image can be embedded in the environment to give the user to a sense of interacting with the real world. VR almost always provides the user with interactivity within the environment through hotspots, links to external webpages, videos, images, etc. Augmented reality refers to an experience where an artificial world is overlayed on top of the real world. There are many apps for mobile, smart devices that provide AR. Mixed reality is essentially AR but with interactivity, like that of VR. Mixed reality is a digital overlay of the real world, but the user can interact with external information through embedded hotspots.

Although relatively new to educational settings, XR technology itself is quite dated. The first head mounted display was used in the 1960’s with the United States military using XR for the first flight simulator. Virtual reality has long held a promise of enriching learning opportunities for students and teachers alike (Eutsler & Long, 2021; Lamb et al., 2020; Nissim & Weissblueth, 2017). To date, education holds the largest market share of XR usage followed by healthcare, retail, architecture, and engineering (What is the Future of XR?, 2022). A recent review of XR literature (Guo et al., 2021) revealed that from 1991 to 2021, there were 4729 publications focused on XR use in educational settings. Of those publications, the use of XR for sustainable development was a frequently identified topic. Educational research into the pedagogical uses of XR continue to provide insight into how to leverage the technology to create learning environments that are not limited by space and time to promote understanding. As more educational settings move to a “bring your own device” platform, integrating electronic educational materials is becoming more important than ever. Utilizing XR has the potential to either take learners to a physical location and immerse them in a technology-rich environment (AR/MR) and/or virtually take students to a physical location (VR/MR). Furthermore, XR allows users to travel through time and experience changes in the environment on a scale that is developmentally appropriate for learners. For example, in an instant in XR, learners can witness large scale erosion of coastlines that would normally take decades to occur. Despite the abundance of XR studies, as it pertains to undergraduate students, research on the integration of VR (Billingsley et al., 2019) and AR/MR (Holmes et al., 2019) is lacking. Furthermore, the extant literature is non-existent regarding XR technology embedded within SSI instruction.

This study sought to address these gaps in the literature by infusing XR in an undergraduate class at a large, mid-Atlantic University in the USA. The class, described in more detail below, was charged with learning about the impact of climate change and coastal resiliency of the Outer Banks (OBX) region of North Carolina. Using XR as a pedagogical tool, the class experienced both on site and remote exploration of the historical change to the barrier island chain. To this end, our research question became: In what ways, if any, does using AR and VR as part of SSI instruction influence students’ feelings of engagement and immersion when examining climate change?

2 Theoretical Framework

Multiple theoretical frameworks underpin this study that have previously not been used concurrently. The first Socioscientific Issues (SSI) Framework capitalizes on the pedagogical power of complex issues connected to science to promote functional scientific literacy where individuals engage in perspective taking, empathetic concern, along with scientific knowledge to find sustainable resolutions (Kahn & Zeidler, 2016). More specifically, this study considers research done implementing the SSI Framework within place-based experiences, which has shown the importance of immersing students in the locations where the issue is occurring (Newton, 2016; Herman et al., 2021; Herman, 2018).

This study takes a unique approach by coupling the SSI Framework with XR to explore the effectiveness of XR to create immersive experiences for learners to engage with SSI. Extant research regarding XR has shown positive outcomes for learners including increased engagement, active participation, and increased understanding of difficult concepts (Lamb & Etopio, 2020; Yildirim et al., 2020). Furthermore, research has shown that XR technology creates a feeling of immersion/presence in learners (Salar et al., 2020). It is this sense of presence or more specifically telepresence, operationalized as “the sense of being at a real remote location,” (Souza et al., 2022, p. 163:5) that unites the two frameworks in this study.

2.1 Socioscientific Issues Framework

The Socioscientific Issues (SSI) Framework is a pedagogical method that offers a sociocultural approach to developing functional scientific literacy or the ability to contextualize scientific content within real-world issues while also considering various perspectives and the moral and ethical implications of various solutions (Kahn & Zeidler, 2016). The SSI Framework is implemented by centering instruction around a relevant and engaging issue that is complex and often contentious issue, like climate change or wildlife management, that is connected to science. SSI instruction attends to normative factors, like personal values, and other aspects of one’s social environment that are frequently overlooked in more traditional approaches to teaching science (Zeidler, 2014). Well-designed SSI instruction relies on a theoretical framework that leverages the pedagogical power of controversial issues to stimulate emotional growth, as well as moral and ethical development. This is in stark contrast to other approaches that privilege scientific reasoning. Ultimately, SSI instruction addresses content knowledge, nature of science, and epistemological reasoning while investigating contentious issues (Newton & Zeidler, 2020).

Implementation of the SSI Framework requires a series of pedagogical decisions and learning experiences intended to maximize the effectiveness of a given issue (Presley et al., 2013). An SSI experience is initiated by providing learners an opportunity to engage with the issue with the instructor supporting students to identify the scientific and sociocultural dimensions of the issue at hand. Following this introduction, the instructor must create experiences where learners can learn the scientific content and skills, along with the reasoning skills requisite for considering multiple arguments. Finally, an SSI experiences is completed with a culminating experience where learners demonstrate their analysis and synthesis of the information by providing a resolution to the issue.

2.2 SSI and Learning Environments

The extant SSI literature has established varying levels of support for student learning. This can be thought of as a continuum on which the instructional interventions fall, ranging from impoverished learning contexts to rich learning contexts. Impoverished learning contexts can be perceived as contrived, superficial, and irrelevant representations to learners. Likewise, impoverished learning contexts fail to provide learners with to the people and places impacted by SSI. The impoverished context is likely to leave students perceiving the SSI as trivial, irrelevant, and inconsequential (Sadler, 2009). For example, Tidemand and Nielsen (2017) examined a group of 100 Danish secondary biology teachers who claimed to implemented SSI units of various biology-related SSI. The teachers completed questionaries and interviews related to their implementation of SSI. The data revealed that, while claiming to implement SSI instruction, the teacher focused on science content and concepts and did not provide opportunities for students to engage with the sociocultural and ethical considerations of the given issue. As a result, students were not exposed to the complexity of the issues or forced to weight scientific knowledge along with other forms of knowledge. Rather, the teachers used the controversial issue as an entry point to introduce specific science concepts. According to the authors, this reductive narrative striped away the societal and ethical considerations and limits students’ abilities to develop the reasoning and argumentation skills necessary for resolving contentious issues. While students may have been able to learn biology concepts, they showed little ability to apply those concepts in meaningful ways to resolve complex issues, which perpetuates the belief that science is irrelevant to them.

Conversely, rich learning contexts provide immersive experiences where students become incorporated into the community impacted by the SSI, leading to increased perspective taking of the people and area impacted by the SSI. With the help of explicit support and pedagogical decisions, students view the SSI as authentic and personally relevant (Herman et al., 2021; Sadler, 2009). For example, Herman and colleagues (2021) studied 36 post-secondary students with various majors spent 2 weeks immersed in the area in and around Yellowstone National Park, USA, where they focused on the issue of wolf management in the area. As part of the course, students interacted with stakeholders in both planned meetings and spontaneous occurrences. Additionally, the students were able to observe wolves in their natural environment. Throughout the course, instructors debriefed with students after engaging with stakeholders to help students deconstruct the experiences and help facilitate meaning. In this way, students became enculturated into the community and began to understand the issue from the perspective of those impacted by the wolves’ presence. As a result, the issue became relevant and meaningful to students as they considered the scientific and sociocultural aspects of the issue. The findings from this study indicated that students developed a more sophisticated understanding of the scientific and sociocultural aspects of the issue, indicating that rich SSI learning environments have positive outcomes on students’ understanding contentious issues. Other studies conducted in the same learning context indicated that students developed a deeper understanding of the nature of science (NOS), as well as the affordances and limitations of science (Herman et al., 2019; Herman, 2018).

Place-based SSI learning environments, like the one described here, are effective, but are difficult to implement, which lead to issues of access and equity. For example, the cost to transport, lodge, and feed such a large group of students, faculty, and support staff is costly. Additionally, faculty must spend copious amounts of time to develop trust and effective partnerships with stakeholders in the region. Furthermore, access to some locations may be preventative for individuals with mobility issues. Immersive scenarios have been developed to facilitate a more inclusive approach to create rich learning environments on school campuses. These scenarios draw from the SSI Framework and allow students to participate in authentic inquiry using an interdisciplinary approach and to address a school-wide phenomena (e.g., a meteorite crashing on campus, uncovering mastodon bones, or discovery of an unknown biological hazard on campus). These phenomena are staged, without students’ knowledge, to create relevant learning experiences for students (Kinskey et al., 2021: Zeidler et al., 2021).

These week-long experiences have, to this point, been used exclusively in elementary school and incorporate the entire school. In the case of the meteorite scenario (Zeidler et al., 2021), the authors collaborated with the school district and school site to stage an impact scene, complete with impact streaks and a large rock, when school was not in session. Additionally, prior to initiating the experience, the authors provided professional development for the teachers at the school site on how to effectively incorporate the immersive scenario in an interdisciplinary fashion. The authors then spent the week posing as NASA characters who guided students through the investigative process at the impact site.

Clearly, the immersive scenarios engage students in personally relevant issues as the scenarios are occurring within the school community. Students were also able to engage with characters who played the role of stakeholders impacted by the scenario. Finally, pedagogical support was prevalent to scaffold students’ learning throughout the experience. However, the immersive scenario approach exhibits some of the same shortcomings as place-based experiences, namely, the cost to purchase and transport a large boulder to and from a school, the time to establish partnerships with school districts and sites who are willing to let their campus be temporarily torn up, as well as the time to provide professional development across the disciplines for an entire school site. Unless a school has a wealthy benefactor and/or is close to a university with faculty capable and willing to partake in these endeavors, immersive scenarios like those described in the literature are not feasible for most students.

What remains unknown is if tools can be developed that provide a level of immersion comparable to those of place-based learning experiences without traveling to the impacted area or requiring expensive, time-consuming staging of a campus. This study appears to be the first of its kind in terms of using XR technology as a supplemental tool for SSI instruction. There is a multitude of research on SSI instruction in traditional classroom settings (see Zeidler et al., 2019), as well as a several studies focused on place-based SSI (see Herman, 2018). This research make clear immersion is imperative for learners to experience an etic/emic shift, or stated another way, seeing the issue as an outsider versus viewing the issue from the perspective of someone impacted by the issue. We posit that leveraging existing technologies has the promise to create rich learning environments that will allow students to engage in SSI instruction and garner many of the benefits of place-based experiences. Specifically, XR technology can promote an increased sense of telepresence, where students can feel like there in a location without physically being in that location or be in that location at a different point in time.

2.3 Extended Reality Technology

As the Internet has flattened the world with respect to real-time communication and data sharing, the promise of cooperative learning across the globe may lie in the power of mobile technologies (Sommerauer & Müller, 2014). Human relations are the foundation of education and the teaching and learning process, that is, human-to-human relationships, human-to-non-human relationships, and human-to-the-environment relationships. These relationships become significant on their potential of cognitively arousing students to exercise freedoms to think for themselves and to make sense of the world around them (Ruyter et al., 2020). Repetitive practice affording students to think freely and creatively is a core value in the education process (Lamb et al., 2015). When the human-to-human relationship is not possible, technology can facilitate the relationship with humans to the environment. Environmental issues are important topics that easily assimilate into AR/MR applications because they allow users to engage with a mobile device in natural surroundings. This is especially true for applications that incorporate Global Positioning System (GPS) coordinates that help trigger a markerless AR/MR platform (Holmes et al., 2019).

The global power of immersive technologies is arguably the future of learning in a connected world. The OECD (2021) report created a roadmap of challenges for educators to meet in the near future. It could be argued that we have always lived in an unpredictable time, but with a recent global pandemic and geopolitical conflict, present day seems to support the idea that volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity have created a world where the future is intrinsically unknown. The OECD report speaks to challenges of the impact of climate change, artificial intelligence, and the evolution of new technologies on the world around us; a collective intelligence, vision, and innovation are needed to create a better future. XR technologies provide both challenges and opportunities for educators to present information and learners to access information in multiple formats and in ways that bridge time and space. XR also supports new ways of teaching that focus on learners as active participants.

Integrating any technological innovation into a place-based SSI scenario has not yet been investigated; let alone integrating XR technologies. There have been other studies using AR and VR in science education and with undergraduate students, but the studies and science topics were neither place-based nor part of an SSI framework. Eutsler and Long (2021) studied VR with preservice science teachers before and after hands-on instruction. Results suggest that integrating VR into preservice teacher training increased the likelihood that teachers would then use VR with students. A well-designed VR system can supplement and, in some cases, supplant real world experiences. Lamb and Etopio (2020) found no statistical significance on preservice science teacher retrospective engagement, psychological measures, or composite neuroimaging when compared to a similar real-world activity. Using VR learning environments with preservice teachers did increase their self-efficacy and allowed them to be more innovative and creative with statistical significance. VR allows for active teaching and learning, making students and/or teachers active participants who create and innovate (Nissim & Weissblueth, 2017).

Advances in user-friendly design software applications now allow teachers, and their students, to create their own VR experiences. VR, or any technology for that matter, should rely more on the teacher than the technology. VR has been shown to capture students’ interest, increased their creativity, allowed students to take virtual trips, increased students’ motivation, improved students’ technology literacy, individualized learning; made it easier for students to understand difficult concepts (Yildirim et al., 2020). Lamb et al. (2020) found that using VR with a life science undergraduate class suggested VR is not ready for large-scale implementation but noted that the design of the VR environment and interactivity were lacking. Technology design needs to overlap with instructional design for the technological pedagogical content knowledge to be assimilated by the end-user (Annetta et al., 2010).

Recent advances in mobile technologies (esp., smartphones and tablets with built-in cameras, GPS, and Internet access) and their supporting operating systems have made AR/MR applications available for the broad public. AR is not a new topic, but recent advances in smartphone hardware and user-friendly design software make for a timely study on its efficacy within SSI teaching and learning (Bisht, & Kumar, 2017). AR is relevant for place-based SSI integration because the user must be in a physical location to overlay the digital representations on to the nature world. When comparing AR to VR, physiological responses showed that AR condition produced more individual excitement and activation than VR (Chicchi Giglioli et al., 2019). Krichenbauer et al. (2018) showed faster task completion time in AR over VR; however, using a purely VR environment increased task completion time by 22.5% on average compared to AR.

Understanding that engaging the learner is the first step in inquiry and constructivist teaching is key to realizing the power of XR. An engaged learner intrinsically focuses on the content to arrive at deeper understanding. The most reported advantage of AR in the current literature suggests that it promotes enhanced learning achievement (Akçayır & Akçayır, 2017). Some noted challenges imposed by AR are usability issues and frequent technical problems. Gnidovec et al. (2020) studied students in anatomy and physiology using AR because of the challenge of understanding three-dimensional material illustrated in two-dimensional books and images seemed to be a possible good use-case for AR. Students expressed that AR made learning more interesting and fun, while it improved learning. Importantly, the interactivity embedded in the AR design (making it MR as we define the terms) was crucial to the perceived student benefit. To that end, XR not only engages the learner but also has the potential to induce a state of flow (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). Flow Theory suggests people can experience optimal learning when they perform tasks that balance their skills and challenges on topics the learner is interested in, in control of, and intensely focused on. The relationship between interest, usability, emotional investment, focus of attention, presence, and flow was examined for university science education students using AR. This study showed that the focus of attention and presence of university students have an influence on their flow experiences and suggested that emotional investment and presence influence their focus of attention (Salar et al., 2020).

With respect to the immersive nature of a technology-enabled and place-based socioscientific issue experience, level of presence, or the feeling of being at the location, a user attains while interacting with the technologies is an important factor for engagement to occur. Design components such as what the user sees (Tang et al., 2004), perceived haptic feedback from virtual objects (Gaffary et al., 2017), and audio (Huang et al., 2019) all are important features to include in the technology design to enhance presence. Creating educational lessons and/or experiences using XR must come with caution, however. XR might not show a significant learning difference from traditional instruction, but integrating XR in the teaching and learning process has shown higher levels of student engagement and positive emotions, with high presence in VR specifically (Allcoat et al., 2021). To this end, XR affords the teacher/researcher the ability to collect data from remote locations on user interactions (Ratclife et al., 2021), thus alleviating the burden to observe the user in real-time. As mobile technologies evolve, an ongoing research agenda must continually account for the technological evolutions and how they influence indicators of learning like engagement, presence, and immersion.

3 Methodology

3.1 Setting

North Carolina’s barrier islands, known as the Outer Banks (OBX). This area consists of a series of islands with approximately 325 of coastline and 21 inlets (see Fig. 1). The OBX serve many purposes including protecting the mainland from storms and creating vital ecosystems. From a geologic perspective, barrier islands are dynamic in that energy from wind and water cause the islands to move, in this case, in a south westerly direction (Riggs et al., 2011). Additionally, the OBX have become a desirable destination for people to live and vacation (Riggs et al., 2011). The local economy relies heavily on tourism revenue generated from this area, with $1.83 billion dollars being spent on the OBX in 2022, 12,295 jobs created related to tourism (Dare County Tourism Board, 2022). The intersection of moving barrier islands and human-made structures has created a conflict between individuals who maintain that the OBX should continue to move and shift and those who rely on the buildings and infrastructure to live and recreate. This conflict has become exacerbated by the impacts of global climate change. Sea level in the region continues to rise, and the intensity of major storms have intensified and are projected to increase as global temperature continues to rise (Riggs et al., 2011).

3.2 Course Context

Eight students with various majors in an elective Honors Science Education course at a large Mid-Atlantic University in the USA participated in this study. At this university, students apply for admission into the Honors College. Students are selected based on their applications, which includes a minimum grade point of average of 3.7 out of 4.0. Once admitted, in addition to the required curriculum for their academic major, students follow a special curriculum that includes a two-part colloquium, a signature honors project, and several seminar courses. The course highlighted in this study is one of the semester-long courses that meets the seminar requirement for the Honors College. The course was composed of a mixture of first-, second-, third-, and fourth-year students. The purpose of this course was to examine the impact of and response to climate change on the Outer Banks of North Carolina, USA. More specifically, students examined how development on the Outer Banks should be managed. For example, students considered the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) responses to sea level rise, no response, advance, protection. Retreat, accommodation, and ecosystem-based adaptation (Oppenheimer et al., 2019).

The development and management of the islands was selected because it is personally relevant to the students, has multiple potential solutions, and has direct connections to science. The OBX are physically close to campus, and many students live near/on, vacation at, or are impacted by the revenue generated by the OBX. Consistent with the SSI Framework, from the beginning of the semester (late January) to spring break (early April), students met for weekly seminars to explore contentious aspects of the issue, providing a foundation for an immersive 5-night/6-day field experience. Specifically, during the seminar meetings, students considered the economic, political, cultural, scientific, and moral/ethical aspects of the issue. Additionally, pairs of students were assigned the perspective of a stakeholder impacted by climate change in the region. Each pair was then tasked with considering the issue from that assigned perspective rather than their own perspective. Weekly seminars prepared students to engage with research scientists, National Park Service rangers, and island community members during the field experience by identifying the scientific and sociocultural considerations related to the issue. Students earned global diversity credit as they investigated the issue of global climate change including the inequitable impacts of climate change on local inhabitants and the environment. Students also became familiar with the AR technology during this time, as the authors created an AR experience that was deployed on campus. This allowed students to become more familiar with how to navigate the app on their smartphone and become aware of how to activate the assets within the AR app (Table 1).

Table 1 Summary of course
Full size table

During the spring break field experience in 2022, students traveled to the North Carolina Outer Banks (Fig. 1) where they engaged in a series of scaffolded experiences to allow them to analyze information from various stakeholders, which is consistent with an SSI approach. Designated stops to explore climate change impact and coastal resiliency included unique geological and historical sites: Jockey’s Ridge, Jennette’s Pier, Oregon Inlet, the original location of the Cape Hatteras lighthouse, and the current location of the lighthouse after it had to be moved further inland in 1999 because of coastal erosion. These locations highlighted the fragility of these islands and human impacts. At each stop, the first author met with the students to provide a short overview of the location, as well to inform students of the number of assets accessible at each spot. Students were then allowed to explore the location on their own, and the instructors and authors were readily available to support students. An overarching theme for the field experience was also discussing the role of bridge construction and on-going road maintenance affected by climate change, as it provided a tangible example of the impact of climate change on nature and the people of the area. As students observed and interacted with the delicate ecosystems, they made cross-curricular connections and informed decisions about the complex issues facing NC coastal communities. As part of the immersive experience to provide multiple perspectives on the complex issue of human impacts to NC’s barrier islands, students interacted with various stakeholders; some interactions were planned (e.g., local politicians, school employees, local business owners, National Park employees, scientists) in advanced, while others were spontaneous as students explored the local community on their own. For example, the instructors invited several members of the community (county commissioner, school principal, local business owner, school councilor) to a local coffee shop where students were given the opportunity to sit with each stakeholder and have conversations with them. Every student was given the opportunity to meet with all the stakeholders. A second planned interaction was with a member of the National Park Service. The class traveled to a local beach where they met with a park ranger who oversaw monitoring the beach for sea turtle nests. After each day, the course instructors led debriefing meetings with the students to deconstruct the day’s events and help facilitate understanding.

While on the islands, students first used a mobile AR app (ActionBound) with embedded events (e.g., images, videos) to teach about specific aspects of climate change impact on the given location (see Fig. 2). These embedded events provided historical data as well as future projections for the Outer Banks based on current climate change information. A month later, the same students immersed in a VR app (VRProTour) to review their location-based experience. The VR scenarios were created using 360-degree images with the same events embedded at the same locations visited during the field experience portion of the course. Both the AR and VR experiences were designed by the authors using 360-degree cameras and free online resources. The authors created initial experiences, piloted them, and made revisions. These experiences contained videos of past weather events and moving the Cape Hatteras lighthouse. Additionally, the experiences included images of historical and projected shorelines. Furthermore, static text was embedded to provide additional information not accessible at the actual location. For example, Jockey’s Ridge is the tallest living sand dune system on the Atlantic coast of the USA. As students traversed the dunes, they were able to use the AR to view an animated satellite image of the dune system showing how it has changed and been manipulated by humans since 1980.

Fig. 1
figure 1

The North Carolina Outer Banks barrier island chain with locations of class experiences marked (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.7472613,-76.1756503,10z/data=!4m3!11m2!2sAtnN9V4jTs67vBpjbAW1sQ!3e3?entry=ttu)

Full size image
Fig. 2
figure 2

Example of embedded image within both AR and VR platforms (image from the USGS Coastal Change Hazards Portal https://marine.usgs.gov/coastalchangehazardsportal/)

Full size image

3.3 Data Collection and Analysis

Four open-ended online questions (see Table 2) were presented to the students immediately following the AR experience, and five more questions (see Table 3) were presented to those students after the VR experience. Both sets of questions were designed to explore how the technology was associated with both scientific and sociocultural aspects of the SSI. For example, in Table 3, questions 2 and 5 may appear similar, but question 2 focuses on the scientific considerations, while question 5 allows for answers that may extend beyond scientific knowledge. Responses ranged from single sentences to short paragraphs. Collectively, there were 144 sentences collected as data. It would not be feasible to include all the data, but Table 4 provides student exemplars that are archetypes of the responses for each theme. We conducted a constant comparative and inductive analysis (Glaser, 1965) using keywords in context (Leech, & Onwuegbuzie, 2007) on the responses. Using constant comparative methodology, we sorted and organized raw data (i.e., student responses to the seven online questions) into themes according to like attributes (Saldana, 2009). Through inductive analysis, we incorporated a more emergent, bottom-up analytic strategy. Initially, each author independently coded 33% of the responses, after which the other met to discuss the codes and resolve any discrepancies. A second round of independent coding occurred with the next 33% of the responses, followed by meeting to discuss any immerging themes and to resolve and discrepancies. The remaining responses were coded independently followed by a meeting between the authors to resolve any discrepancies and to ensure saturation of the data. After each iteration of coding the authors added, eliminated, or combined codes as needed to ensure that themes were properly represented. This process resulted in an inter-rate reliability of 100% agreement.

Table 2 Open response questions after each AR experience
Full size table
Table 3 Open response questions after each VR experience
Full size table

We first asked students to complete an online survey immediately and follow each of their AR and VR experiences. Researchers organized the data and attributed open codes to those data. Data were then sorted into relevant topics and coded accordingly. Inductive analysis resulted in themes and findings being identified that allowed the researchers to eventually apply theory to the findings.

To ensure trustworthiness in the data, the authors spent a prolonged period in the field with the students (prolonged engagement) in this study (Cresswell, 2013; Lincoln & Guba, 1985). This allowed the researchers to build trust with the participants, as well as be comfortable accounting for any potential abnormalities in the data. The authors met with the students weekly prior to and post-field experience, as well as living with the students in the same house for 6 days while in the field. Additionally, to increase the reliability of the data, the present study implemented constant comparative analysis to limit any variations. The authors independently coded portions of the student responses and compared results to establish interrater reliability with at least 80% agreement (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Finally, the present study provides an elaborate description of the phenomenon because the students’ experiences in the course are the focus of the study. The experiences in the course were complex and abundant. There were many people involved in the implementation of the course and several experiences, which took place over multiple locations. It is possible that the experiences become convoluted if a thorough description of the events is not provided void of any context for the reader (Creswell, 2013; Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Stake, 1994; Shenton, 2004).

4 Results

Qualitative results suggest that using AR and VR to learn about climate change enhanced the learning experiences. While the students provided the caveat that nothing replaces the actual experience of visiting the Outer Banks, they repeatedly pointed out the benefits of the technology. Themes unpacked from the responses suggest the embedded videos, figures, diagrams, and accompanying text in both experiences had positive impacts on students’ conceptualization of the issue. Statements such as, “Seeing it just helped me visualize things more instead of just talking or reading about it” and “The technology used allows for better understanding of the area because it shows a 360-degree view rather than just looking at one spot” were ubiquitous throughout the responses. Table 4 below provides themes and student exemplars for each of the themes. The themes in Table 4 are presented in descending order of frequency. While most comments were positive, there were a few comments that spoke to the technology being a distraction. In the AR trial, one student stated the AR took from the real world because they were looking at the phone the whole time.

Table 4 Themes from student responses and student exemplars
Full size table

5 Discussion

Student responses to the use of XR technology were overwhelmingly positive, which support the notion that a place-based SSI experience enhanced with technology is a viable option for instruction, while also providing avenues for future research. First, the findings of the current study indicate that XR, even low-cost options that are abundant in schools like students’ personal mobile devices that have become ubiquitous with children (Rideout et al., 2022), provide options to create rich learning environments for students. Repeatedly, student responses indicated that they were more engaged and interested in the SSI because of the technology. Likewise, students repeatedly stated that they felt more immersed in the physical location while using the technology than if they were exposed to pictures in a textbook. Returning to the overarching purpose of this research, students in this study perceived the XR experiences to be more engaging and immersive than traditional teaching approaches. The analysis of student responses supports the notion that implementing XR technology in general, and VR specifically, increases the sense of telepresence where the students felt like they were in a location that was not their actual location (e.g., at the OBX and not in a classroom). These responses indicate the experiences should be thought of as rich instructional experiences because they immersed the students in the location impacted by climate change which helps increase the relevancy of the issue, while also increasing student engagement. These findings also begin to address some of the shortcomings associated with place-based science instruction. Experiences like those to Yellowstone National Park, discussed earlier, are extremely expensive and prevent student participation for a variety of reasons beyond just cost (e.g., time, mobility issues). However, the findings here indicate that the use of XR allows teachers to provide a more immersive experience for students, which has been established as being critical for students’ conceptualization of complex issues (Herman et al., 2021; Dolphin et al., 2019; Klippel et al., 2020; Sadler, 2009).

If we look at each theme and discuss the implications for practice, we might begin to shed light on a new research paradigm. First, students suggest VR as “the next best thing.” What this theme tells us is that being on location and experiencing the sights, sounds, and kinesthetics of the environment cannot be replaced by technology. However, immersed deeply in a VR setting and even without a high-resolution head mounted display with haptic feedback and audio (especially spatial audio) could be a very close second to being on location. The VR experience created for this study was very sparse and spartan with respect to features. Students simply were able to navigate a world created with a 360-degree image with hotspots to illustrate the key teaching points targeted for climate change learning. As the technology continues to improve, it is not out of the realm of possibility to think that more robust iterations of this experience will be possible to create at a reduced cost as both the hardware (i.e., smartphones) and software become less expensive and more prevalent in the classroom.

A closer examination of the themes indicates the perceived positive impact that XR technology had on learning. Repeatedly, students indicated that the technology increased their learning about the issues. For example, in traditional field trips, it can be challenging for the teacher to prompt and queue students either because of large class sizes or the terrain (Zhao et al., 2020), but immersing students in the intended content, queuing students to look at certain feature in the real-world, or having the GPS location trigger an event on the student mobile device to aid in the learning process is arguably a better method for technology use during a field trip, as students do not need to be in proximity of the instructor to gain the information. Furthermore, using technology in the field allows students to repeatedly access the information to develop a deeper understanding of the content. Also, the technology can provide pedagogical support by providing more concrete representation of abstract concepts. In this study, students were introduced to the concept of longshore drift/currents. While students were looking at the ocean, a model was embedded that explained the molecular motion of the water and its impact on coastal erosion.

One unique aspect of the XR technology in this study is its ability to allow students to view the past and the future. Still images, video, and animated gifs embedded in both the AR and VR scenarios allowed students to engage more with the content because they were immersed in the technology as opposed to sitting at their desk in a classroom viewing the images or video on a screen in front of them. In this study, students stood on the shoreline and were able to view where the shoreline was in the past and where is might be in the future. Originally located 1500 feet from the ocean in 1870 when the Cape Hatteras lighthouse was erected, it famously was relocated in 1999 2900 feet from its original location because the shoreline had changed to the point where the lighthouse was in danger of being submerged. Students in this study were able to stand at the original lighthouse location and view its current location from that vantage point. They were also able to envision a shoreline that encroached the original location from 1870 to 1999 to the day they visited.

While the AR experience capitalized on the high frequency usage of mobile devices to support learning, the VR scenario was also considered engaging and increased support for learning. In this study, students reviewed and remembered their place-based experience through a reemergence in the VR worlds. All the same events that were trigger by GPS while in the OBX were then trigger by hotspots in the VR worlds. The analysis showed that VR is a good platform to review the onsite experience and reinforce the important content and topics articulated on location. Students who engaged with both forms of XR technology repeatedly stated that experiencing the VR after being in the field was useful in their learning about the issue.

5.1 Limitations and Implications

Of all the good technology brings to the teaching and learning experience, this study supports previous studies that suggest technology is not a panacea. Technology, regardless of how immersive and engaging, cannot replace good teaching. In fact, as this study shows, technology in a place-based SSI activity can sometimes become a distraction. As mobile devices become more pervasive, society has become more reliant on the device while missing the happening of the world around them. This is not different than what some of the students in the study experienced educationally. It can be argued that being in nature is the ultimate immersive experience, and at times in this study, the AR events that were triggered distracted students from the natural world around them. Integrating XR into a pedagogical repertoire needs to be taken with caution. As Kahn and Zeidler (2016) said, “The best educational materials can be made infertile by infertile minds” (p. 293). There is a fine line between immersing students in the real world and immersing them in an artificial world that detracts from the intended consequences of a place-based educational activity. As with any connected technology, concerns of privacy, online safety, access, and technology gaps become paramount when using with students.

As this was a pilot study, there were many lessons learned for future research. First, future research should focus on extended reality applications that are user friendly. The apps used in this study did not have the features needed to completely immerse the students in the content as originally intended. Important design features discussed earlier, such as audio and haptic feedback responses, were not included in either AR or VR activity because the software used did not accommodate for such features. That said, new applications released in recent months show promise (i.e., Adobe Aero) for how we might find global cooperation in conducting similar studies. As we look to future application of XR for educational purposes, these design features must be taken under seriously consideration. For example, AR seems to be a more effective medium for conveying auditory information through the pathway of spatial presence, possibly because of increased cognitive demands associated with immersive experiences. Thus, an important implication for design is that educational content should be integrated into visual modalities when the experience will be consumed in VR, but into auditory modalities when it will be consumed in AR (Huang et al., 2019). With more technology companies focusing on XR, the price point and multiusers capabilities are becoming more possible for educational usage.

When we consider place-based SSI experiences such as the one described in this study, there are a multitude of things that can detract from the learning experience. Weather is the most obvious, but fire, wildlife, etc. are also factors to consider when taking students to an out-of-school or off-campus experience. Technology not working or lack of Internet connectivity is also something to consider when using XR in place-based SSI. Some of these can be controlled, while other cannot. Integrating both AR and VR that mirror the place-based experience is a way to not only assist in learning but also potentially provide a richer experience remotely because factors such as weather, fire, and wildlife are no longer relevant in VR.

Finally, although we did not witness a lack of personal computing power through smart phones, there could be a limitation to this study had it been done in K-12 settings. That said, according to Pew Research Center (2022), 91% or American teenagers and 76% of people earning less than $30,000/year own a smartphone. This reduces the need for school districts to purchase costly equipment.

6 Conclusion

In conclusion, this study began to shed light on how comparing AR and VR in an SSI teaching experience could illuminate both the positives and negatives of technology usage for these purposes. Much like a good science teacher would likely not set up a lab experience for their students and ask the students to follow a step-by-step guide to learn the intended content without the teacher involvement, infusing any technology into an educational setting takes time, effort, planning, and active participation from the teacher through the entire experience. This is particularly true when integrating mobile technologies. As this study suggests, there are both good and bad that come with it, and although the educational experience was well conceived and timed, the design of the technology and delivery of the content fell short in some areas.