Approaches to Integrate Virtual Reality into K-16 Lesson Plans: an Introduction for Teachers

Abstract

This discourse presents TPACK as a conceptual framework for thinking about the integration of Virtual Reality into the classroom. This content introduces the concept of immersion, explores of the possibilities of VR technology, including the hardware, software, and potential classroom uses. This review also provides heuristics for deciding VR’s fit with the learning objectives. Readers also will learn processes for finding resources, overcoming challenges, and addressing tradeoffs to K16 teachers implementing VR. The methodological approach provides a guide to practitioners for supporting both course learning objectives and student engagement. The TPACK framework, considerations of levels of immersion afforded by different hardware, and access to technology frame the planning and analysis of integration of VR technology. The article closes with content to introduce practitioners and administrators to the range of virtual reality (VR) technology and facilitate decisions on integration of VR into classrooms in order to improve the technological competency of K16 teachers and empower them to integrate VR content into their classrooms effectively.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  1. Ahlberg, G., Heikkinen, T., Iselius, L., Leijonmarck, C. E., Rutqvist, J., & Arvidsson, D. (2002). Does training in a virtual reality simulator improve surgical performance? Surgical Endoscopy and Other Interventional Techniques, 16(1), 126–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Aiello, P., D’Elia, F., Di Tore, S., & Sibilio, M. (2012). A constructivist approach to virtual reality for experiential learning. E-Learning and Digital Media, 9(3), 317–324. https://doi.org/10.2304/elea.2012.9.3.317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. da Silva, M. M., Teixeira, J. M. X., Cavalcante, P. S., & Teichrieb, V. (2019). Perspectives on how to evaluate augmented reality technology tools for education: A systematic review. Journal of the Brazilian Computer Society, 25(1), 3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Davies, H. (2020). What is the right way to manage virtual reality in the classroom? In ClassVR Retrieved from https://www.classvr.com/what-is-the-right-way-to-manage-virtual-reality-in-the-classroom/.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Dede, C., Salzman, M.C. & Loftin, R.B. (1996). Science space: Virtual realities for learning complex and abstract scientific concepts. In Proceedings of IEEE Virtual Reality Annual International Symposium, New York: IEEE Press.

  7. Durbin, J. (2016). A Case Study - The Impact of VR on Academic Performance. 1–20.

  8. Fast, K., Gifford, T., & Yancey, R. (2004). Virtual training for welding. In Proceedings of the 3rd IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR '04). IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA, 298–299. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISMAR.2004.65.

  9. Fauville, G., Queiroz, A. C., Hambrick, L., Brown, B. A., & Bailenson, J. N. (2020). Participatory research on using virtual reality to teach ocean acidification: A study in the marine education community. Environmental education research, 1-25.

  10. Hayes, A., Straub, C., Dieker, L., Hughes, C., & Hynes, M. (2013). Ludic learning: Exploration of TLE TeachLivE and effective teacher training. International Journal of Gaming and Computer-Mediated Simulation, 5(2), 20–33. https://doi.org/10.4018/jgcms.2013040102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Herrera, F., Bailenson, J., Weisz, E., Ogle, E., & Zaki, J. (2018). Building long-term empathy: A large-scale comparison of traditional and virtual reality perspective-taking. PloS one, 13(10), e0204494.

  12. Huang, Y., Churches, L., & Reilly, B. (2015). A case study on virtual reality American football training. Proceedings of the 2015 Virtual Reality International Conference (pp. 1-5).

  13. Jang, S., Vitale, J. M., Jyung, R. W., & Black, J. B. (2017). Direct manipulation is better than passive viewing for learning anatomy in a three-dimensional virtual reality environment. Computers & Education, 106, 150–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Kassner, K. (2000). One computer can deliver whole-class instruction: It's possible for one computer to meet the needs of an entire class. Here are some ways for teachers to incorporate technology into music courses despite limited resources. Music Educators Journal, 86(6), 34–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60–70.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Krokos, E., Plaisant, C., & Varshney, A. (2019). Virtual memory palaces: Immersion aids recall. Virtual Reality, 23(1), 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Lindgren, R., & Moshell, J. M. (2011). Supporting children's learning with body-based metaphors in a mixed reality environment. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (pp. 177-180). ACM.

  18. Liou, W., Chang, C. (2018) Virtual reality classroom applied to science education, 2018 23rd International Scientific-Professional Conference on Information Technology (IT), Zabljak, pp. 1–4.

  19. Maister, L., Slater, M., Sanchez-Vives, M., & Tsakiris, M. (2015). Changing bodies changes minds: Owning another body affects social cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19(1), 6–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2014.11.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Milgram, P., & Kishino, F. (1994). A taxonomy of mixed reality visual displays. IEICE Trans. Information Systems., E77-D(12), 1321–1329.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Modjeska, D., & Chignell, M. (2003). Individual differences in exploration using desktop VR. J. American Society of Information Science and Technology, 54(3), 216–228. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.10197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Pantelidis, V. S. (2010). Reasons to use virtual reality in education and training courses and a model to determine when to use virtual reality. Themes in Science and Technology Education, 2, 59–70.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Parong, J., & Mayer, R. E. (2018). Learning science in immersive virtual reality. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110(6), 785–797.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Segovia, K., & Bailenson, J. (2009). Virtually true: Children's acquisition of false memories in virtual reality. Media Psychology, 12, 371–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Seymour, N., Gallagher, A., Roman, S., O'Brien, M., Bansal, V., Andersen, D., & Satava, R. (2002). Virtual reality training improves operating room performance: Results of a randomized, double-blinded study. Annals of Surgery, 236(4), 458–463 discussion 463-464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Sissons, H., & Cochrane, T. (2019). Introducing immersive reality into the journalism curriculum. Pacific Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 2(1), 7–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Southgate, E., Smith, S. P., Cividino, C., Saxby, S., Kilham, J., Eather, G., & Bergin, C. (2019). Embedding immersive virtual reality in classrooms: Ethical, organisational and educational lessons in bridging research and practice. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 19, 19–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Spicer, J. I., & Stratford, J. (2001). Student perceptions of a virtual field trip to replace a real field trip. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 17(4), 345–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Te, Z. (2015). Oculus Rift vs. GameSpot: Morpheus vs. Vive VR http://www.gamespot.com/articles/oculus-rift-vs-morpheus-vs-vive-vr/1100-6427162/.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Tuthill, G., & Klemm, E. B. (2002). Virtual field trips: Alternatives to actual field trips. International Journal of Instructional Media, 29(4), 453.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Weng, C., Rathinasabapathi, A., Weng, A., & Zagita, C. (2019). Mixed reality in science education as a learning support: A revitalized science book. In Journal of Educational Computing Research, 57(3).

  32. Won, A., Bailey, J. & Yi, S. (2020). Work-in-Progress—Learning about virtual worlds in virtual worlds: How remote learning in a pandemic can inform future teaching, 2020 6th international conference of the immersive learning research network (iLRN), San Luis Obispo, CA, USA, pp. 377–380.

  33. Zyda, M. (2005). From visual simulation to virtual reality to games. Computer, 38, 25–32. https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.2005.297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aleshia Hayes.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethics Approval

No study was conducted, and no ethics approval was needed for this review of literature.

Informed Consent

No participants were used in this study so no informed consent has been provided.

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

Hayes, A., Daughrity, L.A. & Meng, N. Approaches to Integrate Virtual Reality into K-16 Lesson Plans: an Introduction for Teachers. TechTrends (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-020-00572-7

Download citation

Keywords

  • TPACK
  • Immersive technology
  • VR
  • XR
  • Virtuality continuum
  • Implementation