Educators’ Interests, Prior Knowledge and Questions Regarding Augmented Reality, Virtual Reality and 3D Printing and Modeling

Abstract

Innovative new technologies, such as augmented reality (AR), virtual reality (VR) and 3D printers, provide new affordances for education. While each of these technologies has been shown to positively impact learning, they have not yet been widely adopted in schools. With the interest in these technologies growing among educators, this study explores why educators are motivated to learn about these tools, what they already know about these tools, and what they want to know. This paper presents data from 265 educators who completed a pre-course survey before engaging in an open online course to learn about these technologies. Findings from the data reveal significant variance in educators’ prior knowledge, interests, and motivations. This paper yields new insights that can support the design of professional learning experiences for educators and potentially increase mainstream adoption and use of these tools in education.

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

References

  1. Barnard, D. (2019). History of VR - Timeline of events and tech development. Virtual Speech. https://virtualspeech.com/blog/history-of-vr

  2. Billinghurst, M., Kato, H., & Poupyrev, I. (2001). The magic book — Moving seamlessly between reality and virtuality. IEEE Computers, Graphics and Applications, 21(3), 2–4.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Brown, M., McCormack, M., Reeves, J., Brooks, D., Grajek, S., Alexander, B., et al. (2020). 2020 EDUCAUSE Horizon Report: Teaching and Learning Edition (ISBN 978–1–933046-03-7). Louisville, CO: EDUCAUSE.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Carpenter, J. P. (2016). Unconference professional development: Edcamp participant perceptions and motivations for attendance. Professional Development in Education, 42(1), 78–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Cheng, K., & Tsai, C. (2013). Affordances of augmented reality in science learning: Suggestions for future research. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 22(4), 449–462 Retrieved July 9, 2020, from www.jstor.org/stable/23442320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Choi, H., & Kim, J. M. (2018). Implications for activating 3D printer use for education in elementary and secondary schools. International Journal on Advanced Science, Engineering and Information Technology, 8(4–2), 1546–1551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M. E., & Gardner, M. (2017). Effective teacher professional development. Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute

  9. EDUCAUSE. (2020). 3D printing. https://library.educause.edu/topics/emerging-technologies/3d-printing.

  10. Edwards-Stewart, A., Hoyt, T., & Reger, G. (2016). Classifying different types of augmented reality technology. Annual Review of Cybertherapy and Telemedicine, 14, 199–202.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Ertmer, P. A. (1999). Addressing first- and second-order barriers to change: Strategies for technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(4), 47–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02299597.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Evans, J. (2019). Digital learning: Peril or promise for our K-12 students. Irvine, CA: Project Tomorrow Speak Up Research Initiative.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Ford, S., & Minshall, T. (2019). Invited review article: Where and how 3D printing is used in teaching and education. Additive Manufacturing, 25, 131–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2018.10.028.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Hantono, B, S., Nugroho, L, E., & Santosa, P, I. (2018). Meta-review of augmented reality in education. In 2018 10th international conference on information technology and electrical engineering (ICITEE) (pp. 312-315). IEEE.https://doi.org/10.1109/ICITEED.2018.8534888.

  15. Ibáñez, M. B., & Delgado-Kloos, C. (2018). Augmented reality for STEM learning: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 123, 109–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Iqbal, M. (2020). Pokémon GO Revenue and Usage Statistics (2020). Retrieved July 09, 2020, from https://www.businessofapps.com/data/pokemon-go-statistics/

  17. Jensen, L., & Konradsen, F. (2017). A review of the use of virtual reality head-mounted displays in education and training. Education and Information Technologies, 23(4), 1515–1529. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-017-9676-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Cummins, M., Estrada, V., Freeman, A., & Ludgate, H. (2013). NMC horizon report: 2013 K-12 edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Kavanagh, S., Luxton-Reilly, A., Wuensche, B., & Plimmer, B. (2017). A systematic review of virtual reality in education. Themes in Science and Technology Education, 10(2), 85–119.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Keay, J. K., Carse, N., & Jess, M. (2019). Understanding teachers as complex professional learners. Professional Development in Education, 45(1), 125–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Koehler, M. (2012). TPACK explained. TPACK.ORG. http://matt-koehler.com/tpack2/tpack-explained/

  22. 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 

  23. Kyndt, E., Gijbels, D., Grosemans, I., & Donche, V. (2016). Teachers’ everyday professional development: Mapping informal learning activities, antecedents and learning outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 1111–1150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Lee, K. (2012). The future of learning and training in augmented reality. InSight: A Journal of Scholarly Teaching, 7, 31–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Leinonen, T., Virnes, M., Hietala, I., & Brinck, J. (2020). 3D printing in the wild: Adopting digital fabrication in elementary school education. International Journal of Art & Design Education. https://doi.org/10.1111/jade.12310.

  26. Makki, T. W., O'Neal, L. J., Cotten, S. R., & Rikard, R. V. (2018). When first-order barriers are high: A comparison of second-and third-order barriers to classroom computing integration. Computers & Education, 120, 90–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Maloy, R., Trust, T., Kommers, S., LaRoche, I., & Malinowski, A. (2017). 3D modeling and printing in history/social studies classrooms: Initial lessons and insights. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 17(2), 229–249.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Martín-Gutiérrez, J., Mora, C. E., Añorbe-Díaz, B., & González-Marrero, A. (2017). Virtual technologies trends in education. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 13(2), 469–486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Milman, N. B. (2018). Defining and conceptualizing mixed reality, augmented reality and virtual reality. Distance Learning, 15(2), 55–58.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917733847.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Oliver, K. (2016). Professional development considerations for makerspace leaders, part one: Addressing “what?” and “why?”. TechTrends, 60(2), 160–166. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0028-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Patterson, T., & Han, I. (2019). Learning to teach with virtual reality: Lessons from one elementary teacher. TechTrends, 63(4), 463–469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Pomerantz, J. & Rode, R. (2020). Exploring the future of extended reality in higher education. EDUCAUSE. https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/6/exploring-the-future-of-extended-reality-in-higher-education

  34. Promethean. (2019). Promethean publishes the state of technology in education report 18/19. https://resourced.prometheanworld.com/state-of-technologyreport/.

  35. Schoffer, F. (2016). How expiring patents are ushering in the next generation of 3D printing. TechCrunch. https://techcrunch.com/2016/05/15/how-expiring-patents-are-ushering-in-the-next-generation-of-3d-printing/

  36. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Snelson, C., & Hsu, Y. C. (2019). Educational 360-degree videos in virtual reality: A scoping review of the emerging research. TechTrends, 64, 404–412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Trust, T., & Maloy, R. (2017). Why 3D print? The 21st century skills students develop while engaging in 3D printing projects. Computers in the Schools, 34(4).

  39. Twining, P., Heller, R. S., Nussbaum, M., & Tsai, C. C. (2017). Some guidance on conducting and reporting qualitative studies. Computers & Education, 106, A1–A9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.12.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Vega, V., & Robb, M. B. (2019). The common sense census: Inside the 21st-century classroom. San Francisco, CA: Common Sense Media.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Wilson, K. (2018). How (and why!) to write a pre-course survey or questionnaire - SPS: Distance learning. Northwestern School of Professional Studies. https://dl.sps.northwestern.edu/blog/2018/04/write-pre-course-survey-questionnaire/.

Download references

Funding

No funding was received for conducting this study.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Torrey Trust.

Ethics declarations

Research Ethics Statement

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. The questionnaire and methodology for this study was approved by the Human Research Ethics committee of the University of Massachusetts Amherst [IRB Protocol 1522].

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Conflict of Interest

Torrey Trust declares that she has no conflict of interest. Nathaniel Woodruff declares that he has no conflict of interest. Matthew Checrallah declares that he has no conflict of interest. Jeromie Whalen declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

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

Appendix

Appendix

Table 4 Codebook for Participants’ Interests in Learning About AR, VR, and 3D Printing (n = 150)
Table 5 Codebook for “List 3 things You Already Know About Augmented Reality”
Table 6 Codebook for “List 3 things You Already Know About Virtual Reality”
Table 7 Codebook for “List 3 things You Already Know About 3D Printing”
Table 8 Codebook for RQ3: What do Educators Want to Know About AR, VR, and 3D Printing?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Trust, T., Woodruff, N., Checrallah, M. et al. Educators’ Interests, Prior Knowledge and Questions Regarding Augmented Reality, Virtual Reality and 3D Printing and Modeling. TechTrends (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-021-00594-9

Download citation

Keywords

  • 3D modeling
  • AR
  • Emerging technologies
  • Teacher learning
  • TPACK
  • VR