Keywords

1 Introduction and Context

1.1 VR in Education

This is an era where various companies and institutions are grappling with and embracing a range of new Virtual Reality (VR) technologies for the social good, including various new learning opportunities. Within the field of education there is also an increased interest in VR, both in practical application of the possibilities, as well as a growing body of research (see Billingsley et al., 2019; Luo et al., 2021; Pellas et al., 2021).

VR generally refers to a computer-mediated simulation, imitating a physical environment (Slater & Sanchez-Vives, 2016). Past research has already revealed how VR can be used in teaching and education, investigating factors such as perceptions and behavioral intentions (Badilla Quintana et al., 2017; Leite et al., 2020; Shen et al., 2019; Shin, 2017). In VR the user can navigate through an imaginary setting and interact with items or other virtual entities, using either body movements or a remote controller, artificially creating or perceiving a sensory experience of being inside a virtual world. A commonly used argument for using VR in an educational context is its potential for increased engagement within an immersive experience; or even get the sense of presence and the perception of ‘being there’(Bronack, 2011; Petersen et al., 2022). Maybe due the immersive elements, past research have revealed some potential positive effects for increased learning with the use of VR experiences including enhanced engagement, reduced error rate, learning by own time and pace, and facilitation of interactive learning (Fussell & Truong, 2022; Parong & Mayer, 2018; Petersen et al., 2022).

As VR has become more available and affordable, more opportunities to engage in social learning practices have followed. Past research has most often focused on individualized VR learning experiences with simulations or game-like approaches (e.g., Johnson-Glenberg et al., 2021; Lui et al., 2020; Pande et al., 2021). As a consequence of the technology development, there is now a need for more research into the social aspects that VR might provide in a learning context.

1.2 Times of Crisis

The times we live in are also times of big challenges and crises. According to Dafermos et al. (2017) within a cultural-historical perspective, crisis can be defined as “a major shift connected with transformation of the social situation of development” (p. 8). Though originated in psychology, Dafermos (2022) argues that a Vygotskian concept of crisis can and should be expanded beyond this field and be elaborated as part of broader social theory with a dialectical perspective with crisis not only being something negative or positive.

Along with digital technology developing at a rapid pace, the world has also faced some large challenges the recent years. The Covid-19 pandemic affected the whole world, and recently the war in Ukraine has put, at least Europe, to another test. In such times, we look for solutions, and often attempts to solve problems entail looking to technology. In the case of the pandemic, school closings led to a massive exploration of the possibilities for online teaching and collaboration (see e.g., Van Der Spoel et al., 2020). Though the experiences from the pandemic situation varied, there is little doubt that the technology development of the preceding decades provided a whole range of teaching opportunities to help the situation. Extending from this, the use of VR might be an even more engaging way to interact online in situations where meeting physically is not possible (Bower et al., 2017). One example can be in times of crisis like the Covid-19, with strict restrictions and social distancing. However, we must also deal with the climate crisis which requires rethinking how we can do social interaction and collaboration across large distances. Here, technology, both video conferencing and newer VR solutions, will likely play a large role.

1.3 Study Context

At UiT The Arctic University of Norway, there are several initiatives to investigate the area of VR in education. Among these is this current project, that is connected to a decentralized program in early childhood teacher education (BLU). The program combines online teaching and on-campus gatherings, hence there is an interest in finding good solutions for remote learning. The initial intention with VR in this context was to find out whether this technology has potential to provide a better learning environment and learning experiences. The pandemic situation has highlighted challenges in online learning and made such investigations even more relevant. While one could imagine situations from the early childhood education that would be suitable for simulation or 360° video experiences, the focus in this project will be on the possibilities for social interaction among students and lecturer in a virtual environment.

Due to the specific attributes of the field of early childhood education, there are also good reasons to take advantage of the opportunities for play that comes in VR. The National Guidelines for Early Childhood Teacher Education (UHR Teacher Education, 2018) describes play as a form of learning and living that has an intrinsic value, and that play is of crucial importance for all-round development. The guidelines are also being specific regarding the digital, when they state that candidates must be able to “stimulate children to explore, play, learn and create through digital forms of expression”(UHR Teacher Education, 2018).

Play is an important part of the traditions of Early Childhood education. As mentioned, it has intrinsic value, but it also entails many important “side effect”, among them the use and development of imagination. Fleer and Hedegaard (2010) write that “imagination in play is particularly important for building children’s theoretical thinking, and that all educational programs (including those focused on discipline knowledge) need to develop imaginative thinking in unity with cognitive development”. Hence, there are good reasons for exploring use of technology in playful ways, not least during the preparation of teachers for work in kindergartens.

1.4 Research Question

The broader question of the study is how VR can play a part in students’ learning. However, before one can investigate if and how it influences learning, students and lecturers must be willing and motivated to use it. In this chapter we therefore narrow the focus down to:

  • What factors can impact the willingness and decisions to utilize a new technology such as VR, for educational purposes?

To answer the question, we propose a model that brings attention to advantages and barriers of the various elements of engagement in the use of VR technology. It is not a new teaching model, but by describing a tentative teaching scenario, we attempt to show how the model might be useful in an educational setting. However, because of the focus on this context, we mostly use the term VR learning activity instead of term VR experience, which is more common in the literature.

2 Theoretical Contribution

2.1 Presentation of Model

Before getting to the VR learning activity with the potentials of immersion or presence (Slater & Sanchez-Vives, 2016), there are some fundamental and complex reciprocities of engagement. We would like to emphasize the importance of engagement before and after the activity, and the dis- or reengagement regarding the desire whether to use the VR technology for educational purposes again. We would like to propose a VR engagement model. The inspiration is from O’Brien and Toms (2008) engagement model and Engeströms third generation of the cultural-historical activity theory (CHAT) (Engeström, 1999). O’Brien and Toms (2008) who, in the context of human–computer interaction, critically deconstruct and demonstrate various definitions of engagement and suggested to look at engagement as a process comprised of four stages: point of engagement, period of sustained engagement, disengagement, and reengagement. Furthermore, O’Brien and Toms (2008) suggest various attributes of engagement that pertain to the user, the system, and user–system interaction. Their framework for engagement as an ongoing process is a good starting point, although the attributes could be considered a bit generically described and their model does focus much on intrinsic motivation. Engeström (1999) framework for the CHAT theory builds on top of Vygotsky’s theory of cultural mediation, and Leontiev’s collective model. The CHAT theory includes a triangle of rules, community, division of labor, subject, object, and instruments (Engeström, 1999). In short, activities involve subjects working towards achieving objects and outcomes, through mediated action involving sign, tools, and artefacts. Collective activity involves subjects acting as part of communities, with those actions mediated by rules. For the community to achieve their goal requires division of labor through determination of roles and responsibilities. The critique towards Engeströms CHAT model is the missing elements of barriers/disruptions, a progression of time, and missing elements of various motivations from the participants.

The concept of play is an important part of the theoretical foundations of the model. Regarding engagement, O’Brien and Toms (2008, p. 952) write that “play is the physical activity that encourages learning and creativity (…) Play has been associated with increased frequency and satisfaction of system use and has been attributed to increased motivation. Thus, elements of play are intrinsic to engagement.” Also, going back to the origins of CHAT, the work of Vygotsky also emphasized the importance of play for human development (Bjørnestad et al., 2022). Hence, though not explicitly mentioned in the model, play and playfulness is still at the core.

For describing and exploring how a VR learning activity for pre-service early childhood teachers provide engagement with and awareness of specific learning content, we will propose a circular VR engagement model (Fig. 23.1), which focuses on engagement elements and their subsequent features. The basic tenet in the model (Fig. 23.1) is that the participants go through a dynamic progression of different engagement stages: before, during, after, and dis- or reengagement. In all stages, there is also the possibility of ‘going’ to reality, either with or without intent.

Fig. 23.1
A circular chart has a cyclic V R engagement model. The reality at the core is surrounded by before, during, after, and dis or reengagement. At the outer end, it includes division of labor, object, outcome, and instruments or tools.

VR engagement model

Full size image

2.2 Before: From Physical Reality to VR Engagement

Teaching success and providing learning depend on the participants’ motivation to start learning, spend their time, effort, and energy on it. Hence, participants’ intentions to interact with the VR technology are crucial, as being part of the learning. The participant typically begins at the level of reality. The reality construct in the context of VR environments and other media is very complex and used in many ways. We define reality as the level at which the participants have total awareness of the surroundings and are not involved with (or has perceptual attention to) the VR environment. Among many scholars, Bartle (2004) has described the complexity between the real world and virtual world and has defined the world as an environment that its inhabitants regard as self-contained. However, all the entities in this environment do not necessarily act under the direction of the individual people due to its social (multi-user) acts that several participants (community) affect simultaneously (Bartle, 2004). The included ‘reality’ factor also emphasizes that the VR environment is not an isolated media but can be merged or used in complex interactions with other medias, both synchronous and asynchronous in talks, chats, text messages, books, films, both individually and in groups/communities. It might also add some interesting elements to the CHAT theory, that the interaction between subjects and a community can be of artificial characteristics with e.g., avatars, chatbots, virtual signs or other entities within VR.

The participants starting point from the physical reality comes with many different variables, for example, different knowledge, skills, competences, and values of specific elements with the learning content. Here, we understand knowledge, skills, and competences both within specific learning content and with different knowledge, skills, and competences for the VR activity. For the same reason, the VR activity needs to be adjusted to or adjustable for different participants to have a good VR entrance. Other scholars have also emphasized the importance of the technology acceptance (Fussell & Truong, 2021; Shen et al., 2019) and include elements such as performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influences, facilitating conditions, and behavioral intensions (Shen et al., 2019) before starting a VR activity.

Further, it is important with a good briefing to have the participants understand the virtual experiences, the purpose and framework, which can be included as an introduction or tutorial. A tutorial can also guide the participants in terms of the VR’s framework for the rules and controls. The tutorial can either be integrated into the VR activiy or completely separate and optional.

Dealing with VR activities it is important not to neglect the technical set-up before entering the virtual environment, including e.g., software updates, VR- and internet connection, power, not working/broken equipment etc. Further the physical setting in which the VR-activity takes place also have an impact; and provide limitations for e.g., the duration of activity and how playful and wild you can be with the controllers.

Before starting the design of a VR learning activity, it is important to consider the target group in terms of age, gender, culture, geography, and other demographic variables. Presumably, previous experiences with VR are crucial in the ‘before’ stage. When participants have mastered specific challenges, they develop a greater level of skills that can be used and improved with increasingly complex challenges in other levels (De Jans et al., 2019). This might also have a positive influence on the intrinsic motivation for the learning content (Wouters et al., 2013). Intrinsic motivation most often refers to engaging in an activity purely for the pleasure and satisfaction derived from doing the activity (Deci, 1975). When a participant is intrinsically engaged, they will more likely start using the VR activity voluntarily, in the absence of rewards, external constraints, or teacher/educational demands. Scholars could discuss whether learning in general may need to focus more on the intrinsic motivation because the learning need to invoke curiosity, flow (i.e., the interplay between challenges and skills), be fun and enjoyable, and eventually allow the participants to gain new knowledge. Before the VR activity, it is also necessary to clarify what it can provide in terms of gained knowledge, what to experience, and what to accomplish. As a transformative element into the VR learning activity, labelled as division of labor, it is important that there also from the instructor or other peers is provided some framework and settings of what both the individual VR participants and others within group should do and why (division of labor). This also include e.g., specific roles of peer support, e.g. with technical- or navigation support, and monitoring for e.g. avoiding potential cybersickness, which is a well described risk in VR (LaViola, 2000).

2.3 During the VR Learning Activity

Scholars have developed various definitions and specific suggestions for how to increase participants’ engagement, keep them in the flow, and provide various aspects of motivation, enjoyment, and involvement in the VR experience (Brill & Park, 2008). Theories used to describe and analyze the ‘during’ engagement is described within e.g. (game) engagement theories (Valenti et al., 2020), the flow theory (Csikszentmihalyi, 1997; Hassan et al., 2020), Kolb learning styles (Leite et al., 2020; Shen et al., 2019), spatial and social presence (Biocca & Harms, 2002), and immersion (Biocca & Delaney, 1995). Further, it should not be neglected that for a potential successful VR experience it is very important with an ease of use, with a good usability and user experience (Shin, 2017). The issues of low usability and uncomfortable user interface have been claimed to have negative effects on user acceptance (Rienties et al., 2016).

2.4 After: Engagement After the Activity

The ideal engagements after the VR learning activity is an object of learning. However, some general problems exist in measuring these aftereffects. Measuring learning effects based on a VR activity can be difficult because it includes complex dynamic processes that might take time and can take on many shapes. Further, participants each have their own unique set of cognitions, habits, and contexts that mediate the change process; thus, the shape of change will also increasingly differ between individual users. Therefore, both the validity and the reliability of the correlation and causality between VR activity and learning it still to be further studied. However, it might also be useful to expand specific learning effects to also include e.g. improved collaboration, improved communication, or other affordances (Luo et al., 2021; Shin, 2017).

2.5 Dis- or Reengagement

Reengagement is the desire to participate in a VR learning activity again. This comes with much complexity and reciprocities with some of the elements in the other three factors. However, it is not the same as the ‘before’ because there are already elements learned, trained, and skilled, as well as the briefing might not be as important as when starting a new VR activity. The VR activity will not be the same; however, there remain elements of both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. However, based on the outcome, there might also be potential discussion of weather VR is the best tool for the specific learning purposes. Further, it is also well-described how poor usability, and lack of/too much challenge can be a factor for dis-engagement (O’Brien & Toms, 2008).

3 Discussion and Conclusion

In our case, VR will be tested out as an alternative or supplement to ordinary online teaching. The software platform Engage provides opportunities for cooperation between participants in the form of avatars in many possible virtual environments, e.g., a lecture hall, a meeting room, or a forest. The platform is not specifically designed for our specific educational context but is a more general software that users can customize and use for different purposes. This has similarities to a lot of digital resources used in education where software or services function as a frame that the educator can add content to. However, it might differ slightly from many approaches in VR and education, where the designing and production of specific simulations or learning experiences often demand large amounts of resources.

We will here take as a tentative starting point the specific subject “BLU-1223 Language, text and mathematics”. The subject curriculum states that media culture is one of many areas that will be touched upon. Among skills that they are supposed to develop we find using digital tools in working with the subject. Together with more concrete content and learning objectives, this gives a good foundation and relevance to the project. The students will have some physical gatherings, and one of these will be used for a briefing and an introduction to the technology. In this phase it will be important to provide the participants with purpose, framework, rules, and expectations. This also involves what the group should do and why (division of labor), including a set-up to mitigate potential cybersickness.

Learning goals that will be focused on are as follows:

The student has knowledge about:

  • mathematical areas that are relevant to kindergarten children, and mathematics as a tool for systematic exploration, thinking and problem solving

  • the importance of play and conversation for language and mathematics learning, and the role of literature as inspiration in play

After getting some time to familiarize themselves with the VR unit, students and lecturers on the subject will then take part in a workshop for developing a learning activity in VR that is both relevant to the present subject content, as well as possible to carry out in practice while at home.

The technical part is already set, both the physical device (Oculus Quest 1) and the software platform (Engage). Though the study could possibly generate results valuable to developers and designers, our focus here is on the educational use of the existing technological solutions.

The methodological challenge in relation to the model is to find ways to investigate all engagement stages. We will therefore need multiple data sources and time spots for gathering data. Interviews and questionnaires will provide self-reporting information about the participants’ attitudes and thoughts about the experience during all stages. Observation and recordings are ways to get a view from another angle. The built-in features for recording in VR give some interesting possibilities and will also be considered. By documenting the cooperation during the design process and development of the whole project, we will also have access to valuable information that can complement or modify what is self-reported by participants.

We argue that there could be increased substantial work on the ‘before’ stage, including more emphasis on how to improve the methodology and formative evaluations within motivational and engagement factors for starting the VR activity and interacting with specific learning content. This could include work in improved teacher involvement, pilot testing, target group analysis, and genre/VR evaluation. When evaluating especially VR activities with learning purposes it is important not to neglect the challenges of finding the right match of both the participants’ cognitive abilities and a solid methodological approach.

The open landscape of possible exploration in this novel field invites many approaches to choose from. As mentioned earlier, we want to shift the emphasis away from the individual learning experience in VR and delve deeper into investigating the social aspects, i.e., how students are interacting with each other, lecturers, as well as other entities inside VR. Further, we aim at identifying factors that increase and sustain students’ engagement in the virtual learning activity. The proposed model encompasses both objectives and will hopefully prove useful.