Advertisement

MaroonVR—An Interactive and Immersive Virtual Reality Physics Laboratory

  • Johanna PirkerEmail author
  • Michael Holly
  • Isabel Lesjak
  • Johannes Kopf
  • Christian Gütl
Chapter
Part of the Smart Computing and Intelligence book series (SMCOMINT)

Abstract

In STEM fields, the primary goal is not to teach students how to recite formulas but to support the students’ understanding of underlying principles and phenomena. Students of fields such as physics should be engaged with hands-on experiments and interactive visualizations. In this work, we discuss how modern e-learning tools can support hands-on learning experiences and present the interactive learning tool Maroon in this context. Maroon is a virtual educational laboratory, which is designed to support flexible and dynamic immersive learning experiences. It is developed with a game engine to support the deployment to different devices and setups. In this chapter, we discuss Maroon’s architecture and describe the different versions of Maroon with a focus on virtual reality experiences, their use cases, advantages, and disadvantages.

Keywords

Virtual reality STEM education Simulations Physics education 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank MIT’s John W. Belcher for his valuable expertise in pedagogical simulation design.

References

  1. Aşıksoy, G., & Islek, D. (2017). The impact of the virtual laboratory on students’ attitude in a general physics laboratory. International Journal of Online Engineering (iJOE), 13, 20–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Avi, H., & Lunetta Vincent, N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty-first century. Science Education, 88, 28–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bell, D. (2016). The reality of STEM education, design and technology teachers’ perceptions: A phenomenographic study. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 26, 61–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bonde, M. T., Makransky, G., Wandall, J., Larsen, M. V., Morsing, M., Jarmer, H., et al. (2014). Improving biotech education through gamified laboratory simulations. Nature Biotechnology, 32, 694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brockmyer, J. H., Fox, C. M., Curtiss, K. A., McBroom, E., Burkhart, K. M., & Pidruzny, J. N. (2009). The development of the game engagement questionnaire: A measure of engagement in video game-playing. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 624–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Broisin, J., Venant, R., & Vidal, P. (2017). Lab4CE: A remote laboratory for computer education. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 27, 154–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Caprile, M., Palmén, R., Sanz, P., & Dente, G. (2015). Encouraging STEM studies for the labour market. European Union: Directorate General for Internal Policies.Google Scholar
  8. Cavazza, M., & Young, R. M. (2017). Introduction to interactive storytelling. In R. Nakatsu, M. Rauterberg, & P. Ciancarini (Eds.), Handbook of digital games and entertainment technologies (pp. 377–392). Singapore: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chang, V., & Guetl, C. (2010). Generation Y learning in the 21st century: Integration of virtual worlds and cloud computing services. In Z. W. Abas, I. Jung, & J. Luca (Eds.), Proceedings of Global Learn 2010 (pp. 1888–1897). Penang, Malaysia: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).Google Scholar
  10. Chen, X., Song, G., & Zhang, Y. (2010). Virtual and remote laboratory development: A review. In Earth and Space 2010: Engineering, Science, Construction, and Operations in Challenging Environments (pp. 3843–3852).Google Scholar
  11. Choi, S., Jung, K., & Noh, S. D. (2015). Virtual reality applications in manufacturing industries: Past research, present findings, and future directions. Concurrent Engineering, 23, 40–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Coca, D. M., & Sliško, J. (2017). Software Socrative and smartphones as tools for implementation of basic processes of active physics learning in classroom: An initial feasibility study with prospective teachers. European Journal of Physics Education, 4, 17–24.Google Scholar
  13. Corter, J. E., Nickerson, J. V., Esche, S. K., Chassapis, C., Im, S., & Ma, J. (2007). Constructing reality: A study of remote, hands-on, and simulated laboratories. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), 14, 7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2008). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience (1st ed.). Harper Perennial Modern Classics.Google Scholar
  15. Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Csikszentmihalyi, I. S. (1992). Optimal experience: Psychological studies of flow in consciousness. Cambridge university press.Google Scholar
  16. De Jong, T., Linn, M. C., & Zacharia, Z. C. (2013). Physical and virtual laboratories in science and engineering education. Science, 340, 305–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Delaney, K., O’Keeffe, M., & Fragou, O. (2018). A design framework for interdisciplinary communities of practice towards STEM learning in 2nd level education. In M. E. Auer, D. Guralnick, & I. Simonics (Eds.), Teaching and learning in a digital world (pp. 739–750). Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dori, Y. J., & Belcher, J. (2005). How does technology-enabled active learning affect undergraduate students’ understanding of electromagnetism concepts? The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14, 243–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dori, R. B., & Belcher, J. (2006). New physics teaching and assessment: Laboratory-and technology-enhanced active learning. Handbook of College Science Teaching, 97–106.Google Scholar
  20. Dori, Y. J., Hult, E., Breslow, L., & Belcher, J. W. (2007). How much have they retained? Making unseen concepts seen in a freshman electromagnetism course at MIT. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16, 299–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Foxlin, E., Harrington, M., & Pfeifer, G. (1998). Constellation: A wide-range wireless motion-tracking system for augmented reality and virtual set applications. In Proceedings of the 25th Annual Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques (pp. 371–378).Google Scholar
  22. Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., et al. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111, 8410–8415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Freina, L., & Ott, M. (2015). A literature review on immersive virtual reality in education: State of the art and perspectives. eLearning & Software for Education.Google Scholar
  24. Garner, T. A. (2018). Applications of virtual reality. In Echoes of other worlds: Sound in virtual reality (pp. 299–362). Springer.Google Scholar
  25. Gaspar, H., Morgado, L., Mamede, H., Manjón, B., & Gütl, C. (2018). Identifying immersive environments’ most relevant research topics: An instrument to query researchers and practitioners. In iLRN 2018 Montana. Workshop, Long and Short Paper, and Poster Proceedings from the Fourth Immersive Learning Research Network Conference (pp. 48–71).Google Scholar
  26. Górski, F., Buń, P., Wichniarek, R., Zawadzki, P., & Hamrol, A. (2017). Effective design of educational virtual reality applications for medicine using knowledge-engineering techniques. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 13.Google Scholar
  27. Gütl, C., Scheucher, T., Bailey, P. H., Belcher, J., Santos, F. R., & Berger, S. (2012). Towards an immersive virtual environment for physics experiments supporting collaborative settings in higher education. In Internet accessible remote laboratories: Scalable e-learning tools for engineering and science disciplines (pp. 543–562). IGI Global.Google Scholar
  28. Hamari, J., Shernoff, D. J., Rowe, E., Coller, B., Asbell-Clarke, J., & Edwards, T. (2016). Challenging games help students learn: An empirical study on engagement, flow and immersion in game-based learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 54, 170–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Harandi, S. R. (2015). Effects of e-learning on students’ motivation. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 181, 423–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jabbar, A. I., & Felicia, P. (2015). Gameplay engagement and learning in game-based learning: A systematic review. Review of Educational Research, 85, 740–779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jimoyiannis, A., & Komis, V. (2001). Computer simulations in physics teaching and learning: A case study on students’ understanding of trajectory motion. Computers & Education, 36, 183–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kanematsu, H., & Barry, D. M. (2016). STEM and creativity. STEM and ICT education in intelligent environments (pp. 15–23). Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lindner, P., Miloff, A., Hamilton, W., Reuterskiöld, L., Andersson, G., Powers, M. B., et al. (2017). Creating state of the art, next-generation virtual reality exposure therapies for anxiety disorders using consumer hardware platforms: Design considerations and future directions. Cognitive Behaviour Therapy, 46, 404–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lunce, L. M. (2006). Simulations: Bringing the benefits of situated learning to the traditional classroom. Journal of Applied Educational Technology, 3, 37–45.Google Scholar
  35. Machet, T., Lowe, D., & Gütl, C. (2012). On the potential for using immersive virtual environments to support laboratory experiment contextualisation. European Journal of Engineering Education, 37, 527–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. McCusker, J. R. (2018). Is a Virtual Reality-based Laboratory Experience a Viable Alternative to the Real Thing? Ph.D. dissertation, Wentworth Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  37. Molnar, A. (2018). The effect of interactive digital storytelling gamification on microbiology classroom interactions. In 2018 IEEE Integrated STEM Education Conference (ISEC) (pp. 243–246).Google Scholar
  38. Neumann, D. L., Moffitt, R. L., Thomas, P. R., Loveday, K., Watling, D. P., Lombard, C. L., et al. (2017). A systematic review of the application of interactive virtual reality to sport. Virtual Reality, 1–16.Google Scholar
  39. Nir, O. A model for the development and implementation of field trips as an integral part of the science curriculum. School Science and Mathematics, 93, 325–331.Google Scholar
  40. Olmos, E., Cavalcanti, J. F., Soler, J.-L., Contero, M., & Alcañiz, M. (2018). Mobile virtual reality: A promising technology to change the way we learn and teach. In Mobile and ubiquitous learning (pp. 95–106). Springer.Google Scholar
  41. Olson, S., & Riordan, D. G. (2012). Engage to excel: Producing one million additional college graduates with degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Report to the President. Executive Office of the President.Google Scholar
  42. Pirker, J. (2013). The Virtual TEAL World—An Interactive and Collaborative Virtual World Environment for Physics Education. Ph.D. dissertation, Master’s thesis, Graz University of Technology.Google Scholar
  43. Pirker, J. (2017). Immersive and Engaging Forms of Virtual Learning. Ph.D. dissertation, Graz University of Technology.Google Scholar
  44. Pirker, J., & Gütl, C. (2015). Educational gamified science simulations. In Gamification in education and business (pp. 253–275). Springer.Google Scholar
  45. Pirker, J., Berger, S., Guetl, C., Belcher, J., & Bailey, P. H. (2012). Understanding physical concepts using an immersive virtual learning environment. In Proceedings of the 2nd European Immersive Education Summit, Paris (pp. 183–191).Google Scholar
  46. Pirker, J., Gütl, C., Belcher, J. W., & Bailey, P. H. (2013). Design and evaluation of a learner-centric immersive virtual learning environment for physics education. In Human factors in computing and informatics (pp. 551–561). Springer.Google Scholar
  47. Pirker, J., Holly, M. S., Hipp, P., König, C., Jeitler, D., & Gütl, C. (2017a). Improving physics education through different immersive and engaging laboratory setups. In Interactive mobile communication, technologies and learning (pp. 443–454).Google Scholar
  48. Pirker, J., Lesjak, I., & Guetl, C. (2017b). Maroon VR: A room-scale physics laboratory experience. In 2017 IEEE 17th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT) (pp. 482–484).Google Scholar
  49. Pirker, J., Lesjak, I., Parger, M., & Gütl, C. (2017c). An educational physics laboratory in mobile versus room scale virtual reality—A comparative study. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Remote Engineering and Virtual Instrumentation (REV), 2017. IEEE. Springer.Google Scholar
  50. Pirker, J., Lesjak, I., Parger, M., & Gütl, C. (2018). An educational physics laboratory in mobile versus room scale virtual reality—A comparative study. In Online engineering & internet of things (pp. 1029–1043). Springer.Google Scholar
  51. Portman, M. E., Natapov, A., & Fisher-Gewirtzman, D. (2015). To go where no man has gone before: Virtual reality in architecture, landscape architecture and environmental planning. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 54, 376–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Potkonjak, V., Gardner, M., Callaghan, V., Mattila, P., Guetl, C., Petrović, V. M., et al. (2016). Virtual laboratories for education in science, technology, and engineering: A review. Computers & Education, 95, 309–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93, 223–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Pruett, C. (2015). Squeezing Performance out of Your Unity Gear VR Game. Retrieved from https://developer.oculus.com/blog/squeezing-performance-out-of-your-unity-gear-vr-game/.
  55. Randel, J. M., Morris, B. A., Wetzel, C. D., & Whitehill, B. V. (1992). The effectiveness of games for educational purposes: A review of recent research. Simulation & Gaming, 23, 261–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Reeve, J., Jang, H., Carrell, D., Jeon, S., & Barch, J. (2004). Enhancing students’ engagement by increasing teachers’ autonomy support. Motivation and Emotion, 28, 147–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sanders, M. E. (2008). STEM, Stem education, STEMmania.Google Scholar
  58. Scheucher, B., Bailey, P. H., Gütl, C., & Harward, J. V. (2009). Collaborative virtual 3d environment for internet-accessible physics experiments. International Journal of Online Engineering (iJOE), 5, 65–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Settgast, V., Pirker, J., Lontschar, S., Maggale, S., & Gütl, C. (2016). Evaluating experiences in different virtual reality setups. In International Conference on Entertainment Computing (pp. 115–125).Google Scholar
  60. Shurygin, V. Y., & Krasnova, L. A. (2016). Electronic learning courses as a means to activate students’ independent work in studying physics. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 11, 1743–1751.Google Scholar
  61. Slater, M. (2003). A note on presence terminology. Presence Connect, 3, 1–5.Google Scholar
  62. Tüysüz, C. (2010). The effect of the virtual laboratory on students’ achievement and attitude in chemistry. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 2.Google Scholar
  63. Tawfik, M., Salzmann, C., Gillet, D., Lowe, D., Saliah-Hassane, H., Sancristobal, E., et al. (2014). Laboratory as a service (LaaS): A novel paradigm for developing and implementing modular remote laboratories. International Journal of Online Engineering (iJOE), 10, 13–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Thompson, P. (2015). How digital native learners describe themselves. Education and Information Technologies, 20, 467–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Waite, A. J., Rosenberg, A., Frehm, V., Gravinese, P., Jackson, J., Killingsworth, S., et al. (2017). Using virtual reality to bring ocean science field experiences to the classroom and beyond. In AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts.Google Scholar
  66. Wieman, C., & Perkins, K. (2005). Transforming physics education. Physics Today, 58, 36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Witmer, B. G., & Singer, M. J. (1998). Measuring presence in virtual environments: A presence questionnaire. Presence, 7, 225–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Zeidler, D. L. (2016). STEM education: A deficit framework for the twenty first century? A sociocultural socioscientific response. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 11, 11–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Johanna Pirker
    • 1
    Email author
  • Michael Holly
    • 1
  • Isabel Lesjak
    • 1
  • Johannes Kopf
    • 1
  • Christian Gütl
    • 1
  1. 1.Graz University of TechnologyGraz Austria

Personalised recommendations