Abstract
Since the 1990s, virtual reality (VR) technology has been promoted to revolutionize learning in K-20 science education. This attribution has been largely focused on the affordances of VR software for scaffolding technical information and providing skill-building opportunities that are not readily available for learners in traditional classrooms. Moreover, VR hardware plays an important role in facilitating robust and memorable virtual learning experiences. Per experts in the field, there are three hardware categories that create VR environments (VREs): desktop, head-mounted displays, and projection systems. Within each of these three groupings, VR technologies have expanded to include both three-dimensional (3D) capabilities and haptic feedback to enhance the virtual experience, immersion, and involvement (i.e., virtual presence) for the user. Current educational research suggests that each VR variety has distinct advantages and disadvantages, each with different efficacies and affordances for different learners. This chapter will explore the historical and current literature on VR hardware, including the incorporation of 3D and haptic-enabled elements, to enhance virtual presence and to promote the learning of science. This includes a discussion on the affordances and challenges of using VR technologies in science education within formal, K-20 science contexts.
References
Adamo-Villani, N., and R.B. Wilbur. 2008. Effects of platform (immersive versus non-immersive) on usability and enjoyment of a virtual learning environment for deaf and hearing children. In Paper presented at the EGVE 2008-14th Eurographics symposium on virtual environments, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Amir, M.H., A. Quek, N.R.B. Sulaiman, and J. See. 2016, November. DUKE: Enhancing virtual reality based FPS game with full-body interactions. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Advances in Computer Entertainment Technology, 35. ACM.
Arsenault, R., and C. Ware. 2004. The importance of stereo and eye-coupled perspective for eye-hand coordination in fish tank VR. Presence 13 (5): 549–559.
Barrett, T., and M. Hegarty. 2014, January. Interaction design and the role of spatial ability in moderating virtual molecule manipulation performance. In Proceedings of the Cognitive Science Society (Vol. 36, No. 36).
Bower, M., M.J. Lee, and B. Dalgarno. 2017. Collaborative learning across physical and virtual worlds: Factors supporting and constraining learners in a blended reality environment. British Journal of Educational Technology 48 (2): 407–430.
Brinson, J.R. 2015. Learning outcome achievement in non-traditional (virtual and remote) versus traditional (hands-on) laboratories: A review of the empirical research. Computers & Education 87: 218–237.
Bulu, S. T. (2012). Place presence, social presence, co-presence, and satisfaction in virtual worlds. Computers & Education, 58(1), 154–161.
Cheng, L.P., T. Roumen, H. Rantzsch, S. Köhler, P. Schmidt, R. Kovacs, J. Jasper, J. Kemper, and P. Baudisch. 2015, November. Turkdeck: Physical virtual reality based on people. In Proceedings of the 28th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software & Technology, 417–426. ACM.
Chertoff, D. B., Schatz, S. L., McDaniel, R., & Bowers, C. A. (2008). Improving presence theory through experiential design. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 17(4), 405–413.
Childers, G. 2014. Ownership of data: Students’ investigations with remote electron microscopy. Doctoral dissertation. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/openview/13da46a9447f119fd946a3527e3f0b87/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y.
Childers, G., and M.G. Jones. 2014. Students as virtual scientists: A review of remote microscopy use in education. In Microscopy: Advances in scientific research and education, ed. A. Mendez-Vilas, 1195–1198. Badajoz, Spain: Formatex Research Center.
Childers, G., and M.G. Jones. 2015. Students as virtual scientists: An exploration of students’ and teachers’ perceived realness of a remote electron microscopy investigation. International Journal of Science Education 37 (15): 2433–2452.
Childers, G., and M.G. Jones. 2017. Learning from a distance: High school students’ perceptions of virtual presence, motivation, and science identity during a remote microscopy investigation. International Journal of Science Education 39 (3): 257–273.
Clark, J.H. 1976. Designing surfaces in 3-D. Communications of the ACM 19 (8): 454–460.
Cruz-Neira, C., D.J. Sandin, and T.A. DeFanti. 1993, September. Surround-screen projection-based virtual reality: the design and implementation of the CAVE. In Proceedings of the 20th annual conference on Computer graphics and interactive techniques, 135–142. ACM.
Dalgarno, B., and M. Lee. 2010. What are the learning affordances of 3-D virtual environments? British Journal of Educational Technology 41: 10–32.
Dede, C. 1995. The evolution of constructivist learning environments: Immersion in distributed, virtual worlds. Educational Technology 35 (5): 46–52.
Eriksson, U., C. Linder, J. Airey, and A. Redfors. 2014. Who needs 3D when the universe is flat? Science Education 98 (3): 412–442.
Fowler, C. 2015. Virtual reality and learning: Where is the pedagogy? British Journal of Educational Technology 46 (2): 412–422.
Graesser, A.C., S.K. D’Mello, and A. Strain. 2014. Emotions in advanced learning technologies. In Handbook of emotions and education, ed. R. Pekrun and L. Linnenbrink-Garcia, 473–493. New York: Taylor & Francis.
Greenwald, S., A. Kulik, A. Kunert, S. Beck, B. Frohlich, S. Cobb, S. Parsons, N. Newbutt, C. Gouveia, C. Cook, A. Snyder, S. Payne, J. Holland, S. Buessing, G. Fields, W. Corning, V. Lee, L. Xia and P. Maes. 2017. Technology and applications for collaborative learning in virtual reality. In Making a Difference: Prioritizing Equity and Access in CSCL, 12th international conference on computer supported collaborative learning (CSCL), Pennsylvania, USA, 18–22 June 2017, eds. B. Smith, M. Borge, E. Mercier, and K. Lim, 719–726. Philadelphia, USA: International Society of the Learning Sciences.
Hite, R. 2016, April. Perceptions of virtual presence in 3-D, haptic-enabled, virtual reality science instruction. Doctoral dissertation. Retrieved from http://www.lib.ncsu.edu/resolver/1840.16/10986.
Hite, R., M.G. Jones, G. Childers, M. Ennes, K. Chesnutt, M. Pereyra, E. Cayton, and R. Stanley. 2017, January. The utility of 3-D, haptic-enabled, virtual reality for learning complex biological systems: Students’ understanding of the human heart. In Paper presentation at the Association for Science Teacher Education (ASTE) National Conference, Des Moines.
Huang, H.M., S.S. Liaw, and C.M. Lai. 2016. Exploring learner acceptance of the use of virtual reality in medical education: A case study of desktop and projection-based display systems. Interactive Learning Environments 24 (1): 3–19.
Jones, M.G., J. Minogue, T.R. Tretter, A. Negishi, and R. Taylor. 2006. Haptic augmentation of science instruction: Does touch matter? Science Education 90 (1): 111–123.
Jones, M.G., G. Childers, B. Emig, J. Chevrier, H. Tan, V. Stevens, and J. List. 2014. The efficacy of haptic simulations to teach students with visual impairments about temperature and pressure. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness 108 (1): 55–61.
Jones, M.G., R. Hite, G. Childers, E. Corin, M. Pereyra, K. Chesnutt, and T. Goodale. 2015, June 27. Teachers’ and students’ perceptions of presence in virtual reality instruction. In Paper presented at the World Scientific and Engineering Academy and Society: 11th International Conference on Engineering Education, University of Salerno, Salerno, Italy.
Jones, M.G., R. Hite, G. Childers, E. Corin, M. Pereyra, and K. Chesnutt. 2016. Perceptions of presence in 3-D, haptic-enabled, virtual reality instruction. International Journal of Education and Information Technologies 10: 73–81.
Jung, T., M.C. tom Dieck, H. Lee, and N. Chung. 2016. Effects of virtual reality and augmented reality on visitor experiences in museum. In Information and communication technologies in tourism 2016, 621–635. Cham: Springer.
Kim, J.B., and C. Park. 2017, July. A Study on VR sickness prediction of HMD contents using machine learning technique. In International conference on human-computer interaction, 38–41. Vancouver: Springer.
Klahr, D., L.M. Triona, and C. Williams. 2007. Hands on what? The relative effectiveness of physical versus virtual materials in an engineering design project by middle school children. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 44: 183–203.
Krange, I., A. Fjuk, A. Larsen, and S. Ludvigsen. 2002, January. Describing construction of knowledge through identification of collaboration patterns in 3D learning environments. In Proceedings of the Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning: Foundations for a CSCL Community, 82–91. International Society of the Learning Sciences.
Lee, K. 2004. Presence, explicated. Communication Theory 14 (1): 27–50.
Lee, E.A.L., and K.W. Wong. 2014. Learning with desktop virtual reality: Low spatial ability learners are more positively affected. Computers & Education 79: 49–58.
Lee, H.Y., R.J. Cherng, and C.H. Lin. 2004. Development of a virtual reality environment for somatosensory and perceptual stimulation in the balance assessment of children. Computers in Biology and Medicine 34 (8): 719–733.
Lee, E.A.L., K.W. Wong, and C.C. Fung. 2010. How does desktop virtual reality enhance learning outcomes? A structural equation modeling approach. Computers & Education 55 (4): 1424–1442.
Lee, J., A. Olwal, H. Ishii, and C. Boulanger. 2013, April. SpaceTop: integrating 2D and spatial 3D interactions in a see-through desktop environment. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 189–192. ACM.
Limniou, M., D. Roberts, and N. Papadopoulos. 2008. Full immersive virtual environment CAVE™ in chemistry education. Computers & Education 51: 584–593.
Lombard, M., and T. Ditton. 1997. At the heart of it all: The concept of presence. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 3 (2), online journal. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.1997.tb00072.x
Lucente, M. 1997. Interactive three-dimensional holographic displays: Seeing the future in depth. ACM Siggraph Computer Graphics 31 (2): 63–67.
Ma, J., and J. Nickerson. 2006. Hands-on, simulated, and remote laboratories: A comparative literature review. AMC Computing Surveys 38 (3): 1–24.
McCreery, M. P., Schrader, P. G., Krach, S. K., & Boone, R. (2013). A sense of self: The role of presence in virtual environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(4), 1635–1640.
McIntire, J.P., P.R. Havig, and E.E. Geiselman. 2014. Stereoscopic 3D displays and human performance: A comprehensive review. Displays 35 (1): 18–26.
Merchant, Z., Goetz, E. T., Keeney-Kennicutt, W., Cifuentes, L., Kwok, O., & Davis, T. J. (2013). Exploring 3-D virtual reality technology for spatial ability and chemistry achievement. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(6), 579–590.
Mikropoulos, T.A. 2006. Presence: A unique characteristic in educational virtual environments. Virtual Reality 10 (3): 197–206.
Mikropoulos, T.A., and J. Bellou. 2006. The unique features of educational virtual environments. In Proceedings e-society 2006, International Association for Development of the Information Society, ed. P. Isaias, M. McPherson, and F. Banister, Vol. 1, 122–128. IADIS.
Mikropoulos, T.A., and A. Natsis. 2011. Educational virtual environments: A ten-year review of empirical research (1999–2009). Computers & Education 56 (3): 769–780.
Mikropoulos, T.A., and V. Strouboulis. 2004. Factors that influence presence in educational virtual environments. CyberPsychology & Behavior 7 (5): 582–591.
Mikropoulos, T.A., A. Chalkidis, A. Katsikis, and A. Emvalotis. 1998. Students’ attitudes towards educational virtual environments. Education and Information Technologies 3 (2): 137–148.
Minogue, J., and M.G. Jones. 2006. Haptics in education: Exploring an untapped sensory modality. Review of Educational Research 76 (3): 317–348.
Modjeska, D., and M. Chignell. 2003. Individual differences in exploration using desktop VR. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 54 (3): 216–228.
Mulder, J.D., and B.R. Boscker 2004, March. A modular system for collaborative desktop vr/ar with a shared workspace. In Proceedings of the IEEE virtual reality, 2004, 75–280. IEEE.
Newbutt, N., C. Sung, H.-J. Kuo, M.J. Leahy, C.-C. Lin, and B. Tong. 2016. Brief report: A pilot study of the use of a virtual reality headset in autism populations. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 46 (9): 3166–3176.
Osberg, K. 1997. Spatial cognition in the virtual environment. Retrieved from http://ftp.hitl.washington.edu/projects/education/puzzle/spatial-cognition.html.
Parsons, S., and S. Cobb. 2011. State-of-the-art of virtual reality technologies for children on the autism spectrum. European Journal of Special Needs Education 26 (3): 355–366.
Parsons, S., and P. Mitchell. 2002. The potential of virtual reality in social skills training for people with autistic spectrum disorders. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research 46: 430–443.
Papachristos, N. M., Vrellis, I., Natsis, A., & Mikropoulos, T. A. (2014). The role of environment design in an educational Multi-User Virtual Environment. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(4), 636–646.
Peled, D., A. Silverman, and J. Adler. 2013. 3d visualization of atomistic simulations on every desktop. Journal of Physics: Conference Series 454 (1): 012076. IOP Publishing.
Peli, E. 1998. The visual effects of head-mounted display (HMD) are not distinguishable from those of desk-top computer display. Vision Research 38 (13): 2053–2066.
Price, C.A., H.-S. Lee, M. Subbarao, E. Kasal, and J. Aguilera. 2015. Comparing short- and long-term learning effects between stereoscopic and two-dimensional film at a planetarium. Science Education 99 (6): 1118–1142.
Roussou, M. (1999, May). Incorporating Immersive Projection-based Virtual Reality in Public Spaces. In Proceedings of 3rd International Immerse Projection Technology.
Salzmann, H., M. Moehring, and B. Froehlich 2009, March. Virtual vs. real-world pointing in two-user scenarios. In Virtual reality conference, 2009. VR 2009. IEEE, 127–130. IEEE.
Seo, J., & Kim, G. J. (2002). Design for Presence: A Structured Approach to Virtual Reality System Design. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 11(4), 378–403.
Sharples, S., S. Cobb, A. Moody, and J.R. Wilson. 2008. Virtual reality induced symptoms and effects (VRISE): Comparison of head mounted display (HMD), desktop and projection display systems. Displays 29 (2): 58–69.
Sheridan, T. 1992. Musings on telepresence and virtual presence. Presence 1: 120–126.
Shibata, T. 2002. Head mounted display. Displays 23 (1): 57–64.
Shibata, T., J. Kim, D.M. Hoffman, and M.S Banks. 2011, February. Visual discomfort with stereo displays: effects of viewing distance and direction of vergence-accommodation conflict. In Proceedings of SPIE (Vol. 7863, 78630P-1). NIH Public Access.
Slater, M., & Steed, A. (2000). A virtual presence counter. Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments, 9(5), 413–434.
Srinivasan, M.A. (1995). What is haptics? Laboratory for human and machine haptics: The touch lab, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1–11.
Stull, A.T., T. Barrett, and M. Hegarty. 2013. Usability of concrete and virtual models in chemistry instruction. Computers in Human Behavior 29: 2546–2556.
Sun, K.-T., C.-L. Lin, and S.-M. Wang. 2010. A 3-D virtual reality model of the sun and the moon for E-learning at elementary schools. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education 8 (4): 689–710.
Tanaka, N., and H. Takagi. 2004. Virtual reality environment design of managing both presence and virtual reality sickness. Journal of Physiological Anthropology and Applied Human Science 23 (6): 313–317.
Trindade, J., C. Fiolhais, and L. Almeida. 2002. Science learning in virtual environments: A descriptive study. British Journal of Educational Technology 33 (4): 471–488.
Tromp, J. G., Steed, A., & Wilson, J. R. (2003). Systematic Usability Evaluation and Design Issues for Collaborative Virtual Environments. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 12(3), 241–267.
Ukai, K., and P.A. Howarth. 2008. Visual fatigue caused by viewing stereoscopic motion images: Background, theories, and observations. Displays 29 (2): 106–116.
Wann, J., and M. Mon-Williams. 1996. What does virtual reality NEED?: Human factors issues in the design of three-dimensional computer environments. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 44 (6): 829–847.
Whitelock, D., Romano, D., Jelfs, A, & Brna, P. (2000). Perfect presence: What does this mean for the design of virtual learning environments? Education and Information Technologies, 5(4), 277–289.
Witmer, B.G., and M.J. Singer. 1994. Measuring immersion in virtual environments (ARI Technical Report 1014). Alexandria: U. S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.
Witmer, B.G., and M.J. Singer. 1998. Measuring presence in virtual environments: A presence questionnaire. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 7 (3): 225–240.
Wouters, P., C. van Nimwegen, H. van Oostendorp, and E. van der Spek. 2013. A meta-analysis of the cognitive and motivational effects of serious games. Journal of Educational Psychology 105: 249–265.
Zeltzer, D. 1992. Autonomy, interaction and presence. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 1 (1): 127–132.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Section Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature
About this entry
Cite this entry
Hite, R., Childers, G., Jones, M.G. (2019). Review of Virtual Reality Hardware Employed in K-20 Science Education. In: Zhang, Y., Cristol, D. (eds) Handbook of Mobile Teaching and Learning. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-41981-2_123-1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-41981-2_123-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-41981-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-41981-2
eBook Packages: Springer Reference Social SciencesReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences