Content uploaded by Todd Cherner
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Todd Cherner on Apr 25, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
Bridging the XR Technology-to-Practice Gap:
Methods and Strategies for Blending Extended Realities
into Classroom Instruction
Volume II
Edited by:
Alex Fegely
Todd Cherner
Published by
AACE – Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education
Thank you to our families for their support as we engaged this work. Our gratitude to the researchers who submitted
abstracts for consideration along with those who submitted, revised, (and revised), and nalized their chapters. Without
their dedication, this volume would not have been completed.
Thank you to our colleagues at SITE including Gary Marks, Chris Marks, Kathryn Mosby, Sarah Benson, Elizabeth
Langran, and Jason Trumble for sharing our vision for this publication as well as their support while we completed this
process.
We would also like to recognize the many individuals who served as research participants for the studies included in this
volume. Being part of a research study as a participant is an investment of time, energy, and intellect, and we are grateful
they invested.
Finally, we would like to recognize the educators, technologists, students, and larger educational community. Our collec-
tive eort helps drive the purposeful use of extended reality technologies for teaching and learning. Thank you for your
dedication.
Bridging the XR Technology-to-Practice Gap: Methods and Strategies for Blending Extended Realities into Classroom
Instruction by Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE) is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, except where otherwise noted.
Copyright © Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). 2023 http://aace.org, email: info@aace.org
Published in and distributed by LearnTechLib—The Learning and Technology Library:
https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/222293/
Please cite as:
Fegely, A. & Cherner, T. (Eds). (2023). Bridging the XR Technology-to-Practice Gap: Methods and Strategies for Blend-
ing Extended Realities into Classroom Instruction (Vol. 2). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education
(AACE). https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/222293/
ISBN: 978-1-939797-70-4
TEXT: The text of this work is licensed under a Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-
ND 4.0) (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) IMAGES: All images appearing in this work are licensed
under a Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) (https://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
The artwork on the front cover was created by Mohamed Hassan and permission was given via a Creative Common
License – CC0.
Table of Contents
Preface .................................................................................................................................................................................. .7
Virtual Reality
Writing in Science: The Eects of XR Technology
Richard Lamb, Brian Hand, Sae Yeol Yoon, and Norah Almusharraf....................................................................13
Immersive Virtual Reality and Preservice Teachers: A Mixed Methods Study on Spatial Skills, Prediction,
and Perceptions
Jason Trumble and Louis Nadelson ......................................................................................................................29
Virtual Reality and Trauma: Consideration for Future Teachers and Trauma-Informed Practices
Jennifer Laer and Aalyia Rehman ...................................................................................................................... 41
Design and Development of Virtual Reality (VR)-based Job Interview Lesson for High School Students’
Communication Skill Training in English
Sunok Lee, Sanghoon Park, and Jeeheon Ryu ...................................................................................................... .57
Combining XR, Accessibility, and Sustainability in the Classroom: Results of an Exploratory Study
Sarah McDonagh and Marta Brescia-Zapata .......................................................................................................67
Virtual Reality and Preservice Teachers: An Examination of Social Immersion, Empathy, Multilingual
Learners, and Self-Ecacy
Heather Rogers Haverback, Mahnaz Moallem, Judith Cruzado-Guerrero, Janese Daniels, Qing Li,
and Ruddhi Wadadekar..........................................................................................................................................81
Insights for Secondary Science Teachers When Using XR Technologies to Help Shape Secondary Students’
Understanding of Cardiac Anatomy and Physiology
Rebecca L. Hite .....................................................................................................................................................95
Virtual Reality and Situated Learning: A Case for STEM Education in Young Children
Simon So, Kenneth Lai, Naomi Lee, and Sunny Wong ........................................................................................109
Towards an XR Curriculum for Teacher Education: Understanding Teachers’ Use and Perspectives
Lionel Roche, Ian Cunningham, and Cathy Rolland ........................................................................................... 125
A Practical VISION for Virtual Reality and Teacher Education
Cory Gleasman, Jason Beach, Eunsung Park, and Allen Mathende ..................................................................137
Mixed Reality
Using Mixed Reality to Create Multimodal Learning Experiences for Early Childhood
Ilene R. Berson, Michael J. Berson, Brianna C. Connors, Leslie E. Reed, Fatimah H. Almuthibi, and
Ouhuud A. Alahmdi .............................................................................................................................................151
Supporting Teacher Candidates Through Mixed Reality Simulations
Mary T. Grassetti .................................................................................................................................................163
Using Mixed-Reality Simulations to Develop Instructional Coaching Skills
Katherine Brodeur, Alicia A. Mrachko, and Tracy Huziak-Clark .......................................................................173
Augmented Reality
Instructional Design Practice Considerations for Augmented Reality (AR) Content Creation and
Implementation in Undergraduate Science
Stuart White and Victoria L. Lowell .................................................................................................................... 197
Merging AR into the Reality of Education: Perspectives and Strategies for Integrating Merge EDU in the
K-12 Classrooms
Gina L. Solano ..................................................................................................................................................... 211
Teacher Professional Development on AR-Enhanced Learning: Insights and Lessons Learned from the
European Project EL-STEM
Maria Meletiou-Mavrotheris, Margus Pedaste, Efstathios Mavrotheris, Konstantinos Katzis,
Ilona-Elefteryja Lasica, and Meelis Brikker .......................................................................................................227
7
PREFACE
ALEX FEGELY
Coastal Carolina University, USA
agfegely@coastal.edu
TODD CHERNER
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, USA
INTRODUCTION
Extended reality (XR) represents the future of education. In this moment, we find ourselves at an inflection point be-
fore XR’s mass adoption in education. Analogous contextually, the technology visionary Jeannette Wing’s (2006) semi-
nal essay on computational thinking provided a glimpse into an inevitable future where computational thinking skills and
computer science (CS) were cemented within schools. Her essay helped promote computational thinking as a competen-
cy and pushed the discussion about CS in schools forward. Ten years later, a critical mass of recognition for CS’s impor-
tance in schools was reached, and an avalanche of CS teaching standards began to formally be adopted across the United
States. From 2016 to 2023 almost 90% of US states adopted CS standards for all three levels – elementary, middle, and
high school – firmly integrating CS into education. Therefore, this volume takes inspiration from Wing and her foresight
into the not-too-distant future. Before XR can be effectively integrated into schools and XR teaching standards can be
imagined, practitioners and researchers must first lead the way to educate stakeholders on the power of XR as a tool for
teaching and learning by establishing data-backed pedagogical strategies for XR in the classroom.
Few, if any, emerging technologies exhibit the potential that XR has for teaching and learning. XR is an umbrella
term for virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR), and mixed reality (MR) technologies. Arguably, over the last half-
century, only the advent of the Internet, tablet computers, and smartphones can be compared to the potential impact
that XR may make in education. Traditional uses of technology in the classroom from the past decade – such as passive
video watching and collaborating using Web 2.0 tools – are becoming outdated. XR is gradually being assimilated into
education to replace them. Could this simply be a trendy flash in the pan? Of course, this perspective will be contended
by some. However, using the analytical foresight process of the Futures Cone framework (Voros, 2003) from the field of
Futures Studies to make predictions, one may logically conclude that XR’s mass adoption within education is a plausible,
if not probable, future.
Three factors contribute toward a plausible or probable mass adoption of XR within education. First, the cost of
accessing XR is decreasing. The contemporary mainstreaming of XR can largely be attributed to the recent price drop
of XR-enabled devices and software (e.g., smartphones, tablets, head-mounted displays, and mobile apps). While XR
products from a decade ago may have had costs in the thousands of dollars, today’s lower-cost devices have been able
to generally increase students’ access to high-level XR experiences. Though issues with equity and access are inherent
to technology and continue to exist across the globe, the costs associated with XR are decreasing. Second, the economy
around XR is increasing. Conservative projections from around the technology industry purport that the XR market will
eclipse 333 billion dollars by 2025 (Business Wire, 2021). For example, Facebook – one of the largest technology com-
panies on Earth – and its well-publicized transformation into Meta coincided with the company pouring more than 36
billion dollars into XR research and development in their pursuit of an XR-prevalent future (Mann, 2022). Third, XR rep-
resents a nonpareil in education. XR exemplifies the ideal of technology integration in education – a transformative-level
technology (Hughes et al., 2006) that can be used to bring together an educator’s technological, content, and pedagogical
knowledge bases (Koehler & Mishra, 2009).
Why is XR Important in Education?
XR builds on the strengths and limitations of reality and separates learning from learning barriers. Previously, edu-
cators may have asked themselves what the best way to teach a concept within real-world constraints would be. XR
8
presents educators with a new perspective by asking, what is the best way to teach a concept? If there were no limita-
tions to time, space, or learning supports, how would one teach? XR aids educators in shaping learning-tailored realities.
Educators can choose the appropriate reality – VR, AR, or a mix of both in MR – within which to foster learning. Then,
educators can design learning within this reality that can be used to teach more efficiently or effectively than what is pos-
sible in our fully-real world, thus giving learners access to experiences that were previously improbable or impossible to
access. XR allows educators and institutions a cost-effective and logistically simple tool for everything from hosting a
guest speaker to facilitating experiential learning.
XR utilizes a range of tools that extend learning into new possibilities. XR helps learners by drawing on both the ful-
ly-real and fully-virtual worlds. For example, VR removes the barriers of space and time to offer learners previously im-
possible (e.g., walking on the surface of a far-away planet or through the Hanging Gardens of Babylon) or normally inac-
cessible (e.g., swimming with penguins in Antarctica or exploring the chambers of the human heart) learning experiences
through completely virtual environments. VR allows educators to control immersive simulations and the variables and
supports within them. VR gives educators and institutions the confidence that learners may safely (1) test skills in high-
stakes scenarios (e.g., brain surgery), (2) use inherently risky tools (e.g., a parachute), and (3) visit dangerous locations
(e.g., an active volcano) in a low-stakes/low-risk environment nearly devoid of real-world human and material costs. AR,
on the other hand, supplements reality by providing learning aids for real-life situations (e.g., a guidance system with
information, hints, and other scaffolds presented in a learner’s real-world environment) and the integration of virtual con-
tent into learners’ own environments (e.g., bringing a polar bear to the classroom for show-and-tell or measuring the floor
with a virtual meter stick). Finally, MR provides learners with flexibility between fully-virtual and augmented real-world
environments (e.g., working face-to-face with classmates in a virtual rainforest environment or entering a simulated art
gallery through one’s classroom door).
Preview of this Volume’s Sections
This volume shares research on XR within the contexts of schools and universities analyzed through the lens of
teacher education. This volume features a wealth of international perspectives. Its chapters showcase the works of XR re-
searchers from across the globe, including Canada, China, Cyprus, Estonia, France, Saudi Arabia, Scotland, South Korea,
Spain, and the United States.
The first section shares nine chapters based on VR platforms. The foci of the chapters within this section are varied.
For example, the chapters highlight topics such as the impacts of VR in combination with textbook reading on writing
performance, the use of VR for immersive storytelling, and even how institutions can start their own VR labs for teacher
education, to name a few.
The second section offers chapters based on MR platforms. In the first chapter, the authors share recommendations
from the under-researched area of MR in early childhood education. Then, the final two chapters of this section focus on
using the MR tool Mursion, which uses live voice actors to play the parts of virtual avatars. While the purposes for us-
ing MR in these chapters are distinct and include simulating mock family/teacher conferences and instructional coaching
scenarios, the commonality is investigating the potential of the Mursion MR technology for teacher education.
The nal section ends the volume with chapters based on AR platforms. For example, this section begins with
research on using AR to facilitate collaboration in hybrid learning environments. From there, the chapters include a re-
ection on using Merge AR technology and initial pilot-testing ndings from a large-scale AR professional development
initiative in Europe.
Why is XR Important in Teacher Education?
The common thread of the XR research in this volume is that it provides implications for teacher education. This
volume seeks to advance the conversation around XR and its integration into education as we move toward the future.
The first step is for practitioners and researchers to lead the way and develop data-driven pedagogies for XR, such as
those described in this volume. Then, educator preparation programs and school districts need to impart this knowledge
to in-service and pre-service teachers to prepare them for both contemporary and future classrooms. The development of
pedagogical practices by the educational community will unlock the enormous potential of XR for teaching and learning,
bridging the XR technology-to-practice gap.
9
REFERENCES
Business Wire. (2021). Global extended reality market (2020 to 2025) - Analysis and forecast - ResearchAndMarkets.com. In
Business Wire. https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210107005435/en/Global-Extended-Reality-Market-2020-to-
2025---Analysis-and-Forecast---ResearchAndMarkets.com
Hughes, J., Thomas, R. & Scharber, C. (2006). Assessing technology integration: The RAT – Replacement, Amplification, and
Transformation - Framework. In C. Crawford, R. Carlsen, K. McFerrin, J. Price, R. Weber & D. Willis (Eds.), Proceedings
of SITE 2006--Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 1616-1620). Or-
lando, Florida, USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). https://www.learntechlib.org/
primary/p/22293/.
Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)? Contemporary Issues in
Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60-70.
Mann, J. (2022, October 29). Meta has spent $36 billion building the metaverse but still has little to show for it, while tech
sensations such as the iPhone, Xbox, and Amazon Echo cost way less. Business Insider. https://www.businessinsider.com/
meta-lost-30-billion-on-metaverse-rivals-spent-far-less-2022-10
Voros, J. (2003). A generic foresight process framework. Foresight, 5(3), 10-21. https://doi.org/10.1108/14636680310698379
Wing, J. M. (2006) Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49, 33-35. https://doi.org/10.1145/1118178.1118215
10
VIRTUAL REALITY
13
Writing in Science: The Effects of XR Technology
RICHARD LAMB
East Carolina University, USA
lambr19@ecu.edu
BRIAN HAND
University of Iowa, USA
SAE YEOL YOON
Delaware State University, USA
NORAH ALMUSHARRAF
Prince Sultan University, Saudi Arabia
Abstract: Virtual reality (VR) and similar technologies have been shown to promote learning outcomes and
provide a greater understanding of content processing when paired with writing tasks. This study examines
the role of VR in the promotion of writing to learn through the examination of writing complexity, lexical
density, and cognitive demand. Using this combination of product and process data from multiple measures,
the authors establish differences in information processing as examined using cognitive dynamics, writing
complexity, and lexical density measured across four different pedagogical modalities. The modalities are
(1) VR alone, (2) VR followed by a textbook reading, (3) textbook reading followed by VR, and (4) textbook
alone. Participants were 100 elementary school students recruited from rural elementary schools. The partici-
pants responded to two prompts related to content presented in a VR environment and in a textbook. Partici-
pants that experienced a virtual environment prior to reading the textbook demonstrated increases in lexical
density and complexity when responding to writing prompts. Specifically, participants using the VR environ-
ment before accessing the textbook demonstrated significantly greater writing complexity and lexical density
scores than those who had VR alone, or access to the textbook alone.
Keywords: Writing; STEM Education; fNIRS; Virtual Reality; Cognition
INTRODUCTION
The development of writing skills to facilitate specific learning outcomes in science education is a key goal for edu-
cators and researchers within the science education field. Researchers such as Hand et al., (2021) and Lamb et al., (2021)
have argued for the need to establish generative learning environments in which students can use written argumentation
and written summary to analyze claims and evidence, construct scientific understanding, and apply this knowledge to
novel contexts. The researchers define argumentative writing as writing designed to convince others about the validity of
the ideas through the linkage of claims and evidence (Chen et al., 2016). In scientific argumentative writing, the students
use evidence and analysis of the validity of the evidence in relation to specific claims (Manz, 2015). In contrast, sum-
mative writing is descriptive with the goal of conveying information about a phenomenon (Akaygun & Jones, 2014).
However little work has been done to understand how summary and argumentative writing pair with individual modes of
content presentation.
Two of the most successful approaches to learning include experiential learning (Morris, 2020) and writing to learn
(Gillespie et al., 2021). Of the two approaches, writing to learn in science is widely recognized as a very successful
method for promoting student learning. This occurs through engagement in the authentic context of the presented mate-
rial and the specific discipline (Beier et al., 2019). VR offers a means to provide near-authentic context through hyper-
realistic simulations (Bonner & Reinders, 2018; Lamb et al., 2018). When writing is combined with demands to engage
14
in the use of disciplinary language, near-authentic contexts appear to promote content understanding. Disciplinary-based
language used in written responses to specific tasks is specialized with each word filling a precise function in the context
of the discipline driving learning (Chen et al., 2013). Student learning is evident by the student’s ability to connect their
everyday language with disciplinary language mediated through experiences and cognitive tools associated with working
memory and executive functions (Annetta et al., 2011; Lee et al., 2019). Writing is a tool to help facilitate the processing
of information associated with presented contexts for abstract academic subjects such as science and mathematics. Of in-
terest to the authors is that the process of writing permits students to think analytically and learn course material through
multiple modes of content interaction including through textbooks and VR experiences (Chen et al., 2021; Lamb & Eto-
pio, 2020).
Writing in the classroom is a pivotal act and not a trivial matter. Every student makes use of this act every day to
learn, yet we do not have a sufficient understanding of how experiences and writing to learn tasks in the classroom lead
to learning or fully understand the interacting cognitive systems which are involved in the learning (Lamb et al., 2016).
Authentic writing to learn tasks are writing tasks that make use of students’ underlying cognition in the form of specific
cognitive tools to address real-world questions and topics (Harper et al., 2020; Lamb & Firestone, 2022; Rivard, 1994).
Researchers and practitioners recognize that writing is more than a process of externalizing thoughts as it promotes criti-
cal thinking and knowledge generation during the writing process (Bruner, 1975; Hand et al, 2021). Research on writing
to learn approaches has indicated that writing is not just a consequence of higher levels of cognition and text structure
production processes, but rather, the effects of writing on cognition are a consequence of basic underlying cognitive
processes related to the application of experiences, specific cognitive tools, forms of writing, generative learning environ-
ments, and the interactions between them (Lamb et al., 2018; Pennebaker & Francis, 1996). Cognitive tools are defined
as epistemological tools used by students to construct meaning and create representations through writing, graphics pro-
duction, or through other symbolic representations related to the world around them (Nuckles et al., 2020). The com-
plexity of the interactions between the cognitive tools highlights the difficulty that science education researchers have in
generating research designs that focus on aligning both the processes of cognition used in authentic school-based writing
tasks and the products of the writing tasks themselves. Understanding writing beyond the identification of word use,
writing patterns, and student comprehension of writing content is important as it allows for a means to identify learning
barriers, individual difference factors related to learning through writing, identifies leveraging points for increases in the
efficacy and efficiency of learning, and increases access to the curriculum for all students (Galbraith & Baaijen, 2018).
The ability of the student to effectively communicate in written form is a key predictor of educational successes re-
lated to learning and reduction in student maladaptive behaviors (Sedova et al., 2019). However, the precise parameters
associated with the use of experiences and underlying cognitive tools remain unclear. This limits our ability to develop
theoretical frames, translate empirical findings to educational applications, and connect educational actions to cognitive
mechanisms of action associated with VR use, textbook use, and writing to learn in the science classroom (Rayens & El-
lis, 2018). Given the positives associated with effective writing for students, a deeper understanding of the fundamental
cognitive basis of writing to learn, the role of VR, the markers of information understanding in students and teachers, and
the subsequent relationship to learning are needed. Specifically, there is a gap in the research addressing our understand-
ing of the relationship between cognitive tool use and digital tools used within the classroom toward specific learning
outcomes such as the understanding of science content. Writing to learn is defined as the procedural moves and monitor-
ing of written content in the classroom with the intent to provide evidence that supports and adjusts assumptions, actions,
and understandings which a person started with, in relation to (science and mathematics) content and practices (Richard-
son et al., 2008).
Understanding the role of cognitive tool use and its relationship to writing and learning is important in the context of
working with many types of students. Students with learning disabilities in written communications, students whose first
language is not English, and minoritized groups are likely to have regular encounters with teachers who have significant
differences from them across many contextual factors related to writing expectations. These expectations have the poten-
tial to significantly reduce access to science content in the classroom and can have profound effects on their learning and
career trajectory in STEM (Robinson et al., 2014). Fields such as linguistics, sociology, and education have developed
a sophisticated understanding of writing within a naturalistic setting such as within the classroom through qualitative
means. In contrast, cognitive science is in the process of more fully understanding writing for learning through the exam-
ination of the underlying cognitive systems, and related components as used within laboratory study contexts (Crossley,
2020; Janssen et al., 2021). To this point, current cognitive science studies mostly make use of well-controlled limited
writing tasks with as little context as possible. Neuroscience and cognitive science researchers often work at the level
15
of the phrase, word, or syllable to develop models of writing which do not necessarily translate to the level of the class-
room. While the neuroscience and cognitive science research has laid the foundation for significant and important work
related to the cognitive underpinnings of writing, this work has provided little in the way of recommendations for peda-
gogy or curriculum and the role of modes of experiences in the classroom. Understanding the cognitive basis of writing
is significant but has not been effectively tied and linked to learning and meaning-making in the classroom for the stu-
dent. In addition, historically, most cognitive science research in the laboratory setting related to education has focused
on homogenous convenience samples found on university campuses; missing differences that may exist for students with
special needs, students for whom their L1 is not English, and minoritized students (Highhouse & Gillespie, 2010). While
each of these concerns is being addressed, the work is ongoing and still building to a critical mass (Dotson & Duarte,
2020). In this light, further work is needed to establish research related to the cognitive underpinnings of writing and how
a child’s brain supports language use for rural students, students with special needs, students for whom their L1 is not
English, and minoritized students.
ARGUMENTATION
As the focus on writing to learn has increased, educators have begun to study the impact that immersive synthetic
environments such as VR, augmented reality, and related technologies in the classroom, have on enhancing writing to
learn in science contexts. Currently, textbooks are the most predominant learning support tool in the classroom. This is
because of their simplicity, durability, and low barrier to use (Cuttler, 2019). Textbooks also simultaneously help to pro-
vide content to students, which reduces abstractions associated with difficult concepts (Hu & Gao, 2018). Textbook use
in the classroom seems to be particularly helpful for science teachers at the beginning of their careers because they pro-
vide organized units around each subject area and often reflect the local educational standards (Ball & Feiman-Nemser,
1988). Lastly, textbooks also provide a reference for new teachers allowing them to supplement their content knowledge.
However, despite the positives associated with textbook use, there are still many limitations. One concern is related
to the overreliance of educators on textbooks and the resultant limitations. Textbooks may quickly become out-of-date,
not accommodate all students, and lack adaptive capabilities to allow access for all students. Overreliance on textbooks
can reduce (a) teachers’ and students’ activities related to investigating outside resources; (b) learning course material
using experiential approaches; and (c) students’ efforts to seek experiences that may enhance learning. In addition, stu-
dents’ overreliance on textbooks may reduce student generative activities in the classroom by promoting the use of “cor-
rect” or “singular” answer approaches (Muis et al., 2016). Importantly, “correct” or “singular” answer approaches in
science result in students thinking they are successfully learning content when they are truly only recalling low-level
semantic information. Textbook use also reduces a teacher’s ability to incorporate both their background knowledge and
students’ prior knowledge about the topic into the lesson. This makes students’ experiences less meaningful, reducing
connections, and reducing semantic encoding. Despite suggested best teaching practices, textbook use restricts inferenc-
ing to material written strictly in the textbook without the possibility to access or make use of specific prior knowledge,
inquiries, and interests, particularly when engaged in “close reading” (Shanahan et al., 2016). Countering the negatives
of textbook use can occur by simultaneously pairing textbooks with flexible, open-ended, inquiry-based support tools
such as VR.
VR is a digital system using three-dimensional graphics in combination with interactive interfaces to produce im-
mersion and interactions (Ihemedu-Steinke et al., 2017). VR has shown some promise in promoting engagement with
educational experiences (Martin-Gutierrez et al., 2015). Engagement promotes learning abstract concepts that otherwise
would be more difficult without experience (Thorhill-Miller & Dupont, 2016). A major advantage of VR is that it can
provide interactive, immersive, open-ended experiences for students at multiple scales within their locus of control (Mer-
itt, Gibson, Christensen, & Knezek, 2015). Experiences can connect to prior knowledge, create a new framework for
students to retain and process information, and help increase the retention of knowledge (Zambrano et al., 2019). Greater
accommodation of information occurs due to VR’s integrated sensory interactions that are directly available to the user
(Freina & Ott, 2015). From an affective perspective, these interactions and authenticity increase motivations to learn
about topics and provide greater connection to experiences.
16
PURPOSE, RESEARCH QUESTIONS, AND HYPOTHESES
Though the effectiveness of textbook use in the classroom has been investigated and continues to be investigated,
there has been little investigation of the combined effectiveness of textbooks and technology support tools such as VR
related to writing. The purpose of this study is to investigate how textbooks and VR use in combination can be used to
promote changes [increases] in writing complexity and lexical density in two common forms of writing in the science
classroom: argumentative and summative writing. This study aims to compare the effects of the combined use of VR
and textbooks by examining the conditions: (1) VR alone, (2) VR followed by reading a textbook, (3) reading a textbook
followed by VR, and (4) reading a textbook alone. It is thought that students who experienced VR in combination with
a textbook, will have an increased ability to accommodate new information; behaviorally expressed as increased writing
complexity and lexical density. Secondly, it is expected that argumentative and summary writing will show differing lev-
els of cognitive dynamics as measured through hemodynamic response during writing. Cognitive dynamics are the inter-
play of multiple response signals related to the cognitive processing units of an individual when engaged in the process-
ing of information while completing tasks (Lamb, 2014; Lamb & Firestone, 2022). Hemodynamic response is defined
as the rapid delivery of oxygenated blood to neural tissue as demanded by specific areas of the brain for engagement in
cognitive processing (Aslin et al., 2015).
Substantiation of Hypothesis 1 would provide evidence that VR can facilitate greater information processing and
accommodation of new information as evidenced by the development of greater lexical density and complexity in argu-
mentative writing and summary writing forms. Substantiation of Hypothesis 2 would provide evidence for pedagogical
recommendations related to the use of argumentative and summary writing in the science classroom. Results from this
study can also provide recommendations for pedagogical approaches related to using a combination of textbooks and VR
in the classroom. Considering these hypotheses, this work will address the following research questions.
Research Question 1: What combination/s of VR and textbook promotes the greatest lexical density and complexity in
summary and argumentative writing?
Research Question 2: Of summary and argumentative writing, which illustrates the greatest cognitive dynamics during
the process of writing?
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Given the role that experiences play in the learning process and the role that interaction with the environment can
also play in building experiences, a theoretical frame that captures the role of translating cognitive activities and behav-
ioral action is appropriate. The Brain Microstate Framework allows for the integration of outcomes from neural activity
[hemodynamic response], cognitive activities [accommodation, learning, and processing], and behaviors [lexical density
and complexity] to explain both the structural and functional aspects of learning leading to pedagogical recommenda-
tions. The Brain Microstate Framework assumes hemodynamic responses consist of time-varying measurements of oxy-
genation and deoxygenation occurring in areas of the brain as it processes stimuli such as learning tasks, curriculum, and
social interactions. The recording of these changes in the oxygenation state of the neuronal tissue is reflected in the func-
tional dynamics of the state of the brain and allows researchers to resolve where, when, and potentially why activations
occur. The ability to determine functional states and their temporal sequence constitutes the core of the measurements
for researchers making use of neurotechnologies. Neurocognitive data derived from the use of neurotechnologies such as
functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) provides a means to link brain structures and cognitive systems to behav-
ioral outcomes in the classroom.
When people are interacting with their environment, they could be learning novel information but be unaware that
they are acquiring new knowledge until it is later activated via writing prompts. Nunez et al. (1999) claims that learning
does not mean simple manipulation of objects, or even manipulation of images or simulated objects, but suggest that
learning represents a thorough understanding of human ideas and how they are organized unconsciously across cognitive
systems. Engaging in a virtual environment will help students consciously and unconsciously encode the information that
surrounds them because they can immerse themselves in the specific setting. The unconscious aspects associated with
the process of learning makes it difficult to provide evidence for the processes of learning. As a result, educators must
17
rely on the products of learning such as a written essay. The authors have illustrated that product and process data may
be made available using neuroimaging technologies which more directly measure the systemic cognitive responses of the
brain to the process of learning (Lamb et al., 2018). Encoding information manifests as hemodynamic responses collec-
tively called cognitive dynamics and suggests that there are multiple different associations and linkages that can be made
between varying aspects of the content displayed. The process of encoding results in a higher likelihood of moving infor-
mation from working memory to long-term memory. The movement of information from working memory to long-term
memory increases neuronal activity and metabolism resulting in greater hemodynamic responses (Oken et al., 2015). It is
argued that exposure to a virtual environment allows for the organization of novel material that will be encoded through
grounded experiences in VR environments (DeSutter & Stieff, 2017). This will result in increased writing complexity
and lexical density scores. However, because VR creates such a real-life-like experience, we also suggest that it can facil-
itate deeper learning of a subject matter, particularly science when combined with commonly used tools like a textbook.
VR AS A TOOL FOR LEARNING
A particularly unique aspect of learning science content is that it often requires students to conceptualize specific
abstract concepts, environments, or phenomena that they have not had the opportunity to personally experience or may
never experience due to logistical, technological, or physical limitations. To mitigate aspects of this difficulty, educators
can use a variety of tools to simulate abstractions for their students. Tools include augmented reality, VR, and other digi-
tal tools for simulation. With the use of digital tools, cost is always a consideration. However, with the decreasing cost
of computers and digital technologies, VR is now an affordable tool that educators can embrace for experiential learning.
Importantly, VR offers the opportunity for students to interact with environments at multiple levels including simulations
at the macroscale level such as working with everyday objects to simulations at the microscale like manipulating elec-
trons and other subatomic particles. VR has several positives that are thought to increase learning. Increases can be attrib-
uted to student interactions within VR environments which are replicable and low-stakes environments allowing students
to make use of exploration, make mistakes, leverage repetition with feedback, and have opportunities for failure with
minimal negative outcomes (Lamb et al., 2018). When students are in a VR environment, they experience almost identi-
cal physiological and cognitive responses as they would in the real world (Lamb & Etopio, 2020). In this light, learning
activities can be used to help re-direct the focus of learning from the development of only internal cognitive activities and
broaden learning to include more contextual factors and experiences around their influence on cognition. The microstate
framework allows educators to consider both biological factors and experiential contexts garnered from learning sup-
port tools such as VR. The authors suggest that the social, contextual, and biological components responding to VR will
facilitate learning, which can be observable through writing complexity, lexical density, and cognitive dynamics. This is
because writing increases levels of processing, rehearsing, encoding, and storage of information (Du & List, 2020). Writ-
ing also increases the generation of novel connections by promoting the creation of meaning from experiences (Spence
& McDonald, 2015). However, the various styles of writing including argumentative, and summary writing create differ-
ences in levels of processing, cognitive dynamics, complexity, and lexical density.
ARGUMENTATIVE WRITING
Argumentative writing in science is a process involving the use of a set framework where a person presents an idea
and then supporting information arising from observation intended to support their claims. Cognitively speaking, this
requires critical thinking and goal-directed self-regulatory procedures to accomplish the demands of the task (Watson et
al., 2016). The goal of argumentative writing is often to reflect on one’s own knowledge of argumentative discourse and
convince others that their scientific ideas are valid through claims and evidence (Osborne et al., 2016). Argumentative
writing generally involves formulating a claim, some type of evidence, perspective, and interpretation. This form of writ-
ing is often identified by educators as being more cognitively demanding and beneficial for learning when compared to
summary writing. When students are asked to engage in written argument, they typically begin by writing down informa-
tion about the topic and build upon it throughout their writing by linking claims and evidence (Hemberger et al., 2017).
When students are not given specific guidelines regarding the overarching goal of their writing, the writing often lacks
supportive evidence related to the topic. This typically results in a decrease in cognitive dynamics, writing complexity,
18
and lexical density. As suggested by Ferretti et al. (2009), providing clear goals and context for argumentation will facili-
tate students’ ability to write more highly linked responses using claims supported by substantial evidence. Argumenta-
tive writing is especially useful within the field of science because it is thought to promote the evaluation of claims and
evidence related to disciplinary content. Argumentative writing permits debate and negotiation with others and ultimately
builds skills related to the generation of scientific knowledge (Duschl & Osborne, 2002). The internalized nature of argu-
ment development is often predicated on a student’s prior knowledge and experiences. The use of experience and prior
knowledge serves as the foundation of our study and justifies the measurement of outcomes using writing complexity and
lexical density.
SUMMATIVE WRITING
Summative writing is writing designed to explain and convey the main point related to an observation or interaction
(Li, 2014). Summary writing typically includes the recall of semantic information or episodic events in chronological
order (Renoult et al., 2019). Summative writing was thought to be nondemanding due to the low levels of writing com-
plexity and lexical density shown in written products. The thought that summary writing is a basic form of writing is
reinforced when writing is observed by teachers because students commonly resort to summative writing despite instruc-
tions or goals that are different (Hohenshell & Hand, 2006). It is also seen as nondemanding because it is a default form
of explanation that only requires the use of experiences or prior knowledge. From a cognition perspective, when measur-
ing summary writing during the completion of a summary writing task, summary writing requires significantly more pro-
cessing and cognition because students must take their internal ideas from memory, translate them, and undergo a cogni-
tive validity check with existing information in memory and the environment (Lamb et al., 2021). After completion of the
validity check, the information can then be externalized in the form of summary writing. The additional steps of informa-
tion processing associated with this translation result in levels of cognitive response, which are greater than simple recall
of information and are only observable when examined using neurotechnologies such as fNIRS (Lamb et al., 2018). The
examination of the hemodynamic response allows for more direct observation of the process of learning through writing
as opposed to the products of writing.
METHODS
This study makes use of within and between-subjects analysis of cognitive dynamics, lexical density, and complexity
of writing. These outcomes of interest are intended to capture the products of learning such as written responses and the
processes of learning (e.g., cognition associated with summary and argumentative writing).
Participants
100 participants that included 53 males and 47 females were recruited from multiple rural elementary schools in
the northeastern United States. Of the 100 participants, 63 were 4th graders and 37 were 5th graders. The mean age of
the participants was 10.6 (SD=0.4). All but four of the participants were English as a first language speaker. Partici-
pants were prescreened to ensure they were resilient to motion sickness, had no previous seizures when exposed to flash-
ing lights, and were neurologically intact. Achievement for reading and mathematics was examined to ensure students
were on grade level based upon evaluations using the Woodcock-Johnson Test of Achievement. The researchers also pre-
screened participants using the Wide Range Achievement Test 3rd Edition and extensive interviews and review of histo-
ries as suggested in the Compendium of Neuropsychological Tests (Strauss et al., 2006). This is to ensure that differences
seen within the outcome measures were due to actual differences and not because of confounding variables, such as dif-
ficulties associated with reading. The researchers did not eliminate any participants due to screening outcomes. A priori
power analysis suggested a .95 probability of observing a small effect with 20 participants per condition. Given possible
attrition, it was decided to recruit 100 participants, which was 20% more students than required by the a priori power
analysis. Upon completion of the screening, participants were fitted with the fNIRS band on their forehead and asked to
complete each of the writing prompts for their conditions.
19
Materials & Measures
When the participants arrived, they and their parents were escorted into a controlled laboratory setting, screenings
were conducted, a random condition was assigned, the writing tasks were completed, and an exit interview was conduct-
ed. Each participant was randomly assigned to one of the four conditions using a random number generator: (1) VR, (2)
VR and then the textbook, (3) textbook followed by VR, or (4) textbook alone. Once comfortable, the participants spent a
total of 20 minutes in their assigned condition. Thus, participants either:
(a) engaged in the VR environment for 20 minutes.
(b) engaged with the VR for 10 minutes and then used the textbook for an additional 10 minutes.
(c) used the textbook for 10 minutes and then engaged with the VR for an additional 10 minutes.
(d) used the textbook for 20 minutes.
Upon completion of their assigned condition, participants were then given instructions regarding the first writing prompt
and were informed of the criteria, either summary or argumentation, needed in their writing sample. The order of the
prompts was counterbalanced across participants to prevent a practice effect. Each participant was given 10 minutes to
complete the first prompt. Then the participant was able to take a five-minute break. Upon completion of the break, the
participants were given the second prompt and received an explanation of the criteria required in the second writing
prompt and had another 10 minutes to complete it. Participants were then debriefed. The total time for each participant
was one hour.
An HTC VIVE VR headset with noise-canceling headphones was used for the VR condition. No special modifica-
tions were used on the headset and a gaming computer with a VR-rated video card was used to ensure the fluidity of the
virtual environment. The VR simulation incorporated an Ocean Reef VR environment developed by Crosswater Digital
Media for research purposes. Students were able to walk, bend, and “touch” organisms using the handheld paddle con-
trols. Students also received vibrational feedback via the controller when “touching” the various organisms. There was
no voiceover or instructional text contained in the VR experience. Within this environment, various sea creatures such as
turtles, jellyfish, sea anemones, and fish were encountered. The VR experience depicted an Ocean Reef environment at
a depth of approximately 150 ft. in the Atlantic Ocean. The coloration of the flora and fauna was maintained as if they
were on the surface. This was intended to mitigate the attenuation of light that occurs as a person goes to depth in the
ocean and to maintain attention using color. Species were identified and cataloged by the researchers to assist in ensur-
ing parity between the VR environment and the chapter on marine ecology. Within the VR marine ecosystem ocean reef,
there were dozens of jellyfish both up close and at a distance. Four plants (types of seagrasses) were placed on an out-
cropping of rocks in the sand. The ocean water moved in a rhythmic pattern back and forth across the visual field. There
were approximately ten different fish species, three coral species, and two jellyfish species represented. The total VR
experience was 9 minutes and 52 seconds. The textbooks condition used a chapter on ecology in the Life in Oceans book
by Lauren Cross. The book is 24 pages, with 14 pictures, and the total number of words in the selected chapter was ap-
proximately 1,500 words. The pictures in the chapters consisted of color photographs depicting the various species found
in coral reefs found in the Atlantic Ocean in the Bahamas. Other pictures consisted of colored diagrams depicting the re-
lationship between various species in the coral reef. The text also included words in bold to signify their importance. The
grade level of the book is approximately 4th grade, with a Lexile measure of 640L.
Writing Prompts
Previous work by Yoon (2012) served as a basis for the development of the two writing prompts used in the cur-
rent study. The first writing prompt asked the participants to compose a letter to a fellow student at their grade level and
explain potential ways an ecosystem could be disturbed (argumentative writing). The second writing prompt asked the
participants to draft a letter to a fellow student at their grade level and describe (summary writing) the ecosystem. The
students were given 10 minutes to write the first prompt, then a break, before completing the second prompt. Participants
were reminded that each prompt is not a formal scientific explanation and, therefore, they should use an appropriate level
of vocabulary for their peers when writing.
20
Scoring of the Writing Samples
Two scores were recorded for each of the writing prompts, one was writing complexity and the other was lexical
density. Writing complexity is defined as content with interconnected parts demonstrating intricate thinking processes
beyond factual recall (Gregg & Steinberg, 2016). Lexical density is defined as the number of content words that include,
nouns, adjectives, verbs, and adverbs divided by the total number of words (Somasundaran et al., 2016). Writing com-
plexity was scored based on The Complexity of Writing Rubric developed by Yoon in 2012 (Yoon, 2012; Hand et al.,
2014). See Table 1.
Table 1
Complexity of Writing Rubric
Rating Description Score
A Single Line of Reasoning Illustrating single arguments, descriptions, or summarizations
without much connection to theory.
1
Developing Chain of Reasoning Illustrated some single arguments or provided some explanation of
why it happened.
2
A Chain of Reasoning Describing how something happened and an attempt to explain why
it happened
3
Developing Reasoning Network Described how something happened in some cases or used some
examples.
4
A Reasoning Network Participants used examples to explain why and how a change in the
ecosystem happened.
5
The authors practiced scoring five writing samples to develop continuity in scoring and to calibrate how to appropri-
ately score the study writing samples. Scoring of each writing sample occurred by dividing each prompt into clauses and
identifying each in relation to each of the criteria shown in the rubric (Table 1). For each sample, the main clause was
determined, and the relationship of the subordinate clauses was analyzed by focusing on the meaning and the information
provided related to the main clause. In addition, the raters examined how each separate clause supported the claims and
arguments in the writing sample.
The writing samples were then scored based on The Complexity of Reasoning rubrics (Yoon, 2012). The scored
writing samples had an interrater reliability level of .94 using Fleiss’s Kappa. Lexical density in the writing samples was
examined using The Lexical Density Program (Analyze my Writing, http://www.analyzemywriting.com/). Analyze my
Writing measures the percentage of words that give information – verbs, adverbs, nouns, and adjectives – and divides it
by the total number of words. Pronouns, conjunctions, prepositions, and auxiliary verbs are not considered to give infor-
mation by the authors of the Lexical Density program. Ten percent of the writing samples were randomly selected and
reviewed by raters to examine if outcomes from Analyze my Writing were equivalent to the human raters. Interrater reli-
ability using Fleiss’s Kappa between the raters and Analyze my Writing was .91. Given this level of agreement, further
review was not warranted.
fNIRS Measurements
fNIRS is a portable, non-invasive prefrontal cortex neuroimaging technology. fNIRS depends on the following char-
acteristics to examine student cognitive processes: (1) human tissue is transparent to light within a narrow near-infrared
spectral range (NIRs). The range is from 600 nm to 1000 nm. (2) Light emitted in the NIRs range is absorbed by pig-
ments known as chromophores. The chromophore of interest in this study is hemoglobin. Light that is not absorbed by
the chromophores is scattered by surrounding tissue. (3) The scattering of light is approximately 100 times more proba-
ble than absorption (Scholkmann et al., 2014). (4) fNIRS is also able to discriminate between large blood vessels, greater
than one millimeter, and small vessels due to the near complete absorption of light by the large vessels. The continuous
wave fNIRS device was connected to a sensor pad with four infrared light sources and 18 detectors (optodes) designed
to sample prefrontal cortex areas that underlay the forehead. The fixed source detector was separated by 2.50 cm and
generated 18 measurement locations per wavelength. Data acquisition and visualization occurred using Cognitive Optical
21
Brain Imaging Studio software version 1.3.0.19. Specific focus was placed on signals from optodes 1 through 4 and opto-
des 13 through 16 due to their relationship to writing information processing.
During each condition, baseline scores with no task engagement and readings related to task engagement were taken
on the prefrontal cortex. The stimulus was presented to each participant and measured as a block average. Meaning that
the hemodynamic readings for the stimulus in the baseline-stimulus-baseline approach represented a composite of the
time for each interaction with the stimulus (i.e., condition) (Rispoli et al., 2013). Video analysis was conducted post hoc
to verify synchronization and to ensure correct marker placement. The sensor was positioned on the forehead during each
writing task; however, the fNIRS band was not worn during VR and textbook use. At the onset of the baseline condition,
participants were asked to sit quietly with their eyes closed and to relax. No limb motion was detected. Researchers also
activated a video camera at the front of the room to record the session, synchronize events, and identify any irregularities
during the session. Signal processing and data preparation for statistical analysis was accomplished using fNIRS Soft
professional version and SPSS 24. Data consisted of fNIRS imaging data, video, and written responses e.g., summary
and argumentative writing. Additional synchronization occurred using a MP150 data acquisition device. Analysis of op-
tode sensor readings occurred using repeated measures ANOVA.
Data Processing
Data processing began with the removal of the heart pulsations, respiration, and movement artifacts from the fNIRS
intensity measurements by using a low pass filter set at a 0.14 Hz cutoff (Vitorio et al., 2017). Using this cutoff for physi-
ological noise induced by heartbeat, breathing cycle, and low-frequency oscillations of blood pressure accounts for a
loss of approximately 23% of the fNIRS signal data in each of the writing conditions. Loss of data may lead to a lower
sensitivity in the fNIRS outcomes but allows for a clearer analysis. However, in comparison to fMRI, fNIRS is robust to
large-scale movements making it better suited for these types of studies examining classroom-based tasks. The standard-
ized values were then averaged across each subject and each block resulting in composite values, images, and graphs for
analysis. The standardized values obtained in each phase are the behavioral dependent variables of interest.
Statistical Analysis Hemodynamic Response
Statistical analysis was conducted on the standardized hemoglobin absorption ratios between the oxygenated hemo-
globin and deoxygenated hemoglobin. These standardized hemodynamic responses were statistically tested for differ-
ences using a repeated measures analysis of variance (rANOVA) and planned posthoc comparisons by condition using
SPSS version 24. In rANOVA, the subjects serve as their own control making it particularly useful for examining A-B-A
within designs such as in this study, to identify optodes of interest. The authors identified those optodes exhibiting he-
modynamic responses above baseline. rANOVA reduces error variance and increases the power of the test to detect dif-
ferences. The rANOVA was used to assess the main effect of hemodynamic response differences between Baseline and
Stimulus averaged across each condition’s participants. Factorial ANOVA was used to examine between condition differ-
ences in the standardized hemodynamic responses for each condition. To reduce the complexity of the data, composite
data for each optode was used, and a Tukey-HSD posthoc comparison was used to identify statistically different optode
responses between conditions.
Statistical Analysis of Writing Prompt Responses
The variable of interest was measured based on exposure to one of four different conditions: (1) VR, (2) VR fol-
lowed by the textbook, (3) the textbook followed by VR, and (4) textbook-only across two forms of writing. Specifically,
the researchers examined the effects of these environments on lexical density and writing complexity. Analysis of the
data was accomplished using rANOVA for the fNIRS data and a factorial ANOVA for the writing data. This factorial
ANOVA was used to see if there was a difference between writing complexity and lexical density scores within the ar-
gumentative and summative writing prompts across the four conditions of exposure. Post hoc tests were conducted to
determine which conditions were significantly different from one another. rANOVA was used to examine the levels of
22
hemodynamic response in relation to each writing condition. A post hoc t-test was used to examine mean differences be-
tween composite summary writing scores and composite argumentative writing scores. Composite scores consisted of the
lexical density score and complexity score added together. Correlational analysis between writing scores and hemody-
namic responses was done to show a relationship between these variables of interest. A significance level of .05 was used
for tests and assumptions for each analysis were examined to ensure data compliance.
RESULTS
Increases in cognitive dynamics were associated with each of the writing tasks when compared to baseline neurolog-
ical measurements in optodes 13 and 14. Areas associated with optodes 13 and 14 have been specifically associated with
the cognitive processing related to working memory and executive functioning (Evans & Stanovich, 2013). Summary
writing illustrated greater hemodynamic responses in optode 13 F(1,1299)=8.74, p<.001 and optode 14 F(1,1299)=9.11,
p<.001 when compared to argumentative writing (see Figure 1). Based on these results, the main effect of the learning
condition (i.e., VR, textbook, or the mix of the two) is statistically significantly different F(3,97) = 10.45, p < .001. Post
hoc planned comparisons using Tukey-HSD illustrate that the condition of VR and then text produces greater outcomes
in terms of composite writing complexity and lexical density in comparison to each of the other conditions t(48) = 4.98,
p < .001. Table 2 provides an overview of the planned comparisons.
Correlational analysis between content outcomes and hemodynamic responses suggests a statistically significant re-
lationship between individual scores on each writing task and composite hemodynamic response, r(78)= .83, p<.001.
This suggests that when stimulus states (writing) are engaged there is a near-simultaneous engagement of the hemody-
namic response. Table 2 provides an overview of the post hoc comparison for each condition and test.
Table 2
Results of Comparisons Between Conditions
Comparison 1 Comparison 2 Test
Statistic
pEffect Interpretation Significant
Baseline I
Summary Writing 3.21 <.001 .722 Medium Yes
Argumentative Writing 2.88 .002 .648 Medium Yes
Baseline II .48 .36 No Effect None No
Baseline II Summary Writing 3.16 .001 .711 Medium Yes
Argumentative Writing 2.71 .004 .609 Medium Yes
VR
VR + Text 3.98 <.001 .895 Large Yes
Text + VR 2.74 .003 .616 Medium Yes
Text 1.27 .104 No Effect None No
VR + Text Text + VR 2.88 .003 .648 Medium Yes
Text 3.45 <.001 .776 Medium Ye s
Text + VR Text 2.17 .017 .488 Small Ye s
Summary
Composite Scores
Argumentative
Composite Scores
2.08 .020 .468 Small Ye s
Note. Effect sizes are considered as per Cohen’s (1973) statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences.
Results illustrate that making use of VR prior to text reading had a greater score increase on the writing outcomes,
specifically lexical density and writing complexity. Analysis of fNIRS data indicates that there is a greater hemodynamic
response in the prefrontal cortex when participants are engaged in summary writing when compared to argumentative
writing. These results suggest that both the ordering of the condition and the type of writing significantly impacts the
levels of processing as students engage with the learning environment. This was also verified through a brief post-activity
interview in which the participants were asked “which type of writing made you think more?” 90% of the participants
23
said the summary writing made them think more while they were writing. Please see Figure 1 for a comparison of neuro-
imaging results.
Note. Orange indicates low levels of cognitive dynamics and yellow indicates high levels of cognitive dynamics.
Figure 1. Composite Neuroimaging Comparisons of Mode and Writing Type.
DISCUSSION
Exposure to a virtual environment prior to the reading of the textbook on the same topic resulted in increased cogni-
tive dynamics, lexical density, and writing complexity when responding to summary and argumentative writing prompts.
Writing in science, as in other disciplines, makes use of several interdependent cognitive tools and behaviors that are
driven by experiences in VR. These tools require an understanding of the nature of the discipline, an understanding of
the disciplinary inquiry and language, the role of the cognitive tool sets, and the contextualization of experiences for the
application of scientific knowledge. This chapter illustrates some critical dimensions that are needed to be understood
and addressed in the context of teaching and learning science through writing. Considering the findings in this chapter,
summary and argumentative writing cannot be viewed as a series of recalled facts and application of skills, but rather as
interactions between the environment, prior knowledge, memory, and reasoning. fNIRS results illustrate that greater cog-
nitive dynamics are present during the process of summary writing when VR is used prior to the use of the textbook. This
enlarged view of both the use of summary writing and the need to consider the ordering of experiences (e.g., VR then
textbook) has several implications for the way we use these tools in the teaching and learning of science content. Rather
than serving only as a work task or traditional assessment assignment, summary writing is a crucial tool as evidenced by
the hemodynamic loads in the development of outcomes related to learning during the process of writing. Lexical density
and writing complexity are not the only evidence of student learning, application of knowledge, and engagement with
science. Cognitive dynamics also provide means to understand the process of learning through VR and textbooks. Ad-
ditional considerations include understanding how conditions are interconnected and generate cognitive dynamics as a
student responds to classroom strategies focusing explicitly on linking each content component.
Writing as a learning tool plays a major role within the field of science education and promotes critical thinking
and the processing of both real-life and VR experiences (Leinonen et al., 2016). Developing writing to learn approaches
related to science and other topics remains a topic of continued research within both science education and the broader
field of education (Baram-Tsabari & Osborne, 2015). Arguments regarding learning via writing arise from contrasting
views of how best to teach writing in the context of the science content and experiences. While researchers argue that
scientific material is best learned via hands-on experiences, it also is commonly argued that literacy in science derives
from having an underlying comprehension of the language of science (i.e., the language-first approach) (Melby-Levag &
Lervag, 2014). Language-first-approach researchers suggest that writing establishes the opportunity to practice commu-
nicating and explaining content in the language of discipline, in this case, science. Language-first advocates also suggest
24
that writing helps enhance students’ conceptual processing, cognitive processes, and use of knowledge tools. These skills
and processes in turn positively influence the learning of scientific practices and content (Chen et al., 2016). By using
scientific language to communicate through writing, students are more likely to engage in deep, meaningful, cognition,
which results in learning (Townsend, 2015). The success of learning through writing approaches in science continues to
be investigated by studying both argumentative and summative writing styles through the products (i.e., student work)
and process (i.e., neuroimaging) of writing (Chen et al., 2013).
IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE
Linking writing to underlying cognitive tools and understanding the role VR and textbooks can play as support tools
in writing to learning tasks is a key area of study. The increases in lexical density and writing complexity occurring dur-
ing the use of VR and then textbooks suggest that teachers should be cognizant of the ordering aspects of these tools
during instruction. The differences illustrated between the conditions suggest that students using VR create a framework
within their semantic memory that allows them to process and connect information presented in the textbook. This is
evidenced in the cognitive dynamics occurring during the summary writing. The increased cognitive dynamics present
during summary writing, particularly in regions associated with memory and reasoning suggests the organization of in-
formation is occurring and this is what makes summary writing more cognitively demanding when engaged in the actual
writing. This increased demand does not necessarily manifest in lexical density and complexity of writing. The outlined
conditions indicate that a sequence of different priming tasks, with contrasting contexts, purposes, and approaches, is
needed to develop the writing complexity, lexical density, and underlying cognitive processing needed to achieve scien-
tific reasoning. A critical feature of these tasks is that students are required to transform the modal experiences seen in
VR and real life from one form to another through the act of writing, considering the audience, and attending to specific
purposes.
The conditions are both opportunities and requirements for developing reasoning skills related to disciplinary sci-
ence literacy. This study has identified areas for potential laboratory and classroom-based research on the role of writing
in learning and how modal condition can enhance writing to learn in science. Considerations include analyses of the ef-
fects of different modal presentations and the identification of specific classroom writing strategies to enhance writing in
science.
FUTURE RESEARCH
There are several research questions that may need to be addressed in future research. For example, the need to
identify conditions for successful task completion and how student understandings of the nature and purposes of writing
in science influences outcomes. Studies can explore what teachers need to provide within these types of directions prior
to not just the writing, but during the use of the VR and the textbook. This will prime the students to begin to organize
information (Lamb et al., 2015). Additional research is needed to identify which modes are most effective in promoting
aspects of writing, knowledge development, and cognitive processing that comprise the interdependent aspects of science
writing. In analyzing the effects of these tasks there is a need to distinguish between tasks that develop students’ reason-
ing skills and science knowledge and tasks that enable students to understand the rationale and basis for scientific writing
and methods of inquiry. There is a need to understand the effects of sequences of writing activities (processes) within and
across writing (products). More research is needed to explore the effects of individual differences in relation to student
writing, cognitive attributes, and beliefs about the effectiveness of writing to learn in science.
A third area of research should be focused on which additional cognitive resources are required in the processing of
VR graphical and textual information that affects student learning. More in-depth exploration of instructional practices
associated with VR environments might allow for building effective pedagogies that can be put in place a priori to sup-
port student cognition and meaning-making. The findings from this work support results found in other studies, such as
Yamamoto & Nakakoji (2005), who suggest there are underlying cognitive attributes, such as critical thinking, that influ-
ence learning in science classrooms and that these attributes can now be measured more directly and accurately using
fNIRS. Using realistic 3D immersive environments as targeted interventions at critical times may help to rebuild the cur-
rent deficit in science learning.
25
CONCLUSION
Findings from this study have identified an ordering effect and the role that VR can play in the development of sum-
mary and argumentative writing. Specifically, neuroimaging has illustrated greater cognitive dynamics occurring dur-
ing the process of summary writing but not within the products of writing. In contrast, argumentative writing illustrates
greater lexical density and complexity in the products of writing. Choosing a specific mode of writing and combining it
with the use of VR provides a means to promote increases in writing outcomes. The use of VR to promote writing in the
science classroom provides disciplinary convergence through the activation of underlying cognitive attributes and sys-
tems, reasoning, and skills implementation.
REFERENCES
Akaygun, S., & Jones, L. L. (2014). Words or pictures: A comparison of written and pictorial explanations of physical and
chemical equilibria. International Journal of Science Education, 36(5), 783-807. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.8
28361
Annetta, L. A., Lamb, R., & Stone, M. (2011). Assessing serious educational games: The development of a scoring rubric. In Se-
rious educational game assessment (pp. 75-93). Brill.
Aslin, R. N., Shukla, M., & Emberson, L. L. (2015). Hemodynamic correlates of cognition in human infants. Annual Review of
Psychology, 66, 349-379. https://doi.org/ 10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115108
Ball, D. L., & Feiman-Nemser, S. (1988). Using textbooks and teachers’ guides: A dilemma for beginning teachers and teacher
educators. Curriculum Inquiry, 18(4), 401-423. https://doi.org/10.1080/03626784.1988.11076050
Baram‐Tsabari, A., & Osborne, J. (2015). Bridging science education and science communication research. Journal of Research
in Science Teaching, 52(2), 135-144. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21202
Beier, M. E., Kim, M. H., Saterbak, A., Leautaud, V., Bishnoi, S., & Gilberto, J. M. (2019). The effect of authentic project‐based
learning on attitudes and career aspirations in STEM. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 56(1), 3-23. https://doi.
org/10.1002/tea.21465
Bonner, E., & Reinders, H. (2018). Augmented and virtual reality in the language classroom: Practical ideas. Teaching English
with Technology, 18(3), 33-53.
Bruner, J. S. (1975). The ontogenesis of speech acts. Journal of Child Language, 2(1), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S0305000900000866
Chen, Y. C., Park, S., & Hand, B. (2016). Examining the use of talk and writing for students’ development of scientific concep-
tual knowledge through constructing and critiquing arguments. Cognition and Instruction, 34(2), 100-147. https://doi.org/1
0.1080/07370008.2016.1145120
Chen, Y.C., Hand, B., & McDowell, L. (2013). The effects of writing‐to‐learn activities on elementary students’ conceptual un-
derstanding: Learning about force and motion through writing to older peers. Science Education, 97(5), 745-771. https://
doi.org/10.1002/sce.21067
Chen, C. H., Hung, H. T., & Yeh, H. C. (2021). Virtual reality in problem‐based learning contexts: Effects on the problem‐solv-
ing performance, vocabulary acquisition and motivation of English language learners. Journal of Computer Assisted Learn-
ing, 37(3), 851-860. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12528
Cohen, J. (1973). Brief Notes: Statistical power analysis and research results. American Educational Research Journal, 10(3),
225-229. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312010003225
Crossley, S. A., Allen, L. K., Snow, E. L., & McNamara, D. S. (2016). Incorporating learning characteristics into automatic es-
say scoring models: What individual differences and linguistic features tell us about writing quality. Journal of Educational
Data Mining, 8(2), 1-19.
Cuttler, C. (2019). Students’ use and perceptions of the relevance and quality of open textbooks compared to traditional text-
books in online and traditional classroom environments. Psychology Learning & Teaching, 18(1), 65-83. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1475725718811300
DeSutter, D., & Stieff, M. (2017). Teaching students to think spatially through embodied actions: Design principles for learning
environments in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 2(1),
22.
Dotson, V. M., & Duarte, A. (2020). The importance of diversity in cognitive neuroscience. Annals of the New York Academy of
Sciences, 1464(1), 181-191. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.14268
Du, H., & List, A. (2020). Researching and writing based on multiple texts. Learning and Instruction, 66, 101297. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2019.101297
Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Sci-
ence Education, 38, 39-72. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057260208560187
26
Evans, J. S. B., & Stanovich, K. E. (2013). Dual-process theories of higher cognition: Advancing the debate. Perspectives on
Psychological Science, 8(3), 223-241. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612460685
Freina, L., & Ott, M. (2015, January). A literature review on immersive virtual reality in education: state of the art and perspec-
tives. In The International Scientific Conference eLearning and Software for Education (Vol. 1, p. 133). «Carol I» National
Defense University.
Ferretti, R. P., Lewis, W. E., & Andrews-Weckerly, S. (2009). Do goals affect the structure of students’ argumentative writing
strategies?. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(3), 577. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014702
Galbraith, D., & Baaijen, V. M. (2018). The work of writing: Raiding the inarticulate. Educational Psychologist, 53(4), 238-257.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2018.1505515
Gillespie Rouse, A., Kiuhara, S. A., & Kara, Y. (2021). Writing-to-learn in elementary classrooms: A national survey of US
teachers. Reading and Writing, 34(9), 2381-2415.
Gregg, L. W., & Steinberg, E. R. (Eds.). (2016). Cognitive processes in writing. Routledge.
Hemberger, L., Kuhn, D., Matos, F., & Shi, Y. (2017). A dialogic path to evidence-based argumentative writing. Journal of the
Learning Sciences, 26(4), 575-607.
Hand, B., Chen, Y. C., & Suh, J. K. (2021). Does a knowledge generation approach to learning benefit students? A systematic
review of research on the science writing heuristic approach. Educational Psychology Review, 33(2), 535-577.
Hand, B., Villanueva, M. G., & Yoon, S. (2014). Moving from “fuzzi-ness” to canonical knowledge: The role of writ-
ing in developing cognitive and representational resources. Writing as Learning Activity, 17. https://doi.
org/10.1163/9789004265011_011
Harper, B., Hedberg, J., Corderoy, B., & Wright, R. (2020). Employing cognitive tools within interactive multimedia applica-
tions. In Computers as cognitive tools, volume two: No more walls (pp. 227-245). Routledge.
Highhouse, S., & Gillespie, J. Z. (2010). Do samples really matter that much?. In Statistical and methodological myths and ur-
ban legends (pp. 267-286). Routledge.
Hohenshell, L. M., & Hand, B. (2006). Writing‐to‐learn Strategies in Secondary School Cell Biology: A mixed method
study. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2-3), 261-289. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500336965
Hu, J., & Gao, X. A. (2018). Linguistic demands in English-language science textbooks in Hong Kong. The Asian Journal of
Applied Linguistics, 5(1), 170-180.
Ihemedu-Steinke, Q. C., Erbach, R., Halady, P., Meixner, G., & Weber, M. (2017). Virtual Reality Driving Simulator Based on
Head-Mounted Displays. In Automotive User Interfaces (pp. 401-428). Springer, Cham.
Janssen, T. W., Grammer, J. K., Bleichner, M. G., Bulgarelli, C., Davidesco, I., Dikker, S., ... & van Atteveldt, N. (2021). Op-
portunities and limitations of mobile neuroimaging technologies in educational neuroscience. Mind, Brain, and Educa-
tion, 15(4), 354-370. https://doi.org/10.1111/mbe.12302
Leinonen, T., Keune, A., Veermans, M., & Toikkanen, T. (2016). Mobile apps for reflection in learning: A design research in
K‐12 education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(1), 184-202. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12224
Lamb, R. (2014). Examination of allostasis and online laboratory simulations in a middle school science classroom. Computers
in Human Behavior, 39, 224-234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.07.017
Lamb, R., Akmal, T., & Petrie, K. (2015). Development of a cognition‐priming model describing learning in a STEM class-
room. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(3), 410-437. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21200
Lamb, R. L., Annetta, L., Firestone, J., & Etopio, E. (2018). A meta-analysis with examination of moderators of student cogni-
tion, affect, and learning outcomes while using serious educational games, serious games, and simulations. Computers in
Human Behavior, 80, 158-167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.10.040
Lamb, R., & Etopio, E. A. (2020). Virtual reality: A tool for preservice science teachers to put theory into practice. Journal of
Science Education and Technology, 29(4), 573-585.
Lamb, R., & Firestone, J. (2022). The moderating role of creativity and the effect of virtual reality on stress and cognitive
demand during preservice teacher learning. Computers & Education: X Reality, 1, 100003. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cexr.2022.100003
Lamb, R., Hand, B., & Kavner, A. (2021). Computational modeling of the effects of the science writing heuristic on student
critical thinking in science using machine learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 30(2), 283-297.
Lee, O., Llosa, L., Grapin, S., Haas, A., & Goggins, M. (2019). Science and language integration with English learners: A
conceptual framework guiding instructional materials development. Science Education, 103(2), 317-337. https://doi.
org/10.1002/sce.21498
Leinonen, T., Keune, A., Veermans, M., & Toikkanen, T. (2016). Mobile apps for reflection in learning: A design research in
K‐12 education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(1), 184-202. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12224
Li, J. (2014). Examining genre effects on test takers’ summary writing performance. Assessing Writing, 22, 75-90.
Manz, E. (2015). Representing student argumentation as functionally emergent from scientific activity. Review of Educational
Research, 85(4), 553-590. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654314558
Martín-Gutiérrez, J., Fabiani, P., Benesova, W., Meneses, M. D., & Mora, C. E. (2015).
Augmented reality to promote collaborative and autonomous learning in higher education. Computers in Human Behavior, 51,
752-761. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.11.093
27
Melby-Lervåg, M., & Lervåg, A. (2014). Reading comprehension and its underlying components in second-language learners:
A meta-analysis of studies comparing first-and second-language learners. Psychological bulletin, 140(2), 409. https://doi.
org/10.1037/a0033890
Meritt, J., Gibson, D., Christensen, R., & Knezek, G. (2015). Teacher training using interactive technologies: Performance and
assessment in second life and simschool. In E-Learning systems, environments and approaches (pp. 181-198). Springer,
Cham.
Morris, T. H. (2020). Experiential learning–a systematic review and revision of Kolb’s model. Interactive Learning Environ-
ments, 28(8), 1064-1077. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1570279
Muis, K. R., Trevors, G., Duffy, M., Ranellucci, J., & Foy, M. J. (2016). Testing the TIDE: Examining the nature of students’
epistemic beliefs using a multiple methods approach. The Journal of Experimental Education, 84(2), 264-288. https://doi.or
g/10.1080/00220973.2015.1048843
Nückles, M., Roelle, J., Glogger-Frey, I., Waldeyer, J., & Renkl, A. (2020). The self-regulation-view in writing-to-learn: Using
journal writing to optimize cognitive load in self-regulated learning. Educational Psychology Review, 32(4), 1089-1126.
Núñez, R. E., Edwards, L. D., & Matos, J. F. (1999). Embodied cognition as grounding for situatedness and context in math-
ematics education. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 39(1-3), 45-65.
Oken, B. S., Chamine, I., & Wakeland, W. (2015). A systems approach to stress, stressors and resilience in humans. Behavioural
Brain Research, 282, 144-154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2014.12.047
Osborne, J. F., Henderson, J. B., MacPherson, A., Szu, E., Wild, A., & Yao, S. Y. (2016). The development and validation of a
learning progression for argumentation in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(6), 821-846. https://doi.
org/10.1002/tea.21316
Pennebaker, J. W., & Francis, M. E. (1996). Cognitive, emotional, and language processes in disclosure. Cognition & Emo-
tion, 10(6), 601-626. https://doi.org/10.1080/026999396380079
Rayens, W., & Ellis, A. (2018). Creating a student-centered learning environment online. Journal of Statistics Education, 26(2),
92-102. https://doi.org/10.1080/10691898.2018.1475205
Renoult, L., Irish, M., Moscovitch, M., & Rugg, M. D. (2019). From knowing to remembering: the semantic–episodic distinc-
tion. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 23(12), 1041-1057. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2019.09.008
Rispoli, M., Lang, R., Neely, L., Camargo, S., Hutchins, N., Davenport, K., & Goodwyn, F. (2013). A comparison of within-and
across-activity choices for reducing challenging behavior in children with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Behavioral
Education, 22(1), 66-83.
Rivard, L. O. P. (1994). A review of writing to learn in science: Implications for practice and research. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 31(9), 969-983. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660310910
Robinson, T. J., Fischer, L., Wiley, D., & Hilton III, J. (2014). The impact of open textbooks on secondary science learning out-
comes. Educational Researcher, 43(7), 341-351. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X14550275
Scholkmann, F., Kleiser, S., Metz, A. J., Zimmermann, R., Pavia, J. M., Wolf, U., & Wolf, M. (2014). A review on continuous
wave functional near-infrared spectroscopy and imaging instrumentation and methodology. Neuroimage, 85, 6-27. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.05.004
Sedova, K., Sedlacek, M., Svaricek, R., Majcik, M., Navratilova, J., Drexlerova, A., ... & Salamounova, Z. (2019). Do those who
talk more learn more? The relationship between student classroom talk and student achievement. Learning and Instruc-
tion, 63, 101217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2019.101217
Shanahan, T., Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2016). The challenge of challenging text. On Developing Readers: Readings from Educa-
tional Leadership (EL Essentials), 100.
Somasundaran, S., Riordan, B., Gyawali, B., & Yoon, S. Y. (2016). Evaluating argumentative and narrative essays using graphs.
In Proceedings of COLING 2016, the 26th International Conference on Computational Linguistics: Technical Papers (pp.
1568-1578).
Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153-189. https://doi.
org/10.3102/00346543073137
Spence, K. K., & McDonald, M. A. (2015). Assessing vertical development in experiential learning curriculum. Journal of Ex-
periential Education, 38(3), 296-312. https://doi.org/10.1177/10538259155717
Thornhill-Miller, B., & Dupont, J. M. (2016). Virtual reality and the enhancement of creativity and innovation: Under recog-
nized potential among converging technologies?. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 15(1), 102-121.
Townsend, D. (2015). Who’s using the language? Supporting middle school students with content area academic lan-
guage. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 58(5), 376-387. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.374
Vitorio, R., Stuart, S., Rochester, L., Alcock, L., & Pantall, A. (2017). fnirs response during walking—Artefact or cortical ac-
tivity? A systematic review. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 83, 160-172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubior-
ev.2017.10.002
Yamamoto, Y., & Nakakoji, K. (2005). Interaction design of tools for fostering creativity in the early stages of information de-
sign. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 63(4-5), 513-535. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2005.04.023
Yoon, H. (2012). Re-writing the writing script: Teachers and children translating curriculum in everyday practice. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation). University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
28
Watson, S. M., Michalek, A. M., & Gable, R. A. (2016). Linking Executive Functions and Written Language Intervention for
Students with Language Learning Disorders. International Journal of School and Cognitive Psychology, 3(3).
Zambrano, J., Kirschner, F., Sweller, J., & Kirschner, P. A. (2019). Effects of prior knowledge on collaborative and individual
learning. Learning and Instruction, 63, 101214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2019.05.011
29
Immersive Virtual Reality and Preservice Teachers:
A Mixed Methods Study on Spatial Skills, Prediction, and Perceptions
JASON TRUMBLE
University of Central Arkansas, USA
jtrumble@uca.edu
LOUIS NADELSON
University of Central Arkansas, USA
Abstract: Preservice teacher training is an intensive process where hopeful teachers learn and apply complex
theories to actual situations. The advent of extended reality (XR) technologies has become a popular tool for
training in various contexts (Brown et al., 2020; Di Nitale et al., 2020). XR has existed in sparse education
contexts for over 20 years (Kosko et al., 2021), but effective learning through XR is still in its infancy (Pellas
et al., 2021). This chapter describes an exploratory study focused on spatial visualization and mental rotation
skills used in immersive VR with preservice teachers and an analysis of their perceptions of using VR for the
first time. In the chapter, we describe the study and results along with the practical steps we took as educa-
tional researchers to engage the participants in high-quality, safe, and immersive VR experiences. The goals
of our exploratory study were to explore the immediate effects of an immersive VR experience on the spatial
visualization and mental rotation skills of preservice teachers and to explore preservice teachers’ opinions
about immersive VR and its possibilities for teaching and learning. Along with the study’s results, we will
share participant artifacts and the processes we believe allowed the preservice teachers to engage in immer-
sive VR experiences that extended their thinking about utilizing XR in their future classrooms. This chapter
will describe the researchers’ protocol, designed experiences, created artifacts, and the study results.
Keywords: Preservice Teachers, Immersive VR, Perceptions, Spatial Visualization
INTRODUCTION
Extended reality (XR) has become a blanket term that includes augmented reality (AR), mixed reality (MR), and
virtual reality (VR) in its multiple forms (Brown et al., 2020, Tang et al., 2020). These technologies have become popular
tools in many educational environments (Di Nitale et al., 2020) and continue to grow in popularity (Brown et al., 2020).
College-level engineering and graphic design classes have begun implementing interventions to support spatial learning
(Carbonell-Carrera & Saorin, 2017; Molina-Carmona et al., 2018). The promise of VR in K-12 education is promoted in
articles and blogs (Kennedy, 2018; Korbey, 2017) as teachers use XR to engage students in learning and diversify their
curriculum tools. Recent hardware cost reduction has increased interest in immersive VR applications for learning that
was not previously accessible. This cost reduction has allowed colleges of education to consider incorporating immersive
VR into their coursework.
Research on learning and VR has focused on skill-based training for adults (Friena & Ott, 2015; Jensen & Kondrad-
sen, 2018) in both medical and engineering fields. The research presented in this article is focused on exploring immer-
sive VR with preservice teachers. Teacher educators often grapple with the newest trends in educational technology and
work to create opportunities for future teachers to consider these tools as an integrated part of the learning process. The
goals of our exploratory study were to explore the immediate effects of an immersive VR experience on the spatial visu-
alization and mental rotation skills of preservice teachers and to explore preservice teachers’ opinions about immersive
VR and its possibilities for teaching and learning. It is vital for teacher educators to understand their students’ percep-
tions of and affinity for technologies as we consider incorporating these tools into teacher preparation.
30
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Dalgarno and Lee (2010) proposed that VR environments offer five potential learning benefits including spatial
knowledge representation, experiential learning, engagement, contextual learning, and collaborative learning. For these
benefits to be transferred to learning environments, teachers must be able to facilitate the appropriate use of the tech-
nology with fidelity. Immersive VR is distinguished from other elements of XR as the users engage in the VR experi-
ence through a head-mounted display that eliminates much of the outside environment. The success of immersive VR in
preservice teacher programs and K-12 education depends on access, training, and support from school and community
stakeholders (Bower et al., 2020). Vogt et al. (2021) found that immersive VR can contribute to deep learning if deployed
through a systematic multifaceted approach that does not rely solely on the affordances of the technology.
Through a systematic literature review, Pirker and Dengel (2020) indicate several advantages and a few disadvan-
tages of reality-based VR, where 360° videos and images are the media of presentation through a head-mounted display
(HMD). The advantages include technical factors such as usability, immersion, and embodiment of the learner in a novel
context. Another advantage was learning factors such as knowledge retention, mastery, motivation, and performance. The
last category of advantage was human factors that included presence, perception, engagement, eliciting of emotion, and
empathy. The disadvantages reported were difficulty in incorporating VR into daily teaching practices and possible issues
with the cognitive load of learners (Pirker & Dengel, 2020).
SPATIAL SKILLS
Spatial skills are an indicator of success in STEM fields (Wai et al., 2009). Although there are a variety of spatial
skills and abilities, success in spatial visualization and rotation is both malleable (Trumble & Dailey, 2019) and effective
for predicting success in STEM fields (Yoon, 2011). Molina-Carmona et al. (2018) investigated second-year engineering
students’ spatial visualization and rotation skills before and after a VR experience. Their results indicated increased spa-
tial visualization and rotation skills for participants engaged in an immersive VR experience. Another study investigating
spatial orientation and a VR intervention found that participants increase their navigation and environmental spatial ori-
entation through training in an immersive VR environment (Carbonell-Carrera & Saorin, 2017).
Teacher perceptions also inform this study. It is widely accepted that effective teachers have a high sense of self-
efficacy (Nissim & Weissblueth, 2017). Weissbluth and Nissim (2018) discuss how VR in teacher education can increase
creativity and support teachers’ development of social and emotional learning along with cross-disciplinary awareness. It
seems, therefore, that VR interventions can increase motivation and emotional learning. Dalgarno and Lee (2010) suggest
that VR has the potential to increase learner motivation, support embodied learning, and develop spatial skills through
virtual object manipulation.
Guzsivencz et al. (2020) evaluated the performance of college college students on various spatial assessments. The
participants either completed assessments on a desktop 2D display or in an immersive VR environment, and various
known factors were assessed. They concluded that immersive VR increased the spatial performance of females, left-
handed participants, and those of advanced age. Additionally, they conclude that immersive VR supports the development
of spatial skills.
In contrast, Safadel and White (2020) conducted a study focused on computer-generated VR in the context of teach-
ing about DNA molecules to undergraduate students. They analyzed the relationship between spatial visualization and
mental rotation skills of the participants and their performance on a comprehensive content exam. They found that spatial
skills contributed to success on the exam. They also assessed participants’ satisfaction with the VR media concluding that
high satisfaction can support students with lower spatial skills to better cope with complex visualizations of 3D objects.
PURPOSE AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS
Our research investigates the immediate effects of an immersive VR experience on preservice teachers’ spatial visu-
alization rotation skills, similar to the Molina-Carmona et al. (2018) experiment. However, we take a different approach
because we consider both the immediate effects of an immersive VR experience on spatial skills and the participants’
ability to predict their performance on spatial visualization and rotation assessment items. Additionally, we evaluate the
preservice teachers’ perceptions and predictions of using immersive VR as a classroom learning tool.
31
Our study used a mixed methods pre-post design where the quantitative and qualitative responses were collected
simultaneously through a digital assessment. The expansion of access to VR and three-dimensional interactive digital
environments prompted our inquiry into how preservice teachers might develop cognitive skills, in particular spatial vi-
sualization rotation skills, and perceive the use of immersive VR in education. To frame this research, we developed the
following research questions:
• Are there differences in spatial visualization and rotation skills in pre-service teachers before and immediately
after a brief interactive virtual reality experience?
• Do pre-service teachers who play more video games have greater spatial visualization and rotation skills?
• Are pre-service teachers’ predictions of the correctness of spatial rotation test items aligned with their scores?
• How do preservice teachers envision interactive virtual reality experiences influencing teaching and learning?
METHODS
This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board to ensure the ethical treatment of all participants.
Participants and Context of the Study
26 participants volunteered for our study and were all enrolled in a teacher education program at a regional univer-
sity in the mid-south region of the United States. The participants were on average 21.85 years old (SD = 3.48). There
were 18 females and eight males. The group was 70% Caucasian with the remaining 30% of the students nearly equally
distributed among five other ethnicities. The participants had taken an average of 2.12 college-level mathematics courses
(SD = 1.53). Table 1 shares the demographic characteristics of the participants.
Table 1
Demographic Characteristics of Participants
Characteristic n %
Gender
Male 8 31
Female 18 69
Age
18 1 4
19 2 8
20 4 15
21 7 27
22 6 23
21 2 8
24 1 4
31 1 4
34 1 4
Ethic Background
American Indian/Alaskan Native 2 8
Asian 1 4
Black 1 4
Hispanic 2 8
Multiracial 2 8
White 18 69
32
Characteristic n %
Licensure Area
Art (K12) 2 8
Early Childhood 2 8
Elementary (K-6) 3 12
Middle Level (4-8) 4 15
Family and Consumer Sciences (9-12) 2 8
English (9-12) 4 15
Social Studies (9-12) 4 15
Physical Education (K-12) 3 12
Special Education (9-12) 1 4
All participants were preservice teachers enrolled in a required course focused on connecting technology to teach-
ing and learning. This course asks students to explore multiple technologies and frameworks for classroom instruction.
The participants volunteered to participate in the study and engaged in all study elements outside of class. The primary
investigator of this study was also the instructor for the class, but the immersive VR experience and instruments were ad-
ministered by a trained graduate assistant. This study was conducted in an educational makerspace. The equipment used
was an Oculus Rift 1.
Instruments
The instrument used to assess participants’ spatial visualization and mental rotation skills was a modified version of
the Revised PSVT:R (Yoon, 2011). The Revised PSVT:R is structured so that each item increases in difficulty. To employ
a pre-post design for this study, the instrument was split. The pre-test included the odd items (1,3,5…), and the post-test
included the even items (2,4.6…). The pretest included 15 items, and the post-administration included 15 items to in-
clude all 30 items from the Revised PSVT:R. This structure was chosen after discussion with the author of the Revised
PSVT: R. The Revised PSVT:R organized items from the original instrument in a pattern that increases rigor from easy
to difficult. The rigor for the pre-test and post-test were similar. Yoon (2011) used Classic Test Theory to analyze the va-
lidity of the instrument and order items based on item difficulty. Because the intervention in this study was brief, it was
appropriate to administer the Revised PSVT:R using odd items for the pre-test and even items for the post-test so as not
to allow item repetition but to keep the rigor of the instrument. Both assessment administrations were performed digitally
on a laptop computer.
Along with the assessment of spatial visualization and rotation skills, participants were asked to rank their confi-
dence for each item on the PSVT:R. Demographic information was also collected and recorded, including age, gender,
race, and preservice teacher program, as shown in Table 1. The pre-test also collected information about participants’
frequency and interests in video games. The post-test collected participants’ qualitative responses to their VR experience
and perceptions of how immersive VR can be used in educational environments.
Intervention
Before engaging in the immersive VR creation experience, the participants took the pre-test described above. Only
two participants reported engaging in immersive VR prior to this experience. Each participant learned how to interact
with the VR environment through the free First Contact (Oculus, 2016) tutorial included with the Oculus Rift 1 system.
This tutorial introduces users to the haptic controllers and teaches them how to manipulate objects in the VR environ-
ment. Next, the participants entered the Google Blocks environment and participated in the tutorial supplied by Google
Blocks. Finally, participants were asked to create a 3D self-portrait using the shape generator and manipulation functions
of Google Blocks. Within the Google Blocks program, the participants could create, rotate, resize, color, and control
33
polyhedral shapes. Participants spent a maximum of 20 consecutive minutes in the immersive VR environment, then took
off the headset and engaged in the post-assessments.
Data Collection
This study employed a mixed-methods approach with a pre-post assessment of spatial skills using the Revised
PSVT:R (Yoon, 2011). All assessments were completed digitally on a laptop computer.
The pre-assessment included an informed consent agreement for all participants. Demographic information was col-
lected along with supplemental questions, including the amount of VR experience, video game experience, and math-
ematics course experience. The Revised PSVT:R odd number questions were given, and for each question, participants
were prompted to rank their level of confidence in their correctness on each item. The confidence was ranked on a scale
of 0 to 10.
The post-assessment was performed immediately after the participant completed the VR intervention. Similar to
the pre-assessment, participants answered the even number items from the Revised PSVT:R along with their confidence
rankings for each item. Three qualitative questions were asked at the end of the post-assessment. Participants were asked
how immersive VR could be used in teaching and learning, and they were asked to share any potential benefits or draw-
backs immersive VR might have in teaching and learning.
RESULTS
VR Experience and Spatial Visualization and Mental Rotation
Our first guiding research question was, “Are there differences in spatial ability before and after a brief interactive
virtual reality experience?” To answer this question, we calculated the total number of correctly answered responses to
our spatial reasoning assessment based on the before and after intervention assessment. The average number of correct
pre-test items was 7.50 (i = 3.08), and the average post-test correct was 6.88 (SD = 2.70). Using a paired-samples t-test,
we found no significant difference (p > .05) between the pre and post-test scores. Our results indicate that the VR experi-
ence did not change the participants’ spatial reasoning skills, given the limited time.
Spatial Visualization and Mental Rotation and Video Games
Our second guiding research question was, “Do students who play more video games have greater spatial visualiza-
tion and mental rotation skills?” To answer this question, we calculated the bivariate correlation using hours of video
games played per week (M = 5, SD = 8.08) and combined scores on the revised PSVT:R (M = 14, SD = 5). Our analysis
failed to reveal a significant correlation (p = .09). Therefore, we cannot conclude from our sample that their experience of
playing video games impacted their spatial visualization and mental rotation skills.
Prediction and Correctness
Our third guiding research question was, “Are students’ predictions of the correctness of spatial reasoning test items
aligned with their scores?” To answer this question, we calculated the bivariate correlation using the total number of cor-
rect spatial reasoning items and the composite average for confidence in selecting the correct answer on the test items.
We examined the relationship between the pre-test spatial visualization and mental rotation average (M = 7.50, SD =
3.08) and pre-test for confidence in the correctness of spatial reasoning answer (M = 4.55, SD = 2.14). We also exam-
ined the relationship between the post-test spatial reasoning average (M = 6.88, SD = 2.70) and post-test for confidence
in the correctness of spatial reasoning answer (M = 4.81, SD = 2.27). For the pre-test, we found a significant correlation
between spatial reasoning and confidence in answers (r = .56, p < .01) and a similar result post-intervention (r = .57, p <
.01). Our results indicate that the participants’ prediction of the correctness of their responses was aligned with the level
of correct spatial reasoning responses.
34
Personal Differences and Spatial Visualization and Mental Rotation
Our fourth guiding research question was, “Are students’ differences in demographics predictive of spatial reasoning
abilities?” To answer this question, we conducted tests of means including t-tests, regression, and ANOVA. We found no
significant relationships between gender, academic major, grade level the participants were preparing to teach, the num-
ber of college mathematics courses, and age with pre-test or post-test scores for spatial reasoning.
Qualitative Results
The qualitative portion of this study included three short-answer questions completed by the participants after they
experienced the immersive VR intervention. The purpose of these questions was to explore preservice teachers’ percep-
tions of immersive VR and their considerations of VR as a potentially disruptive technology in the classroom. The three
questions were:
• How could VR be used in teaching and learning?
• What potential benefits might VR have in teaching and learning?
• What potential drawbacks might VR have in teaching and learning?
The responses were analyzed using open emergent coding (Stemler, 2001) and content analysis (Elo & Kyngas,
2008). The coding process began with phase one, where both researchers familiarized themselves with all qualitative
data independently and developed notes. In the second phase, we generated initial codes for each qualitative question. In
phase three we examined themes among the initial codes and consolidated codes through discussion and identification
of commonalities. We developed the definition of the themes for each question and developed the report below aligning
with Nowell et al. (2017).
In response to the question “How could VR be used in teaching and learning?”, two thematic categories and ten
themes emerged. The first thematic category included themes focused on particular disciplines such as math, history, and
science. The second thematic category included themes related to different learning tasks that could occur in a school en-
vironment. The themes and frequencies are reported in Table 2.
Table 2
Coded Themes for How VR Could be Used in Teaching and Learning
Use of VR in Teaching
and Learning
Freq. Representative Statement
Subject area
Mathematics or
Geometry
9 The ability to see and have hands-on experience with the shapes and lines will make the
content come to life and will most likely help the students better visualize problem-solving
skills rather than only seeing two-dimensional problems in textbooks.
Science 3 This could be used in science and math classes heavily, or for students who need more of a
hands-on effort than a sit-down in-class environment.
Biology 3 It could be used to teach the makeup of a cell, oftentimes students do not see cells as 3D
objects because they’ve only seen pictures in class.
Art 4 It could also be used in art, to contextualize the size of certain paintings, relative to their
own perspective.
Social Studies
and History
3 The students could participate in an activity like the Oregon Trail in a Social Studies class-
room.
35
Use of VR in Teaching
and Learning
Freq. Representative Statement
Learning tasks
Creativity or
Projects
5 Students could be tasked with designing or creating some type of object that relates to the
topic being discussed in class
Simulations and
Practice
8 I think you could use this in a lot of ways to have students get creative and create projects,
analyze words, teach kids with dyslexia, or have students use it to get an experience of
events that went on in history from a virtual reality experience
Manipulation of
Spatial Models
7 I know in science we could use VR to show cells and how they’re really 3D, and they could
label different parts.
New Immersive
Experiences
11 VR can be used for even more immersion into a lesson.
Mapping 1 I think that VR could definitely be utilized in math classes to help students with geometry
or mapping or graphing.
In response to the question “What potential benefits might VR have in teaching and learning?” eight themes
emerged. Themes in this category are affirmative statements that summarize the participants’ statements. The themes and
frequencies for this qualitative question are reported in Table 3.
Table 3
Coded Themes for Potential Benefits of VR
Codes Freq. Representative Statements
Allows for more creativity 4 It would make students think more creatively and visually.
Encourages hands-on
learning
8 When it comes to teaching and learning, VR will have an advantage in hands-
on learning. VR takes most of the resources out of the equation and leaves the
kids with easy-to-use programs that have limitless possibilities.
Allows for virtual
place-based learning
2 It sets the students in a more realistic environment without having to actually
leave the classroom.
Encourages visual
simulation
11 Giving students the ability to see and manipulate 3D
Has general potential 8 It gives students new experiences they might not otherwise have, and the pos-
sibilities really are limitless
Can increase conceptual
understanding
4 Teachers could use this to help students better understand spatial concepts.
Can increase motivation 4 Allowing students more fun and interactive ways to learn about something.
Has benefits beyond the
regular curriculum
1 They have the potential as a therapy for students with disabilities. Social, Oc-
cupational, Sensory, etc.
In response to the question “What potential drawbacks might VR have in teaching and learning?” eight themes
emerged. Themes in this category are descriptive statements that summarize the statements of the participants. The
themes and frequencies for this qualitative question are reported in Table 4.
36
Table 4
Coded Responses for Drawbacks of VR
Code Freq. Representative Statement
Cost 9 VR is expensive and it is unlikely that even a few students would have access to it.
The durability of the
technology
1 This is also very expensive and students can be rough sometimes.
User health
consideration
8 It could make some students feel dizzy, or otherwise uncomfortable. Might not be a
good idea to solely rely on VR.
Teacher Knowledge 2 Lack of experience or expertise in VR by both the teacher and the student.
Students’ procedural
knowledge
7 Some students may have a harder time grasping the concept.
Student physical ability 5 The only problem I experienced was feeling a little weird right after I took the
goggles off. I think teachers would have to be aware of students with disabilities
when using this, (such as students that are known to have seizures.
Classroom and device
management
6 Kids could easily become sidetracked or even use the equipment for the wrong
reasons.
Reliance on VR over
other tools/methods
8 Overuse as a way of avoiding traditional teaching methods.
Time-consuming 2 It’s expensive and time-consuming.
The disadvantages that the preservice teachers saw focused on the cost and availability of immersive VR. They pre-
dicted seeing VR become ubiquitous in educational settings would be challenging. Some communicated worry about
possible physical effects like motion sickness for students, and others said that the distraction and desire to constantly
connect to the technology could distract from learning. One participant said, “It could cause distractions, and some kids
may not feel comfortable using VR.”
DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS
The impact of a short-term immersive VR experience on the participants’ spatial skills was not observed through
this intervention. Participants only spent 20 minutes in the VR environment, and although they were each able to create
a virtual self-portrait, by the end of the limited time in the VR environment, they were only beginning to develop their
skills in manipulating digital objects. This limited timeframe did not change their spatial visualization and mental rota-
tion skills. These results contrast with Molina-Carmona et al. (2018) as there were no immediate effects of an immersive
VR experience on preservice teachers’ spatial visualization rotation skills. Although this short-term intervention did show
an impact on participants’ spatial abilities, it is not inconceivable that a longer-term intervention in a virtual environment
where participants manipulate 3D shapes can improve learners’ spatial visualization and rotations skills.
There was no correlation between the participants’ video game experience and their spatial visualization and rota-
tion skills. This was to be expected because of both the limited sample size and the limited time between the pre-test, the
short intervention, and the post-test.
The participants in this study accurately predicted their own correctness of the spatial visualization and rotation
items. This indicates that their metacognition and confidence were aligned with their performance. The predictive ability
of the participants is an area that can be beneficial for future study in spatial skills.
Our qualitative results indicated that the pre-service teachers viewed their experience as positive, and they related
their experience to the potential for immersive VR to be used as a tool for teaching and learning. They also shared state-
ments of drawbacks that could limit the use of immersive VR in their teaching practice. The responses to the first ques-
tion of how VR can be used in teaching and learning mostly supported Dalgarno and Lee’s (2010) proposed potential
learning benefits of VR. These aligned with knowledge representation, experiential learning, engagement, and contextual
learning. However, there were no responses in relation to collaboration. This may result from the participants’ initial
experience in the VR system being void of interaction as they were asked to create a 3D self-portrait in a program with
37
no other human interaction. The most frequent theme discussed eleven times (n=26) was that VR affords the learner the
opportunity to engage in a new immersive environment. It was clear that the participants found that the novelty of VR
can transport the learner and change the context of learning. The second highest response was that VR could be used in
the context of a mathematics or geometry course. This code had nine responses and aligns directly with the experience of
creating using geometric objects in Google Blocks (Google, 2021).
Our second qualitative question centered around the positive aspects of immersive VR and what the participants
perceived as the benefits of this technology. These results also align with Dalgarno and Lee (2010) as the affordances dis-
cussed included visual stimulation, hands-on learning, and the general potential for technology to transport and motivate
learners.
The final qualitative question queried the participants’ consideration of the drawbacks of using immersive VR tech-
nology in teaching and learning. The cost of equipment was the biggest drawback. The preservice teachers saw the Ocu-
lus Rift system as expensive and unlikely to be used in the classroom environment. Two other codes emerged as vital.
The participants mentioned that students could have adverse health issues when participating in VR. The example state-
ment in relation to this code showed the participant self-reported a level of discomfort when taking off the HMD. The
same number of responses included a worry about the possibility of VR detracting from or taking away traditional cur-
riculum or teaching methods. These responses align with Bower et al. (2020) as they concluded three major barriers to
VR integration exist including external barriers like cost and support, internal barriers like experience, and content design
barriers that limit the use of immersive VR in classrooms.
SUGGESTIONS FOR TEACHER EDUCATORS
Immersive VR is becoming more and more affordable. Consumer-level devices are beginning to flood the market,
and multiple industries are harnessing the power of this technology (Carbonell-Carrera & Saorin, 2017; Molina-Carmona
et al., 2018). The qualitative portion of this study indicates that for participants, the novelty and potential of immersive
VR can be a motivational tool for teaching. Additionally, prior research indicates that teaching with immersive VR sup-
ports deep learning and high motivation (Bower et al., 2020). As we instruct future teachers, it is vital that we give them
experiences that support their success and help them make teaching decisions as they enter a profession that, we hope,
they will stay in for 30 years. Although immersive VR is in its infancy, there is potential for exponential growth.
We suggest that teacher educators design learning experiences that safely engage preservice teachers in utilizing VR
for educational purposes. For our study, we limited the initial exposure in the immersive environment to 20 minutes. We
allowed the preservice teachers time to learn the haptic controls, view multiple environments, and create unique self-por-
traits. The participants in this study had little to no experience in immersive VR environments, in which creations were
limited. With additional time and training, teachers have the ability to create quality virtual objects for use in classroom
instruction (Caratachea, 2021).
The program we used to conduct this study and create the self-portraits is limited to the Oculus 1, but there are addi-
tional platforms and newer systems that have been developed that allow users to create in immersive VR.
LIMITATIONS
This study has multiple limitations. The design of the study and sample impacts the generalization of this work. The
limited sample (N=27) reduced the power of the statistical analyses, and the lack of a control group eliminates the abil-
ity of the data to be generalized outside of this sample. Additionally, the design of the study limited the evaluation of the
potential impact immersive VR could have on spatial skills.
38
Figure 1. Participants’ 3D Self Portraits.
CONCLUSION
This exploratory study attempted to evaluate multiple aspects of preservice teachers’ initial experience with immer-
sive VR. We found that a short-term immersive VR creation experience did not immediately improve participants’ spatial
visualization and rotation skills. The small sample and short intervention were both constraints on the results of this
study, but the potential for spatial development through VR interventions exists (Guzsvinecz et al., 2020; Molina-Carmo-
na et al., 2018; Safadel & White, 2020). Participants in our study correctly predicted their success on spatial visualization
and mental rotation items, indicating strong metacognitive processes.
We explored the participants’ opinions about immersive VR for teaching and learning. We found their opinions after
experiencing immersive VR align with previous research on the potential of VR as a teaching and learning tool. This re-
search reveals that the experience presents new emerging technologies that have the potential to be used in teaching and
learning. Additional research is needed to evaluate the effects of longer-term VR interventions on cognitive skills and
processes for learners of all ages.
REFERENCES
Balcikanli, C. (2011). Metacognitive awareness inventory for teachers (MAIT). Electronic Journal of Research in Educational
Psychology, 9(3), 1309-1332.
Bower, M., DeWitt, D., & Lai, J. W. (2020). Reasons associated with preservice teachers’ intention to use immersive virtual re-
ality in education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(6), 2214-2232. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13009
Brown, M., McCormack, M., Reeves, J., Brook, D. C., Grajek, S., Alexander, B., Bulger, S., Dark, S., Engelbert, N., Gannon,
K., Gauthier, A., Gibson, D., Gibson, R., Lundin, B., Veletsianos, G., & Weber, K. (2020). 2020 EDUCAUSE Horizon re-
port: Teaching and learning edition. EDUCAUSE. https://library.educause.edu/-/media/files/library/2020/3/2020_horizon_
report_pdf.pdf?la=en&hash=08A92C17998E8113BCB15DCA7BA1F467F303BA80
39
Caratchea, M. (2021). Immersive virtual reality as a tool to make in K-12 environments. [Doctoral dissertation, Virginia Com-
monwealth University]. https://doi.org/10.25772/981F-W764
Carbonell-Carrera, C., & Saorin, J. L. (2017). Virtual learning environments to enhance spatial orientation. Eurasia Journal of
Mathematics, Science, and Technology Education, 14, 709-719.
Dalgarno, B., & Lee, M. J. (2010). What are the learning affordances of 3‐D virtual environments?. British Journal of Educa-
tional Technology, 41(1), 10-32. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.01038.x
Di Natale, A. F., Repetto, C., Riva, G., & Villani, D. (2020). Immersive virtual reality in K‐12 and higher education: A 10‐year
systematic review of empirical research. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(6), 2006-2033.
Duffy, G. G., Miller, S., Parsons, S., & Meloth, M. (2009). Teachers as metacognitive professionals. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dun-
losky & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Handbook of metacognition in education (pp. 240-256). New York, NY: Routledge.
Elo, S., & Kyngäs, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(1), 107-115.
Google. (2020). Google blocks https://arvr.google.com/blocks/
Guzsvinecz, T., Orbán-Mihálykó, É., Perge, E., & Sik-Lányi, C. (2020). Analyzing the spatial skills of university students with a
virtual reality application using a desktop display and the Gear VR. Acta Polytechnica Hungarica, 17(2), 35-56.
Kennedy, E. (2018, Nov. 1) Can virtual reality revolutionize education? CNN. Retrieved from https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/01/
health/virtual-reality-education/index.html
Korbey, H. (2017, July 14) Will virtual reality drive deeper learning? Edutopia. Retrieved from https://www.edutopia.org/article/
virtual-reality-drive-deeper-learning-holly-korbey
Molina-Carmona, R., Pertegal-Felices, M., Jimeno-Morenilla, A., & Mora-Mora, H. (2018). Virtual reality learning activities for
multimedia students to enhance spatial ability. Sustainability, 10(4), 1074.
Moshman, D. (2018). Metacognitive theories revisited. Educational Psychology Review, 30(2), 599-606.
Nissim, Y., & Weissblueth, E. (2017). Virtual Reality (VR) as a source for self-efficacy in teacher training. International Educa-
tion Studies, 10(8), 52-59.
Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness crite-
ria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1), 1609406917733847.
Oculus (2016). Oculus First Contact. https://www.oculus.com/experiences/rift/1217155751659625/?locale=en_US
Pirker, J., & Dengel, A. (2021). The potential of 360-Degree virtual reality videos and real VR for education: A literature re-
view. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications. https://doi.org/10.1109/MCG.2021.3067999.
Power, J. R., & Sorby, S. A. (2020). Spatial development program for middle school: teacher perceptions of effectiveness. Inter-
national Journal of Technology and Design Education, 1-18.
Safadel, P., & White, D. (2020). Effectiveness of computer-generated virtual reality (VR) in learning and teaching environments
with spatial frameworks. Applied Sciences, 10(16), 5438
Schraw, G., & Moshman, D. (1995). Metacognitive theories. Educational Psychology Review, 7, 351–371.
Stemler, S. (2001). An overview of content analysis, Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 7. 137-146
Tang, Y. M., Au, K. M., Lau, H. C., Ho, G. T., & Wu, C. H. (2020). Evaluating the effectiveness of learning design with mixed
reality (MR) in higher education. Virtual Reality, 24(4), 797-807.
Thiede, K. W., Brendefur, J. L., Osguthorpe, R. D., Carney, M. B., Bremner, A., Strother, S., Oswalt. S., Snow, J.L., Sutton, J.,
& Jesse, D. (2015). Can teachers accurately monitor student learning? Teaching and Teacher Education, 49, 36-44.
Trumble, J., & Dailey, D. (2019). Change in spatial visualization mental rotation abilities of intermediate elementary students.
Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 38(1), 77-90.
Uttal, D. H., Meadow, N. G., Tipton, E., Hand, L. L., Alden, A. R., Warren, C., & Newcombe, N. S. (2013). The malleabil-
ity of spatial skills: A meta-analysis of training studies. Psychological Bulletin, 139(2), 352-402. https://doi.org/10.1037/
a0028446
Wai, J., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2009). Spatial ability for STEM domains: Aligning over 50 years of cumulative psycho-
logical knowledge solidifies its importance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(4), 817.
Weissblueth, E., & Nissim, Y. (2018). The contribution of virtual reality to social and emotional learning in pre-service teachers.
Creative Education, 9(10), 1551.
Yoon, S. Y. (2011). Psychometric properties of the revised Purdue spatial visualization tests: visualization of rotations (The Re-
vised PSVT: R). Purdue University. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/904417099?pq-origsite=gscholar
Yoon, S. Y., & Mann, E. L. (2017). Exploring the spatial ability of undergraduate students: Association with gender, STEM ma-
jors, and gifted program membership. Gifted Child Quarterly, 61(4), 313-327.
41
Virtual Reality and Trauma:
Consideration for Future Teachers and Trauma-Informed Practices
JENNIFER LAFFIER
Ontario Tech University, Canada
jennifer.laffier@ontariotechu.ca
AALYIA REHMAN
Ontario Tech University, Canada
Abstract: As more educators and pre-service teacher programs include extended reality as a pedagogical
tool, there is a need to explore the mental health impacts of virtual reality on students. There is the possibility
that virtual reality can have a negative effect on people experiencing or at risk of trauma. Understanding how
this technology can impact trauma is important for pre-service teachers who are considering using a range of
virtual reality in their classes. The aim of this chapter is to investigate how virtual reality technology relates
to trauma and the educational implications for educators. A comprehensive literature review was conducted
that examined the direct and indirect risks of trauma and virtual reality, as well as moderating variables.
Findings indicate that the use of virtual reality may trigger stressful and distressful reactions in students who
may have or had traumatic experiences and possible moderators, such as length of time, pre-existing trauma
or mental health problems, and reality components of the images may strengthen these reactions. Teachers
should be educated on trauma-informed practices and the role technology may play within educational pro-
grams. Based on this review, the authors suggest educators limit virtual reality use for students, screen stu-
dents for risks of trauma, and screen virtual reality programs for trauma-inducing content.
Keywords: Education, Virtual Reality, Trauma, Trauma-Based Practices
INTRODUCTION
In the Wall Street Journal, Jack Nicas (2016) asked readers to consider the question, “...what happens when vir-
tual reality gets too real?” (p. 1). As we move further into digitally enriched worlds, this question becomes especially
important considering the rise of extended reality use in educational settings and the possible link between trauma and
extended reality ( Laffier & Rehman, 2022; Laffier et al., 2022; Lavoie et al., 2020). Extended reality (XR) refers to the
combination of human and computer-generated graphics interaction and is the umbrella term for immersive mediums
that include virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR) mixed reality, 360 video, and volumetric videos. Virtual reality
(VR) is often used in school settings and will be the focus of this chapter. VR provides users with a feeling of being psy-
chologically immersed in a virtually simulated environment, using a head-mounted display (Huang et al., 2010).
As VR has matured as a technology, its overall practicality for use in education has also increased (Lege & Bonner,
2020). This technology encourages student-centered, active learning, simultaneously booting memorization, providing
enjoyable learning experiences, and reducing anxiety about course-based assessment (Chen et al., 2017; Kaplan-Rakows-
ki, 2021; Kaplan-Rakowski et al., 2022; Krokos et al., 2019;). According to a recent survey, nearly 80% of educators
have access to VR devices and 70% of educators want to use VR to simulate experiences relevant to classroom learning
(Vlasova, 2020). Educators have reported the integration of VR in classrooms has enhanced learner engagement, moti-
vation, and beneficial pedagogical outcomes (Radianti et al., 2020). Pre-service teacher programs are also beginning to
include education on VR to enhance student learning, develop classroom management skills, and use it as a teaching tool
(Baumgartner, 2020; Cooper et al., 2019). Although still in its early stages within educational contexts, it is not surpris-
ing that VR has been referred to as the “learning aid of the 21st century” (Rogers, 2010, p. 1).
Although the pedagogical benefits of VR are now emerging, there is more to learn about the mental health impact
on users (Lavoie et al., 2020). Many experts stressed that technology is neither good nor bad, but how we use it may pose
42
benefits or risks (Tsai et al., 2018). For example, VR has been used in exposure therapy to treat anxiety-related problems,
including posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (Kothgassner et al., 2019). In these cases, the VR is used within a con-
trolled setting by a licensed therapist to guide the experience. Many therapists are trained in VR use and have explored
ethics related to its use due to adverse effects clients may experience (Maples-Keller et al., 2017). Studies have found VR
use in exposure therapy significantly triggered anxiety, paranoia, panic, intrusions, and cybersickness (Dibbets & Schul-
te-Ostermann, 2015; Freeman et al., 2022; Kim et al., 2021; Pot Kolder et al., 2016; Tsai et al., 2018).
While the purpose of exposure therapy is to encourage systematic confrontation of feared stimuli that may result
in the emergence of negative reactions, one must begin to question how VR may trigger anxiety or other mental health
problems in non-clinical settings, such as a classroom setting. There is the possibility that VR can have a negative effect
on children experiencing or at risk of trauma (Lavoie et al., 2021). Trauma occurs when an individual perceives them-
selves or others around them to be threatened by serious injury, death, or psychological harm (Bell et al., 2013). Children
or youth with existing trauma or at higher risk for developing trauma may have different experiences with VR than other
students. For example, if the VR content relates to a past traumatic event, they may experience re-traumatization; if the
content is too stressful, they may have a trauma reaction. To date, there is little research on how VR can trigger trauma
reactions in children and the educational implications.
Experts agree that trauma-informed practices (TIP) should be taught in pre-service education programs to prepare
future teachers (Eaton et al., 2015). Teachers play an important and direct role in the lives of children exposed to trauma
and can provide a healing environment (Brunzell et al., 2015). They can support students by using TIP, which involves
being aware of trauma conditions to create a safe space, whereby risks for re-traumatization are minimized and post-trau-
matic growth is supported (Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, 2014). TIP education should also include awareness
of technology’s impact on mental health and how to use technologies in trauma-sensitive ways. Understanding how VR
can impact trauma is important for pre-service teachers who are considering using a range of VR in their classes. There-
fore, the purpose of this paper is to explore how VR is related to trauma and the educational implications for pre-service
teachers. Our specific research questions were: (1) How can VR contribute to trauma responses? (2) What variables miti-
gate this relationship in educational settings?; and (3) How should this information inform pre-service teachers and pre-
service education departments?
METHOD
In order to explore the connection between VR and trauma and its implications for pre-service teachers, we con-
ducted a literature review. We took a two-step process whereby we first explored the potential risks of trauma and VR,
particularly in educational settings. Then we explored the literature to identify moderating variables as they relate to edu-
cational settings.
Because this was an exploratory study of the possible implications of VR on mental health and students in the class-
room, we kept our search broad. We explored many forms of literature; peer-reviewed studies, reports from educational,
health and mental health sectors, as well as media reports (i.e., news articles). Our focus was literature describing, 1) VR
use in general 2) VR used in classroom settings, 3) VR used for mental health purposes, and 4) accounts of VR causing
trauma or mental health distress. Keywords used in the search included “mental health”, “trauma”, “re-traumatization”,
“virtual reality”, “education”, “triggers”, “immersion”, “well-being”, “Post Traumatic Stress Disorder”, “Acute Stress
Disorder”, “trauma informed practices”, “pre-service teachers”, and “pre-service programs”.
Our search for peer-reviewed studies and reports involved the following databases through Ontario Tech University;
PsychARTICLES, PsychINFO, EducINFO, and Springer LINK journals. To explore media for articles on VR and trauma
we searched google using the same keywords. Our primary focus was news or magazine articles; however, we included
online blogs and interviews if they were from those with lived experiences or experts. We excluded any articles that did
not discuss mental health impacts. Our search yielded a total of 116 articles. Once we collected the literature, we logged
the information on an excel spreadsheet according to the identified themes; 1) VR use in general 2) VR used in classroom
settings, 3) VR used for mental health purposes, and 4) accounts of VR causing trauma or mental health distress.
The next step was to explore the literature again to identify moderating variables as they may relate to educational
settings. A moderator is a variable that affects the strength of the relation between the predictor and criterion variable
(Baron & Kenny, 1986). We specifically focused on any variables that put a student at risk for trauma from VR. This
could be variables connected to the student, the school setting, or the technology design. Moderators are important to
43
explore to understand for whom, when, or why some people are more at-risk. This information was put into a separate
excel spreadsheet.
In the discussion and recommendations section, we then discuss the implications for future educators and pre-ser-
vice teaching programs. This information was put into a chart with four categories: (1) Trauma Risks, (2) Moderating
Factors, (3) Educational Implications, and (4) Implications for Pre-service Education Departments.
LITERATURE REVIEW
This literature review begins with a brief introduction to trauma and VR as they are related to educational settings.
Next, literature examining direct and indirect connections to trauma and VR is presented, as well as moderating vari-
ables. Lastly, we review the implications for trauma-informed care and education for pre-service teachers.
Trauma
Findings from the 2016 National Survey of Children’s Health estimated that nearly half (46%) of children 0–17 have
experienced at least one adverse childhood experience (ACE) that is a risk factor for trauma (Bethell et al., 2013). The
more ACEs a child experiences, the higher risk they are for traumatization. Trauma is defined as a direct or indirect expe-
rience of an event that involves actual or perceived threatened death, serious injury, or threat to oneself or others’ physi-
cal integrity (Beck & Sloan, 2012). Traumatic events may include abuse, domestic violence, bullying, losing a parent,
witnessing violence, or natural disasters (Bell et al., 2013). Children may also experience trauma from witnessing events
through media such as the Internet or social media. The defining feature of trauma is that it causes intense fear, horror, or
helplessness (Center of Substance Abuse Treatment, 2014).
Trauma Reactions
Trauma reactions may include anxiety, acute stress reaction or disorder, dissociation, depression, or PTSD (Her-
man, 2001). The initial acute trauma reaction may last hours to days (Center of Substance Abuse Treatment, 2014). This
experience can range from a mild reaction (constantly thinking about it, feeling uneasy or overwhelmed, racing heart) to
severe (rocking, disorientation, nauseous, crying, extreme fear). Mild traumatic reactions have been recorded in children
after watching graphic videos (Mrug et al., 2015). If symptoms are severe enough and persist, the person may be diag-
nosed with acute stress disorder or PTSD (past four weeks). In some cases, PTSD symptoms can emerge months or years
later after a triggering event (Center of Substance Abuse Treatment, 2014). Trauma-related problems and disorders usu-
ally involve four clusters of symptoms: (1) intrusion symptoms (flashbacks, nightmares, intrusive thoughts), (2) persis-
tent avoidance of stimuli associated with the trauma, (3) negative alterations in cognitions and mood that are associated
with the traumatic event, and (4) alterations in arousal and reactivity that are associated with the traumatic event (Center
of Substance Abuse Treatment, 2014; Herman, 2001). Even though the event happened in the past, the victim may still
experience severe emotional distress or physical reactions to something that reminds them of the traumatic event (Center
of Substance Abuse Treatment, 2014). There are multiple factors that influence the degree of trauma and the recovery
process. These factors may include age, stage of development, personality, coping style, feelings of safety, additional
stressors in life, and access to support (Bethell et al., 2013). There are also factors that make a person more susceptible to
trauma, such as low emotional intelligence, existing mental health problems, and less exposure to adversity (Blodgett &
Dorado, 2016).
Re-traumatization
Once traumatization has occurred, a child’s natural ability to cope may be disrupted due to the overwhelming nature
of the trauma (Bell et al., 2013). The child is then more susceptible to experiencing trauma again. Incidents that do not
affect other children, may affect that child due to their vulnerability. Herman (2001) describes trauma as the result of the
bodily system being flooded with experience and the result is that the body’s self-defense system becomes disorganized.
“Each component of the ordinary response to danger, having lost its utility, tends to persist in an altered and exaggerated
44
state long after the actual danger is over” (p. 21-22). Thus, the bodily system is a key site where trauma is stored, and the
bodily system could remember it. Therefore, certain stimuli may trigger re-traumatization. It could be a sound, smell, or
image that reminds the person of the experience.
Trauma in Schools
It is estimated that 25- 30% of students in a school are affected by trauma (Gibson et al., 2014; Herman, 2001).
Students may show a range of symptoms that affect academic success like (1) physical symptoms (stomachaches, head-
aches, hypervigilant, startle reaction), (2) behavioral symptoms (regression, aggression, repetitive play, isolation, or risk-
taking behaviors), (3) emotional symptoms (difficulty regulating emotions, easily angered or irritable, or depression, lack
of self-confidence), and (4) cognitive symptoms (inability to focus, flashbacks, dissociation, and changed attitudes (Bell
et al., 2013; Gibson et al., 2014; Jaycox et al., 2006). Difficulty self-regulating is one of the most pervasive challenges
faced by trauma-affected students at school and often manifests as an intense emotional expression in response to dif-
ficulties in the classroom (Krasnoff, 2015). Because the brains of trauma-affected students have developed in ways that
enable them to respond quickly to a perceived threat, they can become hypervigilant and distressed in the face of change
(Center of Substance Abuse Treatment, 2014). Trauma in childhood is linked to disruption in executive functioning,
which controls the brain’s ability to develop working memory and process and integrate new information, all vital to aca-
demic success (DePrince et al., 2009). Additionally, exposure to trauma has been connected to lower grades and higher
drop-out rates (Blaustein, 2013; Delaney-Black et al., 2002). Because teachers often do not know which students have
experienced trauma, they may misinterpret behaviors or put students at risk of re-traumatization (Berg, 2017). Therefore,
teachers should be aware of trauma-informed practices to support students.
Trauma Informed Care
Trauma-informed care (TIC) focuses on awareness of trauma, impacts on learning and behavior, prevention of re-
traumatization, and creating safety and trust (EQUIP Health Care, 2017; Steele, 2017). The four R’s of trauma-informed
care are described as 1) realize (the dynamics of trauma), 2) recognize (risk factor, signs and symptoms, 3), respond
(with care and safety strategies), and 4) resist re-traumatization (reduce risks) (Menschner & Maul, 2014). Trauma-sen-
sitive approaches make a positive difference to students in the classroom in terms of their learning ability and behavior
regulation (Steele, 2017). Teachers that are consistent and predictable contribute to a calm and safe classroom climate,
minimize stress for students, enhance students’ sense of belonging, and provide a strong foundation to help students with
self-regulation (Dods, 2013; Hobbs et al., 2019). A trauma-informed teacher would not ask “what is wrong with you?”,
but “what has happened to you?” (EQUIP Health Care, 2017). Goldman (2017) encourages educators to understand that
students’ behaviors may not be due to acting out on purpose, but due to a trauma response. Steele (2017) highlights the
importance of developing beliefs that are trauma-sensitive and conscious of the impact of trauma on the brain of stu-
dents. Expertise or clinical skills related to trauma are not what students are looking for from teachers, but they do want
their teachers to provide a safe learning space (Dods, 2013).
TIC and Teacher Education
It is well-documented that teachers do not feel adequately prepared to meet the needs of students impacted by trau-
ma or other mental health concerns (Gibson et. al, 2014; Froese-Germain & Riel, 2012; Rothì et al., 2000). A recent
report from the Grattan Institute called for better teacher preparation (Goss & Sonnemenn, 2017). Studies have revealed
that pre-service teachers do not receive adequate training and hold insufficient knowledge to understand the effects of
trauma on their students and their role as teachers in supporting their students who have experienced trauma (Brown,
2008; Mathews, 2011; McKee & Dillenburger, 2009; Phifer & Hull, 2016). Pre-service teachers need training that pro-
vides them with an understanding of the impact of trauma on young people and their learning, along with a skill set that
enables them to support the needs of these students (Hobbs et al., 2019). Without this training, they may overlook the
needs of students, misinterpret their actions as poor behavior, and re-expose them to trauma triggers (Baweja et al., 2016;
Day et al., 2015).
In recent years, pre-service programs have begun to include TIC in their curriculum. Part of that TIC preparation
should be understanding how technology can be used in trauma-sensitive ways. Future teachers need to know how to
45
mitigate risks and reap the benefits of technology for their students’ learning and well-being. Considering the volume of
technology used now in schools, we need to consider its role in trauma-informed care and practices. A review of the TIC
curriculum for pre-service teachers does not suggest any focus on technology and trauma (Hobbs et al., 2019). VR use in
schools is growing in popularity and should be reviewed for potential trauma risks.
Virtual Reality
VR has altered the way in which individuals connect, transforming the digital landscape, and linking the physi-
cal world to a digital one (Rauschnabel et al., 2017). VR is an immersive experience that users can manipulate using a
headset and/or workstation involving a monitor, a keyboard, and a mouse (Freina & Ott, 2015). Unlike immersive VR,
augmented interfaces allow the user to interact with both virtual items and objects in the real world (Azuma, 1997). In an
AR interface, the user views the world through a handheld or head-mounted display that is either see-through or overlays
graphics on video of the surrounding environment. AR interfaces enhance the real-world experience, unlike other com-
puter interfaces that draw users away from the real world and onto the screen (da Silva2019). AR technology has three
main features: the combination of the real world and the virtual world, real-time interaction, and 3D registration (Azuma,
1997).
If users are to experience these virtual environments as real, two conditions are required: immersion and presence.
Immersion describes a state of consciousness in which the user’s awareness of the physical self declines due to increasing
involvement in the virtual environment (Eichenberg & Wolters, 2012). A sensation of immersion can be achieved by cre-
ating realistic visual, auditory, or tactile stimulation. Additionally, the usage of specific output devices (e.g., data-goggles
and monitors) and input devices (e.g., data gloves, voice recognition, and eye-tracking software) may facilitate the user’s
perception of immersion. The feeling of being physically immersed can result in a sense of presence that includes a per-
ception of the environment as being real, shutting out real-life stimuli, and performing involuntary, objectively meaning-
less body movements such as ducking to avoid an object displayed in VR (Eichenberg & Wolters, 2012).
There is a plethora of research that suggests VR is an effective therapeutic tool (Katz et al, 2020). It has been used to
treat anxiety, phobias, PTSD, and even eating disorders (Katz et al, 2020). In exposure, therapists purposely induce stress
in the laboratory setting by having the client view aversive static pictures, traumatic film footage, and now the use of VR,
which is a promising experimental stress induction method allowing for first-person perspective experiences (Bach et al.,
2014; Dibbets & Schulte-Ostermann, 2015; James et al., 2016; Kaufman & Libby, 2012; Oulton et al., 2016; Schweizer
et al., 2018). The psychophysiological stress response qualitatively seems to share similarities to real traumatic situations
but is less intense (Kinateder et al., 2014).
VR in Schools
In a National Survey, 90% of educators agreed that VR technology is an effective way of providing differentiated
and personalized learning experiences to students (Getting Smart, 2020). The Campus of the Future project explored the
pedagogical uses of VR technologies and found VR enabled a variety of learning goals related to active and experiential
learning, such as helping students develop ethical awareness, analytical skills, system thinking skills, product design and
artistic skills, practice in complex tasks, and increase student ownership of learning own learning (Hu-Au & Lee, 2018).
Liou and Chang (2018) investigated the effects of VR within classrooms and the results showed significantly better learn-
ing outcomes and positive impacts on students’ achievement scores. A study conducted by Lund and Wang (2017) dem-
onstrated similar results and revealed that VR had a marginally positive impact on students’ scores yet a stronger impact
on students’ learning engagement.
While educators demonstrate a favorable disposition toward the use of VR in their teaching, the literature empha-
sizes resistance due to a lack of proper training and implementation, as well as low self-efficacy to implement it into
their practice (Ali & Ferdig, 2002; Cooper et al., 2019). Warburton (2009) investigated the implementation of VR within
classrooms and found many teachers do not feel comfortable helping their students when they have issues (Warburton,
2009). Warburton (2009) concluded that teachers need to improve digital literacies and connections between immersion,
empathy, and learning, and develop design skills. Ali and Ferdig (2002) suggest that teachers should know what makes
a good VR environment. According to Follows (1999), a good VR environment is one that provides the learner with a
reason to learn and take control, makes learning a personal experience for the learner, and accommodates a wide range
of learning styles. One way that teachers can make the experience personal for the learner is to allow them to create the
46
VR environment. For example, QTVR is a new software that allows teachers and students to construct three-dimensional
representations of objects from two-dimensional photographs (Ali & Ferdig, 2002). Ali and Ferdig (2002) also suggest
educators should select an appropriate type of VR that matches the student’s needs and capabilities and have a good im-
pact on teaching and learning.
VR in Pre-service Education
The literature suggests that education on VR as a teaching tool has been implemented in pre-service education pro-
grams. For example, Lugrin et al. (2016) designed a VR environment in which prospective secondary school teachers can
practice their classroom management skills. Such an interactive VR environment has several advantages as compared
to other methods frequently used to promote classroom management skills. The immersive experience simulated by the
head-mounted display creates a realistic and authentic learning environment (Burdea & Coiffet, 2003) in which pre-ser-
vice teachers can interact with students and respond to a variety of pre-programmed disruptive behaviors ranging in com-
plexity levels. Using a VR environment to practice and develop effective classroom management skills could also posi-
tively affect teacher well-being, and, more specifically, teacher resilience. At Ontario Tech University, pre-service teach-
ers have opportunities to explore VR in makerspaces that are set up on campus and virtually. Students are encouraged to
attend to inform their pedagogical practices (Hughes et al., 2018). Further research is needed to address how current and
future educators can overcome these barriers, in addition to understanding how VR can impact students’ socio-emotional
development and mental health (Bailey & Bailenson, 2017).
Virtual Reality and Trauma Risks
While there is a wealth of literature that examines how VR technologies can be used to treat trauma, very little
research directly explores VR and the risks of trauma. However, the topic has been raised by authors in informal news
or magazine articles and presented in the user manuals of actual VR programs. Journalist Emma Boyle in TechRadar
Magazine interviewed trauma expert and psychologist Dr. Albert Rizzo, regarding the effects of VR on PTSD. She posed
the relevant question, “if someone with PTSD can be triggered by a VR experience safely in a controlled environment,
what happens if someone with latent PTSD is triggered in the uncontrolled and unsupervised environment of their own
home?” (Boyle, 2017, p, 1). Dr. Rizzo stated that it’s not impossible and is certainly something worth monitoring (Boyle,
2017).
Similarly, Journalist Jack Nicas wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal titled, “What happens when virtual real-
ity gets too real?” and raised two excellent examples that question the possible trauma effects of VR (Nicas, 2016). The
first example examined the work of immersive journalist Nonny de la Peña, who has produced a series of VR pieces that
aimed to elicit empathy in viewers by putting them inside traumatic experiences (Nicas, 2016). Her first project recreated
an episode in which a Los Angeles homeless man went into a diabetic coma, leaving viewers in tears at the Sundance
Film Festival in 2012 (Nicas, 2016). The second example referred to the work of a group of French students, who devel-
oped a simulation of being inside the North Tower of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, when a hijacked
jet crashed into it (Nicas, 2016). Users take on the perspective of an office worker on the 101st floor (Nicas, 2016). The
experience ends when users either suffocate from the smoke or jump from the building (Nicas, 2016). Such graphic im-
agery of actual traumatic events can be terrifying to users and possibly cause traumatic reactions.
Several VR companies have recognized this risk and included warning labels. For example, in the user manual for
the VR headset, HTC Vive, there is a warning. Part of this warning states (HTC, 2020),
Virtual reality (VR) is an immersive experience that can be intense. Frightening, violent, or anxiety-provoking content
can cause your body to react as if it were real. Carefully choose your content if you have a history of discomfort or
physical symptoms when experiencing these situations. Participation is at your own risk. VR technology involves
certain risks. Those risks include, but are not limited to, injury resulting from malfunction of the equipment, nega-
tive reactions to VR including, but not limited to, motion sickness, nausea, dizziness, seizures, disorientation, loss
of balance, tripping, falling, and post-traumatic stress disorder responses.
Although there is no direct research that investigates VR use and trauma impacts on children in schools, a review of the
literature does present several theoretical and hypothesized risks and potential links between the characteristics of trauma
and VR design and use. The user manual provides an additional section that discusses potential physical and psychologi-
cal risks,
47
Content viewed using the product can be intense, immersive, and appear very life-like and may cause your brain
and body to react accordingly. Certain types of content (e.g., violent, scary, emotional, or adrenaline-based
content) could trigger increased heart rate, spikes in blood pressure, panic attacks, anxiety, PTSD, fainting, and
other adverse effects. If you have a history of negative physical or psychological reactions to certain real life
circumstances, avoid using the product to view similar content. (HTC, 2020, (https://manuals.plus/htc/2qa4100-
headset-manual#physical_and_psychological_effects).
Stress Inducing
As previous research has shown, trauma does not have to be from an actual event; it can occur from witnessing or
‘perceiving’ a threat to oneself, terror, or fear. Children have experienced traumatic reactions in schools from watching
movies, reading stories, or learning about tragedies (Miller, 2018). VR use is an additional way students may experience
trauma reactions. The literature related to VR use in therapy indicates that VR use can induce symptoms of stress and
anxiety (Eichenberg & Wolters, 2012; Tsai et al, 2018). VR can induce stress similar to the actual traumatic experience
(Schweizer et al., 2018) and trigger physiological symptoms such as sweating or nausea (Eichenberg & Wolters, 2012).
In therapeutic settings, VR was shown to induce higher emotional stress levels than viewing aversive pictures or films
(Courtney et al., 2010; Cuperus et al., 2017; Dibbets & Schulte-Ostermann, 2015). In a study by Schweizer et al. (2018),
VR increased participants’ anxiety, arousal, stress, helplessness, and heart rate, as well as limited access to different emo-
tion regulation strategies and rumination regarding perceived intrusive memories. The VR experience of a homeless man
going into a coma from the Emblematic Group caused enough stress for numerous viewers to cry (Nicas, 2016). Another
consideration is that a symptom of trauma is cognitive difficulties in estimating time (Hayes et al., 2012). For example,
a 10-minute session in VR may seem much longer to someone with trauma and increase their stress and anxiety. Current
recommendations for VR use are a short time frame and should be even shorter for individuals with trauma (Maples-
Keller et al., 2017).
Intrusive Memories
Schweizer et al., (2018) found that immersion in VR solicited not only stress but intrusive memories. The VR ex-
perience may resemble aspects of the actual event causing painful memories to surface. These intrusive memories may
come immediately or later. A symptom of trauma is cognitive distortion of time and space whereby the victim has a hard
time determining current and past events; is this happening now or a memory? (Center of Substance Abuse Treatment,
2017). This could mean the user of VR has a hard time distinguishing what is real or not, past or present, contributing to
a higher risk of stress or trauma. Although the purpose in a clinical setting is to solicit memories in order for the client to
predict and control the responses, this is not a desired outcome in a school setting (Botella et al., 2009). Intrusive memo-
ries can impact the behavior and academic performance of students (Kataoka et al., 2012). Students may need extra sup-
port to deal with painful memories that go beyond the skills of the teacher and require professional support (Kataoka et
al, 2021).
The ‘Triggering’ Phenomenon
VR is associated with high levels of presence – a feeling of “really being” within VR – through immersion (Riva et
al., 2007; Rovira et al., 2009), which are facilitated by multi-sensory simulations. This poses a risk for traumatized indi-
viduals who can be triggered by stimuli in their environment such as a smell, sound, or sensation that reminds them of
the trauma incident (Ehlers & Clark, 2000). They may react with high distress, experience a flashback (experiencing the
event as if it was currently happening), or dissociation (a feeling of disconnection) (Center for Substance Abuse Treat-
ment, 2014).
When a person is in a state of immersion, they block out real-life stimuli (Eichenberg & Wolters, 2012). This can
cause a problem for people with trauma because one of the symptoms of trauma is flashbacks where the person be-
comes immersed in a past experience. They have a hard time telling what is real or not and what is in the past or present
(Eichenberg & Wolters, 2012). For example, a student may confuse the current VR experience in a safe environment with
being in an unsafe place of the past. Trauma expert and psychologist Dr. Rizzo agrees that “there is that potential that be-
cause someone’s immersed that there could be some ill effect” (Boyle, 2017, para 23). On some level, people interacting
with these VR experiences know they’re not real but something in the brain is still activated by them (Boyle, 2017).
48
Past research on the brain and trauma clearly shows that the brain of someone with trauma is vulnerable; it reacts at
a heightened state due to the trauma (Bremner, 2006). Therefore, a child with a trauma brain could be triggered by con-
tent in a VR session more easily than other children. As an example, Dr. Rizzo referenced Sony’s Project Morpheus VR
experience that accompanied the 2015 film The Walk, a biographical drama about French high-wire artist Philippe Petit’s
walk between the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center (Boyle, 2017). The VR experience places the headset wearer
in the role of Petit and tasks them with recreating his walk between the towers. People with a fear of heights were greatly
affected by this VR experience.
In 2015, Sony removed a suicide option from its VR game, Heist. Players were given the option to turn their guns
on themselves, but this option was removed as it was considered “too stressful” for players, especially players that had
traumatic pasts or suicide experiences (Boyle, 2017). The President of Sony WorldWide Studies stated, “The medium is
so powerful, so we need to be careful with what we provide” (Hartup, 2015, para 3).
Moderators
A review of the literature reveals several moderating factors. Life-like imagery is a moderating variable. The more
the scene looks real, the more it feels real, and the chances of being triggered are higher for the user (Lavoie et al., 2021).
This may explain the second moderating variable of AR. The research found that AR caused greater stress reactions than
VR, although both have been found to stimulate strong emotional reactivity due to 3-D stimuli presentation and inactivity
within the virtual environment (Cittaro & Sioni, 2015; Lavoie et al, 2021). Given VR’s ability to produce such power-
ful effects with relatively neutral stimuli, it is possible that such effects may become more pronounced in response to
more stressful VR experiences. The applied olfactory stimuli seem to have contributed considerably to a higher level of
experienced realness (Munyan III et al., 2016; Riva et al., 2007). Storylines that are real or disturbing can elicit stronger
reactions from users as well. Users felt extreme stress from the VR programs involving suicide, the 9-11 terrorist attacks,
survival horror games, the death of Anastasio Hernández-Rojas, domestic violence, reenactments of Trayvon Martin
and George Zimmerman, and the Syrian attacks (Difede & Hoffman, 2002; Herrera Damas & Benítez de Gracia, 2022;
Lavoie et al., 2020; Pallavicini & Bouchard, 2018). As students may experience these stressful and distressful reactions,
it is thus imperative for teachers to know how to support the students when engaging in XR. Those individuals who expe-
rience repeated, chronic, or multiple traumas are more likely to exhibit pronounced symptoms and consequences (Center
for Substance Abuse Treatment, 2014).
Warnings
Most manufacturers have warning labels related to their VR tools. The warnings are usually presented in the user
manual and are health-related. This may include warnings for those who experience epilepsy, heart problems, hearing
loss, or seizures (HTC, 2021; LaMotte, 2017). Only a few VR manufacturers have realized the potential risks to mental
health and have included warning labels that are related to trauma. For example, in the user’s manual for VIVE, a VR
system, there is a warning for psychological effects which states:
Content viewed using the product can be intense, immersive, and appear very life-like and may cause your brain
and body to react accordingly. Certain types of content (e.g., violent, scary, emotional, or adrenaline-based
content) could trigger increased heart rate, spikes in blood pressure, panic attacks, anxiety, PTSD, fainting, and
other adverse effects. If you have a history of negative physical or psychological reactions to certain real-life
circumstances, avoid using the product to view similar content.
The warning label directly indicates a connection between VR and trauma risks including PTSD. Unfortunately, a
review of VR tools suggests this is not the norm; many manufacturers did not consider the risks of trauma. For example,
ClassVR (2020) positions itself as a teaching tool for preschool children and presents resources for teachers to create
lesson plans. The program proclaims the use of an immersive environment and XR technologies can complement and
enhance real-world exploration to promote developmental skills during a child’s foundational years (ClassVR, 2020).
However, no information on risks or safe use are presented. Educators are in an ideal place to discern trauma-related
changes from a child’s typical disposition and behavior (Bell et al., 2013). Educators are more likely to notice signs of
trauma than other service providers in the community because of the greater length of time spent with children in schools
(Jennings, 2019).
49
When considering the link between trauma and VR, one should consider the factors influencing the trauma response
as listed in Figure 1. Individual factors could put some children at higher risk of developing trauma response and re-trau-
matization. This implies that, depending on the content, students in schools can experience increased stress from VR ex-
periences. Given VR’s high level of realism, video games in this medium could potentially expose students to situations
that take a long time to recover from emotionally and can have downstream psychological effects (Lavoie et al., 2021).
Relatedly, individual difference variables (Figure 1), such as age or personality factors, can influence the amount of time
it takes for the emotions to dissipate (Ahn et al., 2016; Banos et al., 1999; Ridgway et al., 1990)
Person-Centered Factors
(Dube et al., 2022; Howe, 2022; Kunst, 2011; Sarafim-Silva
& Bernabé, 2021; Scotland-Coogan & Davis, 2016; Strelau
& Zawadzki, 2005; Wiseman et al., 2021)
‐ Temperament,
‐ Personality styles and factors
‐ (Lack of) Coping skills and (avoidant) coping
strategies
‐ (Low) Levels of self-regulation
‐ (Low) Levels of self-awareness
‐ (Low) Degree of safety
Demographic Factors
(Beattie et al., 2009; Graham-Bermann et al., 2012;
Hollifield et al., 2002; McCutcheon et al., 2010; Olff,
2017; Schwarz & Perry, 1994; Somasundaram & Van De
Put, 2006; Van der Kolk, 2003)
‐ Gender (Female)
‐ Age (children and adolescents)
‐ (Low) Socioeconomic status
‐ Psychiatric diagnosis
‐ Health status
‐ Family status
Note. Bracketed information refers to influences that elicit negative trauma responses.
Figure 1. Individual Factors that Influence Trauma Responses.
DISCUSSION
Although there is no research that directly explores VR use and trauma impacts on children and youth, this literature
review highlighted a number of possible connections and risks. By its very nature, VR is an immersive experience, meant
to take the user into a different reality and engage the senses (Ehlers & Clark, 2000; HTC, 2020; HTC, 2021; Microsoft,
2020). This can be a problem when we consider it within the context of trauma. Students with trauma have difficulties
regulating their emotions, perceiving time and space, and controlling their thoughts (Courtney et al., 2010; Cuperus et al.,
2017; Dibbets & Schulte-Ostermann, 2015; Eichenberg & Wolters, 2012; Garland et al., 2013; Hayes et al., 2012; Kras-
noff, 2015; Tsai et al, 2018). They have a heightened fight-or-flight nervous system that could cause them to interpret the
VR experience in a more reactive, fearful or stressful manner (Bremner, 2006; Center for Substance Abuse Treatment,
2014; Ehlers & Clear, 2000; Eichenberg & Wolters, 2012; Garland et al., 2013). Therefore, they may experience VR very
differently than their classmates.
The VR experience may cause traumatic reactions such as acute stress reaction, depression, or PTSD symptoms
(Briere et al., 2013; Chittaro & Sioni, 2015; Hayes et al., 2012; Herrman, 2001; Lavoie et al., 2021; Tsai et al., 2018).
There may be storylines, images, or sensory stimulation that remind the student of a past event or create a new traumatic
event (Child Mind Institute, 2020). The student may have a trigger reaction that includes intense fear, a flashback, or
dissociation (Bell et al., 2013; Gibson et al., 2014; Jaycox et al., 2006). As the literature suggests, most teachers do not
feel prepared for identifying trauma risks or supporting students experiencing trauma reactions (Gibson et. al., 2014;
Froese-Germain & Riel, 2012; Rothì et al., 2000). Although VR is carefully chosen to be used in schools and normally
not for younger children or lengthy periods of time, there can still be risks that it is a triggering or stressful experience
for students (Center of Substance Abuse Treatment, 2014; Liou & Chang, 2018; Wang, 2017). As this literature review
suggests, there are several possible moderators that strengthen the connection between VR and trauma that include the
length of time using VR, pre-existing trauma or mental health problems of users, reality components of images, the types
of XR used, and traumatic and triggering storylines (Center of Substance Abuse Treatment, 2014; Eichenherg & Wolters,
2012; Maples-Keller et al., 2017; Pallavicini et al., 2018; Tsai et al., 2018).
50
PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Teachers are in a key position to influence the healthy development of children and to act as “prevention and pro-
motion specialists” in their classrooms (Weston et al., 2008, p. 33). To do this, teachers need to develop TIP to reduce
the risks of traumatization. Key aspects of TIP are being aware of trauma characteristics, risk factors, signs and symp-
toms, possible moderators, and teaching practices to support students. However, as this literature review points out, being
aware of technology’s role in trauma is also important. If teachers are going to use VR in school, they need to be aware
of possible risks, especially those connected to trauma (Anzalone, 2019). By knowing the risks teachers can implement
safe and caring strategies (Table 1). Based on this review, we suggest the following:
1. Using appropriate XR technologies
2. Limited XR use for students
3. Screening students for risk of trauma
4. Screening VR programs for trauma-inducing and triggering content
5. Student use with supervision
Teachers should be educated on trauma-informed practices and the role of technology while they complete their pre-
service education program. Recent reports and research called for better teacher preparation when it comes to trauma and
well-being (Goss & Sonnemenn, 2017; Hobbs et al., 2019). Darling-Hammond (2000) also argues that teacher education
must develop teachers’ ability to view the world through the lens of a diverse student population, as this process of un-
derstanding others is not innate. This includes students that have a range of life experiences different from those of their
teachers and may involve trauma. Darling-Hammond (2000) suggests, “Developing the ability to see beyond one’s own
perspective, to put oneself in the shoes of the learner and to understand the meaning of that experience in terms of learn-
ing, is perhaps the most important role of universities in the preparation of teachers” (p. 170). Based on this review we
make several recommendations for pre-service teachers and programs:
1) Curriculum should include trauma-informed care and practices for pre-service teachers (Weston et al, 2008).
Knowledge of trauma, risk factors, signs and symptoms, and teaching strategies to support students should be
reviewed. A trauma-informed lens can be developed as the pre-service teacher progresses through the program.
2) Curriculum should include a review of the role of technology in not only learning but mental health and trauma.
With the rise in XR use and advancements in education, a specific focus on XR should be embedded (Lege &
Bonner, 2020). Pre-service teachers should be aware of possible risks when using VR and the moderating variables
that may play a role in their students experiencing VR as a stressful or traumatic event (Bell et al., 2013). Educa-
tion to develop the skills and knowledge to assess technology tools such as VR programs should also be included.
3) Opportunities for critical discussion around the safe and healthy use of VR should be provided. As trauma expert
Dr. Rizzo stated, despite the risks, the answer is not censorship (Boyle, 2017). Instead, TIP and ethics should be
considered. For example, how to provide warnings, screen students and VR programs, reduce harm through time
limits and monitoring, deal with crises, and provide support should be considered with a critical lens that respects
diversity, culture, and social justice.
4) Increase pre-service teachers’ self-efficacy and confidence by educating them on effective interventions and school
and community support. Recognizing symptoms and referring students for services is the first, critical step educa-
tors can take to aid traumatized children in their journey of recovery (Bell et al., 2013). Also, provide pre-service
teachers with opportunities to practice case studies or scenarios. If VR is used to practice scenarios the same
principles of TIP for VR should be applied by faculty members of pre-service programs.
5) Pre-service teaching programs should consider TIP for supporting their own students. Faculties of edu-
cation would benefit from all staff being trained in TIP and the role of technology. Especially if tech-
nology is used as a teaching tool in the programs; faculty should be modeling healthy pedagogy.
51
Table 1
VR, Trauma Risks, and Educational Implications
VR and Trauma Risks
(Bailey & Bailenson, 2017;
Center of Substance Abuse
Treatment, 2014; Kim et al.,
2017; Tsai et al., 2018)
• VR storylines can cause fear, threat, or horror in students leading to a trauma
reaction Immersion and presence can lead to a triggering episode (intrusive
memories, flashbacks) Trauma victims may experience VR differently than others
(time, stress, sense of helplessness
• Heightened nervous system may cause over-reactions and interpretations while in VR
Moderating Variables
(Eichenberg & Wolters, 2012;
Garland et al.,, 2013;
Maples-Keller et al, 2017;
Microsoft, 2020)
• Length of time in the VRAR vs. VR (3D interactive space that enhances the
feeling of reality)
• Realistic imagery
• Pre-existing trauma or mental health problems
• Negative or stressful scenes or stories
Educator Recommendations
(Bailey & Bailenson, 2017;
Center for Substance Abuse
Treatment, 2014; Ehlers &
Clark, 2000; HTC, 2020;
HTC, 2021; Munyan et al.,
2016).
• Review VR content and warning labels prior to use to determine safety
• Provide summaries and trigger warnings to students before use.
• Take caution with students that have experienced trauma or are at risk of trauma
• Watch for signs of distress following the use of VR
• Limit time in VR
• Be prepared to offer or refer support for any students that have experienced a
triggering episode.
Pre-service Education
Recommendations
(Anzalone, 2019; Botella et
al., 2009; Boyle, 2017;
Courtney et al., 2010; Cu-
perus et al., 2017; Ehlers &
Clark, 2000; Nicas, 2016;
Phillippe, 2020)
• Include TIC into the curriculum so pre-service teachers are aware of trauma
characteristics, signs and symptoms, and teaching strategies
• Include information on the risks technologies, including VR, when it comes to
student mental health so they are aware of how to use it in healthy ways.
• Discuss the risks and moderating variables of VR and trauma within the context
of the classroom so they know how to mitigate the risks.
• Be aware of pre-service teachers that have trauma or may be at risk of
re-traumatization themselves.
• Review content of VR to be used in the program.
• Provide summaries and warnings to pre-service teachers about the VR they will
learn in the program.
• Address ethics related to technology use and mental health.
• Address stigma related to mental health vulnerability and trauma
REFERENCES
Ahn, H., Sung, Y., & Drumwright, M. E. (2016). Consumer emotional intelligence and its effects on responses to transgressions.
Marketing Letters, 27(2), 223-233. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-014-9342-x
Ali, N. & Ferdig, R. (2002). Why not Virtual Reality?: The Barriers of Using Virtual Reality in Education. In D. Willis, J.
Price & N. Davis (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2002--Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education Internation-
al Conference (pp. 1119-1120). Nashville, Tennessee, USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education
(AACE). https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/10946/.
Anzalone, C. (2019). UB researchers using virtual reality to treat students with trauma. UB Now: News and views for UB com-
munity. http://www.buffalo.edu/ubnow/stories/2019/02/lamb-vr-trauma.html.
Azuma, R. (1997). A survey of augmented reality. Presence Teleoperators Virtual Environ. 6(4), 355–385. https://www.cs.unc.
edu/~azuma/ARpresence.pdf
Bach, P., Fenton-Adams, W., & Tipper, S. P. (2014). Can’t touch this: the first-person perspective provides privileged access to
predictions of sensory action outcomes. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 40(2), 457. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035348
Bailey, J. O., & Bailenson, J. N. (2017). Immersive virtual reality and the developing child. In Cognitive Development in Digital
Contexts (pp. 181-200). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-809481-5.00009-2
Baños, R., Botella, C., Garcia-Palacios, A., Villa, H., Perpiñá, C., & Gallardo, M. (1999). Psychological variables and reality
judgment in virtual environments: the roles of absorption and dissociation. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 2(2), 143-148.
https://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.1999.2.143
52
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Con-
ceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of personality and social psychology, 51(6), 1173. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173
Baumgartner, E. (2020, April). Virtual reality and 360-Degree video use by teachers: Implications for teacher professional de-
velopment. In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 1640-1643). Asso-
ciation for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). https://www.learntechlib.org/p/215937/
Baweja, S., Santiago, C. D., Vona, P., Pears, G., Langley, A., & Kataoka, S. (2016). Improving implementation of a school-
based program for traumatized students: Identifying factors that promote teacher support and collaboration. School Mental
Health, 8(1), 120-131. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310-015-9170-z
Beattie, N., Shannon, C., Kavanagh, M., & Mulholland, C. (2009). Predictors of PTSD symptoms in response to psycho-
sis and psychiatric admission. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 197(1), 56-60. https://doi.org/10.1097/
NMD.0b013e31819273a8
Beck, J. G., & Sloan, D. M. (Eds.). (2012). Oxford library of psychology.The Oxford handbook of traumatic stress disorders.
Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195399066.001.0001
Bell, H., Limberg, D., & Robinson III, E. M. (2013). Recognizing trauma in the classroom: A practical guide for educators.
Childhood Education, 89(3), 139-145. https://doi.org/10.1080/00094056.2013.792629
Bethell, C. D., Davis, M. B., Gombojav, N., Stumbo, S., & Powers, K. (2017). A national and across-state profile on Adverse
Childhood Experiences among US children and possibilities to heal and thrive. http://www.cahmi.org/wp-content/up-
loads/2017/10/aces_brief_final.pdf
Berg, A. E. (2017). Trauma in Schools: Identifying and working with students who have experienced trauma [Clinical Paper, St.
Catherine University - University of St. Thomas School]. UST Research Online. https://ir.stthomas.edu/cgi/viewcontent.
cgi?article=1710&context=ssw_mstrp
Bremner, J. D. (2022). Traumatic stress: effects on the brain. Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience, 8(4), 445-461. https://doi.
org/10.31887/DCNS.2006.8.4/jbremner
Briere, J. N., & Scott, C. (2014). Principles of trauma therapy: A guide to symptoms, evaluation, and treatment (DSM-5 up-
date). Sage Publications.
Brown, A. (2008). Pre-service teachers’ understanding of child abuse and their professional role in child protection. Children
Australia, 33(1), 25–32. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1035077200000080
Blaustein, M. E. (2013). Childhood trauma and a framework for intervention. In E. Rossen & R. Hull (Eds.), Supporting and
Educating Traumatized Students: A guide for School-based Professionals (pp. 3-21). New York, NY: Oxford University
Press. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-0125-1.ch022
Blodgett, C., & Dorado, J. (2016). A selected review of trauma-informed school practice and alignment with educational prac-
tice. CLEAR Trauma Center. San Francisco, CA: University of California, 1, 1-88. https://www.pacesconnection.com/g/
aces-in-education/fileSendAction/fcType/5/fcOid/478274755608928450/fodoid/478274755608928447/CLEAR-Trauma-
Informed-Schools-White-Paper.pdf
Boyle, E. (2017). Virtual trauma: could home VR affect PTSD sufferers? TechRadar. https://www.techradar.com/news/virtual-
trauma-could-home-vr-affect-ptsd-sufferers
Botella, C., Serrano, B., Baños, R. M., & Garcia-Palacios, A. (2015). Virtual reality exposure-based therapy for the treatment of
post-traumatic stress disorder: a review of its efficacy, the adequacy of the treatment protocol, and its acceptability. Neuro-
psychiatric Disease and Treatment, 11, 2533. https://doi.org/10.2147/NDT.S89542
Brunzell, T., Waters, L., & Stokes, H. (2015). Teaching with strengths in trauma-affected students: A new approach to healing
and growth in the classroom. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 85(1), 3. https://doi.org/10.1037/ort0000048
Burdea, G. C., & Coiffet, P. (2003). Virtual reality technology. John Wiley & Sons.
Center for Substance Abuse Treatment. (2014). Mental Health Services Administration. Trauma-informed care in behavioral
health services. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. https://store.samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/d7/
priv/sma14-4816.pdf
Chen, P., Liu, X., Cheng, W., & Huang, R. (2017). A review of using augmented reality in education from 2011 to 2016. Innova-
tions in Smart Learning, 13-18. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2419-1_2
Chittaro, L., & Sioni, R. (2015). Serious games for emergency preparedness: Evaluation of an interactive vs. a non-interactive
simulation of a terror attack. Computers in Human Behavior, 50, 508-519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.03.074
ClassVR. (2020). Virtual Reality for the Classroom. ClassVR. https://www.classvr.com/.
Cooper, G., Park, H., Nasr, Z., Thong, L. P., & Johnson, R. (2019). Using virtual reality in the classroom: preservice teachers’
perceptions of its use as a teaching and learning tool. Educational Media International, 56(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1080
/09523987.2019.1583461
Courtney, C. G., Dawson, M. E., Schell, A. M., Iyer, A., & Parsons, T. D. (2010). Better than the real thing: Eliciting fear
with moving and static computer-generated stimuli. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 78(2), 107-114.https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2010.06.028
53
Cuperus, A. A., Klaassen, F., Hagenaars, M. A., & Engelhard, I. M. (2017). A virtual reality paradigm as an analogue to real-
life trauma: its effectiveness compared with the trauma film paradigm. European Journal of Psychotraumatology, 8(sup1),
1338106. https://doi.org/10.1080/20008198.2017.1338106
Curcio, I. D. D., Dipace, A., & Norlund, A. (2016). Virtual realities and education. Research on Education and Media, 8(2),
60–68. https://doi.org/10.1515/rem-2016-0019
da Silva, M. M., Teixeira, J. M. X., Cavalcante, P. S., & Teichrieb, V. (2019). Perspectives on how to evaluate augmented real-
ity technology tools for education: a systematic review. Journal of the Brazilian Computer Society, 25(1), 1-18. https://doi.
org/10.1186/s13173-019-0084-8
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). How teacher education matters. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(3), 166-173. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0022487100051003002
Day, A. G., Somers, C. L., Baroni, B. A., West, S. D., Sanders, L., & Peterson, C. D. (2015). Evaluation of a trauma-informed
school intervention with girls in a residential facility school: Student perceptions of school environment. Journal of Aggres-
sion Maltreatment & Trauma, 24(10), 1086–1105. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2015.1079279
Delaney-Black, V., Covington, C., Ondersma, S. J., Nordstrom-Klee, B., Templin, T., Ager, J., ... & Sokol, R. J. (2002). Violence
exposure, trauma, and IQ and/or reading deficits among urban children. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine,
156(3), 280-285. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpedi.156.3.280
DePrince, A. P., Weinzierl, K. M., & Combs, M. D. (2009). Executive function performance and trauma exposure in a commu-
nity sample of children. Child Abuse & Neglect, 33(6), 353-361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2008.08.002
Dibbets, P., & Schulte-Ostermann, M. A. (2015). Virtual reality, real emotions: A novel analogue for the assessment of risk fac-
tors of post-traumatic stress disorder. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 681. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00681
Difede, J., & Hoffman, H. G. (2002). Virtual reality exposure therapy for World Trade Center post-traumatic stress disorder: A
case report. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 5(6), 529-535. https://doi.org/10.1089/109493102321018169
Dods, J. (2013). Enhancing understanding of the nature of supportive school-based relationships for youth who have experi-
enced trauma. Canadian Journal of Education, 36(1), 71-95. https://journals.sfu.ca/cje/index.php/cje-rce/article/view/1460
Dube, S. R., Rishi, S., Corr, C., & Panlilio, C. C. (2022). Assessment of adult learning outcomes from a school-based train-
ing on adverse childhood experiences science and trauma-informed care. Child Abuse & Neglect, 105777. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2022.105777
Eaton, S. E., Dressler, R., Gereluk, D., & Becker, S. (2015). A Review of the Literature on Rural and Remote Pre-Service
Teacher Preparation with a Focus on Blended and E-Learning Models. Online Submission. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/
ED561177.pdf
Ehlers, A., & Clark, D. M. (2000). A cognitive model of posttraumatic stress disorder. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 38(4),
319-345. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0005-7967(99)00123-0
Eichenberg, C., & Wolters, C. (2012). Virtual realities in the treatment of mental disorders: A review of the current state of re-
search. Virtual Reality in Psychological, Medical and Pedagogical Applications, 2, 35-64. https://doi.org/10.5772/50094
EQUIP Health Care. (2017). Trauma-and-Violence-Informed Care (TVIC): A tool for health & social service organizations and
providers. www.equiphealthcare.ca
Follows, S.B. (1999). Virtual Learning Environments. T.H.E. Journal, 27(4). https://www.learntechlib.org/p/89329/
Freeman, D., Rosebrock, L., Waite, F., Loe, B. S., Kabir, T., Petit, A., ... & Lambe, S. (2022). Virtual reality (VR) therapy
for patients with psychosis: satisfaction and side effects. Psychological Medicine, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S0033291722001167
Freina, L., & Ott, M. (2015). A literature review on immersive virtual reality in education: state of the art and perspectives. In
The international scientific conference elearning and software for education, 1(133), 10-1007. https://www.itd.cnr.it/down-
load/eLSE%202015%20Freina%20Ott%20Paper.pdf
Froese-Germain, B., & Riel, R. (2012). Understanding teachers’ perspectives on student mental health: Findings from a national
survey. Canadian Teachers’ Federation. https://www.ctf-fce.ca/en/Pages/default.asp
Garland, E. L., Pettus-Davis, C., & Howard, M. O. (2013). Self-medication among traumatized youth: Structural equation mod-
eling of pathways between trauma history, substance misuse, and psychological distress. Journal of Behavioral Medicine,
36(2), 175-185. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10865-012-9413-5
Getting Smart, (2020). The Future of VR & AR in Education. https://www.gettingsmart.com/2020/09/the-future-of-vr-ar-in-edu-
cation/.
Goss, P., & Sonnemenn, J. (2017). Engaging students: Creating classrooms that improve learning. Melbourne, Australia: Grat-
tan Institute.
Graham-Bermann, S. A., Castor, L. E., Miller, L. E., & Howell, K. H. (2012). The impact of intimate partner violence and ad-
ditional traumatic events on trauma symptoms and PTSD in preschool-aged children. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 25(4),
393-400. https://doi.org/10.1002/jts.21724
Hartup, A. (2015) Ability to shoot yourself removed from Sony VR demo. GamesRader+. https://www.gamesradar.com/ability-
shoot-yourself-removed-sony-vr-demo/
Harvey, M. R. (1996). An ecological view of psychological trauma and trauma recovery. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 9(1), 3-23.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02116830
54
Hayes, J. P., VanElzakker, M. B., & Shin, L. M. (2012). Emotion and cognition interactions in PTSD: a review of neurocognitive
and neuroimaging studies. Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience, 6 (89). https://doi.org/10.3389/fnint.2012.00089
Herman, J. (2001). Trauma and recovery. Basic Books, New York.
Herrera Damas, S., & Benítez de Gracia, M. J. (2022). Immersive Journalism: Advantages, Disadvantages and Challenges from
the Perspective of Experts. Journalism and Media, 3(2), 330-347. https://doi.org/10.3390/journalmedia3020024
Hobbs, C., Paulsen, D., & Thomas, J. (2019). Trauma-informed practice for pre-service teachers. In Oxford Research Encyclo-
pedia of Education. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.1435
Hollifield, M., Warner, T. D., Lian, N., Krakow, B., Jenkins, J. H., Kesler, J., ... & Westermeyer, J. (2002). Measuring trauma
and health status in refugees: a critical review. Jama, 288(5), 611-621. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.288.5.611
Howe, K. (2022). Trauma to self and other: Reflections on field research and conflict. Security Dialogue, 53(4), 363-381. https://
doi.org/10.1177/09670106221105710
HTC. (2021). VIVE 2Q7Y100 PRO 2 Professional Head Display Smart VR Glasses Instruction. HTC Corporation. https://manu-
als.plus/vive/2q7y100-pro-2-professional-head-display-smart-vr-glasses-manual#axzz7krXT81VS
HTC. (2020). hTC 2QA4100 Headset User Guide. HTC Corporation. https://manuals.plus/htc/2qa4100-headset-
manual#physical_and_psychological_effects
Hu-Au, E., & Lee, J. J. (2017). Virtual reality in education: a tool for learning in the experience age. International Journal of In-
novation in Education, 4(4), 215-226. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJIIE.2017.10012691
Huang, H. M., Rauch, U., & Liaw, S. S. (2010). Investigating learners’ attitudes toward virtual reality learning environ-
ments: Based on a constructivist approach. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1171-1182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compe-
du.2010.05.014
Hughes, J., Fridman, L., & Robb, J. (2018). Exploring maker cultures and pedagogies to bridge the gaps for students with spe-
cial needs. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics, 256, 393-400. https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-61499-923-2-393
Hughes, C. E., Stapleton, C. B., Hughes, D. E., & Smith, E. M. (2005). Mixed reality in education, entertainment, and training.
IEEE computer graphics and applications, 25(6), 24-30. https://doi.org/10.1109/MCG.2005.139
James, E. L., Lau-Zhu, A., Clark, I. A., Visser, R. M., Hagenaars, M. A., & Holmes, E. A. (2016). The trauma film paradigm as
an experimental psychopathology model of psychological trauma: Intrusive memories and beyond. Clinical Psychology Re-
view, 47, 106-142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2016.04.010
Jaycox, L., Morse, L. K., Tanielian, T., & Stein, B. D. (2006). How schools can help students recover from traumatic experi-
ences: A tool-kit for supporting long-term recovery (Vol. 377). Rand Corporation. https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/
pubs/technical_reports/2006/RAND_TR413.pdf
Jennings, P. A. (2018). The trauma-sensitive classroom: Building resilience with compassionate teaching. WW Norton & Com-
pany.
Kaplan-Rakowski, R. (2021). Addressing students’ emotional needs during the COVID-19 pandemic: A perspective on text ver-
sus video feedback in online environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 69(1), 133-136. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09897-9
Kaplan-Rakowski, R., Lin, L., & Wojdynski, T. (2022). Learning vocabulary using 2D pictures is more effective than using im-
mersive 3D stereoscopic pictures. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 38(4), 299-308. https://doi.org/1
0.1080/10447318.2021.1938394
Kataoka, S., Langley, A. K., Wong, M., Baweja, S., & Stein, B. D. (2012). Responding to students with posttraumatic stress dis-
order in schools. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics, 21(1), 119-133. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2021.193839
4
Kaufman, G. F., & Libby, L. K. (2012). Changing beliefs and behavior through experience-taking. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 103(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027525
Katz, A. C., Norr, A. M., Buck, B., Fantelli, E., Edwards-Stewart, A., Koenen-Woods, P., Zetocha, K., Smolenski, D. J., Hollo-
way, K., Rothbaum, B. O., Difede, J., Rizzo, A., Skopp, N., Mishkind, M., Gahm, G., Reger, G. M., & Andrasik, F. (2020).
Changes in physiological reactivity in response to the trauma memory during prolonged exposure and virtual reality expo-
sure therapy for posttraumatic stress disorder. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 12(7), 756–
764. https://doi.org/10.1037/tra0000567
Kinateder, M., Ronchi, E., Nilsson, D., Kobes, M., Müller, M., Pauli, P., & Mühlberger, A. (2014, September). Virtual reality
for fire evacuation research. In 2014 Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems (pp. 313-321).
IEEE.https://lucris.lub.lu.se/ws/portalfiles/portal/3483362/4610536.pdf
Krokos, E., Plaisant, C., & Varshney, A. (2019). Virtual memory palaces: immersion aids recall. Virtual Reality, 23(1), 1-15.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-018-0346-3
Krasnoff, B. (2015). A practitioner’s guide to educating traumatized children. Education Northwest. https://educationnorthwest.
org/sites/default/files/resources/educating-traumatized-children.pdf
Kunst, M. J. J. (2011). Affective personality type, post-traumatic stress disorder symptom severity and post‐traumatic growth in
victims of violence. Stress and Health, 27(1), 42-51. https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.1318
Laffier, J. & Rehman, A. (2022). Can VR cause trauma reactions? An exploration of virtual reality and risks of trauma [Unpub-
lished manuscript]. Faculty of Education, Ontario Tech University.
55
Laffier, J., Rehman, A., Girard, J. (2022). Virtual Reality and the impact on the mental health of children and youth [Unpub-
lished manuscript]. Faculty of Education, Ontario Tech University.
LaMotte, S. (2017). The very real health dangers of virtual reality. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2017/12/13/health/virtual-reali-
ty-vr-dangers-safety
Lavoie, R., Main, K., King, C., & King, D. (2021). Virtual experience, real consequences: the potential negative emotional con-
sequences of virtual reality gameplay. Virtual Reality, 25(1), 69-81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-020-00440-y
Lege, R., & Bonner, E. (2020). Virtual reality in education: The promise, progress, and challenge. Japan Association for Lan-
guage Teaching Computer Assisted Language Learning Journal (JALT CALL Journal), 16(3). https://doi.org/10.29140/jalt-
call.v16n3.388
Liou, W. K., & Chang, C. Y. (2018, February). Virtual reality classroom applied to science education. In 2018 23rd Interna-
tional Scientific-Professional Conference on Information Technology (IT) (pp. 1-4). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/
SPIT.2018.8350861
Lugrin, J. L., Latoschik, M. E., Habel, M., Roth, D., Seufert, C., & Grafe, S. (2016). Breaking bad behaviors: A new tool for
learning classroom management using virtual reality. Frontiers in ICT, (3), 26. https://doi.org/10.3389/fict.2016.00026
Lund, B. D., & Wang, T. (2019). Effect of virtual reality on learning motivation and academic performance: What walue may
VR have for library instruction?. Kansas Library Association College and University Libraries Section Proceedings, 9(1),
4. https://doi.org/10.4148/2160-942X.1073
Kim, M., Jeon, C., & Kim, J. (2017). A study on immersion and presence of a portable hand haptic system for immersive virtual
reality. Sensors, 17(5), 1141. https://doi.org/10.3390/s17051141
Kim, H., Kim, D. J., Chung, W. H., Park, K. A., Kim, J. D., Kim, D., ... & Jeon, H. J. (2021). Clinical predictors of cybersick-
ness in virtual reality (VR) among highly stressed people. Scientific Reports, 11(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-
021-91573-w
Kothgassner, O. D., Goreis, A., Kafka, J. X., Van Eickels, R. L., Plener, P. L., & Felnhofer, A. (2019). Virtual reality expo-
sure therapy for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD): A meta-analysis. European Journal of Psychotraumatology, 10(1),
1654782.https://doi.org/10.1080/20008198.2019.1654782
Maples-Keller, J. L., Bunnell, B. E., Kim, S. J., & Rothbaum, B. O. (2017). The use of virtual reality technology in the treat-
ment of anxiety and other psychiatric disorders. Harvard review of psychiatry, 25(3), 103. https://doi.org/10.1097/
HRP.0000000000000138
Mathews, B. (2011). Teacher education to meet the challenges posed by child sexual abuse. Australian Journal of Teacher Edu-
cation, 36(11). https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/ielapa.804861009638153
McCutcheon, V. V., Sartor, C. E., Pommer, N. E., Bucholz, K. K., Nelson, E. C., Madden, P. A., & Heath, A. C. (2010). Age
at trauma exposure and PTSD risk in young adult women. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 23(6), 811-814. https://doi.
org/10.1002/jts.20577
McKee, B. E., & Dillenburger, K. (2009). Child abuse and neglect: Training needs of student teachers. International Journal of
Educational Research, 48(5), 320–330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2010.03.002
Menschner, C., & Maul, A. (2016). Key ingredients for successful trauma-informed care implementation. Trenton: Center for
Health Care Strategies, Incorporated. https://www.samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/programs_campaigns/childrens_mental_
health/atc-whitepaper-040616.pdf
Microsoft. (2020). What is mixed reality? https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/mixed-reality/discover/mixed-reality
Miller, C. (2018). How trauma affects kids in school. Child Mind Institute. https://childmind.org/article/how-trauma-affects-
kids-school/
Munyan III, B. G., Neer, S. M., Beidel, D. C., & Jentsch, F. (2016). Olfactory stimuli increase presence in virtual environments.
PloS one, 11(6), e0157568. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0157568
Mrug, S., Madan, A., Cook, E. W., 3rd, & Wright, R. A. (2015). Emotional and physiological desensitization to real-life and
movie violence. Journal of youth and adolescence, 44(5), 1092–1108. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-014-0202-z
Nicas, J. (2016). What happens when virtual reality becomes too real. Wall Street Journal Digits. https://blogs.wsj.com/dig-
its/2016/01/03/what-happens-when-virtual-reality-gets-too-real/
Olff, M. (2017). Sex and gender differences in post-traumatic stress disorder: an update. European Journal of Psychotraumatol-
ogy, 8(sup4), 1351204. https://doi.org/10.1080/20008198.2017.1351204
Oulton, J. M., Takarangi, M. K., & Strange, D. (2016). Memory amplification for trauma: Investigating the role of analogue
PTSD symptoms in the laboratory. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 42, 60-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2016.06.001
Pallavicini, F., & Bouchard, S. (2019). assessing the therapeutic uses and effectiveness of virtual reality, augmented reality and
video games for emotion regulation and stress management. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2763. https://doi.org/10.3389/
fpsyg.2019.02763
Phifer, L. W., & Hull, R. (2016). Helping students heal: Observations of trauma-informed practices in the schools. School Men-
tal Health, 8(1), 201–205. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310-016-9183-2
Philippe, M. M. (2020). Trauma and Violence-Informed Care: Evaluating the Impact on Teacher Candidate Attitudes and In-
tended Responses Towards Problem Behaviour of Students Affected by Trauma. [Master’s Thesis, The University of West-
ern Ontario]. Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Repository. https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/etd/6922
56
Pot-Kolder, R., Veling, W., Geraets, C., & van der Gaag, M. (2016). Effect of virtual reality exposure therapy on social partici-
pation in people with a psychotic disorder (VRETp): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials, 17(1), 1-9.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-015-1140-0
Rauschnabel, P. A., Rossmann, A., & Dieck, M. C. (2017). An adoption framework for mobile augmented reality games: The
case of Pokémon Go. Computers in Human Behavior, 76, 276-286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.07.030
Radianti, J., Majchrzak, T. A., Fromm, J., & Wohlgenannt, I. (2020). A systematic review of immersive virtual reality applica-
tions for higher education: Design elements, lessons learned, and research agenda. Computers & Education, 147, 103778.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103778
Ridgway, N. M., Dawson, S. A., & Bloch, P. H. (1990). Pleasure and arousal in the marketplace: Interpersonal differences in
approach-avoidance responses. Marketing Letters, 1(2), 139-147. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00435297
Riva, G., Mantovani, F., Capideville, C. S., Preziosa, A., Morganti, F., Villani, D., ... & Alcañiz, M. (2007). Affective interac-
tions using virtual reality: the link between presence and emotions. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 10(1), 45-56. https://doi.
org/10.1089/cpb.2006.9993
Rogers, S. (2019). Virtual reality: The learning aid of the 21st century. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/sol-
rogers/2019/03/15/virtual-reality-the-learning-aid-of-the-21st-century/
Rothì, D. M., Leavey, G., & Best, R. (2008). On the front-line: Teachers as active observers of pupils’ mental health. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 24(5), 1217-1231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2007.09.011
Rovira, A., Swapp, D., Spanlang, B., & Slater, M. (2009). The use of virtual reality in the study of people’s responses to violent
incidents. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 3(59). https://doi.org/10.3389/neuro.08.059.2009
Sarafim-Silva, B. A. M., & Bernabé, D. G. (2021). Emotional intelligence for coping with the consequences of childhood trau-
ma. The Science of Emotional Intelligence, 47. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.97838
Schwarz, E. D., & Perry, B. D. (1994). The post-traumatic response in children and adolescents. Psychiatric Clinics, 17(2), 311-
326. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0193-953X(18)30117-5
Schwartz, K., Craig, S., Payne, R., Moreno, M., Kater, K., Molina, A., ... & Green, E. (2017). Creating inclusion and well-being
for marginalized students: Whole-school approaches to supporting children’s grief, loss, and trauma. Jessica Kingsley Pub-
lishers.
Schweizer, T., Renner, F., Sun, D., Kleim, B., Holmes, E. A., & Tuschen-Caffier, B. (2018). Psychophysiological reactivity,
coping behaviour and intrusive memories upon multisensory Virtual Reality and Script-Driven Imagery analogue trau-
ma: A randomised controlled crossover study. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 59, 42-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janx-
dis.2018.08.005
Scotland-Coogan, D., & Davis, E. (2016). Relaxation techniques for trauma. Journal of Evidence-Informed Social Work, 13(5),
434-441. https://doi.org/10.1080/23761407.2016.1166845
Somasundaram, D. J., & Van De Put, W. A. (2006). Management of trauma in special populations after a disaster. Journal of
Clinical Psychiatry, 67(suppl 2), 64-73.
Steele, W. (2017). Optimizing learning outcomes: Proven brain-centric, trauma-sensitive practices. Taylor & Francis. https://
doi.org/10.4324/9781315563565
Strelau, J., & Zawadzki, B. (2005). Trauma and temperament as predictors of intensity of posttraumatic stress disorder symp-
toms after disaster. European Psychologist, 10(2), 124. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040.10.2.124
Tsai, C. F., Yeh, S. C., Huang, Y., Wu, Z., Cui, J., & Zheng, L. (2018). The effect of augmented reality and virtual reality on
inducing anxiety for exposure therapy: a comparison using heart rate variability. Journal of Healthcare Engineering, 2018.
https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/6357351
Vlasova, H. (2020). The future of VR & AR in education. Getting Smart. https://www.gettingsmart.com/2020/09/12/the-future-
of-vr-ar-in-education/
Van der Kolk, B. A. (2003). Psychological trauma. American Psychiatric Pub.
Warburton, S. (2009). Second Life in higher education: Assessing the potential for and the barriers to deploying virtual worlds
in learning and teaching. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(3), 414–426. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
8535.2009.00952.x
Wiseman, C., Croft, J., & Zammit, S. (2021). Examining the relationship between early childhood temperament, trau-
ma, and post-traumatic stress disorder. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 144, 427-433. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsy-
chires.2021.10.004
Weist, M. D., Lever, N. A., Bradshaw, C. P., & Owens, J. S. (Eds.). (2014). Handbook of school mental health: Research, train-
ing, practice, and policy (pp. 1-14). Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7624-5_1
Weston, K. J., Anderson-Butcher, D., & Burke, R. W. (2008). Developing a comprehensive curriculum framework for teacher
preparation in expanded school mental health. Advances in School Mental Health Promotion, 1(4), 25-41. https://doi.org/10
.1080/1754730X.2008.9715737
57
Design and Development of Virtual Reality (VR)-based Job Interview Lesson
for High School Students’ Communication Skill Training in English
SUNOK LEE
Chonnam National University, South Korea
tesolok@naver.com
SANGHOON PARK
University of South Florida, USA
JEEHEON RYU
Chonnam National University, South Korea
Abstract: This paper aims to provide a design and development process of virtual reality (VR)-based job
interview lessons for English communication skill training for high school students in South Korea. English
is a major communication language around the globe, yet many Korean high school classrooms use text-
books and do not offer enough opportunities for students to practice their communication skills in authentic
settings. Based on situated learning, social agency theory, and the ARCS motivational design model, we cre-
ated conversational virtual agents in a VR environment that can simulate realistic interview experiences for
students. The main design concept was to integrate design guidelines suggested by those three theories and
models into the design of pragmatic communication skill training. VR-based lessons can compensate for the
shortcomings of the current textbook’s flat task activity and further improve realistic learning activities with-
in immersive learning environments.
Keywords: Virtual Reality, Situated Learning, ARCS Model, Conversational Virtual Agents, Communication Skills
INTRODUCTION
With English as a means of communication around the globe (Zhang & Liu, 2018), several countries have included
fostering students’ communicative competence as a goal of 21st-century foreign language education curricula (Chen,
2018). The Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) approach highlights language as a social behavior (Armin, 2021;
Savignon, 2005) that enables students to become successful communicators (Hrehova, 2010). To do so, students need
to acquire not only linguistic but pragmatic knowledge (Hedgcock, 2002) through exposure to and use of the target lan-
guage (Kasper, 1999; Rahman, 2018). However, English as a foreign language (EFL) students generally do not have a
chance to communicate with people in English in real-life situations (Chien et al., 2020). Furthermore, most tasks in
class offer very limited opportunities for students to engage in authentic contexts. In consequence, as pointed out by Stu-
par-Rutenfrans et al. (2017), many EFL students are afraid of public speaking owing to the lack of realistic context, and
their speaking skills have become one of the obstacles that EFL students face (Zhang & Liu, 2018).
One of the possible pedagogic interventions to provide opportunities for EFL students’ authentic interactions is the
affordances of new technologies and tools that empower students with the ability of “how-to-say-what-to-whom-when”
(Bardovi-Harlig, 2013, p. 68-69). In particular, Virtual Reality (VR) is gaining many language instructors in EFL because
it allows students to interact and immerse themselves in an authentic learning context without leaving the physical class-
room (Huang et al., 2010; Wang et al., 2017). Studies show that the immersive nature of VR promotes students’ engage-
ment, motivation, and language learning outcomes (Dawley & Dede, 2014; González-Lloret & Ortega, 2014; Gruber &
Kaplan-Rakowski, 2020; Makransky & Lilleholt, 2018; Sadler et al., 2013; Thrasher, 2022; Wang et al., 2014). Even
though several researchers have underlined the positive impact of VR in education, there is also evidence demonstrating
that teachers and trainers still hesitate to incorporate it into their teaching practice due to the need for advanced techni-
58
cal knowledge and the contents of VR (Parmaxi et al., 2017). Lack of instructional strategies and effective message
design within the affordance of the delivery technology can interfere with learning outcomes (Anglin & Morrison 2000;
Grabowski 2013). That is, if the VR-based learning content does not consider the learning goals and needs of students, it
would simply become just another new fancy technology that can easily lose the interest of students as its’ novelty fades.
In this paper, we created a VR-based English lesson on the topic of Career English. Career English is part of English
lessons with specific purposes that are different from General English lessons (Bereczky, 2008). According to Ku‐írková
et al. (2011), Career English like Business English courses is concerned with the use of knowledge in the business and
management sphere, in negotiations with foreign partners, in research, and in other related areas like job interview prac-
tice. A job interview is a necessary skill to acquire employment after graduation, and the use of immersive VR content
interacting with a virtual interviewer can facilitate interview skill development before students participate in a real inter-
view with a potential employer (Jailani, 2017).
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
Situated Learning
Situated learning (Lave & Wenger, 1991) refers to acquiring effective problem-solving strategies in a specific situa-
tion by continuously interacting with that situation. Brown et al. (1989) insisted that knowledge acquisition and forma-
tion are influenced by activity and environment, hence knowledge is meaningful only in situations where it is produc-
tive or can be applied. In this respect, Brown et al. (1989) pointed out that the existing school educational contents and
methods provide students with abstract and conceptual knowledge without offering the real situational context to practice
the acquired knowledge. To address this problem, McLellan (1993) created an instructional design model that included
context theory to simulate the real “microworld.” It was the first model for simulation that expanded the learning environ-
ment (McLellan, 1993). Since then, Stein (1998) suggested four key elements that become the design guidelines for a sit-
uated learning environment, and later, Herrington and Oliver (2000) proposed nine elements to define the framework of
situated learning and revealed that active interaction between the learning environment and students is a key factor for fa-
cilitating knowledge building. For example, Demirci (2010) applied situational learning to the classroom and found that
students’ learning motivation, interest, and creativity were significantly improved. Lin et al. (2015) applied situational
learning to 5th-grade English classes in elementary school and found that it increased students’ motivation to participate
in group learning activities. Besides this, Maher et al. (2018) had college students participate in a virtual environment to
introduce physical concepts to visitors. As a result, students became more confident in their ability to share knowledge
with others and were able to overcome their anxiety about speaking. Based on the positive findings of these previous
studies, we designed an English interview environment to simulate an authentic situation in a 3D virtual space.
Social Agency Theory
The terms social agency and social agent are used in human-computer interaction research. Human-computer inter-
action has various definitions of social actors in multiple fields including psychology, education, philosophy, anthropol-
ogy, and sociology. Educational psychologists define “social agency theory” as the idea that computerized multimedia
learning environments can be designed to operate “under the assumption that the learner’s relationship with the computer
is a social relationship in which the conventions of human-to-human communication apply” (Atkinson et al., 2005, p.
118). Nagao and Takeuchi (1994) used social agents as a concept to describe an autonomous system that socially inter-
acts with humans. Nass et al. (1994) also introduced the Computers As Social Actors (CASA) paradigm which defines a
computer as a social agent that is capable of social interaction with humans. It has been suggested that humans naturally
perceive computers with certain characteristics (e.g., verbal output) as social actors, despite knowing that computers do
not have emotions, magnetism, or human motivation (Nass et al., 1994). This perception leads people to behave socially
towards machines, by applying social rules to them, such as politeness norms (Jackson et al., 2019; Nass et al., 1994).
With the advancement of technology, the implementation of conversational agents has become an important topic in re-
search in human-computer interaction, psycholinguistics, psychology, and cognitive science (Cassell et al., 2000). Lester
et al. (1997) reported that animated educational agents could improve middle school students’ problem-solving skills.
Moreno et al. (2001) also found that students communicated better with human-voiced animated educational agents and
59
showed higher levels of motivation and interest than in similar text-only conditions. It is not surprising that agents are de-
signed to be intentionally prosocial and anthropomorphic.
ARCS Motivational Design Model
Educators seek reliable and effective strategies to motivate and retain students’ engagement (Keller, 2000) as positive
attitudes are considered conducive to learning (Clement & Gardner, 1977). Keller’s (2010) ARCS motivational design
model offers practical steps to create motivationally enhanced learning environments. The ARCS model explains moti-
vational design in four categories including Attention (A), Relevance (R), Confidence (C), and Satisfaction (S). These
categories describe the conditions that motivate a person, and each category also has three subcategories for specific de-
sign guidelines. The ARCS model is based on the expectancy-value theory derived from the work of Tolman (1932) and
Lewin (1938). According to Keller (2010), motivation is the result of the fulfillment of an individual’s needs (values) and
expectations of success (expectations). He also pointed out that students are motivated when their perceptual or inquiry
arousal levels are higher, and the learning materials are presented with variability. They are more likely to be motivated
if the content is perceived to help them achieve their goals. Students also need to have confidence that they will succeed
before completing a given task. Lastly, they are motivated when the results of their learning efforts match their expecta-
tions.
In this paper, we share the design and development process of an immersive VR-based English lesson for Korean
EFL students’ communication skill development. The three theoretical frameworks, namely, situated learning theory, so-
cial signal processing technique, and the ARCS motivational design model, supported the content design process. The
immersive VR environment English educational content was developed using Oculus Quest 2 and SketchUp 2022. The
selected subject was Career English as one of the subjects applied at the high school level of the 2015 National English
curriculum in Korea.
VR LESSON DESIGN
Content Analysis
Before creating the VR lesson, we analyzed the textbook, teaching materials, and teaching media to identify the key
areas of a good interview and to gather information for content design. We first identified the master lesson plan on the
topic of a job interview, shown in Table 1, included in Career English, which is one of the subjects at the high school
level of the 2015 National English curriculum. Next, we examined the sub-activities of each unit of the textbook and the
instructional materials. We found that students lack an understanding of effective interview techniques and competency
skills to practice the interview skills in English. Also, what needed to be included in the content was how to properly use
VR equipment such as head-mounted devices (HMD) and controllers. Therefore, we decided that the VR lesson should
contain a VR training module, basic knowledge of English interview skills, and a realistic setting to practice the inter-
view skills.
Table 1
Analysis of the Master Plan of the Lesson on a Job Interview in the Textbook
1 Text: Career English
2 Lesson: a job interview
3 Main aims:
· Ss will be able to listen to a talk, enter into a dialogue, make phone calls, and answer questions.
· Ss will be able to think about and learn good interview tips.
· Ss will be able to read a text about the top seven qualities employers are looking for.
· Ss will be able to write their first business plan and learn good job interview tips.
4 Teaching aids: textbook, computer, worksheets
5 Contents: Listen Up & Speak Out → Read → Think & Write (recommendation letter) → Language Focus → Mission Task
(write business plan) → Culture (all about job interviews)
60
Based on the design concept, the learning content was divided into the three categories shown in Figure 1. Each of
the categories includes VR operation practice, educational videos for good interview tips, and job interview practice.
Figure 1. Learning Content Structure for VR Lesson Design.
Design Guideline Based on Situated Learning and ARCS Motivational Design Model
We employed the seven components for situated learning (McLellan, 1993) for our design guideline after determin-
ing the scope of the VR lesson design.
(1) Stories: Create a realistic interview scenario using conversational virtual agents, events, and objects in a VR environ-
ment that enables users to immerse themselves in the interview.
(2) Reflection: Provide a task for reflection after the training.
(3) Cognitive apprenticeship: Demonstrate proper interview cases using social uses and subtitles so that students can
improve speaking and social skills.
(4) Coaching: Provide timely reminders of learning activities and how to complete them.
(5) Multiple practices: Present repeated opportunities for students to study all learning contents.
(6) Articulation of learning skills: Design the interview activities with clear directions and details.
(7) Technology: Present multimedia including images, 3D models, and virtual agents’ facial expressions and gestures in
VR to create authentic environments.
In addition, we considered the ARCS motivational components to enhance students’ motivation, and increase their
interview performance as follows:
(1) ARCS-A (attention): Use VR elements to provide perceptual inquiry, provide conversational cues to stimulate in-
quiry arousal, invoke students’ interest, and draw their attention to the content.
(2) ARCS-R (relevance): Link the instructional contents to real-life experiences so students can feel a sense of presence.
Allow students to set their learning objectives.
(3) ARCS-C (confidence): Create challenging yet controllable training interactions that allow students to achieve the
training goals.
(4) ARCS-S (satisfaction): Provide students with opportunities to apply what they learned from the video lessons to the
job interview practices.
61
VR LESSON DEVELOPMENT
System
We developed the three training units in VR. Because our immersive experiences are presented via HMD for high
simulation fidelity (Jensen & Konradsen, 2018), Oculus Quest 2 wireless controllers were used to interact with the 3D
objects in the VR environment. When the students wore the Oculus Quest 2 HMD, they could see 3D images that im-
mersed them in the VR environment. They then could use the controllers with their hands to interact with objects. Oculus
Quest 2 is widely used for the 3D display of HMD VR systems in education and training (Checa & Bustillo, 2020), as
shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Oculus Quest 2 and Controllers for VR Experiences.
VR Operation Practice Development
In the VR operation practice unit, the teacher in the video asks the student to become familiar with the system by
first asking the student to try selecting menus in the VR environment. Those who have no prior experience using VR may
not be good at manipulating objects in a VR environment. If the student successfully completes the operation task, they
are guided to move on to the next step. The system plays a 360° video to display the full instructional flow, which helps
students understand the purpose of the lesson. If students wish to review the VR guide, they can select the play button
and practice until they are accustomed to it.
Educational Video and Job Interview Units Development
Based upon the design concept, the learning contents for a job interview were comprised of two units. One was an
educational video for quality interview tips, and the other unit was a job interview practice. As illustrated in Figure 3, we
used a software framework that supports fine-grained non-verbal behavior control for virtual agents as a recruiter (Geb-
hard et al., 2012). It comes with several software modules that are needed for the creation of an interactive social behav-
ior system (e.g. Character Rendering, Emotion, Simulation).
62
Figure 3. Virtual Agents’ Non-verbal Behaviors.
In addition, to design a realistic interview setting to practice the interview skills, 3D models were downloaded from
SketchUp 2022 and added to the virtual interview room (Figure 4). The design of job interview practice content applied
in VR was created based on the real view of the interview room and situation. Some features included the interviewer,
table, chair, bookshelf, and other supporting objects designed by the researcher to make the atmosphere of the interview
session looks as lifelike as possible.
Figure 4. Interview Room and Situation.
63
Directions and subtitles were provided to send information about the instruction while students respond to the ques-
tions. A time was specified to answer the question for about 20 to 30 seconds so that the students are aware of what they
are talking about and drive them to give the best and specific answers.
Job Interview Practice Unit Development
The design of the job interview practice follows a 1:1 interview setting with a virtual agent. First, the virtual agent
shares some tips for successful interview strategies, shown in Figure 5. Once a student feels confident and ready to prac-
tice, another virtual agent simulates a job interview process, shown in Figure 6. Students are allowed to see the tips and
participate in the practice mode as many times as they need.
Figure 5. Virtual Agent Sharing Tips for a Successful Interview.
Figure 6. Virtual Agent Conducting a Job Interview.
LESSON PLAN FOR VR-BASED JOB INTERVIEW
This chapter revolved around a lesson plan for the use of VR technology in a Career English class on a job interview.
The lesson plan was designed for use in 12th-grade Career English classes and consisted of three main units in sequential
order that are shown in Figure 7. Students are first introduced to the VR operation practice, view the educational video
about good interview tips, and practice a job interview in a VR environment with a virtual agent. To incorporate the VR
activities into the lesson, the following lesson plan was created.
64
Lesson title: Top Seven Qualities Employers Are Looking For
Period: 4 of 7
Time: 50 minutes
Objectives:
1. Students will be able to tell the top five qualities employers are looking for.
2. Students will be able to complete the VR operational unit and write down interview strategies after viewing the educational
videos in VR.
3. Students will be able to participate in the VR-based interview practices and complete the interview process in English.
Teaching Aids: textbook, VR viewer (HMD), VR controller, list of the interview process, word list worksheet, vocabulary
worksheet
Procedure:
Step Contents Activities Materials Time
(min)
Introduction
Greeting * Exchange greetings.
* Check attendance. 1
Reviewing * Check assignments.
* Review the last lesson. 4
Presenting
Objectives * State the lesson objectives. 2
Lesson
Read
(pp. 39-41)
Step 1
* Students learn the meaning of words from the text
using the word list worksheet.
* Students look at the pictures and guess what the text
will be about.
* Students skim through the text to figure out what the
main idea is.
textbook,
word list
worksheet
10
VR video lesson
* Students join the VR environment, learn how to operate
the controller, and view the educational video on tips and
strategies for a successful job interview.
VR HMD,
VR
controller
12
VR interview
practice
* Demonstrates how to communicate in English for a
successful job interview.
* When ready, students join a VR space where they can
meet a virtual agent for the job interview process.
12
Reflection Discussion * Ask students to reflect on the VR interview processes
and share what went well and what did not. 2
Consolidation
Wrap-Up
* Ask students to tell the class how they felt and what
they learned from the VR interview experience.
* Ask students to think about what qualities they should
develop to have a successful career.
textbook 5
Assignment * Give the assignment and preview the next class with
students. 2
Figure 7. A Sample Lesson Plan Integrating VR-based Job Interview into Career English.
CONCLUSION
In this chapter, we presented a design and development case of a VR-based job interview lesson for effective English
communication skill development in Career English class. To ensure a realistic interview simulation with a virtual agent,
65
situated learning and ARCS design models were introduced as design frameworks. Although the VR-based job interview
lesson is introduced as a supplementary activity in the classroom, students will be able to practice the interview skills in
English at home or other places than the classroom where the Oculus Quest system is available. It helps expand the train-
ing opportunities for students to participate in the immersive VR environment as well as in informal learning spaces. Our
next step involves conducting a formative evaluation process to make further revisions about the effectiveness of the VR-
based interview practices for communication skill improvement, so they can be compared to classroom practices.
REFERENCES
Anglin, G. J., & Morrison, G. R. (2000). An analysis of distance education research: Implications for the instructional technolo-
gist. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 1(3), 189–194. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/90446/
Armin, M. H., & Roslin, V. P. (2021). The effect of nonverbal communication training on Iranian EFL learners’ perception of
communicative competence and communication apprehension. KURMANJ; The Journal of Culture, Humanities and Social
Science, 3(1), 1-11. http://kurmanj.srpub.org/browse.php?a_id=77&sid=2&slc_lang=en
Atkinson, R. K., Mayer, R. E., & Merrill, M. M. (2005). Fostering social agency in multimedia learning: Examining the im-
pact of an animated agent’s voice. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30, 117–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ced-
psych.2004.07.001
Bardovi‐Harlig, K. (2013). Developing L2 pragmatics. Language Learning, 63, 68-86. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
9922.2012.00738.x
Bereczky, K. (2008). The identity of the business English teacher: A pilot study. UPRT 2008: Empirical Studies in English Ap-
plied Linguistics Edited by Réka Lugossy, József Horváth and Marianne Nikolov, 83.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1),
32-42. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x018001032
Cassell, J., Sullivan, J., Prevost, S., & Churchill, E. (2000). Embodied conversational agents. Cambridge.
Checa, D., & Bustillo, A. (2020). Advantages and limits of virtual reality in learning processes: Briviesca in the fifteenth cen-
tury. Virtual Reality, 24(1), 151-161. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-019-00389-7
Chen, C.-P. (2018). Understanding mobile English-learning gaming adopters in the self-learning market: The uses and gratifica-
tion expectancy model. Computers & Education, 126, 217-230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.07.015
Chien, S.-Y., Hwang, G.-J., & Jong, M. S.-Y. (2020). Effects of peer assessment within the context of spherical video-based
virtual reality on EFL students’ English-speaking performance and learning perceptions. Computers & Education, 146,
103751. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103751
Dawley, L., & Dede, C. (2014). Situated learning in virtual worlds and immersive simulations. Handbook of research on educa-
tional communications and technology, 723-734. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5_58
Demirci, C. (2010). Constructing a philosophy: prospective teachers’ opinions about constructivism. Procedia-Social and Be-
havioral Sciences, 9, 278-285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.12.150
Gebhard, P., Mehlmann, G., & Kipp, M. (2012). Visual SceneMaker—a tool for authoring interactive virtual characters. Journal
on Multimodal User Interfaces, 6(1-2), 3-11. 2https://doi.org/10.1007/s12193-011-0077-1
González-Lloret, M., & Ortega, L. (2014). Technology-mediated TBLT. Technology-mediated TBLT, 1-342. https://doi.
org/10.1075/tblt.6
Grabowski, B. L. (2013). Generative learning contributions to the design of instruction and learning. In Handbook of research
on educational communications and technology (pp. 713–737). Routledge.
Gruber, A., & Kaplan-Rakowski, R. (2020). User experience of public speaking practice in virtual reality. In Cognitive and af-
fective perspectives on immersive technology in education (pp. 235–249). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3581033
Hedgcock, J. S. (2002). Toward a socioliterate approach to second language teacher education. The Modern Language Jour-
nal, 86 (3), 299-317. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-4781.00151
Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2000). An instructional design framework for authentic learning environments. Educational Tech-
nology Research and Development, 48(3), 23–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02319856
Hrehova, D. (2010). The significance of communication and language competencies for employment and career develop-
ment. Human Resources Management & Ergonomics Journal, 4(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/103841621001900110
Huang, H. M., Rauch, U., & Liaw, S. S. (2010). Investigating learners’ attitudes toward virtual reality learning environ-
ments: Based on a constructivist approach. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1171-1182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compe-
du.2010.05.014
Jackson, R. B., & Williams, T. (2019, March). Language-capable robots may inadvertently weaken human moral norms. In 2019
14
th
ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI)(pp. 401-410). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/
hri.2019.8673123
66
Jailani, M. K. (2017). Needs analysis on virtual reality system using VR glasses in “Job Interview” of speaking activity. Needs
Analysis on Virtual Reality System using VR Glasses in “Job Interview” of Speaking Activity. Malang, Indonesia: State
University of Malang.
Jensen, L., & Konradsen, F. (2018). A review of the use of virtual reality head-mounted displays in education and training. Edu-
cation and Information Technologies, 23(4), 1515-1529. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-017-9676-0
Kasper, G., & Rose, K. R. (1999). Pragmatics and SLA. Annual review of applied linguistics, 19, 81-104. https://doi.
org/10.1017/s0267190599190056
Keller, J. M. (2010). Motivational design for learning and performance: The ARCS model approach, New York, NY: Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1250-3
Ku‐írková, L., Vogeltanzová, T., & Jarkovská, M. (2011). Business English Courses Online Support. Journal on Efficiency and
Responsibility in Education and Science, 4(4), 197-206.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.
org/10.1017/cbo9780511815355
Lester, J. C., Converse, S. A., Stone, B. A., Kahler, S. E., & Barlow, S. T. (1997). Animated Pedagogical Agents and Problem-
Solving E ectiveness: A Large-Scale Empirical Evaluation. In Proceedings of Eighth World Conference on Artificial Intel-
ligence in Education, p ags (pp. 23-30).
Lewin, K. (1938). The conceptual representation and measurement of psychological forces. Durham, NC: Duke University
Press. https://doi.org/10.1037/13613-000
Lin, W. C., Huang, D. Y., Huang, C. W., Liu, Y. C., & Chen, G. D. (2015). A video comic for group situated learning in the
classroom. In EDULEARN15 Proceedings (pp. 4264-4271). IATED. https://doi.org/10.1109/icalt.2016.12
Maher, P., Bailey, J., & Tucka, A. (2018). Teaching process skills to pre-engineers using situated learning–A case study. Interna-
tional Journal of Engineering Pedagogy, 8(5), 121-147. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijep.v8i5.9036
Makransky, G., & Lilleholt, L. (2018). A structural equation modeling investigation of the emotional value of immersive virtual
reality in education. Educational Technology Research and Development, 66(5), 1141-1164.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-018-9581-2
McLellan, H. (1993). Evaluation in a situated learning environment. Educational Technology, 33(3), 39.
Moreno, R., Mayer, R. E., Spires, H. A., & Lester, J. (2001). The case for social agency in computer based teaching: Do stu-
dents learn more deeply when they interact with animated pedagogical agents? Cognition and Instruction, 19, 117–213.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1902_02
Nagao, K., & Takeuchi, A. (1994). Social interaction: Multimodal conversation with social agents. in Proceedings of AAAI 94,
22–28. https://doi.org/10.3115/981732.981747
Nass, C., Steuer, J., & Tauber, E. R. (1994). Computers Are Social Actors, in Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human
factors in computing systems, April 1994 (Boston, MA: ACM), 72–78. https://doi.org/10.1145/191666.191703
Parmaxi, A., Stylianou, K., & Zaphiris, P. (2017, November). Enabling social exploration through virtual guidance in Google
Expeditions: An exploratory study. In Interactive mobile communication, technologies and learning (pp. 397-408). Spring-
er, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75175-7_40
Rahman, M. M., Pandian, A., & Kaur, M. (2018). Factors affecting teachers’ implementation of communicative language
teaching curriculum in secondary schools in Bangladesh. Qualitative Report, 23(5). https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-
3715/2018.3220
Sadler, R., Dooly, M., Thomas, M., Reinders, H., & Warschauer, M. (2013). Language learning in virtual worlds: Research and
practice. In M. Thomas, H. Reinders, & M. Warschauer (Eds.), Contemporary Computer Assisted Language Learning (pp.
159- 182). New York, NY: Bloomsbury.
Savignon, S. J. (2005). Communicative language teaching: Strategies and goals. In Hinkel, E. (Ed.), Handbook of research in
second language teaching and learning (pp. 659-676). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410612700-49
Stein, D. (1998). Situated learning in adult education (pp. 640-646). ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Edu-
cation, Center on Education and Training for Employment, College of Education, the Ohio State University.
Stupar-Rutenfrans, S., Ketelaars, L. E., & van Gisbergen, M. S. (2017). Beat the fear of public speaking: Mobile 360 video vir-
tual reality exposure training in home environment reduces public speaking anxiety. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social
Networking, 20(10), 624-633. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2017.0174
Thrasher, T. (2022). The impact of virtual reality on L2 French learners’ language anxiety and oral comprehensibility: An ex-
ploratory study. CALICO Journal, 39(2), 10-1558. https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.42198
Tolman, E.C. (1932). Purposive behavior in animals and men. New York: Century. https://doi.org/10.2307/1418946
Wang, C. X., Anstadt, S., Goldman, J., & Mary, L. M. (2014). Facilitating group discussions in Second Life. Journal of Online
Learning and Teaching, 10(1), 139.
Wang, Y. F., Petrina, S., & Feng, F. (2017). VILLAGE—Virtual Immersive Language Learning and Gaming Environment: Im-
mersion and presence. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(2), 431-450. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12388
Zhang, Y., & Liu, L. (2018). Using computer speech recognition technology to evaluate spoken English. Educational Sciences:
Theory & Practice, 18(5). https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2018.5.033
67
Combining XR, Accessibility, and Sustainability in the Classroom:
Results of an Exploratory Study
SARAH MCDONAGH
Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Spain
sarahanne.mcdonagh@uab.cat
MARTA BRESCIA-ZAPATA
Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Spain
Abstract: Education plays a vital role in preparing children and young people for the future, equipping them
with important skills, knowledge, and values. However, complex subjects such as diversity and sustainability
can be difficult to teach (Molderez & Ceulemans, 2018). Storytelling helps students understand these chal-
lenging subjects by conveying complex information in an engaging format that is easy to understand. When
students participate in the process of storytelling, they can share their perspectives and find solutions to com-
plex challenges. By incorporating technology into the storytelling process, students can create their own sto-
ries in an immersive, multisensory, and interactive environment, developing their digital and creative skills
while also building empathy with their subject matter. In this chapter, we will examine the use of extended
reality (XR) technology to raise environmental awareness that is inclusive in the classroom, drawing on the
results of a workshop carried out with 20 secondary school students between the ages of 15-16 in the Uni-
versitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB), Spain as part of the Itaca campus initiative. Using the GreenVerse
platform, an interactive and immersive storytelling platform developed as part of the H2020 GreenSCENT
project (Nº 101036480), students were asked to work together to identify and propose solutions to different
environmental issues. Results shed light on ways to integrate interactive and immersive storytelling digital
tools into mainstream teaching as a way to raise environmental awareness and foster empathy with people
with disabilities.
Keywords: Interactive Storytelling, Immersive Storytelling, Education, Sustainability, Accessibility, Co-cre-
ation, 360 videos
INTRODUCTION
One of education’s main purposes is to equip students with the critical skills needed to address society’s most press-
ing concerns. The environmental crisis represents contemporary society’s greatest threat. Rising temperatures are leading
to an increase in the number of extreme weather events, habitat destruction, and ecological collapse, and a reliance on
fossil fuels as a primary source of energy is leading to natural resource depletion (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, 2022). Industrial farming practices have caused soil erosion, with the expansion of arable land increasing the
risk of infectious diseases (Shah et al., 2019). Unchecked urbanisation in tandem with fossil fuel reliance has led to air
pollution, which is currently responsible for 1 in 9 of all deaths across the globe (United Nations, n.d.).
Environmental education has taken shape against the backdrop of increased political initiatives to promote climate
resilience with the full participation of all, including those with disabilities (United Nations Committee for Development
Policy, 2018). The United Nations (UN) foregrounded the importance of education in combating the adverse effects of
the environmental crisis in their Decade of Education for Sustainable Development initiative (2014) in which they em-
phasised the role of education in changing behaviours (see also Buckler & Creech, 2014). Tied to this aim is the desire
for environmental education to be available to all, irrespective of age, sex, disability, ethnicity, religion, economic or so-
cial status (see United Nations’ Sustainability Goal 4.5, 2015).
However, complex subjects, such as sustainability and diversity, can be challenging to teach (Molderez & Ceule-
mans, 2018). Storytelling offers a way to convey complex concepts in an engaging format that is easy to understand. By
68
integrating technology into the storytelling process, students can work together to create their own stories in an immer-
sive, multisensory, and interactive environment, developing their digital and creative skills, while also building empathy
with their subject matter (Flecha et al., 2020).
GreenSCENT (Smart Citizen Engagement for a Green Future) (Nº 101036480) is a three-year funded European
H2020 project that aims to foster positive behavioural change toward the environment through the development of acces-
sible educational tools, green educational programmes, and the European certification for climate and environmental lit-
eracy. A key component of the GreenSCENT project is to develop a set of accessible mobile apps and web platforms that
will allow users to upload environmental data, collect information, monitor and report environmental issues or solutions
and share content that can be used in research, school, and university programmes. The mobile apps and web platforms
designed as part of the GreenSCENT project are created in collaboration with end users through a series of workshops,
the first of which took place in Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB) from 5-11 July 2022 as part of the social ini-
tiative Itaca Campus.
In this chapter, we will present the methodology and results of a workshop with 20 students between 15-16 years
of age from the Barcelona area. Students were asked to identify and propose solutions to environmental issues using
the GreenVerse platform developed as part of the GreenSCENT project through the lens of accessibility. We begin this
chapter by situating this research in the area of environmental education, before moving on to discuss how the project
can achieve its aims while paying particular attention to accessibility and inclusivity and outlining the benefits of such an
approach. We will follow this with a reflection on the potential of digital storytelling as an educational tool in the class-
room. We will close this chapter with a discussion of the July 2022 workshop, its methodology, rationale, and the results
taken from student feedback, group discussions, and observational data, and propose possible future research avenues
that combine technology with environmental education and accessibility in the classroom.
BACKGROUND
Environmental Education: Leaving No One Behind
Environmental education has emerged as a pragmatic response to the issues posed by the environmental crisis (Pad-
manabhan et al., 2017, p. 722) that encompasses a broad range of topics (Nwachukwu, 2014), competencies, knowledge,
skills, and attitudes (Bianchi, 2020; Calantoni, 2022; Scalabrino, 2022). In the broadest sense, the purpose of environ-
mental education is to instruct people on how to live sustainably. How this can be achieved is less clear, with researchers
and policymakers at odds over the key competencies and skills needed to achieve this aim (Scalabrino, 2022). Addition-
ally, the terms used to describe the key attributes needed to live sustainably vary. For example, skills, competencies,
behaviours, attitudes, abilities, and values are often used interchangeably in literature (Molderez & Ceulemans, 2018).
For the sake of clarity, we mark a subtle distinction between skills and competencies, the former being the learned abil-
ity needed to complete a task, and the latter understood to be the observable behaviour, knowledge, skills, and attitudes
that make someone successful in a task (see European Commission Directorate General for Education, Youth, Sport and
Culture, 2019). In search of a suitable definition of sustainability, we draw on the UN Brundtland Commission’s report
Our Common Future (1987), which defines sustainable development as meeting “the needs of the present without com-
promising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (p. 16).
Despite some promising advances made in sustainable development and environmental education, many countries
have neglected their obligation to include people with disabilities in their response to climate change (Jodoin et al., 2022,
p. 6). According to Jodoin et al. (2022), currently, only 37 out of the 192 signatories of the Paris Agreement (2015)
directly refer to people with disabilities in their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC), the mechanism, which
countries report their post-2022 climate actions. Of these 37 Member States, 14 provide concrete measures for disabil-
ity inclusion (2022), with only two directly involving people with disabilities in the development of their NDCs (2022).
Moreover, researchers found that only 46 countries (24%) include at least one reference to disability in their adaptation
policies (ibid). This means that currently over three-quarters of signatory states to the Paris Agreement do not refer to
people with disabilities in any way in their climate adaptation plans. This is despite the fact that people with disabilities
will be disproportionately affected by the climate crisis (Kosanic et al., 2019). If we are to achieve a sustainable future
for all then broader access to environmental education is essential.
Enabling people to make informed decisions about the sustainable development and conservation of their environ-
ment is key to addressing the challenges of the climate crisis (Boyes & Stanisstreet, 2012; Sunassee et al., 2021). Envi-
69
ronmental education forms a central component of Goal 4 of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), specifi-
cally Target 4.7: “Education for sustainable development and global citizenship” which aims to equip learners with the
knowledge, skills, and attitudes necessary to promote positive environmental behaviours (2015). Building on the prin-
ciple of “leaving no one behind” (United Nations Committee for Development Policy, 2018), the SDGs recognise the im-
portance of developing sustainable solutions that safeguard against inequality and exclusion (UN 2015), including those
faced by people with disabilities. In an effort to achieve Target 4.7, the United Nations’ Educational Scientific and Cul-
tural Organisation (UNESCO) has developed two educational programmes: “Education for Sustainable Development”
and “Global Citizenship Education” (2015), both of which provide a roadmap to integrate environmental education into
Member States’ educational systems (UNESCO, 2015). At the core of both programmes is the desire to “develop atti-
tudes of care and empathy for others and the environment and respect for diversity” (p. 16).
In the context of Europe, the European Green Deal provides a regulatory and legislative framework to drive posi-
tive climate action by moving the European economy away from an economic model based on the consumption of finite
resources towards a more sustainable development model that prioritises regenerative growth (European Commission,
2019a). In order to achieve this aim, the EU foregrounds the importance of “green education” (European Commission,
2021) in equipping learners of all ages and abilities with the necessary knowledge and skills needed to live sustainably
and contribute towards a net zero future, leaving “no person or place” behind as a cornerstone of the green transition
(European Commission 2019b, p.16). The Commission also highlights the important role schools and higher education
institutions play in engaging students, parents, educators, and wider society on the changes needed for a successful green
transition (European Commission, 2021). In practical terms, the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre (Bianchi
et al., 2022) identified the following 12 sustainability competencies that are grouped into four areas of interest, repre-
sented by the use of italics.
• Embodying sustainability values,
o Valuing sustainability
o Supporting fairness
o Promoting nature
• Embracing complexity in sustainability
o Systems thinking
o Critical thinking
o Problem facing
• Envisioning sustainable future
o Futures literacy
o Adaptability
o Exploratory thinking
• Acting for sustainability
o Political agency
o Collective action
o Individual initiative
The GreenSCENT project seeks to expand on the GreenCOMP’s conceptual framework by providing detailed de-
scriptions of the skills, knowledge, and attitudes needed for the green transition that cover all eight areas of the European
Green Deal: Climate Change, Clean Energy, Circular Economy, Green Buildings, Smart Mobility, From Farm to Fork,
Biodiversity, and Zero Pollution (Calantoni, 2022). Aimed at European citizens of all ages, abilities, and educational
backgrounds, the GreenSCENT competency framework seeks to answer the fundamental question of what European citi-
zens should know to fully grasp the complexity of the Green Deal and what they should do to implement it in their lives
(ibid). Although still in its development phase, the GreenSCENT competency framework has already identified over 40
competency areas and 10 competencies and Knowledge-Skills-Attitudes (KSA). Each of these will be tested in a series
of workshops and initiatives with students from across Europe, using a combination of digital and hybrid technologies
developed as part of the project.
70
Note. Source: Authors’ adaptation from https://publish.obsidian.md/greenscent/GreenSCENT+Competence+Framework
Figure 1. Main Topics from the Draft of GreenSCENT Competency Framework.
One such technological tool in development is GreenVerse, an interactive digital storytelling platform that allows
users to share and upload data about their local environments with a view to engaging students in conversations about
sustainability and climate change initiatives.
DIGITAL NARRATIVES IN XR
Stories have been recognised by leaders and educators as effective ways to disseminate a message or a vision of the
world (Bennis, 1996; Gabriel, 1997; Gargiulo, 2002; Shamir & Eilam, 2005). By linking events within a plot, experi-
ences can be expressed to others with an intensity and vividness that mere information cannot. In the past, storytelling
was seen as predominantly concerned with communicating fiction; however, more recently, the narration of stories is
considered to be a way to organise human experience (Gabriel & Connell, 2010). This turn brought with it the rise in
popularity of co-creation, which is often used in very different contexts as a way to add value to the creative process
(Ramaswamy & Gouillart, 2010; Rill & Hämäläinen, 2018). As expressed by Rill and Hämäläinen (2018), it is a “trendy
term used across the disciplines of business, design, and marketing to indicate new modes of engagement between people
in order to either create shared value or unleash the creative potential of diverse groups” (p. 5). This kind of collaborative
storytelling favours experimentation with explanations and interpretations of, as well as possible solutions to, problems
and phenomena. The potential of the co-creation of stories has also been applied in educational contexts (Cook-Sather
et al., 2014; Dunne, 2016; Mercer-Mapstone et al., 2017). According to Bobill (2020), “this approach both relies upon,
and contributes towards, building positive relationships between staff and students, and between students and students”
(p. 1023). The co-creation process gives students agency over their learning, helping them develop self-direction, confi-
dence, creativity, and critical thinking.
Emerging technologies such as XR offer a unique environment to improve co-creation and co-design. The term XR
covers virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR), and mixed reality (MR). According to El-Jarn and Southern (2020),
“advances in co-creation tools within extended realities offer an enhanced, vibrant space for learning, collaboration and
co-creation/design where users can deepen connections through creative expression” (p. 192). The potential for co-cre-
ation using XR is unmatched. Indeed, some companies have already explored the potential of XR in different formats
and research areas. For example, XR has been applied in Apple’s 2020 iPad or Vive and Oculus Head Mounted Displays.
Researchers have also explored social VR (Dorta et al., 2019), co-creating in VR (Ranjbarfard & Sureshjani, 2018), the
71
use of VR in establishing product aesthetics (Valencia-Romero & Lugo, 2017), and the role of VR and AR in the early
conceptual stages of the design process (Ekströmer & Wever, 2019).
When discussing XR technologies and co-creation, it is important to highlight the central role of storytelling or nar-
ratologies. Once confined to the study of fictional narratives, the study of narratives has diversified into fields such as
psychology, cognitive sciences, communication studies, and pedagogics. Narrative also plays a central role in new kinds
of media platforms and technologies, which have taken the possibilities of interactive narratives to new heights. Accord-
ing to Bruni et al. (2022), “XR technologies are increasingly considered as expressive media with special qualities for
narrative representation” (p. 35). XR is able to provide viewers with an immersive experience and deeply connect users
in narratives. The user ceases to be a passive observer and instead becomes an active participant and so narratives deliv-
ered through XR have the ability to “create[...] a greater emotional nexus” (Cantero de Julián et al., 2020, p. 418) and
may encourage greater empathy and engagement with the issues presented. More recently, immersive experiences have
also been shown to facilitate learning about climate change (Markowitz et al., 2018) and encourage sustainable behaviour
(Scurati et al., 2021). However, to the best of our knowledge, no study involving co-creative storytelling in an immersive
environment on the combined topics of sustainability and accessibility has been conducted.
METHODS
This section describes the GreenVerse platform that was used during the exploratory study. It reports on the proce-
dure and participants of the study, which adhered to the ethical procedures as approved by the UAB ethical committee.
GreenVerse Platform: Beta Version
As an interactive digital storytelling platform, GreenVerse allows users to create multimedia content, combining stat-
ic images, 2D non-immersive videos, and 360º videos as well as text and audio. The platform is designed to be collabora-
tive, so users can work on different aspects of their stories together in real time. In addition to this collaborative feature,
users can create digital stories that are able to take place over several different locations, facilitated by “jumps,” which al-
low users to easily move from one scene to another. Figure 2 shows the current landing page of the GreenVerse platform.
Note. Source: Screenshot was taken 3 November 2022 by the authors.
Figure 2. The GreenVerse Interface.
72
At the time of the workshops in July 2022, the GreenVerse platform was available in its beta version. The workshop,
therefore, served two purposes that were to provide the researchers with the opportunity to develop an educational work-
shop on sustainability and accessibility with secondary school students with a particular emphasis placed on the percep-
tual experiences of blind and partially blind people, and for the researchers to test the GreenVERSE platform with poten-
tial end users, whose results fed back into the design process.
Participants
A convenience sample was used in the exploratory study, and its participants were drawn from those who took part
in the Itaca Campus initiative. The rationale for this method of sampling was based on practical concerns related to the
availability and geographical proximity of research participants. Given the preliminary nature of this stage in the study,
no participant data was collected pertaining to disability. We therefore did not know if any participant had a visible or
invisible disability. That said, the inclusion of people with disabilities represents a future research avenue that we discuss
later in Section 5. In total, 20 participants took part in the activity in two different sessions: N = 10 on the 29th of June
2022, and N = 10 on the 11th of July 2022. Participants were aged between 15-16 years, with an even gender balance of
male to female. All participants were familiar with computers and mobile devices; however, most of them had not previ-
ously experienced VR content before this study.
PROCEDURE
Each workshop followed a similar procedure that was structured around a number of activities designed to raise
awareness of accessibility and sustainability. Students were first introduced to the concept of accessibility in an activity
designed to help them understand the lived experiences of blindness and reduced sight. To further this understanding,
students were led into the classroom blindfolded by facilitators who audio-described the space. Following this activity,
students were asked to pair up and guide one another through the UAB campus. One student acted as a guide to lead
their blindfolded companion around the campus, audio describing their surroundings as they went along. After these two
activities, students were shown an example of an audio description of a well-known television series in Catalan. Using
this clip as a stimulus, facilitators introduced students to the access service: an audio description that provides additional
visual information to those who cannot access it directly, such as blind and partially blind people as well as those with
cognitive disabilities. After this initial introduction to the concept of accessibility, students were introduced to the Green-
SCENT project and the GreenVerse platform. In order to be able to record their interactive stories, facilitators instructed
students on how to use a 360° camera. Divided into groups of five, both male and female, students were then asked to
create an interactive digital story about a particular environmental issue of their choice. Students first created their own
storyboards, using pen and paper, to provide an outline for the subsequent shooting. Once completed, students recorded
their scenarios around the UAB campus using a combination of the 360° camera and conventional cameras. By the end
of the activity, students had an assortment of 360° and 2D images and videos.
After students finished recording, facilitators uploaded their content onto GreenVerse and then instructed students on
the navigation of the platform. After this, students organised their stories, adding accessibility features, such as subtitles
and audio descriptions. Each student was assigned different tasks to complete as part of this activity. For example, some
students were responsible for adding the visual elements to their stories (e.g., text, images, and accessibility icons), while
others were in charge of recording the audio for the audio descriptions. After students finished their stories, they shared
their results with their peers, identifying a particular environmental problem and proposing solutions to it while also
keeping in mind accessibility. Students finally provided feedback on the activity as well as the platform itself in a ques-
tionnaire and discussions with facilitators, who noted down their responses.
Data Coding and Analysis
Students’ interactions with GreenVerse were observed by facilitators, who recorded issues related to the usability
and accessibility of the platform. We define usability according to the ISO 9241 standard as the combination of the “ef-
fectiveness, efficiency and satisfaction with which specified users achieve specified goals in particular environments”
(2013, para. 3.1.1). Accessibility refers to the extent to which a product or service can be used by a diverse range of
people to achieve a specified goal in a specific context (ISO 26800; ISO/TR 9241-100, and ISO/TR 2241).
73
After each workshop, students and instructors provided feedback on the platform, which was conducted in Catalan
and later translated into English. Researchers gathered this information into an Excel spreadsheet detailing user require-
ments, which was also shared with the GreenVerse engineers. Students’ stories were also saved on the platform for fur-
ther analysis. Following the activity, students and instructors provided feedback on the activity to the Itaca programme
that was later shared with researchers, the results of which are presented in the next section.
RESULTS
Students’ Stories
In total, the four groups of students created four different stories, each of which dealt with specific themes related to
Green Deal topics, as listed in table 1.
Table 1
Environmental Themes Covered by Each Group During Itaca Campus
Group number Themes covered Green Deal topic
1 Energy use and reusable packaging Clean Energy and Zero Waste
2 Littering and water waste Zero Waste
3 Animal welfare and recycling Biodiversity and Zero Waste
4 Food waste and waste management Farm to Fork and Zero Waste
Note. Source: Authors’ own elaboration.
Group 1 focused on energy use and food packaging with students recording their story inside and outside of the
library building at the UAB campus. Students identified issues associated with energy use, specifically electricity in the
library building and food packaging, proposing solutions to help tackle each of these problems. Group 1 proposed alter-
natives to food packaging, such as reusable bottles and lunchboxes. According to the students, switching from single-use
packaging to reusable packaging would “help reduce consumption and thus we can also help the planet” (translated from
Catalan). In each example, students created audio descriptions in Spanish, and Catalan. In both examples, students added
the audio description icons alongside text, as shown in figure 3.
Note. Part of the story took place in the UAB library and it was recorded in July 2022.
Source: Screenshot was taken 3 November 2022 by the authors.
Figure 3. Story Created by Group 1.
74
Group 2 examined waste around the UAB campus, highlighting unsustainable practices, such as littering and water
waste, with students proposing several ways to combat waste by adopting different behaviours, such as disposing of
waste in the correct bin or turning off the water tap after use. In each example, accessibility features, including audio
description and subtitles, were added and