Bridging the XR Technology-to-Practice Gap: Methods and Strategies for Blending Extended Realities into Classroom Instruction

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 finalized 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 effort 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 byAssociation for theAdvancement of Computing in Education (AACE) is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, except where otherwise noted.
Copyright©AssociationfortheAdvancementofComputinginEducation(AACE).2023http://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 Effects 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 Laffier 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-Efficacy
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 final 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-
flection on using Merge AR technology and initial pilot-testing findings 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

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
p Effect 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 Yes
Text + VR Text 2.17 .017 .488 Small Yes
Summary
Composite Scores
Argumentative
Composite Scores
2.08 .020 .468 Small Yes
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),
Virtualreality(VR)isanimmersiveexperiencethatcanbeintense.Frightening,violent,oranxiety-provokingcontent
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 usingVR 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.
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 Kučírková
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
14th
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
Kučírková, 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.
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 made available in three different languages: English, Spanish, and Catalan. Stu-
dents in this group also shot a 360° video highlighting the issue of littering as shown in Figure 4.
Note. This video dealt with littering and it was recorded in July 2022.
Group 3 focused on animal welfare and recycling, and they offered advice on how to properly dispose of plastic,
cardboard, and glass bottles in recycling bins across the UAB campus, as shown in Figure 5. Like Group 2, students in
Group 3 were keen to use the 360° camera to record their own 360° story on littering.
Note. This video dealt with recycling and it was recorded in July 2022.

75
Group 4 also examined waste management in their story; however, they focused instead on food packaging propos-
ing cardboard packaging instead of plastic, as shown in Figure 6. A relevant and original feature of this group was that, in
addition to Catalan, Spanish and English, they also introduced audio descriptions and subtitles in Georgian, because one
of the participants spoke this language.
Note. This video dealt with food waste and it was recorded in July 2022.
Quantitative and Qualitative Results
At the end of the activity, all participants, including students and instructors who accompanied them, filled out an
anonymous survey to assess the activity carried out. The results of the surveys are shown in Figure 7.
Note. Source: Authors’ own elaboration.
Figure 7. Evaluation of the Students and Instructors who Participated in the GreenScent Activity.

76
The workshop scored high with students in the areas of comprehension, with students generally satisfied with its
content and practical elements. Students appreciated the level of participation during the activity, which taught them
something new and helped foster an overall positive attitude toward the issues they highlighted. These results were
backed up by students’ qualitative remarks, in which they reflected positively on the practical aspects of the activity,
particularly the use of 360° cameras and recording videos around the UAB campus. Although students appreciated the
applied elements of the workshop, many felt that the waiting time between recording and editing the videos was too
long, leading some to disengage from the activity. Faster turnaround time between creating and editing their stories on
the platform might lead to higher overall engagement from students. Nevertheless, despite this limitation, all stressed the
usefulness of the workshop, which helped raise their awareness of issues related to sustainability and some of the chal-
lenges people with disabilities face when accessing information about the environment or information more generally.
The following section looks at the significance of these results in relation to environmental education, technology, and
accessibility.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
The sampling of the exploratory study relied on a convenience sample and is therefore not representative of the wid-
er population (Andrade, 2020). Notwithstanding the limitations of sampling, the results of the exploratory study demon-
strated the usability of the GreenVERSE platform with Itaca students, who were able to create their own environmental
stories with added accessibility features. On the whole, students enjoyed the activity and did not find it burdensome. The
use of XR technology made environmental issues less abstract and more concrete for students who applied their knowl-
edge of sustainability to solve common environmental problems around the UAB campus. Interestingly, every group
independently chose different environmental topics, each of which was tied to the European Green Deal topics of Clean
Energy, Green Buildings, Biodiversity, Zero Pollution, and Farm to Fork (European Commission, 2019a). The diversity
of student stories is indicative of the range of topics that fall under the umbrella of sustainability and the awareness that
already exists within this generation of young people.
However, despite this positive feedback, workshop participants encountered some issues with aspects of the Green-
Verse platform. Students sometimes struggled to add accessibility features to their stories, as some features in the app
did not respond or function as intended. This was an issue related to the development of the platform in its earlier beta
version rather than a lack of students’ ability. In fact, students often found ways to resolve issues in the beta version of
GreenVerse through ad-hoc workarounds and by trying out new pathways in the platform. This may be due to their fa-
miliarity with and access to Information and Communication Technology (ICT), but also linked to trends in media, such
as bricolage or tinkering (Brown, 2000). According to Brown (2020), life with the internet brought about a shift in what
is considered as valid reasoning, from the linear, deductive, abstract style to bricolage, which refers to the ability “to find
something – an object, tool, document, a piece of code – and to use it to build something you deem important” (p. 14).
Another challenge faced by students was the time lag between the creation and the editing of their environmental story.
This delay can be attributed to the large file size of 360° content, which places an additional strain on internet bandwidth.
As an activity that requires a strong internet connection, this represents an access issue for users, schools, or institutions
without fast internet speeds.
While conventional teaching methods can be a useful starting point to raise environmental awareness in the class-
room, a more hands-on approach to learning offers students the opportunity to take actionable steps towards addressing
a particular environmental issue. As an educational tool, the GreenVerse platform offered students such an approach.
Students were able to work together to co-create their own digital stories. Students decided on what topic to cover with
facilitators guiding students in their inquiry. As a pedagogical approach, learning-by-doing (Gibbs, 1988), also known
as “active learning” (Bransford et al., 1999, p. 12), has a positive impact on learning outcomes for students and leads to
a higher overall information retention rate in comparison to traditional instructional methods (Hackathorn et al., 2011;
McGlynn, 2005; Zhang and Xie, 2012). The use of technology as an educational tool, specifically XR, furthers this aim
by engaging students in the learning process along with drawing on their creativity and critical thinking skills to apply
what they have learnt in class to situations outside of the classroom. In this example, students applied their knowledge of
sustainability to the UAB campus, working together to transpose facts into narratives using XR as a tool.
As an awareness-raising activity, the exploratory study was successful in making students cognizant of the barriers
people with disabilities face when accessing information about the environment. Given the opportunity, students were
keen to enhance the accessibility of their content by adding subtitles and audio descriptions in a variety of languages.

77
They demonstrated their skills in co-creating stories that bore in mind accessibility and sustainability from the beginning
of the project. By considering accessibility from the beginning of their projects, students could anticipate access issues
and find solutions to inaccessible content. While the present study marks a useful starting point in discussions around
sustainability, accessibility, and the role of XR technology in the classroom, further research that includes people with
disabilities would enhance its overall findings. Indeed, it is imperative that people with different abilities are engaged in
conversations about the climate crisis to promote a wider inclusivity toward a common future.
DISCLAIMER
This research has been partially funded by the H2020 project GreenSCENT (under Grant Agreement 101036480).
The Commission’s support for this publication does not constitute an endorsement of the contents, which reflects the
views of the authors only, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the in-
formation contained herein. The authors are a members of TransMedia Catalonia, an SGR research group funded by
“Secretaria d’Universitats I Recerca del Departament d’Empresa I Coneixement de la Generalitat de Catalunya”
(2021SGR00077).
REFERENCES
Abd Rahman, N.F.N., & Bakar, R. A. (2020). Digital storytelling: A systematic review. Journal of English Language Teaching
Innovations and Materials, 2(2), 97-108. http://dx.doi.org/10.26418/jeltim.v2i2.42199
Andrade, C. (2020). The inconvenient truth about convenience and purposive samples. Indian Journal of Psychological Medi-
cine, 43(1), 86-88.
Bennis, W. G. (1996). The leader as storyteller. Harvard Business Review 74(1), 154-61.
Bianchi, G. (2020). Sustainability competences (JRC123624). Publications Office of the European Union. https://data.europa.
eu/doi/10.2760/200956
Bianchi, G., Pisiotis, U., & Cabrera Giraldez, M. (2022). GreenComp: The European sustainability competence framework.
Publications Office of the European Union.
Bobill, C. (2020). Co-creation in learning and teaching: the case for a whole-class approach in higher education. Higher Educa-
tion, 79(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-019-00453-w
Boyes, E., & Stanisstreet, M. (2012). Environmental education for behaviour change: Which actions should be targeted? Inter-
national Journal of Science Education, 34(10), 1591–1614.
Bransford, J., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (Eds.) (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington,
DC: National Research Council.
Bruni, L. E., Kadastik. N., Pedersen, T. A., & Dini, H. (2022). Digital narratives in extended realities. In M. Alcañiz, M. Sacco,
& J. G. Trump (Eds.), Roadmapping extended reality: Fundamentals and applications (pp. 35-62). Scrivener Publishing
LLC.
Brown, J. S. (2000). Growing up: digital: How the web changes work, education, and the ways people learn. Change: The Mag-
azine of Higher Learning, 32(2), 11-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091380009601719
Buckler, C., & Creech, H. (2014). Shaping the future we want: UN decade of education for sustainable development; final re-
port. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.
Cantero de Julián, J. I., Calvo Rubio, L. M., & Benedicto Solsona, M. Á. (2020). La tenue apuesta por los vídeos en 360º en las
estrategias transmedia de las televisiones autonómicas españolas. [The weak bet on videos in 360º in the transmedia strate-
gies of Spanish autonomic televisions]. Revista Latina de Comunicación Social, 75, 415–433. https://doi.org/https://doi.
org/10.4185/RLCS-2020-1433
Calantoni, L. (2022, October 6). Competence framework: A first, fundamental draft for the key element of GreenSCENT.
https://www.green-scent.eu/competence-framework-a-first-fundamental-draft-for-the-key-element-of-greenscent/
Cook-Sather, A., Bovill, C., & Felten, P. (2014). Engaging students as partners in learning and teaching: A guide for faculty.
San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture. (2019). Key competencies for lifelong learning. European Com-
mission.
Dorta, T., Safin, S., Boudhraâ, S., & Marchand, E. B. (2019). Co-designing in social VR’: Process awareness and suitable repre-
sentations to empower user participation. ArXiv, 2, 141-150.
Dunne, E. (2016). Design thinking: a framework for student engagement? A personal view. Journal of Educational Innovation,
Partnership and Change, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.21100/jeipc.v2i1.317

78
Ekströmer, P., & Wever, R. (2019). ‘Ah, I see what you didn’t mean’ Exploring computer aided design tools for design ideation.
The Design Journal, 22(1), 1883-1897.
El-Jarn, H., & Southern, G. (2020). Can co-creation in extended reality technologies facilitate the design process? Journal of
Work-Applied Management, 12(2), 191-205. https://doi.org/10.1108/JWAM-04-2020-0022
Erhabor, N. I., & Don, J. U. (2016). Impact of environmental education on the knowledge and attitudes of students towards the
environment. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 11(12), 5367-5375.
European Commission. (2019a). The European Green Deal. https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priori-
ties-2019-2024/european-green-deal_en
European Commission. (2019b). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council, the
Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: The European Green Deal (pp.
1–24).
European Commission. (2021). Green education initiatives. European Education Area. https://education.ec.europa.eu/focus-top-
ics/green-education/about-green-education
Flecha, R., Pulido, C., Villarejo, B., Racionero, S., Redondo, G., & Torras, E. (2020). ‘The effects of technology use on chil-
dren’s empathy and attention capacity’. NESET report, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. https://
doi.org/10.2766/947826
Gabriel, Y. (1997). Meeting God: When organizational members come face to face with the supreme leader. Human Relations
50(4), 315-42.
Gabriel, Y., & Connell, N. A. D. C. (2010). Co-creating stories: Collaborative experiments in storytelling. Management Learn-
ing, 41(5), 507–523. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507609358158
Gargiulo, T. L. (2002). Making stories: A practical guide for organizational leaders and human resource specialists. London:
Quorum.
Gibbs, G. (1988). Learning by doing: A guide to teaching and learning methods (1st ed.) Oxford Brookes University.
Green-SCENT project. (n.d). Homepage. https://www.green-scent.eu/
Hackathorn, J., Solomon, E. D., Blankmeyer, K. L., Tennial, R. E., & Garczynski, A. M. (2011). Learning by doing: An empiri-
cal study of active teaching techniques. Journal of Effective teaching, 11(2), 40-54.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2022). IPCC sixth assessment report: Mitigation of climate change.
International Organization for Standardisation. (2008). Ergonomics data and guidelines for the application of ISO/IEC guide 71
to products and services to address the needs of older persons and persons with disabilities (ISO/TR 22411: 2008). https://
www.iso.org/standard/40933.html
International Organization for Standardisation. (2010). Ergonomics of human-system interaction- Part 100: Introduction to stan-
dards related to software ergonomics (ISO/TR 9241-100: 2010). https://www.iso.org/standard/52712.html
International Organization for Standardisation. (2011). Ergonomics- General approach, principles and concepts (ISO 26800:
2011). https://www.iso.org/standard/42885.html
International Organization for Standardisation. (2013). Usability of consumer products and products for public use (ISO Stan-
dard No. 20282: 2013). https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:ts:20282:-2:ed-2:v1:en
Jodoin, S., Lofts, K., Bowie-Edwards, A., Leblanc, L., & Rourke, C. (2022). Disability rights in national climate policies: Sta-
tus report. Centre for Human Rights & Legal Pluralism & International Disability Alliance.
Kosanic, A., Petzold, J., Dunham, A., & Razanajatovo, M. (2019). Climate concerns and the disabled community. Science, 366
(6466), 698–699.
Markowitz, D. M., Laha, R., Perone, B. P., Pea, R. D., & Bailenson, J. N. (2018). Immersive virtual reality field trips facilitate
learning about climate change. Frontiers in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02364
Mercer-Mapstone, L., Dvorakova, S. L., Matthews, K. E., Abbot, S., Cheng, B., Felten, P., Knorr, C., Marquis, E., Shammas, R.,
& Swaim, K. (2017). A systematic literature review of students as partners in higher education. International Journal for
Students as Partners, 1(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.15173/ijsap.v1i1.3119
McGlynn, A. P. (2005). Teaching millennials, our newest cultural cohort. Education Digest: Essential Readings Condensed for
Quick Review, 71(4), 12–16.
Molderez, I., & Ceulemans, K. (2018). The power of art to foster system thinking, one of the key competencies of education for
sustainable development. Journal of Cleaner Production, 186, 758–770.
Nwachukwu, M. (2014). Environmental education and awareness manual. Lambert Academic Publishing.
Padmanabhan, J., Borthakur, A., & Mittal, K. (2017). Environmental awareness among teachers and students in higher educa-
tion. Educational Quest: An International Journal of Education and Applied Social Science, 8(3), 721–726.
Ranjbarfard, M., & Heidari Sureshjani, M. (2018). Offering a framework for value co-creation in virtual academic learning en-
vironments. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 15(1), 2-27.
Ramaswamy, V., & Gouillart, F.J. (2010). The power of co-creation. Free Press.
Robin, B. R. (2008). Digital storytelling: A powerful technology tool for the 21st century classroom. Theory into Practice,
47(3), 220–228.
Rill, B., & Hämäläinen, M. (2018). The art of co-creation. Palgrave Macmillan

79
Scalabrino, C. (2022). European sustainability competence framework background document: Literature Review, Analysis of
Frameworks and Proposals. Joint Research Centre, European Commission.
Scurati, G. W., Bertoni, M., Graziosi, S., & Ferrise, F. (2021). Exploring the use of virtual reality to support environmentally
sustainable behavior: A framework to design experiences. Sustainability 13(2), 943. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13020943
Shah, H. A., Huxley, P., Elmes, J., & Murray, K. A. (2019) Agricultural land-uses consistently exacerbate infectious diseases
risks in Southeast Asia. Nature Communications 10, 4299. http://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-12333-z
Shamir, B., & Eilam, G. (2005). “What’s your story?” A life-stories approach to authentic leadership development. Leadership
Quarterly 16(3), 395–417.
Sunassee, A., Bokhoree, C., & Patrizio, A. (2021). Student’s empathy for the environment through eco-art place-based educa-
tion: A review. Ecologies, 2, 214–247.
United Nations: Department of Economic and Social Affairs. (2019). Disability and development report: Realizing the sustain-
able development goals by, for and with persons with disabilities.
United Nations. (n.d.). Air. UN Environment Programme. https://www.unep.org/explore-topics/air
United Nations. (1987). Report of the World Commission on environment and development: Our common future.
United Nations. (2015). The 17 goals. Sustainable Development. https://sdgs.un.org/goals
United Nations Committee for Development Policy. (2018). Leaving no one behind (pp. 1–4).
United Nations Educational Scientific Cultural Organization. (2015). Global citizenship education: Topics and learning objec-
tives.
Valencia-Romero, A., & Lugo, J. (2017). An immersive virtual discrete choice experiment for elicitation of product aesthetics
using Gestalt principles, Design Science, 3. http://doi.org/10.1017/dsj.2017.12
Zhang, X. S., & Hua, X. (2012). Learning by doing approach in the internet environment to improve the teaching efficiency of
information technology. Physics Procedia, 24, 2231–2236.

81
Virtual Reality and Preservice Teachers:
An Examination of Social Immersion, Empathy, Multilingual Learners, and Self-Efficacy
HEATHER ROGERS HAVERBACK
Towson University, USA
hhaverback@towson.edu
MAHNAZ MOALLEM
JUDITH CRUZADO-GUERRERO
JANESE DANIELS
QING LI
RUDDHI WADADEKAR
Abstract: This chapter explores how VR immersive learning technology is used in teacher education. It fo-
cuses on applications of VR learning environments for preservice teachers’ social, emotional, and motiva-
tional development (e.g., social immersion, empathy, language learning, and self-efficacy). The results show
that although current research in this area is limited, the positive impact of immersive VR experiences on pre-
service teachers’ cognitive and affective growth is promising. A framework is shared to advance the potential
of VR research in teacher education. The benefits, perceptions, and opportunities of this innovative learning
technology for teacher education are also discussed.
Keywords: Virtual Reality, Preservice Teachers, Teacher Education, Social Emotional Learning, Empathy,
Immersion, Self-Efficacy Beliefs, Language Learning
INTRODUCTION
The use of virtual reality (VR) interventions is on the rise. Concurrently, preparing preservice teachers for their
multitude of roles, responsibilities, and expectations in an authentic learning environment is becoming more complex.
The need for increasing the number of hours of internship or student teaching experiences poses challenges for teacher
education programs. Nevertheless, an authentic classroom environment is needed to provide preservice teachers opportu-
nities to practice skills of engaging diverse students in their own learning, interacting with students from various cultures,
developing empathy and understanding of students’ differences, and addressing the needs of multilingual and English
language learners, establishing a positive classroom climate and managing the classroom learning environment while
considering students’ social and emotional needs. Teacher educators are challenged to address these needs and prepare
preservice teachers for their complex roles. Currently, teacher education programs use methods of teaching subject area
courses and internships to equip future teachers for their many roles and responsibilities. However, there are limitations
in providing authentic learning that builds confidence and develops empathy and understanding of the cultural differenc-

82
es of diverse students with many social and emotional needs. Simulation and immersive virtual reality offer safe environ-
ments to practice these challenging skills without worries about impacting students in real classrooms during the intern-
ship. Additionally, multiple practice opportunities available in VR allow preservice teachers to master the skills before
walking into their future classrooms as a teacher.
Hence, researchers began exploring immersion factors of VR, such as sensory, spatial, and emotional or empathetic
(Dede et al., 2017), that provide a perception of being physically present and interacting with the real world. In a VR
learning environment, one’s behavior can be intentionally transferred either naturalistically (i.e., the same way as in face-
to-face situations) or altered by computers (Blascovich & Bailenson, 2012) to create various conditions. For example, a
person whose appearance is unfriendly in real life may be programmed as a very happy and friendly individual in a vir-
tual world. Thus, when social interactions occur within an immersive virtual world, new possibilities are brought about
that otherwise would be impossible (Kramer, 2017). This is important for teachers, as they are learning to work with
students and parents in various social and emotional situations. VR interventions are one way to aid teacher educators in
understanding if this technology can offer better conditions for preparing future teachers.
CHAPTER OVERVIEW
This chapter explores how VR immersive technology is used in teacher education programs. Specifically, it focuses
on VR environments and preservice teachers in social, emotional, and motivational development (e.g., social immersion,
empathy, language learning, and self-efficacy.) First, an overview of past research assesses the impact of VR training in
enhancing teacher education candidates in the domains of social immersion, empathy, multilingual learners, and self-ef-
ficacy. Next, an overall theoretical framework is provided, which includes a figure that visualizes the “Research Areas of
VR Immersive Learning for Teacher Education.” The chapter concludes with a discussion of this innovative technology’s
benefits, perceptions, and opportunities for teacher education.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
The combination of an increase in use and the release of more advanced and affordable VR and XR/AR systems into
the general market has resulted in accelerated opportunities for their applications. The lower cost of VR technologies
has further attracted educators and educational researchers to examine the effectiveness of this technological innovation
for learning and teaching. As an immersive yet safe learning environment, VR offers enormous potential for growth in
learning and holds considerable promise for teaching and teacher education. It provides practical learning opportunities
for constructing and applying knowledge, practicing teaching skills without pressure or danger, and allowing repeated in-
terventions. Furthermore, proponents of VR for teacher education feel that VR provides access to situations and learning
environments that would otherwise be very difficult or impossible to access.
Nevertheless, while VR has been used extensively for professional training in various fields (e.g., industry, health,
military, neuroscience, psychology, biology, etc.), its application in teacher education is still in its infancy (McGarr,
2020). Thus, a limited number of studies explore VR learning environments for learning and teaching. Given the many
enriching learning opportunities that VR offers for teacher education programs, it is imperative to investigate how IVR
has been used in teacher preparation programs. A systematic review and synthesis of current research will assist educa-
tional researchers in identifying benefits, challenges, and opportunities for providing higher-quality learning experiences
for future teachers.
VR Definition
VR is defined as a computer-generated three-dimensional environment representing the real or imaginary world with
the virtual world through various sensory channels (e.g., visual, auditory, and kinesthetic) to achieve a sense of immer-
sion (Freina & Ott, 2015; Ke et al., 2016). The multisensory immersion feature of VR reduces the user’s awareness of
what is happening in the surroundings (Huang et al., 2021). VR technology replaces sensory input derived from the real
world with sensory input created by computer simulation. It provides interactivity by responding to movements and the

83
natural behaviors of humans in the real world. In this respect, VR may prove to be a powerful resource that can help in
teaching by providing an environment that allows the learner to experience scenarios and situations rather than imagin-
ing them. Furthermore, VR technology engages learners in an immersive context along with authentic experiences while
still providing the opportunity to interact with the environment (objects, virtual avatars, or other users) naturally (Dede,
2009).
Immersive Vs. Non-Immersive VR
Depending on the hardware quality, IVR provides the perception of being present in a non-physical world, allowing
the human brain to believe it is somewhere it is not (Freina & Ott, 2015). Thus, total learner immersion occurs when one
is in a deep mental and/or physical state of engagement, and one’s senses suspend the belief that the person is in the non-
physical world. The devices used in VR environments play an essential role in creating immersive experiences. There are
input and output devices for the VR experience, and both are necessary to allow a successful virtual experience. The in-
put devices (e.g., keyboards, mice, tracking devices, hand-sensing gloves or pinch gloves, and joysticks) are the ones that
allow the user to communicate with the virtual environment or launch movement. The output devices enable the user to
see, hear, smell, or touch everything that happens in the virtual environment (e.g., headsets.) Thus, VR environments can
be classified as non-, semi-, or fully immersive. Non-immersive VR systems use a desktop monitor, keyboard, mouse,
joystick, and touch screens to present and interact with the virtual environment (Kozhevnikov et al., 2013). In fully im-
mersive VR, the user would feel physically present in the virtual world and experience events firsthand. Headsets, VR
glasses, gloves, body detectors, and sense detectors create a believable real-world experience. Semi-immersive allows the
user to experience the virtual environment while also being connected to the physical world. When wearing VR glasses,
for instance, the user can experience the virtual world without any physical sensation.
The experiential nature of VR systems derives from four features: immersion, presence, interactivity, and multisen-
sory feedback. Immersion means being enveloped or surrounded by the environment. The benefit of immersion is that it
ensures a sense of presence or the feeling that one is really in the depicted world (Schuemie et al., 2001). Interactivity
can be described as the degree to which a user can modify the VR environment in real-time (Steuer, 1995). It refers to
the learner’s ability to control events in the simulation by using their body movements that, in turn, initiate responses in
the simulation because of these movements. Presence is considered “the subjective experience of being in one place or
environment, even when one is physically situated in another” (Witmer & Singer, 1998, p.1). While researchers agree on
the definitions of interactivity and presence, differing views exist on the concept of immersion. One branch of researchers
suggests that immersion should be viewed as a technological attribute that can be assessed objectively (Slater & Wilbur,
1997); whereas others describe immersion as a subjective, individual belief, i.e., a psychological phenomenon (Witmer &
Singer, 1998). The multisensory nature of VR means that information can be derived from more than one sense and adds
to the experience by making it more believable and engaging (adding to the sense of presence) and providing redundancy
of information, which reduces the potential for ambiguity and confusion. Sensory combination reinforces information
from two or more sensory sources.
Social Engagement/Immersion
For preservice teachers, social engagement/immersion is of import to their teaching. Social engagement is defined
as “the extent to which an individual participates in a broad range of social roles and relationships” (Avison et al., 2007,
p. 333). It is well-accepted that social immersion plays a significant role in teaching and learning, and social VR envi-
ronments (SVREs) can promote social interactions and personalized learning through interesting and authentic complex
problem-solving experiences (Mystakidis et al., 2021).
VR and Social Immersion
Various studies have explored the social aspects of instructional communications in immersive media. Several re-
view papers exist that systematically analyzed empirical studies in this field focusing on social interactions in VR worlds.

84
For instance, a review study by Lee et al. (2019) examined how XR technologies impacted the well-being of older adults.
Through the analysis of results from 15 empirical studies, the authors found that XR not only helps older adults treat
pain and encourage physical activeness but also has the potential to address feelings of loneliness and depression through
social activities and interactions with people remotely. Whether it was interacting with others virtually, or conducting
community services remotely, such active participation enabled emotional relationship building, which in turn helped
develop positive mental states. The authors summarized that in general, XR has the power to promote social as well as
physical and psychological well-being amongst older adults. However, further review of this topic is beyond the scope of
this chapter.
VR, Preservice Teachers, and Social Immersion
Moving to the field of teacher education, some, though limited, efforts were made to explore how VR and immersive
media are connected to teachers focusing on social aspects. A recent study by Seufert et al. (2022) examined the impact
of a VR-supported setting on preservice teachers’ learning of classroom management. The 55 participants (treatment
group 39, control group 16) were pre-service teachers at the University of Wurzburg who were taking classroom manage-
ment courses. Adopting a quasi-experimental pretest/posttest design, the intervention was a fully IVR application while
the control group was a conventional video-assisted approach to learning. It was observed that the preservice teachers
improved their classroom management skills with VR technology, though no differences were detected when compared
with the control group. When considering online teaching, the VR group demonstrated a higher classroom management
competency level than the control group. The preservice teachers indicated that the VR setting provided a useful tool for
evaluations and self-reflection on their actions. The authors concluded that the participants also gave a moderate social
presence rating, which in turn, showed the VR provided realistic feedback and a believable classroom experience.
Focusing on STEM education, Cardullo and Wang (2022) examined preservice teachers’ personal experiences of us-
ing IVR to teach elementary students. Three preservice teachers who attended a summer STEM camp were selected and
interviewed about their experience using Google Expedition during the class. In the study, learners went through three
stages in a VR environment. First, they got directions or tutorials on how to complete a task. Second, they explored the
content, completed the task, and asked questions. The last stage was where they created a dialogue with other learners by
interacting and asking questions. At this stage, the learners could experience social immersion in a VR environment. The
preservice teachers in this study indicated that Google Expedition is a promising platform for teaching many subjects or
taking virtual trips, especially when there are geographical limitations. Students at different locations could take a virtual
trip, learn a lesson “together,” and experience social immersion. However, the limitations of this application can restrict
some students from participating, thus negatively impacting their social presence.
A particular type of VR is the SVRE, which has attracted some researchers’ attention in the last decade or so. Some
studied the cognitive effectiveness of the SVREs while others focused on emotions and perceptions. The review study by
Mystakidis et al. (2021) evaluated the effects of SVREs on support for deep and meaningful learning in distance higher
education. 33 papers were included in their analysis. They concluded that SVRE has the potential to promote social
and collaborative interactions that, in turn, can engage learners through authentic, cognitively challenging experiences. A
wider range of emotions can be induced when learning in SVREs, both positive and negative. SVREs also help increase
peer interactions both formally and informally.
Based on past studies, researchers have worked to systematically review the existing literature. One such review by
Billingsley et al. (2019) focused on the efficacy of using VR in preservice and in-service teacher training. They found
only seven empirical studies, which were analyzed in terms of participants, intervention, methodology, and outcomes.
The results of their analysis showed that the studies focused on one of the four areas: classroom management, special
education, emotional needs, or content area learning. None were related to the social aspects of learning. The authors
also concluded that there was a dearth of research in VR and teacher education.
In summary, the potential of VR to enhance learning through transformed social interactions, especially connected to
teacher education, provides fertile ground to be further explored.

85
EMPATHY
The ability of preservice teachers to express empathy when working with children and families is important. Wink et
al. (2021) defined empathy as the “ability to share in the emotional experience of others” (p. 1577). Scholars have sepa-
rated the concept of empathy into two distinct categories: cognitive empathy and affective empathy. Cognitive empathy is
the ability to take the perspective of another (Korkman & Tekel, 2020), while affective empathy is the ability to connect
with the feelings of others by experiencing their emotions (Gillespie et al., 2021).
In their work with students participating in service learning with people from other cultures, Yung et al. (2021) de-
scribe empathy as “the capacity to experience the emotion of another person” (p. 53). VR has been described in the
literature as the “ultimate empathy machine” because the participants can fully immerse themselves into the experience
from the perspective of someone else (Herrera et al., 2018). In a 2015 TedTalk, Chris Milk discussed the concept of the
ultimate “empathy machine.” He described ways that VR allows the user to feel fully present in the VR experience or to
“become more compassionate. …more empathetic…more connected…and ultimately <sic> we become more human”
(TED, 2015).
VR and Empathy
Research on the impact of VR on preservice teachers’ empathy is very limited. Interestingly, previous efforts related
to the use of VR in developing or enhancing the empathy of service providers have focused on candidates in medical pro-
fessions, such as doctors, nurses, physical therapists, and occupational therapists. Results have shown that experience in
VR can increase empathy in the health professions (Gillesspe et al., 2021). In a qualitative study of 10 faculty in a Doctor
of Pharmacy program, Zhao et al. (2021) noted that 60% of the participants defined empathy as “an awareness of how
another person feels by putting oneself in another’s shoes” (p. 977). Further, they found that showing empathy in teach-
ing enhanced the quality of the student-teacher relationship.
Lege and Bonner (2020) cautioned that, while VR has become more prevalent in society, educational institutions
have been slow to catch up to professional and personal (e.g., gaming) institutions. This section focuses on the limited
research done correlating experiences with VR and preservice teachers. It will argue that engaging in VR experiences can
enhance a preservice teacher’s awareness of their empathy, thereby improving the student-teacher relationship in school
settings.
VR, Teachers, and Empathy
As stated earlier, research on preservice teachers’ use of VR as it relates to empathy is limited. However, VR should
be considered as a potentially important tool for helping preservice teachers become more empathetic when working
with students and parents. Because COVID-19 changed the clinical experience of teacher candidates, VR as a training
tool for preservice educators may be considered part of the practice in teacher preparation programs. There is an oppor-
tunity for teacher preparation programs to assist preservice teachers in becoming more aware of the technology as it is
becoming more readily available, and, as Lege and Bonner (2020) describe, can promote empathy and understanding in
ways that more traditional technologies cannot.
In a descriptive review of VR, Bradley and Domingo (2020) discuss how simulations can be utilized for preservice
teachers with a focus on special education. In their article, Bradley and Domingo make the case for VR because it allows
the participant to experience the students’ individual needs based on a variety of disabilities. They posit preservice teach-
ers may benefit from such VR experiences in that “the result is the potential for increased understanding and empathy for
students’ experiences” (p. 315).
In another study, researchers found VR may impact teachers’ empathy and mood (Stavroulia, et al. 2019.) While not
specifically related to teacher preparation, one study of 25 educator participants partook in school-based substance abuse
scenarios. The researchers were interested in whether the use of VR would impact the teachers’ emotional and mood
states. A pre-/post questionnaire, empathy scale, and mood state scales were used to measure teachers’ changes in mood
and empathy. Findings showed a significant change in mood states after participating in the VR scenario.
Passig et al. (2002) used VR to investigate 40 preschool teachers’ ability to take the perspective of a young child’s
state of mind when they had been separated from their caregivers. The researchers created a VR experience in which the

86
toddler’s world was simulated. The participants were able to take the perspective of the toddler during this VR experi-
ence. In this pre-/post- methodological experience, participants completed a questionnaire and participated in an inter-
view. The results showed that there was a significant increase in the preschool teachers’ awareness of the child’s emo-
tional state when they were new to the kindergarten classroom environment. In other words, the preschool teachers were
more emotionally aware of participating in the VR experience.
In one mixed-methods study, Bower et al. (2020) examined preservice teachers’ willingness to use IVR in their
classrooms. 106 preservice teachers already enrolled in an educational technology course completed a tutorial learn-
ing about the pros and cons of using IVR in the classroom. They also experimented with using the technology during
class sessions. 65 preservice teachers from various grade levels completed a survey to identify reasons why IVR could
enhance their performance as teachers. They also participated in semi-structured interviews. In addition to other findings,
results showed that some teacher candidates appreciated the ability to use IVR and felt motivated to use IVR in their
classrooms.
In conclusion, using VR has shown to be beneficial in helping professionals improve their empathy. However, re-
search on preservice teachers is limited. Therefore, we recommend that researchers focus on this important topic in the
new future.
MULTILINGUAL LEARNERS AND VR
VR is changing how students learn English and other languages. The use of this immersive and non-immersive VR
technology has increased in the field of education with promising results as well as challenges (Lege & Booner, 2020).
VR technologies are now more affordable than in past years, which allows educators to acquire VR equipment and con-
tent at a lower cost (Bonner & Reinders, 2018). Consequently, more teachers are using and integrating VR into their cur-
riculums to support multilingual learners (Sobel & Jhee, 2019). This section will examine how VR promotes language
learning and the implications for teacher preparation programs.
VR and Multilingual Learners
Language learning and VR have been examined in the context of foreign languages, English as a second language,
and general mainstream classrooms. The literature on VR in each of these settings is emerging and has focused on learn-
ing languages in virtual worlds and virtual environments (Lan, 2020; Lin & Lan, 2015). Chun et al. (2022) explained
that virtual worlds are “virtual spaces created by computer software where users are represented as avatars and can in-
teract virtually with other avatars… [while virtual environments are] … spaces which replace the real-world either with
a simulated one or with an actual replica of the real world” (p. 130). These virtual spaces have been successfully used
for language learning in classrooms all over the world (Lan, 2020; Lin & Lan, 2015). Beyond these virtual spaces, new
VR hardware devices are now used more often to improve the immersive and social-emotional experiences of students.
In the language learning classroom, the use of these high VR immersive tools allows students to learn and use the target
language, while also experiencing other cultures and geographical locations (Chun et al., 2022). Research suggests that
these meaningful, interactive, and engaging experiences increase motivation for language learning (Li et al., 2014) and
reduce language anxiety levels (Craddock, 2018).
Forero Pataquiva et al. (2022), conducted a systematic review of the literature and found seven empirical studies
focusing on second language learning and immersive reality technologies. The target languages in these studies were
Italian, English, Basque, and Japanese. The immersive headset technology included the Oculus Rift, Microsoft Holo-
Lens, 360° videos with cardboard VR, Microsoft Xbox Kinect, and a VR eye tracker. Most of the participants in these
studies were post-secondary education students except for one study that included 11th
graders. The results of these stud-
ies showed positive learner perceptions towards IVR tools and that students with all language proficiency levels (begin-
ners, intermediates, and advanced) can use these immersive technologies. Forero Pataquiva et al. (2022), noted that these
studies focused on practice input skills such as listening and reading, and not output skills such as speaking and writing.
Thus, this research suggests the addition of virtual environment features like chatbots to provide opportunities to test
speaking and writing skills.
In the context of a mainstream classroom, Chen et al. studied the writing skills of a group of 22 English learners
from a middle school in the United States (2020). These researchers developed a six-week expository writing unit from

87
a fund of knowledge perspective using Google Earth VR. The instructional plans were facilitated by the teaching staff.
The study included pre and post-writing artifacts to analyze the students’ writing skills. In addition, they conducted focus
groups and interviews with students and teachers. Their results demonstrated active engagement in the virtual writing en-
vironment, positive attitudes toward VR, and an increase in students’ expository writing skills.
The inconsistencies in defining VR make it difficult when examining the existing research and the features of spe-
cific VR tools (Forero et al., 2022). Lan (2020) has taken a different perspective when reviewing the literature on VR and
second language acquisition. Instead of focusing on distinguishing between immersive vs. non-immersive VR, Lan used
essential components of foreign language learning (immersion, active participation, interaction, and authenticity) and
matched them to specific characteristics of VR (creation, immersion, and interaction). Lan (2020) used this component
“as indices to analyze the features of VR and how they are relevant to language learning” (p. 2). The framework stressed
the importance of creating appropriate and engaging learning activities facilitated by teachers for positive language learn-
ing. Therefore, teachers must analyze and carefully select VR tools appropriate for positive language learning experi-
ences and outcomes. For this to happen, more teacher training in this area is needed for existing and future teachers.
VR, Preservice Teachers, and Multilingual Learners
Teacher education programs are tasked to prepare preservice teachers with the pedagogical knowledge, skills, and
dispositions needed to teach multilingual learners (Lucas & Villegas, 2013). The pedagogical knowledge and skills need-
ed to be a linguistically responsive teacher include areas such as understanding and applying second language learning
principles, scaffolding instruction, and identifying language demands (Lucas & Villegas, 2013; Lucas et al., 2008). In
addition, teacher candidates must possess positive dispositions for teaching multilingual learners and “develop sociolin-
guistic consciousness, value linguistic diversity, and have the inclination to advocate for multilingual learners” (Laura &
Villegas, 2013, p. 102). Teacher education programs also need to improve technology instruction for preservice teachers
to integrate IVR into the classroom appropriately and with confidence (Cardullo & Want, 2022). Therefore, it is critical
for teacher candidates to have opportunities to practice and demonstrate their knowledge, skills, and dispositions in the
areas of language learning, technology literacy, and cultural and linguistic responsive pedagogy.
The research on preparing preservice teachers to integrate VR in their classrooms for language learning is limited.
Research is beginning to explore preservice teachers’ perceptions and experiences using VR while in their educator prep-
aration programs. For example, Figueroa-Flores et al. (2022), conducted a qualitative study with preservice teachers in
a bilingual and English as a second language education teacher preparation program. Their study examined preservice
teachers’ experiences and understanding of VR after a six-hour training on how to use VR and integrate mobile applica-
tions. Preservice teachers were provided with Google Cardboard headsets and other online resources. After the training,
the preservice teachers completed three open-ended questions about the experience. The result of the study revealed that
preservice teachers find value and strength in using VR. In addition, preservice teachers perceived some limitations in the
use of VR. Despite the limitations, the preservice teachers believed they would still integrate VR in their bilingual and
English as a second language classrooms.
In conclusion, VR has the potential to be used in all kinds of language learning classrooms with students of different
proficiency levels. In addition, it could be a potential tool to be used in teacher preparation programs to provide teacher
candidates opportunities to practice the knowledge, skills, and dispositions needed to become a culturally and linguisti-
cally responsive teacher. Although the research is limited, the findings in the literature are promising.
SELF-EFFICACY BELIEFS
Preservice teachers should hold the belief that they can learn and use strategies, which means they must first have
self-efficacy (Schunk, 2008.) Self-efficacy is defined as “People’s judgments of their capabilities to organize and execute
courses of action required to attain designated types of performances” (Bandura, 1986, p. 391.) Self-efficacy beliefs in-
fluence how people feel, reason, motivate themselves, and act (Bandura, 1993). High self-efficacy in individuals creates
a situation wherein one may work longer on a task and challenge themselves more than one with lower self-efficacy
(Plourde, 2002).
Self-efficacy beliefs of teachers may impact what happens in the classroom and potentially predict a teacher’s abil-
ity to accomplish this (Bandura 1993; Cho & Shim, 2013; Gotch & French, 2013). Researchers have found a correla-

88
tion between high teacher’s self-efficacy and numerous positive classroom practices (Cheung, 2006; Cho & Shim, 2013;
Demirtas, 2018; Gibson & Dembo, 1984; Gotch & French, 2013; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2007; Wolters & Daugherty,
2007). Demirtas (2018) stated that preservice teachers need direct experiences with the groups with which they will work
to create self-efficacy beliefs. One way to create various experiences may be through IVR.
VR and Self-Efficacy
Past research shows that VR impacts self-efficacy beliefs in various fields. In a study of college business students
(N = 94), using VR for learning positively impacted self-efficacy, technology acceptance, and surface learning behaviors
(Luo & Du, 2022). Another study by Baceviciute et al. (2022) explored the impact of VR on employees. Using a con-
trol group, the study had customer-facing employees train using a VR simulation to learn a new product. In addition to
other findings, results showed that the VR group had better self-efficacy than the control group who watched a video. In
another study by Makransky et al. (2019), VR was used to explore college-aged engineering students. In a comparative
study, an IVR simulation was compared to a conventional safety manual regarding participant learning. Results showed a
significant difference in self-efficacy beliefs between the two groups.
VR, Preservice Teachers, and Self-Efficacy
VR is one way in which preservice teachers can expand upon their classroom experiences. In turn, additional time
teaching can lead to higher teacher self-efficacy beliefs. To date, the research on VR and preservice teacher efficacy is
scant. However, the completed studies show VR to positively impact preservice teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs.
In one study, Nissim and Weissblueth (2017) found that VR experiences aided in preservice teachers’ innovation
and creativity while increasing their self-efficacy beliefs. In this study, 176 preservice K-12 teachers in various content
areas wrote reflections during a course module. In this module, students created a VR 3D educational creation. Through a
qualitative analysis of the data, the researchers identified that the participants increased self-efficacy beliefs from all four
sources of self-efficacy. For example, the hands-on experience VR produced for the preservice teachers allowed them to
work with others and have their own mastery experience.
Lee and Shea (2020) investigated self-efficacy beliefs in 38 preservice teachers who were majoring in elementary
education. More specifically, the researchers studied the impact of VR on science self-efficacy beliefs. In a three-stage
learning process, participants created, critiqued, and used classroom-based VR. Using a mixed methods approach, partic-
ipants completed a pre-posttest science self-efficacy belief Likert scale instrument and provided qualitative data. Results
showed that teacher science self-efficacy was increased. However, preservice teachers reported their beliefs that technol-
ogy is not needed to be a good teacher.
Another study investigated preservice teachers’ thoughts regarding using VR as a tool for teaching and learning
(Cooper et al., 2019) In this case study, participants included 41 preservice teachers who were asked questions regarding
their perceptions of using VR. Results showed a significant difference between preservice teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs
when using VR versus other digital technologies. Interestingly, participants felt less efficacious in their abilities using
VR. While the preservice teachers were interested in using VR, their negative self-efficacy feelings were evident, where-
in their inexperience was noted as one of the main causes. Future research should use VR as a method of giving preser-
vice teachers experiences. These experiences may be a way that self-efficacy beliefs will increase.
THE POTENTIAL OF VR FOR LEARNING AND TEACHING: AN ORGANIZATIONAL FRAMEWORK
This chapter focused on the social, emotional, and motivational development aspects of VR and teacher education.
However, that is only one part of a potentially larger framework regarding VR and teacher education. In preparation for
this chapter, a quick review of the literature was completed, to identify specific research areas in teacher education. Using
that overview, we chose only a few specific areas on which to focus. However, as the topic of VR and teacher education
is so diverse, Figure 1 was created based on that overview of the literature and the potential areas of current and future
research.

89
The quadrant of the framework on which we focused is only the start of thinking about ways in which future VR
environments can impact teacher education. Thus, there is the potential added value of the VR environment and its salient
features – interaction, presence, immersion, and multisensory feedback – to learning and teaching is potentially explored
in four learning areas of (1) social, emotional, and motivational development (e.g., the feeling of empathy, emotion, mo-
tivation, perception), (2) cognitive and metacognitive development (e.g., language learning, conceptual understanding,
problem-solving, conceptual understanding), (3) understanding equity inclusion, and social justice (e.g., understanding
learner’s differences and needs, cultural competencies, societal or structural roots and causes of the inequity and resultant
social conditions), and (4) skill development (e.g., communication skills, classroom management skills, leadership, and
team building skills). Figure 1 visualizes these four learning areas and relevant research in teacher education.
Figure 1. Research Areas of VR Immersive Learning for Teacher Education.
DISCUSSION
The research on VR and preservice teachers are scant (Billingsley et al., 2019.) Specifically, there is very little re-
search regarding connecting preservice teacher education and social immersion, empathy, multilingual learners, and self-
efficacy beliefs. More research in this area is important. Of the studies discussed in this chapter, which explored VR and
preservice teachers, two main themes emerged. First, VR experiences positively impacted preservice teachers in the areas
of social immersion, empathy, multilingual learners, and self-efficacy. Second, preservice teachers had an overall positive
notion of VR, but there were some reservations about using this innovative technology. Finally, while this chapter fo-
cused on social, emotional, and motivational development (e.g., the feeling of empathy, emotion, motivation, and percep-
tion), there is broader potential for VR within learning and teaching.
Impact of VR on Preservice Teachers
Using VR has been beneficial for preservice teachers. Past research has found that VR positively impacted preser-
vice teachers’ self-efficacy and creativity, promoted social interaction, and improved social skills (Nissim & Weissblueth,
2017). VR has also impacted the emotional awareness of teachers (Passig et al., 2002) and increased science self-effica-
cy beliefs (Lee & Shea, 2020.) Researchers have also felt that VR experiences and opportunities can benefit preservice
teachers. For example, Bradley and Domingo (2020) feel that VR provides an opportunity for empathy for students.

90
Preservice Teachers’ Perceptions of VR
Preservice teachers had an overall positive perception of using VR in their classrooms. In fact, past studies showed
that preservice teachers believe VR can have benefits for immersing and engaging learners (Cooper, et al. 2019) and
learning in English as a second language classrooms (Figueroa-Flores et al., 2022.) Preservice teachers also reported us-
ing VR as it provides the opportunity to take virtual trips and explore various subjects (Cardullo & Wang, 2022.). More-
over, preservice teachers found VR useful in their own learning. Specifically, they indicated that the VR settings are use-
ful for evaluations and self-reflections (Seufert et al., 2022.)
While overall the perceptions of using VR were positive, there were a few areas in which preservice teachers showed
concern about using this technology (Figueroa-Flores et al., 2022). For instance, preservice teachers felt significantly less
efficacious in using VR versus other technologies (Cooper et al., 2019.) Concerns about the use of certain applications
and student restrictions were also noted (Cardullo & Wang, 2022.) Even though preservice teachers felt inexperienced
in using VR, they were still interested in using it. (Cooper et al., 2019.) One way for preservice teachers to grow in their
confidence and ability in using VR is through teacher education programs. Cardullo and Want (2022) stated that educa-
tion programs should improve their instruction for teachers in technology. Likewise, Bower et al.’s (2020) results showed
that teacher candidates appreciate the ability to use IVR and felt motivated to use IVR in their classrooms.
OPPORTUNITIES AND FUTURE RESEARCH
The idea of VR experiences within teacher education is twofold in that preservice teachers can learn from using
VR, and they also should know how to teach students using VR. Thus, preservice teachers should have exposure to IVR
within their teacher education programs to stimulate their own learning and learn about this technology. These first-hand
experiences can improve the preservice teachers’ learning and their confidence regarding their ability to use VR.
First, teacher education programs should strategically implement IVR experiences within their coursework. Like the
past studies shared in this paper, wherein preservice teachers are given an opportunity to use a VR experience to consider
a student or classroom situation regarding students’ social-emotional needs. Such opportunities may be of benefit to the
preservice teachers as IVR experiences expand upon their real-world classroom time. For example, IVR experiences can
enable a preservice teacher to experience working with an English language learner, even if they are unable to have that
experience in their student teaching classroom. Moreover, preservice teachers are oftentimes limited in the amount of
time they partake in interactions with parents and other stakeholders. However, in a VR experience, they may be able to
better understand those parental interactions.
Second, preservice teachers need to be given experiences to understand the pedagogy behind using VR in a class-
room. Thus, one way this could be done is by having teacher education programs offer a technology course for preser-
vice teachers that integrates technology in the classroom with IVR. This will enable the preservice teacher to experience
VR through pedagogical practices, instead of only experience.
Third, future research should focus on the impact of IVR on various aspects of social-emotional learning for preser-
vice teachers. Likewise, researchers should continue to expand upon the exploration of how VR can positively advance
preservice teachers’ understanding of experiences in the classroom. Given the lack of research available, future studies
should continue to create novel studies which consider various pedagogical and social-emotional aspects of teaching.
Moreover, researchers should also expand upon replicating studies in other environments to better understand how pre-
service teachers can best learn from VR. Researchers should not only focus on content and pedagogical knowledge but
growth in the social-emotional areas that are of import for preservice teachers.
Finally, future research endeavors should focus on the four areas outlined in Figure 1. By considering each of the
four learning areas described (1. social, emotional, and motivational development, 2. cognitive and metacognitive devel-
opment, 3. understanding equity inclusion, and social justice, and 4. skill development) the impact of VR and preservice
teacher education will be better understood. The continuation of creating studies that specifically focus on the four com-
ponents of the framework will help to move the field forward with a more thorough understanding of how VR can enrich
all areas of teacher education.

91
CONCLUSION
This chapter provided an overview of how VR immersive technology is used by teacher educators. Specifically, this
chapter focused on VR environments and preservice teachers in social, emotional, and motivational development (e.g.,
social immersion, empathy, language learning, and self-efficacy.) Research on VR and teacher education is limited. In
fact, very little research was found regarding preservice teachers in each of the four domains of interest (social immer-
sion, empathy, multilingual learners, and self-efficacy.) However, the extant research shows that VR experiences can pos-
itively impact preservice teachers. Moreover, while the focus of this chapter is limited to one area of research, there is
great potential for the use of VR in a wider variety of teacher education areas. Therefore, while the lack of past studies is
disappointing, it also indicates this is an area that is rich for future investigation.
REFERENCES
Avison, W., McLeod, J.D., Pescosolido, B.A. (2007). Mental Health, Social Mirror. Springer.
Baceviciute, S., Cordoba, A. L., Wismer, P., Jensen, T. V., Klausen, M., & Makransky, G (2022). Investigating the value of im-
mersive virtual reality tools for organizational training: An applied international study in the biotech industry. Journal of
Computer Assisted Learning, 38(2), 470–487. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12630
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28, 117-
148. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2802_3
Billingsley, G., Smith, S., Smith, S. & Meritt, J. (2019). A Systematic literature review of using immersive virtual reality tech-
nology in teacher education. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 30(1), 65-90. Waynesville, NC: Association for
the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved December 8, 2022 from https://www.learntechlib.org/
primary/p/176261/.
Blascovich, J., & Bailenson, J. (2012). Infinite reality: The hidden blueprint of our virtual lives. William Morrow.
Bonner, E. & Reinders, H. (2018). Augmented and virtual reality in the language classroom: Practical ideas. Teaching Eng-
lish with Technology, 18(3), 33-53. http://cejsh.icm.edu.pl/cejsh/element/bwmeta1.element.desklight-6735710d-366c-4fc2-
8f90-6428e5234c8e/c/ARTICLE3.pdf
Bower, M., DeWitt, D., & Lai, J. W. M. (2020). Reasons associated with preservice teachers’ intention to use immersive virtual
reality in education. British Journal of Educational Technology 51(6), 2214-2232. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13009
Bradley, E. G., & Domingo, J. (2020). Training special education teachers through computer simulations: Promoting under-
standing of the experiences of students with disabilities. Journal of Technology in Behavioral Science, 5(4), 308–317.
https://doi-org.proxy-tu.researchport.umd.edu/10.1007/s41347-020-00145-8
Cardullo, V. & Wang, C. (2022). Pre-service teachers’ perspectives of Google Expedition. Early Childhood Journal, 50, 173-
183. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-020-01136-3
Chen, Y., Smith, T.J., York, C.S., & Mayall, H. J. (2020). Google Earth Virtual Reality and expository writing for your English
Learners from a Funds of Knowledge perspective. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 33(1/2), 1-25. https://doi.org/10
.1080/09588221.2018.1544151
Cho, Y., & Shim, S. S. (2013). Predicting teachers’ achievement goals for teaching: The role of perceived school goal structure
and teachers’ sense of efficacy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 32, 12-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.12.003
Chun, D. M., Karimi, H., & Sañosa, D. J. (2022). Traveling by headset: Immersive VR for language learning. CALICO Jour-
nal, 39(2), 129–149. https://doi-org.proxy-tu.researchport.umd.edu/10.1558/cj.21306
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
Craddock, I. M. (2018). Immersive virtual reality, Google Expedition, and English language learning. Library Technology Re-
ports, 54(4), 7-9. https://www.journals.ala.org/index.php/ltr/article/view/6669/8958
Dede, C. (2009). Immersive interfaces for engagement and learning. Science, 323(5910), 66–69. https://doi.org/10.1126/sci-
ence.1167311
Dede, C. J., Jacobson, J., & Richards, J. (2017). Introduction: Virtual, augmented, and mixed realities in education. In Virtual,
augmented, and mixed realities in education (pp.1-16). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5490-7_1
Demirtas, V.Y. (2018). A study on teacher candidates’ self-efficacy, motivation, and affection levels for children. Journal of
Education and Training Studies, 6(12), 111-125. https://doi.org/10.11114/jets.v6i12.3661
Figueroa Flores, J., Huffman, L., Lozada, V., & Rosa-Davila, E. (2020). Adopting VR in classroom: Perceptions of bilingual and
ESL education pre-service teachers. EDMETIC, Revista de Educacion Mediatica y TIC, 11(1), 10, 1-15.
https://doi.org/10.21071/edmeticv11i1.136101

92
Forero Pataquiva, F. de P., & Klimova, B. (2022). A systematic review of virtual reality in the acquisition of second lan-
guage. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 17(15), 43–53. DOI: 10.3991/ijet.v17i15.31781
Freina, L., & Ott, M. (2015, April). A literature review on immersive virtual reality in education: State of the art and perspec-
tives. In The international scientific conference e-learning and software for education (Vol. 1, No. 133, pp. 10-1007).
Gibson, S., & Dembo, M.H. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(4), 569-
582. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.76.4.569
Gillespie, G. L., Farra, S., Regan, S. L., & Brammer, S. V. (2021). Impact of immersive virtual reality simulations for changing
knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors. Nurse Education Today 105, 1-5 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2021.105025
Gotch, C. M., & French, B. F. (2013). Elementary teachers’ knowledge and self-efficacy for measurement concepts. The Teacher
Educator, 48(1), 46-57. https://doi.org/10.1080/08878730.2012.740150
Herrera, F., Ballenson, J., Weisz, E., Ogle, E., & Zaki, J. (2018). Building long-term empathy: A large-scale comparison of tra-
ditional and virtual reality perspective-taking. PLoSONE, 13(10). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0204494
Huang, Y., Richter, E., Kleickmann, T., Wiepke, A., & Richter, D. (2021). Classroom complexity affects student teachers’ behav-
ior in a VR classroom. Computers & Education, 163, 104100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104100
Korkman, H. & Tekel, E. (2020). Mediating role of empathy in the relationship between emotional intelligence and thinking
styles. International Journal of Contemporary Educational Research 7(1), 192-200. https://doi.org/10.33200/ijcer.659376
Kozhevnikov, M., & Gurlitt, J. (2013, March). Immersive and non-immersive virtual reality systems to learn relative motion
concepts. In 2013 3rd Interdisciplinary Engineering Design Education Conference (pp. 168-172). IEEE. https://doi.
org/10.1109/IEDEC.2013.6526781
Kramer, N. (2017). The immersive power of social interaction: Using new media and technology to foster learning by means of
social immersion. Liu, D; Dede C, Huang R. and Richards, J. [Eds.], Virtual, Augmented, and Mixed Realities in Educa-
tion. Springer.
Lan, Y. J. (2020). Immersion, interaction and experience-oriented learning: Bringing virtual reality into FL learning. Language
Learning & Technology, 24(1), 1–15. http://hdl.handle.net/10125/44704
Lan, Y. J. (2016). The essential design components of game design in 3D virtual worlds: From a language learning perspective.
In M. Spector, B. B. Lockee, & M. D. Childress (Eds.), Learning, Design, and Technology. An International Compendium
of Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy (pp. 1–18). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
Lee, L. N., Kim, M. J., & Hwang, W. J. (2019). Potential of augmented reality and virtual reality technologies to promote well-
being in older adults. Applied Sciences, 9(17), 3556. https://doi.org/10.3390/app9173556
Lee, C. K., & Shea, M. (2020). Exploring the use of virtual reality by pre-service elementary teachers for teaching science in the
elementary classroom. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 52(2), 163–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523
.2020.1726234
Lege, R. & Bonner, E. (2020) Virtual reality in education: the promise, progress, and challenge. The JALT CALL Journal, 16(3),
167-180. https://doi.org/10.29140/jaltcall.v16n3.388
Li, S., Chen, Y., Whittinghill, D. M., & Vorvoreanu, M. (2014). A pilot study exploring reality to increase motivation of Chinese
college students in English. In SEE Annual Conference Indianapolis, IN. Retrieved from https://peerasee.org/19977
Lin, T. J., & Lan, Y. J. (2015). Language learning in virtual reality environments: Past, present, and future. Educational Technol-
ogy & Society, 18(4), 486–497. https://www.jstor.org/stable/jeductechsoci.18.4.486
Lucas, T., Villegas, A. M., & Freedson-Gonzalez, M. (2008). Linguistically responsive teacher education: Prepar-
ing classroom teachers to teach English language learners. Journal of Teacher Education, 59, 361–373. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0022487108322110
Lucas, T., & Villegas, A. M. (2013). Preparing linguistically responsive teachers: Laying the foundation in preservice teacher
education. Theory into Practice, 52(2), 98-109. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2013.770327
Luo, Y., & Du, H. (2022). Learning with desktop virtual reality: Changes and interrelationship of self-efficacy, goal orientation,
technology acceptance, and learning behavior. Smart Learning Environments, 9(1), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-
022-00203-z
Makransky, G., Borre-Gude, S., & Mayer, R. E. (2019). Motivational and cognitive benefits of training in immersive virtual
reality based on multiple assessments. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 35(6), 691–707. https://doi.org/10.1111/
jcal.12375
McGarr, O. (2020). The use of virtual simulations in teacher education to develop pre-service teachers’ behavior and classroom
management skills: Implications for reflective practice. Journal of Education for Teaching, 46(2), 159-169. https://doi.org/1
0.1080/02607476.2020.1724654
Milk, C. (2015, June). How virtual reality can create the ultimate empathy machine. [Video]. Ted Conferences. https://www.ted.
com/talks/chris_milk_how_virtual_reality_can_create_the_ultimate_empathy_machine?language=en
Mystakidis, S., Berki, E., & Valtanen, J.-P. (2021). Deep and meaningful e-learning with social virtual reality environments in
higher education: A systematic literature review. Applied Sciences, 11(5), 2412. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11052412
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. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v10n8p52

93
Passig, D., Noyman, T. & Eden, S. (2002). Improving the awareness to toddlers’ initial emotional experiences in kindergarten
with virtual reality. Education Media International 39(2), 185-193. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523980110067496
Plourde, L. (2002). The influence of student teaching on preservice elementary teachers science self-efficacy and outcome ex-
pectancy beliefs. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 29, 245-254.
Schunk, D. H. (2008). Learning theories: An educational perspective. Upper Saddle River, N.J: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.
Schuemie, M. J., VanDerStraaten, P., Krijn, M., & VanDerMast, C. A. (2001). Research on presence in virtual reality: A sur-
vey. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 4, 183–201. https://doi.org/10.1089/109493101300117884
Seufert, C., Oberdörfer, S., Roth, A., Grafe, S., Lugrin, J.-L., & Latoschik, M. E. (2022). Classroom management competency
enhancement for student teachers using a fully immersive virtual classroom. Computers & Education, 179, 104410. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104410
Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2007). Dimensions of teacher self-efficacy and relations with strain factors, perceived col-
lective teacher efficacy, and teacher burnout. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 6111-625. https://doi.
org/10/1037/0022-0663.99.3.611
Slater, M., Wilbur S. (1997) A Framework for immersive virtual environments (FIVE): speculations on the role of presence in
virtual environments. Presence, Teleoperators & Virtual Environments, 6(6) 603-616, MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.1162/
pres.1997.6.6.603
Sobel, K., & Jhee, C. (2020). CIRCL Spotlight: How K-8 teachers are using virtual and augmented reality in classrooms today.
In CIRCL Project Spotlight Series. Retrieved from: https://circlcenter.org/how-k-8-teachers-are-using-vr-and-ar-in-class-
rooms-today/
Steuer, J. (1995). Defining virtual reality: Dimensions determining telepresence. In F. Biocca & M. R. Levy (Eds.), Communica-
tion in the Age of Virtual Reality (pp. 33–56). Erlbaum.
Stravroulia, K. E., Chritofi, M., Baka, E., Michael-Grigoriou, Magnenat-Thalmann, N., & Lanitis, A. (2019). Assessing the
emotional impact of virtual reality-based teacher training. International Journal of Information and Learning Technology,
36(3), 192- 217. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijilt-11-2018-0127
Wink, M. N., LaRusso, M. D, & Smith, R. L. (2021). Teacher empathy and students with problem behaviors” Examining
teachers’ perceptions, responses, relationships, and burnout. Psychology in The Schools, 58(8), 1575-1596). https://doi.
org/10.1002/pits.22516
Witmer, B.G and Singer, M.J. (1998) Measuring presence in virtual environments: A presence questionnaire, presence. Teleop-
erators and Virtual Environments, 7(3), 225- 240. https://doi.org/10.1162/105474698565686
Wolters, C. A., & Daugherty, S. G. (2007). Goal structures and teachers’ sense of efficacy: Their relation and association to
teaching experience and academic level. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(1), 181-193. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-
0663.99.1.181
Yung, B., Yu, K., Lwung, B. P. & Chun, J. (2021). Efficacy of border-crossing service-learning in empathy and moral develop-
ment: Urban students in the rural developing world. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 25(1), 51-64.
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1300406.pdf
Zhao, Y., Fuller, L. & Daugherty, K. K. (2021). Evaluating pharmacy faculty perceptions of empathy in education: a qualitative
study. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning 14. 957-981. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cptl.2021.06.014

95
Insights for Secondary Science Teachers When Using XR Technologies to Help Shape
Secondary Students’ Understanding of Cardiac Anatomy and Physiology
REBECCA L. HITE
Texas Tech University, USA
rebecca.hite@ttu.edu
Abstract: Secondary science teachers are likely to encounter emerging technologies during their teaching
careers, especially as these technologies reduce in cost, become more ubiquitous in society (e.g., gaming,
commerce), and are incorporated into K-12 science classrooms. Specifically, extended reality (XR) is a suite
of emerging technologies that include 3D visualizations, haptics, and virtual reality (VR) simulations, which
can illuminate complex science concepts and abstract phenomena that are challenging for youth and adoles-
cent students to conceptually comprehend. This chapter reports the findings of a research study of 151 sec-
ondary science students (sixth and ninth grades) who used XR technologies (zSpace) to learn about two im-
portant concepts in life science education: spatial orientation (of the human heart) and envisioning structure
to function (of heart valves). Understanding what students are and are not able to learn with XR technologies
alone can prompt the community of practice to then (re)consider the role of the science teacher– novice and
veteran–to aid students as they learn science concepts with emerging technologies. This chapter describes the
benefits and constraints of XR technologies for science learning when using them to manipulate the spatial
attributes of cardiac anatomy and to relate anatomical structures to physiological function. The significance
of this chapter and its contribution to the field lies in interrogating how XR technologies can serve as tools to
aid students’ conceptual learning by considering specific affordances and limitations of the technology within
a salient area of life science education. Findings recommend technological fluency-building experiences with
XR technologies for students and teachers alike. Further, this chapter describes strategies to concretize sci-
ence teachers’ roles in their planning and supporting secondary students when using XR technologies in the
science classroom.
Keywords: 3D Visualization; Form to Function, Haptics, Science Education, Secondary Education, Spatial
Orientation; Virtual Reality
INTRODUCTION
A recent systematic literature review (SLR) by Childers and Hite (2022) explored research on the use of emerging
technologies in science teacher preparation over the past ten years. Specifically, the SLR focused on extended reality
(XR) technologies – an umbrella term for augmented, virtual, and mixed realities – that employ 3D visualizations, and
haptics, among other features to provide immersive and interactive real and/or virtual learning environments (Kaplan
et al., 2021). Their findings suggested that scholarship has largely focused on the affordances of XR for enhancing pre-
service teachers’ content knowledge of science concepts or providing a low-stakes and formative format (also known as
soft-failure environments per Lamb, 2018, as cited in Lamb and Etopio, 2020) for teacher candidates to engage in and
practice their interactions with students in a virtual classroom space. There is a noticeable dearth of research on how sci-
ence teachers act to support students’ learning of science content and/or skills when using XR technologies to enhance
curriculum and instruction. This absence of research is notable because pre-service (as well as in-service) science teach-
ers are likely to be tasked with using XR technologies either in their current or future classroom teaching. Scholarship
suggests that teachers believe that emerging technologies hold unique affordances for science learning, yet they are re-
luctant to use these tools in their teaching practice (Alalwan et al., 2020; Batane & Ngwako, 2017). Therefore, recom-
mendations for future scholarship from the field have called for a focus on how pre-service (Gardner & Jones, 2014; Hite
et al., 2022) and in-service (Hite et al., 2019a; Patterson & Han, 2019) science teachers understand the affordances and

96
limitations of XR and to provide guidance on the ways to incorporate these technologies into teachers’ science curricu-
lum and instruction.
Oliveira et al. (2019) have related that “as a field, science education has become increasingly characterized by her-
meneutic and alterity relations wherein the physical world is experienced indirectly through technological representa-
tions…as it is ‘pushed aside’ by emergent technological artifacts such as computer simulations [like] virtual [reality]
labs” (p. 149). Because of this focus, especially in lieu of physical activities for science learning, Oliveira et al. (2019)
stated “as a result, science educators are faced with the challenge of helping students view [these] technological instru-
ments” (p. 149) so students may fully understand the information and concepts they are intended to convey. The latter
quotation underscores the importance of the science teacher and their role in providing input to and monitoring how stu-
dents are learning science with novel technological tools. By recognizing both the affordances and limitations of emerg-
ing technologies, the community of practice may provide a more holistic understanding of when and how to employ XR
technologies in science curriculum and instruction. Moreover, researchers may help to restore some of the constructivist
aspects of teaching (Feyzi Behnagah & Yasredbi, 2020) that teachers may feel are lost when students use instructional
technology tools for acquiring science content and skills (Alt, 2018).
This chapter adds to the literature by exploring how secondary science students in sixth and ninth grade both utilized
the XR technologies of 3D visualization with simulations, haptics, and virtual reality (VR) to conceptually understand
two abstract concepts in life science: situating spatial orientation (of the human heart) and envisaging structure to func-
tion (of heart valves). By exploring what secondary students are and are not able to learn with the emerging technologies
alone can provide the community of practice information to reconsider and re-envision the role of the science teacher,
which has been largely relegated to technical support and classroom manager (Dunleavy et al., 2009), when aiding stu-
dents in learning science with XR technologies.
LITERATURE REVIEW
This study is undergirded by the notion that XR technologies can support the conceptual learning of complex scien-
tific phenomena. It should be noted that although XR refers to a suite of emerging technologies that replicate attributes of
reality, these technologies differ in how that reality is replicated (Rauschnabel et al., 2022). For the context of this chap-
ter, XR affordances as presented together as research is replete with ascribed benefits of XR for students when learning
science in both cognitive (e.g., content knowledge acquisition and practice for the mastery of skills) and non-cognitive
(e.g., affect, motivation, interest) domains.
For the former affordance, studies have evidenced that students are able to learn complex content through interaction
with virtual objects; researchers attributed that learning to the ability to zoom in on objects, rotate objects in space (spa-
tial rotation), and orient objects to other objects (spatial orientation). Immersive elements attributed to robust learning
include viewing abstract processes in real time and multiple representations (text, images, audio, etc.) of virtual content
and information (Arici et al., 2021; Hite et al., 2021, 2022; Makransky & Petersen, 2019; Tilhou et al., 2020).
For the latter affordance, a review of literature by Mass and Hughes (2019) suggested that reviewed studies on XR
use among K-12 students led to improved outcomes in “attitude, engagement, learning, motivation” (p. 231). Dede et al.
(2017) suggested that the reasoning for these reported affective affordances is due to the nature of immersive and interac-
tive virtual spaces. The authors described that students can plan, act, and reflect (i.e., the PAR cycle) within their interac-
tive actions which causes students to be more interested in and motivated to learn the presented virtual content. Further,
other research has found that XR technologies help students develop “21st
century skills,” which include collaboration,
communication, creativity, and/or critical thinking (Hite & McIntosh, 2020; Mass & Hughes, 2019). This type of skill
practice and development has been attributed to the attributes of constructivism that Yu et al. (2022) suggest some XR
learning environments can provide. Both the cognitive and non-cognitive affordances of XR technologies hold utility to
K-12 science education spaces, given the complexity of content knowledge and sophistication of science-based skills, as
well as the vital importance of 21st
century skills within K-12 science education (Assefa & Gershman, 2012).
The previously ascribed affordances of XR may provide new insight into meta-analyses finding that VR usage im-
proved students’ test scores in learning human anatomy (Zhao et al., 2020) and that XR technologies’ effectiveness in an-
atomical education has been overwhelmingly positive (Uruthiralingam & Rea, 2020). Anatomical learning has tradition-
ally involved studying images in textbooks and/or manipulation of hard plastic models, which each present challenges to
student learning given they are static versions of dynamic systems. Per Bogomolova et al. (2020), one method for student
learning of anatomy is through “cadaveric dissections [that] provide a complete visual and tactile learning experience of

97
anatomy which is three-dimensional (3D) by nature” (p. 558). However, Bogomolova et al. (2020) go on to explain that
“features such as stereopsis (visual sense of depth), dynamic exploration (the possibility to view the object of study from
different angles), and haptic feedback (sense of touch) are crucial for [student] engagement in 3D anatomy” (p. 559).
Notably, engagement and enjoyment are often salient attributes reported by students when using XR technology for ana-
tomical learning (Kurul et al., 2020; Little et al., 2021; Maresky et al., 2019; Moro et al., 2017; Taylor et al, 2022). More-
over, XR technologies have been found to be significant in supporting students in their spatial ability to rotate objects and
enhancing their understanding of 3D anatomical relationships, like relating structure to function (Meyer & Cui, 2020).
This research suggests science teachers could uniquely and greatly benefit from utilizing XR technologies as curricular
and instructional tools given that structure to function and spatial rotation are crosscutting concepts within K-12 science
education (Next Generation Science Standards [NGSS] Lead States, 2013; NGSS, n.d.) and essential to anatomical edu-
cation (Hoyek et al., 2009; McConnell & Hull, 2020), respectively.
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
Gonzales et al. (2020) defined spatial ability as “the cognitive capacity to understand and mentally manipulate con-
cepts of objects [and] remembering relationships among their parts and those of their surroundings. Having spatial ability
provides a learning advantage in science and may be useful in [learning] anatomy” (p. 707). Spatial ability encompasses
the skills of both spatial orientation (the relative positioning of objects within space to other objects) and spatial/men-
tal rotation (seeing the movement of an object from a fixed axis). When learning about the anatomical features of the
heart, spatial abilities are fundamental to students’ understandings of how organs work individually and how organs work
within the 3D system of the human body (Guimarães et al., 2019). Spatial abilities are vital because, as Azer and Azer
(2016) explained, “in anatomy, students have to rotate and manipulate structures from various views to identify ana-
tomical structures…the ability to visualize and mentally manipulate 3D structures and correctly identify them and related
structures is an important skill” (p. 81). Further, spatial ability has been shown to be significant in effectively navigating
the equipment needed in laparoscopic surgery (Roch et al., 2018) and accurately interpreting radiologic images (van der
Gijp et al., 2014). Generally speaking, students with higher spatial ability have greater anatomical competency (Guillot et
al., 2007). Scholars suggest training can grow students’ spatial abilities (Lin, 2016), specifically in anatomical education
(Hoyek et al, 2009), and training with XR technologies can grow students’ spatial abilities to better learn human anatomy
(Guimarães et al., 2019; Stull et al., 2009).
Similarly, structure to function is a “core principle in physiology” given that “in physiology, evolution explains the
origin of the relationships between structure and function that are at the core of our discipline” (Michael et al., 2009,
p. 12). At the molecular (e.g., receptors, enzymes), micro (e.g., eukaryotic organelles), and macro (e.g., body systems)
levels, there exists an indelible relationship between the structure of biological entities and the functions that are carried
out (Michael, 2021). This relationship is essential to fully understand the breadth and depth of the fields of biology and
chemistry (Kohn et al., 2018). The human heart is certainly no exception, as its chambers (atria and ventricles), different
types of valves (aortic and pulmonic versus the mitral and tricuspid), and associated blood vessels (vena cava, aorta, pul-
monary artery, and vein) all work in concert to move incoming deoxygenated blood to the lungs and retrieve oxygenated
blood, so it can be distributed throughout the body. Hence, “to fully understand the pumping action of the heart (func-
tion) you must understand the anatomy of the heart (structure)” (Michael, 2021, p. 881). An integral part of understand-
ing how the four-chambered human heart is able to partition oxygenated and deoxygenated blood is due to its valves; the
heart valves’ physical structures are directly related to a unique function. Static models or preserved specimens cannot
reveal this relationship between valve structure and function without dynamic movement, which is why XR technologies
have been ascribed as a boon in learning cardiac circulation (movement of blood within the heart) and how to perform
related surgeries (Sadeghi et al., 2020).
However, XR technologies are not without their limitations in regard to learning. Research suggests that XR tech-
nologies may not have the same level of utility among student populations, such as students with disabilities and ele-
mentary-aged students (Hite et al., 2019b; 2021; Lukava et al., 2022; Simon-Liedtke & Baraas, 2022). In the science
classroom, it is notable that XR technologies can also present challenges such as the need for technical support (due to
hardware and software issues from computer or user error), high demands on classroom management, and student cogni-
tive overload (Dunleavy et al., 2009). Therefore, knowing that there are large-scale affordances and limitations of XR
technologies, it bears examination of smaller-scale affordances and limitations of XR technologies when learning science

98
content. This information would be incredibly useful in devising salient strategies for teachers to mitigate known chal-
lenges when using XR for teaching and learning cardiac anatomy and physiology.
RESEARCH AIM AND INQUIRY
This study explored secondary students’ pre and post-assessment responses on two items related to cardiac anatomy
and physiology upon the use of XR technologies for science curriculum and instruction, which explicitly demonstrated
concepts of spatial rotation and structure to function. The aim of this research study was to explore how sampled sixth
and ninth-grade students answered these items and how their rationales illuminate attributes of affordances and/or limita-
tions of XR technology use. From this analysis, strategies for teachers can be devised to assist secondary students when
learning complex science content with XR technologies.
METHODS
Pre- and post-assessment data were obtained from two items (i.e., four-choice selected-response with an open-ended
area) on a life science assessment related to concepts of spatial rotation and structure to function, and both were con-
textualized to science content on the anatomy and physiology of the human heart. These types of data will illuminate to
what extent, if any, students were able to learn the two concepts using solely the XR technologies. Notably, this study
presents a new analysis of data sourced from a set of larger studies of secondary students’ experiences with virtual sci-
ence learning (Hite et al., 2019b, 2022).
Participants were 75 sixth-grade (11 to 12 years old) and 76 ninth-grade (14 to 15 years old) public school students
from the southeastern United States. The assessment data were collected before and after individual instruction on cardi-
ac anatomy and physiology, in three 60 minutes sessions, using an XR technology system (zSpace). In the context of this
study, zSpace is categorized as VR because it best fits the definition established by Dede et al. (2017) as an educational
technology that “provide[s] sensory immersion, at present focusing on visual and audio stimuli with some haptic (touch)
interfaces,” meaning that “the participant can turn and move as they do in the real world, and the digital setting responds
to maintain the illusion of presence of one’s body in a simulated setting” (p. 3). As a desktop-based VR system, immer-
sive elements are produced by stereoscopic 3D visualizations and virtual simulations using four embedded sensors and a
pair of polarized, head-tracking eyewear. Interaction, such as grasping, rotating, viewing, and animating virtual objects,
occurred using a pen-like 3-button stylus. The stylus is haptic enabled, providing pulsing feedback that replicates varying
heart rates. The hardware of the zSpace system is shown in Figure 1.
Note. Image used with permission from zSpace, Inc.
Figure 1. Hardware of the zSpace System: VR Desktop, Polarized Eyewear, and Haptic Enabled Stylus.

99
Both immersive and interactive elements allowed participants to carefully view aspects of cardiac anatomy from any
angle—relating to the affordances of spatial rotation. Note in the Figure 2 screenshot, during the VR activity, that stu-
dents are shown the backside of the heart, which they could rotate using the stylus (as shown in the image on the right-
hand side) to identify major blood vessels.
Figure 2. Screenshot of Activity Related to Spatial Rotation of Cardiac Anatomy and Physiology (Back View of the Heart).
At a different point within the VR activity, students observed and interacted with the concepts of cardiac physiology,
or the pumping of blood through atria and ventricles via valves in real time. This experience would aid students in relat-
ing cardiac structures (and specifically, heart valves) to their unique physiological functions. Figure 3 shows a screenshot
of the valves’ forms and functions.
Figure 3. Screenshot of Activity Relating Structure to Function in Cardiac Anatomy and Physiology (Valves).

100
Both before and after instruction, students were queried with two, four-point selected-response questions that also
tasked them to provide a written justification for their answer. Figure 4 illustrates the question that required students to
mentally rotate the human heart as they had rotated and viewed it (in Figure 2) while exploring cardiac anatomy on the
zSpace system.
Explain your answer choice: _______________________________________________________________________
Figure 4. Orientation of the Heart in the Human Skeleton.
Figure 5 shows a second question that asked students to consider the structure and function of the two shapes of
heart valves, the aortic and pulmonic contrasted with the mitral and tricuspid. Notably, students did not need to know the
names of the valves as this item tasked students with differentiating the two types of valves per their physiological func-
tions. The schema of valve form to function was presented to students on the zSpace system when animating and exam-
ining the heart’s structures (Figure 3) to demonstrate pulmonary circulation.
Explain your answer choice: ________________________________________________________
Figure 5. Relating Structure to Function of Different Types of Heart Valves.
Data Analysis
Data for both items were coded by four response typologies between pre-test and post-test administrations: select-
ing an incorrect answer on the pre-test to selecting the correct answer on the post-test; selecting incorrect answers on
pre- and post-test; selecting the correct answer on the pre-test; and selecting an incorrect answer on the post-test. Open-
ended responses were scrutinized to determine the types of alternative conceptions students rectified (transitioning from
an incorrect answer to the correct answer), maintained (selecting in/correct answers), or developed (regressing from the
correct answer to an incorrect answer) from the XR curriculum and instruction.
RESULTS
Analyses of the question on spatial rotation (Figure 4) are displayed in Table 1. The first two rows of the table rep-
resent correct responses, and the last two rows represent incorrect responses. Among the sixth-grade students, 19% held

101
or developed their spatial understanding of the heart whereas 81% held or developed an alternative spatial conception (or
misconception). Ninth-grade students had a greater number (27% as compared to 19%) of responses with a correct no-
tion of spatial understanding, but most (73%) students held spatial misconceptions.
Table 1
Pre- and Post-Assessment Analysis of Item: Orientation of the Heart in the Human Skeleton
Sixth-Grade Students
(n=75)
Ninth-Grade Students
(n=76)
Correct Answers 8 (11%) 8 (11%)
Incorrect Answer to Correct Answer 6 (8%) 12 (16%)
Incorrect Answers 47 (62%) 45 (59%)
Correct Answer to Incorrect Answer 14 (19%) 11 (14%)
The examination of open-ended responses found that sixth-grade students correctly surmised that the heart in Skel-
eton A would be the back view (answer choice C or D), yet incorrectly selected the wrong answer choice citing “the way
it faces from behind is different” and “it is faced backwards.” This ‘backwards’ comment was prevalent among the incor-
rect responses on the post-assessment, suggesting students are recognizing the back of the heart as seen on zSpace, yet
not recalling the imagery and/or understanding how to rotate the heart mentally from the forward-facing diagram, which
is traditionally seen in textbooks in selection A. One sixth-grade student who provided an incorrect answer on their pre-
assessment stated that they chose that heart orientation because “it looked like it would” yet on their post-assessment
chose “the back of the heart and skeleton A is only showing its back, so the heart has to be back.” A ninth-grade student,
who went from an incorrect answer (“because I think that [is] how the back of the heart [would] look like”) to the correct
answer had justified his new choice by saying that “the heart (if facing front) is pointing right.” Notably, the 25 sixth and
ninth students who had the correct answer on the pre-assessment, yet selected the incorrect answer on the post-assess-
ment, stated that their rationale was based upon guessing on their pre-assessment. This study’s finding of false positives
is a known limitation of selected-response testing and reflects a test-taking strategy among female students (Ackermann
& Siegfried, 2019), and comprised the majority (n=18, 72%) of the false positives in the present study.
Analyses of the question relating structure to function (Figure 5) are shown in Table 2. Again, the first two rows of
the table represent correct responses, and the last two rows represent incorrect responses. In the sixth-grade sample, 37%
held or developed their structure to function knowledge with one-fourth of the students sampled moving from an incor-
rect to the correct response. Yet, 63% held or developed a misconception on structure to function of heart valves. Ninth-
grade students had nearly half (47%) of students reporting the correct answer, again with over one-fourth moving from
an incorrect to a correct answer, but half (53% of) students maintained misconceptions regarding valve shape to its physi-
ological function.
Table 2
Pre- and Post-Assessment Analysis of Item: Relating Structure to Function of Heart Valves
Sixth-Grade Students (n=75) Ninth-Grade Students (n=74*)
Correct Answers 10 (13%) 15 (20%)
Incorrect Answer to Correct Answer 18 (24%) 20 (27%)
Incorrect Answers 35 (47%) 26 (35%)
Correct Answer to Incorrect Answer 12 (16%) 13 (18%)
*Two students did not provide post-data for this item.
Examination of open-ended responses found that sixth-grade students were considering which valve would let blood
in and out (answer choice C or D), yet were not fully interpreting the direction of the blood based upon the shape of
the valve. Incorrect answer responses related the incorrect valve as “being the most helpful [valve] to the heart,” yet
the majority of incorrect responses indicated that “none of these are entrances [sic] valves” or “both of these valves be-
cause when blood goes to the heart the valves open.” One sixth-grade student who had reported an incorrect answer on

102
their pre-assessment stated that they chose that heart valve “because its’ shape allows blood to come through but not out
again.” Yet on this same student’s post-assessment, they had chosen the correct response and stated, “because it is shaped
correctly so the blood can come in but not out.” Ninth-grade students had more nuanced correct answers describing their
thought process in assessing the structure to function of valves citing that “because that’s where the blood enters from
and where it exits from,” and “the valve shut and close[d] quickly. This valve look[s] like it has the ability to do that.”
Other students with correct answers went further in regard to structure to function by situating their thinking within the
heart itself, writing that the heart “is thinner, and I noticed that the veins are thinner. Also, from the top view you see it
looks like the valves I looked at in the heart.” This student combined their new knowledge of structure to function and
verified that thinking by recalling specific elements from the 3D curriculum and instruction.
DISCUSSION
From the results of Table 1, only 19% of sixth-grade and 27% of ninth-grade students sampled were able to spa-
tially rotate the heart successfully to orient the heart into the backward-facing skeleton. The rationales that students had
provided revealed erroneous answers were most likely due to flipping the image instead of rotating, which suggests that
up to 81% of sixth-grade and up to 73% of ninth-grade students were turning the image over (mirror image) rather than
moving it about an axis. Notably, this is termed as the flipping strategy and is a simpler mental task when compared to
a spinning strategy (Kanamore & Yagi, 2002). Furthermore, flipping (versus spinning) does not require as much spatial
working memory (Hegarty, 2018). This research may help explain why ninth-grade students fared better as one’s spatial
abilities improve over time and even more so with specialized training and experiences (Blüchel et al., 2013; Pietsch et
al., 2017; Rodán et al., 2019), including training on XR technologies when learning science (Baumgartner et al., 2022).
Given that research by Chaker et al. (2021) found that when using XR technology the “students’ mental rotation ability
predicted the increase of [their] anatomy score” (p. 136), we begin to see some clarity and consensus on the importance
of spatial abilities when learning with and from XR technologies in life science and specifically for anatomical educa-
tion.
From the results located in Table 2, 37% of sixth-grade and 47% of ninth-grade students sampled were able to dis-
cern form to function of heart valves successfully. From the rationales provided for item 2, students had garnered an un-
derstanding of the overall function from the XR curriculum and instruction, yet were unable to attribute the varied func-
tionalities to differentiated structures. This misconception was maintained (among 47% of sixth-grade students and 35%
of ninth-grade students) or potentially generated (among 16% of sixth-grade students and 18% of ninth-grade students)
despite having viewed the valves operate, in concert with one another, to facilitate blood flow through the heart. Accord-
ing to scholarly literature, structure to function is a challenging concept for students to learn as students have reported
alternative conceptions regarding structure to function (Halim et al., 2018; Situmorang & Sihotang, 2021), especially of
the heart (Buckberg et al., 2018). Not only are heart valves in and of themselves a complex entity (i.e., the structure to
function of heart valves), but also play roles in a greater and complex system (i.e., chambers, atria, and vessels to facili-
tate cardiac circulation). For these sampled students, this XR experience may have been one of their first or only experi-
ences they have had using these technologies and/or viewing a heart they could interact with in real time. Therefore, they
may have been experiencing information (cognitive or sensory) overload, a commonly reported issue in the research on
students learning science with XR technologies (Dunleavy et al., 2009; Parong & Mayer, 2021; Maransky et al., 2019)
that are also haptic enabled (Bussell, 2006; Schönborn et al., 2011; Zacharia, 2015).
RECOMMENDATIONS
Analyses from the first item suggests that an XR-guided lesson in which students manipulate an simple object about
an axis and interpret how asymmetrical objects would appear from the front and back may have aided in students’ mental
functions so they could recognize complex objects (like the heart) from a rear-facing view. This training not only builds
students’ abilities in working with novel XR technology but also their spatial abilities to better understand and learn
from the virtually presented information. Results further suggest that sixth-grade students as well as ninth-grade students
would have benefitted from more scaffolding, ideally from their science teacher, when using XR technologies for learn-
ing these conceptual ideas. Had students been provided instruction, from their teacher, regarding attributes of structure to

103
function, students may have been able to discern the rationale for differences between the valves. To mitigate this issue,
Yang et al. (2018) described in their XR for education framework the modality principle, which is “the way we present
information should be dependent on how complex the information is” (p. 4). Therefore, small or large group instruction
about structure to function concepts would have primed students for this specific case of structure to function with heart
valves. For science teachers particularly, research suggests that rather than teaching structure to function, there is some
benefit of starting students with the function and then examining structure (Liu et al., 2005), providing students with a
context from which to ground their understandings of the purpose of evolving specific structures.
In sum, research reports that XR technologies hold ease of use attributes in which users are able to perform virtual
tasks effectively and/or efficiently (Fussell & Truong, 2021; Manis & Choi, 2019). However, technological fluency or
one’s abilities to be “fluent with information technology [and] are able to express themselves creatively, to reformulate
knowledge, and to synthesize new information” (National Research Council, 1999, p. 2) with XR technologies, remains a
challenge for students (Guilbaud et al., 2021; Wassie & Zergaw, 2019) and teachers (Patterson & Han, 2019; Mystakidis
et al., 2021) alike. Technological fluency-building activities are essential for students to effectively engage in the new era
of emerging technologies (Barron, 2004) and when teachers introduce XR technologies into their science classrooms and
instruction (Fransson et al., 2020).
Science teachers who wish to improve their technological fluency and effectively use XR technologies to teach the
science concepts related to those presented in the chapter can begin by first advocating for procuring XR technologies
for their schools and classrooms. Without adequate access to these technological tools, there are few to no opportuni-
ties to develop technological fluency. Once the XR technologies are procured, teachers and students alike could engage
in generative activities, not for content learning, but for skill acquisition to develop their digital fluency. Low-stakes XR
activities will help both groups of users to master the hardware and troubleshoot software to then take meaning from fu-
ture XR activities. Further, this nascent use of XR technology helps to build interest and buy-in from stakeholders (e.g.,
teachers’ administrators and students’ parents) towards using XR technologies for teaching and learning in the science
classroom. Next, teachers may wish to review their science lesson plans to self-assess specific concepts that would ben-
efit from XR technological support. What are abstract concepts or complex processes that their students have struggled
in mastering? If one is a new science teacher or teaching a new science subject, review the state standards to determine
areas that students may benefit from viewing micro or macro content that students can explore in greater detail via spatial
rotation and discern form to function with a virtual analog; Hite (2022) provides specific stepwise guidance for this step.
Once a science teacher holds fluency in their chosen XR technology, they may introduce XR into their curriculum and
instruction with students. Formative assessment is recommended as a useful tool to ensure that students are garnering the
knowledge and/or skills intended from the XR technology use; this step may be performed on pen and paper as well as
circulating among students (e.g., querying their ideas about the presented science concept/s) as they use the XR technol-
ogy. If there are deficiencies or concerns detected in students’ conceptual understanding, additional activities or instruc-
tion may be warranted to mitigate the development of alternative conceptions.
CONCLUSION
This chapter provided valuable and unique insight into secondary students’ learning when using XR technologies for
science instruction focused on cardiac anatomy and physiology. By focusing research on two concepts that are challeng-
ing to students, but are credited as affordances of learning with XR technologies—spatial rotation and structure to func-
tion—a greater understanding of the learning is garnered by situating XR affordances to the content domain of science.
By sampling sixth and ninth-grade students, data suggested that while some students were successful in understanding
these concepts using XR technologies alone, many were not successful. Research offered some ideas as to why certain
students would not be able to acquire this knowledge, such as having fewer experiences (training) with XR technologies
to build their spatial abilities, or these students did not possess prior knowledge of the content to mitigate information
(cognitive) overload when presented with novel and complex concepts.
In sum, it may be suggested that teachers and students alike simply need more experiences in the science classroom
with XR technologies to better utilize them for science teaching and learning, respectively. Furthermore, scaffolding ex-
periences would be beneficial to build both students’ and teachers’ technological fluency with XR technologies that can
also reduce the amount of management (per Dunleavy et al, 2019) needed when only rarely using such technologies in
the science classroom.

104
REFERENCES
Ackermann, N., & Siegfried, C. (2019). Does a balanced test form regarding selected-response and constructed-response
items overcome gender gap in test scores? An analysis of the format-gender relation in the test of economic-civic compe-
tence. Citizenship, Social and Economics Education, 18(3), 158-176. https://doi.org/10.1177/2047173419892531
Alalwan, N., Cheng, L., Al-Samarraie, H., Yousef, R., Alzahrani, A. I., & Sarsam, S. M. (2020). Challenges and prospects of vir-
tual reality and augmented reality utilization among primary school teachers: A developing country perspective. Studies in
Educational Evaluation, 66, 0-0. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2020.100876
Alt, D. (2018). Science teachers’ conceptions of teaching and learning, ICT efficacy, ICT professional development and
ICT practices enacted in their classrooms. Teaching and Teacher Education, 73, 141-150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tate.2018.03.020
Arici, F., Yilmaz, R. M., & Yilmaz, M. (2021). Affordances of augmented reality technology for science education: Views of
secondary school students and science teachers. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 3(5), 1153-1171. https://doi.
org/10.1002/hbe2.310
Assefa, S., & Gershman, L. (2012). 21st
century skills and science education in K-12 environment investigating a symbiotic re-
lationship. In D. J. Flinders, P. B. Uhrmacher, & C. M. Moroye (Eds.), Curriculum and Teaching Dialogue (pp. 139-162).
Information Age Publishing, Inc.
Azer, S. A., & Azer, S. (2016). 3D anatomy models and impact on learning: a review of the quality of the literature. Health Pro-
fessions Education, 2(2), 80-98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hpe.2016.05.002
Barron, B. (2004). Learning ecologies for technological fluency: Gender and experience differences. Journal of Educational
Computing Research, 31(1), 1-36. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/69481/
Batane, T., & Ngwako, A. (2017). Technology use by preservice teachers during teaching practice: Are new teachers embracing
technology right away in their first teaching experience? Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 33(1), 48–61.
https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.2299
Baumgartner, E., Ferdig, R. E., & Gandolfi, E. (2022). Exploring the impact of extended reality (XR) on spatial reasoning of
elementary students. TechTrends, 66(5), 825-836. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-022-00753-6
Blüchel, M., Lehmann, J., Kellner, J., & Jansen, P. (2013). The improvement in mental rotation performance in primary school-
aged children after a two-week motor-training. Educational Psychology, 33(1), 75-86. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.20
12.707612
Bogomolova, K., van der Ham, I. J., Dankbaar, M. E., van den Broek, W. W., Hovius, S. E., van der Hage, J. A., & Hierck, B. P.
(2020). The effect of stereoscopic augmented reality visualization on learning anatomy and the modifying effect of visual‐
spatial abilities: A double-center randomized controlled trial. Anatomical Sciences Education, 13(5), 558-567. https://doi.
org/10.1002/ase.1941
Buckberg, G. D., Nanda, N. C., Nguyen, C., & Kocica, M. J. (2018). What is the heart? Anatomy, function, pathophysiology,
and misconceptions. Journal of Cardiovascular Development and Disease, 5(2), 1-29. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcdd5020033
Bussell, L. D. (2006). Learning science concepts with haptic feedback. In G. Ghinea & S. Y. Chen (Eds)., Digital Multimedia
Perception and Design (pp. 132-151). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-59140-860-4.ch006
Chaker, R., Gallot, M., Binay, M., & Hoyek, N. (2021). User experience of a 3D interactive human anatomy learning tool. Edu-
cational Technology & Society, 24(2), 136-150. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/27004937
Childers, G. & Hite, R. (2022). The role of emerging technologies in science teacher preparation. In J. A. Luft & M. G. Jones
(Eds.), Handbook of Research on Science Teacher Education (pp. 218-230). Taylor & Francis.
Dede, C. J., Jacobson, J., & Richards, J. (2017). Introduction: Virtual, augmented, and mixed realities in education. In D. Liu, C.
Dede, R. Huang, & J. Richards (Eds.), Virtual, Augmented, and Mixed Realities in Education (pp. 1-18). Springer. https://
doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5490-7_1
Dunleavy, M., Dede, C., & Mitchell, R. (2009). Affordances and limitations of immersive participatory augmented reality
simulations for teaching and learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(1), 7-22. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10956-008-9119-1
Feyzi Behnagh, R., & Yasrebi, S. (2020). An examination of constructivist educational technologies: Key affordances and condi-
tions. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(6), 1907-1919. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13036
Fransson, G., Holmberg, J., & Westelius, C. (2020). The challenges of using head mounted virtual reality in K-12 schools from
a teacher perspective. Education and Information Technologies, 25(4), 3383-3404. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-
10119-1
Fussell, S. G., & Truong, D. (2021). Accepting virtual reality for dynamic learning: an extension of the technology acceptance
model. Interactive Learning Environments, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2021.2009880
Gardner, G. E., & Jones, M. G. (2014). Exploring pre-service teachers’ perceptions of the risks of emergent technologies: Impli-
cations for teaching and learning. Journal of Nano Education, 6(1), 39-49. https://doi.org/10.1166/jne.2014.1041
Gonzales, R. A., Ferns, G., Vorstenbosch, M. A., & Smith, C. F. (2020). Does spatial awareness training affect anatomy learning
in medical students?. Anatomical Sciences Education, 13(6), 707-720. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1949

105
Guillot, A., Champely, S., Batier, C., Thiriet, P., & Collet, C. (2007). Relationship between spatial abilities, mental rotation and
functional anatomy learning. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 12(4), 491-507. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-006-
9021-7
Guilbaud, P., Bubar, E., & Langran, E. (2021, July). STEM excellence and equity in K-12 Settings: Use of augmented reality-
based educational experiences to promote academic achievement and learner success. In International Conference on Hu-
man-Computer Interaction (pp. 45-50). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-78645-8_6
Guimarães, B., Firmino-Machado, J., Tsisar, S., Viana, B., Pinto-Sousa, M., Vieira-Marques, P., Cruz-Correia, R., & Ferreira,
M. A. (2019). The role of anatomy computer-assisted learning on spatial abilities of medical students. Anatomical Sciences
Education, 12(2), 138-153. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1795
Halim, A. S., Finkenstaedt-Quinn, S. A., Olsen, L. J., Gere, A. R., & Shultz, G. V. (2018). Identifying and remediating stu-
dent misconceptions in introductory biology via writing-to-learn assignments and peer review. CBE—Life Sciences Educa-
tion, 17(2), ar28. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.17-10-0212
Hegarty, M. (2018). Ability and sex differences in spatial thinking: What does the mental rotation test really measure?. Psycho-
nomic Bulletin & Review, 25(3), 1212-1219. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-017-1347-z
Hite, R. (2022). Virtual reality: Flight of fancy or feasible? Ways to use virtual reality technologies to enhance students’ science
learning. The American Biology Teacher, 84(2), 106-108. https://doi.org/10.1525/abt.2022.84.2.106
Hite, R., Childers, G., Jones, M. G., Corin, E., & Pereyra, M. (2021). Describing the experiences of students with ADHD learn-
ing science content with emerging technologies. Journal of Science Education for Students with Disabilities, 24(1), 1-34.
https://scholarworks.rit.edu/jsesd/vol24/iss1/12/
Hite, R. L., Jones, M. G., Childers, G., Chesnutt, K., Corin, E. N., & Pereyra, M. (2019a). Teachers’ pedagogical acceptance of
novel 3D, haptic-enabled, virtual reality technology. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 23(1), 1-34. http://ejse.south-
western.edu/article/view/18732/12306
Hite, R. L., Jones, M. G., Childers, G. M., Ennes, M., Chesnutt, K., Pereyra, M., & Cayton, E. (2019b). Investigating potential
relationships between adolescents’ cognitive development and perceptions of presence in 3-D, haptic-enabled, virtual real-
ity science instruction. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 28(3), 265-284. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-018-
9764-y
Hite, R. L., Jones, M. G., Childers, G. M., Ennes, M. E., Chesnutt, K. M., Pereyra, M., & Cayton, E. M. (2022). The utility of
3D, haptic-enabled, virtual reality technologies for student knowledge gains in the complex biological system of the human
heart. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 38(3), 651-667. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12638
Hite, R. L., & McIntosh, A. (2020). The affordances of 3D mixed reality in cultivating secondary students’ non-cognitive skill
use and development in the engineering design process. In R. Zheng (Ed.), Cognitive and Affective Perspectives on Immer-
sive Technology in Education (2nd
ed., pp. 171-194). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-3250-8.ch009
Hoyek, N., Collet, C., Rastello, O., Fargier, P., Thiriet, P., & Guillot, A. (2009). Enhancement of mental rota-
tion abilities and its effect on anatomy learning. Teaching and Learning in Medicine, 21(3), 201-206. https://doi.
org/10.1080/10401330903014178
Kanamori, N., & Yagi, A. (2002). The difference between flipping strategy and spinning strategy in mental rotation. Percep-
tion, 31(12), 1459-1466. https://doi.org/10.1068/p3325
Kaplan, A. D., Cruit, J., Endsley, M., Beers, S. M., Sawyer, B. D., & Hancock, P. A. (2021). The effects of virtual reality,
augmented reality, and mixed reality as training enhancement methods: A meta-analysis. Human factors, 63(4), 706-726.
https:// doi.org/10.1177/0018720820904229
Kohn, K. P., Underwood, S. M., & Cooper, M. M. (2018). Connecting structure–property and structure–function relationships
across the disciplines of chemistry and biology: Exploring student perceptions. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 17(2), ar33.
https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.18-01-0004
Kurul, R., Ögün, M. N., Neriman Narin, A., Avci, Ş., & Yazgan, B. (2020). An alternative method for anatomy training: Immer-
sive virtual reality. Anatomical Sciences Education, 13(5), 648-656. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1959
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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-020-09837-5
Lin, H. (2016). Influence of design training and spatial solution strategies on spatial ability performance. International Journal
of Technology and Design Education, 26(1), 123-131. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-015-9302-7
Little, W. B., Dezdrobitu, C., Conan, A. (2021). Is augmented reality the new way for teaching and learning veterinary cardiac
anatomy?. Medical Science Educator, 31, 723–732. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-021-01260-8
Liu, L., Marathe, S., & Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2005, April). Function before form: An alternative approach to learning about com-
plex systems. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Montreal, Canada.
Lukava, T., Ramirez, D. Z. M., & Barbareschi, G. (2022). Two sides of the same coin: accessibility practices and neurodivergent
users’ experience of extended reality. Journal of Enabling Technologies, 16(2), 75-90. https://doi.org/10.1108/JET-03-2022-
0025
Makransky, G., & Petersen, G. B. (2019). Investigating the process of learning with desktop virtual reality: A structural equation
modeling approach. Computers & Education, 134, 15-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.02.002

106
Maas, M. J., & Hughes, J. M. (2020). Virtual, augmented and mixed reality in K–12 education: A review of the literature. Tech-
nology, Pedagogy and Education, 29(2), 231-249. http://doi.org/10.1080/1475939x.2020.1737210
Makransky, G., Terkildsen, T. S., & Mayer, R. E. (2019). Adding immersive virtual reality to a science lab simulation causes
more presence but less learning. Learning and Instruction, 60, 225-236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.12.007
Manis, K. T., & Choi, D. (2019). The virtual reality hardware acceptance model (VR-HAM): Extending and individuating the
technology acceptance model (TAM) for virtual reality hardware. Journal of Business Research, 100, 503-513. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.10.021
Maresky, H. S., Oikonomou, A., Ali, I., Ditkofsky, N., Pakkal, M., & Ballyk, B. (2019). Virtual reality and cardiac anatomy: Ex-
ploring immersive three‐dimensional cardiac imaging, a pilot study in undergraduate medical anatomy education. Clinical
Anatomy, 32(2), 238-243. https://doi.org/10.1002/ca.23292
National Research Council. (1999). Being Fluent with Information Technology. The National Academies Press. https://doi.
org/10.17226/6482
McConnell, T. H., & Hull, K. L. (2020). Human form, human function: Essentials of anatomy & physiology, enhanced edition:
Essentials of anatomy & physiology. Jones & Bartlett Learning.
Meyer, E. R., & Cui, D. (2020). Anatomy visualizations using stereopsis: Assessment and implication of stereoscopic virtual
models in anatomical education. In P. M. Rea (Ed.), Biomedical Visualisation Advances in Experimental Medicine and Bi-
ology (pp. 117-130). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-37639-0_7
Michael, J. (2021). What do we mean when we talk about “structure/function” relationships?. Advances in Physiology Educa-
tion, 45(4), 880-885. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00108.2021
Michael, J., Modell, H., McFarland, J., & Cliff, W. (2009). The “core principles” of physiology: what should students under-
stand?. Advances in Physiology Education, 33(1), 10-16. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.90139.2008
Moro, C., Štromberga, Z., & Stirling, A. (2017). Virtualisation devices for student learning: Comparison between desktop-based
(Oculus Rift) and mobile-based (Gear VR) virtual reality in medical and health science education. Australasian Journal of
Educational Technology, 33(6), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.3840
Mystakidis, S., Fragkaki, M., & Filippousis, G. (2021). Ready teacher one: virtual and augmented reality online professional de-
velopment for K-12 middle school teachers. Computers, 10(10), 134. https://doi.org/10.3390/computers10100134
Next Generation Science Standards. (n.d.). Structure and Function. Author. https://www.nextgenscience.org/crosscutting-con-
cepts/structure-and-function
Next Generation Science Standards Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States. The Nation-
al Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18290
Oliveira, A., Feyzi Behnagh, R., Ni, L., Mohsinah, A. A., Burgess, K. J., & Guo, L. (2019). Emerging technologies as pedagogi-
cal tools for teaching and learning science: A literature review. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 1(2), 149-
160. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbe2.141
Parong, J., & Mayer, R. E. (2021). Cognitive and affective processes for learning science in immersive virtual reality. Journal of
Computer Assisted Learning, 37(1), 226-241. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12482
Patterson, T., & Han, I. (2019). Learning to teach with virtual reality: Lessons from one elementary teacher. TechTrends, 63(4),
463-469. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-019-00401-6
Pietsch, S., Böttcher, C., & Jansen, P. (2017). Cognitive motor coordination training improves mental rotation performance in
primary school-aged children. Mind, Brain, and Education, 11(4), 176-180. https://doi.org/10.1111/mbe.12154
Rauschnabel, P. A., Felix, R., Hinsch, C., Shahab, H., & Alt, F. (2022). What is XR? Towards a framework for augmented and
virtual reality. Computers in Human Behavior, 133, 107289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107289
Roch, P. J., Rangnick, H. M., Brzoska, J. A., Benner, L., Kowalewski, K. F., Müller, P. C., Kenngott, H. G., Müller-Stich, B.-
P., & Nickel, F. (2018). Impact of visual–spatial ability on laparoscopic camera navigation training. Surgical Endosco-
py, 32(3), 1174-1183. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-017-5789-1
Rodán, A., Gimeno, P., Elosúa, M. R., Montoro, P. R., & Contreras, M. J. (2019). Boys and girls gain in spatial, but not in math-
ematical ability after mental rotation training in primary education. Learning and Individual Differences, 70, 1-11. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2019.01.001
Sadeghi, A. H., El Mathari, S., Abjigitova, D., Maat, A. P., Taverne, Y. J., Bogers, A. J., & Mahtab, E. A. (2020). Current and
future applications of virtual, augmented, and mixed reality in cardiothoracic surgery. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery,
113(2), 681-691. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2020.11.030
Simon-Liedtke, J. T., & Baraas, R. C. (2022). The need for universal design of eXtended reality (XR) technology in primary
and secondary education. In International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (pp. 121-141). Springer. https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-3-031-06015-1_9
Situmorang, R. M., & Sihotang, L. (2021, June). Analaysis of students’ misconceptions on structure and function of cell organ-
elle using the four-tier diagnostic test. In 2nd Annual Conference on Blended Learning, Educational Technology and Inno-
vation (pp. 345-350). Atlantis Press.
Schönborn, K. J., Bivall, P., & Tibell, L. A. (2011). Exploring relationships between students’ interaction and learning with
a haptic virtual biomolecular model. Computers & Education, 57(3), 2095-2105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compe-
du.2011.05.013

107
Stull, A. T., Hegarty, M., & Mayer, R. E. (2009). Getting a handle on learning anatomy with interactive three-dimensional
graphics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(4), 803–816. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016849
Taylor, L., Dyer, T., Al-Azzawi, M., Smith, C., Nzeako, O., & Shah, Z. (2022). Extended reality anatomy undergraduate teach-
ing: A literature review on an alternative method of learning. Annals of Anatomy-Anatomischer Anzeiger, 239, 151817.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aanat.2021.151817
Tilhou, R., Taylor, V., & Crompton, H. (2020). 3D virtual reality in K-12 education: A thematic systematic review. In S. Yu, M.
Ally, & A. Tsinakos (Eds.), Emerging Technologies and Pedagogies in the Curriculum. Bridging Human and Machine: Fu-
ture Education with Intelligence (pp. 0-0). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0618-5_10
Uruthiralingam, U., & Rea, P.M. (2020). Augmented and virtual reality in anatomical education – a systematic review. In P. M.
Rea (Ed.), Biomedical Visualisation Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology (pp. 89-101). Springer. https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-3-030-37639-0_5
Van der Gijp, A., Van der Schaaf, M. F., Van der Schaaf, I. C., Huige, J. C. B. M., Ravesloot, C. J., Van Schaik, J. P. J., & Ten
Cate, T. J. (2014). Interpretation of radiological images: Towards a framework of knowledge and skills. Advances in Health
Sciences Education, 19(4), 565-580. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-013-9488-y
Wassie, Y. A., & Zergaw, G. A. (2019). Some of the potential affordances, challenges and limitations of using GeoGebra in
mathematics education. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 15(8), 1-11. https://doi.
org/10.29333/ejmste/108436
Yang, K., Zhou, X., & Radu, I. (2020). XR-ed framework: Designing instruction-driven and Learner-centered extended reality
systems for education. arXiv preprint. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2010.13779
Yu, J., Denham, A. R., & Searight, E. (2022). A systematic review of augmented reality game-based Learning in STEM educa-
tion. Educational Technology Research and Development, 70, 1169-1194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-022-10122-y
Zacharia, Z. C. (2015). Examining whether touch sensory feedback is necessary for science learning through experimentation:
A literature review of two different lines of research across K-16. Educational Research Review, 16, 116-137. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.10.001
Zhao, J., Xu, X., Jiang, H., & Ding, Y. (2020). The effectiveness of virtual reality-based technology on anatomy teaching: a
meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies. BMC Medical Education, 20(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-020-
1994-z

109
Virtual Reality and Situated Learning: A Case for STEM Education in Young Children
SIMON SO
The Education University of Hong Kong, China
simonwwso@gmail.com
KENNETH LAI
The Chinese University of Hong Kong, China
NAOMI LEE
SUNNY WONG
Abstract: The disconnection between “know-how” and “know-what” in traditional teaching methods has led
to passive and unmotivated students. The constructivist approach, which emphasizes the active creation of
knowledge by students, is widely considered the better teaching and learning approach. Situated learning, de-
veloped on the foundation of the constructivist approach, advocates for the presentation of authentic physical
and social contexts accompanied by with real-life tasks to aid knowledge construction. The implementation
of this concept has been made more readily available by the emergence of virtual reality (VR) technology. This
chapter details a case study where a VR game in science, technology, engineering, and math education is
developed to teach primary school students between 8 and 11 years old the mathematical concept of weight
measurement. In the game, the students are required to sort pigs according to their weights in a virtual farm,
familiarizing themselves with topics including units of weights and scale reading. The importance of humane
animal handling is also emphasized. The feedback received from participants of the playtesting sessions sug-
gests that the VR game is effective in engaging students, capacitating social interaction, and achieving learn-
ing outcomes. Despite smooth gameplay for most participants, some usability problems like motion sickness
and incompatibility of hardware devices for younger students are shown.
Keywords: Virtual Reality in Education, VR Game Development, Situated Learning, Game-based Learning,
STEM Learning in Children
INTRODUCTION
In education, the debate over the disconnection between “know-how” and “know-what” has been ongoing (Brown
et al., 1989). Traditionally, the didactic approach to teaching has long been practiced in education, where knowledge is
passed down from teachers to students while emphasizing drills and practice (Lui & Bonner, 2016). The students’ re-
sponsibility is to passively absorb discrete facts and isolated knowledge from the teacher (Teo, 2019). Common means
include lectures, textbooks, and worksheets. Despite the long history of implementing such an approach, it has led to a
bias towards “know-what” rather than “know-how” while causing students to become disengaged and struggle to identify
the relevance between knowledge learned and their lives (Garcia & Pacheco, 2013). The problem with traditional educa-
tion methods becomes even more apparent when taking into account 21st-century skills like problem-solving, creativity,
and collaboration, which cannot be effectively developed through traditional means of education (Geisinger, 2016). Un-
fortunately, these skills are essential tools for unlocking “know-how,” indicating the deficiency in the traditional didactic
approach.
As a response to the shortcoming of the traditional approach to teaching, the constructivist approach to teaching
and learning is put forward by many contemporary educators. Instead of focusing on passive knowledge acquisition and

110
repetitive practice, the constructivist approach emphasizes the active engagement of the students, leading to the construc-
tion of knowledge (Kurt, 2011). Situated learning (Brown et al., 1989; Lave & Wenger, 1991), as one of the concepts
derived from the constructivist approach, has been revealed to be effective in facilitating the process of such knowledge
construction. By allowing students to engage actively in proper physical and social contexts, conceptual knowledge is el-
evated from the inert “know-what” to the useful “know-how” (Harley, 1993).
Despite its evident benefits, situated learning has been challenging to implement in classroom settings because of the
difficulty in presenting an authentic physical environment and creating a sense of presence for the students. However, in
recent years, the development of virtual reality (VR) technology has brought new possibilities. Due to its captivating pre-
sentation of virtual environments and facilitation of diverse interactions, VR is regarded as an effective tool for enabling
situated learning (Freina & Ott, 2015). Nevertheless, most studies regarding the use of VR for situated learning have been
focused on the tertiary level. Investigation into its application for K–12 education is relatively lacking, especially regard-
ing the subject of mathematics. Owing to the abstract nature of mathematical concepts and lack of application in tradition-
al ways of teaching, VR can potentially impact mathematics education by enabling visualization, contextualization, and
interactivity. Further exploration in connecting mathematical concepts to real-life problems is thus necessary.
As a case study to demonstrate the application of VR technology for situated learning in mathematics, a game aimed
at teaching concepts of weight measurement was developed with the title Happy Maths Farm. It is aimed at educating
students between the ages of 8 and 11. The immersive nature of the game places the player in a situation close to work-
ing at an authentic farm, where they can learn how to manage farm animals while enhancing their understanding of math-
ematics.
In the following sections, we discuss the theoretical background and design of the VR game as well as the feedback
received from the players. By putting the VR technology into practice, we conclude what we learned from the develop-
ment of the VR game and the situated learning experiment.
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
Constructivist Approach to Game-based Learning
As defined by Good and Brophy (1994), the backbone of the constructivist approach to learning is forged by four
statements. First, learners construct their own meaning and therefore do not develop deep understandings from what
they passively acquire. Instead, they must discover and create their own knowledge with deliberate effort. Second, learn-
ing builds on prior knowledge by making connections between old and new information. Third, social interaction
enhances learning, and the opportunity to compare and share ideas with others is crucial for students. Fourth, meaning-
ful learning occurs through authentic tasks, where activities need to simulate those encountered in real life. To ensure
students’ effective knowledge construction, educators should enforce a directive structure through scaffolding or a sup-
portive framework (Vygotsky, 1978). Through direct experiences and social interactions in activities, students are able to
create knowledge that fits into their belief system, which can be applied in real-life settings (Driver & Oldham, 1986).
Other than engaging students, the constructivist approach is also capable of enhancing students’ 21st-century skills by
enabling discovery and collaboration (Ah-Nam & Osman, 2017), thus preparing them for the challenges ahead in this
ever-changing era.
One of the concepts developed on the foundation of the constructivist approach is situated learning. According to
Lave and Wenger (1991), information should be provided at the precise moment when it is the most important to the
learner, suggesting that learning activities should take place in a relevant context. Based on the idea that knowledge is
both situated and developed through activity, this concept upholds the provision of physical and social environments to
facilitate knowledge construction (Brown et al., 1989). With the culture of the subject domain established, students be-
come practitioners and engage in problem-solving and collaboration, enhancing their understanding.
At the same time, play (Huizinga, 1955) is considered an important activity for development in children. Research
has shown the importance of gameplay for children’s cognitive, emotional, and mental development (Gee, 2003; Piaget,
1952; Vygotsky, 1978). A game, defined as “a system in which players engage in an artificial conflict, defined by rules,
that results in a quantifiable outcome” (Salen & Zimmerman, 2003), is a particularly engaging type of play that lays out a
reinforcement schedule that boosts motivation and maintains a state of flow in the player (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990; Loftus
& Loftus, 1983). These benefits of gameplay have led to the development of game-based learning, referring to the type

111
of gameplay characterized by defined learning outcomes (Shaffer et al., 2005). Emphasizing the motivating and engaging
nature of gameplay, game-based learning is viewed as a great means to facilitate education while aiding students’ devel-
opment on cognitive, social, and emotional grounds.
In the integrated design framework of game-based learning described by Plass et al. (2015), the six building blocks
of game-based learning include (1) game mechanics, (2) visual aesthetics, (3) narrative, (4) incentive, (5) musical score,
and (6) content and skills. The first five elements are key ingredients to a game, while the content and skills involved in the
game specify the learning outcome. The impact of these elements working together can in turn be investigated through
four perspectives: cognitive, motivational, affective, and socio-cultural. Most of the theoretical foundations concerning
these four perspectives perfectly coincide with the constructivist approach to learning. For example, games are capable of
presenting a social and physical context with authentic tasks, thus enabling situated learning (Gee, 2008). The provision
of a social context and facilitation of collaboration in games also fits the emphasis on social interaction in the constructiv-
ist approach (Hummel et al., 2011). Thus, we suggest that game-based learning is a convincing embodiment of the con-
structivist approach to learning.
Situated Learning Through VR Gameplay
VR is defined as “a wide variety of computer-based applications commonly associated with immersive, highly vi-
sual, 3D characteristics that allow the participant to look about and navigate within a seemingly real or physical world”
and is “generally defined based on the type of technology being used, such as head-mounted displays, stereoscopic capa-
bility, input devices, and the number of sensory systems stimulated” (Lopreiato, 2016, p. 41). Owing to its ability to pres-
ent authentic environments and enable diverse interactions, VR has been applied in education for different purposes, like
visualization and hands-on experience.
Researchers have been interested in investigating the impact of VR on education. In a study by Schott and Marshall
(2018) where a VR learning environment was used to explore issues of tourism development at a tertiary level, stu-
dents reported high engagement and increased understanding of the topic. A VR wound dressing simulator developed
to train undergraduate nursing students was found to be effective in improving learning outcomes due to the provision
of an authentic context (Choi, 2022). By experimenting in a Child Development Assessment course, Chiou (2020) found
that situated learning activities in VR can more effectively transfer knowledge to real-life problem-solving than in paper
form. These findings indicate that VR learning environments are powerful tools for engaging students, improving practi-
cal techniques, and enhancing 21st-century skills.
A limited number of studies have provided a glimpse into potential uses of VR in primary school mathematics edu-
cation, including the visualization of 3D geometric shapes (Demitriadou et al., 2020) and puzzle solving using the con-
cept of fractions (Akman & Çakır, 2020). Research on how VR can present authentic contexts where mathematical con-
cepts are applied is especially lacking; thus, it is the focus of this chapter.
STEM Learning in Children
Among the suite of pedagogical strategies for STEM educators, educational games in STEM (Boyle et al., 2016; Tsai
& Tsai, 2020; Wang et al., 2022) are powerful and allow children to take on new perspectives through gameplay (Shaffer,
2006). These games are uniquely well suited to motivate learning, present complex materials incrementally, and engage
learners in “doing STEM” activities (Klopfer & Thompson, 2020).
In STEM education, teachers often use real-world situations and issues to actively stimulate learners’ curiosity and
intrinsically motivate the learners to solve problems (Deci & Ryan, 2013). Real-world STEM scenarios can be situated
in authentic and engaging environments. Some of these STEM topics and environments may not be easily accessible for
young children in real life. Thoughtfully designed STEM games can provide alternative and creative learning experiences
(Csikszentmihalyi, 1997), adapt to the player’s ability, and provide ongoing feedback (Boyle et al., 2012; Gee, 2003). For
STEM games implemented in VR for children, the aesthetic design of the learning environment can provide a sense of
realism, vivid multimedia, and immersive enjoyment (Mayer, 2009). This is evident in our VR game development.

112
METHOD
Development Process and Experimental Setup
A VR game called Happy Maths Farm was developed over a four-month period. Unity was used to develop the VR
game for the Windows operating system. The head-mounted display (HMD) devices used for testing include the HTC
VIVE and HTC VIVE Pro headsets, although the game also works with other HMDs compatible with the SteamVR plat-
form. Blender, Photoshop, and Mixamo were among the programs used for creating 3D models, including the meshes,
textures, and animations in the virtual environment. Given that the headsets used are not standalone devices, a connection
to a computer is required when the game is played. An Internet connection is also needed due to the use of SteamVR.
The game is single-player, and it takes approximately 10 to 15 minutes to finish one playthrough. However, the game
can also be segmented into parts of 3 to 5 minutes, should the circumstances warrant. For example, several students can
cooperatively play the game with each of them completing a segment. To provide target users in Hong Kong with a smooth
and enjoyable user experience, Traditional Chinese and Cantonese were used as the written and spoken languages in the
game, respectively.
Throughout the development process, two informal playtesting sessions were carried out with a total of 10 partici-
pants. All the participants are primary school students in Hong Kong falling within the target age range of the game,
which is 8 to 11. Both sessions took place in a space offered by a local church, where the participants had been recruited.
The first session was a group session, where participants were divided into groups of 3 or 4 and took turns playing the
game for a total of 1 hour. In the second session, participants played the game individually without spectators for 10 to
15 minutes, depending on their willingness to continue.
Modifications were proposed after receiving feedback in the first playtesting session, which were then implemented
into the game for the second playtesting session. The description of the game below refers to the final version, while
changes that were made in response to the first playtesting session are specified afterward.
Data Collection
The means of data collection varied between the first and second playtesting sessions, as shown in Table 1.
Table 1
Means of Data Collection in the Playtesting Sessions
Session Questionnaire Interview Video Recording
1  
2  
In the first session, short questionnaires were used instead of interviews due to the relatively large number of con-
current participants involved. The questionnaire started with 2 questions concerning the background information of the
participants, including their gender, year of study, and whether they have prior experience with VR games, followed by 3
5-point Likert scale questions listed in Table 2. The questionnaires were handed to the participants for completion at the
end of the session, which were used to assess the participants’ attitudes toward learning through VR games after experi-
encing them. Other than self-report, observations made during the session could also provide insights as to what specific
elements or events contributed to their attitudes and how the game could be improved. Therefore, a video recording was
made for the entire session. Afterward, the videos were reviewed and key events, consisting of speech and behaviors of
participants as well as in-game actions, were marked, categorized, and analyzed. Some of the observations led to modifi-
cations of in-game elements, which were applied in the second playtesting session, while others were listed in the results.

113
Table 2
Questions in the Questionnaire for the First Playtesting Session
Number Question
1 How much do you want to play VR games?
2 How easy do you think the controls are?
3 How much do you want to learn through VR games in the future?
In the second playtesting session, in-depth interviews were used as the main means of data collection. After each
participant finished playing, a 10-minute interview was conducted to help us understand the participant’s thoughts on the
game. The interview questions are listed in Table 3, which are classified into (1) engagement, (2) learning outcome, (3)
usability, and (4) overall. At the same time, video recording was made throughout the gameplay.
Table 3
Questions in the Interviews for the Second Playtesting Session
Number Question
Engagement
1 Did you feel as if you were physically present in a farm?
2 Was the farmer friendly to you?
3 Did you find the mission issued by the farmer hard to understand?
4 Did you enjoy playing with the pigs?
5 Was the process of doing tasks fun?
6 In general, do you think the experience was fun?
Learning outcome
7 Has your understanding on weight measurement deepened?
8 Have you learnt more about the operation of an animal farm, including sorting pigs, when to send
pigs away for sale and how to handle pigs?
9 Have you learnt more about handling animals in a humane way?
10 What do you think are the differences between learning with VR games and traditional means?
11 Do you think VR games such as the math game can help you understand mathematical knowledge
more easily?
Usability
12 Were the controls easy?
13 Did you feel comfortable with the headset on? Can you see clearly? Is moving around easy?
14 Was it hard to interact with objects?
15 Did you get tired after playing for a while?
Overall
16 Will you choose to learn with VR games or traditional means?
Theme
The game is set at a fictional animal farm, where the players have the opportunity to interact with adorable animals.
The players are told that they are traveling there on a field trip to assist a farmer with their work, setting up the context for
situated learning with the help of VR technology. As an introduction to the concepts of weight measurement, players are

114
tasked with sorting some pigs into separate pigpens according to their weights, which involves skills like weight estimation
and scale reading. At the same time, through conversation with the farmer and interaction with the pigs, the players also
learn about the operation of animal farms and the appropriate practice of handling animals, which is additional knowledge
that can be effectively transferred through the situation.
The purpose of sorting pigs of different weights into separate pigpens is to (1) prevent pigs of drastically different
sizes from fighting for food, which can lead to injury and malnutrition of smaller pigs, and (2) identify pigs that reach the
threshold to be sold in the market (He et al., 2021). This is a piece of knowledge that is specific to the context of an animal
farm and is representative of the application of weight measurement in a practical setting. In addition, to guide the pigs
effectively and ensure that the pigs are unharmed physically and mentally during the sorting process, special techniques
and tools are used. This not only provides a chance for the players to interact with animals virtually but also reminds
them of the importance of treating animals humanely.
Overall Flow
The flow of the game is laid out in Figure 1. First, as the player enters the virtual world through the VR headset, the
player is placed in front of several pigpens in a farm as shown in Figure 2a, the map of which is shown in Figure 2b. To
start the game, the player needs to talk to the farmer standing in front of the pens, who explains the task and introduces the
tools involved. The player then goes on to enter the main pen, where three pigs are kept. Here, the player needs to individ-
ually guide the pigs onto a scale next to the main pen to weigh them. After that, the player needs to guide each pig into
one of the three pigpens on the other side of the scale according to its weight. These three pigpens are allocated for pigs
of three distinct weight ranges. Pens A and B are for pigs of the lowest and moderate weights. Pen C is for pigs of the
highest weights, which are labeled as “ready for sale” at the market. After correctly sorting the three pigs into appropriate
pens, the player returns to the farmer for the second task. The farmer subsequently instructs the player to guide the pig(s)
in pen C to the truck parking outside, testing the animal-handling skills of the player one last time. A playthrough ends
once the player successfully guides the market-ready pigs into the back of the truck.
Figure 1. Game Flow.
(a) (b)
Figure 2. (a) Starting Point and (b) Map of Animal Farm.

115
Environment
The game environment is built with the intent of balancing fidelity, cost, and appeal toward the target age group.
Thus, the farm is constructed with cartoonish, low-poly 3D models with simplistic and vibrant textures as shown in
Figure 2a to captivate younger players while keeping the production cost reasonable. Other than the key models includ-
ing the farmer, pigs, tools, scale, pens, and truck, decorative objects like fences, grass, windmill, houses, and carts are
populated over the environment to resemble a realistic and lively animal farm. The lighting leans towards the warm side to
maintain a comfortable and relaxing atmosphere. A brisk melody is played in the background to complement the mood
of the environment.
Controls
A headset and two controllers are used to enable the VR experience. Two base stations are utilized to track these
devices so that their locations are synchronized in the real world and the virtual environment. To look around in the vir-
tual environment, the player simply needs to move the head while wearing the headset, the displays of which are altered
according to its position and rotation. The controllers, on the other hand, determine where the player’s hands are in the
virtual environment. Navigation and interaction are also handled using the controllers, with Figure 3 showing the map-
ping of the buttons. To walk around, the player needs to drag on the trackpad of the left controller using their left thumb
in different directions. The trigger buttons on both controllers are used to interact with 3D objects in the virtual environ-
ment, including actions like grabbing and holding. Additionally, the trigger button of the right controller is used to interact
with UI elements like buttons, meaning that the left controller is specialized for navigation while the right controller is
specialized for UI interactions.
Figure 3. Button Mapping.
Instructions
Immediately after the application is run, the player can click the “Start” button to open a panel, which is shown in
Figure 4. The panel presents six slides of instruction, including (1) explanation of why the task of sorting the pigs is
important, (2) demonstration of different animal-handling tools, including the sorting paddle and sorting panel, and (3)
introduction of a non-player character (NPC) in the game named Mr. Chu, who is the farmer issuing tasks to the player.
This instruction panel provides the necessary background knowledge about the tasks ahead and directs the player to the
next point of interest. Given that the game aims to encourage the player to learn through hands-on experience, the texts
are relatively concise and accompanied by images. Real-life demonstration videos of using the animal-handling tools are
also shown due to the kind approval of Manitoba Pork, giving the player a glimpse of how the tools are utilized by pro-
fessionals.
First Task
After reading through the instructions, the player can approach Mr. Chu, the NPC, who stands in front of the main
pigpen. Mr. Chu is responsible for issuing and explaining the tasks to the player. When talking to Mr. Chu for the first
time, the player will be asked to guide each pig in the main pen to the pen that fits its weight: A, B, or C. Mr. Chu then

116
tells the player to get back to him once the task is completed. To complete the task, the player needs to repeat the follow-
ing steps three times in order to (1) guide a pig into the scale next to the main pen, (2) read the scale and determine the
weight group to which the pig belongs, and (3) guide the pig into the pigpen that matches the weight group. The player
can try out different strategies, like weighing all the pigs first before guiding them into the pigpens, allowing for experi-
mentation and expression of problem-solving skills.
Figure 4. Instruction Panel (Real-life Demonstration Video, Courtesy of Manitoba Pork).
Pigs
Initially, the main pen houses three pigs. To help the player distinguish between them, each of the pigs has a distinct
color of pink, yellow, or gray, as shown in Figure 5. For each playthrough, the weights of the pigs are randomly gener-
ated, thus giving the player a fresh set of numbers with which to work. Owing to the discrepancy in weight, the sizes of
the pigs also differ. As long as the pigs are not interacted with by the player’s actions, they will keep wandering around in
the pen at a constant, relatively slow pace.
Figure 5. Pigs with Different Colors.
Animal-handling Tools
Three tools are available for the player to choose from for guiding the pigs: the sorting paddle, sorting panel, and food
in the form of a metal bucket. The tools are populated all over the farm for convenient access by the players as they per-
form different tasks. To allow the player to pick up the tools more efficiently, the tools float on the ground while rotat-
ing slowly when they are not held by the player. An illuminated green circle is also placed under each tool to capture the
player’s attention and indicate its functional purpose, as shown in Figure 6a. Given that one of the aims of the game is to
encourage the player to be experimental, the player can try and alternate freely between the three tools throughout.
The sorting paddle and panel, as shown in Figure 6b and Figure 6c, respectively, are common tools used for sorting
livestock, especially pigs, in real life (Wilhelmsson et al., 2022). Here, the player can guide a pig’s movement by tap-
ping it gently, producing sound, or blocking its passage with these tools. The third tool in the game, which is food, is also
viable for luring pigs (Stäbler et al., 2022). Buckets of grain are populated around the farm for use, as shown in Figure
6d. Despite the differences in utility, a common characteristic of all of the tools is that whenever they collide with a pig
forcefully, the pig will go berserk and run around uncontrollably. This is to warn the player of inhumane animal-handling
behaviors and provide a consequence for them.

117
(b) Use of
sorting paddle
(c) Use of
sorting board
(d) Use of food
(a) Tools floating on the ground
Figure 6. Tools Floating on the Ground.
Scale
The scale in the game, as shown in Figure 7a, is a replica of a livestock scale commonly used in farms. The in-game
scale appears as a rectangular, metallic cage with gates on both sides. In the middle of the cage is a weighing platform on
which a pig can stand. The weight of the pig is then displayed on a dial or a screen depending on whether the scale is me-
chanical or digital. To help the player practice scale reading as taught in the textbook, a mechanical scale is adopted. A
dial with a weight range of 0 to 100 kg and labels in 10 kg intervals is used to display the weight.
(a) (b) (c)
Figure 7. (a) Mechanical Scale; (b) Blackboard Showing the Weight Range; and (c) Pigpen.
To begin, the player enters the main pen to choose the tool (Figures 6b to 6d). Then, the player can start guiding the
pigs toward the scale. Once a pig is near the gate, it will automatically open, allowing the pig to enter the cage and step
onto the scale. The player can then walk to the other side of the scale to look at the reading (Figure 7a) and the black-
board for the weight requirement (Figure 7b). To release the pig, the player can push up the lever next to the scale (Fig-
ure 7a), opening the scale gate facing the other side. The pig is programmed to walk forward out of the gate to smoothen
the process.

118
Weight Ranges
The player needs to identify which of the three weight groups to which the pig belongs: “relatively light (<47 kg),”
“relatively heavy (47–66 kg),” and “ready for market (>66kg),” as shown in Figure 7b. Pigs grouped as “relatively light,”
“relatively heavy,” and “ready for market” should go to pens A, B, and C, respectively. The weight ranges, which are
randomized within certain limits, allow the player to face a different mathematical problem each time the player plays the
game, avoiding repetitiveness and enhancing the game’s replay value.
Pigpens
Each of the three pens has a gate guarding the entrance, which is controlled by an orange, conspicuous button in
front of the pen, as shown in Figure 7c. After determining the weight group to which a pig belongs, the player needs to
guide the pig to the appropriate pen. Then, the player is required to touch the button gently using the controller, thereby
opening the gate and allowing the pig to enter the pen. By touching the button again, the player can close the gate and con-
tain the pig in the pigpen.
Second Task
After placing all three pigs into the appropriate pigpens, the player can return to Mr. Chu as instructed. Mr. Chu will
then applaud the player for the work well-done and issue the second task, which is to guide the pigs placed in pen C into
the truck parking outside the pens as shown in Figure 8a. The game is programmed to generate at least one pig in the
weight range of the “ready for market” group. This provides a satisfying conclusion to the game by allowing the player
to finish the job the player has started and giving them a chance to further experiment with different animal-handling
tools. The path between pen C and the truck is enclosed with fences. Owing to the path being tortuous, a certain degree
of creativity and strategic thinking is required from the player to finish the task. Once the player successfully contains the
pig(s) in the truck, a panel pops up and an audio clip plays. The panel congratulates the player on finishing the tasks and
asks if the player wants to start another playthrough, as shown in Figure 8b. Clicking the “Restart” button will restart the
game and reset the entire scene. In case this game is played in a group or class setting, the teacher can also ask the next
student to try out the game.
(a) (b)
Figure 8. (a) Loading Pigs into the Truck; (b) Panel Appearing Upon Finishing a Playthrough.
Modifications Following Playtest
Some of the features of the game were added after receiving feedback in the first playtesting session, where we
tested the first iteration of the game with seven participants in groups. First, all three pigs had the same color, namely,
pink. This caused confusion for the participants because they often could not distinguish between the pigs just from the
size differences. This was especially problematic when the participants decided to weigh all the pigs before placing any
of them in the pigpens. We, therefore, gave the pigs different colors in the second iteration, providing players with another
characteristic on which to rely when trying to distinguish between the pigs. The second issue in the first iteration was that
the tools did not float on the ground while not being held in the first iteration, but instead abided by the laws of physics.

119
The tools would fall onto the ground due to gravity and could be thrown out by the player. This caused problems in us-
ability, such as participants finding it difficult to pick up tools that had fallen onto the ground or the tools being thrown
to unreachable locations. We, therefore, decided to make the tools float on the ground whenever they are not held by the
player, drastically simplifying the processes of grabbing and releasing tools. These are some indicators of the importance
of balancing authenticity and usability when creating a VR experience.
During the first playtesting session, we noticed that most of the participants found the interactable objects like but-
tons and levers being placed too high, making it difficult for them to reach those objects. Despite the sizes of the objects
being true to their real-life counterparts, the participants, whose ages were between 8 and 11, had an average height no-
ticeably shorter than that of adult farmers. We thus adjusted the heights of the objects so that the target users could more
easily interact with them. This shows considering the physical attributes of the target users and adjusting the virtual envi-
ronment accordingly are crucial when using VR as a medium.
RESULTS
A total of 7 participants took part in the first playtesting session, who were divided into 2 groups of 3 and 4 respec-
tively. They were asked to give their feedback through the questionnaires. However, as one of the questionnaires was
incomplete, a total of 6 valid responses were collected and aggregated. In terms of demographics, all participants are fe-
male. One participant is in the 3rd
year of study while the others are in the 4th
, meaning they are between 8 and 10 years
old, fitting the target age group of the game. As for prior experience with VR games, exactly half of the participants had
played VR games before the playtesting session, revealing that VR as a medium is not widely accessible in the context
of Hong Kong. Their responses to the questionnaire are shown in Table 4. At the same time, video recordings of the first
playtesting session were analyzed. After reviewing key events extracted from the recordings, 7 subjects were identified,
including (1) enjoyment, (2) spectators’ involvement, (3) completion of in-game tasks, (4) application of mathematical
knowledge, (5) difficulties with controls, and (6) physical conditions of participants. To more clearly define the main re-
sults and implications of this case study, the findings are further grouped into 3 themes: (1) engagement, which includes
enjoyment and spectator’s involvement, (2) learning outcome, which includes completion of in-game tasks and applica-
tion of mathematical knowledge, and (3) usability, which includes difficulties with controls and physical conditions of
participants.
Table 4
Responses to the Questionnaire from Participants of the First Playtesting Session
Question (1 = totally disagree; 5 = totally agree) M SD
How much do you want to play VR games? 4.00 .58
How easy do you think the controls are? 2.67 .47
How much do you want to learn through VR games in the future? 3.83 .69
In the second playtesting session, 3 participants played the game for 10 to 15 minutes. Extracts from their feedback
from their in-depth interviews are covered below in accordance with the 3 themes. Figures 9 and 10 show photos from
the first and second playtesting sessions respectively.
Figure 9. Photos from the First Playtesting Session.

120
Figure 10. Photos from the Second Playtesting Session.
Engagement
In general, participants found learning through VR engaging, and a large contributing factor was the immersion
brought about by VR technology. Questionnaire responses show that participants are generally excited to try VR games,
with a mean score of 4 (SD = .58), showing the novelty effect of VR as a medium which can in turn boost student en-
gagement. They also show interest in learning through VR games, with a score of 3.83 (SD = .69). One of the participants
stated, “It feels real like you are actually seeing things through your own eyes instead of looking at small pictures on the
television or mobile phone.” Some of them also claimed that they felt that they were present at the farm. VR as a novel
teaching means also contributed to increased engagement because some participants mentioned that learning in VR was
refreshing, whereas using other means like textbooks felt boring. Another factor that increased their enjoyment was the
possibility of interacting with virtual pigs. A participant said that she had never seen pigs in real life before and that she
felt amazed when she saw the pigs walking around. She also pointed out that successfully putting a pig into the correct
pigpen gave a great sense of accomplishment.
The dynamics in the group of participants were also observed. When it was not their turn to play the game, most
participants took part in the process by commenting and providing suggestions to the player. For example, a spectating
participant exclaimed that he could recall the scale from the textbook and explained how to read it. This created a social
context that enabled communication and collaboration, even though participants other than the player were not present in
the same game. However, a notable observation was that some participants became impatient after waiting for their turns
for an extended duration, and a few of them expressed their frustration verbally. A participant periodically left his seat and
stopped paying attention to the game.
Learning Outcome
Most of the participants agreed that the game was a helpful tool to learn and revise the concept of weight measure-
ment. One of the participants stated, “Being able to read the scale in a realistic space is helpful for acquiring mathemati-
cal knowledge and practicing [it].” Another participant added that the game would be especially beneficial to students
who were learning about the topic at that moment. During the playtesting, the spectating participants also engaged in
conversation about scale reading and measurement units when the player was weighing the pig, indicating the game’s
function as a platform for discussion.
In terms of knowledge regarding animal farms, nearly all participants revealed that they had learned quite a bit about
animal handling. A participant said, “Yes [I learned more about the operation of animal farms]. For example, I discovered
that we need to use specific tools to guide and weigh the pigs. Previously I thought we can just pick them up, but now
I see they are in fact so heavy that they cannot be just picked up.” Another participant commented, “Usually we just
see slices of pork. But now I learned more about where they come from.” These statements show that the VR game has a
positive effect on both learning mathematics and the knowledge surrounding the context being provided.
Usability
For the most part, participants could play the game smoothly. Nevertheless, questionnaire responses show that partici-
pants do not find the controls easy, with a score of 2.67 (SD = .47). By reviewing the video recordings, we found that they

121
generally spent a relatively long time to finish settling the first pig due to the difficulties in getting used to the VR devic-
es. Participants often found it hard to reach certain buttons with their fingers, such as the trigger button. Holding a button
was particularly challenging, causing the participants to accidentally drop the virtual tools from time to time. This might
be because the devices are not initially designed for the age range of 8 to 11 and are therefore considerably large for the
participants. However, most participants slowly got used to the controls, with one of them specifically stating that the
controls were not difficult at all. On the other hand, several participants reported that they felt dizzy after about 10 minutes
of gameplay. This was likely caused by motion sickness where the user feels dizzy due to the desynchronization between
vision inputs and other body sensations (Ohyama et al., 2007). Despite the HTC VIVE Pro Eye HMD weighing about
800 g., only one participant mentioned that the headset felt a little heavy. However, she also stated that she did not feel
tired considering the headset’s weight.
DISCUSSION & PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS
In this chapter, we presented the development and playtesting of a VR game designed based on real-life contexts
and tasks to support situated learning in mathematics. Our findings indicate that the application of VR technology brings
positive effects on both the engagement and learning outcome of primary school students. The sense of presence, appeal-
ing virtual environment, and diverse interactions increase students’ motivation to actively participate in the activity. As an
unusual medium, students are also likely to pay extra attention than when dealing with traditional teaching tools.
Utilize Collaborative Decision-making Strategies that Encourage Interaction in Group VR
The enabling of social interaction and collaboration adds to the social context being provided, creating a dynam-
ic that enhances knowledge co-construction. However, it is important for educators to take measures to involve as many
members in the group as possible when carrying out class activities with VR games. For example, the teacher can encour-
age additional forms of participation by asking questions or instructing students to vote for the next action by the player,
intensifying the cooperative aspect of the VR game. Alternatively, extra HMD devices can be utilized to cater to a larger
number of students.
Leverage Situated Learning in VR to Improve Subject and Contextual Understanding
The use of VR facilitates student learning on both the subject and the context constructed. Through Happy Maths
Farm, students cannot only learn and revise the concept of weight measurement but also expand their horizons by un-
derstanding the operation of animal farms, including the sorting and handling processes of livestock. In particular, they
can better understand the practical importance of weight measurement in the real world, because weight measurement
is crucial for the growth of the pigs and the timing of sales. The students can also have a look at the mechanical scale in
an authentic environment, instead of in a picture printed in the textbook, consolidating their concept of objects
they have previously comprehended. Ultimately, the essence of employing VR for situated learning is to base the VR
application around real-life contexts and tasks that are relevant to the knowledge being targeted, thus aiding knowledge
construction while lining up with the intended learning outcome.
Perform Usability Testing to Ensure VR Ease of Use with Children
Usability is a key factor that requires consideration when implementing VR in classroom settings, especially with
younger users like primary school students. As mentioned, because most VR devices on the market are designed for adult
users, the sizes and shapes do not necessarily fit younger users. This may lead to difficulties in controls, hampering the
user experience and lowering the efficiency of VR learning. A solution is to purchase or build devices that are designed for
the intended age range. Preferentially, the developer can simplify the controls by reducing the number of in-game actions
or limiting the utilized buttons to ones that are more accessible to younger users, like the grip button on the VIVE con-
troller.

122
Limit VR Experience Timeframes to Prevent Motion Sickness
To address the occurrence of motion sickness, educators are advised to restrain the playing time for each student, like
shortening it to 10 minutes. In terms of the design of the game, intensive traveling can be a major cause of dizziness and
fatigue. In addition, excessive visual movement of objects in VR can lead to so-called visually induced motion sickness,
which can be further aggregated by dark environments (Chattha et al., 2020). Therefore, prolonged tasks, unnecessary
traveling, object movement, and dark areas should be avoided when designing a VR application, particularly for educa-
tion purposes where users are not likely experienced in using VR.
CONCLUSION
With the existing problems surrounding traditional education means, it is important for us as educators to acknowl-
edge contemporary teaching approaches and emerging technologies to elevate the learning of students. Considering the
capability of VR technology to present authentic environments and tasks as well as motivate students, VR can potentially
play a key role in education by enabling situated learning. This chapter describes a case study involving the development
of a VR application that teaches the mathematical concept of weight measurement in primary education. This study sug-
gests that VR-enabled game-based learning not only effectively motivates students but also facilitates the understanding
of conceptual knowledge. Furthermore, social interaction is encouraged through gameplay, showing the positive influ-
ences of VR on STEM education. Problems concerning the usability of VR among younger students like motion sickness
and compatibility with hardware devices have been discussed. This study lays a solid foundation for future research on
the utilization of VR for situated learning, especially in the context of primary education.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This study was funded by the Central and Faculty Fund of the Faculty of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences, The Edu-
cation University of Hong Kong.
REFERENCES
Ah-Nam, L., & Osman, K. (2017). Developing 21st Century skills through a constructivist- constructionist learning environ-
ment. K-12 STEM Education, 3(2), 205-216.
Akman, E., & Çakır, R. (2020). The effect of educational virtual reality game on primary school students’ achievement and en-
gagement in mathematics. Interactive Learning Environments, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1841800
Boyle, E. A., Connolly, T. M., Hainey, T., & Boyle, J. M. (2012). Engagement in digital entertainment games: A systematic re-
view. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(3), 771- 780. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.11.020
Boyle, E. A., Hainey, T., Connolly, T. M., Gray, G., Earp, J., Ott, M., Lim, T., Ninaus, M., Ribeiro, C., & Pereira, J. (2016). An
update to the systematic literature review of empirical evidence of the impacts and outcomes of computer games and serious
games. Computers & Education, 94, 178-192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.11.003
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
Chattha, U.A., Janjua, U. I.,Anwar, F., Madni, T. M., Cheema, M. F., & Janjua, S. I. (2020). Motion sickness in virtual reality:An
empirical evaluation. IEEE Access, 8, 130486- 130499. https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2020.3007076
Chiou, H.-H. (2020). The impact of situated learning activities on technology university students’ learning outcome. Education
+ Training, 63(3), 440-452. https://doi.org/10.1108/et-04- 2018-0092
Choi, K.-S. (2022). Virtual reality simulation for learning wound dressing: Acceptance and usability. Clinical Simulation in
Nursing, 68, 49-57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2022.04.010
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: the psychology of optimal experience. HarperCollins e- books.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Creativity: flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. (First HarperPerennial edition.
ed.). HarperPerennial.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2013). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Springer Science & Business
Media.

123
Demitriadou, E., Stavroulia, K.-E., & Lanitis, A. (2020). Comparative evaluation of virtual and augmented reality for teach-
ing mathematics in primary education. Education and Information Technologies, 25(1), 381-401. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10639-019-09973-5
Driver, R., & Oldham, V. (1986). A constructivist approach to curriculum development in science. Studies in Science Education,
13(1), 105-122. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057268608559933
Freina, L., & Ott, M. (2015). A Literature Review on Immersive Virtual Reality in Education: State of the Art and Perspectives.
Garcia, I., & Pacheco, C. (2013). A constructivist computational platform to support mathematics education in elementary
school. Computers & Education, 66, 25-39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.02.004
Gee, J. (2008). Video games and embodiment. Games and Culture, 3, 253-263. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555412008317309
Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. Computers in Entertainment (CIE), 1(1), 20-20.
Geisinger, K. F. (2016). 21st Century Skills: What are they and how do we assess them?
Applied Measurement in Education, 29(4), 245-249. https://doi.org/10.1080/08957347.2016.1209207
Good, T. L., & Brophy, J. E. (1994). Looking in classrooms. HarperCollins College Publishers. Harley, S. (1993). Situated learn-
ing and classroom instruction. Educational Technology, 33(3),
46-51. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44427991
He, Y., Tiezzi, F., Howard, J., & Maltecca, C. (2021). Predicting body weight in growing pigs from feeding behavior data us-
ing machine learning algorithms. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 184, 106085. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.com-
pag.2021.106085
Huizinga, J. (1955). Homo Ludens: A study of the play-element in culture. Boston Beacon Press.
Hummel, H., van Houcke, J., Nadolski, R., van der Hiele, T., Kurvers, H., & Löhr, A. (2011). Scripted collaboration in serious
gaming for complex learning: Effects of multiple perspectives when acquiring water management skills. British Journal of
Educational Technology, 42, 1029-1041. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01122.x
Klopfer, E., & Thompson, M. (2020). 16 game-based learning in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Handbook
of Game-based Learning, 387.
Kurt, S. (2011). Use of constructivist approach in architectural education. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 3980-
3988. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.04.402
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press.
Loftus, G. R., & Loftus, E. F. (1983). Mind at play: The psychology of video games. Basic Books.
Lopreiato, J. (2016). Healthcare simulation dictionary. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. https://www.ahrq.gov/sites/
default/files/publications/files/sim-dictionary.pdf
Lui, A. M., & Bonner, S. M. (2016). Preservice and inservice teachers’ knowledge, beliefs, and instructional planning in primary
school mathematics. Teaching and Teacher Education, 56, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.01.015
Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd
ed.) Cambridge University Press.
Ohyama, S., Nishiike, S., Watanabe, H., Matsuoka, K., Akizuki, H., Takeda, N., & Harada, T. (2007). Autonomic respons-
es during motion sickness induced by virtual reality. Auris Nasus Larynx, 34(3), 303-306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
anl.2007.01.002
Piaget, J. (1952). Play, dreams and imitation in childhood. W. W. Norton & Co.
Plass, J., Homer, B., & Kinzer, C. (2015). Foundations of game-based learning. Educational Psychologist, 50, 258-283. https://
doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2015.1122533
Salen, K., & Zimmerman, E. (2003). Rules of play: Game design fundamentals. MIT Press.
Schott, C., & Marshall, S. (2018). Virtual reality and situated experiential education: A conceptualization and exploratory trial.
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 34(6), 843-852. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12293
Shaffer, D., Squire, K., Halverson, R., & Gee, J. (2005). Video games and the future of learning. The Phi Delta Kappan, 87, 104-
111. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172170508700205
Shaffer, D. W. (2006). How computer games help children learn, Palgrave Macmillan.
Stäbler, R., Patzkéwitsch, D., Reese, S., Erhard, M., & Hartmannsgruber, S. (2022). Behavior of domestic pigs under near-
natural forest conditions with ad libitum supplementary feeding. Journal of Veterinary Behavior, 48, 20-35. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jveb.2021.10.011
Teo, P. (2019). Teaching for the 21st century: A case for dialogic pedagogy. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 21, 170-
178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2019.03.009
Tsai, Y. L., & Tsai, C. C. (2020). A meta‐analysis of research on digital game‐based science learning. Journal of Computer As-
sisted Learning, 36(3), 280-294.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher mental processes. Harvard University Press.
Wang, L.-H., Chen, B., Hwang, G.-J., Guan, J.-Q., & Wang, Y.-Q. (2022). Effects of digital game-based STEM education on
students’ learning achievement: a meta-analysis. International Journal of STEM Education, 9(1), 26. https://doi.org/10.1186/
s40594-022-00344-0
Wilhelmsson, S., Arvidsson, I., Hemsworth, P. H., Andersson, M., Yngvesson, J., & Hultgren, J. (2022). Effects of a training in-
tervention for Swedish pig transport drivers on physical workload and time efficiency during loading. International Journal
of Industrial Ergonomics, 92, 103356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2022.103356

125
Towards an XR Curriculum for Teacher Education:
Understanding Teachers’ Use and Perspectives
LIONEL ROCHE
Université du Québec à Montréal, Canada
roche.lionel@uqam.ca
IAN CUNNINGHAM
Edinburgh Napier University, Scotland
CATHY ROLLAND
Université Clermont Auvergne, France
Abstract: This study focused on the use of 360° video and 360° interactive hypervideo in a teacher educa-
tion context. We conducted a case study that draws on the course of an action research program in cognitive
anthropology. Study participants were pre-service teachers (PST, n = 2) and in-service teachers (IST, n = 1)
in Physical Education (PE). During the protocol, each participant viewed a 360° video and a 360° hypervideo
of one PE lesson led by another teacher. Our findings show that during 360° video and 360° hypervideo in-
teractive viewing, the participants were more focused on the social activity of the students as well as the ac-
tivity of the teacher leading them to enrich their professional and didactic knowledge. For ISTs, they focused
their observations more on the motor activity of the pupils, and they consider new ways of implementing
their own teaching.
Keywords: 360° Video, 360° Hypervideo, Teacher Education, Extended Reality Curriculum, Physical Education
INTRODUCTION
One of the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic has been an increased favor towards the introduction and de-
velopment of new technologies in the field of teacher training. One such example is extended reality (XR) technology
(Ferdig et al., 2022). Kosko et al. (2021a) underlined that “scholarship on extended reality (XR) in teacher education is
emerging at an increasing rate” (p. 257). XR has emerged as an umbrella term for all immersive technologies, such as
augmented reality (AR), virtual reality (VR), and mixed reality (MR). All these technologies extend the reality we expe-
rience by either blending the virtual and “real” worlds or by creating a fully immersive experience. During the pandemic
period with lockdown, the use of this technology was very helpful for creating different formats of virtual internships
(Roche et al., 2021a) because it offers the possibility to be fully immersed in the classroom without being present and to
simulate real classroom activity. There appears to be a need for considering how to introduce and use XR in teacher edu-
cation programs and how to use these technologies efficiently for fostering teacher learning.
Alizadehsalehi et al. (2020) traced back the term XR to the 1960s and later in the 1990s when it was used for com-
puterized eyeglass-based mediated reality. Afterward, XR was also used in the fields of smartphones, software applica-
tions, and display technologies. 360° video and 360° hypervideo, due to their immersive capability but also because of
the interactive possibilities they offer. Specifically, 360° video and 360° hypervideo offer the possibility of supplement-
ing face-to-face field experiences (Roche et al., 2021a). Chambel et al. (2011) defined 360° hypervideo as a resource that
allows one to interact with the video, explore it, navigate in a space of related information, and open additional content
like pictures, links to webpages, or links to 2D videos.
Our chapter bases the discussion on the use of only one part of XR technologies: 360° video and 360° hypervideo.
We made this choice for three reasons: 1) these tools have a greater ease of use for facilitators than VR, 2) there is an in-
creasing development of research about 360° video in TE (Roche et al., 2021b) and 3) cameras and software for produc-
ing 360° videos are more affordable.

126
POTENTIALITIES OF 360° VIDEO
360° video can be defined as “a panoramic video filmed with an omnidirectional camera that allows the viewer to
have an uninterrupted vision of the scenes in an uninterrupted circle rather than the fixed viewpoint of traditional two-
dimensional (2D) videos” (Araiza-Alba et al., 2021, p. 2). The development of this technology is recent (Roche et al.,
2021b), and in teacher education, Kosko et al. (2021a) identified the first study based on empirical data having occurred
in 2017 (Roche & Gal-Petifaux). As a consequence, in line with Reyna’s (2018) and Paraskevaidis and Fokides’ (2020)
suggestions, it is concluded that this research field is not yet mature and continues to evolve (Yoganathan et al., 2018).
To this point, there are indications of exponential growth in this research for teacher education. For example, searching
Google Scholar for the keywords “video 360” and “education” and “teacher” resulted in one paper that was published in
2015 (Ibrahim-Didi, 2015) and it was discovered that by 2021 there were more than 40 papers published.
Reflections and perspectives on the development of the use of 360° video in teacher education are in their infancy.
It is, therefore, necessary to conduct more research on the uses of 360° video. This technology should not be considered
a “magical” tool but rather a tool that can be integrated into training that must be thought out and supported on the basis
of robust research results. 360° video can offer the opportunity to articulate real experiences lived during internship and
virtual experiences in training at the university level. Real and virtual experiences must be articulated, planned all along
teacher education, and organized in a real continuum for improving teacher preparation and learning. In order to be able
to consider effective uses for 360° video, it seems essential to us to rely on the results of research for designing a real
curriculum of XR for teacher education. In comparison to traditional 2D video, 360° video does not constrain viewing.
What is viewed is not imposed by the person who filmed it, but rather viewers have complete freedom to choose the di-
rection in which they want to look which includes also to look up or down.
Some studies have also investigated the use of 360° video compared to 2D video when learning motor skills, such as
knot-tying skills (Yoganathan et al., 2018) or developing teachers’ professional vision (Gold & Windscheid, 2020; Theel-
en et al., 2019). Indeed, Kosko et al. (2021b) showed that the use of 360° video compared to 2D video favored a stronger
focus on student activity and a deeper reflection about learning processes. Moreover, for Torres et al. (2020), 360° videos
are more engaging than 2D videos and can improve attention and retention of visual information. However, the research-
ers underlined that if 360° videos presented information in an interactive way, retention could be better (Figure 1). For
Chambel et al. (2011), 360° hypervideo offered more interaction with 360° video and “provide the users with appropriate
affordances to allow them to pan around, to understand its structure, and effectively access and navigate it” (p. 78).
Example of 360° video Example of 360° hypervideo
Functionalities offered
• Explore the video, visualization in every direction
• 3 degrees of freedom
• Possibility to zoom
• Stop and rewind
• No additional content
• Not possible to interact with the environment
Functionalities offered
• Explore the video, visualization in every direction
• 3 degrees of freedom
• Possibility to zoom
• Stop and rewind
• Additional content can be inserted in the 360° video:
links, photos, text, etc
• Not possible to interact with the environment but pos-
sibility to interact with additional content
Figure 1. Features of Videos.

127
To our knowledge, there are no empirical studies about the uses of 360° hypervideo in teacher education that
describe their effects on teacher learning. However, in their work, Zolfaghari et al. (2020) and Kosko et al. (2022) de-
signed a multi-perspective 360
video, defined by Zolfaghari et al. (2020) as multiple 360°
cameras used in a single room
to allow the viewer to move from point to point in the recorded classroom. This device offers more interactivity and the
possibility of moving from one place to another in the classroom from a 360° video. A multi-perspective 360°
video
environment offers the possibility to change location by shifting from one camera to the other (Figure 2). Zolfaghari et
al. (2020) suggested multi-perspective 360° video can help “fill part of the gap” (p. 319) when no such face-to-face field
placements are available (for example, such as during a pandemic period). Furthermore, Kosko et al. (2022) suggested
that the use of this technology is also useful when teaching placements are occurring. In the field of educational sciences,
we find only one study based on 360° hypervideo uses for learning tasks (Paraskevaidis & Fokides, 2020). The authors
showed that 360° hypervideo can help to improve students’ motor learning. In their study, they used 360° videos with
added voiceovers, subtitles, and interactive features. Novices are able to design these kind of video due to the relatively
easy-to-use software development and also their actual low cost (e.g., 3DVista; WondaVR). As a result of these research
studies, examining the use of 360° hypervideo in teacher education is a new avenue to explore as well as its integration
into teacher education programs.
View from one camera View from another camera
Extended Reality Initiative (XRi) At Kent State
University (https://xr.kent.edu/videos-2/)
Figure 2. Example of 360° Hypervideo.
RESEARCH ABOUT 360° VIDEO USES
Numerous studies have been carried out in different fields relating to the use of 360° video, such as marketing (Heb-
bel-Seeger, 2017), physical education teaching (Gänsluckner et al., 2017), water rescue education (Araiza-Alba et al.,
2021), basketball coaching (Panchuk et al., 2018), economics education training (Feurstein, 2019), health training (Ul-
rich et al., 2019), training of firefighters (Sarkar et al., 2022) or reducing fear of water (Roche et al., 2022). The first re-
search on the use of a device close to a 360° camera in the field of education is the DIVER project developed in the early
2000s at Stanford University. DIVER is a project devoted to creating and integrating tools for enhancing the activities of
exploring and reflecting on digital video records of learning and teaching. Subsequently, from 2015, research on the use
of 360° video in teacher education was developed (Ibrahim-Didi, 2015). In the field of teacher education, the main works
focus on the use of 360° video to (1) promote reflexivity on classroom situations (Walshe & Driver, 2019), (2) improve
professional vision and perceptual abilities to identify relevant elements in the classroom (Kosko et al., 2021b), and (3)
prepare and support professional training courses (Roche et al., 2021a). Based on these studies, different ways of view-
ing 360° videos can be identified: 1) viewing on a computer screen, 2) viewing on a smartphone (with or without a VR
headset for a smartphone) and 3) viewing via a VR headset (Oculus-like). Finally, if viewing with a video headset or on a
computer allows the possibility to change the viewing angle, only viewing on a computer allows to zoom in on the image
being viewed.

128
THE PRESENT STUDY
Research Questions
The objective of this study was to evaluate 360° video uses in order to design an XR curriculum based on 360° vid-
eos for teacher education. To address this objective, we posed two research questions:
RQ #1: What is the lived experience (i.e., emotion, perceptions, concerns, and type of knowledge used) by teachers (pre
and in-service) when watching 360° video and 360° interactive hypervideo of other teachers?
RQ #2: What do teachers focus on when watching 360° videos and what do they learn when watching 360° videos? Can
we identify differences between pre- and in-service teachers?
Theoretical Lens
The study was situated in the theoretical lens of the Course of Action research approach (Theureau, 2010) used in
cognitive anthropology and is part of the enaction paradigm and embodied cognition perspective. This theoretical lens
aims to consider human activity according to a double logic of activity as enaction (Varela et al., 1991) and experience
(Poizat et al., 2016). The object of analysis of this research program is the activity, accomplished in a real situation that
is, in a given physical and social environment, in our case during viewing 360° videos. One component of this program
of research is the course-of-experience framework, and it contributes to studying cognition in situ. This is based on three
assumptions that are founded on empirical phenomenology and semiotics of cognition in practice in terms of enaction
and experience. These include (1) activity is a mechanism of self-production and expression of a coupling between actors
and their environment or an artifact (in this study, 360° video), (2) activity is accompanied by or gives rise to first-person
lived experience, (3) activity occurs as sensing-making, a permanent creation and appreciation of meaning.
Consequently, it is always necessary to consider the particular context (human, material, spatial, temporal, etc.) in
which the activity takes place. Because of this, Theureau and Jeffroy (1994) consider that to access the level of activity
one is involved in can be based on what the actor can show, tell, and comment on. This level represents what is signifi-
cant for the actor in situ, in the specific context in which he acts, in the context of our work, during the viewing of 360°
videos. The situation is therefore significantly constituted by actors in the course of their actions, as they use resources
offered by the environment. In reference to the theory of enaction, Theureau (2010) considers the actor as autonomous
(Varela, 1989). The actors’ actions have self-organizing properties because in the dynamic of their activity they elabo-
rate on their situations and construct their meaning. The experience that actors make of the situations that they live has
a subjective dimension (although partly culturally shared), autonomous and embodied. Although inscribed in a singular
action-situation coupling, it also has a dimension of genericity, in the sense that it presents typical traits with other expe-
riences. Interactions between actors and their environment are considered asymmetric in the sense that actors select only
elements in the environment that are relevant for them at a given moment to their internal organization (Theureau, 2010).
In this approach, activity is considered as a course of experience composed of subjective concerns, perceptions, emo-
tions, and knowledge permanently changing over time.
METHODS
Participants and Procedure
A multiple case study (Stake, 2005) was conducted with three volunteer teachers (Zoe, Clemence, and Alexandre,
first names have been changed to preserve anonymity) in France. Two of them were pre-service teachers (PST, Clemence
and Alexandre) and one was in-service (IST, Zoe, teacher for 3 years). With these cases, the main goal was to understand
how teachers at different stages of their career use 360° video and 360° hypervideo and what they understand, perceive,
and feel during using it. A multiple case study research design was chosen because by using several cases, and the benefit
of this research design is that commonalities can be identified between cases (Stake, 2005).

129
To carry out this study, we used a 360° video of a gymnastics lesson led by an experienced teacher with 11-year-
old students and a 360° hypervideo of the same lesson. Both lessons were conducted by a teacher who was not involved
in this study as a participant. In addition, the videos each had a duration of 4:55, and the only difference between them
was that the interactive video contained hotspots that allowed participants to open different additional contents: photos,
video, links, or PDF files (Figure 3).
360° video with physical education content program inserted
360° video with a link to a PDF file with security procedures for the task
360° video with a link to a PDF file with evolutions of the task
360° video with a link to a YouTube video about anatomical risk of bad body positioning
Figure 3. 360° Hypervideo Additional Content.
After presenting the different available functionalities of the two videos (e.g., to pause, change angle, and zoom)
to the participants, we conducted the three online interviews (Figure 4) lasting from 49-78 minutes. Videos were shared
with a link by email with the teachers and the interview was conducted using a video conferencing software. All the in-
terviews were recorded and the participant data was kept confidential.

130
Think aloud protocol during online interview
Figure 4. Example of Interview Procedure.
Data Collection
A think aloud protocol (Charters, 2003) was used to elicit descriptions of the participant’s lived experience – in-
cluding their cognitions, emotions, knowledge constructed and used – while viewing 360° video and 360° hypervideo.
Think-aloud is a “research method in which participants speak aloud any words in their mind as they complete a task”
(Charters, 2003, p. 68). The main objective of this method encourages teachers to verbalize their lived experience during
360° video viewing situation and their cognitive activity: what they perceive, what they understand, and which aspects
captured their attention.
The teachers’ viewing activity was recorded and while they viewed each video they were invited to comment on the
most significant points of their activity. Two categories of data were collected that included the teacher’s verbalization
during the viewing situation, and a description of the teacher’s viewing behavior during the viewing situation as de-
scribed by their orientation of the video. During the think aloud protocol interview (Charters, 2003; Fonteyn et al., 1993),
the researcher asked the teacher to describe why they were interacting with the video in a certain way (e.g., What are you
zooming in on there? Why are rotating the camera at this moment?), concerns (e.g., What do you understand from this
moment in the video?), perceptions (e.g., What do you notice?), emotions (e.g., What do you feel about the events in the
video at this moment?) and what types of knowledge are used (e.g., What type of knowledge have you constructed about
the teacher or the game up to this point? Is there any new knowledge you’ve gained from the video up to now?).
Data Analysis
Data analysis was realized in two stages that included a description of the teacher’s activity during online the inter-
view and interactions with videos, and an analysis of their activity during the viewing situation. The description was built
in a table for coding data based on four columns that were: (1) The time code of the viewing situation, (2) teachers’ ac-
tions during the viewing situation, (3) teachers’ verbalizations during the think aloud protocol, and (4) content analysis.
Interviews were analyzed in reference to the analytical course-of-experience framework inspired by Peirce’s semiotic

131
(Skagestad, 2004). The course of experience framework is based on the notion of tetradic sign (Theureau, 2010). The
tetradic sign is a triad that links object–representamen–interpretant subjacent to the course of the experience unit. Poizat
et al. (2022) defined object as an actor’s involvement in the situation, the representamen refers to perceptive, propriocep-
tive, or mnemonic judgment, and the interpretant refers to the activated (or established) knowledge that allows the actor
to interpret the situation. The course of experience unit refers to practical actions, communications, interpretations, emo-
tions, feelings, and self-talk (Poizat et al., 2022). These successive units that fluctuated during the interview represent
what the participants experienced as their own activity. From these units, it remains possible to identify the mobilized
and constructed knowledge by the participants during their viewing activity.
RESULTS
The results of the study were focused on two main aspects: (1) a differentiated lived experience due to teaching ex-
perience, and (2) different and changing attentional focuses.
A Differentiated Lived Experience Due to Teaching Experience
A Situating Immersion Oriented Towards the Understanding of the Classroom Situation as a Whole
During the viewing situation, Clemence and Alexandre felt involved in the classroom situation; discovering virtually
a situation and a sport that they could be called upon to teach: “It’s great because we can see a situation like when we
teach in real life! It’s different from a classic video because you can watch it wherever you want, just like in real life!”
(Interview with Clemence). During the viewing, their activity was characterized by a pursuit of exploration of the video,
they moved in different directions in the video while trying to observe the different groups of students: “It is important
for me to observe all the groups, to give the same time to all the students” (Interview of Alexandre). PSTs felt immersed
in the classroom situation they viewed and felt like a teacher in a real classroom. In addition, the sound aspects of the
classroom situation and the ability to hear the entirety of the sounds of the gym and the students’ interactions created a
feeling of immersion and presence in the classroom. Seeing and hearing all the students, but also the teacher, is an im-
portant aspect for the PSTs: “The camera placed in the center of the gym allows us to hear all the groups but also to turn
around in the video to observe the noisiest groups or on the contrary those who do not make any noise” (Alexandre’s
interview). Contrary to a 2D video, they do not hear only the teacher but all the verbal interactions and the ambient noise.
The PSTs thus perceived that the sound, and more specifically the sound environment, is an indicator of the activity and
the work of the students: “We realize that the noisiest groups do not work and that it is thus necessary to be more guiding
with them” (Interview of Clemence).
PSTs also felt a sense of freedom in exploring the video because they can see in front, behind, up and down, and
watch all students. They can view the part of the gym that interests them the most and choose where and what to look
at, which is not the case with a traditional 2D video. With 2D video, the framing is dictated by the person filming. The
PSTs’ viewing is characterized by an activity where they frequently change their viewing angle to virtually move from
group to group, and, subsequently, can see all the students. During their observation, they try to perceive and hear all the
verbal exchanges between the students, but also to verify that all the students are carrying out the exercises requested.
They want to make sure that the students are not deviating from the task requested by the teacher. In addition, they can
observe the teacher’s activity to see how the students react to the instructions given by the teacher. During the viewing,
they switch from the position of potential teacher in the situation viewed to that of an observer of the situation in order to
see how the teacher organizes his interactions effectively.
PSTs are engaged in an activity of comparison with their own teaching practice, in search of elements that are sig-
nificant for them and are likely to be faced during their first classroom experiences. They identify them with the teacher
and try to recognize elements of the teaching situation that they themselves have experienced: “When I see the teacher, I
see that I am actually interacting too much with the students. I am constantly interacting with them, whereas the teacher
here lets them work independently” (Interview with Clemence). Moreover, by having the possibility to follow the teacher
in the video (by changing viewing angle) to follow his movements, the PSTs were able to identify and observe different
professional regulatory gestures of the students’ activity: demonstration, exemplify what must be done, bring some feed-

132
back on the work in the task to complete the given instructions but also to guide tactically, and manipulate students. This
observation of the teacher’s skills led them to build a repertoire of professional gestures that they can use during their
internships.
The viewing of the 360° hypervideo allowed the PSTs to experience a kind of “expanded immersion.” The resources
introduced constituted an open door to new aspects of the situation. The initial immersion allowed by the 360° video
was enriched by the elements inserted in the video, facilitating their understanding of the classroom context and leading
them to experience the situation in a more contextualized way. The possibility of relating the teacher’s instructions to
the contents of the programs (Figure 3) allowed them to relate the students’ abilities to the level of difficulty of the task
proposed by the teacher. The use of this type of interactive video allows PSTs to benefit from resources that illustrate
and relate a professional situation to the expectations of the discipline’s programs defined by the French Ministry of
Education (2020). The video functions here for them as a situated and contextualized illustration of the programs. The
additional content inserted in the 360° video helps the PSTs to consider how to teach more effectively, in particular, by
helping them to link w the theoretical knowledge acquired during various courses with more accuracy to their practical
uses in a classroom: “Being able to have anatomical reminders in the video allows us to see concretely what the anatomy
courses are used for” (Interview with Alexandre).
A Situated and Reflective Immersion
Viewing 360° hypervideo generated a feeling of immersion in the classroom situation observed and raise a reflec-
tion anchored in the classroom context. When Zoe watched the video, she immediately felt like a teacher in the class-
room. She observed the situation from different angles in order to see how to conduct this lesson but also how to make
it evolve, to modify it by looking at the situation in the light of her own experience. She is engaged in an activity of
comparison with her own teaching to determine aspects to modify or improve in the situation viewed in order to help the
students improve. Zoe immediately tried to identify groups in the gym who might have difficulty completing the task due
to either misunderstanding the instructions or difficulties in the execution of the exercise. She also attempted to observe
in more detail the motor difficulties that the students might face in order to establish different levels of achievement for
potentially considering how to teach, correct, and support the students’ learning.
Zoe had positioned herself in a teacher’s posture in the situation viewed, her activity was more that of a teacher
managing the classroom and checking if all students were active. Zoe tried to reflect immediately on how to improve
students’ learning. Viewing 360° hypervideo allowed Zoe to enrich her thinking about the teaching situation. It led her
to question her own way of teaching. The contribution of the program excerpts inserted in the 360° video led her to per-
ceive that her teaching focused on only certain aspects of the official program: “It’s interesting to see an excerpt of the
program inserted in the video...In fact, I realize that I only focus on one aspect of the program” (Zoe interview). This re-
source allowed her to reflect on other perspectives to conduct her own teaching and enrich it. In addition, the introduction
of new exercises in the video (Figure 3) allowed Zoe to plan for using new exercises, different from the ones she usually
uses: “Seeing other exercises in the video, it allows me to enrich my repertoire of exercise for helping students to learn
motor skills” (Zoe interview). While watching new exercises inserted in the video, she also questioned herself about the
uses and planning of different exercises she saw in the video compared to the ones she already uses in her teaching. She
wondered which exercise to use to begin with and which exercises to introduce later to students with similar difficulties
to those present in the video. The viewing of the 360° hypervideo leads Zoe to conduct a real didactic reflection to be
able to plan and implement her teaching in order to help students to improve their motor learning skills.
Different and Changing Attentional Focuses
During the viewing of 360° video and 360° hypervideo, teachers focused their attention on different aspects ob-
served in the video and the successive viewing of these two resources led to an evolution of their attentional focus.
Attentional Focus on Teacher, Students, and their Activity
During the viewing of the 360° video, the PSTs focused their attention more on the students’ activity and the class-
room climate. During the viewing, they tried to perceive and observe how the students worked together in groups but also

133
how they respected the teacher’s instructions. They tried to hear all verbal interactions between students: “I try to listen
to all the groups to perceive how they work together” (Clemence interview). The PSTs’ attention was more focused on
the social organization of the classroom than on observing and analyzing students’ motor skills. Their observational ac-
tivity was in some ways marked by a certain blindness to students’ motor skills.
During the viewing of the 360° hypervideo, the PSTs’ attentional focuses shifted. Their concerns became more fo-
cused on the students’ motor skills and not only on the analysis of the social activity of the whole class group. The inte-
gration of hotspots in the 360° video to open up additional content allowed the PSTs to focus their attention and observa-
tions on specific points of students’ motor skills during their task completion. They were able to begin to develop some
visual acuity in observing students’ behaviors: “It’s good for learning to observe...to identify and see where we can focus
our gaze as a teacher...the hotspot in the video is really useful for that!” (Clemence interview). Positioning the hotspots
at specific locations in the video allowed them to refine their observations and build an accurate observation of student
motor skills. Thanks to the additional content, the PSTs know where to observe but also learn to interpret the behaviors
they see: “The hotspot on the elbow...that’s great! I can see that this is where we have to be vigilant...that we have to be
sensitive to these positions during the training situations...I had not seen that the elbow was badly positioned and having
the document on the positions of the elbow in the PDF linked to the hotspot, help me to see what the students have to do”
(Interview with Alexandre). During their 360° hypervideo viewing activity, PSTs gradually built a more holistic approach
to the situation they were viewing by linking theoretical and practical knowledge (e.g., programmatic, didactic, and ana-
tomical knowledge) to a real-world professional context they were viewing. Thus, they put in relation knowledge learned
in various courses (e.g., anatomy, sports didactics) and the real situations viewed but also situations that they had to meet
during their future internships. The viewing of the 360° hypervideo constitutes a sort of bridge between theoretical and
practical knowledge.
Attentional Focus on Students’ Motor Skills and their Improvement
Zoe immediately focused her attention on the students’ motor activity while watching the 360° video. During the
viewing, she used the zoom function offered by the 360° video to observe in detail the students’ motor skills and body
positioning: “What I like is that I can zoom in on a single student and see in details what he or she is doing! Then I can
go back to the whole classroom group and go to another student in detail. It’s really interesting to see how all the stu-
dents are working” (Zoe interview). During the viewing of the 360° video, the PSTs never used the zoom function even
though it was presented to them. Through her observation, she sought to see all the students, to observe them all, but
with a strong focus on their motor skills. She did not want to just observe but to observe with accuracy and then consider
how to correct each student. Watching the 360° hypervideo then allowed Zoe to reflect on her own teaching in order to
improve it. Indeed, she was able to sharpen and refine her observation thanks to the additional content. If her initial ob-
servation was focused on the students’ motor skills, the hotspots allowed her to focus on other aspects that she had not
identified at the beginning: “I had not seen the bad positioning of this student. His elbow placement is not good...If I look
primarily at back placement, elbow placement is also important” (Zoe interview). Like the PSTs, for Zoe, the 360° hy-
pervideo allowed her to have a more holistic perception of the situation being viewed by connecting theoretical and prac-
tical knowledge. However, for Zoe, the additional content led her to sharpen her eyes and observations and enrich her
teaching. New exercises included in the video in response to the students’ motor skills helped her consider implementing
a more differentiated pedagogy that was appropriate for each student. By having the opportunity to propose varied con-
tent and exercises, she was able to engage with content she had not thought of using or was not familiar with. The view-
ing of the 360° hypervideo allowed her to project herself in a more differentiated implementation of her own teaching.
Her observation of motor skills has developed in a specific way but is still strongly connected to finding solutions to help
students progress and improve their motor skills. She has developed a form of differentiated instructional observation.
CONCLUSION AND PERSPECTIVES
With our study, we have shown that the nature of the immersion is different according to the experience of PSTs
compared to IST but also according to the resources used. The use of 360° hypervideo associated with 360° video pres-
ents interest in the training of teachers for both PST and IST. 360° video allows teachers to discover a classroom context
and to be focus on some aspects of students’ activity during the realization of a task. The introduction of the 360° hyper-

134
video allows them to enrich their observation, to make it with more accuracy, and have it contribute to the improvement
of the capacities to identify and reflect on the important aspects of the motor skills of the students. The use of these two
types of resources contributes (at different levels according to the PST or the IST) to the development of the professional
vision of the teachers. Seidel and Stürmer (2014) defined professional vision “as an important element of teacher exper-
tise” (p. 739), which is based on two components: noticing and reasoning. The development of the professional vision
appears to be able to be accelerated from a thoughtful and precise arrangement of the resources used with regard to the
effects generated. Based on our results, 360° video must be the use of 360° video in a more important way with PSTs
before introducing 360° hypervideo. The consecutive use of these two types of resources helps them to focus more on
the observation of the realization of the task by the students and the difficulties of the latter. Our results are in line with
other work that has shown the value of 360° video to prepare for internships (Sato & Kageto, 2020) or accompany intern-
ships (Roche et al., 2021a). For ISTs, the use of 360° hypervideo seems to be the most interesting avenue to use because
it allows for increased reflection on their own teaching and also the development of a form of differentiated instructional
observation more centered on each student.
However, it appears important to us to consider studies that integrate the use of other forms of XR. Kosko et al.
(2021a) explained that “there is a need for teacher educators to consider how the various forms of XR-based representa-
tions of practice are conceptualized” (p. 257), and we think it is necessary to reflect and develop more multimodal video
training approach, based on the use of point-of-view, 2D video, 360° video, hyper360video as well as XR resources.
Moreover, other aspects need to be studied in order to consider the design of an XR curriculum for teacher education.
Indeed, Gandolfi et al. (2022) were able to show interesting results using an ambisonic sound (our study was realized
with videos using an omnidirectional sound) to increase the feeling of presence. However, if the use of ambisonic sound
can increase the sense of presence, we can also hypothesize that with novice teachers, it could induce cognitive overload,
which could be one of the characteristics of 360° video (Lahlou et al., 2012). It, therefore, is necessary to study whether
ambisonic sound is more interesting to integrate with PSTs or ISTs in the perspective of designing an XR curriculum.
Finally, another aspect that remains important to study in this context is if there are differences in viewing. 360 vid-
eos on a computer screen or with a VR headset? To that point, Kosko et al. (2022) underlined that “evaluation of the ben-
efits of using dedicated VR headsets versus access to 360 video on a standard screen is a pragmatic and important topic
for future research” (p. 104).
Thus, this current study constitutes a first contribution to further studies focused on the design of a real XR curricu-
lum for teacher education, allowing a real and fruitful articulation of theoretical and practical dimensions.
REFERENCES
Alizadehsalehi, S., Hadavi, A., & Huang, J.C. (2020). From BIM to extended reality in AEC industry. Automation in Construc-
tion, 116, 103254, ISSN 0926-5805, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2020.103254.
Araiza-Alba, P., Keane, T., Matthews, B., Simpson, K., Strugnell, G., Chen, W. S., & Kaufman, J. (2021). The potential of
360-degree virtual reality videos to teach water-safety skills to children. Computers & Education, 163, 104096. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104096
Chambel, T., Chhaganlal, M. N., & Neng, L. A. (2011). Towards immersive interactive video through 360 hypervideo. 8th
International Conference on Advances in Computer Entertainment Technology, Lisbon, Portugal. https://dl.acm.org/
doi/10.1145/2071423.2071518
Charters, E. (2003). The use of think-aloud methods in qualitative research an introduction to think-aloud methods. Brock Edu-
cation Journal, 12(2), 68-82. https://doi.org/10.26522/brocked.v12i2.38
Ferdig, R. E., Kosko, K. W., & Gandolfi, E. (2022). Using the Covid-19 Pandemic to Create a Vision for XR-Based Teacher
Education Field Experiences. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 30(2), 239–252. https://www.learntechlib.org/
primary/p/221194/
Feurstein, M. S., (2019). Exploring the Use of 360-degree Video for Teacher- Training Reflection in Higher Education. In
S. Schulz (Ed.), Proceedings of DELFI Workshops 2019 (p. 144-151). Bonn: Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V.z. (S.
153). https://doi.org/10.18420/delfi2019-ws-117
Fonteyn, M.E., Kuipers, B., & Grobe, S.J. (1993). A Description of Think Aloud Method and Protocol Analysis. Qualitative
Health Research, 3(4), 430-441. https://doi.org/10.1177/104973239300300403
French Ministry of Education (2020). Programmes du cycle 3. https://eduscol.education.fr/259/education-physique-et-sportive-
cycle-3
Gandolfi, E., Ferdig, R., & Kosko, K.W. (2022). Preservice teachers’ focus in 360 videos: Understanding the role of presence,
ambisonic audio, and camera placement. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 30(3), 321-339.

135
Gänsluckner, M., Ebner, M., & Kamrat, I. (2017). 360 degree videos within a climbing MOOC. 14th International Conference
on Cognition and Exploratory Learning in Digital Age (CELDA), Algarve, Portugal.
Gold, B., & Windscheid, J. (2020). Observing 360-degree classroom videos–Effects of video type on presence, emotions,
workload, classroom observations, and ratings of teaching quality. Computers & Education, 156, 103960. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103960
Hebbel-Seeger, A. (2017). 360 Degrees Video and VR for Training and Marketing within Sports. Athens Journal of Sports, 4(4),
243262. https://doi.org/10.30958/ajspo.4.4.1
Ibrahim-Didi, K. (2015). “Immersion within 360 Video Settings: Capitalising on Embodied Perspectives to Develop Reflection-
In-Action within Preservice Teacher Education,” in T. Thomas, E. Levin, P. Dawson, K. Fraser, & R. Hadgraft (Eds), Re-
search and Development in Higher Education: Learning for Life and Work in a Complex World, 38 (p. 235-245). Higher
Education Research and Development Society of Australasia.
Kosko, K. W., Ferdig, R. E., & Roche, L. (2021a). Conceptualizing a shared definition and future directions for extended reality
(XR) in teacher education. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 29(3), 257–277.
Kosko, K. W., Ferdig, R. E., & Zolfaghari, M. (2021b). Preservice teachers’ professional noticing when viewing standard and
360 video. Journal of Teacher Education, 72(3) 284–297. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487120939544.
Kosko, K. W., Zolfaghari, M., & Heisler, J. (2022). How immersive should virtual field experiences be? A comparison of sin-
gle and multi-perspective 360 video. In E. Baumgartner, R. Kaplan-Rakowski, R. E. Ferdig, R. Hartshorne, & C. Mou-
za (Eds.), A retrospective of teaching, technology, and teacher education during the COVID-19 pandemic (p. 101-108).
Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/221522/
Lahlou, S., Nosulenko, V., & Samoylenko, E. (2012). Numériser le travail: Théories, méthodes et expérimentations. Lavoisier.
Panchuk, D., Klusemann, M. J., & Hadlow, S. M. (2018). Exploring the effectiveness of immersive video for training deci-
sion-making capability in elite, youth basketball players. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 2315. https://doi.org/10.3389/
fpsyg.2018.02315
Paraskevaidis, P., & Fokides, E. (2020). Using 360° videos for teaching volleyball skills to primary school students. Open Jour-
nal for Information Technology, 3(1), 21-38.
Poizat, G., Durand, M., & Theureau, J. (2016). The challenges of activity analysis for training objectives. Le Travail Humain,
79(3), 233–258.
Poizat, G., Flandin, S., & Theureau, J. (2022). A micro-phenomenological and semiotic approach to cognition in practice: a path
toward an integrative approach to studying cognition-in-the-world and from within. Adaptive Behavior, Special Issue, 1-17.
https://doi.org/10.1177/10597123211072352
Reyna, J. (2018). The potential of 360-degree videos for teaching, learning and research, in INTED2018 Proceedings (p. 1448-
1454). IATED Academy. https://dx.doi.org/10.21125/inted.2018.0247
Roche, L., & Gal-Petifaux, N. (2017). Using 360° video in Physical Education Teacher Education. In P. Resta & S. Smith
(Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (p. 3420-3425).
Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
Roche, L., Cunningham, I., & Rolland, C. (2021a). Enriching internship with 360° video. Journal of Technology and Teacher
Education, 29(3), 369-388.
Roche, L., Kittel, A., Cunningham, I., & Rolland, C. (2021b). 360° video integration in teacher education: A SWOT analysis.
Frontiers in Education, 6, 761176. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.761176
Roche, L., Cunningham, I., Rolland, C., Fayaubost, R., & Maire, S. (2022). Reducing fear of water and aquaphobia through 360
degree video. Frontiers in Education, 7:898071. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.898071
Sarkar, A., Nguyen, A., Yan, Z., & Nahrstedt, K. (2022). A 360-degree video analytics service for in-classroom firefighter train-
ing. In 2022 Workshop on Cyber Physical Systems for Emergency Response (CPS-ER) (pp. 13-18). IEEE.
Sato, S., & Kageto, M. (2020). The use of 360-degree videos to facilitate pre-learning and reflection on learning experiences.
International Journal of Innovation and Learning, 27 (4), 381–394. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJIL.2020.107609
Seidel, T., & Stürmer, K. (2014). Modeling and measuring the structure of professional vision in preservice teachers. American
Educational Research Journal, 51(4), 739–771. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831214531321
Skagestad, P. (2004). Peirce’s semeiotic model of the mind. In C. Misak (Ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Peirce (1st
edition,
p. 241-256). Cambridge University Press.
Stake, R. E. (2005). Multiple case study analysis. The Guilford Press.
Theelen, H., van den Beemt, A., & den Brok, P. (2019). Using 360-degree videos in teacher education to improve preser-
vice teachers’ professional interpersonal vision. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 35(1), 582–594. https://doi.
org/10.1111/jcal.12361
Theureau, J., & Jeffroy, F. (1994). Ergonomie des situations informatisées: la conception centrée sur le cours d’action. Octares.
Theureau, J. (2010). Les entretiens d’autoconfrontation et de remise en situation par les traces matérielles et le programme
de recherche « cours d’action ». Revue d’Anthropologie des Connaissances, 42(2), 287–322. https://doi.org/10.3917/
rac.010.0287

136
Torres, A., Carmichael, C., Wang, W., Paraskevakos,M., Uribe-Quevedo, A., Giles, P., & Yawney, J. L. (2020). A 360 Video Edi-
tor Framework for Interactive Training. 8th International Conference on Serious Games and Applications for Health, Van-
couver, Canada. https://doi:10.1109/ SeGAH49190.2020.9201707
Ulrich, F., Helms, N. H., Frandsen, U. P., & Rafn, A. V. (2019). Learning Effectiveness of 360° Video: Experiences from a Con-
trolled experiment in Healthcare Education. Interactive Learning Environments, 29(1), 98–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/104
94820.2019.1579234
Varela, F. (1989). Autonomie et connaissance: essai sur le vivant. Seuil.
Varela, F., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1991). The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience. MIT Press.
Walshe, N., & Driver, P. (2019). Developing Reflective Trainee Teacher Practice with 360-degree Video. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 78, 97–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.11.009
Yoganathan, S., Finch, D. A., Parkin, E., & Pollard, J. (2018). 360° virtual reality video for the acquisition of knot tying skills: A
randomised controlled trial. International Journal of Surgery, 54, 24–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2018.04.002
Zolfaghari, M., Austin, C. K., Kosko, K., & Ferdig, R. E. (2020). Creating asynchronous virtual field experiences with 360
video. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 28(2), 315-320.

137
A Practical VISION for Virtual Reality and Teacher Education
CORY GLEASMAN
Tennessee Tech University, USA
cgleasman@tntech.edu
JASON BEACH
EUNSUNG PARK
ALLEN MATHENDE
Abstract: Providing authentic and practical clinical preparation for preservice teachers is challenging for
many educator preparation programs (EPPs). Additionally, due to the lack of access and equity, high-quality
educational technology preparation varies for novice teachers. At Tennessee Tech University, the Virtual Im-
merSive Interactive OberservatioN (VISION) Lab and its integration framework are utilized to combat these
issues. The lab is designed to work with immersive virtual reality (VR) experiences while exploring future
K-12 teaching and learning strategies. This chapter will outline the VISION lab framework utilized by fac-
ulty and preservice teachers. The framework is sequenced and grounded using observation, creation, and in-
teractive immersion, and preservice teachers experience the framework in three stages. To begin, during a
first-year field experience course, preservice teachers observe 360° classroom instruction videos organized
by content areas and grade level to immerse them in a virtual classroom environment before entering an ac-
tual classroom. Next, preservice teachers create virtual instructional manipulatives using VR modeling tech-
nology in a second-year educational technology course. These manipulatives are then integrated into a VR
instructional lesson plan. Finally, a VR behavior simulation promotes interactive immersion and the devel-
opment of classroom management skills through a required sophomore-year prerequisite special education
course. The application of the VISION Lab framework does not replace hands-on interaction and engage-
ment with students, but it helps prepare future teachers for traditional classroom placements. A model of the
framework is included in the chapter, along with vignettes from both teacher educators and preservice teach-
ers at various stages of its application.
Keywords: Teacher Education, Virtual Reality, Immersion, Simulation, Virtual Teaching, Authentic Learn-
ing, Behavior Management, Virtual Manipulatives
INTRODUCTION
Every year, thousands of future teachers across the United States enroll in educator preparation programs (EPPs)
within colleges of education to fulfill their dreams and impact students (Goldhaber & Cowen, 2014; Howell et al., 2016).
Upon completing their EPP, preservice teachers are expected to take immediate ownership of a classroom, lead instruc-
tion, and produce career-ready students. As teachers complete their EPP coursework, they are equipped with learning
theories related to their subjects and classroom management courses (Mathende, 2021). Studies indicate that preservice
teachers have few opportunities to engage in field experience before student teaching residency because not enough co-
operating teachers are willing to offer training (Mathende, 2021). With limited opportunities to engage in field experi-
ences combined with a lack of authentic classroom preparation, preservice teachers may not be able to observe or prac-
tice teaching techniques and methods until their student teaching residency. Providing preservice teachers with authentic

138
classroom experiences will help them reflect on their teaching style and ability to link theory to practice while develop-
ing confidence (Osmanoglu, 2016). At Tennessee Tech University, the Virtual ImmerSive Interactive OberservatioN (VI-
SION) Lab provides authentic classroom experiences using virtual reality (VR) early and often throughout the preservice
teachers’ EPP.
Dating back to the 1960s, when the first experimentation with video use in teacher education was conducted, edu-
cational technology has grown tremendously (Roche et al., 2020; Sherin, 2003). The standard video was used together
with microteaching to provide teachers with supplementary training to help them self-reflect and appreciate the teaching
approaches available (Allen & Eve, 1968; Gandolfi et al., 2020). Since the inception of video demonstrations in teacher
education, newer and more advanced technologies, like VR, have emerged to supplement teacher training. The frame-
work, implemented by VISION Lab, approaches the integration of VR through three specific modalities: (1) observe, (2)
create, and (3) interact with educational teaching methods and strategies throughout their preparation program. Students
encounter the framework as early as their first semester on campus.
In contrast to standard video and reflection activities, the goal of the VISION Lab is to sequentially introduce teach-
ing-specific VR experiences that require preservice teachers to apply teaching skills (e.g., noticing, self-reflection, in-
terpersonal knowledge, interpersonal competence) in authentic contexts progressively. Teacher educators can develop
different classroom scenarios in VR, assisting the preservice teachers in linking theory to practice and developing the
competencies needed when stepping into a classroom. Using VR, preservice teachers will observe authentic teaching
experiences, create teaching resources, and interact with complex and unpredictable teaching scenarios. Even though the
VR experiences are virtual, the implementation of the VISION Framework has supported EPP in providing preservice
teachers with a more accurate representation of their future responsibilities as a teacher in residency and licensed educa-
tors.
Virtual Reality for Preservice Teacher Preparation
Despite the expectation of preservice teachers being ready to lead a classroom upon completing an EPP, many teach-
ers feel they will need to be better equipped for this role (Theelen et al., 2019). Most EPPs contemplate how to provide
adequate training to preservice teachers to be confident and competent upon completing their preparation program (Hu-
Au & Lee, 2017). The use of VR as a learning tool for preparing future educators is a low-risk and cost-effective way to
support preservice teachers, with opportunities for replication. Hu-Au and Lee (2017) noted that virtual technologies are
an effective way to build skills and confidence among preservice teachers as they go through their preparation programs.
Several studies have been conducted implementing VR within different subject areas. Lamb and Etopio (2019) con-
ducted a study to evaluate whether VR environments provided realistic real-world teaching practices for preservice sci-
ence teachers. Findings from their study indicated that VR provides users with transferable knowledge to the real world;
however, it was found they needed help differentiating VR and the real world. In another study with science preservice
teachers, Peterson and Stone (2019) described how using VR would help develop science teachers to become subject
leaders in their schools. The authors indicated that VR could be used for professional development with teachers. Kosko
and colleagues (2019) explored professional noticing with preservice teachers by having them watch elementary math-
ematics videos. Results from the study indicated that the preservice teachers were able to increase their ability to identify
teaching opportunities. Roche and Gal-Petitfaux (2017) used 360˚ video to prepare preservice teachers in physical edu-
cation. Indications showed that with wide-angle or point-of-view videos, teachers were provided with opportunities to
understand in depth the content and situations that occur during training. VR is interdisciplinary and can be integrated
across subject areas for teacher education.
The use of VR with preservice teachers is becoming a vital tool to help develop skills teachers need as they begin
their profession. A review of the literature on VR indicates preservice can be imparted with different skills using the tool,
such as professional noticing (Ferdig et al., 2020; Kosko et al., 2020; Santagata et al., 2007), interpersonal skills (Theelen
et al., 2019), self-reflection (Walshe & Driver, 2019), and competence (Theelen et al., 2019). During the 2020-21 aca-
demic year, teacher educators provided their preservice teachers with practicum experiences using VR, as there were no
opportunities to engage in personal experience due to a global pandemic. The emerging results from the studies showed
that the preservice teachers could acquire almost equivalent skills attained by those who attended in-person practicums
(Chen, 2022; Ke et al., 2020).

139
VR for High-Quality Educational Technology Training
VR has the potential to provide high-quality educational training for preservice teachers. Studies of VR from other
fields, such as military, medicine, and aviation, have shown how useful the tool can be (Mathende, 2021). Pilots are pro-
vided training in simulated environments resembling the cockpit they fly in (Labedan et al., 2021). Through their train-
ing, instructors can assess pilots’ performance during the main stages of a flight: takeoff, flying, and landing. Medical
training centers have used VR with student doctors to learn how to respond to highly catastrophic situations (Herault et
al., 2018). The simulation provided doctors with trauma scenarios where the assigned students must decide the best way
to handle the situation. With such simulations, doctors are taught to prepare for situations that do not typically occur.
Simulation-based training provides learners with an effective way to obtain new skills by actively learning.
VR can help students learn abstract concepts because they can experience and visualize these concepts in a virtual
environment (Rosenblum, 1997; Sala, 2013). Students in a VR environment can foster active learning to help them grasp
abstract knowledge. Noted within the medical field and aviation sector, the use of VR in education provides an opportu-
nity for teacher educators to develop rare situations that happen in classrooms (Boyles, 2017), such as a student sarcasti-
cally challenging your content knowledge or a student dominating a group discussion and taunting others. Not only can
teacher educators develop simulated classrooms, but so can students. At a Tampa preparatory school, students have been
developing simulated environments using Unity 3D, which they have shared with peers (Bolkan, 2018). The availability
of various simulated environments provides preservice teachers with an opportunity to evaluate plans of action needed
when faced with such situations.
High-Quality VR Training for Rural Teachers
Technology aids teachers as they overcome obstacles associated with rural teaching settings, such as low socioeco-
nomics, sparse resources, and geographical isolation (Monk, 2007; Howley et al., 2011). Despite the growth of VR in ed-
ucation, many rural teachers still do not have access to this technology. The lack of resources and support often leads to
high teacher turnover in rural areas, and hiring is often a continuous concern for rural districts (Monk, 2007). However,
rural teachers often have smaller class sizes compared to urban classrooms and, in turn, are eager to integrate innovative
teaching methods if provided with appropriate support (Monk, 2007; Howley et al., 2011). Access to VR technologies
is not enough; teachers must be trained on how to integrate such technology into their practice. Therefore, it would be
logical for EPPs to introduce VR within their curriculum as the technology has been found to help develop skills among
teachers to work with students with learning difficulties and provide exploratory opportunities, such as wildlife visits, for
students (Jeffs, 2010; Kelleems et al., 2022; Mathende, 2021) because virtual reality offers a chance for rural teachers to
reinvent learning pathways and shrink accessibility gaps for their students.
THE VISION LAB
The VISION Lab is an interactive, technology-based lab designed from the ground up, to work with immersive VR
experiences while exploring its use in future K-12 teaching and learning. This lab virtually immerses preservice teach-
ers in authentic classroom environments before entering an actual classroom. The lab is also available to current educa-
tors teaching throughout the region who may be transitioning into a different subject and/or grade level. The lab does not
replace hands-on interaction and in-person practicum experiences. Instead, it helps prepare future teachers for classroom
placements (i.e., practicum, internship, residency, moving grade levels, subjects, and schools). The VR experience and
VISION framework provide preservice and practicing teachers with opportunities to observe and implement teaching
strategies, behavior management, classroom set-up, manipulative creation, and lesson structure in authentic classroom
settings. The lab stays current on VR research, teaching strategies, and state standards to maintain current/relevant VR
experiences. Outreach and teacher professional development are provided through the VISION Lab. During the Fall 2022
semester, six high schools, three middle schools, fourteen college courses, and two fellow Tennessee universities visited
the lab and experienced an element of the VISION Framework (Tennessee Tech University, 2022).

140
THE VISION FRAMEWORK
To ensure VR experiences are sequenced appropriately, we have relied on experiential learning theory (Kolb, 1984)
and Bloom’s Taxonomy (Bloom, 1956) to ground our framework. The framework shapes and sequences the pedagogical
approach of integrating VR across an EPP curriculum. All education majors interact with this framework during their
coursework at Tennessee Tech University.
Note. The framework is theoretically grounded using the experiential learning theory (Kolb, 1984) and Bloom’s Taxonomy
(Bloom, 1956).
Figure 1. The VISION Framework.
The VR experiences associated with the framework promote learning through authentic experiences. These VR ex-
periences are sequenced to foster a progression of high-order thinking, as shown in Figure 1. The framework begins with
preservice teachers’ observation of 360° videos and reflection during their first year. In their second year, preservice
teachers create teaching manipulatives using VR computer-aided design (CAD) modeling software. Just before entering
residency, preservice teachers practice classroom management skills by interactively immersing themselves in a VR be-
havior simulation during their third year.
Observation
The integration of 360° video in VR offers its users the ability for repetition and immersion. As a result of VR, pre-
service teachers can experience different classrooms and reduce the risk of developing narrow and dogmatic teaching
approaches (Brown, 1999). Students’ observations of experienced teachers’ practices are a critical component of prepara-
tion in EPPs. The observations enable students to examine patterns of teacher-student interactions, reflect on teaching
strategies, conceptualize various phenomena, and identify evidence of learning in classroom settings (Grossman et al.,
2009; Hollins, 2011).
The first implementation phase of the VR framework, the observation stage, is for preservice teachers to experience,
reflect, and analyze VR-based real-world teaching scenarios. In the course, FOED 1822: Introductory Field Experience
and Orientation, first-year education majors watch a local veteran teacher lead a lesson in VR (Figure 2). The VR simu-
lations allow students to select and immerse themselves into the most relevant subject and grade level of interest (e.g.,
5th-grade mathematics). The VISION’s lab 360° video is comprehensive and spans all core K-12 content areas. Students
are guided with prompts to answer in their reflection journals following each immersive experience. The VR observations
put first-year preservice teachers in a more realistic experience, allowing for a greater sense of immersion into authentic
environments with a high level of involvement, so they can decide if they want to continue to pursue a degree in educa-
tion earlier in their academic tenure (Cummings & Bailenson, 2016; Dang et al., 2018; Mathis et al., 2022). Preservice
teachers enrolled in the FOED 1822 course shared their unique VR learning experiences using a reflective journal. More

141
specifically, they identified existing teaching strategies from the simulation, reflected on potential improvements, placed
themselves in the teacher’s position, and often showcased their passion for education. In the following vignettes, the pre-
service teachers share their thoughts about the experience.
Note. Screenshot from our VISION lab of preservice teachers viewing 360° K-12 classroom video. Reprinted with permission.
Figure 2. VISION Lab.
Vignettes from first-year students enrolled in FOED 1822:
Student 1. “These videos gave us an excellent insight into different teaching styles, activities, and ways to incorporate
student involvement into a lesson. ...Even as a future secondary education teacher, it was still fascinating for me to see
both how similar and how different teaching methods can be from second graders to ninth graders. My personal favorite
video that I watched was the video from a high school biology class, as it really helped me visualize a kind of classroom
I could have when I am a full-fledged teacher. … the videos I watched in class really helped to let me “step into” a class-
room as the instructor for just a moment. … the video of the high school biology class gave me insight on how to manage
a room full of teenagers and teach them well.”
Student 2. “While I enjoyed several techniques, she (the teacher) made, there are always going to be things I would have
done differently. I personally liked all the strategies attempted except for how one was laid out. …If I were in charge, I
would make the students write their answers on a whiteboard and then show me so their classmates would not be able to
see who got it wrong. ...but while she was asking all of these questions, I felt like she was not giving her students much
time to ask questions of their own. A way to improve this could be by stopping now and then and asking students if they
feel confident in their abilities to answer the questions on their own.”
Student 3. “The amount of student interaction she (the teacher) had in that classroom was incredible. While she had
students come up to the board, the rest of the class wrote their answers on whiteboards. By doing this, she allowed all
her students to learn. After the student had answered it on the board, she was able to gauge where everyone in the class
was with their learning. I really like that because then it’s not like you are being called out to give your answer. She also
made it fun with different point systems. Everyone learns differently, and some kids are scared to go up to the board to
write the answers down. I like her doing this because I can again relate it back to me. I was a shy kid growing up, so
even the whiteboard would be great for me. To sum up, this teacher was incredible at getting her elementary-aged stu-
dents to be proactive during class, especially when those aged kids can be really rowdy.”
Student 4. “I really enjoyed the teacher’s style of teaching, along with how well the students interacted with the activity
at hand. The first thing I noticed was how colorful this classroom was. When I was watching the videos, I tried to envi-
sion myself in the teacher’s shoes, specifically inside their classroom. If the area of learning is not a comfortable environ-
ment, then the child is less likely to pay attention and succeed in the class. I felt as if this classroom had a positive, well-
managed, colorful learning environment.”

142
360° video observations have allowed preservice teachers to explore the field of education early in their collegiate
tenure. Reflecting on and analyzing teaching practices in an immersive VR setting is more authentic than a 2D classroom
video. Once VR observation is experienced and familiar, pre-service teachers are ready to manipulate and create in the
VR environment to support standard teaching practices.
Creation
Teacher educators often rely on manipulatives to teach preservice teachers how to think conceptually about well-
known content and procedures (Gire, 2010; Puchner, et al., 2008). Similarly, teachers use manipulatives for hands-on
conceptual learning activities. For example, Cuisenaire Rods can help students understand ratios, while a model of the
heart can be manipulated to understand its anatomy. Qualified teachers who graduate from an EPP are expected to en-
gage students and create active learning environments for the learners upon entering their first classroom (Hu-Au & Lee,
2017).
During FOED 3010: Integrating Instructional Technology into the Classroom, preservice teachers are asked to create
teaching manipulatives in a CAD VR modeling program. This teaching manipulative is then 3D printed and used by pre-
service teachers in future practicum experiences. Being developed in VR, the manipulative can also be used in a virtual
setting if desired. Google Blocks is frequently used to familiarize preservice teachers with VR CAD modeling, but once
comfortable, many preservice teachers prefer the Gravity Sketch platform because it provides increased functionality.
The quality and variation of preservice teacher-developed teaching manipulatives are high. Preservice teachers have cre-
ated geometric math manipulatives, DNA strands, a virus structure, and a triangle trade interactive model, as shown in
Figure 3. Preservice teachers enrolled in FOED 3010 were asked to reflect on their experience.
Note. A collage of teaching manipulatives developed by students using VR CAD. FOED 3010 students created models.
Figure 3. VR CAD Teaching Manipulatives.
Vignettes from second-year students enrolled in FOED 3010:
Student 1. “The experience I had created two 3D teaching manipulatives was engaging. I created a globe with a trian-
gular trap outline and a germ cell. The short tutorial beforehand allowed me to become familiar with the tools that were
used in the software. After this, I was able to play around and easily create a couple of manipulatives that could be used
in the classroom.”
Student 2. “My experience with VR teaching manipulatives was eye-opening and engaging. I was able to make math
manipulatives for kindergarten-age students to use. It was interesting to be able to modify and manipulate the shapes
exactly the way I wanted them.”
Student 3. “It would be beneficial for teachers to learn how to create virtual 3D manipulatives because it allows for a
connection to be made between academic disciplines in any content area. It also allows teachers to add an innovative
way to teach content within their classrooms.”

143
Ultimately, VR CAD modeling paired with 3D printing allowed for increased ease of access to teaching manipula-
tives. Preservice teachers begin to comprehend complex concepts and principles underlying systems of discipline-specif-
ic knowledge when creating teaching manipulatives. Evident in the vignettes below, this comprehension leads to preser-
vice teachers realizing the benefits of VR CAD Modeling and 3D printing technologies pertaining to not only pedagogi-
cal practices but their future student’s learning.
Student 1: “In my concentration of history, a teacher could create some notable landmarks or geographical maps. Teach-
ers could also use this in their classroom to let students have a hands-on experience of creating one of the landmarks
instead of the teacher completing it.”
Student 3: “It seems some of the most basic curricula can be manipulated and observed virtually. Introducing this tech-
nology, specifically VR and 3D printing, to the classroom can expand students’ understanding and awareness of the con-
cepts they are learning.”
In the creation stage of the framework, preservice teachers start to utilize VR as more than just a visual learning
component. Controllers are introduced as preservice teachers use VR in tandem with 3D printing to grapple with content-
specific concepts using models and manipulatives. VR is not engaged passively as an observer but actively, as a creator.
Pre-service teachers are now ready to call upon skillsets gained in the Observation and Creation stages to teach in an
interactive and immersive VR setting.
Interactive Immersion
According to Freeman et al. (2014), nearly half of the states in the United States do not require research-based class-
room management strategies to be taught during their EPP. The justification for this dearth of research-based classroom
management is based on the notion that aspiring teachers will have access to it during their teaching residency. Field ex-
perience is a key component of EPPs as it offers preservice teachers real-world opportunities to put their newly acquired
abilities to use and show their command of the subject matter. Using VR as part of an EPP’s curriculum can supple-
ment preservice teachers’ field experiences. At Tennessee Tech University, an integrated interactive behavior simulation
is blended into the EPP’s curriculum to facilitate the learning and use of behavior management techniques before the
preservice teacher enters their field experience and student teaching residency (Figure 4).
When preservice teachers enter the course SPED 3001: Inclusive Teaching Practice for Diverse Learners during
their third year, they are taught various social and behavioral techniques to manage and mitigate behaviors for typical
and special needs students. Preservice teachers will spend the first few weeks of the course discussing age-appropriate
behaviors, identifying atypical behaviors, and evaluating ways of managing the behaviors using verbal and non-verbal
cues. These discussions are paired with their previous experience watching the VR 360° classroom videos (i.e., observa-
tion stage). Prior knowledge and context from the 360° VR classroom videos provide a foundation for evaluating and
identifying what is age-appropriate behavior at different grade levels. Preservice teachers are then reassigned VR 360°
classroom videos to watch and reflect on how the professional teacher responded to the classroom disruptions. Preservice
teachers share their findings with their peers and discuss ways their approach to the situation would differ along with the
techniques they would use to manage the behavior.

144
Note. A screenshot from one of the Behavior Simulation VR Classroom videos used to train the preservice teachers. The
video captures the classroom setting and perspective the teacher will be viewing.
Figure 4. Behavior Simulation Classroom.
After the preservice teachers reflect on their actions, analyze the actions of their peers, and receive feedback from
their course professors, they can practice behavior management in a fully immersive and interactive simulation. Within
the simulation, students engage with human-controlled and AI avatars. The behavior simulation was developed to pro-
vide a fully immersive experience where the preservice teachers engage in the environment and manage a variety of
behaviors. The simulation is designed for preservice teachers to provide didactic instruction in a group environment,
where avatars sit close in proximity to one another. In each simulation, a preservice teacher reads a short story to the
human-controlled and AI avatars seated on a carpet in front of them. For each human-controlled avatar, two AI avatars
are created that provide basic fidget movement, including head movement, rocking, and hand movements. The simulation
holds a max of four human-controlled avatars randomly placed on the carpet each time the simulation is experienced.
The human-controlled avatars have the same gestures as the AI avatars, as well as more advanced movements like play-
ing with their socks, interacting with avatars around them, and the ability to engage in verbal conversation with the pre-
service teacher avatar and the other human avatars. The human avatars have 12 additional gestures that can be combined
with other gestures to provide a life-like experience for the preservice teachers.
Currently, preservice teachers will experience three distinct levels of simulation. There are specific instances associ-
ated with each simulation level. The preservice teachers are evaluated on how they interact and react to each instance. To
begin the behavior simulation, the preservice teacher will be placed in a VR headset attached to a monitor and a high-
performance computer. In a separate room, four graduate teaching assistants are also placed in a VR rig identical to the
one used by the preservice teacher. The graduate teaching assistants can see and interact in the environment through a
heads-up display; they can trigger actions and follow a script of time-bound behaviors. Each simulation lasts 10 minutes,
and the actions and distractions are timed at different intervals depending on the experience level and the avatar. This
simulation is shown in Figure 5.
This room also contains large monitors that receive the video feed from the preservice teacher’s headset, allowing
the professors to watch in real time and evaluate how the preservice teachers respond. Because the graduate teaching as-
sistants follow a script with time-bound actions and distractions, the professor can watch and evaluate how the preservice
teacher responds to the behavior. Preservice teachers are blinded to the cadence of behavior triggers, meaning they do not
know when the behavior will occur and will have to respond by stopping their instruction to engage or not engage in pro-
viding verbal or non-verbal responses, as shown in Figure 6. Through each scenario, preservice teachers will have to hold
the book using their virtual hands, change pages, move the book to see the entire class, use vocal inflection while read-
ing, monitor behavior, determine what behavior is age appropriate and what behavior needs correction, and decide what
type of correction verbal or non-verbal response is necessary. The simulation provides preservice teachers with behaviors
often experienced in a classroom setting. It provides a similar cognitive load where they will have to engage, react, and
respond in a manner conducive to a classroom environment.

145
Note. Screenshot from the 360˚ video that we created for our simulation class. The video captures students sitting in a
class listening to a book being read aloud, Human-Controlled Avatar View.
Figure 5. Behavior Simulation: Human-Controlled Avatar View.
Note. Preservice Teacher View of students sitting in the classroom.
Figure 6. Behavior Simulation: Preservice Teacher View.
Vignettes from students following behavior simulation experiences:
Student 1. “The behavior sim is an incredibly innovative technology to aid pre-service teachers. While dealing with the
behavior sim, I was able to see both sides, the children and the teacher. While being the teacher, I was able to practice
skills and strategies learned throughout my time in the Early Childhood Education program at Tech in a more relaxed en-
vironment since there were no real, impressionable students that I was correcting. By seeing the student side, I was able
to put myself back in that time period of my life where I was expected to sit and listen as a young child. That experience

146
helps you to remember how hard it can be as a student to sit for a long period of time without moving or talking. Putting
yourself, as a pre-service teacher, in that position is helpful in order to adjust to what the students really need and aids in
being able to distinguish behaviors that can be ignored from ones that need to be addressed.”
Student 2. “When different people participated as the students, the same teacher could get many different experiences
even if the scripts were never changed. That is what makes the behavior sim such a unique method for teaching behavior
management. No matter how many times someone engaged in the learning experience, there is always something new
that can be learned on both sides of the program.”
Student 3. “The behavior simulation provided me with a fully immersive virtual reality experience that allowed me to
practice my behavior management strategies in a virtual setting. This type of experience allowed me to have a real-life
experience while sitting in a lab on campus, not in a real school. It allowed me to have a safe space to practice and im-
prove on my behavior strategies.”
During the Interactive Immersion stage, preservice teachers can ultimately experience teaching through multiple
perspectives. Practicing behavior management techniques in low-risk environments can ease pre-service teachers’ anxi-
ety and nerves before entering a practicum and/or residency placement. In this final stage of the framework, preservice
teachers are using a culmination of skills acquired during the Observation and Creation stages to immerse themselves in
the most authentic teaching scenario possible.
GETTING STARTED WITH THE VISION LAB
Faculty and students of Tennessee Tech’s College of Education have welcomed the VISION Lab and its associated
framework. With appropriate hardware, a similar VR lab can be established at any institution. Generally, a high-end gam-
ing PC with a discrete graphics card is a must for VR. A CPU with specs equivalent to an Intel i7-11800 equivalent or
greater is also required. To capture 360˚ video in alignment with the observation stage of the framework, a Vuze 3D 360
˚ or Insta 360 ˚ camera is necessary to capture both stereoscopic and monoscopic footage for all your VR video produc-
tion needs. As for the creation stage of the framework, Adobe Meduim VR and Gravity Sketch seem to be the future of
sculpting and modeling in VR. Any 3D printer will suffice to print teaching manipulatives; however, as models increase
in complexity, a printer equivalent to MakerBot Replicator+ is recommended. Tennessee Tech would love to collaborate
and work with other Colleges of Education interested in integrating a behavior management simulation to promote inter-
active immersion.
Any successful endeavor has obstacles, and the VISION Lab is no different. To replicate a similar VR lab, network-
ing and security are the largest hurdles. Consultation with your institution’s IT department is essential. Once a VR lab
is established, interested faculty and applicable coursework should be identified to align with a conceptual integration
framework similar to the VISION Framework. Tennessee Tech and the authors of this chapter welcome any and all col-
laboration with colleges of education seeking to strengthen their EEPs using VR.
IMPLICATIONS & CONCLUSIONS
This chapter outlines three distinct applications and integration of VR into various stages of an EPP curriculum. VR
and the VISION Framework provide learning environments where preservice teachers can observe, create, and immerse
themselves in authentic teaching contexts to gain confidence and clarity. 286 education majors at Tennessee Tech Uni-
versity have been surveyed, and 80.77% of them either agreed or strongly agreed that they felt more prepared to begin
practicum or residency due to their VISION Lab experiences. 67.48% of students believed VR has a practical place in
their preservice teacher program. While educational technology initiatives are assessed and proposed at local, state, and
national levels, it should be noted that teacher education benefits from the use of VR.
The VISION Framework does not focus on a singular approach to VR integration. A more holistic approach, as out-
lined in this chapter, can effectively immerse students in practical and relevant virtual teaching environments that apply
to many content-specific educational domains. Through VR practices in their EPP, preservice teachers become familiar
with VR technologies. Increased familiarity and experience with VR may translate to the ease of implementation of in-

147
structional VR content in their subject areas and future classrooms to ultimately benefit their students. The sharing of this
framework is meant to inspire other higher education institutions to collaborate and replicate a similar model. However,
the framework’s implementation is aimed at encouraging preservice teachers to engage with innovative technology and
visualize themselves as an educator early in their academic tenure. More research is required to understand the frame-
work and its applications.
REFERENCES
Allen, D. W., & Eve, A. W. (1968). Microteaching. Theory into Practice, 7(5), 181–185. https://www.jstor.org/stable/
pdf/1475985.pdf
Boyles, B. (2017). Virtual reality and augmented reality in education. Center For Teaching Excellence, United States Military
Academy, West Point, NY.
Bloom, B.S. (1956) Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook: The Cognitive Domain. David McKay, New York.
Bolkan. (2018, April 12). STEAM VR lab. Transforming Education Through Technology (THE) Journal. https://thejournal.com/
articles/2018/04/12/vr.aspx
Brown, A. H. (1999). Simulated classrooms and artificial students: The potential effects of new technologies on teacher educa-
tion. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 32(2), 307–318. https://doi.org/10.1080/08886504.1999.10782281
Chen, C.-Y. (2022). Immersive virtual reality to train preservice teachers in managing students’ challenging behaviors: A pilot
study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 53, 998– 1024. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13181
Cummings, J. J., & Bailenson, J. N. (2016). How immersive is enough? A meta-analysis of the effect of immersive technology
on user presence. Media Psychology, 19(2), 272-309. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2015.1015740
Dang, B. K., Palicte, J. S., Valdez, A., & O’Leary-Kelley, C. (2018). Assessing simulation, virtual reality, and television modali-
ties in clinical training. Clinical Simulation in Nursing, 19, 30-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2018.03.001
Ferdig, & Kosko, K. W. (2020). Implementing 360 video to increase immersion, perceptual capacity, and teacher noticing. Tech-
Trends, 64(6), 849–859. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-020-00522-3
Freeman, J., Simonsen, B., Briere, D. E., & MacSuga-Gage, A. S. (2014). Preservice teacher training in classroom management:
A review of state accreditation policy and teacher preparation programs. Teacher Education and Special Education, 37(2),
106-120. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406413507002
Gandolfi, E., Austin, C., Heisler, J., & Zolfaghari, M. (2021). Immersive presence for future educators: Deconstructing the con-
cept of presence in extended reality environments for preservice teachers. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education,
29(3), 339-367.
Gire, E., Carmichael, A., Chini, J., Rouinfar, A., Rebello, S., Smith, G., & Puntambekar, S. (2010). The effects of physical and
virtual manipulatives on students’ conceptual learning about pulleys. Learning in the Disciplines: ICLS 2010 Conference
Proceedings - 9th International Conference of the Learning Sciences. 1. 937-943.
Goldhaber, D., & Cowan, J. (2014). Excavating the teacher pipeline. Journal of Teacher Education, 65(5), 449-462. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0022487114542516
Grossman, P., Compton, C., Igra, D., Ronfeldt, M., Shahan, E., & Williamson, P. W. (2009). Teaching practice: A cross-profes-
sional perspective. Teachers College Record, 111(9), 2055-2100. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146810911100905
Herault, R. C., Lincke, A., Milrad, M., Forsgärde, E. S., & Elmqvist, C. (2018). Using 360-degrees interactive videos in patient
trauma treatment education: design, development and evaluation aspects. Smart Learning Environments, 5(1), 1-15.
Hollins, E. R. (2011). Teacher preparation for quality teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 62(4), 395-407. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0022487111409415
Howell, P. B., Faulkner, S. A., Cook, C. M., Miller, N. C., & Thompson, N. L. (2016). Specialized preparation for middle level
teachers: A national review of teacher preparation programs. RMLE Online, 39(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/1010.1080/1940447
6.2015.1115322
Howley, A., Wood, L., & Hough, B. (2011). Rural elementary school teachers’ technology integration. Journal of Research in
Rural Education, 26(9). Retrieved from http://jrre.psu.edu/ articles/26-9.pdf.
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.
Jeffs, T. L. (2010). Virtual reality and special needs. Themes in Science and Technology Education, 2(1-2), 253-268.
Ke, F., Pachman, M., & Dai, Z. (2020). Investigating educational affordances of virtual reality for simulation-based teach-
ing training with graduate teaching assistants. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 32(3), 607-627. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s12528-020-09249-9
Kellems, R. O., Yakubova, G., Morris, J. R., Wheatley, A., & Chen, B. B. (2022). Using augmented and virtual reality to im-
prove social, vocational, and academic outcomes of students with autism and other developmental disabilities. In Research
Anthology on Inclusive Practices for Educators and Administrators in Special Education (pp. 737-756). IGI Global.

148
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Pren-
tice-Hall.
Kosko, K. W., Ferdig, R. E., & Zolfaghari, M. (2019, November 14-17). Preservice teachers’ noticing in the context of 360
video [Paper presentation]. The 41st Annual meeting of the PME-NA, St Louis, MO, United States.
Kosko, K. W., Ferdig, R. E., & Zolfaghari, M. (2020). Preservice teachers’ professional noticing when viewing standard and 360
video. Journal of Teacher Education, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487120939544
Labedan, P., Darodes-De-Tailly, N., Dehais, F., & Peysakhovich, V. (2021). Virtual Reality for Pilot Training: Study of Cardiac
Activity. In VISIGRAPP (2: HUCAPP) (pp. 81-88).
Lamb, R., & Etopio, E. (2019, March). Preservice science teacher preparation using virtual reality. In Society for Information
Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 162-167). Association for the Advancement of Computing
in Education (AACE).
Mathende, A.M. (2021). Preservice teachers’ perspective on immersion in 360-degree video virtual reality: using virtual re-
ality video in preparing teachers for field experience (Order No. 28411591). Available from ProQuest One Academic.
(2545606411). https://ezproxy.tntech.edu/login
Mathis, F., O’Hagan, J., Khamis, M., & Vaniea, K. (2022). Virtual Reality Observations: Using Virtual Reality to Augment Lab-
Based Shoulder Surfing Research. In 2022 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR) (pp. 291-300).
https://doi.org/10.1109/vr51125.2022.00048
Monk, D. H. (2007). Recruiting and retaining high-quality teachers in rural Areas. The Future of Children, 17(1), 155–174.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/4150024
Osmanoglu, A. (2016) Prospective teachers’ teaching experience: teacher learning through the use of video. Educational Re-
search, 58(1), 39–55. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/00131881.2015.1117321
Peterson, K., & Stone, B. A. (2019). From theory to practice: Building leadership opportunities through virtual reality science
expeditions. International Journal of the Whole Child, 4(1), 67–74. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1213644.pdf
Puchner, L., Taylor, A., O’Donnell, B. and Fick, K. (2008), Teacher learning and mathematics manipulatives: A collective case
study about teacher use of manipulatives in elementary and middle school mathematics lessons. School Science and Math-
ematics, 108: 313-325. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2008.tb17844.x
Roche, L., & Gal-Petitfaux, N. (2017, March). Using 360 video in physical education teacher education. In Society for Informa-
tion Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 3420-3425)
Rosenblum, L.J., and Robert A.C. (1997). The challenge of virtual reality. Visualization & modeling 12, 325-399.
Sala, Nicoletta. (2013). Applications of virtual reality technologies in architecture and in engineering. International Journal of
Space Technology Management and Innovation (IJSTMI) 3(2),78-88.
Santagata, R., Zannoni, C., & Stigler, J. W. (2007). The role of lesson analysis in pre-service teacher education: an empirical
investigation of teacher learning from a virtual video-based field experience. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education,
10(2), 123–140. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-007-9029-9
Sherin, G.M. (2003). New perspectives on the role of video in teacher education. In Brophy, J. (Ed.), Using video in teacher
education (Advances in Research on Teaching, Vol. 10), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley, pp. 1–27. https://doi.
org/10.1016/S1479- 3687(03)10001-6
Tennessee Tech University. (2022). About the VISION Lab. College of Education. https://www.tntech.edu/education/lrc/vision-
lab.php
Theelen, H., van den Beemt, A., & Brok, P. D. (2019a). Classroom simulations in teacher education to support preservice
teachers’ interpersonal competence: a systematic literature review. Computers and Education, 129, 14-26. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.10.015
Theelen, H., Van den Beemt, A., & den Brok, P. (2019b). Using 360-degree videos in teacher education to improve preservice
teachers’ professional interpersonal vision. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 35(5), 582-594.
Walshe, N., & Driver, P. (2019). Developing reflective trainee teacher practice with 360-degree video. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 78, 97–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.11.009.

151
Using Mixed Reality to Create Multimodal Learning Experiences for Early Childhood
ILENE R. BERSON
iberson@usf.edu
MICHAEL J. BERSON
BRIANNA C. CONNORS
LESLIE E. REED
FATIMAH H. ALMUTHIBI
OUHUUD A. ALAHMDI
Abstract: Immersive media technologies offer opportunities for young children to interact, play, and explore
in innovative ways that may support early childhood development and learning. Through mixed reality, chil-
dren are afforded unique educational experiences that blur the lines between real and virtual worlds. This
chapter explores the potential influence of MR on early education with specific attention to children’s fantasy
orientation, which plays a crucial role in socio-emotional skill development and self-regulation. Drawing on
research literature, we reflect on how young children’s simultaneous engagement in realistic and virtual con-
texts may strengthen imagination and creativity; however, engaging with technology-mediated imagery while
being physically co-present also may stretch the limits of children’s capacity to distinguish fantasy from real-
ity. The chapter provides recommendations for early childhood educators to enhance learning through mul-
timodal playscapes and discusses future research directions for advancing the development of mixed reality
applications and pedagogical implementation in the early years.
Keywords: Early Childhood, Fantasy Orientation, Mixed Reality, Multimodal Playscapes
INTRODUCTION
As mixed reality (MR) technologies become more widespread, questions have emerged regarding their use in early
childhood contexts to support preschoolers’ development and learning (Sobel, 2019). MR applications have the poten-
tial to offer unique educational experiences that blur the boundaries between the real world that children are in and the
virtual world they see on the screen. Seminal research on children’s ability to distinguish fantasy from reality has exten-
sively documented the emergence of children’s capabilities between the ages of 3-4 years old (Corriveau et al., 2009;
Johnson & Harris, 1994; Richert & Schlesinger, 2017; Richert et al., 2009; Schlesinger et al., 2016; Thibodeau-Nielsen
et al., 2020; Weisberg & Sobel, 2012; Woolley & Ghossainy, 2013), but MR may stretch the limits of the fantasy—reality
distinction in young children. Given the paucity of research on how blending these two worlds through MR affects chil-
dren’s educational experiences, this chapter explores the potential influence of MR on early education with specific at-
tention to children’s fantasy orientation, which provides a critical contribution to socio-emotional skill development and

152
self-regulation. We review research on the ways that children navigate simultaneous engagement with realistic and fan-
tastical/virtual contexts and consider how the connections that children make between the real world and the screen may
enrich their imagination and creativity during play-based learning. Considering these findings, we discuss the affordanc-
es of MR to spark wonder in children with transformative play-based experiences. We also reflect on the challenges for
young children’s cognitive load and developmental capabilities when virtual and physical realities are intertwined. The
chapter includes a set of recommendations for early childhood educators to guide the selection of multimodal playscapes
that enrich learning and foster high-quality pedagogical practice. Implications for future research also are discussed.
MIXED REALITY
The application of MR in the educational arena is on the cutting edge of scholarly research as technology merges
the physical and digital worlds into a continuous playscape. Scholars have defined MR with a focus on various features
and affordances; nonetheless, the nature of ever-evolving technology and conceptualization of digital playscapes in this
sphere of research has led to overlap in the distinctions between modalities (Maas & Hughes, 2020). Although discrimi-
nating between the continuum of modalities used in immersive media can at times be murky, MR transcends virtual
reality and augmented reality (AR) in that MR allows users to experience the physical world in a new way by overlaying
digital information and experiences onto the real world (Neumann et al., 2022). This creates a hybrid environment that
allows users to interact with both the physical and digital worlds at the same time.
With the emergence of immersive technologies in early childhood contexts, MR experiences create a seamless in-
terplay between the physical and virtual worlds that allows children opportunities for innovative play within new multi-
modal playscapes (Cowan, 2018; Edwards, 2011; Han et al., 2015). As a result, MR may enable children to expand their
imaginations and capabilities beyond the prospects of real-world limitations (Maas & Hughes 2020; Oranç & Küntay,
2019).
Blurring the Boundaries Between Fantasy and Reality
Research with a focus on the application of MR in early childhood is scant (Mass & Hughes, 2020). Therefore, our
research is based on the existing body of scholarship on children’s ability to move between imaginative and real-world
contexts using various modalities, such as books, television, games, AR, and virtual reality (VR). This research has pro-
vided valuable insights into how children navigate these different contexts and how this ability develops over time. Our
work builds upon this existing research by focusing specifically on the unique aspects of MR that allows for the seamless
merging of the fantastical and physical, creating a hybrid environment that is both engaging and immersive. Our research
aims to explore the potential of MR to support children’s development and learning in these contexts.
Children are constantly making meaning of the world around them through play experiences in which fantasy and
reality are often intertwined. As young children construct knowledge through multimodal forms of communication, in-
cluding text, images, movements, and sounds (Grieshaber et al., 2021), they develop skills in distinguishing between
what is real and what is make-believe. Multimodality is incorporated into young children’s play through their toys, digi-
tal devices, objects, and social interactions (Arnott & Yelland, 2020), but children’s meaning-making has specificity to
their social and cultural contexts (Grieshaber et al., 2021). As digital technologies become increasingly pervasive in the
lives of young children, digital and non-digital contexts have evolved into a MR multimodal playscape in which elements
of fantasy become enmeshed with reality, building opportunities for play (Cowan, 2018). Within this multimodal play-
scape, researchers have drawn upon prior findings regarding the threshold of fantasy and reality differentiation (Weisberg
& Sobel, 2012) as well as the creative allowances the fluidity between worlds presents with MR (Palaiologou et al.,
2021).
Researchers recognize young children’s ability to distinguish fantasy from reality at ages as young as 3 years old
(Richert et al., 2009; Richert & Smith, 2011; Woolley & Ghossainy, 2013). When young children encounter fantasy in
books, television, and video games, they can not only discriminate between real world and fantasy characters, but they
can also determine which actions and solutions are possible and impossible within each context (Richert & Schlesinger,
2017; Weisberg & Sobel, 2012). Young children are vigilant in recognizing the parameters between real and fantasy. This
means that they understand the inner workings of each world’s structure (Weisberg & Sobel, 2012). However, through

153
digital play, or the particular way that children play and engage with technological tools and devices (Fleer, 2016), young
children may be exposed to media in which the reality status is questionable (Li et al., 2015).
Unlike other modalities, MR technology joins the physical and virtual world in a way that obscures the threshold
for young children’s real-world and fantasy distinctions (Petterson et al., 2022), potentially blurring the line between real
and imaginary experiences for young children. For example, when fantastical events are presented in an immersive or
highly realistic manner, it can be difficult for young children to determine if these events could actually happen or if they
are purely imaginary (Bailey & Bailenson, 2017; Li et al, 2015).
Young children are more likely to transfer knowledge from fantastical media to real-world situations when the fan-
tastical characters and scenarios have realistic attributes (Richert et al., 2009; Schlesinger et al., 2016). This makes it
easier for them to understand the relevance of the lessons and apply them in their everyday lives. Although some scholars
assert that children’s competence in differentiating between real and fantasy may hinder transferability (Richert et al.,
2009), others have found that children’s inclination to learn and apply knowledge gained in fantasy contexts depends
upon the quality and form of the fantasy modality (Hopkins & Lillard, 2021).
Whereas fully immersive experiences surround children with the fantastical, MR is grounded in the real world and is
considered “semi-immersive” (Maas & Hughes, 2020). The co-existence and interaction of real and virtual worlds allow
young children to simultaneously interact in both environments at the same time. This feature may heighten a sense of
presence (Bailey & Bailenson, 2017), or the feeling of being physically present in the virtual world, that is different from
that experienced in purely virtual environments. The interplay of real and fantastical spaces means that children forgo the
excessive stimuli experienced when engrossed in fully immersive VR applications (Fan et al., 2020; Meyer et al., 2019;
Yilmaz et al., 2017).
Furthermore, as children interact with virtual objects and characters in a more natural and intuitive way, they may
physically move within these MR spaces. Goldstein et al. (2022) investigated the relationship between physical involve-
ment, or embodiment, using fantastical contexts and found a greater influence on retention and cognitive processes than
passive consumption. As a result, MR blurs the boundaries in a way that may enhance cognitive processes in real-world
contexts in fun and engaging ways (Petterson et al. 2022).
Stretching the Limits of the Fantasy-Reality Distinction in Young Children
Children encounter a convergence of digital and traditional worlds in their daily lives. The abundance of digital
technology applications accessible to young children has led to new forms of imaginative and cognitively enriching play
(Marsh, 2019; Palaiologou et al., 2021). MR applications present the opportunity to simultaneously operate in both fan-
tastical and real worlds (Colvert, 2021). The porous nature of digital play (Fleer, 2016) may allow children to enhance
physical spaces by integrating virtual spaces (Cardullo & Wang, 2020). Tools such as Google Arts & Culture Expeditions
and Google Earth, for example, allow children to explore virtual spaces and places, which may otherwise be inaccessible
in their own classrooms. This form of hybrid play allows children to transport through time and space in ways that would
be otherwise impossible (Cowan, 2018). A child might use MR to enter a virtual world where they can fly like a bird or
visit fantastical places. Envision, for example, children engaging in imaginative play and pretending to be astronauts.
They wear cardboard astronaut helmets and oxygen tanks made of plastic bottles. They count down to take off into outer
space holding their tablets in hand and move around their classroom using an app to conduct a virtual field trip to the
moon. The use of MR technologies in these multimodal playscapes may support children to imagine beyond the limits
of the physical world as reality and fantasy are fluidly intertwined in innovative imaginative play, making the impossible
possible (Palaiologou et al. 2021).
AFFORDANCES OF MR FOR YOUNG CHILDREN’S DEVELOPMENT
Since MR technology is still in its early stages, more research is needed to fully understand its potential benefits
for young children’s development; however, MR can allow children to experience and explore real-world and fantastical
environments in a way that is not possible with traditional teaching methods (Aydoğdu, 2022; Cardullo & Wang, 2021;
Fielding & Murcia, 2022; Han et al., 2015; Lillard et al., 2013). In this section, we explore the affordances of MR for
fostering young children’s socio-emotional development, imagination and creativity, and academic skills.

154
Socio-emotional Development
Social and emotional skills are critical factors that affect children’s development (Yilmaz et al., 2017; Yilmaz et al.,
2022), and MR experiences offer affordances for young children’s social skill development. For example, MR technol-
ogy can provide a platform for children to communicate and collaborate with others in a more interactive and engaging
way. Early childhood educators report increased social cooperation between children when they use 3D animations of
stories and flashcards (Fan et al., 2020; Huang et al., 2016; Yilmaz et al., 2017; Yilmaz et al., 2022). Similarly, a child
might use MR to play games or engage in activities with other children, which can help to develop their communication
and collaboration skills and can support their overall social and emotional development as they interact in these shared
social settings.
Additionally, dramatic play with MR may engage children’s imagination while promoting social and emotional de-
velopment in areas of self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, relationship skills, and responsible decision-
making (Han et al, 2015; Lillard et al., 2013). As an extension of dramatic play, MR technology has the capacity to simu-
late the challenges of real-life experiences while also providing more immediate and detailed social cues and feedback to
children, which can help children to develop their social skills in a more explicit and intentional way. As children navi-
gate a range of environments from the real world to fantastical or imaginary worlds, they have a greater range of choices
and opportunities to act. In these spaces, children can practice new prosocial skills, including empathy and perspective-
taking (Berson et al., 2018; Fielding & Murcia, 2022; Han et al., 2015; Wibawa, 2022; Yilmaz, 2017).
Enhanced emotional learning and self-regulation skills also emerge as children develop inhibitory control through
play (Bodrova & Leong, 1996; Vygotsky, 1967). A MR game that involves guiding a virtual character through a maze
and avoiding obstacles or challenges might require children to take turns, wait for their turn, and control their impulses
in order to successfully navigate the maze. As they participate in reciprocal turn-taking, children must also spontaneously
improvise their responses as they engage in co-created scenarios that evolve across co-imagined contexts (Lawrence,
2020). Through this semi-immersive experience, children can learn to regulate their emotions and behaviors in order to
achieve a goal and improve their self-regulation skills (Aydoğdu, 2021; Lillard et al., 2013).
Moreover, imaginary friends in MR can help young children regulate their emotions by providing a supportive and
safe space for them to express and process their feelings (Sobel, 2019). For instance, children can use MR to create and
interact with a virtual friend who can listen to their concerns and provide emotional support. Initial versions of this appli-
cation of immersive technology, such as the Imaginary Friend Society app created by the Pediatric Brain Tumor Founda-
tion, have helped reduce anxiety in children as they undergo disease treatment. Similar MR tools can help children feel
less alone and more able to cope with difficult emotions, such as fear, sadness, or anger. Additionally, engaging with a
virtual friend can help children practice expressing their emotions in a healthy and appropriate way.
Although more research is needed to fully understand the potential benefits of MR for children’s social and emo-
tional development, MR technology has the potential to support children’s development of self-regulation and emotional
learning skills by providing a platform for interactive and engaging communication and collaboration, as well as by pro-
viding a safe space for children to express and process their feelings. These affordances of MR technology can provide
valuable opportunities for children to develop their social and emotional skills and support their overall development.
Imagination and Creativity
Recent expansion in research and the application of digital tools has spurred researchers’ focus on the relationship
between creativity, imagination, and reality in the world of children’s play (Bird, 2020; Fielding & Murcia, 2022; Marsh
& Yamada-Rice, 2018). Young children’s play has transformed with access to digital tools that create multimodal play-
scapes (Marsh, 2019). The use of MR technology provides a platform that stimulates children’s creativity and imagina-
tion in ways that traditional modalities cannot (Fielding & Murcia, 2022).
MR technology has the potential to extend and enhance dramatic play in a number of ways. Children’s imagination
is enhanced as they explore new and fantastical worlds. AR sandboxes have interwoven tangible properties with immer-
sive technologies to provide children with opportunities to interactively discover mirror worlds, through collaborative
play and storytelling (George & Madanipour, 2021; Leinonen et al., 2021). In MR, children can interact with virtual ob-
jects and characters in a way that feels real and immersive, allowing them to suspend disbelief and fully engage with the
fantastical elements of the MR environment. This can foster children’s creativity, as they use their imagination to explore
and make meaning of environments that would not be possible in their physical spaces.

155
Furthermore, MR can provide children with a greater range of choices and opportunities to act and explore, which
can support their imaginative play and expression. Researchers indicate that immersive media enhances young children’s
pretend play by providing them with a more interactive environment for imaginative play as children combine fantasy
and reality to explore different roles (Lawrence 2020; Lillard et al., 2013). For example, children in pretend play may
enjoy imagining different social scenarios related to their cultures or contexts, and they may do so individually or col-
lectively (Lillard et al 2013). Pretending to be a doctor, a firefighter, or a chef might allow children to use virtual tools,
equipment, and props to perform tasks and solve challenges in a realistic and engaging way. This can provide children
with a more engaging and dynamic experience of pretend play, which can encourage their creativity, problem-solving
skills, and social-emotional development.
Moreover, researchers have illustrated that children can mix their imagination with reality using digital tools. The
open-ended features of MR applications foster creativity and allow children’s imaginations to take on new life (Wibawa,
2022). Children can create and manipulate virtual objects and characters that can respond to their actions and interac-
tions in real time. For instance, a MR art program might allow children to paint, draw, or sculpt virtual objects that they
can manipulate, combine, and share with others. This can provide children with a sense of agency, control, and freedom
to express themselves creatively. Quivervision-3D Coloring, for example, brings children’s drawings to life (Wibawa,
2022). Using tools resembling traditional art supplies, children create illustrations based on their imagination and ani-
mate the images in 3D. Similarly, immersive animation apps offer the opportunity to unleash children’s creativity as they
design computational artifacts that provide novel and exciting props and costumes that enhance their play (Ching, 2018).
As children use these tools to create MR playscapes with other children, they may take on different roles and explore a
range of imaginary scenarios.
“Children are already making immersive media environments their own through transgressive interaction with con-
tent, such as washing hamburgers and frying menus as a gourmet chef” (Sobel, 2019, p. 21), suggesting that play in
MR may further inspire children’s creativity as they seamlessly move in and out of digital and physical spaces. Thus,
productive immersive media environments may help children to extend their imagination by providing them with a rich
and engaging environment in which to enhance their social, emotional, creative, and imaginative skills (Han et al., 2015;
Nordström, 2022).
Academic Skills
MR experiences in early childhood offer multimedia environments that can be used for a wealth of potential learning
opportunities in science, math, social studies, and language arts/literacy (Neumann et al. 2022). For example, children
might visit a virtual museum and learn about scientific concepts as they pretend to swim with prehistoric creatures or
jump back in history to experience life on a farm as part of a multimodal playscape. The MR technology becomes an
“enabler for make-believe play” (Palaiologou et al., 2021, p. 2102) that fosters complex cognitive thinking and higher-
level reasoning, important for academic skill development.
This complex thinking emerges as interactive teaching and learning through technology stimulates cognitive mecha-
nisms such as memory and attention (Aydoğdu, 2021). The use of technology in early childhood serves as an effective
learning tool for many developmental aspects and draws the attention of children as it provides new ways for interaction,
collaboration, and perhaps even increased motivation for learning (Araiza-Alba, 2021; Aydoğdu, 2021). It also has the
potential to foster problem-solving by offering a multimodal experience that promotes improvisation (Araiza-Alba, 2021;
Potter & Cowan, 2020), which may lead to children’s intensive and extensive concept development.
According to the cognitive theory of multimedia learning (Mayer, 2005), learners can more easily learn meaningful
material using multimedia technologies rather than conventional methods. The multimodality of the MR interface has
the potential to accelerate learning when the focus is given to pertinent information and when there is a clear structuring
of this knowledge that facilitates a connection with prior knowledge (Araiza-Alba, 2021). Consequently, using MR as a
learning tool may help children gain more knowledge, especially if the information they encounter in the immersive con-
text is relevant to the real world.
Researchers indicate that immersive reality technologies in classroom instruction can boost motivation and help chil-
dren better understand science and math topics as they connect multimodal experiences to content knowledge (Khan et
al., 2018; Maas & Hughes, 2020; Neumann et al., 2022; Schroth et al., 2019; Yannier et al., 2020). MR interactives, such
as OSMO, use physical accessories to bridge physical and virtual worlds (Maldonado & Zekelman, 2019; Schroth et al.,

156
2019). As a result of OSMO’s capabilities, children are motivated to learn letters, words, numbers, objects, etc.
Furthermore, MR facilitates learning by enhancing spatial reasoning as children simultaneously navigate physical
and digital contexts (Di & Zheng, 2022). Open-ended play with MR allows young children to traverse familiar physical
spaces in new and sophisticated ways, all while developing skills in collaboration, exploration, and imagination (Gecu-
Parmaksiz & Delialioğlu, 2020; George et al., 2020).
Scholars also assert that as a learning tool, MR may improve children’s vocabulary, comprehension, and language
skills and may also help them develop their writing and narrative abilities (Araiza-Alba, 2021; Neumann et al., 2022;
Tobar-Munoz et al., 2017). For example, semi-immersive storytelling has the potential to engage young children’s imagi-
nations as characters and events can come to life (Fan et al., 2020; Topu et al., 2022; Yilmaz et al., 2022). The embodied
nature of play and learning in these multimodal MR contexts facilitates a more immersive and engaging experience for
children (Flynn et al., 2019).
Although researchers are still developing the technological interface to fully realize the potential of hybrid MR in-
teractions that incorporate physical objects with digital environments to optimize more ubiquitous applications for early
childhood education (Cheung et al., 2020), in MR, the body is not just a passive recipient of information but is actively
involved in the process of interpreting and interacting across the hybrid environment. For example, a child playing an
MR game may use their body to move, gesture, and manipulate objects in the virtual and real world. This embodied na-
ture of play and learning in MR contexts can support the development of a range of cognitive, social, and physical skills.
Additionally, the multimodal nature of MR, which incorporates multiple senses and modalities such as visual, auditory,
and haptic feedback, can support a more holistic and integrated learning experience for children.
In summary, although there is a paucity of research on leveraging MR technology to enhance academic outcomes in
early childhood, the transformative potential of MR suggests that young children may benefit from these digital tools by
improving their engagement, creativity, and concept development across the curriculum (Neumann et al., 2022). Overall,
the affordances of MR for young children’s academic development are numerous and varied. By providing a platform
for enhanced learning, problem-solving, imagination, and social interaction, MR technology has the potential to support
children’s growth and development in many important ways.
CHALLENGES OF MR APPLICATIONS FOR YOUNG CHILDREN
While MR technology may provide many exciting and engaging experiences for young children, it is important to
carefully consider and address the challenges associated with its use. As MR applications in early childhood education
continue to advance and evolve, gaps in the literature exist on ways developmental processes are mediated by MR ap-
plications. While blurring the boundaries of fantasy and reality can serve as a springboard for generative learning oppor-
tunities, there are potential challenges in utilizing MR applications with young children. Considerations for physical and
psychological influences of immersive technology on child development are detailed below.
Physical Constraints
There are concerns about the potential effects of MR technology on children’s physical health. For example, there
are concerns that excessive use of MR technology could lead to problems with vision, balance, and coordination (Huang
et al., 2016). In immersive modalities, researchers have found that a heightened sense of presence may impact spatial
awareness for some children (Di & Zheng, 2022). Physical safety considerations about the surrounding environment,
such as the accessibility of spaces and the prospect for children to move throughout the space, also must be taken into
account (Sobel, 2019). VR systems, for example, prompt users to establish boundaries in the physical environment where
translucent walls appear when moving out of the established safe physical space in order to prevent injury (Sobel, 2019).
Since MR is rooted in the physical environment, these risks are not nearly as prevalent; nonetheless, the semi-immersive
and interactive environment of MR applications for young children may hinder physical development and fine motor
skills during this critical period (Huang et al, 2016). Built-in or manually-guided barriers in MR environments may pro-
vide children with opportunities for physical grounding (Takeuchi & Stevens, 2011) while also enhancing their spatial
awareness and physical safety. These safeguards are important for early childhood educators to carefully consider as they
monitor the use of MR.

157
Sensory Input and Cognitive Load
There remains a gap in the research surrounding MR and its potential psychological impacts (Araiza-Alba, 2021;
Neumann et al. 2022). The effect of MR on cognitive load for children is not well understood, as there has been relatively
little research on the topic. However, some studies have reported overstimulation of young children with the use of AR
and VR applications (Colvert, 2021; Neumann et al. 2022; Sobel, 2019), which may also occur with MR. Cognitive load
refers to the amount of mental effort or “work” that is required to process and understand information. Immersive experi-
ences can be highly engaging, which can be great for learning and development, but they can also be overwhelming for
young children who may not have the cognitive or emotional maturity to handle intense sensory interactions (Bailey &
Bailenson, 2017; Colvert, 2021; Sobel, 2019).
High levels of cognitive load can lead to nausea, mental fatigue, and reduce the effectiveness of learning (Makransky
et al., 2019; Sweller, 2011). In general, the use of technology in education can increase cognitive load for children, as it
introduces additional stimuli and information that must be processed and understood. This can be especially true for MR,
which can provide a rich and immersive learning environment that can overwhelm children’s limited cognitive resources
needed for attention and working memory (Parong & Mayer, 2018; Strouse et al., 2018; Tare et al., 2010) as children si-
multaneously navigate physical and digital spaces.
Researchers focusing on immersive media have found that children may struggle to simultaneously pay attention
to both the digital application and classroom environment (Maas & Hughes, 2020). Overuse or inappropriate use of MR
technology could potentially lead to cognitive fatigue that creates confusion or misunderstanding about what is real and
what is not. For example, a child who spends too much time in these hybrid spaces might have a hard time distinguish-
ing between the virtual world and the real world. This is particularly important to consider when using MR technology to
explore sensitive or complex topics, such as difficult histories (Berson et al., 2018).
Another consideration is the potential for immersive experiences to be isolating for young children (Huang et al.,
2016). Immersive technologies can create a sense of disconnection from the physical world and from other people, which
can be detrimental to young children’s social and emotional development. Opportunities for children to take time to
pause and reflect on their experiences in the virtual world may help regulate sensory input and safeguard them from so-
cial isolation (Sobel, 2019; Takeuchi & Stevens, 2011). It is important for early childhood educators to carefully consider
the implementation of natural stopping points and time restraints to ensure that MR use is age-appropriate and conducive
to young children’s learning and development.
While the effect of MR on cognitive load for children may vary depending on a range of factors, such as the quality
and design of the MR content, the level of embodiment and immersion, and the individual differences among children,
more research is needed to fully understand how MR influences cognitive load for children and to develop effective strat-
egies for mitigating any negative effects. Ultimately, young children and early childhood educators alike will need access
to developmentally appropriate technology that optimizes the affordances of MR and intentionally safeguards against
adverse physical and psychological consequences like social isolation and cognitive overload.
PEDAGOGIC CONSIDERATIONS FOR MR IN EARLY CHILDHOOD CONTEXTS
By providing children with appropriate guidance and support, and by ensuring that MR technology is used in a safe
and healthy way, early childhood educators can help to ensure that MR technology offers a positive and enriching experi-
ence for young children. The evolution of MR applications in early childhood education continues to inform pedagogical
approaches. To use MR technology in the classroom, children and adults must have access to the appropriate devices
and software, which may require the purchase of new equipment or the installation of new technology in the classroom.
However, pedagogic decisions related to teaching and learning should consider the physical space and educator training
when incorporating MR into the curriculum.
Physical Space
The physical space in which MR is used can impact the effectiveness and safety of the technology. In order to ef-
fectively use MR technology in the classroom, the physical space of the classroom must be adapted in a number of ways.

158
One important consideration is the need for adequate lighting and visibility. MR technology often involves the use of
digital overlays that are projected onto the real-world environment, which means that the physical space must be well-lit
in order for these overlays to be visible. This may require the use of additional lighting or the rearrangement of existing
lighting fixtures in the classroom.
Another consideration is the need for adequate space and freedom of movement. MR technology often involves
physical interactions with digital content, such as moving around or reaching out to touch virtual objects. This means that
the physical space of the classroom must be large enough and free of obstacles to allow for these interactions. This may
require the rearrangement of furniture or the removal of obstacles in the classroom.
Overall, the physical space of the classroom must be adapted in a number of ways in order to effectively use MR
technology. By considering the needs of MR technology and making appropriate changes to the classroom, educators can
create a space that is conducive to the use of this technology and that supports the learning and development of young
children.
Early Educator Training
Educator training is also important because it can help teachers understand how to use MR technology effectively
and safely, as well as how to incorporate it into their lesson plans in a way that aligns with their teaching goals and objec-
tives. Training can also help teachers understand how to support children who may have difficulty using MR technology
or who may be experiencing negative effects such as discomfort or cognitive overload. By considering the physical space
and educator training when making pedagogic decisions, teachers can help ensure that MR is used in a way that is safe,
effective, and beneficial for children.
One important aspect of training for early childhood educators is the need to understand the technology itself. This
includes understanding how MR technology works, as well as the different types of devices and software that are avail-
able. Educators should also be familiar with the specific hardware and software that will be used in their classrooms and
should be able to troubleshoot any technical issues that may arise.
Another important aspect of training is the need to understand the pedagogy and best practices for using MR tech-
nology in early childhood education to expand the limits of the real world and inspire young children’s creativity. This
includes understanding how MR technology can be used to support children’s learning and development, as well as the
potential challenges and limitations of using this technology with young children. MR can be used as a tool to spark
young children’s creativity, cognitive development, social-emotional skills, academic learning, engagement, and moti-
vation (Aydoğdu, 2022; Cardullo & Wang, 2021, Lillard et al., 2013; Oranç & Küntay, 2018). However, certain criteria
should be considered when selecting a MR modality, including the quality of the MR experience, young children’s en-
gagement, the relation to children’s lives, intended purpose for use, and context of application (Oranç & Küntay, 2018;
Sobel, 2019). Educators should also be familiar with the research and evidence on the use of MR technology in early
childhood education and should be able to use this knowledge to guide their practice.
Finally, there is the need for ongoing support and professional development. Using MR technology in the classroom
is a dynamic and evolving process, and educators will need ongoing support and professional development to keep up
with the latest technology and best practices (Meyer et al., 2019; Neumann et al. 2022). This can include access to online
resources and communities, as well as opportunities to participate in professional development workshops and confer-
ences.
Consequently, early childhood educators need a range of training and ongoing support in order to effectively use MR
technology in their classrooms to enhance young children’s fantasy and reality orientation in positive ways. By provid-
ing access to appropriate technology, knowledge, and support, educators can be well-equipped to use MR technology in
ways that support the learning and development of young children.
IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
To fully understand the potential benefits and challenges of using MR technology with young children, there is a
need for further research in this area. Some potential areas of future research include the following:

159
1. The effects of MR technology on children’s cognitive and physical development: One important area of research
is the need to better understand the potential effects of MR technology on children’s cognitive and physical
development. This could include research on the effects of MR technology on children’s attention, memory,
and problem-solving skills, as well as its effects on vision, balance, and coordination. This research could help
to inform best practices for using MR technology with young children and could help to identify any potential
negative effects that may need to be addressed.
2. The developmental appropriateness of MR technology to support early childhood education: More research is
needed to understand the effects of MR on the cognitive, social, and emotional development of young children.
This could include research on the specific types of MR experiences that are most effective for teaching various
subjects, as well as the ways in which MR technology can be used to support children’s social and emotional de-
velopment. This includes examining the potential benefits and risks of MR experiences for children at different
ages and stages of development. This research could help to identify best practices for using MR technology in
early childhood education and could inform the development of new and innovative MR experiences for young
children.
3. Pedagogic considerations: Researchers should investigate how instructional approaches with MR may optimize
learning and teaching in early childhood education settings. This could include studying strategies that are most
effective for promoting engagement, learning, and problem-solving skills in young children as they use MR
technologies.
4. Parent and teacher involvement: Future research should explore the role of parents and teachers in supporting
young children’s MR experiences. This could include examining the impact of parental and teacher guidance on
children’s MR use, as well as the potential for MR to facilitate parent-child and teacher-child interactions.
5. Ethical considerations: As MR technology continues to evolve, it is important for researchers to consider the
ethical implications of using MR with young children. This could include examining issues related to equity and
access, privacy, consent, and potential negative effects on children’s well-being.
Initial research on immersive technologies suggests that providing a safe and controlled environment for children
may engage young children’s imaginations as characters and events come to life. Yet, the novelty of MR applications
necessitates further research on the range of influences they may have in early childhood. We need to advance our knowl-
edge about children’s engagement in these hybrid contexts and how it affects their understanding of the world around
them and their place in it. Future research may include studying the duration of exposure to MR applications and con-
ducting longitudinal research to understand influences on child development over time as we evolve into a post-digital
age (Marsh, 2019) and distinctions between realistic and fantastical/virtual contexts continue to blur.
REFERENCES
Araiza-Alba, Keane, T., Chen, W. S., & Kaufman, J. (2021). Immersive virtual reality as a tool to learn problem-solving skills.
Computers and Education, 164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104121
Arnott, L., & Yelland, N. J. (2020). Multimodal lifeworlds: Pedagogies for play inquiries and explorations. Journal of Early
Childhood Education Research, 9(1), 124-146.
Aydoğdu, F. (2022). Augmented reality for preschool children: An experience with educational contents. British Journal of Edu-
cational Technology, 53(2), 326-348. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13168
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
Berson, I. R., Berson, M. J., Carnes, A. M., & Wiedeman, C. R. (2018). Excursion into empathy: Exploring prejudice with vir-
tual reality. Social Education, 82(2), 96-100.
Bird, J. (2020). “You need a phone and camera in your bag before you go out!”: Children’s play with imaginative technologies.
British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(1), 166-176. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12791
Bodrova, E., & Leong, D. (1996). Tools of the mind: The Vygotskian approach to early childhood education. Merrill.
Cardullo, V., & Wang, C. (2022). Pre-service teachers’ perspectives of Google Expedition. Early Childhood Education Journal,
50(2), 173-183. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-020-01136-3

160
Cheung, V., Antle, A. N., Sarker, S., Fan, M., Fan, J., & Pasquier, P. (2020, June). Techniques for augmented-tangibles on mo-
bile devices for early childhood learning. In Proceedings of the Interaction Design and Children Conference (pp. 589-601).
Ching, Hsu, Y., & Baldwin, S. (2018). Developing computational thinking with educational technologies for young learners.
TechTrends, 62(6), 563–573. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-018-0292-7
Colvert, A. (2021). The kaleidoscope of play in a digital world: A literature review. Digital Futures Commission, 5 Rights Foun-
dation.
Corriveau, K. H., Kim, A. L., Schwalen, C. E., & Harris, P. L. (2009). Abraham Lincoln and Harry Potter: Children’s dif-
ferentiation between historical and fantasy characters. Cognition, 113(2), 213-225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogni-
tion.2009.08.007
Cowan, K. (2018). Multimodal technologies in LEGO house: A social semiotic perspective. Multimodal Technologies and Inter-
action, 2(4). https://doi.org/10.3390/mti2040070
Di, X., & Zheng, X. (2022). A meta-analysis of the impact of virtual technologies on students’ spatial ability. Educational Tech-
nology Research and Development, 70(1), 73-98.
Edwards, S. (2011). Lessons from ‘a really useful engine’: Using Thomas the Tank Engine to examine the relationship between
play as a leading activity, imagination and reality in children’s contemporary play worlds. Cambridge Journal of Educa-
tion, 41(2), 195-210. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2011.572867
Fan, M., Antle, A. N., & Warren, J. L. (2020). Augmented reality for early language learning: A systematic review of augmented
reality application design, instructional strategies, and evaluation outcomes. Journal of Educational Computing Research,
58(6), 1059–1100. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633120927489
Fielding, K., & Murcia, K. (2022). Research linking digital technologies to young children’s creativity: An interpretive frame-
work and systematic review. Issues in Educational Research, 32(1), 105-125.
Fleer, M. (2016). Theorising digital play: A cultural-historical conceptualisation of children’s engagement in imaginary digital
situations. International Research in Early Childhood Education, 7(2), 75-90.
Flynn, R. M., Richert, R. A., & Wartella, E. (2019). Play in a digital world: How interactive digital games shape the lives of
children. American Journal of Play, 12(1), 54-73.
Gecu-Parmaksiz, Z., & Delialioğlu, Ö. (2020). The effect of augmented reality activities on improving preschool children’s spa-
tial skills. Interactive Learning Environments, 28(7), 876–889. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2018.1546747
George, R., Howitt, C., & Oakley, G. (2020). Young children’s use of an augmented reality sandbox to enhance spatial thinking.
Children’s Geographies, 18(2), 209–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/14733285.2019.1614533
George, R., & Madanipour, P. (2021). Augmented reality in early childhood education accessing complex concepts within imag-
inative play worlds. In C. Cohrssen & S. Garvis (Eds.), Embedding STEAM in early childhood education and care (pp. 65-
86). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-65624-9_4
Goldstein, T. R., Thompson, B. N., & Kanumuru, P. (2022). Do embodiment and fictionality affect young children’s learning?
Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2021.105275
Grieshaber, S., Nuttall, J., & Edwards, S. (2021). Multimodal play: A threshold concept for early childhood curriculum? British
Journal of Educational Technology, 52(6), 2118-2129. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13127
Han, J., Jo, M., Hyun, E., & So, H. J. (2015). Examining young children’s perception toward augmented reality-infused dramat-
ic play. Educational Technology Research and Development, 63(3), 455-474. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-015-9374-9
Hopkins, E. J., & Lillard, A. S. (2021). The Magic School Bus dilemma: How fantasy affects children’s learning from stories.
Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2021.105212
Huang, Y., Li, H., & Fong, R. (2016). Using augmented reality in early art education: A case study in Hong Kong kindergarten.
Early Child Development and Care, 186(6), 879-894. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2015.1067888
Johnson, C. N., & Harris, P. L. (1994). Magic: Special but not excluded. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 12(1),
35–51. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-835X.1994.tb00617.x
Khan, M., Trujano, F., & Maes, P. (2018). Mathland: Constructionist mathematical learning in the real world using immersive
mixed reality. In D. Beck, C. Allison, L. Morgado, J. Pirjer, A. Peña-Rios, T. Ogle, J. Richter, & C. Gütl (Eds.), Commu-
nications in Computer and Information Science: Vol. 840. Immersive Learning Research Network (pp. 133-147). Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93596-6_9
Lawrence, S. M. (2020). Collaborating, animating, improvising: Young children in mixed-gender dyads participating in digi-
tal pretend play with a story-making app. Journal of Early Childhood Education Research, 9(1), 52-75. https://doi.
org/10.21125/inted.2019.0281
Leinonen, T., Brinck, J., Vartiainen, H., & Sawhney, N. (2021). Augmented reality sandboxes: Children’s play and storytelling
with mirror worlds. Digital Creativity, 32(1), 38-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/14626268.2020.1868535
Li, H., Boguszewski, K., & Lillard, A. S. (2015). Can that really happen? Children’s knowledge about the reality sta-
tus of fantastical events in television. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 139, 99-114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jecp.2015.05.007
Lillard, A. S., Lerner, M. D., Hopkins, E. J., Dore, R. A., Smith, E. D., & Palmquist, C. M. (2013). The impact of pretend
play on children’s development: A review of the evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 139(1), 1-34. https://doi.org/10.1037/
a0029321

161
Maas, M. J., & Hughes, J. M. (2020). Virtual, augmented and mixed reality in K-12 education: A review of the literature. Tech-
nology, Pedagogy and Education, 29(2), 231–249. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2020.1737210
Makransky, G., Borre‐Gude, S., & Mayer, R. E. (2019). Motivational and cognitive benefits of training in immersive virtual real-
ity based on multiple assessments. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 35(6), 691-707.
Maldonado, H., & Zekelman, A. (2019). Designing tangible ABCs: Fröbel’s sticks and rings for the 21st century. Pro-
ceedings of the 18th ACM International Conference on Interaction Design and Children, 326–333. https://doi.
org/10.1145/3311927.3323123
Marsh, J. (2019). Researching young children’s play in the post-digital age: Questions of method. In The Routledge interna-
tional handbook of learning with technology in early childhood (pp. 157–69). Routledge.
Marsh, J., & Yamada-Rice, D. (2018). Using augmented and virtual reality in the language arts curriculum. Language Arts,
96(1), 47-50. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26779032
Mayer, R. E. (2005). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning, 41, 31-48.
Meyer, O. A., Omdahl, M. K., & Makransky, G. (2019). Investigating the effect of pre-training when learning through immer-
sive virtual reality and video: A media and methods experiment. Computers & Education, 140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
compedu.2019.103603
Neumann, M. M., Keioskie, M. K., Patterson, D., & Neumann, D. L. (2022). Virtual, augmented, and mixed reality: Benefits
and barriers for early childhood education. Childhood Education, 98(4), 68–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/00094056.2022.21
08298
Nordström, A. (2022). Reimagining joy as a performative force in early childhood education. Contemporary Issues in Early
Childhood. https://doi.org/10.1177/14639491221089332
Oranç, C., & Küntay, A. C. (2019). Learning from the real and the virtual worlds: Educational use of augmented reality in early
childhood. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 21, 104-111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2019.06.002
Palaiologou, I., Kewalramani, S., & Dardanou, M. (2021). Make‐believe play with the Internet of Toys: A case for multimodal
playscapes. British Journal of Educational Technology, 52(6), 2100-2117. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13110
Parong, J., & Mayer, R. E. (2018). Learning science in immersive virtual reality. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110(6),
785-797. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000241
Pettersen, K., Arnseth, H. C., & Silseth, K. (2022). Playing Minecraft: Young children’s postdigital play. Journal of Early Child-
hood Literacy. https://doi.org/10.1177/14687984221118977
Potter, J., & Cowan, K. (2020). Playground as meaning-making space: Multimodal making and re-making of meaning in the
(virtual) playground. Global Studies of Childhood, 10(3), 248-263. https://doi.org/10.1177/2043610620941527
Richert, R. A., & Schlesinger, M. A. (2017). The role of fantasy–reality distinctions in preschoolers’ learning from educational
video. Infant and Child Development, 26(4), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1002/icd.2009
Richert, R. A., Shawber, A. B., Hoffman, R. E., & Taylor, M. (2009). Learning from fantasy and real characters in preschool and
kindergarten. Journal of Cognition and Development, 10(1-2), 41-66. https://doi.org/10.1177/14687984221118977
Richert, R. A., & Smith, E. I. (2011). Preschoolers’ quarantining of fantasy stories. Child Development, 82, 1110–1119.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01603.x
Schlesinger, M. A., Flynn, R. M., & Richert, R. A. (2016). US preschoolers’ trust of and learning from media characters. Jour-
nal of Children and Media, 10(3), 321-340. https://doi.org/10.1080/17482798.2016.1162184
Schroth, S., Tang, H., Carr-Chellman, A., & AlQahtani, M. (2019). An exploratory study of Osmo tangram and tangram ma-
nipulative in an elementary mathematics classroom. Journal of Educational Technology Development and Exchange, 11(1).
https://doi.org/10.18785/jetde.1101.01
Sobel, K. (2019). Immersive media and child development: Synthesis of a cross-sectoral meeting on virtual, augmented, and
mixed reality and young children. Future of Childhood. Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop.
Strouse, G. A., Nyhout, A., & Ganea, P. A. (2018). The role of book features in young children’s transfer of information from
picture books to real-world contexts. Frontiers in Psychology, 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00050
Sweller, J. (2011). Cognitive load theory. In Psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 55, pp. 37-76). Academic Press.
Takeuchi, L., & Stevens, R. (2011, December). The new coviewing: Designing for learning through joint media engagement. In
The Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop.
Tare, M., Chiong, C., Ganea, P., & DeLoache, J. (2010). Less is more: How manipulative features affect children’s learning
from picture books. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 31(5), 395-400.
Thibodeau-Nielsen, R. B., Gilpin, A. T., Nancarrow, A. F., Pierucci, J. M., & Brown, M. M. (2020). Fantastical pretense’s effects
on executive function in a diverse sample of preschoolers. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 68. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.appdev.2020.101137
Tobar-Munoz, H., Baldiris, S., & Fabregat, R. (2017). Augmented reality game-based learning: Enriching students’ experience
during reading comprehension activities. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 55(7), 901-936. https://doi.org/10.1
080/10447318.2022.2108960
Topu, F. B., Yılmaz, R. M., & Takkaç Tulgar, A. (2022). An Examination of Pre-School Children’s Interaction Levels and Moti-
vation in Learning English with AR-Supported Educational Toys. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction,
1-18.

162
Vygotsky, L. S. (1967). Play and its role in the mental development of the child. Soviet Psychology, 5, 6–18. https://doi.
org/10.2753/rpo1061-040505036.
Weisberg, D. S., & Sobel, D. M. (2012). Young children discriminate improbable from impossible events in fiction. Cognitive
Development, 27(1), 90-98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2011.08.001
Wibawa, B. (2022). Digital storytelling for early childhood creativity: Diffusion of Innovation 3-D Coloring Quiver application
based on augmented reality technology in children’s creativity development. International Journal of Online & Biomedical
Engineering, 18(10). 26-42. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijoe.v18i10.32845
Woolley, J. D., & E. Ghossainy, M. (2013). Revisiting the fantasy–reality distinction: Children as naïve skeptics. Child Develop-
ment, 84(5), 1496-1510. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12081
Yannier, N., Hudson, S. E., & Koedinger, K. R. (2020). Active learning is about more than hands-on: A mixed-reality AI system
to support STEM education. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 30(1), 74-96.
Yilmaz, R. M., Kucuk, S., & Goktas, Y. (2017). Are augmented reality picture books magic or real for preschool children aged
five to six? British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(3), 824-841. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12452
Yilmaz, R. M., Topu, F. B., & Takkaç Tulgar, A. (2022). An examination of vocabulary learning and retention levels of pre-
school children using augmented reality technology in English language learning. Education and Information Technologies,
27(5), 6989–7017. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-10916-w

163
Supporting Teacher Candidates Through Mixed Reality Simulations
MARY T. GRASSETTI
Framingham State University, USA
mgrassetti@framingham.edu
Abstract: The purpose of this chapter is to describe how teacher preparation programs can use mixed reality
simulations (MRS) to support teacher candidates in developing family communication skills and effective
teaching practices. Building strong and supportive partnerships with diverse families is fundamental to K-12
teaching. One way to successfully establish a relationship with families is to facilitate a productive fami-
ly-teacher conference. However, because of confidentiality concerns, teacher candidates rarely, if ever, have
opportunities to attend, let alone conduct, a family conference. Additionally, although essential to effective
teaching, classroom management training is often lacking in teacher preparation. MRS addresses these gaps
by providing rich simulated conferencing and teaching experiences where candidates can practice their skills
in a safe and supportive simulated environment before working with real students and families. Additionally,
mixed reality allows teacher-educators the opportunity to observe teacher candidates as they practice their
skills and provide candidates with immediate feedback on their performance. The chapter concludes with
recommendations for using this novel technology in teaching preparation programs and the support needed to
sustain a robust mixed reality program.
Keywords: Teacher Preparation, Mixed Reality Simulations, Family Conferences, Effective Teaching
INTRODUCTION
Preparing teacher candidates to be effective teachers is a complicated task, given the teacher’s responsibility to en-
sure all students meet the high standards set by schools, districts, and states (Bransford et al., 2007; Spitzman et al.,
2022). For example, in Massachusetts, the expectation is that a first-year teacher possesses the skills and dispositions of
a third-year teacher and is ready to be effective on day one of their teaching career (Abbot, 2018). Bransford et al. (2007)
also call for new teachers to be ready to have a positive impact on the “very first students they teach” (p. 3). Therefore, it
is no longer acceptable to espouse that new teachers need time to develop their skills during the first three years of teach-
ing because ineffectiveness negatively impacts student learning. Although Bransford et al. (2007) recognize that first-year
teachers will continue to learn throughout their careers and adjust their professional practice, they also acknowledge that
the students of first-year teachers deserve “sound instruction and cannot afford to lose a year of schooling to a teacher
who is ineffective or learning by trial and error on the job” (p. 3).
Teacher preparation programs must prepare teacher candidates for the complex work of teaching, which includes
working with culturally and linguistically diverse and students with and without disabilities. Additionally, teacher prepa-
ration programs must support candidates as they learn to create safe learning environments, partner with families, use
innovative instructional practices, and positively impact all students’ academic and social-emotional learning. This is a
challenging target for teacher preparation programs to meet, given that time in a teacher preparation program is short and
often takes place during the last two years of an undergraduate program or it is consolidated into a one or two-year mas-
ter program. However, MRS can support teacher preparation programs in this complex work by providing teacher candi-
dates with multiple opportunities to practice communicating with families as well as much-needed practice in teaching
diverse students and managing the classroom environment.
MIXED REALITY SIMULATION IN TEACHER EDUCATION
MRS is a relatively new technology in teacher education (Murphy et al., 2021) that provides teacher candidates the
opportunity to engage in simulated teaching, conferencing, and interviewing experiences in a safe and supportive en-

164
vironment. According to the National Research Council (2000), new technologies can provide valuable advantages for
learning by (a) “bringing exciting curricula based on real-world problems into the classroom;” (b) “providing scaffolds
and tools to enhance learning;” and (c) “giving students and teachers more opportunities for feedback, reflection, and re-
vision” (p. 206).
MRS addresses the advantages that the NCR highlights in several ways. Firstly, it is an exciting and innovative peda-
gogical tool that provides opportunities for teacher candidates to practice teaching without the risk of negatively im-
pacting real students. Secondly, instructors can scaffold the simulated environment by assigning scenarios that progress
from simple meet-and-greet scenarios to more complex ones that require candidates to teach content, address behavioral
issues, or explain complex assessment data to parent avatars. Lastly, MRS allows instructors to give teacher candidates
immediate and focused feedback on their performance. For example, teacher candidates can practice various classroom
management and teaching strategies with student avatars and receive instructor and peer feedback immediately after the
simulation. This allows candidates to refine their teaching based on feedback before working with students in schools.
Additionally, the technology enables teacher candidates to video record their performances, which provides an opening
for self-reflection. After a simulated teaching session, candidates can watch and reflect on their recorded video highlight-
ing areas of strength and areas of challenge. After working out any issues that emerged during the simulated lesson,
candidates can adjust their practice and then prepare to teach the same lesson to a group of students in their practicum
placement. MRS is a practice-based platform that supports teacher candidates in developing and refining their skills as
they work in simulated environments alongside a knowledgeable and skilled teacher-educator.
Teacher candidates learn to teach through coursework and also in school settings when they are placed with an expe-
rienced mentor teacher. These placements allow candidates to practice what they are learning in their university courses.
Early practicum experiences in a school setting often involve observing and assisting the classroom teacher with little
time spent teaching (Darling-Hammond, 2010). It is not until candidates enter their final practicum that they have oppor-
tunities for practice under the supervision of a supervising teacher. Research has shown that practicum placements alone
do not give candidates enough time and experience to develop the effective communication and teaching skills they need
to be effective teachers (Walters et al., 2021). MRS is a promising technology that allows candidates to practice their
teaching and communication skills in a simulated environment before being placed in a practicum classroom.
Virtual simulation has been used for many years in medicine and the military with much success (Luke & Vaughn,
2022); however, it is a relatively new instructional tool used in teacher preparation (Kaufman & Ireland, 2016).
TeachLive©, developed at the University of Central Florida, was the first mixed reality platform to design simulations
for teacher preparation programs and was followed by Mursion©. Mursion provides teacher preparation programs with
various mixed reality simulations ranging from teaching small group lessons in a simulated early childhood, elemen-
tary, middle, or high school setting to conducting a family conference with a parent or interviewing with a principal for
a teaching position. According to Ersozlu et al. (2021), the difference between virtual simulation and mixed reality is
that mixed reality incorporates a “human-in-the-loop feature” (p. 2) and is considered synchronous virtual puppetry. The
human-in-the-loop is a highly trained individual, often a professional actor, called a simulation specialist who controls
the avatars in the simulation, be it an individual avatar such as a parent or a small group of student avatars. The specialist
is trained to respond to teacher candidates authentically, making the simulation as realistic as possible.
The following sections will highlight how the author has used MRS with teacher candidates over the past five years.
The goal is to assist the reader in understanding how MRS can be used to support teacher candidates in developing fam-
ily communication skills and effective teaching practices where mistakes are turned into opportunities to grow and de-
velop.
COMMUNICATING AND COLLABORATING WITH FAMILIES
Communicating, collaborating, and partnering with families are essential aspects of teachers’ work (Scarparolo &
Mayne, 2022), and teacher candidates are required by national teacher accreditation bodies to demonstrate their skills
in these areas (AAQEP, 2021; CAEP, 2022). However, developing effective communication and collaborative partner-
ing skills receives little attention in teacher preparation programs (Baum & McMurray-Schwarz, 2004; Luke &Vaughn,
2022; Ratcliff & Hunt, 2009; Scarparolo & Mayne, 2022). Teachers must be able to share sensitive information about
a child’s academic, social, and emotional development in a clear, concise, and culturally responsive manner (AAQEP,
2021, CAEP, 2022) and establish collaborative and sustainable relationships with diverse families (Massachusetts De-
partment of Elementary and Secondary Education, 2020). A critical space where communication and collaboration are

165
developed and fostered is during the family-teacher conference; however, teacher candidates rarely, if ever, have an op-
portunity to facilitate such meetings during their teacher preparation program (Dotger et al., 2008; Henderson & Hunt,
1994). As a result, teachers begin their careers needing to learn these critical skills on the job. However, according to
Hiatt-Michael (2001), “if teachers do not receive such training in teacher preparation programs before entering the class-
room, opportunities to acquire such training within the school setting are limited” (p. 4).
Research demonstrates that developing strong family-teacher partnerships is paramount to the academic, social, and
emotional development of students (Hiatt-Michael, 2001), especially in the early years (Cheatham & Ostrosky, 2013),
and is considered best practice by professional organizations (Cantin et al., 2012; Sewell, 2012). The primary person
responsible for fostering, nurturing, and sustaining such partnerships is the classroom teacher (Ratcliff & Hunt, 2009).
However, this aspect of teachers’ work gets little attention at the preservice level (Baum & McMurray-Schwarz, 2004;
Luke &Vaughn, 2022; Ratcliff & Hunt, 2009; Scarparolo & Mayne, 2022; Walker & Dotger, 2012). And that sentiment
is echoed by the graduates of teacher preparation programs. In follow-up surveys evaluating their teacher preparation ex-
perience, novice teachers continually report that working with families is missing in their educational preparation (Hiatt-
Michael, 2001). Therefore, if teachers are to be successful on day one in communicating and partnering with families,
they must have ample opportunity to develop their skills during the teacher preparation phase of their professional devel-
opment.
According to the 2017-2018 National Teacher and Principal Survey, 92% of public school principals indicated that
the parent-teacher conference was essential to engaging parents and guardians in their child’s education (Merlin, 2021).
Additionally, 62% of the primary school principals surveyed reported that 76-100% of students had at least one parent or
guardian participate in a parent-teacher conference during the 2016 school year. Moreover, a report published by ERIC
Digest indicated that “parent-teacher conferences are the most pervasive home-school communication in schools after the
ubiquitous report card” (Hiatt-Michael, 2001, p. 3).
It is clear from the research that communicating with families is an essential skill that all teachers must possess. As
such, teacher preparation programs must address this essential skill in a meaningful and authentic manner if candidates
are to begin their careers ready to partner with students and their families (Dotger et al., 2011). However, conferencing
with families is a challenging experience to infuse into a teacher preparation program. For example, many family confer-
ences occur in the evenings when many parents are available, but teacher candidates are back on the college campus or
at home. Additionally, conferences are often confidential as a student’s social, emotional, and academic well-being may
be the focus of the meeting. Finally, many parents prefer not to have outside observers present at such conferences. MRS
addresses these issues by providing teacher candidates with realistic conferencing experiences with parent avatars who
share many of the same concerns that parents share. The following vignette describes one family conference scenario and
how it is facilitated in the mixed reality environment.
Vignette 1: Developing Family Communication Skills Using Mix Reality Simulation
The family conference is where teachers can partner with families to support each student’s social, emotional, and
academic learning in their classroom. However, teacher candidates rarely have an opportunity to observe a family-teacher
conference, let alone facilitate one. MRS addresses this lack of experience at the preservice level by providing teacher
candidates with opportunities to conduct a variety of conferences in a simulated environment. Conferences can be com-
pleted in a fishbowl format in front of a large computer screen over Zoom, where the candidate is in a university class-
room with peers and the instructor. The instructor manages the logistics of the scenario by accessing the Zoom meeting,
acclimating the candidate to the scenario, and facilitating a post-conference debrief. Conferences can also be conducted
in a one-to-one format where candidates access Zoom in the privacy of their home and conduct the conference over their
personal computer. In one-to-one sessions, a host avatar acclimates the candidate to the simulation and then facilitates
the debriefing discussion. In both instances, the session is video recorded for future reflection. When conferences are
conducted in the one-to-one format, the video recording of the session is sent directly to the instructor for assessment and
feedback.
Before engaging in the family-teacher conference, candidates are given a brief description of a common parent con-
cern, such as their child receiving a low score on a classroom quiz. The teacher candidate is also provided with a brief
description of the student avatar. For example, in one scenario, the student avatar, Gabrielle, is new to the district and
somewhat shy, but he participates when called upon and loves science. The candidate is given information about the fam-
ily dynamics as well. Gabrielle lives with his dad Monday through Friday and his mom on weekends, as his parents are

166
recently divorced. His mom lives an hour away, and his dad has a hectic work schedule. The goal of the simulation is for
the candidate to partner with the parent or caregivers and develop a collaborative action plan to support the student’s aca-
demic progress. Before the simulation, teacher candidates must consider the conference goals and plan ways to address
parental concerns in a culturally sustaining and responsive manner. As seen in Figure 1, the conference begins when the
parent avatar arrives on the screen.
Note. © 2019, Mursion. Reprinted with permission.
Figure 1. Simulated Conference Room with Parent Avatar.
Once the simulation begins, the teacher candidate is immersed in the scenario and is faced with conferencing with a
parent concerned about their child’s academic performance. The parent may question the school’s academic rigor and, at
times, the teacher’s experience. For example, the parent avatar may ask, “how long have you been teaching” or comment,
“Gabrielle has always been a very strong student, and it might be your teaching style that is causing these low scores.” In
these situations, the teacher candidate must address the comment respectfully while holding their professional ground. It
is a delicate balancing act, and practicing such problems in a simulated environment is a valuable learning experience for
the teacher candidate.
As mentioned, a simulation specialist controls the avatar and is trained to react in specific ways depending on how
the teacher candidate manages the conference. For example, if the parent asks the candidate to provide extra support in
the classroom and the candidate responds with, “I would love to work more closely with Gabrielle, but I just don’t have
the time,” it is considered a “miss” meaning the response from the candidate was inadequate. In this instance, the parent
might fold his arms across his chest, indicating displeasure with the candidate’s response or more openly object to the
teacher’s comment and push the teacher candidate to reconsider their response. In both instances, the teacher candidate
has an opportunity to recover and bring the conversation back to a collaborative one focused on supporting the parent’s
child.
The family conference scenario helps teacher candidates to develop collaborative planning skills. During the simu-
lated conference, teacher candidates are challenged to elicit parent feedback and incorporate the feedback into an aca-
demic plan for the student moving forward. They must also explain assessment results using accessible language, so the
parent understands what formative and summative assessments are and how each supports students as they learn. These
skills require practice; however, practicing these skills with real families is challenging. MRS provides the space for such
practice to take place.
The various family conference scenarios can be set to low or medium difficulty. For example, when set to low, the
parent avatar might push back on something a teacher candidate says but will easily be redirected by the teacher can-
didate. However, the parent avatar will provide significant pushback when set to medium. For example, their body lan-
guage will close off if a teacher candidate says something they do not like and open up again if the teacher candidate
recovers from their communication mistake.
Using MRS to support teacher candidates in developing conference communication skills is worthwhile as it gives
them a valuable opportunity to interact with families in a safe and supportive learning environment before they are con-
fronted with conferencing with parents in school.

167
THE COMPLEXITY OF LEARNING TO TEACH
Teacher candidates learn to teach through methods courses and practicum experiences with a supervising teacher.
Methods courses are designed to assist candidates in developing effective classroom management skills and instructional
practices designed to meet the needs of all students. Once licensed, early childhood and elementary teacher candidates
will be qualified to teach all subjects. At the early childhood and elementary levels, content methods courses often in-
clude math, science, English language arts, and social studies. Additionally, candidates may take methods courses in spe-
cial education and social-emotional learning. These methods courses address the social and emotional aspects of learning
and how to use inclusive practices, so all children have opportunities to learn and succeed in school. At the secondary
level, candidates earn a license in a specific content area. Thus, their methods courses focus on one particular content
area and a special education course.
Methods courses are essential to teacher candidates’ professional development. In these courses, candidates learn
how to create engaging lessons, elicit student ideas, use researched-based instructional practices, develop curriculum and
assessments, and create safe and supportive learning environments. According to Powers (2004), methods courses have a
powerful impact not only on the teacher candidates enrolled in teacher preparation programs but also on the teacher can-
didates’ future students, and she calls this impact the “multiplier effect” (p. 3).
Learning to teach is a multifaceted, complex process requiring teacher candidates to apply what they learn in meth-
ods courses to their work in pre-practicum and practicum placements. Research on how people learn highlights the im-
portance of applying and refining new learning. According to the National Research Council (2000), learners must be
provided ample opportunities to apply and refine their new learning in different situations and problem contexts. As such,
practicing teaching skills is paramount to learning to teach. Mistakes are expected and serve as a vehicle for candidates
to develop and refine their teaching practice, which aligns with the research on learning.
Although practical experience is essential to a candidate’s learning and development, it is also problematic because
candidates are practicing with real students in real classrooms; thus, making mistakes while in training can negatively
impact what students learn. Additionally, pre-practicum placements do not provide candidates with enough experience in
developing and honing their teaching and communication skills (Waters et al., 2021). However, learning to teach can take
place outside of classrooms, and as Ball and Cohen (1999) state, “Being ‘centered in practice’ does not necessarily imply
situations in school classrooms in real time” (as cited in Darling-Hammond et al., 2012, p. 402). Instead, situational prac-
tice can take various forms, and mixed reality is one form of situational practice that shows promise in the preparation
of teachers (Ade-Ojo et al., 2021; Kaufman & Ireland, 2016). The following section will focus on the different teaching
simulations candidates can be assigned.
Vignette 2: Developing Teaching Skills Using MRS
Mixed reality teaching simulations provide teacher candidates with a teaching space that is realistic but not real. Be-
ing realistic, yet not real, is a cornerstone of MRS. It is, as Ball and Cohen noted (1999), centered in practice but not in a
real classroom. However, the experience is surprisingly realistic, but when mistakes happen, and they do, no one is hurt
or offended. Instead, the teacher candidate can process the errors made during the simulation and actively propose solu-
tions for moving their teaching practice forward.
Like the family conference, teacher candidates can teach a simulated class in a fishbowl setting or a more private
one-to-one format. In the fishbowl session, the course instructor manages the session and acclimates the group to the
mixed reality simulator, explains the purpose of the scenario, and helps the group understand what to expect when the
teaching session begins. After the session, the instructor leads a debriefing discussion with the teacher candidate and the
peers observing. This is a valuable opportunity for the candidate as well as the observers. It allows for a focused discus-
sion on problems of practice and centers the teacher candidate’s teaching in the discussion. Following the debrief, the
next teacher candidate teaches the same group of avatar students; however, the experience can be quite different as the
avatars react to the individual teacher candidate and the teaching skills they bring to the session.
In a one-to-one setting, a host avatar comes on the screen before the session begins to walk the teacher candidate
through the scenario and answer any of the candidate’s questions. When the session is complete, the host returns and de-
briefs the session with the teacher candidate by asking critical questions about the candidate’s performance. The recorded
video is then sent to the instructor for review and feedback. As an instructor, observing a teacher candidate reflecting on
their teaching serves as a window into the teacher candidate’s thinking about their practice. Candidates are often very
open and honest when debriefing with the host avatar. They can pinpoint areas of strength in their teaching and areas in

168
need of continued growth and development. The instructor can then provide feedback focused on the candidate’s teach-
ing, where mistakes serve as learning opportunities to refine one’s practice.
Course instructors can choose from a wide array of classroom scenarios that match the teacher candidates’ licensure
area and focus on the skills needed to be an effective teacher. For example, Figure 2 is representative of an early child-
hood classroom with young children gathered together on a rug, which is typical of an early childhood classroom setting.
The scenarios include such experiences as introducing content, assessing phonemic awareness, leading a morning circle,
managing student behavior while teaching content, and facilitating a read-aloud lesson. Each early childhood scenario is
geared toward the work of an early childhood teacher and provides a realistic experience for the candidate.
Figure 2. Simulated Early Childhood Classroom with Student Avatars.
Figure 3 represents an elementary school classroom with student avatars sitting in a small group with name tags
placed in front of each student. The setting looks very similar to an elementary classroom setup providing the candidate
with a realistic experience. Teacher candidates earning an elementary license can engage with scenarios that challenge
their skills in teaching content, managing classroom behaviors, creating a respectful community, welcoming a new stu-
dent, and teaching children with special needs as well as English language learners. The scenarios challenge teacher can-
didates to apply what they are learning in their methods classes with student avatars who react just as actual elementary
students might act in a real classroom.
Figure 3. Simulated Upper Elementary Classroom with Student Avatars.

169
The avatars can ask questions, raise their hands, turn and talk to one another, and respond to the skills the teacher
candidate brings to the session. The avatars all have distinct personalities, just as students would have in a real classroom.
The more a teacher candidate works with the group, the better they can anticipate behaviors and plan accordingly. Anoth-
er critical feature is the ability of the teacher candidate to pause the simulation at any time during the session. Candidates
may need to take a breath, ask the instructor for support, or reflect on how to react to something an avatar said or did.
Once a candidate restarts the simulation, it is picked back up at the exact point it was paused. The pausing feature gives
the teacher candidates a lifeline to their support system, which can help the candidate to problem solve the situation with
support from a knowledgeable other (instructor) and peer observers.
In the middle school classroom, the students are seated around a semicircle table, and name tags are placed in front
of each student (See Figure 4). The name tags serve as a way for teacher candidates to develop a relationship with the
student avatars. For example, after a teaching simulation, the instructor might discuss the importance of connecting with
students by name rather than pointing. The instructor might have noted that the candidate used an avatar student’s name
and documented how the avatar reacted when hearing their name spoken by the teacher. Or the instructor might have not-
ed the candidate did not use names and then documented instances where using an avatar’s name might have changed the
dynamic of the scenario. These small nuances are critical to establishing a classroom community where all students feel
welcomed and supported. MRS helps teacher candidates to see these nuances in action and identify the avatar behaviors
that did or did not occur based on an instructional practice they used.
Figure 4. Simulated Middle School Classroom.
During simulations, teacher candidates are challenged to address behaviors such as using a cell phone in the middle
of class or talking when the teacher candidate is trying to explain content. How the candidate reacts to the behavior de-
pends on the candidate’s skills, disposition, and knowledge of middle schooler’s behavioral patterns. Again, the scenarios
represent what it is like to be in an actual middle school classroom. It is active, lively, and challenging, and it takes skill
and patience to ensure that the learning targets are met while also allowing for student autonomy. Being able to practice
these skills is essential to preparing teachers to work in a variety of classroom settings.
Lastly, the high school classroom (See Figure 5) denotes a more serious tone with its rows of desks and chairs, indi-
cating students are more independent and ready for individual and group learning. High school scenarios include teach-
ing content, managing behaviors, eliciting student thinking, and leading group discussions in several content areas.

170
Figure 5. Simulated High School Classroom.
A critical aspect of the mixed reality platform centering the experience in practice is the option to set the level of
difficulty in any simulation from low to medium. In a teaching scenario set at a low level, the student avatars will be eas-
ily redirected when off task; however, when set to a medium level, the teacher candidate will be challenged throughout
the simulation to gain the student avatars’ attention and manage the class. The leveling aspect of the program is what sets
it apart from other ways that teacher educators have attempted to give candidates authentic teaching experiences. For
example, peer-microteaching is a widely used practice in teacher preparation programs and attempts to simulate a class-
room teaching episode using peer-to-peer role play. In such a scenario, one peer acts as the teacher while the remaining
peers play the role of students. A weakness of peer microteaching is that it is difficult for a peer to authentically or con-
sistently play the role of a young child or high school student. However, MRS provides reliability as the avatar’s actions
are consistent from one scenario to the next. Teacher candidates are often surprised at how lifelike the avatars are and
how they act just as students would in an actual classroom situation. Once engaged in the simulation, teacher candidates
often remark that they forgot they were teaching avatars and were being observed because the experience is so lifelike it
draws them in and captures their attention for the duration of the simulation.
PROMISES AND CHALLENGES OF MIXED REALITY SIMULATION IN TEACHER PREPARATION
MRS is a promising technology that can help support teacher candidates as they develop the skills and practices
needed to become effective teachers on, as the state of Massachusetts requires, day one! MRS provides teacher candi-
dates with valuable learning experiences in an authentic and supportive simulated learning environment. Engaging in re-
alistic teaching and conferencing simulations gives candidates time to refine their teaching practices and communication
skills before working with real students or families in schools. MRS allows candidates to try new and innovative teaching
methods learned in university courses in a simulated environment where mistakes are expected and welcomed as op-
portunities to learn what works and does not work when teaching students or communicating with families. During the
COVID-19 pandemic, when teacher candidates were restricted from being in schools, mixed reality served as a valuable
replacement for face-to-face instruction. In addition, the simulated environment can be leveled up or down depending on
the teacher candidate’s skill, allowing for a more personalized experience for individual candidates.
The challenges associated with MRS are minimal, yet important to note. First, there is a cost factor to purchasing
simulations. Teacher preparation programs must garner support from upper-level administrators or outside grants to con-
tinue offering simulated experiences to teacher candidates. An important step in seeking support is to hold demonstration
sessions so that administrators can experience the program first-hand. Departments within a university or college can
work together to seek funding, as Mursion © offers simulations for other programs such as nursing and hospitality and
there are simulations that can be used for staff development by the Human Resources department.

171
Another issue to consider is the availability of a stable and strong internet connection. Now that all simulations are
conducted over Zoom, there is no need for special equipment, as was the case when mixed-reality was first introduced to
teacher preparation programs. However, the one-to-one scenarios completed in a dorm room or at home may prove prob-
lematic if a user does not have a strong enough internet signal.
SUMMARY
This chapter explored the use of MRS as a powerful tool to help teacher candidates develop the family communica-
tion skills necessary to foster and sustain strong family partnerships. Additionally, the chapter explored the various teach-
ing simulations teacher candidates can engage with as they work on developing the skills needed to be highly effective
teachers of diverse student populations. MRS is relatively new in teacher education and is showing promise as a tool to
support teacher candidates throughout their teacher preparation program.
REFERENCES
Abbot, C. (2018). Helping prepare teachers in Massachusetts for day one. Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/teaching-
learning/opinion-helping-prepare-teachers-in-massachusetts for-day-one/2018/10.
Ade-Ojo, G. O., Markowski, M., Essex, R., Stiell, M., & Jameson, J. (2022) A systematic scoping review of textual narrative
synthesis of physical and MRS in preservice teacher training. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 38, 861-874. https://
doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12653.
Association for Advancing Quality in Educator Preparation (2021). Standard 2, Guide to AAQEP Accreditation, 2021. https://
aaqep.org/.
Bransford, J., Darling-Hammond, L., & LePage, P. (2007). Introduction. In L. Darling Hammond and J. Bransford, (Eds.), Pre-
paring Teachers for a Changing World. What Teachers Should Learn and Be Able to Do. (pp. 1 – 39). San Francisco, CA,
Jossey-Bass.
Baum, A. C. & McMurray-Schwarz, P. (2004). Teacher candidates’ beliefs about family involvement: implications for teacher
education, Early Childhood Education Journal, 32(1), 57-62. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ871593.
Cantin, G., Plante, I., Coutu, S., & Brunson, L. (2012). Parent-caregiver relationships among beginning caregivers in Canada: A
qualitative study, Early Childhood Education, 40, 265-274. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-012-0522-0.
Cheatham, G. A., & Ostrosky, M.M. (2013). Goal setting during early childhood parent-teacher conferences: A comparison of
three groups of parents, Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 27(2), 166-189, https://doi.org/10.1080/02568543.2
013.767291.
Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (2022). Initial Level Standards. https://caepnet.org/.
Darling-Hammond, L., Hammerness, K., Grossman, Rust, F., Shulman, L.(2012). The design of teacher education programs. In
Darling-Hammond and Bransford (Eds.), Preparing Teachers for a Changing World: What Teachers Should Learn and Be
Able to Do. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). Teacher education and the future of America. Journal of Teacher Education, 61, 35-47. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0022487109348024.
Dotger, B.H., Harris, S., & Hansel, A. (2008). Emerging authenticity: The crafting of simulated parent-teacher candidate confer-
ences. Teaching Education, 19(4), 337-349. https://doi.org/10.1080/10476210802438324.
Ersozlu, Z., Ledger, S., Ersozlu, A., Mayne, F., & Wildy, H. (2021). Mixed Reality Learning Environments in Teacher Educa-
tion: An Analysis of TeachLivE™ Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211032155.
Freeman, J., Simonsen, B., & Briere, D. E. (2013). Preservice teacher training in the classroom management: A review of state
accreditation policy and teacher preparation programs. Teacher Education and Special Education 37, 106-120. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0888406413507002.
Hiatt-Michael, D. (2001). Preparing teachers to work with parents, ERIC Digest, ED460123. ERIC Clearinghouse on Teaching
and Teacher Education, Washington DC.
Henderson, M. V., & Hunt, S. (1994). A model for developing preservice parent-teacher conferencing skills. Journal of Instruc-
tional Psychology, 21(1), 31 – 35.
Kaufman, D. & Ireland, A. (2016). Enhancing Teacher Education with Simulations. TechTrends:
Linking Research and Practice to Improve Learning, 60(3), 260-267. Retrieved January 27, 2023. http://dx.doi.org.fscproxy.
framingham.edu/10.1007/s11528-016-0049-0.
Luke, S. E., & Vaughn, M. (2022). Embedding virtual simulation into a course to teach parent-teacher collaboration skills. Inter-
vention in School and Clinic, 57(3), 182-188. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451221101487.

172
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. (2020). Culturally responsive sustaining schools and class-
rooms. https://www.doe.mass.edu/instruction/culturally-responsive/
Merlin, J. (2021). Parental involvement in U.S. public schools, 2017-18. Data Point. United States Department of Education,
National Center for Education Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2021/2021041/index.asp
Murphy, K. M., Cook, A. L., & Fallon, L. M. (2021). MRS for social-emotional learning. Kaplan. Retrieved December 1, 2022,
from KappanOnline.org.
National Research Council (2000). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School: Expanded Edition. Washington,
DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/9853.
Powers, A. L. (2004). Teacher preparation for environmental education: Faculty perspectives on the infusion of environmental
education into preservice methods courses. Journal of Environmental Education, 35(3), 3-11.
Ratcliff, N., & Hunt, G. (2009). Building teacher–family partnerships: The role of teacher preparation programs, Education,
129(3), 495-505. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ871593.
Scarparolo, G., & Mayne, F. (2022). MRS as a tool to enhance parent-teacher conferencing in initial teacher education. Austral-
asian Journal of Educational Technology, 38(5).
Sewell, T. (2012). Are we adequately preparing teachers to partner with families? Early Childhood Education, 40(5), pp. 258-
263. https://rdcu.be/c0Os3
Spitzman, E., Balconi, A., Renaud, G., Ingle, J., & Cayson, A. (2022). Promising practice for building community through MRS
in teacher preparation. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 22(1), 172 – 176.
Walker, J. M. T., & Dotger, B. (2012). Because wisdom can’t be told: Using comparison of simulated parent-teacher conferenc-
es to assess teacher candidates’ readiness for family school partnership. Journal of Teacher Education, 63(1), 62-75. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0022487111419300.
Waters, S. M., Hirsch, S.E., McKown, G., Carlson, A., & Allen, (2021). MRS with preservice teacher candidates: A conceptual
replication. Teacher Education and Special Education 44(4), 340 –355. https://doi.org/10.1177/08884064211001453.

173
Mixed-Reality Simulations to Develop Instructional Coaching Skills
KATHERINE BRODEUR
Bowling Green State University, USA
brodeuk@bgsu.edu
ALICIA A. MRACHKO
TRACY HUZIAK-CLARK
Abstract: The effectiveness of professional development for in-service teacher coaching using mixed-reality
simulations (MRS) was the focus of this study. Twenty-nine coaches (teachers and teacher educators) partici-
pated over a period of four years in three iterations of coaching professional development (PD) to build their
skills to serve as coaches for teacher-candidates. A main feature of the PD was practice sessions using MRS
with adult avatars. After each MRS the coaches were given feedback and provided opportunities to practice
again. Being able to practice in a MRS allowed the coaches to hone their skills before working with the
preservice teachers. Results showed that participants identified the MRS as Extremely Useful or Very Useful
to their professional learning as coaches. The coaches demonstrated many of the targeted components dur-
ing post-observation conferences with teacher-candidates and that were practiced in the MRS. Results also
showed that less repetitive practice was needed after using the MRS than was previously described in the
literature. The pedagogical value of MRS is highlighted through connections to adult learning theory.
Keywords: Instructional Coaching, Preservice Teacher Coaching, Inservice Teacher Professional Develop-
ment, Mixed-Reality Simulations, Professional Development for Coaches
INTRODUCTION
This chapter describes research and pedagogy for using mixed-reality simulations (MRS) when developing coach-
ing skills with experienced educators. In this case the MRS was avatar-based using a program called Mursion. Bowling
Green State University (BGSU) contracted with Mursion to deliver MRS (https://www.mursion.com/why-it-works/) for
a variety of simulations. For the purpose of this chapter, we will focus on how the MRS was used to facilitate coaching
conversations and professional development (PD). Mursion combines artificial reality with a human simulation specialist
to be able to quickly modify the simulation based on the situation. Because of the human simulation specialist, we were
able to refine simulations for the different levels of experience (novice coach versus experienced coach), and as the data
highlighted needed changes each year. Specifically, the PD was focused on helping the coaches develop specific skills to
facilitate reflective conversations.
Literature on PD for instructional coaches is limited (Woulfin, 2017). When coaches are provided with professional
learning, typically, the emphasis is on content and pedagogy rather than developing coaching practice itself (Saclarides
& Kane, 2021). Through a descriptive case study, we illustrate how the use of the focused MRS experiences offered op-
portunities for adult learners to practice new skills in active listening and providing educative feedback with the goal of
promoting deeper reflection in preservice teachers.
Participants in this project included 29 teachers and teacher educators who participated in several professional de-
velopment sessions to learn strategies and target behaviors to serve as coaches to teacher-candidates (TC) during their
internship experience. As we investigated the pedagogical experience and value of the MRS with adult learners we had
the following research questions:

174
1. What does a learning experience look like for experienced educators using MRS in professional learning?
2. What are experienced educators’ perceptions about learning about instructional coaching from a MRS experi-
ence?
To prepare experienced educators for a new coaching role, we designed a sequence of professional learning experi-
ences (both in person and online), with intentional rehearsal and reflection designed around the MRS. The first iteration
(see Figure 1 below) was our first year of training experienced teachers as coaches for volunteer teacher-candidates. The
second iteration included the second and third years of continuing to develop those coaches. The third iteration, which is
still ongoing as of this writing, is our initial attempt to adapt this model to replace the traditional supervision model at the
institution.
In earlier studies, we have found MRS to provide unique affordances for rehearsing both planned questioning strate-
gies and spontaneous responsiveness in a low-stakes environment (Brodeur et al., in press). We describe additional find-
ings for different novice instructional coach populations (in-service K-12 teachers, university teacher educators, and
mentors of preservice teachers) throughout this chapter.
Figure 1. Three Iterations of MRS Professional Development.
THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES
Adult Learning Theory
Adult learning theory (Knowles, 1984) describes optimal learning conditions for acquiring new concepts or skills.
These conditions include but are not limited to, self-directedness, active learner participation, readiness-to-learn, and be-
ing solution-centered (Trivette et al., 2009). When creating our professional development (PD) sessions for coaches, we
attended to adult learning characteristics that were most often associated with positive outcomes (Trivette et al., 2009),
which include a cycle of activities and practice. First, there is an introduction to the topic with a goal of providing prior
knowledge for what will be learned. This might include prior readings, self-assessments, or even instructor lectures. The
second component is illustrating the information, which can be done through modeling or videos. Third, the learners
must rehearse the skill or topic by doing activities to practice the desired skill or outcome. Fourth, the learners with their
facilitator should evaluate the application, such as considering what were the consequences of applying the skill. Fifth,
a reflection on learner acquisition determines the next step, if the learner is ready to move on, or if more practice is re-
quired. Finally, the learner must demonstrate mastery through an assessment or observation of the skill. The PD sessions
we created for educators who were learning to coach used multiple instructional strategies, including mixed reality simu-

175
lations (MRS) to provide both modeling and practice for the adult learners as well as, in some iterations, a tool to assess
mastery. First, it was essential to determine key components of coaching and distill these complex practices into discrete
skills for effective practice in MRS.
Coaching for Reflection
Instructional coaching models vary widely based on understandings of professional learning. The coaching model
described in this chapter was designed as part of a larger grant-funded reimagination of teacher-candidate supervision.
A central aspect of this project was providing non-evaluative coaches to work with teacher-candidates, apart from the
traditional supervisors who observed and evaluated them. Desired outcomes of the coaching process were to provide pre-
service teachers with opportunities to reflect on their practice in meaningful ways, take ownership of their professional
learning through goal setting, and gain an increased sense of agency in both their instruction and their career growth.
Toward these objectives, we designed a coaching model that draws on Costa and Garmston’s (2002) cognitive coaching
model, York-Barr et al.’s (2006) work on reflective practice, and Palmeri and Peter’s (2019) educative feedback tools.
Cognitive coaching establishes the teacher as central to the coaching conversation and acknowledges the importance
of their beliefs and emotions in the process of changing their practices (Costa & Garmston, 2002). In this model, the
coach’s responsibility is to provide structured reflection opportunities through carefully crafted questions, grounded in
evidence observed in lessons. To promote the teacher’s reflection, the coach can position themself to be an active, non-
evaluative listener.
The coach can practice silence, paraphrasing, accepting non-judgmentally, clarifying, and extending (SPACE) to
elicit more reflective responses from the teacher (York-Barr et al., 2006). Silence allows the speaker to complete their
thoughts. Paraphrasing provides an indication that the listener is understanding the message and may offer new language
to express the ideas. Accepting non-judgmentally appears both in verbal and non-verbal responses while listening; this
stance removes the feeling of being evaluated which allows the speaker to draw their own conclusions. Clarifying ques-
tions typically require brief, factual responses to make sure the listener understands the speaker’s context. Extending
questions or prompts are used to deepen the speaker’s thinking on a topic. These might encourage the speaker to consider
a different perspective or rationale for why a situation went the way it did. Over time, using these active listening strate-
gies sets a context where the teacher can feel more comfortable reflecting deeply. The coaching relationship can then
become a place for the teacher to challenge existing ideas and reconsider instructional decisions while also maintaining
agency to solve their own dilemmas.
In the teacher education field, educative feedback allows teacher educators to provide a scaffold for preservice teach-
ers to think critically about the impact of their teaching on student learning (Palmeri & Peter, 2019). When this feedback
is substantive, focused, and appropriate to the development of novice teachers, it has the capacity to affect more mean-
ingful reflection and instructional shifts.
To prepare educators who have predominantly experienced evaluative supervision to be able provide a more educa-
tive support for TCs, it was essential to give teachers meaningful opportunities to develop new skills and rehearse the
role of a coach as separate from evaluation. These coaches were tasked with promoting teacher-candidates’ reflection and
growth around a self-selected professional goal. To these ends, our coaching model was designed to focus on developing
reflective thinking and instructional analysis rather than the implementation of a specific instructional strategy.
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
Using Simulations for Professional Development
PD is an opportunity provided to collaborate and share learning experiences to support meaningful growth and de-
velopment (Ohio Department of Education, 2015). MRS have been used effectively outside of education to prepare other
professionals that require specific skill-based practices, such as in the medical fields, military, and aviation (e.g., Salas et
al., 1998; Dutta, 1999; Ziv et al., 2003). Specifically, in education, MRS have been shown to provide authentic practice
for collaborative discussions, educational strategies, and high-leverage practices (Dalinger, et al., 2020; Hudson, et al.,
2018; Kamhi-Stein, et al., 2020). The use of avatars allows a learner to stop, reconsider how to proceed, and then try

176
again, all within a supportive environment. MRS has been demonstrated to feel authentic to the participant and provide
realistic interactions that are a closer approximation to real life than other simulations (Grossman et al., 2009). Thus, the
MRS was an ideal environment for our PD focused on coaching skills, practice, and feedback.
Simulations are designed specifically for individual tasks or skills to be practiced, refined, and practiced again. MRS
assist in the fine-tuning of discrete skills allowing participants to isolate specific skills and practice with the goal of mas-
tery. The use of MRS “allow individuals to have repeated (teaching) trials involving high stakes situations without risking
the loss of valuable resources (e.g., money, time, and people)” (Peterson-Ahmad, 2018, p. 2). One hallmark of MRS en-
vironments is that the participant can quickly suspend disbelief and develop presence or a sense of being in the simulated
environment (Hayes et al. 2013). This realistic factor can create additional stress or motivation to do well because it feels
real. A common finding in MRS studies note the importance of connecting with or better understanding of the avatars,
suggesting that most skill development requires some prior knowledge of the avatars before engagement for full partici-
pation (Dieker et al., 2013; Peterson-Ahmad, 2018).
Professional Learning of Coaches
While coaching is itself considered a form of job-embedded PD (Knight, 2009), literature related to the PD of
coaches is sparse (Woulfin, 2017). PD for coaches typically focuses on content and pedagogy rather than on developing a
coaching practice (Saclarides & Kane, 2021). For coaches to develop and maintain successful practices, they require sys-
tematic support including intentionally integrated PD (Stoetzel & Shedrow, 2020), time to collaborate with other coaches
(Gallucci et al., 2010), and, like all educators, active learning experiences that incorporate feedback on emerging skills
(Darling-Hammond et al., 2017).
In addition to possessing strong content and pedagogical knowledge (Bean et al., 2015), successful coaches need to
develop an understanding of adult learning theory (Blachowicz et al., 2010), coaching discourse (Heineke, 2013), and
productive relational dynamics. Coaching is highly relational. The dynamic between coach and teacher is paramount to
any professional learning or instructional success (Robertson et al., 2020) and must be grounded in relational trust (Fin-
kelstein, 2019). Navigating coach-teacher relationships, particularly as novice coaches transition into the role, requires
reshaping of professional identities, work that may be fraught with difficult emotions (Hunt & Hansfield, 2013). Novice
coaches benefit from opportunities to rehearse coaching conversations to find the balance between directive and respon-
sive stances (Ippolito, 2010). Similarly, they need preparation to learn to “read” issues of power and opportunities to re-
hearse how they will position themselves in response (Rainville & Jones, 2008).
Massey et al. (2020) described the Coaching Rounds Instructional Framework, a structure for providing literacy
and instructional coaching graduate interns to rehearse coaching language and stances in online environments. The three
rounds approximated a gradual release of responsibility approach (Pearson & Gallagher, 1983) in which novice coaches
began with scaffolding and eventually got to practice their new skills independently. Round one included a profession-
ally produced video modeling a typical coaching exchange (L’Allier & Elish-Piper, 2011) that students watched and
analyzed. Round two consisted of peers exchanging teaching videos and analytical lesson transcripts to take turns coach-
ing one another. Round three involved a traditional pre-observation conference, lesson observation, and post-observation
coaching cycle with a professional colleague. This framework served as a starting point for the PD sequence in which we
most often used the MRS, with the simulation serving as the Round Three application experience.
Through discourse analysis of Coaching Rounds learning experiences, Ortmann et al. (2020) revealed that novice
coaches hold differing levels of self-awareness of their use of discursive moves and relational stances. While most of the
study’s novice coaches planned to emphasize a collaborating stance (L’Allier & Elish-Piper, 2011) in their conferences,
Ortmann et al. (2020) routinely found this was the most challenging for novice coaches to enact. Ortmann et al.’s (2020)
learner profiles for novice coaches helped us to consider the varied professional learning needs of experienced teachers
preparing to enact coaching roles and prepare multiple learning opportunities to address developing coaching skills.
METHODS
This case study (Yin, 2014) describes the professional learning of experienced educators with a range of five to
more than twenty-five years of classroom service through multiple iterations of professional development and experi-
ences serving as coaches for preservice teachers.

177
Context and Participants
Context
Bowling Green State University (BGSU) is a mid-size institution located in Northwest Ohio. There are approxi-
mately 2,000 teacher education majors in the College of Education and Human Development (EDHD). EDHD has part-
nership agreements with more than 80 partner districts within a 60-mile radius. Faculty in EDHD have been awarded a
multi-year grant project funded by the US Department of Education, Teacher Quality Partnership (TQP) division with
four partners from this group. The focus of the grant is to collaborate with K-12 partners to focus on the skills and dispo-
sitions necessary for future teachers to be successful in their districts. Our work aims to provide holistic support to pre-
service teachers through interdisciplinary professional development. Funding from this grant allowed BGSU to purchase
the site license for Mursion and to create site-specific simulations using the existing avatars.
Participants
Participants in this study include experienced educators from three groups, experienced teachers acting as coaches,
UMs, and BGSU faculty members. 20 coaches (18 K-12 teachers and 2 university faculty) participated in Iterations 1 and
2. They were hired through the grant to serve as consultants and coach undergraduate teacher-candidates through their
student teaching semester. Coaches applied for the position with recommendations from district administrators. They
were predominately female (16) and had teaching experience ranging from 5 to 25 years, averaging more than 17 years.
Smaller cohorts of coaches returned in years two and three of the project (seven and six, respectively) due to smaller
numbers of teacher-candidates available. Several of these coaches were invited to participate in the planning for the pilot
of the new supervision model. Their unique perspective having served as a field coach helped to bridge the gap between
the need for some evaluation data and a focus on goal setting and non-evaluative feedback as a coach.
One of the driving forces behind changes to Iteration 3 were new participant populations- UMs and university fac-
ulty. UM are hired by EDHD to supervise and evaluate teacher-candidate performance during the professional year. Like
most traditional teacher education programs, UMs had previously been trained to evaluate performance and share their
evaluation with the University. Six UMs who have served in leadership roles for more than 10 years are participating in
the development of the pilot program. They participated in the summer work to design the pilot supervision materials and
agreed to participate in coaching PD to serve as a coach in the pilot program this year. Five faculty members (including
the two involved in Iteration 1) agreed to participate in the development of the supervision pilot and work in the role of
UM for teacher-candidates to test our new model focused less on evaluation and more on educative feedback and coach-
ing. These faculty members also helped to develop the tools and process used in the pilot and most are now serving as
coaches in the pilot.
PROCEDURE
The PD for novice coaches occurred over several years of the TQP grant at BGSU. With each year of implementa-
tion, we modified the PD to better meet the needs of the participants with the end goal of being able to sustain and scale
this PD to eventually include all supervisors for preservice teachers at BGSU (n=500 per year).
Iteration One
The PD for the novice coaches included three sessions. The first two introduced topics including the role of the
coach, developing a relationship, and goal setting with the teacher-candidate. Core components of the model that were
emphasized throughout the PD sequence were the SPACE active listening strategies (York-Barr et al., 2006) and deliver-
ing educative feedback during a post-observation conference (Palmeri & Peter, 2019).
Following the implementation of coaching sessions with teacher-candidates (TC) an additional PD session was de-
veloped to enhance areas that needed the most practice: active listening, engaging the TCs in elaborating on their reflec-
tion, and creating connections to prior learning. To approximate Massey et al.’s, (2020) Round Three, we designed an
MRS to allow rehearsal of these skills in the context of a coaching conference. The learner objectives and example “hits”

178
and “misses” (appropriate and inappropriate learner responses) for the MRS are provided in Figure 2. See Appendix A
for more details about the simulation.
Objective Possible Learner “Hit” Possible Learner “Miss”
Utilize the SPACE strategies to
demonstrate active listening and to build
rapport with the teacher-candidate.
After the teacher finishes speaking,
the coach paraphrases the teacher’s
response in order to clarify.
The coach displays verbal or
nonverbal judgment e.g. eye-rolling,
laughing, closed posture, and dismis-
sive inflection.
Elicit multiple perspectives from
the teacher-candidate and facilitate
discussion about why things went the
way they did.
The coach prompts for an additional
perspective e.g., “What is another
way to look at this?”
The coach defers to discussing their
own experiences, rather than
focusing on the context of the
teacher’s classroom.
Promote teacher reflection around
instructional decisions and rationale.
The coach prompts thoughts about
future instructional choices e.g.,
“What are you hoping will be the
outcome of this choice?”
The coach prescribes to the teacher
decisions and rationale for the
decisions.
Figure 2. Simulation Objectives, Hits, and Misses.
Each person who engaged in the simulation (referred to as the learner) read a brief vignette to become familiar with
the scenario (Appendix A) and spent 5-7 minutes interacting with the teacher avatar (see Figure 3). This was followed by
approximately 15 minutes of small group reflective discussion. The MRS was an opportunity for the coaches to practice
these skills in a low-stakes environment. By practicing with the MRS, coaches could try the strategies without fear of
damaging a new relationship with their TC and begin to develop fluency with the types of questions they would use in
their post-observation conferences.
Note. Image from Mursion.
Figure 3. Teacher Avatar “Adam” in Teachers’ Lounge Environment.

179
Iteration Two
Several coaches returned for years two and three, and new coaches joined the project. The PD each year was a
review with more video models from the previous year’s coaching sessions and opportunities to practice with their col-
leagues. We put additional emphasis on reviewing educative feedback as this continued to be a challenging concept for
coaches. We framed educative feedback as the coach acknowledging that they understand what the teacher has said or
done and sharing specific information that is compatible with the described goal (Rush & Sheldon, 2011). The coaches
practiced creating appropriate educative feedback for a teacher after watching a video of a science lesson.
Rather than using the MRS as practice, we decided to use the MRS as a “checkout” for the coaches after the re-
fresher session ended. In this way, the MRS served as a mastery assessment of the coach’s ability to successfully enact an
important piece of the post-observation conference. Each coach scheduled a simulation session with one of the facilita-
tors present to promote reflection and processing as well as to provide feedback.
Iteration Three
At this point in time, we have begun a pilot to establish coaching as part of our new hybrid university supervision
model for teacher-candidates. This pilot mirrors the Iteration 1 PD. We developed a second MRS with the specific focus
of practicing educative feedback related to a provided lesson plan and observation notes, shown in Appendix B. This was
practiced in small groups, with individual sessions once again offered later.
Data Collection and Data Analysis
Through three iterations and four years of providing PD for novice coaches, we collected data during the MRS ex-
periences, immediately following the experiences, and several months later. For the first two iterations, simulation video
and transcripts were primary data sources followed by PD exit ticket and survey data regarding perceptions of the MRS.
For Iteration 3, simulation videos and survey data were used.
To first examine how the coaches performed in the MRS, available videos and transcripts were initially analyzed
with deductive strategies, focused on performance of predetermined “hits” and “misses” during the simulation and seg-
ments of the post-observation conference. It must be noted that not all simulations were recorded in Iterations 1 and 3;
video/transcript data include recordings for five participants in Iteration 1 (year 1), nine returning participants in Iteration
2 (years 2 and 3), and three participants in Iteration 3 (year 4 – new participants). Then, videos and transcripts of the re-
flective discussion or feedback following each simulation were analyzed using open coding strategies to determine pat-
terns (Corbin & Strauss, 2008).
To understand participants’ perceptions of the MRS experience in terms of their professional learning and feelings of
preparedness to enact a coaching role following this experience, we analyzed quantitative and qualitative data from each
of the three iterations. For each group, we collected survey responses one to three months following the MRS, asking
them to assign a value to their experience on a 6-point Likert scale ranging from Not at All Useful to Extremely Useful
(Iterations 1 and 2) or a 4-point Likert scale ranging from Not at All Prepared to Extremely Well Prepared (Iteration 3).
These surveys also included open-ended questions to allow participants to specify what about the professional learning
experiences was helpful or needed improvement. For Iterations 1 and 2, we also collected exit tickets immediately fol-
lowing the PD asking how participants made sense of themselves as coaches in terms of their perceived strengths, areas
for growth, and goals. After data collection was completed, qualitative data sets were arranged by iterations to better un-
derstand how the MRS experience was perceived by each group of participants and how (if at all) that changed across the
iterations of the MRS. After reducing data into tables (Miles & Huberman, 1994), individual authors used open-coding
strategies to identify patterns in participants’ responses (Corbin & Strauss, 2008).

180
FINDINGS
The MRS Learning Experience
For participants, the experience of the simulation differed from watching and analyzing videos and transcripts, and
even from practicing with their peers. The unexpected nature of the avatar responses provided an authentic opportunity
for the coaches to practice skills in short sequences with immediate feedback.
Performing Coaching Conference Components
Overall, the coaches demonstrated a strong understanding of what was expected of them as coaches throughout all
three iterations of the MRS, both with their number of “hits” (see Figure 2) and in the phrases they used when interacting
with the teacher avatar. During Iteration 1, participants had between 9 and 12 “hits” where they responded appropriately
to the teacher avatar. Only one participant, the first to attempt MRS, had two “misses” where they responded inappropri-
ately and elicited anxious and defensive interactions with the avatar. Because this was the first time the participants were
experiencing MRS, it is not surprising that there was a measure of discomfort and surprise that may have affected the
interaction. The first coach to volunteer as the MRS learner in his small group, Lucas, stated, “it was really difficult for
me to begin with natural nonverbals like I would for a human.” In Iteration 2, the coaches were all familiar with the MRS
and each demonstrated multiple “hits” (range 6-15) with no misses. In Iteration 3, with new participants, the number of
hits ranged from 9-19, and the only participant to have any “misses” (2) was again the first participant to try the MRS.
This indicates that familiarity with the medium of MRS can possibly help the participants focus on the goal of the simu-
lation without being distracted by the simulation itself.
The coaches demonstrated the two targeted components of the post-observation conference MRS, elaboration and
creating connections, while employing the SPACE strategies for active listening. In Iteration 2 where the MRS was an as-
sessment, six of the nine coaches demonstrated both the elaborate and create connections strategies, while three coaches
demonstrated only the elaborate strategy. Three components of SPACE were missed in Iteration 2: paraphrasing, accept-
ing non-judgmentally, and silence. Four coaches forgot to paraphrase during the MRS, and two coaches interrupted the
avatar once each. Two coaches did not demonstrate through their non-verbal expression and voice tone accepting non-
judgmentally.
Applying Professional Coaching Terminology/Moves
Questioning for Reflection
During all iterations, coaches used the provided list of possible reflective question examples with individual nuances,
such as:
• “I know your goal is to look at students talking versus you talking and so when we’re thinking about your goal,
specifically, how do you think you did in regards to the goal for this lesson?” (Teresa)
• “How do you feel that perhaps this lesson impacted student learning?” (Tina)
• “What did you notice about maybe how you initially prepared to get your students engaged?” (Ruthie)
• “Have you looked at any resources about engaging students when you teach?” (Sharon)
• “Have you watched any other teachers in the building, or even in the past…?” (Megan)
• “Do you have any ideas of some things you might like to try or maybe resources you could go to, to find those
ideas?” (Kendra)
One of the misses recorded in Iteration 1, Lucas demonstrated a judgmental statement rather than a reflective question,
“Maybe if you went into the lesson by modifying your expectations, you’d have an easier time knowing whether or not
you met those expectations.” The avatar responded to this statement with “sure, yeah,” getting quiet, and stalling the con-
versation momentarily. This required Lucas to think about how to restart reflection.

181
Preparation
The coaches were more prepared for Iteration 2. Because they had already seen the MRS and had some limited
coaching experience by this time, they had a greater understanding of what to expect from the experience. They had also
been given advance notice that they would each be responsible for interacting with the MRS individually and a reminder
of the scenario, so many prepared and referred to questions they brought to the session. During reflection immediately
following the simulation, Ruthie responded, “it felt better because it wasn’t the first time I did it…I think, last year I was
so taken off guard not having like thought about what she [the teacher avatar] was saying. So …this year I tried to pre-
pare myself by looking through your questions, more that are on our sheet, and just thinking about student engagement
and all of that, so it was more helpful.”
Handling Excuses
Navigating situations where teacher-candidates might attribute an unsuccessful lesson to students’ lack of motiva-
tion (rather than their own efforts to engage students) was a specific challenge we wanted new coaches to experience.
Only one coach in Iteration 1, Keith, handled the provided excuses with reflective questions that moved the conversation
forward. When the teacher avatar stated, “Yeah, they’re pretty lackadaisical in the morning.” Keith responded, “Have
you talked with your cooperating teacher to see what are some things they do when they have a class that’s kind of fall-
ing asleep?” Then the teacher avatar went on to say “Yes, but I worry that my CMT and I teach very differently. We have
very different approaches to student engagement.” Keith responded to this with, “Do you have some strategies that you
have looked up to try and use for student engagement?” He kept them moving toward thinking about problem-solving,
rather than complaining.
The teacher avatar did not give as many excuses during Iteration 2, which might be a result of the coaches’ im-
proved ability to elicit reflection. However, when he did give an excuse, most coaches handled those excuses with ad-
ditional reflective questions, rather than agreeing with the teacher avatar. For instance, after the teacher complained, “the
boys in the back just want to talk about their dirt bikes, not Macbeth.” Megan responded with, “Okay, what are some of
the things you’ve done to kind of work on the student talk more what kind of things have you tried or that you have you
put into place so far?” This repositioned the teacher avatar as responsible for actively planning how to engage students.
Paraphrasing
Paraphrasing was a specific active listening strategy that we explicitly taught and rehearsed in PD sessions prior to
introducing the simulation. For the MRS, we reiterated that this would be both a useful coaching tool and an objective of
the experience. Some coaches approached this by cueing to the teacher avatar with phrases like “I heard you say…” or
like Tina, “So I thought you were telling me you knew you needed to ask more questions.” Others paraphrased in a more
conversational manner, like Keith, “Oh, so you think maybe they didn’t talk as much because a lot of them were still
tired.”
Educative Feedback
During Iterations 2 and 3, some coaches provided educational feedback to the avatar by using the information
that was provided in advance about the lesson. They prefaced their information with the appropriate phrase, “I noticed
that…” or “I did note that…” as we modeled in the PD. This may be a result of our increased focus on educational feed-
back during the refresher trainings and during Iteration 3 training. The second simulation was developed in response to
learners wanting more practice with giving detailed educative feedback and is still in early stages of data collection and
analysis.

182
Processing the MRS Experience
Facilitator Responses after MRS
Since Iterations 1 and 3 were practice opportunities and not assessments, we responded differently than to Itera-
tion 2 where the MRS was a checkout assessment after refresher training. During both Iterations 1 and 3, the facilitator
followed the reflective questioning in Appendix 1 and elicited both reflection from the coach participant and discussion
from the observers. By Iteration 3, facilitators spent more time pre- and post-simulation discussing with the coaches.
While we still started with the scripted reflection questions after the simulation ended, we allowed more time for group
reflection and provided enlarged follow-up comments and questions (e.g., so he definitely seemed nervous at the begin-
ning, did you think he was still nervous at the end?) The participants were also experienced faculty who felt comfortable
sharing thoughts both as a self-reflection and as comments to their peers. This comfort level likely contributed to the ex-
tended reflection time.
Small Group Facilitation
The group learned through observing each other coach the teacher avatar and discussing their observations after-
ward. In Iteration 1 when discussing Keith’s coaching, Brenda noticed the excuses the teacher avatar made, stating “Well
I just noticed that ‘it was first period’ and then well ‘my cooperating teacher and I just don’t have the same view.’ It was
excuse-making, that’s what I picked up.” As Keith directly addressed the “excuse-making” element, this peer feedback
highlighted the way that making excuses had served as a challenge to the teacher avatar’s reflection. Then Sharon went
on to say, “She definitely needed another coaching perspective.” She was recognizing that the perspective Keith provided
during the MRS was important for the teacher avatar to move past her excuses.
Feedback from other coaches serving as observers provided another layer of feedback that was helpful to the coach
participating in the MRS. In response to observing Heather’s MRS experience, Teresa said, “Your overarching demeanor
was really calming. I thought that you got him from point A to Point C … It never crossed my mind, so I really ap-
preciate that.” Another coach, Wesley, further commented, “It was good to see when you said, ‘I’ve got to gather my
thoughts…’ we need to do this.” Both observers were able to identify aspects of Heather’s coaching that they perceived
as effective. Sharing these positive observations both affirmed the learner who interacted with the MRS and helped to
solidify for the group some of the coaching dispositions and moves that they would be able to use in their own coaching
practice.
One-on-one Facilitation
During Iteration 2, we asked the individual learners reflective questions and provided specific feedback to each
coach. We began with intentionally modeling reflective questions to help the coach elaborate on their reflection and con-
nect to the PD and their prior experience. Then we modeled providing educative feedback, affirming what we observed
with specific praise related to the scenario objectives (e.g., “I noticed, you did a nice job with the paraphrasing…making
sure that you were hearing what she was saying”). Finally, we provided a small amount of evaluative feedback, identify-
ing one area they could continue to work on. For example, the constructive feedback for Megan was “…open up that
space, so that maybe you learn a little bit more about her class and maybe why it’s not a great fit so she [teacher avatar]
can articulate ‘this isn’t a good fit for my class because X, Y or Z.’”
In Iteration 2, the coaches were more critical of themselves during reflection. After we told Eileen, “So there are
a couple of times where you asked similar questions more than once.” She responded with “I even think when I wrote
down my questions, looking back at them now like after you have said that a lot of them are the same, it’s the same
question in a different way… I need to do a better job of making sure that my questions are not all there, it’s kind of re-
dundant.” After being told he had done all of the SPACE strategies during the MRS, Lucas said, “… it’s something that I
can probably get better at as well, to not feel like I need to fill dead space, but to just kind of let the moment hang there.
That’s a challenge for me and so it’s something that I think I could work on a little bit more.” We question whether the
framing of the simulation in Iteration 2 as a type of assessment led to more critical self-reflection and what the value of
this reflection was on their overall learning.

183
Learners’ Perceptions of the MRS
To understand how MRS participants made sense of this professional learning experience, first, we will share their
quantitative evaluations of the experience (Figures 4 and 5); then we will present trends in their qualitative reflections on
the MRS.
Figure 4. Perceived Usefulness of Simulation in Iterations 1 and 2.
Across the three cohorts, the majority of participants in Iterations 1 and 2 identified the MRS as Extremely Useful or
Very Useful to their professional learning as coaches. These two response categories captured the impressions of strong
majorities of each of the first two cohorts, 74% and 80%, respectively. In Cohort 3, half (50%) of the respondents still
identified the MRS as either Very Useful or Extremely Useful, but the responses were more varied across this group. One
possible reason for tempered enthusiasm about the usefulness of this experience is that the novelty of interacting with the
MRS may have worn off, allowing participants to more realistically reflect on the value of this experience in their cur-
rent stage of development as a coach. Another possible explanation for attributing less usefulness to this experience over
time is that as the novice coaches continued with the program, they had more opportunities to interact with their teacher-
candidates and were able to draw more on these authentic coaching experiences as they continued to hone their coaching
practices.
Change in Perception Across Multiple Opportunities
Many individuals had the opportunity to experience the MRS several times by participating across iterations in mul-
tiple cohorts. We have data for eight participants who experienced the MRS either two or three times across Iterations 1
and 2. Of the eight, half expressed their perception of the usefulness of the MRS decreased over time, generally by one
category (e.g., Extremely Well to Very Well). One participant, Sharon, who experienced the MRS three times lowered
her rating each time (Very to Moderately to Slightly) and explicitly indicated that she did not think this was a learning
experience she needed to continue with, stating, “I’m not sure we need to practice on the simulator anymore. Maybe just
people who are new to the process.” One participant expressed no change in perception from her experience in Cohort 1
and Cohort 3.
The remaining three participants experienced the MRS in all three Cohorts of Iteration 1 and 2 and indicated that
their value of this experience increased over time. Two (Carrie and Eileen) increased their responses from Very Useful
to Extremely Useful as they moved from the small group MRS experience in Iteration 1 to the one-on-one experience in
both years of Iteration 2. This may be indicative that the more directed feedback garnered by rehearsing coaching skills
in the one-on-one environment was perceived as an enhanced learning experience for these two. The third participant ex-

184
pressed a positive change in perception, which should be noted, was the only one to indicate that the simulation was “Not
Useful at All” at any point. Lucas was the first volunteer to interact with the avatar in his Cohort 1 small group. He ex-
pressed that the experience was “uncanny” immediately afterward and appeared to maintain a distaste for the experience
months afterward. He continued to participate in the program including two rounds of one-on-one simulation check-outs
through Iteration 2. By the end of these experiences, he had changed his rating to indicate he found the experience Mod-
erately Useful. We might conclude that Lucas, like Carrie and Eileen, was more comfortable interacting with the MRS
without an audience of their peers. This may be accurate, but it seems less likely in his case. Lucas demonstrated strong
coaching skills from the beginning and was asked to share his video with peers during one PD session. He agreed and ap-
peared comfortable being observed in this way. This may suggest there was something specific about the MRS technol-
ogy that was off-putting to him in the first experience.
Iteration 3
As we moved into Iteration 3 of using the MRS in coaching PD, we sought to build upon the positive experience that
the majority of participants had by completing and reflecting on the MRS in a small group combined with the greater
comfort level of one-on-one by providing both options. In this Iteration, we sought to better understand the nuances of
what coaches were learning from the MRS by looking at whether they interacted with the MRS as learners or observed
peers interacting with the MRS, asking them to identify what about the MRS they found useful or not useful and asking
them to indicate how well they felt the MRS prepared them for their coaching responsibilities both before and after com-
pleting a coaching cycle with their teacher-candidate (see Figure 5 below).
Figure 5. Perceived Preparedness Related to the Simulation Iteration 3.
The results of these survey data offer an initial glimpse into PD needed for our current, ongoing pilot project. Prior
to enacting a coaching cycle with their teacher-candidates, most of the participants felt positive about how the simulation
had prepared them to take on this role. Approximately one month later after enacting that first coaching cycle, the major-
ity still felt Well Prepared by the simulation, but there had been some shift within individual responses. There were no
apparent patterns based on participation in the MRS as a learner or observer. Of the six participants who responded to
both the pre- and post-survey, four evaluated their preparedness differently after enacting the coaching cycle. For three
of these four individuals, that shift was negative, indicating they felt less prepared. Despite this trajectory, individual
participants still found the MRS experience valuable. Wesley, who sought out individual practice opportunities as the

185
learner with both simulations, reflected on the difference between the MRS and actual experience, “I think it was useful
to get practice formulating questions, but the responses of the real methods student were not a clear cut as the avatar’s.”
Contrasting this, Roger, who had observed both simulations but not participated as a learner in either one, responded that
the MRS experience prepared him “Somewhat Well” before coaching and then “Well” after coaching. This may indicate
experiencing the role of a coach was more meaningful in building his confidence or helped him understand what he ob-
served from his peers interacting with the MRS in a different way. While it is too early in this portion of the project to
draw conclusions, these data may suggest that this group of participants, with their different backgrounds, might benefit
from additional practice with the MRS or from a differently structured experience to make the most meaningful connec-
tions between the MRS skills rehearsal and their own developing coaching practice.
Authentic Opportunity for Rehearsal
Several participants indicated that they valued the MRS for the opportunity to experience or observe what they per-
ceived to be an authentic conversation with a teacher-candidate. This was true both for experienced UMs (Sandra) and
new faculty UMs (Heather). Sandra only experienced the first MRS yet felt it had her “Well Prepared” before and after
completing a coaching cycle, indicating, “The simulation provided a real conversation experience” and “real life experi-
ence in practicing the coaching skills” after. Heather also appreciated the MRS experience as an opportunity to “apply
information taught” at the end of each PD session. She participated twice as a learner, also indicating she felt “Well
Prepared” and eager to volunteer the second time, noting that she felt the experience was “authentic to what we will
encounter with TCs.” The opportunity to rehearse and observe coaching conversations through the MRS can help novice
coaches become more familiar and comfortable with them, especially if they perceive the experience as authentic.
Interactional, Responsive Nature of Coaching
Other participants homed in on a frequent challenge, especially for new coaches – the need to be responsive within
the coaching conversation. Learners, in our case coaches, are often surprised during the course of the MRS when the
avatar responds differently than they expected. In the moment, coaches must decide whether to persist with their planned
questions or follow the line of conversation the teacher suggests. Wesley recognized this as both a challenge and a benefit
of the MRS experience, as he indicated that he found it useful “having to respond to unexpected turns in the conversa-
tion.” Clint was also attentive to the back-and-forth of the discourse between coach (learner) and teacher (avatar). Before
enacting the coaching cycle, he indicated that he valued, “That we could see the interaction and questioning develop be-
tween student and UM.” Following the cycle, he pinpointed that he valued the simulation “to help with formatting ques-
tions.” This suggests that even novice coaches can attend to the discourse of coaching and the difficult work of balancing
directive and responsive stances (Ippolito, 2010) given sufficient opportunities to rehearse and observe others’ rehearsals.
Professional Reflection
Other participants saw the value in the MRS as an opportunity to reflect on the development of their own coaching
skills. Tina participated in both MRS experiences offered in Iteration 3 and felt only “Somewhat Prepared” by the MRS
before completing a coaching cycle. For her, the value was in paying attention to an aspect of coaching about which she
had expressed concerns. She had extensive experience as a UM and worried about making the shift to coaching and let-
ting the TC lead the conversation. Her reflection on participating in the MRS was the realization of “How little I coached
and how much I talked.” This was not necessarily feedback she received from the facilitator or peers, but rather her own
perception of an area where she wanted to improve. Teresa similarly found the experience “very humbling.” She also par-
ticipated as a learner in both MRS experiences and took the additional step of requesting her second session be recorded
so that she could “critically analyze my interactions by watching it a few times.” While she acknowledged the discomfort
in this effort, she also reflected that for her, it was, “truly helpful in trying to be better.” Following this extra effort, Teresa
was the only coach who initially indicated that she felt “Extremely Well Prepared.”

186
DISCUSSION AND PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS
Coaches found the experience of MRS very different from watching video models, analyzing transcripts, and prac-
ticing with their peers. Going from Iteration 1 to Iteration 2, they were prepared more fully to interact with the avatar
because they were more familiar with the MRS and had more time with the material to prepare. Most were able to dem-
onstrate the targeted strategies and elaborate as well as create connections, but they struggled with some elements of
SPACE strategies, even in their third year of MRS (Iteration 2). Coaches engaged in meaningful small group discussion
and reflection during their first encounter with MRS, both in Iteration 1 and 3. One difference in Iteration 3 occurred
when some coaches declined to participate in the group setting but requested time to participate in MRS alone with the
facilitator present. Facilitators followed the same basic reflection questions in all debrief sessions and added evaluative
feedback during Iteration 2. By Iteration 3, facilitators asked more create connection questions and allowed more time
for multiple responses within the small group.
As we continue to work with these adult learners and look for ways to help them hone their coaching practice, these
are some of the considerations we are unpacking as we work to identify the most productive ways to integrate MRS into
adult learning.
Familiarity with the MRS
It was evident for some learners in both Iterations 1 and 3 that the unexpectedness of interacting with a virtual avatar
was somewhat disorienting. While overall, research has demonstrated that MRS participants tend to find the interaction
to feel realistic (Bondurant & Amidon, 2021; Dalinger, et al, 2020), initial encounters may be awkward (Kamhi-Stein et
al., 2020), as they were for at least a few of our participants. Typically, we had an avatar greet the learners initially before
the simulation began to give them a moment to acclimate to what they are experiencing. This was not always enough to
make learners feel comfortable in the simulated environment. At least for some learners, being exposed to the MRS in
Iteration 1 may have allowed them to feel more comfortable interacting with the avatar in Iteration 2 and allowed them
to focus more clearly on their own coaching. However, it is worth noting that they also had more time to prepare for their
MRS interaction in Iteration 2 in addition to some experience coaching actual teacher-candidates, so it is difficult to tease
out what can be attributed to familiarity with the MRS.
It is also important to consider the value of repeating an MRS to give learners multiple opportunities to rehearse
complex interactions, such as coaching. Murphy et al. (2021) found that four, 10-minute, directed simulations were
needed for teachers to start changing classroom practice. Our initial analysis suggests that coaches have begun to apply
coaching skills more quickly than that, but they continue to benefit from multiple repetitions (Mrachko et al., 2022). Our
participants expressed differing views of the value of experiencing the MRS each year. While some like Eileen and Car-
rie rehearsed the same simulation three times in three years, finding the value of the experience to increase over time,
Sharon had the same three encounters but appeared to have reached a “saturation” point where she no longer felt like this
was a helpful tool for her. Collecting more data on our second simulation and comparing individuals’ performance and
perceptions over time may help to distinguish whether any distaste for the repeated experience can be attributed to bore-
dom with the same scenario or something else.
Size and Structure of the Learning Experience
As facilitators, we structured the MRS for participants in Iterations 1 and 3 to work with the MRS in small groups of
four or five to observe one another and collaboratively reflect on what they experienced. This was intended to be a space
for shared analysis, learning, and support. In each group, there were always at least two volunteers and therefore experi-
ences to observe and discuss. As Samuelsson et al. (2021) discovered, for our participants, this was an opportunity for
mastery and vicarious experience to build their self-efficacy. From our perspective, this might be the ideal way to initially
encounter the simulation with repeated rehearsal or skills assessment to follow in a one-on-one setting. MRS facilitators
should consider the balance between open-ended reflection that allows learners to process a novel experience with how to
give meaningful feedback in a small group environment.
We pitched the MRS as “low-stakes” to our participants regarding the limited risk they would be taking when try-
ing out new skills with an avatar instead of a real teacher-candidate (Peterson-Ahmad, 2018). This characterization did

187
not consider the sense of risk they perceived by trying something new in front of respected colleagues. This sort of social
risk may have inhibited some participants from volunteering or led them to choose an individual MRS in Iteration 3. Our
participants may not have felt the MRS was a “risk-free” environment as others have found (Ferguson & Sutphin, 2021).
Because much MRS research has been done with preservice teachers, it is worth exploring other factors that may come
into play with more experienced professionals. One consideration for planning similar MRS experiences are existing dy-
namics within the small groups. In general, we observed the groups who had some knowledge of each other but were not
close colleagues, as in Iteration 1, to be more willing to volunteer than some of the established groups of UMs and fac-
ulty in Iteration 3. So, while developing community is an important consideration in any professional learning context, it
may be especially relevant here.
Practice vs. Process
One lesson learned from each of the iterations is that we need to continue to help participants separate their under-
standing of coaching practice from the routines, paperwork, and technology demands of the coaching or supervision pro-
cess. We have integrated elements of the process (e.g., forms) in the MRS to increase familiarity and hopefully help par-
ticipants transfer their learning in the MRS to their practice. Aside from this, we try to keep the MRS distinctly focused
on coaching skills. Despite this effort, participants sometimes expressed frustration with the process when asked about
the MRS experience. As MRS experiences are most meaningful when well-focused on discrete skills, it will serve other
teams well to keep any possibly confounding details separate from the focus objectives of the MRS. One strategy might
be to allot more time to address process questions in advance of beginning the MRS or, alternatively, to wait to introduce
process-related details after the MRS has been completed.
Extending Across Contexts
The tools we have developed to work with these populations of novice coaches have been used in different modali-
ties (in-person and remote) and different contexts (PD of district partners and graduate coursework). Specifically, the vi-
gnette structure provided for simulation sessions, strategies used for collaborative reflection in small groups, and format
for delivering immediate individual feedback could be generalized to use with different MRS scenarios and learner audi-
ences.
The ability to adjust the details and intensity of the simulation makes it an adaptable tool for learners to revisit over
time as they grow from true novices to more experienced coaches. Novice coaches may appreciate the opportunity to ob-
serve others, learn new coaching moves, and acquire professional terminology they can incorporate into their own prac-
tice. Experienced coaches may record and reflect on their MRS interaction to evaluate their strengths and consider ways
to continue growing. Facilitators may embrace the “checkout” model for assessing mastery (Iteration 2) following PD to
determine whether coaches are ready to begin or need more practice. They may also offer one-on-one sessions to allow
coaches to gain more confidence.
Next Steps
One of the goals of the US Department of Education is that work established by the grant funding could be sustained
or scaled by the end of the funding period. The use of MRS to support practicing educators and faculty members to serve
as effective coaches has strong merit for sustainable practices. However, this study was only impacting a small number of
teacher-candidates who volunteered to participate. One barrier to participation was that it was “on top of” other require-
ments of BGSU. Finding a way to merge the benefits of the coaching model with the requirements of the professional
internship is part of the pilot we are engaging with this year.
In order to effectively sustain this coaching model, we must be able to translate the coaching cycle to scale. Growing
its usage from less than 5% of our candidates participating to an entire group of 500 or more is a daunting task. However,
the coaching training and simulation training to make sure that all coaches have the skills to provide educative feedback
shows promise. By including some of the field coaches, faculty, and UMs in the pilot, we created a group that can be ef-

188
fective in supporting others through the training process, which can also help with taking this model to scale. Already, we
have heard from those in the pilot that being able to practice using a simulation with feedback helped them better under-
stand the expectations. As we learned through Iterations 2 and 3, the simulation experience was similar whether delivered
in person or remotely. Being able to deliver simulations to individuals remotely can also help with scale. There is a great
deal of promise in being able to provide consistent training and realistic practice for a wide range of individuals with
their own experiences and bias to the coaching model.
REFERENCES
Bean, R. M., Kern, D., Goatley, V., Ortlieb, E., Shettel, J., Calo, K., & Cassidy, J. (2015). Specialized literacy professionals as
literacy leaders: Results of a national survey. Literacy Research and Instruction, 54(2), 83–114. https://doi.org/10.1080/193
88071.2014.998355
Blachowicz, C. L. Z., Buhle, R., Ogle, D., Frost, S., Correa, A., & Kinner, J. D. (2010). Hit the ground running: Ten ideas for
preparing and supporting urban literacy coaches. The Reading Teacher, 63(5), 348–359.
Bondurant, L., & Amidon, J. (2021). Virtual field experiences as an opportunity to develop preservice teachers’ efficacy and
equitable teaching practice. Research in Mathematics Education, 317–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80230-1_16
Brodeur, K., Mrachko, A.A., Phillips, D. & Compton, B. (in press). Preparing to coach preservice teachers: Professional learn-
ing of novice coaches. Teacher Development.
Costa, A. L. & Garmston, R. J. (2002). Cognitive coaching: A foundation for renaissance schools (2nd
ed.). Christopher-Gordon
Publishers, Inc.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Dalinger, T., Thomas, K. B., Stansberry, S., & Xiu, Y. (2020). A mixed reality simulation
offers strategic practice for pre-service teachers. Computers & Education, 144, 103696. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compe-
du.2019.103696
Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M. E., Gardner, M. (2017). Effective teacher professional development. Learning Policy Institute.
Dieker, L. A., Rodriguez, J. A., Lignugaris, Kraft, B., Hynes, M. C., & Hughes, C. E. (2013). The potential of simulated envi-
ronments in teacher education: Current and future possibilities. Teacher Education and Special Education, 37(1), 21-33.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406413512683
Dutta, D. (1999). Simulation in military training: Recent developments. Defence Science Journal, 49(3), 275-285. https://doi.
org/10.14429/dsj.49.3840
Ferguson, S., & Sutphin, L. (2021). Analyzing the impact on teacher preparedness as a result of using Mursion as a risk-
free microteaching experience for pre-service teachers. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 50(4). https://doi.
org/10.1177/00472395211067731
Finkelstein, C. (2019). Doing our part: Trust and relational dynamics in literacy coaching. Literacy Research and Instruction,
58, 317-337.
Grossman, P., Compton, C., Igra, D., Ronfeldt, M., Shahan, E., & Williamson, P. W. (2009). Teaching practice: A cross-pro-
fessional perspective. Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education, 111(9), 2055–2100. https://doi.
org/10.1177/016146810911100905
Hayes, A., Hardin, S., Dieker, L., Hynes, M., & Hughes, C., & Straub, C. (2013). Conference Proceedings for First National
TeachLivE Conference. [Conference Paper]. First National TeachLivE Conference, Orlando.
Heineke, S. F. (2013). Coaching discourse: Supporting teachers’ professional learning. The Elementary School Journal, 113(3),
409–433.
Hudson, M. E., Voytecki, K. S., & Zhang, G. (2018). Mixed-reality teaching experiences
improve preservice special education students’ perceptions of their ability to manage a classroom. Journal For Virtual Worlds
Research, 11(2). https://doi.org/10.4101/jvwr.v11i2.7308
Hunt, C. S., & Handsfield, L. J. (2013). The emotional landscapes of literacy coaching: Issues of identity, power, and position-
ing. Journal of Literacy Research, 45, 47–87.
Ippolito, J. (2010). Three ways that literacy coaches balance responsive and directive relationships with teachers. The Elemen-
tary School Journal, 111(1), 164–190.
Kamhi-Stein, L. D., Lao, R. S., & Issagholian, N. (2020). The future is now:
Implementing mixed-reality learning environments as a tool for language teacher preparation. Teaching English as a Second
Language or Foreign Language, 24(3).
Knight, J. (2009). Coaching: The key to translating research into practice lies in continuous job-embedded learning with ongo-
ing support. Journal of Staff Development, 30(1), 18–22.
Knowles, M.S. (Ed.). (1984). Andragogy in action. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
L’Allier, S. K., & Elish-Piper, L. (2011). The literacy coaching series [DVD]. Elburn, IL: LearnSure, Inc. http://theliteracy-
coachingseries.com

189
Massey, S.L., Ortmann, L., & Brodeur, K. (2020). Training novice literacy coaches through a Coaching Rounds Framework. In
R. Karchmer-Klein & K.E. Pytash (Eds.) Effective practices in online teacher preparation for literacy educators (pp.150-
170). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-0206-8.ch008
Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd
ed.). Sage.
Mrachko, A.A., Compton, B., & Brodeur, K. (2022, October). Coaching teacher-candidates during student teaching: What does
treatment fidelity tell us? [Conference paper]. Mid-Western Research Association annual meeting, Cincinnati.
Murphy, K. M., Cook, A. L., & Fallon, L. M. (2021). Mixed reality simulations for social-emotional learning. Phi Delta Kap-
pan, 102(6), 30–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/0031721721998152
Ohio Department of Education. (2015, April). Standards for professional development. Retrieved April 25, 2022.
Ortmann, L., Brodeur, K., & Massey, S. (2020). The learner profiles of novice literacy coaches. Reading Horizons: A Journal of
Literacy and Language Arts, 59(2), 59-83.
Palmeri, A. B.., & Peter, J. A. (2019). Pivoting from evaluative to educative feedback during post-observation conferencing:
Supporting the development of preservice teachers. In T. Hodges & A. Baum (Eds.), Handbook of research on field-based
teacher education (pp.495-517). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-6249-8.ch021
Pearson, P. D., & Gallagher, M. C. (1983). The instruction of reading comprehension. Contemporary Educational Psychology,
8(3), 317–344. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-476X(83)90019-X
Peterson-Ahmad, M. (2018). Enhancing pre-service special educator preparation through combined use of virtual simulation
and instructional coaching. Education Sciences 8(10), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci8010010
Rainville, K. N. & Jones, S. (2008). Situated identities: Power and positioning in the work of a literacy coach. The Reading
Teacher, 61(6), 440-448. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20204612
Robertson, D., Padesky, L., Ford-Connors, E., & Paratore, J. (2020). What does it mean to say coaching is relational? Journal of
Literacy Research, 52(1), 55-78. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296X19896632
Rush, D. & Shelden, M. (2019). The Early Childhood Coaching Handbook (2nd
ed.). Brookes Publishing.
Saclarides, E.S., & Kane, B. D. (2021). Understanding mathematics coaches’ development: Coaches’ attributions of their pro-
fessional learning in school districts. International Journal of Educational Research, 109, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijer.2021.101815
Salas, E., Bowers, C. A., & Rhodenizer, L. (1998). It is not how much you have but how you use it: Toward a rational use
of simulation to support aviation training. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 8(3), 197-208. https://doi.
org/10.1207/s15327108ijap0803_2
Samuelsson, M., Samuelsson, J., & Thorsten, A. (2021). Simulation training as effective as teaching pupils: Development of ef-
ficacy beliefs among pre-service teachers. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 29(2), 225-251.
Stoetzel, L. & Shedrow, S. (2020). Coaching our coaches: How online learning can address the gap in preparing K-12 instruc-
tional coaches. Teaching and Teacher Education, 88, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.102959
Trivette, C.M., Dunst, C.J., Hamby, D.W.; & O’ Herin, C.E. (2009). Characteristics and consequences of adult learning methods
and strategies. Research Brief 3(1), 1-33.
Woulfin, S. L. (2017). Coach professional development in the urban emergent context. Urban Education. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0042085917714513
Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research design and methods (5th ed.). Sage.
York-Barr, J., Sommers, W. A., Ghere, G. S. & Montie, J. (2006). Reflective practice to improve schools: An action guide for
educators (2nd
ed.). Corwin Press.
Ziv, A., Wolpe, P. R., Small, S. D., & Glick, S. (2003). Simulation-based medical education: An ethical imperative. Academic
Medicine 78(8), 783-788.

190
APPENDIX A
Simulation 1: Fostering Authentic and Effective Reflection within Teacher-candidates
Learner Information
Learner Audience:
Field Coaches; practicing teachers learning to coach undergraduate Teacher-candidates
Learner-facing vignette:
You have just observed Adam teaching a lesson, and you collected information on Adam’s goal of increasing student talk vs. teacher
talk. You found that over the course of the 30-minute lesson, the teacher spoke 80% of the time. Additionally, of the 22 students in the
class, only five students provided answers. You are now in the post-observation conference, and Adam has just summarized his lesson
for you.
Learner objectives:
• Utilize the SPACE strategies to demonstrate active listening and to build rapport with the teacher-candidate.
• Elicit multiple perspectives from the teacher-candidate and facilitate discussion about why things went the way they did.
• Promote teacher-reflection around instructional decisions and rationale.
Facilitator Information
When working with small groups, observers should be instructed to note examples of how the learner demonstrated the objectives to
help coach them through the reflection. The facilitator should give sufficient time (at least 15 min.) to group reflection on the experi-
ence, allowing time to process emotional responses to interacting with the avatar and trying new skills. It is important to give the
learner the chance to begin and end the reflection discussion so that their impressions of the experience are accounted for in the group.
Guided Reflection Questions:
1. First to the learner, then to the observers: What did you notice about using the SPACE strategies? (Silence, Paraphrase, Clarify-
ing questions, Extend or elaborate)
2. What was effective in helping the teacher (avatar) reflect?
a. How could you tell? What evidence did you see?
b. What were obstacles to the teacher (avatar) reflecting deeply?
i. Possible response: Blaming behavior (from the teacher avatar)
ii. Possible response: Too quick to make suggestions (from the learner coach)
3. Why is it important to address:
a. helping the teacher (avatar) see multiple perspectives?
b. helping the teacher (avatar) create connections to her own learning?
4. To the learner: Did you feel like there were any missed opportunities? If so, what? How would you have handled things differ-
ently?
Simulation Specialist Information
The simulation was structured for learner “hits” and “misses,” or appropriate and inappropriate responses based on each objective.
Below is an example of the simulation specialist’s cues and responses related to the first learning objective. Performance Objec-
tive 1: The coach will use the SPACE strategies to demonstrate active listening
When learners… Avatars will…
HIT HIT
The coach is silent and allows the teacher to speak.
After the teacher finishes speaking, the coach paraphrases the
teacher response in order to clarify their response.
The coach conducts themselves in a way the expresses open-
ness and acceptance without judgement both VERBALLY and
NON-VERBALLY.
The coach utilizes clarifying questions in order to elicit reflec-
tion and response from the teacher.
Coaches use specific phrasing to extend reflection for the
teacher metacognitively.
Demonstrate the ability to speak efficiently and coherently, while
conducting themselves in a professional manner.
Recognize the presence of established rapport and will comply
with the desired aspects of the coaching interaction.
Reflect authentically on the indicated experience and provide
thoughtful and appropriate responses.

191
MISS MISS
The coach does not allow the teacher to speak OR interrupts the
teacher while they are speaking.
After the teacher finishes speaking, the coach does not para-
phrase the teacher’s response.
The coach displays verbal and non-verbal judgement—eg. Eye-
rolling, brows descending, laughing, closed posture, inappropri-
ate inflection or emphasis in delivery.
Coach utilizes closed-ended questions AND/OR does not utilize
strategic questioning at all.
The coach allows the teacher to simply report and does not
elicit further consideration.
Display discomfort within the simulation. This may include
receding inward, refusing to be authentic, questioning feedback,
or altogether refusing to participate.
Refuse to finish sentences, instead trailing off or mumbling.
Provide short, indecisive, and/or inconclusive answers to the
reflective questions posed.
Expresses confusion in response to possible ways to improve
their performance as an educator.

192
APPENDIX B
Simulation 2: Providing Educative Feedback after Lesson Delivery
Learner Information
Learner Audience:
Field Coaches; practicing teachers learning to coach undergraduate Teacher-candidates
Learner-facing vignette:
You have just observed Adam teaching a lesson. He started the lesson with a quick video hook to activate students’ background knowl-
edge and interest in the topic of climate change. He then connected today’s lesson to the previous lesson about claims and evidence
and led a whole class discussion. Three of the seven questions were answered by two students. After that, he had the students read
a short article and work in small groups for 25 minutes to analyze the claims made by the author. He circulated the room while the
students were working. Between introducing the lesson, leading the class discussion, facilitating small group work, and concluding the
lesson, Adam talked for approximately 25% of the time.
Learner objectives:
• Give appropriate (affirmative and/or informative) educative feedback
• Provide data to emphasize and support feedback
• Ask reflective questions to assess feedback comprehension and application
Facilitator Information
This simulation is designed as a follow-up to a previous coaching simulation (Appendix A). In the previous simulation, the teacher
(avatar) set a goal of talking less during lessons, and having lessons be more student-centered. The teacher (avatar) indicated that small
group work was the strategy they wanted to try to have his lesson be more student-centered.
To prepare for this simulation, the learner is given an outline of a lesson plan and notes from their lesson “observation.” This material
is to serve as the basis for preparing specific affirmative and informative educative feedback.
Highlights from the materials include several points learners may choose to focus on:
• Teacher gives students praise, but it is vague
• Does not offer leading prompts
• Teacher engages a student who is not participating
• During the whole group discussion there was a lack of participation.
• During the small group, not all students were engaged
• Teacher is interacting with the small groups but missing opportunities to facilitate content discussions
• Teacher has to repeat directions for small group work.
Small group reflective discussion following the MRS can follow similar prompts as in simulation 1 (Appendix A).
Simulation Specialist Information
The simulation was structured for learner “hits” and “misses,” or appropriate and inappropriate responses based on each objective.
Below is an example of the simulation specialist’s cues and responses related to the second learning objective.
Performance Objective 2: The coach will provide data to emphasize and support feedback
HIT HIT
The coach provides data from the shared materials to offer the
teacher a different perspective on the lesson.
The coach uses data from the shared materials to ground their
perception in specifics from the observation.
Provide a response that is authentic, reflects on a/any new
perspective(s), and initiates thoughtful discussion regarding how
to improve the lesson/learning segment.

193
MISS MISS
The coach provides general feedback, not grounded in the
shared materials.
The coach implies that the teacher should just take their word
for it without referring to specific observation data.
The coach makes direct suggestions about what the teacher
should do.
Question why the coach simply provided an answer OR alto-
gether refuse the direction, becoming frustrated.
Ask questions such as, “How can I do that in my classroom?” or
“But my students learn in different ways than yours.”

197
Instructional Design Practice Considerations for Augmented Reality (AR) Content
Creation and Implementation in Undergraduate Science
STUART WHITE
Purdue University, USA
white152@purdue.edu
VICTORIA L. LOWELL
Purdue University, USA
Abstract: Undergraduate science courses are predominantly lecture-based with supplemental laboratory ex-
periences. Traditionally these courses have been in face-to-face settings where students interact with lectur-
ers and teaching assistants. Many science learning environments have become highly flexible hybrid learn-
ing experiences. However, while lecture material has become easily accessible asynchronously, instructors
face challenges with developing laboratory experiences that meet the learners’ demands for technology-rich
learning experiences. Therefore, instructors are exploring ways for undergraduate students to engage remote-
ly with laboratory-based science content using advanced image technology. As science instructors rely on
course-specific content that is based on the latest research, learning theories, practices, and technology to
create and deliver cost-effective, scalable learning experiences, instructors are investigating extended real-
ity (XR) delivered learning experiences, specifically augmented reality (AR) technology in their efforts to
provide student-centered, laboratory-based learning. One challenge facing instructors is the need to locate
and create using AR technologies that are user-friendly and available on multiple platforms. In this chapter,
the authors will discuss the educational advantages of using AR technology for science education and the use
of the JigSpace creation tool to meet the demands placed on hi-flex/hybrid undergraduate lab-based science
courses. We will discuss how AR is being used to facilitate collaboration within hybrid learning environ-
ments, consisting of both online and face-to-face in-person learning, and the advantages and challenges relat-
ed to using a tool such as JigSpace in a lab-based undergraduate science course. In addition, attention will be
given to specific strategies for considering an AR tool (e.g., JigSpace) in situations where learners have the
flexibility to decide whether to attend synchronously or asynchronously from session to session (i.e., hi-flex).
Keywords: Augmented Reality, Science Education, Hybrid Learning, JigSpace
INTRODUCTION
One fundamental objective of any learning experience is to expand our perception of the world in which we live.
Within science education, expanding our perception of the world includes understanding scientific content at both the
macroscopic and microscopic levels. Facilitating learning within these realms requires educators to find ways of focusing
student attention on content in realistic and engaging ways. Many of these core science educational experiences involve
interaction with potentially hazardous substances and organisms, and care must be taken to ensure the safety of learners.
This is especially true within degree programs where science is approached through the lens of application within future
classrooms. Higher education institutions have accomplished this by integrating educational technology focused on fa-
cilitating learners’ understanding while exploring content and eradicating misconceptions.
Traditionally, the technology associated with science instruction has included microscopes, probe-ware, and comput-
ers to explore content in meaningful ways. Advances in imaging and modeling capabilities have assisted instructional
practices to improve connections between personal experience and scientific concepts, theories, and laws (Kelley et al.,
2021). Today’s classrooms are an eclectic mix of information communication technology (ICT), exemplified by laptop
computers, smartphones, tablets, software applications, multimedia, and e-readers (Lawrence & Tar, 2018). Advances in
society, technology, and our understanding of the learning process have helped shape the role teachers play in facilitat-

198
ing learning. While learning remains fundamentally an exercise of analyzing and interpreting personal experiences, our
access to content and ability to visualize abstract concepts has dramatically increased (Riegel & Mete, 2017; Pomerantz,
2019). Integrating multiple ICT interactions into learning experiences is designed to assist 21st
century learners in achiev-
ing targeted learning objectives (Shorey et al., 2021). In addition, students arrive at school with smartphones containing
dozens of apps and have access to WiFi-enabled computing devices to not only interact with content but also search for
information, collaborate with others, and explore the world.
Classrooms are not the only things to have changed with time. Today’s learners are conversant in educational lan-
guage and terminology related to preferred learning styles (Chen, 2010; Kamal & Radhakrishnan, 2019), and educators
have become more adept at differentiating instruction to meet the needs of increasingly diverse learners (Safapour et al.,
2019; Zou, 2020). The recent COVID-19 pandemic resulted in teachers at all levels becoming more adept at using ad-
vanced image and video-capturing programs and software in addition to becoming experienced with facilitating learning
activities in virtual settings (Onyema et al., 2020). And, while teachers still struggle to keep pace with technological ad-
vances, they are increasingly relying on hyper-realistic images and videos to bring real-world experiences into the learn-
ing environment using extended reality technology (D’Angelo & Woosley, 2007; Hyndman, 2018; Reich, 2019).
AUGMENTED REALITY (AR) IN EDUCATION
One intriguing use of extended reality technology in learning involves bringing digital resources to life by merging
images, sounds, and video with real-world learning environments. The merging of images and the learning environment
is exemplified in AR learning experiences and technology. AR can best be conceptualized by identifying the three char-
acteristics common to all AR learning experiences: some form of real-world and virtual content integration, interaction
with real and virtual content simultaneously, and virtual content displayed 3-dimensionally (Law & Heintz, 2021). To
augment something is to add to it. In the case of AR, this means adding digital content to real-world settings. The aug-
mented content typically consists of 3-dimensional (3D) images learners access using a mobile device or web-based ap-
plication. Two predominant ways learners access these images are by either a geographic location (e.g., Pokémon Go) or
by using the camera function to scan a preselected 2-dimensional (2D) image. The augmented experience is said to im-
prove learning through engagement, interaction, and increased depth of understanding (Qiao et al., 2019; Turan & Atila,
2021).
The use of AR in educational settings originates from this overlaying of digital content, creating a one-of-a-kind
learning experience with a real-world backdrop (Palmas & Klinker, 2020). The augmented learning experience positively
contributes to the amount of information the brain can handle, known as cognitive capacity, while reducing mental pro-
cessing efforts (Lee et al., 2013). In addition, Lee et al. (2013) pointed to improved learner confidence resulting from
successfully navigating complex collaborative learning experiences. Yang et al. (2020) suggested AR learning experienc-
es improve motivation, engagement, and student-centered learning in online settings where learners cannot interact with
ordinary face-to-face physical objects. Additionally, AR is thought to assist online and face-to-face instructors in present-
ing and delivering instructional content to learners (Ziker et al., 2021). Another feature of AR technology is the use of
3D objects providing learners with more significant opportunities to engage with content than 2D images. The interactive
nature of 3D objects contributes to motivation, understanding, attitude, and satisfaction (Akçayır et al., 2016; Akçayır &
Akçayır, 2017).
The success of any learning experience relies on the effectiveness of the instructional design (ID) supporting the
learning experience (Hamada et al., 2016; Lee et al., 2013). Concerns over AR technology use and learning experience
effectiveness can be reduced when they are grounded in well-established ID and learning theory (Yang et al., 2020).
Other concerns associated with AR fall in the realms of usability, comfort, mental effort, operation, and physical inter-
action (Xi et al., 2022). There are also concerns associated with excessive screen time leading to detrimental emotional
and physical health (Shorey et al., 2021). Therefore, instructors must evaluate AR-dependent learning based on learner
knowledge of technology, subject matter interest, and problematic social injustices (Shorey et al., 2021).
CREATING WITH AR USING JIGSPACE
The purpose of this chapter is to discuss the educational advantages and limitations of AR in science courses where
learners spend part of their time within face-to-face learning environments and other times accessing course content

199
remotely (hybrid learning) as well as in learning environments where learners are afforded the flexibility of deciding
whether to attend class synchronously or asynchronously (hi-flex learning). AR use within these hi-flex/hybrid under-
graduate lab-based science courses necessitates the use of entry-level AR creation software. One such AR creation soft-
ware capable of meeting the hi-flex/hybrid demand for technology-rich inquiry-based learning experiences is JigSpace.
During our discussion of how AR is being used to facilitate collaboration within technology-rich learning environments,
we will include connections to multimedia learning theory and how JigSpace AR creation software might be leveraged.
We will also focus on AR integration during the instructional design process and subsequent implementation into educa-
tional settings. We will finish with a discussion of the challenges associated with the deployment of AR and strategies for
mitigating these challenges and limitations.
JigSpace is an AR software and the “jig” sharing platform specializes in the creation of augmented learning experi-
ences using 3D images. This robust AR creation tool works with all major CAD file types (i.e., OBJ, FBX, STEP, and
STEL) making it extremely user-friendly and compatible with a wide variety of delivery platforms. Once a CAD file is
uploaded into the JigSpace library, users can place it into a “scene” much like placing content on a slide within a Pow-
erPoint or Google Slides presentation. The CAD file can then be animated with built-in effects and the scene captioned
with desired text-based content. Adding successive scenes is a simple matter of creating new panels, akin to adding slides
to a slideshow. Once users are satisfied with their learning module, they simply save it, and their AR jig is automatically
stored in their Jig library and shareable with students using a downloaded QR code or link (Figure 1).
Note. Screenshot showing QR code shareability option. The jig could also be shared with learners using a link (i.e.,
https://link.jig.space/U0ZE0NPjinb).
Figure 1. Taxonomic Classification Jig.

200
The unique AR creation aspects of JigSpace, compared to other web-based AR platforms, make it possible to add
both images and text to the developed learning experience. This marriage of verbal content and 3D imaging can be lever-
aged in much the same way teachers use 2D images and graphics to assist learning. Learners can be provided a 3D image
embedded within the classroom learning activity and this image can be captioned, labeled, and enhanced to draw out im-
portant features and points of interest as seen in Figure 2. In addition, important content and learning instructions can be
added with relative ease (Figure 2). Examples of versatile AR use include museums adding educational content to physi-
cal displays that allow visitors to access additional content, such as animations of scientific concepts. (Yoon et al., 2017)
Field trips can become more interactive with targeted learning content augmenting the real-world experience (Chien et
al., 2019; Yoon et al., 2017). Finally, jigs can be leveraged to bring nature (i.e., plants and insects) into the classroom, al-
lowing learners to explore interactions in real-time (Chien et al., 2019; Wommer et al., 2021).
Note. Learners within science courses engage with digital models of atoms to learn about valence electrons and bonding.
Figure 2. Fluorine Atom.
AR – MULTIMEDIA INSTRUCTION AND LEARNING
Integration of images and video with text to maximize engagement while minimizing distractions and cognitive load
is a fundamental tenant of multimedia theory. Mayer (2002) defined multimedia instructional material as content consist-
ing of words and images “intended to foster learning” (p. 86). While this definition is broad in scope, it is specific enough
to apply to various forms of image and video content. One such application involves the merging of digital images with
real-world settings, where the added digital content is seen to improve the real-world experience of the learner (Guilbaud
et al., 2021). If we accept the notion that 3D digital content placed within the physical environment falls within the param-
eters of our working definition of multimedia, then we can assume the pedagogical processes involved with multimedia
instructional material will apply to AR learning experiences. In turn, this means the dual-channel, limited capacity, and ac-
tive processing assumptions related to multimedia learning (Mayer, 2002) apply to learning utilizing AR technology.

201
When discussing AR as a multimedia instructional tool, we will refer to our working definition of AR as superim-
posing 3D content or video material into a real-world learning environment. The process of superimposing images or
video is more commonly expressed as “dropping” images onto a geographical physical location, such as the desktop or
an image anchor point (e.g., QR code, Hiro, or Merge Cube ). Projections of 3D digital objects into the learning experi-
ence allow learners to interact with the image or video content in uniquely authentic and immersive ways. Based on the
dual channel assumption, learners will process visual and auditory information separately. Because the input image is in-
tegrated into the learning environment, it is reasonable to assume 3D images will be perceived as real objects rather than
static 2D images, thus freeing up processing capacity usually required for processing static images in the visual pathway.
Added text features will be processed in the auditory pathway, bypassing the visual pathway and taking advantage of the
dual channels.
The second assumption of the multimedia theory states there is a limit to how much information a learner can pro-
cess at a given time. The previously mentioned, reduced processing needs associated with AR perception as a tangible
object has a positive impact on the learner’s capacity to process information in meaningful ways, matching learning ex-
perience to real-world tasks and experiences (Marsh & Butler, 2013). In addition, the active processing assumption indi-
cates learners are purposefully constructing memory traces based on the practice of cue-target retrieval processes related
to course content, learning objectives, and subject matter interest. Finally, the placement of digital content within the
physical learning environment makes it possible for learners to interact with digital representations of subject matter in
much the same way as they interact with physical models, and in failure-safe learning environments. AR technology and
learning experiences, therefore, take on many of the same learning patterns and processes associated with manipulating
physical models (Dunleavy et al., 2009; Martin-Gonzalez et al., 2016).
The dual nature of AR as an interactive image and an interactive model contributes to the perception of authenticity
associated with digital content superimposed into the learning experience. The “dropping” of 3D content within a real-
world setting, as in the case of AR, is juxtaposed with “dropping” a learner into a digital setting, creating a virtual real-
ity (VR) akin to a video game where “gamers” interact with digital objects within a digital environment. AR is the first
step to expanding education into the new and exciting VR environments gaining popularity in online and virtual settings
(Guilbaud et al., 2021). Numerous variations of real-world/virtual-world interactions have been developed over time,
each with its associated cost, learning curve, and impact on cognitive load.
AR – A TOOL FOR LEARNING
In layman’s terms, multimedia learning theory states learners will have a deeper understanding of educational con-
tent presented using both words and images. This depth of knowledge will then have a better chance of being remem-
bered and recalled in various settings. Dunleavy et al. (2009) suggest the active processing strengths associated with
AR might be leveraged to distribute key content that promotes positive collaborative interactions among learners. AR
learning activities are seen as a contributing factor in active processing where learning is rooted in mental engagement
with digital content. The cognitive processing of spatial arrangements and 3D characteristics make it possible for learners
to generate concrete mental representations of learning experiences directly transferable to real-world settings (Mayer,
2002). Collaboration through AR technology might then be utilized to assist learners in navigating the learning environ-
ment as they problem-solve using physical and digital artifacts.
Two unique features of JigSpace are the seamless transitioning between scenes and a shared collaborative learning
experience. The rearrangement of image placement from scene to scene is one example where seamless scene transition-
ing can be built into AR learning experiences. Modifying the location of an object from one scene to the next provides
an added layer of realism in the form of movement and interrelationships between component assemblies. An example of
AR’s collaborative strength can be identified when jigs are shared and accessed by several learners simultaneously. Ac-
cess to an AR learning activity by learners in different locations allows learners to not only interact with the AR resource
but share the learning experience in real time. This collaborative shared experience with digital image content provides
teachers with a common ground on which to build additional visual and spatial comprehension learning experiences
(Schnotz, 2014).
AR has been deployed in science education settings where digital content is seamlessly integrated with real-world
objects and assists learners in better understanding complex laboratory experimental protocols (Hamada et al., 2016).
Reduced dependence on text-based instructions decreases shared mental capacity focused on text-based content (Mayer,

202
2002), freeing up mental processing associated with observing, analyzing, and drawing conclusions from digital images
(Akçayır et al., 2016). Akçayır et al. (2016) connect AR with improved scientific thought processes and increased exper-
tise with complex experimental protocols and more safety conscientious considerations when engaging in experimenta-
tion in hi-flex/hybrid learning settings. In many situations, AR allows learners to explore science content through immer-
sive simulations (Ibáñez & Delgado-Kloos, 2018) without the cost of expensive equipment or extensive safety training or
supervision. This is especially important for students learning from video representations of sophisticated science experi-
ments or complicated models within hybrid and online settings. The inability of hi-flex/hybrid learners to interact with
costly scientific equipment places greater reliance on images and text leading to increased mental strain inherent in these
settings.
While there are numerous studies that have examined AR within science classrooms (e.g., Akçayır et al., 2016;
Chien et al., 2019; Thees et al., 2020), the most advantageous AR-integrated educational settings are those associated
with engineering and technology courses. The modeling software in use within these courses comes with built-in AR
viewing capabilities of 3D renderings, allowing designers to view models in real-time (e.g., Inventor, Tinkercad), see
Figure 3. AR-enhanced features of mobile apps and advances in technology married with reduced initial entry costs make
it possible for students in engineering, computer graphics, animation, architecture, etc., to drop rendered objects onto
real-world products and processes as they prototype, test tolerances, evaluate constraints, and assess usability (Cheng &
Tsai, 2013; Dunleavy et al., 2009; Thees et al., 2020; Yoon et al., 2017). With the integration of engineering design and
technology into science courses, the STEM (science, technology, engineering, math) learning experience will undoubt-
edly include the use of AR-compatible modeling software.
Note. Learners within an elementary education life science course use Tinkercad to create 3D models of genetic crosses
and share models using AR technology.
Figure 3. Tinkercad Reebop Model.
In addition to projecting an image onto a table or within a geographic location (i.e., web-based tools such as Tinker-
cad and Augment), AR models can be dropped onto hand-held anchor points. In one such application, the digital content
is projected onto a cube-shaped item the learner then manipulates 3-dimensionally (i.e., Merge Cube). Learners can then
rotate the physical anchor while visualizing the 3D image. This leads to a third feature of JigSpace AR content, mobile
apps can be used to present digital content and text in real time. However, unlike the image-heavy forms of AR associ-
ated with web-based and hand-held AR applications, JigSpace affords educators the ability to seamlessly combine 3D
image and text-based content into a single learning activity. This dual-channel experience is in keeping with multimedia
theory, while other forms of AR application rely predominantly on the image pathway with little thought for the auditory
pathway.
No matter which AR learning experience is employed, each takes advantage of anchor points making it possible
for student mobile devices (e.g., smartphone, iPad, tablet) to drop 3D renderings into the learning environment anytime,

203
anywhere. The digital representation of content superimposed on the learning environment is significantly different than
looking at 2D photographs and images, whether displayed on a handheld device or not. However, Garzón (2021) cau-
tioned AR technology cannot be seen as a supplemental tool for completing educational tasks. Instead, AR technology
should be seen as an observational experience where it is both the tool and the experience. Domingo and Garganté (2016)
point to mobile technologies, such as AR apps and resources, as important tools for skills-based learning, information
management, and subject matter content acquisition.
AR – A LEARNING EXPERIENCE
The typical science learning experience involves disseminating background content followed by “hands-on” learn-
ing experiences. The hands-on laboratory-based activities provide learners with an opportunity to collaboratively interact
with content within a “controlled” environment. Educators were forced to reimagine their teacher-centered approach to
course facilitation when schools were shut down due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Pandemic closures saw many teachers
initially transition traditional classroom practices to video conference-style content followed by self-directed learning,
provided technology was available (Morgan, 2020). As time progressed, instructors became more inventive and expanded
their use of technology, and adjusted the time learners were required to participate in synchronous didactic instructional
settings (Onyema et al., 2020; Williamson et al., 2020). The transition to post COVID-19 pandemic learning environ-
ments has seen an increase in technology-rich student-centered learning within K-12 settings (Sprague et al., 2022) and
an increase in hybrid and online learning within higher education (Pressley & Ha, 2021). The introduction of the technol-
ogy-dependent pandemic learning setting is continuing to have an impact on the traditional learning environment.
AR use in hands-on learning courses such as science is changing our views of what science labs look like (Rapanta
et al., 2021). One such example is the development of “hands-on” online STEM explorations using digital model ma-
nipulation as a foundational learning experience. In this learning experience, students use AR technology to investigate
chemical interactions augmented with ion movement during the electrolysis of water. The result of this activity was the
development of more safety-conscious explorations, in addition to improved content knowledge acquisition (Akçayır et
al., 2016). Integration of AR into hi-flexible/hybrid learning experiences affords learners opportunities to engage with
science content remotely (online) (Nidhom et al., 2022) and in-person (face-to-face) (Conley et al., 2020; Turan & Atila,
2021). The creation of immersive interactive learning experiences are foundational practices in every learning experi-
ence, be they core physical and social science courses or the liberal arts (i.e., music, language, art, communication, etc.)
(Dunleavy et al., 2009)
Another example of applied AR technology is assisting learners in developing general science knowledge. Weng
et al. (2020) combined a traditional low-tech printed material approach and AR anchor points to create an augmented
textbook for 9th
-grade students studying food chemistry. The specially designed printed material contained AR-scannable
image anchor points that could be scanned by a camera and recognized by an AR-enabled mobile app. When learners
placed the image anchor within their mobile device’s camera view, 3D content appeared superimposed on the printed
page. In this setting, the experimental AR group viewed superimposed content as the means to develop content mastery
whereas the control group relied on static 2D images. Weng et al. (2020) found significant differences between experi-
mental and control group retention of learned content using AR versus non-AR enhanced images.
In a third example, AR technology was used to assist learners in developing plant identification skills using leaf ar-
rangement. Chien et al. (2019) utilized AR image anchors within a classroom setting to activate a 3D plant using the
camera function on a mobile device. Once learners dropped the image into the learning environment, they could ma-
nipulate their camera angle to visualize desired aspects of the leaf arrangement from different perspectives. Later, simi-
lar AR image anchors were attached to physical objects within a nature area. When these anchors were accessed by
mobile devices, added digital content was observable alongside real-world plants. In this situation, AR technology be-
came the means through which the outside world was brought into the classroom, and classroom content was pulled into
real-world settings. Chien et al. (2019) found AR enhanced classroom-based analytical ability and application of content
knowledge when transferred to real-world settings.
A final example involves AR technology to assist nursing students master stroke assessment skills. Liang et al.
(2021) utilized a HoloLens headset and AR image markers to overlay a mannequin patent with animations of a patient
experiencing a stroke. Learners were then tasked with performing stroke assessment protocols on the “patient” such that
AR applications “aligned,” refining the 3D image as the patient was “stabilized.” In this situation, AR technology became

204
an assessment tool through which student content knowledge, and skill application, were evaluated in a failure-safe real-
world setting. They found Improved identification of stroke symptoms and increased confidence for stroke identification
in anticipated high-stakes real-patient settings.
AR – AN INSTRUCTIONAL TOOL
Not only has AR been utilized as a learning experience, but AR has also been used as an instructional resource. One
such example is AR technology being used to assist instructors in teaching physical geological features. Adedokun-Shitto
et al. (2019) utilized a 3D model of Earth to project real-world locations into the classroom setting, providing instruction
regarding geographical features. In this learning experience, AR was the instrument to bring real-world representations of
subject matter content into the classroom. Experimental group retention of subject matter content was compared to those
without the additional AR visualization tool. This study found AR-enhanced learning improved the recall and reproduc-
tion of targeted geographic landforms (Adedokun-Shitto et al., 2019).
The Weng et al. (2020) study mentioned previously supports the notion AR reduces learner cognitive load, freeing
up the processing power needed when activating higher-order thinking skills and requiring less effort during information
organization. Additionally, AR can be said to provide learners with the scaffolding necessary for subject matter content
acquisition (Chien et al., 2019; Liang et al., 2021) when working with complex concepts such as ion interactions. An-
other potential educational feature related to AR use in science, engineering, and technology (STEM) degree programs
is their direct transferability to future career opportunities (Cheng & Tsai, 2013; Dunleavy et al., 2009) and providing
learners access to visual and sensory information key to understanding complex abstract content (Adedokun-Shittu et al.,
2020).
The pedagogical advantage of learning by doing is strongly associated with active learning principles (Lugosi &
Uribe, 2022). However, there is often a steep learning curve associated with cutting-edge technology use leading to mis-
informed evaluation of effective teaching methodologies (Dwyer et al., 1991; Regan et al., 2019; Smith et al., 2015). This
necessitates the development of user-friendly, entry-level AR applications, and software educators can access and explore
in a low-cost, minimal-time commitment fashion.
A low-cost, entry-level starting point is an important feature of web-based AR software such as JigSpace, Augment,
and others. Typically, the basic free subscription allows creators to access a variety of pre-loaded library content. Images
related to science, engineering, space, and even simple shapes and symbols make it easy to get started creating classroom
content. There are a variety of user interface and usability issues associated with each AR software application, some
of which make it easy to navigate through the creation process with a few clicks of a mouse. Navigation through menu
items is typically set up similarly to popular presentation creation software (e.g., PowerPoint and Google Slides). Adding
labels and text to items can range from multiple dropdown menus to a matter of clicking on the structure and typing the
desired content. Once the desired AR is complete, the created AR can then be shared with users via a downloadable link
or QR code. In settings where time is a precious commodity, picking the best AR creation tool for an educational experi-
ence must be balanced with the time required for meeting other educator-specific demands (i.e., grading, responding to
emails, attending required meetings, etc.).
One of the many responsibilities placed on science instructors at all levels is to prepare the next generation of STEM
field employees, whether training takes place through skilled labor apprenticeships, online coursework, or face-to-face
classroom setting. No matter the approach, training can be defined as the deliberate, organized pursuit of increased
knowledge, skills, and ability to improve performance (Bhat et al., 2022). AR resources are another tool in a teacher’s
best practices toolbox capable of providing learners with opportunities to interact with career-specific tools, equipment,
and technology in the same way industry-specific employers expect employees to perform job-specific tasks (Zhang et
al., 2022). AR technology is one innovative tool used for creating personalized learning strategies capable of providing
desired differentiated student-centered instruction (Çetin & Türkan, 2022).
Our current K-12 and undergraduate student population is dominated by Millennials and Gen Z students. This tech-
nology-native population is placing never before seen challenges on teachers based on attention span, media preference,
online connectedness, and technology use (Hall & Villareal, 2015; Shorey et al., 2021). It has become increasingly im-
portant for educators to explore ways learners can engage with science content remotely (Isaacs et al., 2020; Miller &
Mills, 2019) and pairing desires for inquiry-based learning with highly engaging digital media (Thees et al., 2020) is not
easy. AR is helping science instructors meet this challenge head-on and see significant positive impacts on learning, at-
titude, motivation, and engagement (Pomerantz, 2019; Yang et al., 2020).

205
While AR resources have traditionally been cost-prohibitive and required extensive guidance in their use and deploy-
ment within classrooms, this is not the case today. There are numerous cost-efficient ways for novices and experts alike
to create content-specific AR resources compatible with a variety of student-owned personal handheld devices, most of
which come with built-in AR capabilities (Dunleavy et al., 2009). IOS, Android, and web-based AR tools are free or
available with a minimal subscription. In addition, nearly all learners have rudimentary experience navigating the latest
apps and digital technology associated with gaming and social media. With a wide variety of AR resources available for
creating media-rich learning experiences, caution should be taken to address sensory overload (Xi et al., 2022; Ziker et
al., 2021).
STRATEGIES FOR SUCCESS
One of the many Millennial and Gen-Z learner characteristics educators can capitalize on is their learning prefer-
ences for a self-paced, short attention span, instant gratification learning experience (Shorey et al., 2021). When lever-
aged properly, these preferences can be addressed using AR learning experiences. At first inspection, it is tempting to
ascribe this improved engagement and learning to the novelty effect. The basic premise behind the novelty effect is a
tendency for an initial improvement in performance whenever new technology is introduced to the learning experience.
This increase in performance is a response to the novel technology rather than an actual improvement in learning due to
the inherent properties of the technology. AR, on the other hand, has been found to repeatedly afford instructors the abil-
ity to provide learners with high-quality learning experiences that deliver immediate feedback on content understanding
in smaller engaging chunks of information (Lee et al., 2013).
The notion of limited mental processing being alleviated by teaching techniques to overcome cognitive processing
limitations (Miller, 1956) has been around for several years. While a multimedia learning theory is one approach for en-
suring success with AR learning applications, chunking is a second strategy for AR learning. Chunking is an example of
an educational best practice for drawing out information germane to complex learning experiences (Gobet et al., 2001).
We have already identified educational AR research illustrating a learner’s cognitive load is reduced when leveraged ap-
propriately. By chunking spatial representations and high-definition images, AR allows learners to activate higher-order
thinking skills and use less effort to organize information (Weng et al., 2020). In addition, AR technology has also been
linked to scaffolding subject matter content to learner needs (Chien et al., 2019; Liang et al., 2021).
Another educational advantage of AR is its ability to provide learners access to visual and sensory information in
unique ways as they engage with complex visualizations in an improved manner (Adedokun-Shittu et al., 2020). In addi-
tion, Akçayır et al. (2016) discovered AR technology had a positive influence on science laboratory skills, content inter-
action, reduced activity time requirements, increased time spent analyzing and drawing conclusions, and increased num-
ber of observations made during laboratory activities. These advantages have not only been found in brick-and-mortar
environments but in hi-flex/hybrid learning environments as well. This is especially useful where learners are expected to
transfer asynchronous and/or synchronous learning experiences into face-to-face learning environments where hands-on
learning dominates (Hall & Villareal, 2015). At the same time, hi-flex/hybrid learners are expected to take the hands-on
learning experiences from brick-and-mortar settings and apply them to the asynchronous and/or synchronous “hands-off”
learning environment of online classrooms. This cycle of remote and in-person learning characteristic of hi-flex/hybrid
learning can be even more challenging within laboratory-based courses requiring training on specialized equipment and/
or protocols.
Hall and Villareal (2015) tied student success within hybrid educational settings to the organization, balance of on-
line and face-to-face course times, and interactive learning experiences. Additionally, Qiao et al. (2019) indicated that
organization and balance of educational tool use are critical aspects of AR technology-enhanced learning experiences.
This is one of many AR features than can be exploited by instructional designers and teachers. Others have elucidated
AR technology’s ability to reduce the workload of laboratory instructors by reducing students’ dependency on instructor
handholding (Akçayır et al., 2016).
CHALLENGES AND LIMITATIONS
It is important to note AR is not an educational silver bullet. When AR technology is deployed in social science
courses, the transfer of AR usefulness is more problematic, especially if the sole reason for AR use is to elicit improved

206
engagement with content. Engagement with AR when deployed as a novelty learning experience does not necessarily
translate into content knowledge acquisition (Pedaste et al., 2020). Deployment of AR must be done in a calculated man-
ner such that its use augments the learning experience. Much like the use of distracting imagery can hamper learning
(Mayer, 2002), AR technology used simply to satisfy requirements to use technology on teacher’s evaluations does not
guarantee positive results. For example, while student engagement remains a primary focal point within pre-service edu-
cation courses, tomorrow’s teachers are expected to stock their best practices toolkit with vetted pedagogy and classroom
management practices. Successful integration of AR technology and learning experiences requires more than exposure to
AR as a learning tool. Pre-service teachers must be afforded opportunities to create with AR technology.
AR is also a disruptive educational resource in that it is in opposition to traditional educational practices. Changes
to current classroom practices induce strain on educators as many rely heavily on examples of mentor teachers and the
way mentors facilitate meaningful learning experiences (Clifford, 1999). When classroom instructors have no prior ex-
perience to draw upon, they turn to ready-made learning activities, including adopted textbooks to provide anticipated
learning experiences (Silver, 2022). While some may have time to explore the creation of novel course-specific content
based on the latest research, learning theories, and practices (Ersoy, 2021), time constraints often hamper these efforts.
In addition, vetted educational resources that meet the demand for high-quality research-based theories and practices are
challenging to locate (Hu et al., 2019). It becomes even more complicated when the fact that teachers must compete with
the high-definition images and graphics found in gaming, social media, and entertainment apps that constantly distract
learners. Barrow et al. (2019) suggest the defense against these ever-present distractions lies in the effective use of 3D
space. At the same time, caution should be taken to address sensory overload due to possible overstimulation based on
AR’s rich 3D media environment (Xi et al., 2022; Ziker et al., 2021).
CONCLUSION
Throughout our discussion, we identified connections between AR and educational practices in both face-to-face and
online settings. We grounded this discussion in the multimedia theory of learning, as augmenting components are made
up of 3D images that are superimposed within the learning environment. We also looked at this superimposed content in
much the same light as research has viewed static, 2D images, and text typical of today’s learning environment. During
this side-by-side comparison, we related how the dual channel, limited capacity, and active processing strategies used for
creating effective multimedia learning experiences can be leveraged within AR learning. Illustrations of AR as a learning
tool and an instructional tool were framed within existing studies showcasing AR’s ability to improve learning and teach-
ing.
An effort has also been made in showing how web-based AR tools such as JigSpace can be leveraged to meet the
demands placed on AR learning from the multimedia learning theory and everyday constraints placed on instructor time
commitments and experience with AR learning activity creation. Here the focus was on providing examples of AR cre-
ation using JigSpace as a model web-based AR software tool. An effort was made to illustrate how web-based AR tools
(e.g., JigSpace) are a viable entry level option for both novice and expert-level instructional designers to create AR con-
tent. When implemented appropriately, AR has been shown to have a positive impact on learning within all levels of the
cognitive domain (Conklin, 2005).
Within the hi-flex/hybrid learning experiences of many students today, there is an increased need for addressing
learners’ desires for engaging, hi-definition, technology-dependent learning experiences characteristic of Millennial and
Gen-Z learners. AR is the first step in introducing both students and instructors to VR learning experiences of the future.
AR can be seen as a bridge between instructional practices of the past and those of the future. As instructors and learners
face the challenges associated with content transitions between face-to-face and remote learning, AR can be seen as an
important aspect of the learning environment assisting the transition of understanding from hands-on to hands-off set-
tings. And, while not a panacea for the challenges facing hi-flex/hybrid learning, it is a step in the right direction.
REFERENCES
Adedokun-Shittu, N. A., Ajani, A. H., Nuhu, K. M., & Shittu, A. K. (2020). Augmented reality instructional tool in enhancing
geography learners academic performance and retention in Osun state Nigeria. Education and Information Technologies,
25(4), 3021–3033. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10099-2

207
Akçayır, M., & Akçayır, G. (2017). Advantages and challenges associated with augmented reality for education: A systematic
review of the literature. Educational Research Review, 20, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2016.11.002
Akçayır, M., Akçayır, G., Pektaş, H. M., & Ocak, M. A. (2016). Augmented reality in science laboratories: The effects of aug-
mented reality on university students’ laboratory skills and attitudes toward science laboratories. Computers in Human Be-
havior, 57, 334–342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.12.054
Barrow, J., Forker, C., Sands, A., O’Hare, D., & Hurst, W. (2019). Augmented reality for enhancing life science education. In
Proc. OF VISUAL.
Bhat, Z. H., Mir, R. A., Rameez, R., & Rainayee, R. A. (2022). The influence of learner characteristics, instructional design and
work environment on the transfer of training. Industrial and Commercial Training, 54(4), 566–588. https://doi.org/10.1108/
ICT-03-2022-0014
Çetin, H., & Türkan, A. (2022). The effect of augmented reality based applications on achievement and attitude towards science
course in distance education process. Education and Information Technologies, 27(2), 1397–1415. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10639-021-10625-w
Chen, R.-J. (2010). Investigating models for preservice teachers’ use of technology to support student-centered learning. Com-
puters & Education, 55(1), 32–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.11.015
Cheng, K.-H., & Tsai, C.-C. (2013). Affordances of augmented reality in science learning: Suggestions for future research.
Journal of Science Education and Technology, 22(4), 449–462. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-012-9405-9
Chien, Y.-C., Su, Y.-N., Wu, T.-T., & Huang, Y.-M. (2019). Enhancing students’ botanical learning by using augmented reality.
Universal Access in the Information Society, 18(2), 231–241. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-017-0590-4
Clifford, E. F. (1999). Mentors and proteges: Establishing systems of assisted performance in preservice teacher education. Ear-
ly Child Development and Care, 156(1), 35–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/0300443991560103
Conklin, J. (2005). Review of a taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educa-
tional objectives complete edition [Review of Review of A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of
Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Complete Edition, by L. W. Anderson, D. Krathwohl, P. Airasian, K. A. Crui-
kshank, R. E. Mayer, P. Pintrich, J. Raths, & M. C. Wittrock]. Educational Horizons, 83(3), 154–159.
Conley, Q., Atkinson, R. K., Nguyen, F., & Nelson, B. C. (2020). MantarayAR: Leveraging augmented reality to teach probabil-
ity and sampling. Computers & Education, 153, 103895. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103895
D’Angelo, J. M., & Woosley, S. A. (2007). Technology in the classroom: Friend or foe. Education, 127(4), 462–471.
Domingo, M. G., & Garganté, A. B. (2016). Exploring the use of educational technology in primary education: Teachers’ per-
ception of mobile technology learning impacts and applications’ use in the classroom. Computers in Human Behavior, 56,
21–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.11.023
Dunleavy, M., Dede, C., & Mitchell, R. (2009). Affordances and limitations of immersive participatory augmented reality sim-
ulations for teaching and learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(1), 7–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10956-008-9119-1
Dwyer, D. C., Ringstaff, C., Sandholtz, J. H., & others. (1991). Changes in teachers’ beliefs and practices in technology-rich
classrooms. Educational Leadership, 48(8), 45–52.
Ersoy, M. (2021). An IDEA for design pedagogy: Devising instructional design in higher education 4.0. Design and Technology
Education: An International Journal, 26(1), 118–136.
Garzón, J. (2021). An overview of twenty-five years of augmented reality in education. Multimodal Technologies and Interac-
tion, 5(7), Article 7. https://doi.org/10.3390/mti5070037
Garzón, J., Pavón, J., & Baldiris, S. (2019). Systematic review and meta-analysis of augmented reality in educational settings.
Virtual Reality, 23(4), 447–459. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-019-00379-9
Gobet, F., Lane, P. C. R., Croker, S., Cheng, P. C.-H., Jones, G., Oliver, I., & Pine, J. M. (2001). Chunking mechanisms in hu-
man learning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5(6), 236–243. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01662-4
Guilbaud, P., Guilbaud, T. C., & Jennings, D. (2021). Extended reality, pedagogy, and career readiness: A review of literature. In
J. Y. C. Chen & G. Fragomeni (Eds.), Virtual, Augmented and Mixed Reality (pp. 595–613). Springer International Publish-
ing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-77599-5_41
Hall, S., & Villareal, D. (2015). The hybrid advantage: Graduate student perspectives of hybrid education courses. International
Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 27(1), 69–80.
Hamada, E. K., Mohamed, E. A., Mohamed, S. A. D. G. A. L., & Youssef, M. O. U. R. D. I. (2016). An augmented reality ap-
proach to integrate practical activities in e-learning systems. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Ap-
plications, 7(2), 107–117.
Hu, S., Torphy, K. T., & Opperman, A. (2019). Culturally relevant curriculum materials in the age of social media and curation.
Teachers College Record, 121(14), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811912101409
Hyndman, B. (2018). Ten reasons why teachers can struggle to use technology in the classroom. Science Education News,
67(4), 41–42. https://doi.org/10.3316/informit.320362379658819
Ibáñez, M.-B., & Delgado-Kloos, C. (2018). Augmented reality for STEM learning: A systematic review. Computers & Educa-
tion, 123, 109–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.05.002

208
Isaacs, A. N., Scott, S. A., & Nisly, S. A. (2020). Move out of Z way Millennials. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning,
12(12), 1387–1389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cptl.2020.07.002
Kelley, T. R., Knowles, J. G., Han, J., & Trice, A. N. (2021). Integrated STEM models of implementation. Journal of STEM
Education: Innovations & Research, 22(1).
Kamal, A., & Radhakrishnan, S. (2019). Individual learning preferences based on personality traits in an E-learning scenario.
Education and Information Technologies, 24(1), 407–435. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-9777-4
Law, E. L.-C., & Heintz, M. (2021). Augmented reality applications for K-12 education: A systematic review from the us-
ability and user experience perspective. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 30, 100321. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2021.100321
Lawrence, J. E., & Tar, U. A. (2018). Factors that influence teachers’ adoption and integration of ICT in teaching/learning pro-
cess. Educational Media International, 55(1), 79–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2018.1439712
Lee, Y. H., Waxman, H., Wu, J. Y., Michko, G., & Lin, G. (2013). Revisit the effect of teaching and learning with technology.
Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 16(1), 133–146.
Liang, C.-J., Start, C., Boley, H., Kamat, V. R., Menassa, C. C., & Aebersold, M. (2021). Enhancing stroke assessment simu-
lation experience in clinical training using augmented reality. Virtual Reality, 25(3), 575–584. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10055-020-00475-1
Lugosi, E., & Uribe, G. (2022). Active learning strategies with positive effects on students’ achievements in undergraduate
mathematics education. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 53(2), 403–424.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2020.1773555
Marsh, E. J., & Butler, A. C. (2013). Memory in educational settings. In The Oxford handbook of cognitive psychology (pp.
299–317). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195376746.013.0020
Martin-Gonzalez, A., Chi-Poot, A., & Uc-Cetina, V. (2016). Usability evaluation of an augmented reality system for teaching
Euclidean vectors. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 53(6), 627–636. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297
.2015.1108856
Mayer, R. E. (2002). Multimedia learning. In Psychology of Learning and Motivation (Vol. 41, pp. 85–139). Academic Press.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(02)80005-6
Miller, A. C., & Mills, B. (2019). “If They Don’t Care, I Don’t Care”: Millennial and generation Z students and the impact of
faculty caring. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 19(4), 78–89.
Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information.
Psychological Review, 63(2), 81–87. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043158
Morgan, H. (2020). Best practices for implementing remote learning during a pandemic. The Clearing House: A Journal of Edu-
cational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 93(3), 135–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/00098655.2020.1751480
Nidhom, A. M., Rahma Putra, A. B., Smaragdina, A. A., KN, G. D., Habibi, M. A., & Yunos, J. M. (2022). The integration of
augmented reality into MOOC’s in vocational education to support education 3.0. International Journal of Interactive Mo-
bile Technologies, 16(3), 20–31.
Onyema, E. M., Eucheria, N. C., Obafemi, F. A., Sen, S., Atonye, F. G., Sharma, A., & Alsayed, A. O. (2020). Impact of corona-
virus pandemic on education. Journal of Education and Practice, 11(3), 108–121.
Palmas, F., & Klinker, G. (2020). Defining extended reality training: A long-term definition for all industries. 2020 IEEE
20th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT), 322–324. https://doi.org/10.1109/
ICALT49669.2020.00103
Pedaste, M., Mitt, G., & Jürivete, T. (2020). What is the effect of using mobile augmented reality in K12 inquiry-based learn-
ing? Education Sciences, 10(4), Article 4. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10040094
Pomerantz, J. (2019). Teaching and learning with extended reality technology. Information and Technology Transforming Lives:
Connection, Interaction, Innovation, 137–157.
Pressley, T., & Ha, C. (2021). Teaching during a pandemic: United States teachers’ self-efficacy during COVID-19. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 106, 103465. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103465
Qiao, X., Ren, P., Dustdar, S., Liu, L., Ma, H., & Chen, J. (2019). Web AR: A promising future for mobile augmented re-
ality—state of the art, challenges, and insights. Proceedings of the IEEE, 107(4), 651–666. https://doi.org/10.1109/
JPROC.2019.2895105
Rapanta, C., Botturi, L., Goodyear, P., Guàrdia, L., & Koole, M. (2021). Balancing technology, pedagogy and the new normal:
Post-pandemic challenges for higher education. Postdigital Science and Education, 3(3), 715–742. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s42438-021-00249-1
Regan, K., Evmenova, A. S., Sacco, D., Schwartzer, J., Chirinos, D. S., & Hughes, M. D. (2019). Teacher perceptions of in-
tegrating technology in writing. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 28(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/147593
9X.2018.1561507
Reich, J. (2019). Teaching our way to digital equity. Educational Leadership, 76(5), 30–35.
Riegel, C., & Mete, R. (2017). Educational technologies for K-12 learners: What digital natives and digital immigrants can
teach one another. Educational Planning, 24(4), 49-58

209
Safapour, E., Kermanshachi, S., & Taneja, P. (2019). A review of nontraditional teaching methods: Flipped classroom, gami-
fication, case study, self-learning, and social media. Education Sciences, 9(4), Article 4. https://doi.org/10.3390/educs-
ci9040273
Schnotz, W. (2014). Integrated model of text and picture comprehension. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of
Multimedia Learning (2nd ed., pp. 72–103). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139547369.006
Shorey, S., Chan, V., Rajendran, P., & Ang, E. (2021). Learning styles, preferences and needs of generation Z healthcare stu-
dents: Scoping review. Nurse Education in Practice, 57, 103247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2021.103247
Silver, D. (2022). A theoretical framework for studying teachers’ curriculum supplementation. Review of Educational Research,
92(3), 455–489. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543211063930
Smith, K. L., Rayfield, J., & McKim, B. R. (2015). Effective practices in STEM integration: Describing teacher perceptions and
instructional method Use. Journal of Agricultural Education, 56(4), 183–203.
Sprague, D. R., Williamson, J., & Foulger, T. S. (2022). Design guidelines for post-COVID era preparation programs: Action
steps toward technology infusion. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 30(2), 177–187.
Thees, M., Kapp, S., Strzys, M. P., Beil, F., Lukowicz, P., & Kuhn, J. (2020). Effects of augmented reality on learning and cog-
nitive load in university physics laboratory courses. Computers in Human Behavior, 108, 106316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
chb.2020.106316
Turan, Z., & Atila, G. (2021). Augmented reality technology in science education for students with specific learning difficulties:
Its effect on students’ learning and views. Research in Science & Technological Education, 39(4), 506–524. https://doi.org/
10.1080/02635143.2021.1901682
Weng, C., Otanga, S., Christianto, S. M., & Chu, R. J.-C. (2020). Enhancing students’ biology learning by using aug-
mented reality as a learning supplement. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 58(4), 747–770. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0735633119884213
Williamson, B., Eynon, R., & Potter, J. (2020). Pandemic politics, pedagogies and practices: Digital technologies and distance
education during the coronavirus emergency. Learning, Media and Technology, 45(2), 107–114. https://doi.org/10.1080/17
439884.2020.1761641
Wommer, F. G. B., Sepel, L. M. N., & Loreto, E. L. S. (2021). Insects GO: A gaming activity for entomology teaching in middle
school. Research in Science & Technological Education, 0(0), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2021.1921724
Xi, N., Chen, J., Gama, F., Riar, M., & Hamari, J. (2022). The challenges of entering the metaverse: An experiment on the effect
of extended reality on workload. Information Systems Frontiers. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-022-10244-x
Yang, K., Zhou, X., & Radu, I. (2020). XR-Ed Framework: Designing Instruction-driven and Learner-centered Extended Real-
ity Systems for Education (arXiv:2010.13779). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2010.13779
Yoon, S., Anderson, E., Lin, J., & Elinich, K. (2017). How augmented reality enables conceptual understanding of challenging
science content. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 20(1), 156–168.
Zhang, L., Carter Jr, R. A., Basham, J. D., & Yang, S. (2022). Integrating instructional designs of personalized learning through
the lens of universal design for learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12725
Ziker, C., Truman, B., & Doods, H. (2021). Cross reality (XR): Challenges and opportunities across the spectrum. In Innovative
learning environments in STEM higher education: Opportunities, challenges, and looking forward (pp. 55–77).
Zou, D. (2020). Gamified flipped EFL classroom for primary education: Student and teacher perceptions. Journal of Computers
in Education, 7(2), 213–228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-020-00153-w

211
Merging AR into the Reality of Education:
Perspectives and Strategies for Integrating Merge EDU in the K-12 Classrooms
GINA L. SOLANO
State University of New York at Oneonta, USA
gina.solano@oneonta.edu
Abstract: Augmented reality (AR) media has been used in education for some time, yet little is known about
the effectiveness of utilizing AR to promote students’ learning experiences. AR has the potential to bring
learning alive through 3D images, sounds, and movement. The purpose of this chapter will be to investi-
gate the value of teaching utilizing Merge EDU for AR applications in secondary schools. Strategies will be
provided for how to integrate Merge EDU lessons into the curriculum as well as their impact and effect on
instruction. A group of instructors were invited to participate in learning to use the Merge EDU AR apps and
Merge’s specially designed cubes and then teach a series of lessons using them. Although Merge Cubes have
existed for almost a decade, they have not gained the popularity that many other XR platforms and devices
have, despite their new innovations, curriculum, affordability, versatility, and variety of uses. This chapter
explains the value of using an AR technology – like Merge EDU – in teaching, as well as strategies for
adopting AR technologies. While many schools and districts are financially unable to purchase expensive VR
headsets or computer systems, Merge EDU provides an alternative access to an innovative technology that
students can manipulate in their hands with the use of a smartphone.
Keywords: Merge Cube, Merge EDU, Augmented Reality, Elementary Education, Secondary Education
INTRODUCTION
Understanding the differences between virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR) are important for being able
to visualize how to use the different technologies. AR and VR both support deeper learning and provide new options
for keeping students engaged and increasing critical thinking and curiosity in the curriculum (Pathak, 2023). When the
physical and digital worlds intersect, students gain vivid context that supports instruction (Larmand, 2022). With more
interactive lessons, AR and VR experiences can activate prior knowledge, provide deeper understanding, and promote ad-
ditional exploration of a topic. They also allow students to tap deeper into their creativity because they often move them-
selves or the digital object around as they learn. Despite this ability to engage students across grade levels, AR and VR
adoption in education also needs teacher buy-in, resources, and many times funding (Larmand, 2022; Riva et al., 2016;
Weng et al., 2019).
While there are similarities between AR and VR, such as presenting a 3-D digital object on a laptop or smartphone,
AR may only add or enhance a real space by adding a digital component, such as an individual using a smartphone to
spot a Pokémon Go character in the park (Baranowski & Lyons, 2020). Social media websites and applications (apps) are
also popular for using AR by adding a lens or a filter to a photograph or video. Social media apps like Snapchat, Insta-
gram, and Tik Tok use AR tools to allow users to enhance or augment a photo or video by adding a filter or lens. Popular
software programs, such as Adobe Photoshop and Illustrator, provide AR tools to remove, add, change, and enhance any
graphic.
With the rapid innovation in AR and VR, these technologies have been finding their way into the typical classroom
by creative educators who see them as digital tools to enhance learning. AR uses mobile technology to help produce
learning that is personally customized, interactive, and extends learning beyond the classroom (Holden & Sykes, 2011).
AR technologies are also more affordable, as many of forms of AR can be downloaded as a free app on a smartphone, an
open-source program, or through websites. Students can access AR on laptops, tablets, and smartphones, making them
easily accessible, in comparison to VR which typically requires a headset and expensive software.

212
This chapter will begin by explaining AR to understand the unique characteristics of it. Next, the challenges as well
as benefits of using AR will be discussed, which include costs, equipment, as well as how it can enrich the classroom
environment through collaboration and discovery. Examples will be provided to demonstrate how AR can help students
to develop a stronger understanding of science concepts, visualize abstract concepts, which all lead to a more experiential
learning experience. Then, a detailed description of Merge EDU and Merge Cubes will be presented. Finally, the chapter
will conclude with strategies and perspectives of K-12 teachers who have used Merge Cubes and Merge EDU in their
classrooms.
DEFINING AUGMENTED REALITY
AR is a form of 3D technology that uses a device, such as a smartphone, iPad, or another handheld item, that gener-
ates a 3D digital image and adds it to a user’s physical environment (Gartner, 2022). AR can provide a personalized expe-
rience through the use of haptics, visuals, and stimulating other senses (Flavián et al., 2019). For instance, a Merge Cube
is classified as an AR device because a student uses a digitally coded cube to display a variety of AR images that are 3D,
animated, produce sound, or produce a hologram, depending upon the app that is used (Merge Cube, 2022). AR allows
users to interact with their environment or with an image that has been added in some capacity, and typically offer 360°
immersive experiences. While AR devices are in high demand for individual use alongside the latest gaming consoles, it
has an untapped market in education (Porter & Heppelmann, 2019). While some schools and teachers are experimenting
with this technology in their classrooms, they are merely dipping their toes into the sea of possibility that lie ahead (Bab-
ich, 2020). AR can contribute tremendously to a range of classrooms by giving students of all ages a more hands-on ex-
perience with their learning and changing the way society thinks about education (Loveless, 2022). A study by Johnson
(2019) shared reactions from students who experienced a VR lesson. One student commented: “If I’m just looking at a
picture, I can only see that one picture. If I’m looking with VR, I get to look at whatever I want. It expands the picture to
the point where I’m not just looking at something. I’m in something” (p. 27). This is just one way of describing how im-
mersive AR and VR can be. Instead of just interacting with content in one single way, AR and VR creates a multi-sensory
interactive experience (Craig, 2013).
EXPLORING THE POSSIBILITIES OF AUGMENTED REALITY
Porter and Heppelmann (2019) explained one of the many important aspects of AR in business and industry is that
“it will transform how we learn, make decisions, and interact with the physical world. It will also change how enterprises
serve customers, train employees, design and create products, and manage their value chains, and ultimately, how they
compete” (p. 85). Not only is AR a multi-billion-dollar industry that accrued $60 billion in 2022, but it is also projected
to grow by over 40% by the year 2030 (Augmented Reality Market Size, n.d.) through the proliferation of smart glasses,
smartphones, tablets, and headsets. It is also calculated that there will be a more million jobs using AR by the year 2030
(Alsop, 2021). Industries such as healthcare, retail, tourism, architecture, car safety systems, home smart devices, and
many more are employing AR technologies to improve learning, research, design, and decision-making, all through the
power of AR. Companies, such as Amazon and IKEA, provide the option for potential customers to view purchases in
their home using their AR tools. By providing access to a device’s camera, a potential customer can use their smartphone
to scan a room and digitally place a piece of furniture in it, which lets them visualize how it will look in that space. Zenni
Optical, a popular website for ordering inexpensive eyewear, uses an AR tool that allows potential customers to take a
picture of themselves, so they can try on a pair of new eyeglasses and see how they would look in a 3D image. Because
of its value, applicability, and potential, augmented reality is a technology that will continue to develop and be utilized in
various fields, not just in education.
Challenges of AR
At one time, researchers and critics believed that AR was very cost prohibitive to be a piece of technology could
catch on in schools, resulting in a lack of research on AR in the classroom (Petty, 2018). Previously, a high-quality head-

213
set or a computer that had an expensive graphics card installed on it was needed for classroom AR experiences. Provid-
ing such equipment for an AR experience for students was difficult due to the costs involved, little to no accessibility
options on the devices, or poor infrastructure, which created a gap between advantaged and disadvantaged schools (Lan-
greo, 2022; Shafeey & Lakulu, 2021). Additionally, there are not prolific resources available for how to use and integrate
AR for teachers, nor is there much training available for those educators who want to learn how to use AR (Osadchyi et
al., 2021; Toledo-Morales & Sanchez-Garcia, 2018). While some websites that create AR devices, like Merge Cube, pro-
vide some free resources and lesson plans, there remains a gap in open-access materials that suggests ways to integrate
AR technologies into classroom instruction. This includes Merge EDU as its free resources are very limiting and do not
provide enough content for teachers to continually use it.
Product usability is an important factor in any technology (Chang et al., 2014), which has a direct effect on the edu-
cational effectiveness of the tool. If a student (or teacher) becomes frustrated when trying out a new technology, then
the consequences can range from time lost during the lesson, to a complete avoidance of trying that same technology
again (Fernández-Batanero et al., 2021; Novak et al., 2021). Some AR applications may require a student to manage two
devices at the same time, such as holding a tablet in one hand and a handheld device in the other to navigate the digital
environment. If students are inexperienced and have little exposure to these devices, the occasional use of AR for educa-
tional purposes may prove challenging (Shafeey & Lakulu, 2021).
Other barriers noted by Akçayır and Akçayır (2016) pertained to the difficulty of learning how to use AR by stu-
dents. As with any new technology, it requires time to learn how to use it and access all its features. Due to the newness
surrounding AR, many students may not have interacted with it before and will require additional time to learn how to
use the AR tool (Akçayır & Akçayır, 2017; Shafeey & Lakulu, 2021). This generation is the first one to experience AR
technologies in the classroom, which is often their only exposure to them, unlike other technologies that are more preva-
lent in their homes. Other student challenges that have been noted with AR due to its novelty are that students can be-
come easily distracted by it and are not focused on the learning objectives (Shafeey & Lakulu, 2021).
Benefits of AR
Today’s classrooms have several benefits that did not exist even a few years ago. Each year, more AR apps are being
developed for use with smartphones and tablets, as are websites, and wearables like headsets and smart glasses, (Zhang
et al., 2022). Student contests are being held for designing lenses to use in various apps as well as contests to design
content that uses AR to solve global issues, like climate change (Augmented Reality Science Fair, 2021; Join the SNAP
AR Lens Challenge, 2022). Furthermore, AR developers are creating ways to use AR technologies without the need for
expensive headsets, styluses, handhelds, or other hardware (Weng et al., 2020). Beyond becoming more affordable and
accessible, AR has proven to be a forerunner for technologies that will shape and influence education over the next de-
cade. In addition to the popularity of AR, research has evidenced multiple learning benefits including improving the
learning environment (Benefits of Virtual Reality in Education, 2022; Weng et al, 2020), developing STEM skills (Hsu et
al., 2017; Ibáñez & Delgado-Kloos, 2018; & Osadchyi et al., 2021), better visualization of abstract concepts (STEM-3D
visualization, n.d.), improving learning of complex topics (Akçayır & Akçayır, 2016), and by creating immersive learn-
ing experiences that engage and challenge students (Dick, 2021b).
The Learning Environment
In a classroom setting, students can learn efficiently when they are focused in a group or partner setting with a work-
space that includes a common technology (Milne, 2006). Although providing a 1:1(one student per device) environment
is ideal, without good structure and a division of responsibility, children do not perform as well as when having to share
one piece of technology, such as a computer, with a large group (Harris et al., 2016). When students work in a common
space with smaller technology devices, the area between them is used for sharing communication cues such as gaze, ges-
ture, and nonverbal behaviors. If the students are talking about objects on the table, then the task space is a subset of the
communication space. The student collaborators can see each other and the shared communication cues at the same time
as the objects they are discussing. However, when students are trying to crowd around a computer screen, their attention
is focused on the screen itself instead of being able to look at one another (Billinghurst, 2002). When using AR, students
can be seated around a table and see each other at the same time while the screen is displaying an image. This results in

214
conversational behavior which is similar to natural face-to-face collaboration than screen-based collaboration (Jackson,
2013). This type of learning by utilizing handheld technologies, allows students to build on the knowledge that is already
understood, along with applying their knowledge to the new content. To ensure the successful adaptation of old knowl-
edge to new experiences, flexible learning direction should be provided (Riva et al., 2001). Riva suggests integrating
known types of information and educational supports, such as audio, text annotations, and images for the students dur-
ing the lesson. The use of different learning modes in virtual environments can be tailored to both individual and group
learning and performance styles.
Development of STEM Skills
Educators are expected to motivate students to fill much-needed positions in science, technology, engineering, and
math (STEM) professions (Hsu et al., 2017). Providing the next generation of doctors, engineers, scientists, technolo-
gists, and researchers is vital for the future growth of any country. “As governments worldwide compete to be more re-
sourceful and invest in social infrastructure, technologies such as [AR and] VR are changing the status quo making edu-
cation less conventional and advancing K-12, higher education, and even vocational training” (Al Dhaheri & Hamade,
2022, para. 14). Countries are driven to improve outcomes and develop a more robust, better qualified, and experienced
workforce.
By implementing the use of AR technologies in STEM, students can have an improved understanding of difficult
topics by providing a 3D augmented simulation of a difficult concept, such as how a molecule functions, or how a DNA
carries genetic material (Ibáñez & Delgado-Kloos, 2018; Merge Cube, 2022). AR can be used to help students under-
stand the structure of an atom or even conduct virtual experiments and labs, which may be costly to perform in the class-
room (Osadchyi et al., 2021). Beyond Merge Cube, other AR apps, such as AR-3D Science, Sparklab, and Blippar, have
been developed for teaching science concepts. This 3D technology provides learners with an ability to view a molecule
from different angles as well as visualize the arrangement of atoms , and comprehend abstract concepts (Urzúa Reyes et
al., 2021). STEM lessons utilizing an AR tool equipped with GPS can be used inside as well as outside of the classroom
for lessons in the life sciences, so that students can explore science concepts in a real-world environment with the support
of the AR technology to improve learning (Ibáñez & Delgado-Kloos, 2018). Using AR to teach difficult STEM topics,
such as the functions of the human body, can increase student motivation and engagement as well as their understanding
(Hsu et al., 2017).
Visualization of Abstract Concepts
Through blending real and virtual objects, AR can help students better visualize difficult spatial relationships and
abstract concepts. AR (and VR) technologies “create an entirely digital environment, a 360-degree, immersive user expe-
rience that feels real” (“What is Extended Reality,” 2023, para. 1). This can be immensely beneficial to students, giving
them a “real” experience of “seeing” classroom content and interacting with the environments in a brand-new way. Pic-
tures on a page are suddenly living in a 3D environment. Some textbooks have started to include AR within their pages.
In a print format, students can scan a code with a tablet or smartphone to reveal a 3D image (Gopalan et al., 2015). Ac-
cording to a recent study completed at Cal Poly, McHahon (2020) described how some textbook companies have com-
bined AR to make texts more interactive and current using AR:
The advantages that AR can bring to books, particularly educational textbooks, are numerous. For example,
while the printed words of the text cannot be updated, the augmented portion can. Links can be refreshed to
contain more relevant information, effectively extending the book’s longevity and usefulness. Students still
confused after reading the lesson can see video examples and 3D images/graphics to better grasp the concept.
Simply put, AR turns books—which have previously been static sources of information and knowledge—into
interactive dynamic tools that can better serve their readers and deepen the experience. (McHahon, 2020)
Research has provided strong evidence of the benefits of using AR to provide visual models of phenomena that have
increased achievement in STEM (Hsu et al., 2017). For example, in mathematics, students can see 3D models to better
understand algebraic surfaces of different degrees using AR apps such as GeoGebra, Geometry AR, or Augmented Class-
room Geometry. With some applications, students can change the parameters in real time to see how changing the equa-
tion changes the result (Ibáñez & Delgado-Kloos, 2018; Osadchyi et al., 2021). In a review of literature about AR, Zhang
et al. (2022) reported that elementary students have a better comprehension of difficult STEM concepts using AR, such
as understanding how the earth revolves around the sun to create day and night.

215
Experimentation and Practice
Students also benefit from AR by being able to experience situations and phenomena that are not possible in the
actual world. Experiential learning is the theory that learning occurs as a result of personal experience, which may be
through practice, play, or hands-on projects (Kolb, 1984; Lewis & Williams, 1994). Learning by doing is highly effective
for understanding the steps and processes that are required to complete a task. For example, learning to play the piano
is much more effective if a person takes the time to practice, versus watching someone else play it. By creating simula-
tions through AR and VR, students can personally experience a social situation, participate in a virtual animal dissection,
manipulate digital images to build an object, and even assume the role of an archaeologist and unearth priceless artifacts.
Digital games and apps are one popular format for many AR simulations. These types of role-playing games can
range from entertainment to educational, depending upon the design and purpose of the program. A digital space can be
designed to simulate any number of situations or experiences, thus allowing students to take an active role in their learn-
ing. These authentic experiences allow students to contextualize relevant information and transfer it to real-life situations
(Bower et al., 2014). AR simulation apps have not only been used for STEM fields but also to teach languages, culture,
and art, and have been used across all disciplines (Dick, 2021b). As explained by Al Dhaheri and Hamade (2022), “When
coupled with innovative pedagogies, [such as game-based learning] augmented reality, virtual reality, and mixed reality
are positioned to address this need and create a competitive advantage for all stakeholders involved” (para. 4).
Immersive and Experiential Learning Experiences
AR can not only deepen academic understanding but can also be used to teach diversity, equity, and inclusion top-
ics by allowing students to experience cultures other than their own in a 3D life-like simulation (Dick 2021a; Zhang et
al., 2022). Because AR is so adaptable, it can be used “to enrich initiatives to reduce barriers and create new opportuni-
ties for marginalized groups and underserved communities” (Dick, 2021a, p. 1). By designing simulations using AR,
the physical environment can be altered in real-time to portray a virtual situation that could imitate what it is like for
someone with a disability to maneuver in that setting (Dick, 2021a). In an immersive first-person experience, AR has
been used to build empathy and raise awareness about students who may be disabled, or learn about people from a differ-
ent country, or more about what it is like to have a learning disability. Augmented technologies can be used in equity and
inclusion lessons by, “leveraging its potential as an empathy tool, adapting its extensive capabilities to meet the needs of
users with disabilities, and mitigating barriers that arise from physical distance to strengthen communities and enhance
person-to-person interactions across locations” (Dick, 2021a, p. 2).
Game-based learning is yet another way that AR can be used as an immersive, situational, critical-thinking experi-
ence. AR games can provide valuable experience and practice and typically occurs within an immersive experience in-
volving sight, sound, haptics, and location-based simulations (e.g., Quiver-3D coloring app, Plantale, and Wonderscope )
(AR and VR Games and Apps for Learning, n.d.; Kerdvibulvech, 2021). One of the most popular and effective aspects of
game-based learning beyond its ability to engage students is that it incorporates challenge, curiosity, and critical thinking,
which transfer as knowledge-building and many times problem-solving activities due to students personally experiencing
the virtual challenge. This type of learning experience can positively affect students’ overall learning experience (Pellas
et al., 2019).
WHAT ARE MERGE CUBES AND WHY USE THEM?
Merge Cubes launched in August 2017 with their first cube and headset. While the headset is not needed, it does
provide an extended AR experience. The cube itself is a cleverly designed six-sided cube with QR codes on each side
(see Figure 1). Each QR code is read through one of the Merge Cube apps to reveal a 3D image that when viewing
the cube through a smartphone or tablet, displays the image in AR. To access the full benefits of Merge Cube, you can
download the Merge Object Viewer, Explorer or Holo Globe apps and pay for just access to the apps or you can sign-up
through Merge EDU to be able to use all of the content and tools on their website. The Merge Cube and the Merge EDU
apps offer the following benefits:
• They promote reading comprehension;
• They can be used at home or at school;
• The Merge EDU has aligned its educator resources with state and national standards;

216
• Merge EDU teacher resources provide extended learning opportunities;
• The 3D images allow for a multi-sensory instructional experience;
• Viewing 3D images supports the visualization of difficult concepts;
• Merge Cubes promote multisensory learning experiences;
• They help to build problem solving skills;
• The images allow students to interact with them which helps to increase learning by examining an object more
closely, from different perspectives, and by seeing how it moves or interacts in its environment; and,
• The apps and cubes engage students in the lesson, especially with topics that can be more challenging to com-
prehend (Cowin, 2020; Ebadi & Ashrafabadi, 2022; Taufiq et al., 2021).
Note. Photo credit: Used with permission from Merge EDU.
Figure 1. Merge Cube Paired with an iPad to Access the AR.
Typically, teachers will use Merge EDU content with the Merge Cube. Students can hold the cube in one hand or
place it on the table and use a smartphone or tablet to be able to view the 3D hologram image. Within each of the Merge
EDU apps, students have the option to switch to VR mode if they have a headset that is designed to hold a smartphone,
by tapping the VR headset icon in the corner of the screen on the app. The app also provides a share icon that will open
a QR code, so it can be copied and shared with other devices. For example, a teacher can begin the lesson displaying the
lesson content from Merge EDU to the class on an interactive white board, then tap the button to launch the AR content
in the app. This will open a QR code to one of the Merge apps. Then, students can hold up their devices to scan the code
to open the AR content on their device. Students can also use the QR codes to share with each other if they find inter-
esting simulations or images they want others in their group to view. The Merge apps also provide three different AR
viewing options. The first is to view is “3D” which displays the image only on the handheld device. The second option,
“Cube” view, uses their specially designed block to view the image. The third option is “World,” which has the user scan
an aera in the room with their handheld device to project the 3D image in real-time.
Ideally, a teacher provides a Merge Cube for each student. They can be purchased for a reasonable cost, but if lack of
funds is an issue, the Merge Cube website does provide a PDF of their cube that can be printed on cardstock, cut out, and
glued together (see Figure 2). This way, students can have their own cube, so they benefit from that personal engagement
with it (Making a Merge Paper Cube, 2022). If students are using Merge Cubes on their own devices, providing them
with their own cubes allows students to take them home and use them for extension activities, homework assignments, or
research projects. If teachers only have a few Merge Cubes, students can form groups to view the image together or pass
around the tablet, which allows each student an opportunity to individually manipulate the image.

217
Note. Photo credit: Gina Solano, used with permission from Merge EDU.
Figure 2. Merge Cube and PDF Printouts.
Merge Cubes in the Classroom
Having students hold 3D objects, also known as holograms, in the palm of their hand to learn about science and
STEM content is the essence of a Merge Cube. Students can move, manipulate, and interact with AR on a variety of top-
ics and content areas. They can explore an ancient Egyptian sarcophagus or travel through our solar system. What makes
Merge EDU unique is that students can view and interact with 3D content in three different modes (see Figure 3). They
can view the image using just the app, using the app with the cube to view the images in their hands, or using the “world”
view to examine the image in their current classroom environment, without the cube. There are thousands of images and
content to explore and many provide additional teaching through their activity cards in the app. During the trial period,
Merge EDU provides support articles about how to start using Merge EDU with their free resources, how to share it with
students, along with many more helpful articles to troubleshoot most issues (Cowin, 2020; Using Free Content in Merge
EDU Apps with Your Students, n.d.).

218
Figure 3. Images of Merge EDU 3D Using Cube View and World View.
Once the trial period expires, teachers can continue using Merge EDU apps with the limited content or choose one
of their different licenses. An individual license is designed for one person, such as a teacher who wants to continue to
evaluate the content, or a personal license for a student to use at home. This individual license grants access to all the sci-
ence simulations in the Merge Explorer app, access to the digital teaching aids, the Globe Activities, the Activity Plans,
the STEM projects, and a personal dashboard that will support up to 50 digital 3D file uploads. A lab license is designed
if Merge Cubes will be stored in a maker space, library, or a lab where only one group will use them at a time. The lab
license provides up to 30 simultaneous users that can access the science simulations, digital teaching aids, the Activity
Plans, STEM projects, a teacher dashboard, and extension resources. The website and apps integrates with certain school
single sign-on portals using Google, Microsoft, and Classlink. A schoolwide subscription provides all the content previ-
ously mentioned, but without a limit on the number of users who can log in at the same time. With a school license, all
the teachers at the school will have their own dashboard and can use the cubes at any time (Free vs. Paid, n.d.).
Merge EDU also provides standards aligned resources with both free and paid educator memberships. The activ-
ity plans, similar to lesson plans, are aligned with the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS Lead States, 2013),
the Student Standards from the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE Standards: Students, 2022), as
well as all of the state science standards for everyone in the United States (Cowin, 2020; Science Standards Mapping in
Merge EDU Apps, n.d.).
Getting Started with Merge Cubes
Learning how to use Merge Cubes is very easy, but they do provide professional development for a group of 25 if re-
quested. The Merge EDU website (http://www.mergeedu.com/cube) provides multiple resources, tutorials, lessons, vid-
eos, access to research articles, and a free 14-day trial to test it out. Before making a purchase or downloading the apps,
Merge EDU provides a compatibility guide to make sure the devices in a classroom will be able to run the apps (Getting
Started with your Merge Cube, n.d.). Next, teachers should download and test the apps on their devices by signing up for
a free trial. During the trial period, teachers will be given access to the basic educator account. With this account, they
have access to all their educational content, lessons, and quizzes.
Once they created their account and started the trial period, their dashboard will contain everything they need to be-
gin planning lessons with Merge. A help and support section includes articles, videos, guides, FAQs, and chat support, so
teachers can get help quickly. If a teacher does not have a Merge Cube already, it is recommended that they print a paper

219
cube and put it together and use them with their students to evaluate the technology before investing in it. The next step
once an account is created, is to download their three main apps: Merge Object Viewer, Merge Explorer, and Merge Holo
Globe (all available on the Apple App Store for IOS, Google Play Store for Android or Chromebook, and the Windows
Store). The “Getting Started with Merge Cube” webpage, provides a list of articles and videos, along with the apps they
will need to start using these exciting little cubes.
Planning a Lesson Using Merge Cubes
After becoming familiar with the Merge EDU dashboard, the apps, and the resources, teachers are ready to design
their lesson. Following principles of instructional design, teachers should select a technology tool that best supports the
lesson’s objectives (Kolb, 2016). Although Merge EDU can be used for Language Arts and history, the majority of its
content is science and STEM-related. If teachers choose to use one of Merge EDU’s activity plans, they provide a five-
part lesson that can be completed as a class or individually. The Activity Plans work together with the science simula-
tions for grades K-8.
Each Activity Plan lesson begins with essential questions. After reviewing the question, the students read a brief les-
son about the topic (or use the ADA-compliant audio tool and listen). This will invite students to launch the appropriate
Merge EDU app to view the simulation or hologram and begin exploring it. Using the essential questions, students are
encouraged to discover the answers before moving on to the next step, the assessment. The assessment is differentiated to
provide students with three different ways of completing it. They can create a video recording to discuss what they have
learned. They can answer the questions using a class notebook or complete the digital quiz inside the app (see Figure 4).
After the assessment, there is at least one extension idea, so that students can connect what they are learning to the
real world. The ideas may ask students to conduct a mini experiment, design a model, or sketch a diagram to reinforce
their learning. The final part of each lesson provides performance expectations, which are aligned with the Next Gen-
eration Science Standards (Using Activity Plans, n.d.). The standards alignment makes the integration of Merge Cube
lessons fit within the school or district’s requirements for specific grade levels. Merge EDU should provide content for
upper-level science and math courses. With some additional effort, secondary students can upload 360° images, add in-
formation, and then view their designs using the cubes. Currently, the STEM content is ideal for middle school and
lower-level secondary science classes.
Figure 4. Example of the Activity and Assessment.

220
Strategies and Resources for Merge EDU
Beyond the content provided on Merge EDU, its Help Center, videos, articles, and teaching aids, there are sev-
eral other resources and apps that are available by doing a simple web search. Educators can also join or follow the
Merge EDU community through social media on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, Pinterest, and Tik
Tok. Exploring the app store from their smartphone or tablet will provide teachers with other third-party apps designed to
use with Merge Cubes, such as 57 North, CUBEPaintAR, or MERGEmyAquarium. Teachers can also supplement their
Merge EDU lessons with science kits, English Language Arts (ELA) elementary pacing guides, teacher-made lessons on
Google Docs, and supplement their existing lesson plans and manipulatives with the cubes as an extension activity.
Design Original 3D Images
Teachers or students who are looking for ideas on how to create their own content to view on the Merge EDU app
or cube can use a program like Tinkercad, Fusion 360°, Qlone, Minecraft 3D, Trnio, Thingaverse, or Maya to create an
original or altered design. Students would begin on whichever design site they prefer, such as Tinkercad, which is a free
app that provides step-by-step projects that students can create and personalize. Once the 3D design is completed, in-
stead of downloading the image to be printed on a 3D printer, Tinkercad has partnered with Merge EDU so that students
can sync their accounts. This way, the student can click the “send to” button on the Tinkercad dashboard to upload to
the Merge EDU site (see Figure 5). Once the image file has loaded, the student can preview how their image will look.
Merge EDU provides some tools so that a student can adjust their design, if needed. Using the cube, the student can ro-
tate and manipulate the size of the image so that it can be evaluated to identify if there are any errors that need to be ad-
dressed before it is printed.
Note. Photo credit Gina Solano, images from Tinkercad (2023).
Figure 5. How to Create a Design in Tinkercad and Send to Merge EDU to Evaluate the Created Content.
By integrating 3D design skills with Merge EDU, instructors have another strategy for teaching coding, 3D printing,
and AR. Students could learn about a topic, and then work in groups or individually to design an object that connects to
the lesson (McClintock Miller, 2020). When students are finished with their design, they can upload it to the Merge EDU
website to preview how it will look and edit it using the Merge Object Editor before downloading the file to print it on a
3D printer. If this seems daunting, Merge EDU’s Help Center provides a step-by-step guide about how to find and upload
files for 3D printers, or students can use the Merge EDU tools to create their own images, upload them to Merge EDU,

221
label them, provide content, view them on the cube or in the world view, and share them with their class (Uploading Your
Own Creations, n.d.). These resources and activities are effective ways for teachers to create content to use in a specific
lesson or have students create digital projects to demonstrate their learning with a little creativity and ingenuity.
Explore the Merge Miniverse
The Merge Miniverse is a platform linked to the Merge EDU website that provides AR/VR games, 3D videos, simu-
lations, as well as other educational content that can be enjoyed using a mobile headset and YouTube. The purpose of the
Merge Miniverse is to provide safe entertainment and learning experiences for students 8 and over. The Miniverse 360°
experiences are for educational and entertainment purposes. It also has a wide assortment of travel experiences that are
ideal for virtual field trips. Many of the Miniverse experiences are free to use, but a headset is required to engage with the
content. With the use of a website or app, virtual field trips can provide students access to places, spaces, and historical
events that are not possible any other way. Virtual field trips provide immersive learning experiences by helping them to
understand difficult concepts, manipulate digital content and spaces, as well as interact with complex processes with the
assistance of digital tools (Cheng & Tsai, 2019).
METHODS
K-12 teachers (N = 14) participated in a study about their use of Merge Cubes. Six teachers worked in elementary
and 8 in the secondary level. Content areas varied from elementary ELA, math, science and STEM to secondary social
studies, ELA, math, and special education. Half of the participants’ schools were in suburban districts, while 3 worked
in an urban district, and the other 3 worked in rural schools. The participants were asked as part of a graduate course in
multimedia to use the trial subscription on Merge EDU to design and implement lessons in their classrooms. Once they
completed creating and teaching the lessons, they were invited to share their written reflections, lesson plans, and to
complete a questionnaire which asked about their perspectives, experiences, and suggestions for using Merge EDU. The
lesson plans were analyzed for specific strategies and resources that participants identified utilizing in their lessons. As
part of their class assignment, students were asked to write a reflective essay about their experiences and perspectives of
Merge Cubes. These reflections were analyzed along with the questionnaire to identify themes and trends. The themes
are explained in the next sections.
Elementary Teachers’ Positive Perspectives on Using Merge Cubes
The elementary teacher participants had very positive reactions about using Merge Cubes with their students. One
kindergarten teacher stated: “Any time I have a science lesson that is on the Merge Cube app, I might have the students
do it in school, or even assign it for homework so that they look forward to learning.” Additionally, this same teacher par-
ticipant commented that “Merge Cube is so engaging, it almost makes the learning and educational aspect invisible. It al-
lows the lesson to ‘come to life.’ Not only will I encourage my students to use Merge Cube in the classroom, but outside
of the classroom too.”
An elementary special education teacher who participated in the study found Merge Cubes to be beneficial in her
instruction. She explained, “One way I can use Merge Cube to improve instruction is to support students in writing.
Many of my students struggle to add details to their writing.” By providing a visual, it is easier for students to practice
their vocabulary skills using the visual cues on the cube. The special education teacher continued by stating: “After they
verbally describe it, they can use the word wall to describe the object in three to four sentences. For a higher challenge,
the student can be asked to think about the weight and texture of the object.” This special education teacher participant
worked in a self-contained classroom and had an autistic student that uses an Augmentative and Alternative Communica-
tion (AAC) tablet to communicate. After introducing this student to the Merge Cube, this student who has limited speech
became very excited. The teacher participant said that “he grabbed his AAC and couldn’t hit the buttons fast enough!”
This educator was so impressed with Merge Cubes that she has been to design new lessons using it, has shared it with her
colleagues, and is excited to discover other ways to use them.
Other elementary teacher participants from the study have shown similar reactions from their use of Merge Cubes
with their students. One educator commented:

222
Learning opportunities and engagement become endless. Merge Cubes accelerate problem-solving, develop
multiple solutions to a problem by simulating cause/effect relationships to obtain the best outcome, inspire
interest in design and coding, visualize and create in a new medium, [provide] exposure to new technology,
deepen subject understanding, inspire sharing of individual perspectives, encourage teamwork, develop visual
communications, enhance personal expression, and most importantly engage students of all abilities. (Second-
grade teacher)
After trying Merge Cubes with her class, she has shared them with other teachers in her building, met with her adminis-
trator to request funding for her classroom to purchase them, and has even shared them with her students’ parents.
Secondary Teachers’ Mixed Reactions of Merge EDU
Middle school teacher participants shared creative and positive uses with Merge Cubes, along with some critiques.
Overall, the secondary teacher participants were positive in their comments about using Merge EDU and plan on con-
tinuing to use this technology tool. The secondary teacher participants who taught social studies and science reported
more positive uses of Merge Cube, while the English language arts (ELA), math, and other elective teacher participants
had to be more creative in how they integrated Merge Cubes since there is very little if any upper-level content. A 6th-
grade geography teacher participant whose school is in a rural area of the state used Merge Cubes to teach about moun-
tains and physical land features. By using the cubes, they had a more realistic view of how mountains really looked with-
out having to travel there to see them:
Some of my students have not left the region so seeing a mountain up close in 3D is a valuable experience for
them. It gives a much better perspective on the size and scale of such an elevation change compared to the sur-
rounding land. (6th Grade Geography Teacher Participant)
While most of the Merge EDU content is created for grades K-8, there are some topics that secondary educators can
use to refresh the content with their students. Several of the Teaching Aids, such as the Anatomy of the Brain, Ear, or
Eye, Arthropods, Animal Classification, Neurons, and Prokaryotic and Eukaryotic Cells can be useful in an anatomy and
physiology course. The Globe Activities, such as Earthquakes, Temperature, Precipitation, Earth, and World Map may be
useful in a geography or geology course. There are also a few other activities that could be used in history or art, such as
the Ancient Egypt Teaching Aid, Museum Collection, Famous Artworks in 3D, or the Broward Library African Artifacts
activity.
While Merge EDU states that it is mostly STEM-focused, there are not many math lessons, aids, or simulations on
the platform. The Shapes and Patterns Teaching Aid can support geometry, but there is not much else for math unless a
teacher or the students design it themselves. A creative math teacher used the Dig! app for Merge Cubes to have students
create their own number sequences and composite shapes. He also had his students use the cubes to find the volume of
the composite shapes. This third-party app is similar to Minecraft, where the user can build and create worlds using the
Merge Cube. Since the cube is handheld, students can rotate it to show different levels of terrain, dig to find minerals,
and use the materials they collect to construct buildings and enhance the digital environment.
Challenges Identified for Using Merge Cubes
Elementary teacher participants in this study stated that they have a very tight curriculum, which makes integrating
technology a difficult process, especially because most of the students are still struggling with fine motor skills that make
typing on keyboards and finding letters a slow process. Teachers shared their concerns that there is not enough class time
allotted for learning new technologies, but once students understand how to use the cubes and use them often enough, it
should be much quicker to get through a lesson on time.
Some non-STEM teachers in the study remarked that if they are not a science or technology teacher, it was difficult
to find ways to try out the Merge Cube or even use it at all. One social studies teacher from this study said that he would
like to use the cubes if there were additional free resources available, such as “historical monuments, battlefields, revolu-
tionary forts, historical weaponry, and some free access to the Holo Globe app.”

223
Accessibility Issues
Although the Merge EDU apps have built in accessibility tools, this differs from providing access to the technol-
ogy itself. Schools that do not have iPads or tables, but only provide Chromebooks and laptops, have had trouble using
Merge Cubes because most of the activities require a smartphone or tablet. Recently, Merge EDU has upgraded its ability
to work on Chromebooks that are 2019 or newer because these models have a front and a rear facing cameras. Unfortu-
nately, the participants in this study were not using new models, so they reported the inability to use their Chromebooks,
which is their primary technology device, as a limitation to using Merge Cubes. Because AR and VR are still emerging
technologies, older Chromebooks do not have the specifications required to use the Merge EDU apps. Also, the Chrome-
book must be able to open the Google Play Store to download the required apps. Newer Chromebooks may also have
a forward and rear-facing camera, a touch-sensitive screen, be compatible with a stylus, be able to flip and stand on its
side, or even detach from the keyboard to use in tablet mode. Merge EDU recommends using one with a rear-facing cam-
era so it can scan the cube.
Teacher participants in this study from low-income schools that still are not one-to-one with technology stated that
they depend on their students who bring their smartphones to class. With what limited resources the school provides,
these teachers have placed students into groups to share devices so that they could use Merge Cubes, yet the teachers
have concerns about asking students to download apps on their phones that are needed for a lesson: “I don’t know how
many of my students have smartphones, or how many of those who do have smartphones also have permission to down-
load apps on their phones. I foresee having issues with asking students to download the app on their phones and relying
on that for the lesson,” (a secondary teacher participant at a low-income school). A few of the study’s secondary teacher
participants explained that their schools experienced similar issues to an even greater extent because they have policies
that prohibit students from using their phones in the classroom or even have a signal blocker to prevent students from us-
ing their devices at all during the school day.
CONCLUSION
Teachers who are looking for innovative ways for engaging their students, improving comprehension, and differen-
tiating STEM topics, should try using Merge Cubes or the Merge apps in their classrooms. With the many free resources
and help guides that Merge EDU provide, teachers can quickly learn how to creatively use them in their lessons. With
a free subscription, teachers can access the standard content: Teaching Aids (lesson plans), Science Simulations, Globe
Activities, and Activity Plans, with many of them providing quizzes, content, and extension activities. Elementary teach-
ers have shown a more favorable reaction to using Merge Cubes as compared to secondary teachers since most of the
content is designed for K-8. While there is not much at this time for high school teachers, secondary teachers can use
Merge EDU’s platform to have their students create their own 3D designs and upload them to the Merge EDU website
to view and edit before creating them on a 3D printer. While there exist limitations to using this technology that many
low-income schools face, such as low accessibility, having to share devices, having outdated Chromebooks, or having
no iPads, some teachers have shown resilience by asking students to use their own devices when using Merge Cubes in
their lessons. Overall, Merge EDU is an ideal tool for integrating AR technologies into the curriculum and can be used to
develop students’ understanding of STEM and other difficult concepts, coding, and 3D design skills. The teacher partici-
pants were favorable about Merge EDU and were positive about the immersive learning experiences it provided to their
students.
REFERENCES
Akçayır, M. & Akçayır, G. (2016). Advantages and challenges associated with augmented reality for education: A systematic
review of the literature. Educational Research Review, 20, 1-11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2016.11.002
Al Dhaheri, A. S. B. H., & Hamade, M. A. (2022, May 13). Experiential learning and VR will reshape the future of education.
World Economic Forum. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/05/the-future-of-education-is-in-experiential-learning-and-
vr/
Alsop, T. (2021, February 23). Number of jobs enhanced by AR/VR worldwide 2019-2030. Statista. https://www.statista.com/
statistics/1121601/number-of-jobs-enhanced-globally- by-vr-and-ar/

224
AR and VR games and apps for learning. (n.d.). Common Sense Education. https://www.commonsense.org/education/lists/ar-
and-vr-games-and-apps-for-learning
Augmented Reality Market Size, Share & Trends Analysis Report By Component (Hardware, Software), By Display (Head-
Mounted Display & Smart Glass, Head-Up Display, Handheld Devices), By Application, By Region, And Segment Fore-
casts, 2022-2030. (n.d.). Market Analysis Report. Report ID: 978-1-68038-820-6. Grand View Research. https://www.
grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/augmented-reality-market
Augmented Reality Science Fair. (2021). ARsciencefair. https://www.arsciencefair.com/
Babich, N. (2020). How VR in education will change how we learn and teach. Adobe. https://xd.adobe.com/ideas/principles/
emerging-technology/virtual-reality-will-change-learn-teach/
Baranowski, T., & Lyons, E. J. (2020). Scoping review of Pokémon Go: Comprehensive assessment of augmented reality for
physical activity change. Games for Health Journal, 9(2), 71-84. http://doi.org/10.1089/g4h.2019.0034
Benefits of Virtual Reality in Education. (2022). ClassVR. https://www.classvr.com/benefits-of-virtual-reality-in-education/
Billinghurst, M. (2002). Augmented reality in education. New Horizons for Learning, 12(5). https://www.academia.
edu/2929395/Augmented_reality_in_education
Bower, M., Howe, C., McCredie, N., Robinson, A., & Grover, D. (2014). Augmented reality in ed–cation - cases, places and po-
tentials. Educational Media International, 5(1), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2014.889400
Chang, K.-E., Chang, C.-T., Hou, H.-T., Sung, Y.-T., Chao, H.-L., & Lee, C.-M. (2014). Development and behavioral pattern
analysis of a mobile guide system with augmented reality for painting appreciation instruction in an art museum. Comput-
ers & Education, 71, 185-197. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/200564/
Cheng, K. H., & Tsai, C. C. (2019). A case study of immersive virtual field trips in an elementary classroom: Students’ learn-
ing experiences and teacher-student interaction behaviors. Computers & Education, 140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compe-
du.2019.103600
Cowin, J. B. (2020). Digital worlds and transformative learning: Google Expeditions, Google Arts and Culture, and the Merge
Cube. International Research and Review, 10(1). https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1293151.pdf
Craig, A. B. (2013). Understanding augmented reality: Concepts and applications. Elsevier Science & Technology.
Dick, E. (2021a). Current and potential uses of AR/VR for equity and inclusion. Information Technology & Innovation Founda-
tion. https://itif.org/publications/2021/06/01/current- and-potential-uses-arvr-equity-and-inclusion/
Dick, E. (2021b). The promise of immersive learning: Augmented and virtual reality’s potential in education. Information Tech-
nology & Innovation Foundation. https://itif.org/publications/2021/08/30/promise-immersive-learning-augmented-and-vir-
tual-reality-potential/
Ebadi, S., Ashrafabadi, F. (2022). An exploration into the impact of augmented reality on EFL learners’ reading comprehension.
Education and Information Technologies, 27, 9745–9765. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11021-8
Fernández-Batanero, J. M., Román-Graván, P., Reyes-Rebollo, Miguel-María, & Montenegro-Rueda, M. (2021). Impact of edu-
cational technology on teacher stress and anxiety: A literature review. International Journal of Environmental Research and
Public Health, 18(2):548. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18020548
Flavián, C., Ibáñez-Sánchez, S., & Orús, C. (2019). The impact of virtual, augmented and mixed reality technologies on the cus-
tomer experience. Journal of Business Research, 100, 547-560. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.10.050
Free vs. Paid Content in Merge EDU. (n.d.). Merge EDU: Help Center. https://support.mergeedu.com/hc/en-us/
articles/9895900652813-Free-vs-Paid-Content-in-Merge-EDU
Gartner Glossary. (2022). Gartner. https://www.gartner.com/en/information-technology/glossary/ augmented-reality-ar
Getting Started with your Merge Cube. (n.d.). Merge EDU: Help Center. https://support.mergeedu.com/hc/en-us/
articles/360053398111-Getting-Started-with-your-Merge-Cube
Gopalan, V., Zulkifli, A. N., Faisal Mohamed, N. F., Alwi, A., Che Mat, R., Abu Bakar, J. A., & Saidin, A. Z. (2015). Evaluation
of e-star: An enhanced science textbook using augmented reality among lower secondary school students. Jurnal Teknologi,
77(29), 55–61. https://doi.org/10.11113/jt.v77.6813
Harris, J. L., Al-Bataineh, M. T., & Al-Bataineh, A. (2016). One to one technology and its effect on student academic achieve-
ment and motivation. Contemporary Educational Technology, 7(4), 368-381. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1117604.pdf
Holden, C., & Sykes, J. (2011). Leveraging mobile games for place-based language learning. International Journal of Game-
Based Learning, 1(2), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijgbl.2011040101
Hsu, Y.S., Lin, Y. H., & Yang, B. (2017, July 7). Impact of augmented reality lessons on students’ STEM interest. Research and
Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 12(2). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41039-016-0039-z
Ibáñez, M. B., & Delgado-Kloos, C. (2018). Augmented reality for STEM learning: A systematic review. Computers & Educa-
tion, 123, 109-123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.05.002
ISTE Standards for Students. (2022). International Society for Technology in Education. https://www.iste.org/standards/iste-
standards-for-students
Jackson, S. (2013, December 13). Find out how technology can encourage student collaboration. Common Sense Education.
https://www.commonsense.org/education/articles/how-technology-can-encourage-student-collaboration
Johnson, J. (2019). Jumping into the world of virtual and augmented reality. Knowledge Quest, 47(4), 22-27. https://eric.
ed.gov/?id=EJ1207783

225
Join the SNAP AR Lens Challenge. (2022, February 9). National Math & Science Initiative. https://www.nms.org/Resources/
Newsroom/Blog/2022/February/Join-the-SNAP-AR-Lens-Challenge.aspx
Kerdvibulvech, C. (2021). Location-based augmented reality games through immersive experiences. In D. D. Schmorrow & C.
M. Fidopiastis (Eds.), Augmented Cognition, 12776. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-78114-9_31
Kolb, L. (2016, December 20). 4 tips for choosing the right edtech tools for learning. ISTE. https://www.iste.org/explore/
Toolbox/4-tips-for-choosing-the-right-edtech-tools-for-learning
Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice Hall.
Larmand, A. (2021, June 11). Using virtual reality systems in education. Eduporium. https://www.eduporium.com/blog/edupori-
um-weekly-ar-and-vr-in-education/
Langreo, L. (2022). Adopting new classroom technologies is hard. A new federal guide aims to help. Education Week. https://
www.edweek.org/technology/adopting-new-classroom-technologies-is-hard-a-new-federal-guide-aims-to-help/2022/09
Loveless, B. (2022). Using augmented reality in the classroom. Education Corner: Education That Matters. https://www.educa-
tioncorner.com/augmented-reality-classroom- education.html
Lewis, L. H., & Williams, C. J. (1994). Experiential learning: Past and present. New directions for adult and continuing educa-
tion, 1994(62):5–16.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.36719946203
Making a Merge Paper Cube. (2022). Merge EDU: Help Center. https://support.mergeedu.com/ hc/en-us/
articles/360052933492-Making-a-Merge-Paper-Cube
Merge Cube. (2022). Merge EDU. https://mergeedu.com/cube
McClintock Miller, S. (2020, November 8). Using Tinkercad and Merge object viewer to bring their writing to live in 3D! The
Library Voice [Blog]. https://vanmeterlibraryvoice.blogspot.com/2020/11/using-tinkercad-and-merge-object-viewer.html
McHahon, C. (2020, September 4). How augmented reality is improving textbooks and remote learning. Keypoint Intelligence.
https://www.keypointintelligence.com/news/ editors-desk/2020/september/how-augmented-reality-is-improving-textbooks-
and-remote-learning/
Milne, A. J. (2006). Designing blended learning space to the student experience. In D. G. Oblinger (Ed.), Learning spaces. Edu-
cause. https://www.educause.edu/research-and-publications/books/learning-spaces
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States. https://www.nextgenscience.org/
Novak, E., Mcdaniel, K., Daday, J., & Soyturk, I. (2021). Frustration in technology-rich learning environments: A scale for as-
sessing student frustration with e-textbooks. British Journal of Educational Technology, 00, 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1111/
bjet.13172
Osadchyi, V. V., Valko, N. V., & Kuzmich, L. V. (2021). Using augmented reality technologies for STEM education organiza-
tion. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1840. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1840/1/012027
Pathak, A. (2023, January 15). Augmented reality (AR) vs. virtual reality (VR): The differences. Geekflare. https://geekflare.
com/augmented-reality-vs-virtual-reality/
Pellas, N., Fotaris, P., Kazanidis, I., & Wells, D. (2019). Augmenting the learning experience in primary and secondary school
education: a systematic review of recent trends in augmented reality game-based learning. Virtual Reality 23, 329–346.
Petty, C. (2018, September 6). 3 reasons why VR and AR are slow to take off. Gartner. https://www.gartner.com/
smarterwithgartner/3-reasons-why-vr-and-ar-are-slow-to-take-off
Porter, M. E., & Heppelmann, J. E. (2019). Why every organization needs an augmented reality strategy. Harvard Business Re-
view’s 10 Must. https://chools.in/wp-content/uploads/HBR-2019.pdf#page=100
Riva, G., Baños, R.M., Botella, C., Mantovani, F., & Gaggioli A. (2016). Transforming experience: The potential of augment-
ed reality and virtual reality for enhancing personal and clinical change. Front Psychiatry, 7(164). https://doi.org/10.3389/
fpsyt.2016.00164
Science Standards Mapping in Merge EDU Apps. (n.d.). Merge EDU. https://support.mergeedu.com/hc/en-us/
articles/360045930931-Science-Standards-Mapping-in-Merge-EDU-Apps
Shafeey, G. A. A., & Lakulu, M. M. B. (2021). Challenges analysis for using augmented reality in education: A review. Interna-
tional Journal of Science and Research, 10(3). 466-471. https://www.ijsr.net/archive/v10i3/SR21306183154.pdf
STEM-3D visualization. (n.d.). Merge EDU. https://support.mergeedu.com/hc/en-us/articles/360053399331-STEM-3D-visual-
ization
Taufiq, M., Nuswowati, M., & Widiyatmoko, A. (2021). Feasibility study of a solar system learning media based on merge cube
augmented reality to embedding problem solving skills. Journal of Physics, 1918(052064). https://iopscience.iop.org/ar-
ticle/10.1088/1742-6596/1918/5/052064
Toledo-Morales, P., & Sanchez-Garcia, J. M. (2018). Use of augmented reality in social sciences as educational resource. Turk-
ish Online Journal of Distance Education, 19, 38-50. http://dx.doi.org/10.17718/tojde.444635
Uploading Your Own Creations. (n.d.). Merge EDU: Help Center. https://support.mergeedu.com/hc/en-us/
articles/360053399431-Uploading-your-own-creations

226
Urzúa Reyes, M.D., Gómez Urzúa, J. A., & De La Re Dávila, B. O. (2021). Enhancing comprehension of the Internal Structure
of the Atom with a Virtual 3D Environment. 2021 Machine Learning-Driven Digital Technologies for Educational Innova-
tion Workshop, Monterrey, Mexico, 2021, pp. 1-5, doi: 10.1109/IEEECONF5 3024.2021.9733762. https://ieeexplore.ieee.
org/document/9733762
Using Activity Plans. (n.d.). Merge EDU: Help Center. https://support.mergeedu.com/hc/en-us/articles/360052930812-Using-
Activity-Plans
Using Free Content in Merge EDU Apps with Your Students. (n.d.). Merge EDU: Help Center. https://support.mergeedu.com/
hc/en-us/articles/9897557052429-Using-Free-Content-in-Merge-EDU-Apps-With-Your-Students
Weng, C., Otanga, S., Christianto, S. M., and Chu, R. J. (2020). Enhancing students’ biology learning by using aug-
mented reality as a learning supplement. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 58(4), 747-770. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0735633119884213
What is extended reality (XR), augmented reality (AR), and virtual reality (VR) in education and learning. (2023). XR Guru.
https://www.xrguru.com/virtual-reality-in-education-for-students
Zhang, J., Li, G., Huang, Q., Feng, Q, & Luo, H. (2022). Augmented reality in K-12 education: A systematic review and meta-
analysis of the literature from 2000 to 2020. Sustainability, 14(9725), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14159725

227
Teacher Professional Development on AR-Enhanced Learning:
Insights and Lessons Learned from the European Project EL-STEM
MARIA MELETIOU-MAVROTHERIS
European University Cyprus, Cyprus
m.mavrotheris@euc.ac.cy
MARGUS PEDASTE
University of Tartu, Estonia
EFSTATHIOS MAVROTHERIS
Open University of Cyprus, Cyprus
KONSTANTINOS KATZIS
European University Cyprus, Cyprus
ILONA-ELEFTERYJA LASICA
Open University of Cyprus, Cyprus
MEELIS BRIKKER
University of Tartu, Estonia
Abstract: The European project EL-STEM: Enlivened Laboratories within STEM Education, aimed at fos-
tering an innovation “ecosystem” in secondary schools for students 12-18 years of age that can facilitate an
effective, user-centric design and use of Augmented Reality (AR) in STEM education. Partners developed,
implemented, and evaluated a teacher professional development course aimed at familiarizing in-service
STEM teachers with the potential of using AR for enhancing instructional practices, students’ motivation,
and learning processes. The course was pilot tested in the consortium countries of Cyprus, Estonia, Greece,
and Finland following the project’s main suggested framework, but at the same time, adjusted based on each
partner’s local needs and specificities. A total of 119 STEM teachers completed the trainings. This chapter
presents a case study in each country focused on the training. Data were collected at the preparation phase
and continued throughout the program duration, as well at the final stage, when some of the participants de-
signed and implemented teaching interventions in their classrooms. Each partner employed a variety of data
collection tools including surveys, interviews, and videotaping of teaching to reach conclusions regarding the
implementation in their country. The current chapter provides an overview of the pedagogical and didacti-
cal approach underlying the EL-STEM course content and structure, and a synopsis of the main experiences
gained from its pilot delivery in the four partner countries. It concludes with insights and lessons learned that
would be valuable for future teaching practice and research.
Keywords: Augmented Reality, Teachers, Teacher Professional Development, STEM Education, Inquiry-
Based Learning, Interdisciplinarity
INTRODUCTION
Augmented Reality (AR) is a form of extended reality that enhances individuals’ experiences of the real world by
overlaying location or context-sensitive virtual information (e.g., text, images, videos, animations with sound, etc.) onto
elements of the physical environment (Milgram & Kishino, 1994). In recent years, AR has become a technology acces-
sible to everyone through devices such as tablets and smartphones. This ease of access to AR applications offers consid-

228
erable benefits to education at all educational levels in both formal and informal learning contexts. As a result, AR has
been gaining a growing interest among educational researchers and practitioners (e.g., Baabdullah et al., 2022; Gandolfi
et al., 2018; Ibáñez & Delgado-Kloos, 2018; Liono et al., 2021; Lytridis et al., 2018). Educators have been exploring the
new possibilities in immersive learning offered by AR to provide learners with engaging and realistic simulations of ex-
ploration.
AR has been adopted by various educational fields and sectors and is increasingly expected in mainstream educa-
tional settings. A promising aspect explored by the research community is the potential of integrating AR in the Immer-
sive Learning Landscape, such as in the landscape of “learning activities initiated by a mediated or medially enriched
environment that evokes a sense of presence” (Dengel & Mägdefrau, 2018, p. 614), as a means of enhancing science,
technology, engineering, mathematics (STEM) education (Bacca et al., 2014; Burton et al., 2011; Jesionkowska et al.,
2020). Research suggests that bringing AR technologies into local and remote labs within STEM education can be an
effective way to achieve better learning outcomes (Radhamani et al., 2014) and attract students to STEM-related fields
of study and careers (Krneta et al., 2016). AR labs can help bridge the gap between the real and virtual world, overcom-
ing the lack of realism characterized by virtual reality (VR) while providing the affordances of presence, immediacy,
and immersion. There are already numerous studies highlighting the benefits of AR technology to teach STEM-related
concepts (Akçayır, & Akçayır, 2017; Bacca et al, 2014; Lasica et al., 2020a; Pedaste et al., 2020; Jailungka et al., 2020).
Moreover, engagement with AR-supported learning activities can reinforce important transversal competencies like inter-
personal and social skills, critical thinking, creativity, and innovation (Jesionkowska et al., 2020).
The EU-funded Erasmus + KA2 project EL-STEM: Enlivened Laboratories for STEM Education (2017-1-CY01-
KA201-026775, September 2017-June 2020) evaluated the potential of AR to strengthen secondary education STEM
curricula with innovative methods and tools in order to reverse European youth’s under-achievement and lack of motiva-
tion towards STEM studies and careers. Recognizing the important role of teachers in any attempt to bring about change
(Ertmer et al., 2012; Henriksen et al., 2019), the project focused its efforts on the provision of high-quality continuing
professional development that would equip teachers with the required knowledge, skills, and mindset to effectively in-
fuse AR and other emerging technologies into teaching and learning. The EL-STEM consortium, comprised of 9 part-
ner organizations from five different European countries, developed and pilot-tested a teacher professional development
course targeting EU secondary STEM teachers who teach students ages 12-18 on how to effectively embed AR into
instruction. The course familiarizes teachers with the potential of AR technology for enhancing instruction and students’
motivation and learning processes in STEM. Teachers are acquainted with ways they could employ AR to promote stu-
dents’ engagement in STEM education and to strengthen their 21st
-century skills.
This article provides an overview of the EL-STEM program with a focus on the course content and structure, and on
the main experiences gained from its pilot delivery in four of the partner countries. The article concludes with insights
and lessons learned that would be valuable for future teaching practice and research.
EL-STEM PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM OVERVIEW
The EL-STEM teacher professional development program focuses on how to effectively implement inquiry-based
instruction within school curricula through the functional integration of AR with existing core curricular ideas. The theo-
retical framework underpinning the program is grounded on the interrelated bodies of problem-based learning (Jonassen,
2000), inquiry-based (Pedaste et al., 2015), and contemporary learning approach (Pedaste & Leijen, 2018), promoting
scaffolding and collaboration in STEM education (Lasica et al., 2020b). In addition, Technological Pedagogical and Con-
tent Knowledge (TPACK) has been applied as a conceptual framework for facilitating and assessing teachers’ profes-
sional development in the use of AR and other emerging technologies in STEM education (Mishra & Koehler, 2006).
The main aim of the EL-STEM professional development course is the familiarization of secondary STEM teach-
ers with the EL-STEM approach, and how it can (i) foster students’ motivation toward STEM; (ii) improve students’
skills in STEM-related courses; (iii) help students develop transversal competencies and 21st
-century skills (e.g. digi-
tal skills, learning-to-learn competence, critical thinking, cooperative and collaborative skills); (iv) increase participa-
tion and achievement levels of unmotivated students from disadvantaged backgrounds (e.g., the ones with poor socio-
economic status). The program offers a supportive culture, motivating teachers of STEM-related subjects to effectively
integrate AR with core STEM curricular ideas, in order to transform their classrooms into a smart-learning environment
both by (a) using existing AR learning objects (LOs) and (b) creating their own AR LOs with appropriate tools (Lasica
et al., 2018), along with integrating them into their instruction. Teachers are trained on how to implement inquiry-based

229
learning LPs in the fields of STEM, supported by AR, for engaging their students in authentic problem-solving activities.
They also get familiarized with different tools for developing AR LOs within STEM-related courses and existing reposi-
tories of AR LOs (e.g. ARTutor, ZapWorks, EON Experience, Unity).
To offer teachers time flexibility and ease of access to the course content, the program adopted a blended approach
that combines face-to-face training with ICT-mediated instruction, outlined below.
Face-to-face Teacher Training
The face-to-face teacher trainings consisted of a combination of workshops, including ICT-based and hands-on ac-
tivities and practice in small groups in computer labs, presentations by experts, videos and tutorials, and discussions for
the exchange of ideas and experiences. The learning environment served as a model for the kind of learning situations,
emerging technologies, and curricula teachers should employ in their own classrooms (Meletiou-Mavrotheris & Mav-
rotheris, 2007).
ICT-mediated Instruction
The ICT-mediated instruction used the EL-STEM course platform and accompanying tools and resources for teach-
ing, support, and coordination purposes. The platform (https://elstem.ouc.ac.cy/), which is available to any interested
educator via self-registration, offers access to resources for professional learning (e.g., pedagogical framework, instruc-
tional content, lesson plans, etc.), as well as collaboration tools for professional dialogue and support.
The final part of the course includes a guided field practice. Teachers expand upon the digital tools and the instruc-
tional material provided to them, designing AR-supported STEM lesson plans (LPs) and scenarios based on the EL-
STEM approach. They apply their LPs and educational scenarios in their school and classroom and then share their expe-
riences with other educators.
The course curriculum and key contents have been developed in English and translated into the partners’ national
languages – Estonian, Greek, Finnish – along with being culturally differentiated to accommodate local conditions in
each participating country.
METHODS
Context and Participants
The EL-STEM teacher professional development course was pilot-tested in the four consortium countries (Cyprus,
Estonia, Greece, and Finland), following the project’s main suggested framework, but at the same time, adjusted based
on each partner’s local needs and specificities.
The course was first pilot-tested in the partner countries during the 2018-2019 academic year. It was revised based
on the received feedback and offered again during the 2019-2020 academic year. Unfortunately, plans for the 2019-2020
school year were affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, which led to the closure of schools at an international level. Thus,
the program could not be completed as expected with relevant implementations within the classroom in all territories.
Despite the difficulties and challenges brought by the shift to emergency remote teaching, teachers from all consortium
countries put their best effort to complete a number of lesson plans and LOs supported with AR technology.
A total of 145 STEM teachers participated in the trainings offered in the four partner countries. Among these teach-
ers, 119 successfully completed all course requirements (n=36 in Cyprus, n=35 in Estonia, n=13 in Finland, n=35 in
Greece).
Main Instruments, Data Collection, and Analysis Procedures
The conducted research took the form of a case study in each country. The data collection process commenced dur-
ing the preparation phase, and continued throughout the EL-STEM course duration, as well at the final stage when some
of the teachers designed and applied their interventions in their classrooms and/or school laboratories (guided field prac-
tice).

230
Partners employed multiple data collection tools to reach some conclusions regarding the professional develop-
ment implementation in their countries: teacher pre- and/or post-surveys, interviews, teacher focus group discussions,
participant observations during the course and the follow-up teaching experimentations, videotaping of seminars and/
or teaching episodes, educational material (LPs, educational scenarios, worksheets, AR LOs) developed by participating
teachers, student data (e.g., samples of student work, performance data in tests, etc.). Initial findings were included in the
EL-STEM Teacher Professional Development Program Pilot Testing Report submitted to the EU for project evaluation
purposes. The drafting of this report was based on the four national reports prepared by project partners. In these reports,
partners in each country provided information about the main professional development activities that took place in
their territory and outlined and evaluated the impact of the training on participating teachers’ attitudes, confidence level,
and self-reported proficiency in adopting the EL-STEM approach in their teaching practices. A brief synopsis of the key
findings included in the EL-STEM Teacher Professional Development Program Pilot Testing Report is next presented,
separately for each partner country.
RESULTS
Case Study 1 – Cyprus
In Cyprus, local partners included the European University Cyprus, Open University of Cyprus, and Gymnasium of
Palouriotissa, and they each offered two rounds of the EL-STEM professional development program. The first round was
successfully completed by 20 teachers (11 females, 9 males), 14 teaching at the secondary level, and 6 teachers at the
primary level. Although the EL-STEM training was designed for secondary STEM teachers (and the call for participation
targeted them) many primary teachers also expressed an interest in participation, and a few were selected to attend, in an
attempt to promote the EL-STEM approach across educational levels. The course was then revised based on feedback re-
ceived to better meet the needs of the target group and was offered again during the 2019-2020 academic year. 16 teach-
ers (12 females, 4 males), successfully completed the second round of the EL-STEM course.
In each round of the professional development, a blended learning approach was used, which combined afternoon
face-to-face (F2F) meetings (5 meetings in total x 3 hours per meeting) and the use of the course Moodle platform. F2F
seminars focused on analysis and discussion of the research component of the project, the theoretical and pedagogical
foundations of the EL-STEM approach, and the development of digital skills for the use of different AR tools, through
hands-on activities. Specifically, the F2F meetings included the following:
1st Meeting
During the first meeting, participants were introduced to core concepts underpinning EL-STEM, such as STEM edu-
cation, inquiry-based learning, and integrated curriculum/instruction (e.g., multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, trans-
disciplinarity).
2nd Meeting
During the second meeting, participants were first introduced to the Reality-Virtuality Continuum and to the simi-
larities and differences between VR, AR, and MR. Next, they were involved in hands-on activities that familiarized them
with apps/tools for creating AR content (i.e., HP Reveal, Metaverse). Examples of AR integration in STEM Education
were also presented and discussed.
3rd Meeting
Having gained the necessary background knowledge and skills in the first two sessions, during the third meeting
teachers experimented with AR games developed in Scratch, which was a platform many of them were already familiar

231
with. Other examples of AR games were also presented and discussed (e.g., simple games through applications such as
Messenger). At the end of the meeting, participants were encouraged to design and develop, either individually or in
groups, STEM LPs with integrated AR features.
4th Meeting
The first half of this meeting, which was attended only by teachers with prior knowledge of programming, offered a
brief introduction to the Unity game engine and related libraries and APIs. During the second half, which was attended
by all participants, examples of AR applications developed by professionals using Unity were presented and discussed.
At the end of the meeting, participants were encouraged to develop and integrate AR LOs within the STEM LPs de-
signed in the 4th
meeting.
5th Meeting
The final meeting was focused on discussion and reflection on the LPs implemented in some of the participating
teachers’ classrooms, following the guidelines of the previous meetings. Teachers were encouraged to share their AR LPs
and LOs, as well as to join the online “AR STEM teachers’ community”.
The training sessions were co-facilitated by two EL-STEM team members from Pallouriotissa Gymnasium who
shared their experiences with adopting the EL-STEM approach in their school. They provided examples of AR-enhanced
STEM educational scenario which they co-designed and implemented in their classrooms such as the one shown in Fig-
ure 1. They also gave suggestions on how to cope with technical and other practical issues that can occur when introduc-
ing AR in the classroom along with ways to get teachers of different disciplines to collaborate in building STEM LPs and
scenarios. The latter proved quite challenging in their school because STEM education is not part of the mathematics
curriculum in Cyprus and, as a result, teachers have many difficulties in crossing the silo boundaries of their individual
subjects.
Note. Example of how one could teach about the Pythagorean theorem (mathematics) and its inverse, but also about
forces (physics) using the love story of Romeo and Juliet (arts and humanities), and footballers’ celebration movement
known as the “perfect dab” (physical education).
Figure 1. Lesson Activities Examples.
One issue that cropped up repeatedly during the seminars is the fact mobile devices, especially smartphones, were
not allowed in Cypriot classrooms. Pallouriotissa teachers advised the participants on how to get special permission from
the Ministry of Education for their students to use their smartphones in class as well as how to manage their class to en-
sure that students use their mobile phones for learning purposes, and not for off-task activities.
After the 4th
meeting, teachers were given a month to finalize their LPs, educational scenarios and LOs, and to pilot-
test them within a learning environment. During the final meeting, teachers who did carry out a classroom intervention
presented their developed LPs/scenarios and LOs to the other educators, and they shared the experiences and insights
they gained from implementing them in a real classroom setting.

232
Main Findings from Pilot Testing
Findings from the first round of the EL-STEM pilot implementation, which are described in detail in Lasica et al.
(2020a), were generally very positive. The aspects of the course that teachers found most useful were the AR tools and
the software presented during the program. HP Reveal as well as ARTutor were recognized among others, while teachers
also found some AR examples interesting, such as interdisciplinary STEM scenarios relevant to our solar system. Addi-
tionally, teachers highlighted the importance of interdisciplinarity, and their wish to collaborate with other teachers in or-
der to integrate aspects from different disciplines into their courses. Suggestions for improvement included the extension
of hands-on tasks and more practice with AR tools and applications. Some teachers noted the need for more examples
of AR in education and more ready-to-use educational content, so they could apply it in their courses without having to
develop LOs and educational scenarios from scratch. Finally, one of the most critical aspects was the teachers’ intent to
apply AR in their classrooms. All participants indicated an intent to apply some of the tools and ideas introduced in the
training in their teaching practice.
Findings from the second round of the professional development course implementation were also positive. Partici-
pants again expressed a high level of satisfaction concerning the methodology adopted by the EL-STEM seminar, and the
provided material and resources. They praised the innovative nature of the seminar which introduced them to “new tools
and applications” and to “stimulating and contemporary pedagogical approaches that definitely interest students.” They
found their “exposure to AR apps” to be intriguing, noting that AR is undoubtedly “an attractive technology” that can
enhance the learning process by enabling students “to experiment with and better visualize challenging STEM concepts.”
They also liked the provision of examples supporting the theoretical framework underlying the program, connecting the-
ory and practice, and exemplifying the concepts and ideas presented during the seminar. An element of the seminar that
they found particularly helpful was the fact that the team of facilitators included teaching practitioners who gave them
clear and practical suggestions on how to implement the EL-STEM approach in their classrooms and provided “realis-
tic examples” of instructional activities and “lesson plans that have been implemented in real classrooms.” At the same
time, technical limitations of some of the AR applications introduced during the seminar were noted: “AR Applications
(APs) could be much more reliable.” Suggestions for further improvement of the EL-STEM training program included
more hands-on practice with the AR apps and tools introduced during the training, familiarization with additional tools,
provision of additional examples and resources (LPs, educational scenarios, LOs) on how to integrate AR in instruction,
and further opportunities for collaboration with other educators for co-design of educational scenarios based on the EL-
STEM approach.
Teachers of both rounds who designed and implemented LPs based on the EL-STEM approach and shared their ex-
periences during the final session of the seminars mentioned various technical and practical issues they faced when first
attempting to introduce AR into their classroom. They stressed the need for strong support from the school’s manage-
ment team and administration (to ensure a reliable Wi-Fi network, to get technical support, etc.). Teachers also pointed
out the considerable amount of personal time they dedicated to familiarize themselves with the AR tools and prepare
interdisciplinary LPs and accompanying LOs. However, despite the challenges they faced, teachers were very satisfied
with the overall experience of integrating AR features and an interdisciplinary approach into their teaching practices.
They highlighted several positive outcomes related to their students’ levels of motivation and participation. Comments
such as the following were typical: “Students showed great interest for the lesson” and “Everyone participated (even
students that usually have very low interest for the lesson).” Teachers’ comments also gave some indications that there
might have been some positive impact on students’ learning of STEM concepts as well as the promotion of essential 21st
-
century competencies like collaborative skills, and creativity. Example comments made by the teachers in this area were
“Students in all activities worked collaboratively, “Development of initiatives (students created their own AR project),”
and “Results in these sections were increased by about 5 points for almost every student.”
Case Study 2 – Estonia
In Estonia, the pilot EL-STEM professional development course was offered twice. Initially, local partners from the
University of Tartu and Tartu Erakool (a private school in Tartu) jointly offered a course targeting in-service secondary
STEM teachers across the city of Tartu. This first round of the course was hosted at the University of Tartu and had a
similar very format, structure, and duration to the course offered in Cyprus. It was successfully completed by 16 teachers
(n=16; 3 males, 13 females)

233
The second round took the form of in-house training in Tartu Erakool. It targeted the school’s STEM educators at
both the primary and secondary levels. The face-to-face part of the program took the form of a two-day training session
adapted to respond to the school’s specific needs and practicalities. It was attended by 19 teachers (n=19; 3 males, 16 fe-
males). 6 were primary school teachers and 13 were secondary school teachers.
As most of Tartu Erakool’s teachers were already familiar with Metaverse and had already used HP Reveal in their
classroom, exposure to the specific AR apps was not an aspect of the EL-STEM program perceived as particularly inno-
vative by the school’s staff. What was new and interesting to them was the presentation of the STEM LPs and scenarios
and LOs. Thus a significant portion of the first session was dedicated to this area. Teachers were also encouraged to
design and pilot test their own AR-enhanced STEM LOs and scenarios, and they had the option to pilot test educational
material already developed by other educators.
Tartu Erakool teachers experimented with various other AR applications in addition to the ones introduced during
the in-house training sessions. Some of these applications proved to be unsuitable for content creation for teachers who
had neither the time nor the technological skills required to produce high-quality, interactive content. In the end, Meta-
verse app was picked by the majority of the teachers as a particularly convenient application for building LOs due to its
ease of use according to their perception. Thus, several teachers started creating different LPs and accompanying LOs
with the Metaverse app and testing them in their classrooms. Primary teachers also built LOs using Merge Cube, whose
fundamental use is to be an anchor point for fixing virtually created images to a physical location. Use of Merge Cubes
was particularly useful for the younger grades, where Metaverse applications often proved a bit challenging for children
to use, in contrast to Merge Cubes which were very easy and intuitive for young learners.
The EL-STEM team was very surprised to find that some of these teachers were so motivated and committed that
they did not hesitate to use difficult-to-learn programs like Unity which requires considerable time and effort to become a
proficient user. A few of these teachers even used Unity to produce some not fully functional LOs as first attempts, which
they later expanded to be functional for in-class use. One example of a functioning LO created in Unity is shown in Fig-
ure 2. On the left side is the first draft/footprint of the LO and on the right side is its final form.
Note. Laser = laser, lääts = lens, ekraan = screen
Figure 2. A LO Developed in Unity by a Tartu Erakool Teacher .
Informal interviews and discussions with the teachers, as well as a feedback form filled in by them after each train-
ing provided useful information regarding both positive and negative aspects of the program. The participants also high-
lighted some important issues, from a teacher’s standpoint, to take into consideration when introducing the new technolo-
gies and approaches promoted by the EL-STEM approach.
When asked what they considered to be the most useful aspects of the course, several Estonian teachers pointed
out its focus on the sociocultural aspects of learning and on the development of a community of “Augmented teachers.”
Participating educators praised the fact that the course provided them with the opportunity to exchange educational re-
sources and ideas with other educators, and “to learn from each other’s trials, successes and failures.” Primary teachers
participating in the training were particularly positive about the possibility of adopting the EL-STEM approach. Like in
Cyprus, there was a particularly high interest among primary teachers to integrate AR-enhanced STEM scenarios into the
curriculum.

234
One of the issues that came up repeatedly in many Estonian teachers’ feedback is the high investment in time and
resources required to “create innovative, interesting, high-quality materials” and AR-supported content. Teachers noted
the need for improving the quality of the interface and graphics of AR objects. They contrasted this with the well-refined,
high-quality graphics, and the high level of interaction underlying the design of some educational games, and of the
video games students play in their daily life. Developers of AR apps, teachers stressed, need to invest resources to make
their apps more attractive, and STEM educators should provide teachers with the necessary tools and resources for mak-
ing good instructional use of AR.
Some teachers found the course to put excessive emphasis on the theoretical framework underlying EL-STEM.
There was a suggestion to separate theory from hands-on practice by offering separate courses because “going through
the theory can become quite overwhelming for the average teacher who does not have much time available to invest in
the program.”
When prompted to indicate how they planned to use the knowledge gained through the trainings, only one teacher
indicated having “no implementation plans at the moment, as it seems really time-consuming.” The rest were willing to
invest time to create AR-supported learning resources, although they did point out the need for improved functionalities
of the AR apps currently available that would allow them to develop “more and higher quality learning objects” in the
future. Some even got interested in more advanced environments like Unity and would like to get additional training
in how to use them. Teachers who had already pilot-tested EL-STEM LOs with their students were very pleased with
the process because it was well integrated into their normal lessons and existing LPs. They reported that their students
reacted very positively to the integration of AR into their learning experiences: “Pupils had fun working together. Even
though we use smart devices quite often, it was another different way to use it.”
Tartu Erakool’s students’ reported enthusiasm regarding the integration of AR is particularly noteworthy if one takes
into account the fact that they had considerable prior experience in using smartphones and tablets at school. In contrast
to a country like Cyprus, mobile devices are allowed in Estonian classrooms for study-related tasks and activities. In
Tartu Erakool, in particular, a private school, the situation was very different from that faced by teachers in urban public
schools in Cyprus like the Pallouriotissa Gymnasium. All Tartu Erakool students had their own personal tablets provided
by the school, and they often used them during lessons. Thus, although their familiarity with mobile learning made the
introduction of the AR a bit easier for their teachers, at the same time one would expect less enthusiasm among Estonian
students compared to what was witnessed in Cyprus, where the use of mobile devices in the classroom was a totally
novel experience for students. However, Estonian students were also enthusiastic because they used their mobile devices
“for something new and exciting.” Integration of AR in STEM courses was a new experience for both students and their
teachers.
Case Study 3 – Greece
In Greece, the consortium partner Doukas School offered both in-house training and a teacher professional develop-
ment course targeting secondary STEM educators across Athens.
The school’s STEM Department was actively engaged in the EL-STEM project activities from a very early stage.
Three secondary STEM teachers, along with the head of the STEM department who was also a project team member, at-
tended a four-day intensive Joint-Staff Training (JST) hosted at their school. Like the rest of the EL-STEM partners par-
ticipating in the JST, they had the chance to be introduced to the EL-STEM pedagogical and didactical approach. They
were also familiarized with various AR Tools they could integrate into their STEM lessons. After the training, they tried
to integrate the AR tools they became familiarized with into the LPs they were already using in their STEM classrooms.
This proved challenging due to the lack of existing LOs that could be employed in STEM education. What teachers did
was use instructional resources they had developed in the past (e.g., videos), to create their AR LOs, overlaying these
resources to markers. Their designed LOs, although not as highly interactive as what they had originally anticipated to be
able to build using AR, still gave students the opportunity to access useful multimedia resources in the form of 3D mod-
els, and videos, along with other media, by bonding their mobile devices to markers that acted as trigger images.
The implementation of the LPs/scenarios created or enriched within the context of the EL-STEM project was facili-
tated by all students’ access to mobile devices. Tablets and other mobile devices are routinely used in the school, which
has a 1:1 policy when it comes to their classroom use. Also, unlike public schools in Greece and Cyprus, STEM educa-
tion is part of Doukas School’s secondary school curriculum.

235
As already noted, Doukas School also organized a course targeting secondary STEM educators from schools across
Athens. 15 teachers completed this course.
The main conclusions drawn by Doukas School partners based on observations made during the course, as well as
through informal discussions and interviews with the participants during and after the training sessions are (i) Significant
differences in teachers’ level of familiarity with AR technologies, with some educators not having had any prior exposure
to AR while others having already worked with platforms like Unity in the past; (ii) Participants had never in the past
considered how AR could be utilized in STEM education (i.e., had never seen the links between them); (iii) Most teach-
ers found AR apps like HP Reveal and Metaverse to be very simple to use, but also restrictive as to what they allow the
user to create; and (iv) The majority of participants found Unity to be quite difficult to learn and use, but at the same time
acknowledged the many possibilities it offers for STEM education, which made Unity quite appealing to them.
The main observations made by teachers who designed and/or implemented STEM LPs with integrated AR features
were that (i) AR is a useful tool to motivate students and engage them in classroom activities; (ii) There is a lack of easily
accessible LOs (e.g., teachers could not find suitable 3D models to embed in their lessons); (iii) Alternative uses of AR
technologies are possible although not highly interactive (e.g., using a mobile device and a marker to trigger a video, a
3D photo, or something that could be embedded in the apps).
It should be noted that in Greece, the EL-STEM teacher professional program was also offered in a second pri-
vate school (not an official project partner) that had expressed an interest in the program. Details regarding the program
implementation at this school and the follow-up AR-supported classroom interventions of teachers trained through the
program can be found in Lasica’s (2022) dissertation study. The key findings from Lasica’s (2022) study concur with the
main findings from the EL-STEM pilot testing at Doukas School that have been presented here.
Case Study 4 – Finland
In Finland, EL-STEM was implemented in a somewhat different way compared to the other partner countries. At
Viikki Teacher Training School, the Finnish partner, most of the teachers are also trainers of pre-service teachers study-
ing at the University of Helsinki. Prior to commencing any teacher training or piloting of new technologies, the school
personnel first experiment with different tools in order to find suitable ones for their pre-service teachers. This sec-
tion will describe what the Viikki EL-STEM team did in the case of the EL-STEM program. They went through a long
process of experimenting with different AR applications, before selecting the ones most suitable to integrate into their
STEM teacher training programs:
Stage 1 – Experimenting with Unity
At a first stage, Viikki partners experimented with Unity. An ICT teacher developed and offered a workshop on Uni-
ty, which was attended by five teachers. These teachers devoted considerable time to familiarize themselves with Unity
and design and pilot test instructional material using the tool. The school EL-STEM team also attempted to introduce
a special Unity course for their upper secondary students, in order “to find out how they learn, and the difficulties they
might experience with this program.” Although these initiatives provided an excellent opportunity for teachers and stu-
dents wishing to explore the application’s rich features and affordances in-depth, in the end, it was decided that Unity
was not suitable for wide adoption at the school due to its complexity.
Stage 2 – Experimenting with HP Reveal
Next, the EL-STEM team experimented with the extended reality platform HP Reveal, and they introduced several
of their colleagues to the app. In the beginning, this seemed quite promising and was used by Viikki teachers to create
several LOs that were integrated into their STEM courses. However, when the HP company announced that in early 2020
it would shut down the business and all of HP Reveal’s products, they decided to look for alternatives.

236
Stage 3 – Experimenting with Various Other AR Tools
Partners at Viikki School continued to experiment with various tools (e.g., Elements 4D, AR/VR cards, WondaVR)
but none met the needs of teachers in the school. Almost all the apps they experimented with required excessive time and
effort on behalf of the teachers to learn how to use and be able to use for creating LO in AR or VR.
Stage 4 – Selecting ThingLink
The AR tool the Finish team ended up working with is ThingLink, a platform offered by Microsoft that makes it
easy to augment images, videos, and virtual tours with additional information and links. They were acquainted with the
platform through a seminar offered at their school. In addition to its ease of use and pedagogically sound features, Thing-
Link was selected because it is embedded within the Microsoft Teams virtual learning environment used at the school.
After becoming familiarized with ThingLink, the Viikki school partners started creating LOs using the platform, which
they integrated into AR-supported LPs (see example in Figure 3). They also supported their colleagues by developing
videos and guides in Finnish on how to use ThingLink in primary and lower secondary school settings. Eight teachers at
Viikki school completed a workshop introducing them to ThingLink. Five of these teachers then went ahead to collab-
oratively work on the design and implementation of LPs and accompanying LOs incorporating the use of ThingLink, but
“unfortunately the Covid-19 closure did not allow [them] to pilot test the lesson plans.”
Figure 3. Teaching about the Phenomenon of Northern Lights with ThingLink.
As Viikki teachers pointed out during an online focus group discussion, when the project began they knew very little
about AR and its educational applications: “AR, VR, and MR were only acronyms… I was confused.” However, through
their participation in the project activities and independent study, they became familiar with multiple ways in which AR
could be utilized in STEM teaching and learning.
Teachers noted that attending the Unity course was time-consuming and challenging for them and that this was the
main reason “most of teachers taking the course dropped out.” For the average STEM teacher, they stressed, “studying
Unity is way too time-consuming.” Moreover, they “did not properly understand how [they] could satisfactorily utilize it
in teaching.” It is for this reason, they explained, that they experimented with other tools, searching for “an application
or platform that would not take too long to adopt,” and would allow them “to focus on the development of educational
content and not on the study of the application.”
The experimentation process, teachers noted, took long and was challenging: “There were too many ideas and too
many of them did not work… frustrating work.” It took them a considerable amount of time “to create workable ideas.”
They ended up selecting ThingLink because “it proved easy for both students and teachers to use,” and “because all stu-
dents have access to it.” Teachers also pointed out their students’ enthusiasm when they integrated LOs developed with
this app in their instruction, as “It was great to see how much joy 3D animals brought to biology lessons during school
closure,” and “Testing the AR sandbox was great! The AR sandbox inspires students of all ages and its application pos-
sibilities are diverse.”
To further stress the positive impact of the EL-STEM approach on students’ motivation, the Finnish national activity
report included the results of a post-survey administered to students at the end of the “Augmented Reality Animals” les-

237
son that was conducted at distance (due to the pandemic) in a Grade 7 class. All students in this class (n=23) indicated in
the post-survey that they had truly enjoyed the fact that they were able to make their own AR animals using their mobile
phones, noting that they found the 3D images to be “really nice and easy to use.”
There are also some indications of a positive impact on students’ learning. An EL-STEM team member at Viikki,
who taught two different sections of the same course during the Spring 2020 semester, integrated Thinglink into the cur-
riculum in the first section, while in the second section, he did not. As he noted, the performance in the final exam was
higher for the Thinglink section, even though students in both sections had a very similar profile in terms of demographic
characteristics and academic performance. Of course, such results should be interpreted with caution, as there might have
been other underlying factors affecting outcomes.
DISCUSSION & PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS
There are numerous limitations to the multiple case study research reported in this chapter. A drawback is the limited
generalizability of its findings due to the self-selected nature and the relatively small size of the case study samples. An-
other limitation is the lack of uniformity in data collection and analysis procedures employed in different case study sites
(i.e. partner countries). Clearly, the presented results are only suggestive and warrant further study, using more rigor-
ous data collection and analysis procedures. However, despite the tentative and non-generalizable nature of the findings,
the study does contribute insights into the accumulating body of research on AR-enhanced teaching and learning. The
program’s pilot testing has provided insightful information regarding both its strengths and its weaknesses. It also high-
lighted some challenges prohibiting the wide-scale adoption of AR in education. These are summarized in this section to-
gether with some of our own reflections. Below, the strengths and weaknesses of the EL-STEM program are highlighted.
These strengths and weaknesses can be used by practitioners, institutions, and organizations to inform the implementa-
tion of other XR professional development programs. This section ends with more general implications informed by the
findings of this study for the wide-scale adoption of AR-enhanced STEM learning.
Strengths of the EL-STEM Program
Findings indicate a very high level of satisfaction concerning most aspects of the EL-STEM professional develop-
ment program:
Program Design
Participants highly rated the pedagogical approach adopted by EL-STEM, and the course content and structure.
They found the developed material and resources to be well structured and of high quality, with easy-to-follow and in-
teresting topics that are relevant to the EL-STEM approach. They also expressed appreciation for the many practical ex-
amples included in the program to support the theoretical framework underlying EL-STEM.
Familiarization with AR and AR-enhanced STEM Learning
Teachers appreciated their exposure to AR, which they considered to be an innovative technology that can enhance
the STEM learning process. Almost all of them noted that the course provided the opportunity to become familiarized
with multiple AR tools and with ways they could be integrated into the STEM curriculum to motivate learners and allow
learners to experiment with and visualize challenging concepts. Teachers valued the possibility to create their own AR-
enhanced learning resources by employing user-friendly AR apps like Metaverse and Zappar. A few became interested in
more advanced environments like Unity to create more interactive LOs (e.g., game apps).
Interdisciplinary Approach
Teachers embraced the program’s interdisciplinary approach, which promotes learning of STEM disciplines in more
connected and holistic ways. They enjoyed the opportunities provided for collaboration with teachers of different STEM
subjects and for the co-design of LPs and educational scenarios.

238
Promotion of Communication and Collaboration
The focus of EL-STEM on the sociocultural aspects of learning and on the exchange of experiences and ideas
among STEM educators was pointed out by many participants as a very important strength of the program. Educators
praised the promotion of communication and cooperation among teachers from different schools or even countries. They
felt that they had a community to count on for ideas and support.
Inclusion of Teaching Practitioners in Program Design and Implementation
Another strength of the professional development program many participants noted was that the team of facilita-
tors included teaching practitioners who had already implemented the EL-STEM approach in their classrooms and had
practical suggestions and tips to share with other teachers. They found the provision of examples of LPs and instructional
activities that had been pilot-tested in real classrooms and suggestions on how to cope with technical and other practical
issues when introducing AR in the classroom extremely useful.
Positive Impact on Student Motivation and Learning
Teachers who designed and implemented LPs based on the EL-STEM approach reported high levels of satisfaction
with the overall experience of integrating AR and interdisciplinarity into instruction. They highlighted several positive
outcomes related to students’ motivation and level of participation. The use of AR-enhanced LOs proved to be a very
powerful means of motivating students and engaging them in classroom activities. There are some indications in the
obtained data that the use of the EL-STEM approach might have also had some positive impact on students’ learning of
STEM concepts, along with the promotion of essential 21st
-century skills.
In Cyprus and Estonia, a small number of primary school teachers also participated in the training despite not being
the target group of the program. These educators were particularly positive about the possibility of adopting the EL-
STEM approach in their instruction. Their high interest to integrate AR-enhanced STEM scenarios is possibly due to the
interdisciplinary nature and flexibility of the curriculum in the early grades as well as it being easier to evoke young stu-
dents’ enthusiasm towards emerging technologies like AR compared to older students.
Findings concur with the literature, which indicates that the seamless interconnection of the virtual and real world
offered by AR makes the learning process more relevant and enjoyable (e.g., Chen et al., 2017; Lin et al., 2021). They are
also in accord with numerous studies that have shown that affordances of AR such as realism, immersion, and situational
awareness can help improve student learning (e.g., Chen et al., 2017; Liono et al., 2021; Liou et al., 2017; Moro et al.,
2021; Stylianidou, et al. 2020).
Weaknesses of the Pilot EL-STEM Program
Participating teachers also referred to the following aspects of the EL-STEM training program as weaknesses and
made suggestions for improvement.
Excessive Emphasis on Underlying Theory
Several teachers found the program to put too much emphasis on the theoretical perspectives underlying the EL-
STEM approach. In Cyprus, teachers suggested devoting less time to theory and more time to hands-on exercises, exploi-
tation of AR tools, and LPs/LO design. In Estonia, participants suggested separating theory from hands-on practice by
offering tailored courses to cater to teachers’ different needs and levels of commitment to the program. At the same time,
the development of LPs based on theoretical principles or problem-based and inquiry-based learning was one of the key
aims of the EL-STEM project.
Limited Opportunities to Apply the EL-STEM Approach
Some teachers complained that the program did not provide adequate opportunities to apply the EL-STEM ap-
proach. Indeed, this happened in some cases, but it was mainly due to unforeseen factors outside the EL-STEM team’s

239
control (e.g., time constraints, COVID-19 pandemic, etc.). In particular, the school lockdown due to the pandemic ad-
versely impacted the second year of the pilot testing (2019-2020 school year), which did not allow most of the teachers
to finish the design of their LPs and LOs and/or to conduct teaching experimentation.
Challenges to the Wide-Scale Adoption of AR-Enhanced STEM Learning
Many of the challenges identified in the literature as hindering the wide-scale adoption of AR in STEM/STEAM
education (e.g., Birt & Cowling, 2017; Meletiou-Mavrotheris, 2019) were also experienced in our study.
Time Constraints
Teachers’ lack of time in becoming familiar with AR applications along with having to introduce them in their class-
rooms was an issue for teachers in all countries. In two of the partner countries – Cyprus and Greece – the adoption of
the interdisciplinary, AR-enhanced approach promoted by EL-STEM proved particularly difficult due to STEM Educa-
tion not being part of the official curriculum. Teachers from Greece and Cyprus pointed out that they did not have the
flexibility or time to try new technologies in their classrooms or to promote interdisciplinarity as their national curricu-
lum is very demanding and must be strictly followed. No such challenges were reported in Estonia or Finland, as both
STEM education and inquiry-based instruction are integrated within the national curricula of these two countries and are
deeply rooted in the school culture.
Limited AR Educational Material Available
Teachers in all territories repeatedly pointed out the high investment in time and effort required to become familiar
with AR apps and to create new STEM learning content incorporating AR. They stressed the need for the provision of
freely available educational material, such as LPs, educational scenarios, LOs.
Technical and/or Pedagogical Constraints of AR Apps
Many of the teachers expressed concerns regarding the technical and pedagogical constraints of most freely avail-
able AR apps. The teachers contrasted these limitations to the well-refined, high-quality graphics, and high level of inter-
action underlying the design of the video games students use in their daily lives.
Limited Number of User-friendly AR Authoring Tools
Teachers repeatedly noted the limited number of freely available AR authoring tools that are easy to use. Finnish
partners, for example, pointed out that almost all the apps their team experimented with required too much time and ef-
fort on behalf of the teachers to learn how to use and create the AR/VR LOs materials to complement them. Moreover,
while Viikki School teachers recognized the enhanced functionalities and capabilities of AR authoring tools such as Uni-
ty compared to simpler AR apps like HP Reveal and Metaverse, attending a Unity course proved far too challenging for
the majority of them.
Technical and Practical Constraints
Teachers in all participating countries mentioned various technical and practical issues that educators are likely to
face when first attempting to introduce AR in their classrooms. A practical issue that cropped up during the pilot testing
of the EL-STEM program in Greece and Cyprus was the fact that the use of mobile devices, especially smartphones, in
the classroom was prohibited. Given that the use of mobile devices is necessary for AR-enhanced teaching and learning
to take place, teachers who conducted classroom experimentations had to obtain special permission from the Ministry of
Education before allowing their students to use smartphones in class. This requirement was a factor that discouraged sev-
eral participants from adopting the EL-STEM approach in their instruction.

240
CONCLUSION
The experience from pilot testing of the EL-STEM approach suggests that AR presents some valuable opportuni-
ties for enhancing students’ engagement and learning of STEM subjects. At the same time, findings highlight not only
opportunities, but also several pedagogical, technical, and management issues that need to be addressed. The wide and
effective integration of AR technologies within STEM education necessitates careful strategic planning and reflective
implementation grounded in solid research. Teachers should be provided with high-quality professional development.
This should be accompanied by equipping classrooms with appropriate technology infrastructure (e.g., robust Wi-Fi), AR
tools (e.g., user-friendly AR authoring platforms), and technical support for teachers during implementation (Meletiou-
Mavrotheris et al., 2019). Developers of AR apps ought to improve the functionalities of their apps, in order to provide
teachers with the necessary tools to make instructional use of AR, by creating higher quality LOs, with more appealing
interfaces and graphics, and with more opportunities for student experimentation and interaction with the tools and each
other. A need also exists for high-quality AR-supported content to be developed and become freely and widely available,
so that teachers do not have to spend an undue amount of time on the development from scratch of interdisciplinary LPs
and accompanying LOs. Instead, they should be provided with ready-to-use LOs and other educational resources, which
they could easily adapt and implement in their classroom. Teachers willing to develop such resources and pilot them in
their classrooms should be provided with incentives for devoting their time (e.g., workload reduction, reduction in ad-
ministrative duties).
In countries with more traditional educational systems like Greece and Cyprus, an important pre-condition for the
widespread adoption of AR technologies is the revision of educational policies (e.g., permitting classroom use of smart-
phones) and the reconstruction of school curricula and methods of assessment. This revision would more closely align
the features of AR with the contemporary views underlying ICT-enhanced STEM pedagogy.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to acknowledge the contribution in the data collection process of their EL-STEM project
partners Andria Pontiki, Myria Theodoridou, Ari Myllyviita, Sirkka Staff, Vasilis Economou, Thomas Economou, Taavi
Kreistmann, and Annika Leppsaar.
REFERENCES
Akçayir, M., & Akçayir, G. (2017). Advantages and challenges associated with augmented reality for education: A systematic
review of the literature. Educational Research Review, 20, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2016.11.002
Bacca, J., Baldiris, S., Fabregat, R., Graf, S., & Kinshuk. (2014). Augmented reality trends in education: A systematic review
of research and applications. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 17(4), 133-149. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/
jeductechsoci.17.4.133.
Birt, J., & Cowling, M.A. (2017). Towards future mixed reality learning spaces for STEAM education. International Journal of
Innovative Science and Mathematics Education, 25(4), 1–16.
Burton, E. P., Frazier, W., Annetta, L., Lamb, R., Cheng, R. & Chmiel, M. (2011). Modeling Augmented Reality games with
preservice elementary and secondary science teachers. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 19(3), 303-329.
https://www.learntechlib.org/p/37136
Baabdullah, A. M., Alsulaimani, A. A., Allamnakhrah, A., Alalwan, A. A., Dwivedi, Y. K., & Rana, N. P. (2022). Usage of aug-
mented reality (AR) and development of e-learning outcomes: An empirical evaluation of students’ e-learning experience.
Computers & Education, 177, 104383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104383
Chen, P., Liu, X., Cheng, W., & Huang, R. (2017). A review of using augmented reality in education from 2011 to 2016. In E.
Popescu et al. (Eds.), Innovations in smart learning. Lecture notes in educational technology (pp. 31-18). Springer. https://
doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2419-1_2
Dengel, A., & Mägdefrau, J. (2018). Immersive learning explored: Subjective and objective factors influencing learning out-
comes in immersive educational virtual environments. In 2018 IEEE International Conference on Teaching, Assessment,
and Learning for Engineering (TALE) (pp. 608-615). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/TALE.2018.8615281
Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., & Sendurur, P. (2012). Teacher beliefs and technology in-
tegration practices: A critical relationship. Computers & Education, 59(2), 423-435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compe-
du.2012.02.001

241
Gandolfi, E., Ferdig, R.E. and Immel, Z., (2018). Educational opportunities for augmented reality. In J. Voogt, G., Knezek, R.,
Christensen, & K.W. Lai (Eds), Second Handbook of Information Technology in Primary and Secondary Education (pp.
968-979). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-53803-7_112-1
Henriksen, D., Mehta, R. & Rosenberg, J. (2019). Supporting a creatively focused technology fluent mindset among educators:
Survey results from a five-year inquiry into teachers’ confidence in using technology. Journal of Technology and Teacher
Education, 27(1), 63-95. https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/184724/
Ibáñez, M. B., & Delgado-Kloos, C. (2018). Augmented reality for STEM learning: A systematic review. Computers & Educa-
tion, 123, 109-123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.05.002
Jailungka, P., Charoenseang, S., & Thammatinno, C. (2020). Augmented reality and microbit for project-based learning. Lecture
Notes in Computer Science (Including Subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformat-
ics), 12191 LNCS, 219–235. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49698-2_15
Jesionkowska, J., Wild, F., & Deval, Y. (2020). Active learning augmented reality for STEAM education—a case study. Educa-
tion Sciences, 10(8), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10080198
Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(4),
63-85. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02300500
Krneta, R., Restivo, M. T., Rojko, A., & Urbano, D. (2016). Evaluation of remote experiments by different target groups: NeRe-
La project case study. In 13th International Conference on Remote Engineering and Virtual Instrumentation (REV 2016)
(pp. 326-331). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/REV.2016.7444493
Lasica, I. E. (2022). Augmented Reality in Secondary Education in the Fields of STEM: A Case Study Including Teachers from
Schools in Cyprus and Greece [Doctoral Dissertation, European University Cyprus].
Lasica, I.E., Meletiou-Mavrotheris, M., & Katzis, K. (2020a). Augmented reality in lower secondary education: A teacher
professional development program in Cyprus and Greece. Education Sciences, 10(4), 121. https://doi.org/10.3390/educ-
sci10040121
Lasica, I.E., Meletiou-Mavrotheris, M., & Katzis, K. (2020b). A teacher professional development program on teaching STEM-
related topics using augmented reality in secondary education. In Yu S., Ally M., Tsinakos A. (eds) Emerging Technolo-
gies and Pedagogies in the Curriculum. Bridging Human and Machine: Future Education with Intelligence (pp. 113-126).
Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0618-5_7
Gutiérrez, J., & Contero, M. (2011). Improving academic performance and motivation in engineering education with augmented
reality. In C. Stephanidis (Eds) HCI International 2011–Posters’ Extended Abstracts (pp. 509–513), Springer. https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-3-642-22095-1_102
Lin, H.C., Lin, Y.H., Wang, T.H., Su, L.K., & Huang, Y.M. (2021). Effects of incorporating augmented reality into a board game
for high school students’ learning motivation and acceptance in health education. Sustainability, 13(6), 3333. MDPI AG.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su13063333
Liono, R. A., Amanda, N., Pratiwi, A., & Gunawan, A. A. (2021). A systematic literature review: Learning with visual by the
help of augmented reality helps students learn better. Procedia Computer Science, 179, 144–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
procs.2020.12.019
Liou, H., Yang, S.J., Chen, S., & Tarng, W. (2017). The influences of the 2D image-based augmented reality and virtual reality
on student learning. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 20, 110-121. http://www.jstor.org/stable/26196123
Lytridis, C., Tsinakos, A., & Kazanidis, I. (2018). ARTutor—An augmented reality platform for interactive distance learn-
ing. Education Sciences, 8(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci8010006
Meletiou-Mavrotheris, M., Charalambous, C., Mavrou, K., Dimopoulos, C., Anastasi, P., Lasica, I.E., Stylianidou, N., &
Vasou, C. (2019). Empowering teachers to augment students’ reading experience: The Living Book project approach.
In Th. Prodromou (Ed.), Augmented Reality in Educational Settings (pp. 56-79). Brill, Sense Education. https://doi.
org/10.1163/9789004408845_003
Meletiou-Mavrotheris, M., & Mavrotheris, E. (2007). Online communities of practice enhancing statistics instruction: The Eu-
ropean project EarlyStatistics. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 5(2), 113-122. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1098685.
pdf
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teach-
ers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x
Moro, C., Birt, J., Stromberga, Z., Phelps, C., Clark, J., Glasziou, P., & Scott, A.M. (2021). Virtual and augmented reality en-
hancements to medical and science student physiology and anatomy test performance: A systematic review and meta-analy-
sis. Anatomical Science Education, 14(3), 368– 376. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.2049
Pedaste, M., Mitt, G., & Jürivete, T. (2020). What is the effect of using mobile augmented reality in K12 inquiry-based learn-
ing? Education Sciences, 10(4), 94. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10040094
Pedaste, M., & Leijen, Ä. (2018). How can advanced technologies support the contemporary learning approach?, In IEEE 18th
International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT 2018) (pp. 21-23). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/
ICALT.2018.00011

242
Pedaste, M., Mäeots, M., Siiman, L. A., De Jong, T., Van Riesen, S. A., Kamp, E. T., & Tsourlidaki, E. (2015). Phases of inqui-
ry-based learning: Definitions and the inquiry cycle. Educational Research Review, 14, 47-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
edurev.2015.02.003
Radhamani, R., Sasidharakurup, H., Sujatha, G., Nair, B., Achuthan, K., & Diwakar, S. (2014). Virtual labs improve student’s
performance in a classroom. In International Conference on E-Learning, E-Education, and Online Training (pp. 138-146).
Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-13293-8_17
Stylianidou, N., Sofianidis, A., Manoli, E., & Meletiou-Mavrotheris, M. (2020). “Helping Nemo!”—Using augmented reali-
ty and alternate reality games in the context of universal design for learning. Education Sciences, 10(4), 95. https://doi.
org/10.3390/educsci10040095

Bridging the XR Technology-to-Practice Gap: Methods and Strategies for Blending Extended Realities into Classroom Instruction

More Related Content

Similar to Bridging the XR Technology-to-Practice Gap: Methods and Strategies for Blending Extended Realities into Classroom Instruction (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Bridging the XR Technology-to-Practice Gap: Methods and Strategies for Blending Extended Realities into Classroom Instruction