Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Virtual Place-Based Learning in Interdisciplinary Contexts: A Psychological Perspective and a Meta-analytic Review

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Virtual Place-Based Learning

Abstract

This chapter briefly explores the meaning of “virtual” and the psychological concepts of presence and immersion followed by the application of virtual reality (VR) methods in post-secondary education. A meta-analysis was conducted to determine the efficacy of VR compared to more traditional teaching methods. Overall, students who experienced VR significantly outperformed those experiencing more traditional methods by about three-quarters of a standard deviation. These results were moderated by immersiveness (students in moderately immersive environments outperformed those in low or high immersive environments), whether place-based pedagogies were incorporated (students experiencing place-based VR pedagogies performed better), and student level (undergraduate students in VR conditions performed better than those in traditional classes). It is concluded that VR pedagogical methods, particularly when moderately immersive and place-based, benefit undergraduate students the most.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Daniel Schneider, and Paraskevi Synteta, “Virtual Learning Environments,” in A. Dimitracopoulou (Ed). Proceedings of the 3rd Hellenic Conference Information Communication Technologies in Education, (2002): 3–18.

  2. 2.

    See Blackboard, software, accessed August 15, 2019, https://www.blackboard.com, Moodle, software, accessed August 15, 2019, https://moodle.org; Second Life, software, accessed August 15, 2019, http://go.secondlife.com/landing/education/?lang=en. Also see Ishbel Duncan, Alan1 Miller, and Shangyi Jiang, “A Taxonomy of Virtual Worlds Usage in Education,” British Journal of Educational Technology 43, no. 6 (November 2012): 949–964; Marina Marchisio, et al., “Problem Solving Competence Developed Through a Virtual Learning Environment in a European Context,” eLearning & Software for Education 1 (January 2017): 455–63; Hannie Sander, Anette van Vuren, and Tanya du Plessis, “Library Live: Embedding and Contextualizing Information Resources in the Virtual Learning Environment,” IATUL Annual Conference Proceedings 16 (January 2006): 1–9.

  3. 3.

    Thomas P. Caudell and David Mizell, “Augmented Reality: An Application of Heads-up Display Technology to Manual Manufacturing Processes,” in Proceedings of the Hawaii international conference on system sciences (1992): 659.

  4. 4.

    Thomas P. Caudell and David Mizell, “Augmented Reality: An Application of Heads-up Display Technology to Manual Manufacturing Processes,” 660.

  5. 5.

    Hsin-Kai Wu, Silvia Wen-Yu Lee, Hsin-Yi Chang, and Jyh-Chong Liang, “Current status, Opportunities and Challenges of Augmented Reality in Education,” Computers & Education 62, (2013): 41–49.

  6. 6.

    For a definition of interdisciplinary placed-based learning, refer to the introductory chapter of this volume as well as Reneta D. Lansiquot and Sean P. MacDonald, “Introduction: A Model for Interdisciplinary Place-based Learning,” in Interdisciplinary Place-Based Learning in Urban Education: Exploring Virtual Worlds, ed. Reneta D. Lansiquot and Sean P. MacDonald (New York: Palgrave, 2018), 1–15.

  7. 7.

    Eric Klopfer and Josh Sheldon, “Augmenting Your Own Reality: Student Authoring of Science-Based Augmented Reality Games,” New Directions for Youth Development 2010, no. 128 (Winter 2010): 85–94.

  8. 8.

    Hsin-Kai Wu, Silvia Wen-Yu Lee, Hsin-Yi Chang, and Jyh-Chong Liang, “Current status, Opportunities and Challenges of Augmented Reality in Education.”

  9. 9.

    See for example: Murat Akçayır and Gökçe Akçayır, “Advantages and Challenges Associated with Augmented Reality for Education: A Systematic Review of the Literature,” Educational Research Review 20 (February 2017): 1–11; Laura Freina and Michela Ott, “A Literature Review on Immersive Virtual Reality in Education: State of the Art and Perspectives,” eLearning & Software for Education no. 1 (January 2015): 133–41; Eric Klopfer and Kurt Squire, “Environmental Detectives—the Development of an Augmented Reality Platform for Environmental Simulations,” Educational Technology Research & Development 56, no. 2 (April 2008): 203–28.

  10. 10.

    Jeff Graham, Tom Alloway, and Lester Krames. “Sniffy, the Virtual Rat: Simulated Operant Conditioning,” Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers 26 (1994): 134–141.

  11. 11.

    I also had to feed them, clean their cages, avoid bites when handling them as well as deprive them of water and food before training sessions.

  12. 12.

    Mirari Elcoro and Melissa B. Trundle, “Student Preferences for Live versus Virtual Rats in a Learning Course,” International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 7, no. 1 (January 1, 2013): 1–13.

  13. 13.

    Jody L. Lewis, “A Comparison Between Two Different Activities for Teaching Learning Principles: Virtual Animal Labs Versus Human Demonstrations,” Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology 1, no. 2 (June 2015): 182–88.

  14. 14.

    For example, Sandy S. Venneman and Laura Ruth Knowles, “Sniffing Out Efficacy: Sniffy Lite, a Virtual Animal Lab,” Teaching of Psychology 32, no. 1 (Winter 2005): 66–68.

  15. 15.

    I have not collected outcome data.

  16. 16.

    See Mel Slater and Sylvia Wilbur. “A Framework for Immersive Virtual Environments (FIVE): Speculations on the Role of Presence in Virtual Environments,” Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments 6 (1997): 603–616.

  17. 17.

    Slater and Wilbur, “A Framework for Immersive Virtual Environments (FIVE).”

  18. 18.

    Slater and Wilbur, “A Framework for Immersive Virtual Environments (FIVE).”

  19. 19.

    See Larry F. Hodges, et al., “Virtual Environments for Treating the Fear of Heights,” Computer 28, no. 7 (1995): 27–34.

  20. 20.

    Larry F. Hodges, et al., “Virtual Environments for Treating the Fear of Heights,” 30.

  21. 21.

    Stephane Bouchard, Julie St-Jacques, Genevieve Robillard, and Patrice Renaud, “Anxiety Increases the Feeling of Presence in Virtual Reality.” Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 17, no. 4 (2008): 376–391.

  22. 22.

    Miriam Reiner and David Hecht, “Behavioral Indications of Object-Presence in Haptic Virtual Environments,” CyberPsychology & Behavior 12, no. 2 (2009): 183–186.

  23. 23.

    See Mel Slater and Sylvia Wilbur, “A Framework for Immersive Virtual Environments (FIVE): Speculations on the Role of Presence in Virtual Environments.”

  24. 24.

    Slater and Wilbur, “A Framework for Immersive Virtual Environments (FIVE).”

  25. 25.

    Slater and Wilbur, “A Framework for Immersive Virtual Environments (FIVE).”

  26. 26.

    Keith R. Bujak, et al., “A Psychological Perspective on Augmented Reality in the Mathematics Classroom,” Computers & Education 68 (October 2013): 536–44.

  27. 27.

    Khe Foon Hew and Wing Sum Cheung, “Use of Three-Dimensional (3-D) Immersive Virtual Worlds in K-12 and Higher Education Settings: A Review of the Research,” British Journal of Educational Technology 41, no. 1 (January 2010): 33–55.

  28. 28.

    Eugenijus Kurilovas, “Evaluation of Quality and Personalisation of VR/AR/MR Learning Systems,” Behaviour & Information Technology 35, no. 11 (November 2016): 998–1007.

  29. 29.

    Tassos A. Mikropoulos and Antonis Natsis, “Educational Virtual Environments: A Ten-Year Review of Empirical Research (1999–2009),” Computers & Education 56, no. 3 (April 2011): 769–80.

  30. 30.

    Pierre Dillenbourg, Daniel Schneider, and Paraskevi Synteta, “Virtual Learning Environments,” in Proceedings of the 3rd Hellenic Conference Information Communication Technologies in Education, ed. A. Dimitracopoulou, (2002): 3–18.

  31. 31.

    Dillenbourg, Schneider, and Synteta, “Virtual Learning Environments.”

  32. 32.

    Sergo Martirosov and Pavel Kopecek, “Virtual Reality and Its Influence on Training and Education – Literature Review,” Annals of DAAAM & Proceedings 28 (January 2017): 708–17.

  33. 33.

    Margaret M. Hansen, “Versatile, Immersive, Creative and Dynamic Virtual 3-D Healthcare Learning Environments: A Review of the Literature,” Journal of Medical Internet Research 10, no. 3 (September 1, 2008): e26.

  34. 34.

    Brad J. Bushman and Morgan C. Wang, “Vote-Counting Procedures in Meta-Analysis,” in The Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis, 2nd ed., eds. Harris Cooper, Larry V. Hedges, and Jeffrey C. Valentine, 207–20. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation, 2009; Frank L. Schmidt and John E. Hunter, Methods of Meta-analysis: Correcting Error and Bias in Research Findings 3rd ed. (Thousand Oaks, California: Sage, 2015).

  35. 35.

    H. Maertens, et al., “Systematic Review of E-Learning for Surgical Training,” The British Journal of Surgery 103, no. 11 (October 2016): 1428–37.

  36. 36.

    Gene V. Glass, “Integrating Findings: The Meta-Analysis of Research,” Review of Research in Education 5, no. 1 (January 1977): 351–79; John E. Hunter, Frank L. Schmidt, Gregg B. Jackson, and American Psychological Association, Division of Industrial-Organizational Psychology, Meta-analysis: Cumulating Research Findings Across Studies. Studying Organizations (Beverly Hills, California: Sage, 1982).

  37. 37.

    Zahira Merchant, et al., “Effectiveness of Virtual Reality-Based Instruction on Students’ Learning Outcomes in K-12 and Higher Education: A Meta-Analysis,” Computers & Education 70 (January 2014): 29–40.

  38. 38.

    See John E. Hunter and Frank L. Schmidt. Methods of Meta-analysis: Correcting Error and Bias in Research Findings (Newbury Park, California: Sage, 1990); Frank L. Schmidt and John E. Hunter, Methods of Meta-analysis: Correcting Error and Bias in Research Findings.

  39. 39.

    Frank L. Schmidt and John E. Hunter, Methods of Meta-analysis: Correcting Error and Bias in Research Findings.

  40. 40.

    Frank L. Schmidt and John E. Hunter, Methods of Meta-analysis: Correcting Error and Bias in Research Findings.

  41. 41.

    For example, Reza Ghanbarzadeh and Amir Hossein Ghapanchi, “Investigating Various Application Areas of Three-dimensional Virtual Worlds for Higher Education,” British Journal of Educational Technology 49, no. 3 (May 2018): 370–84; Reza Ghanbarzadeh, et al., “A Decade of Research on the Use of Three-Dimensional Virtual Worlds in Health Care: A Systematic Literature Review,” Journal of Medical Internet Research 16, no. 2 (February 18, 2014): e47; Khe Foon Hew and Wing Sum Cheung. “Use of Three-Dimensional (3-D) Immersive Virtual Worlds in K-12 and Higher Education Settings: A Review of the Research,” British Journal of Educational Technology 41, no. 1 (January 2010): 33–55; Zahira Merchant, et al., “Effectiveness of Virtual Reality-Based Instruction on Students’ Learning Outcomes in K-12 and Higher Education: A Meta-Analysis,” Computers & Education 70 (January 2014): 29–40; Tassos A. Mikropoulos and Antonis Natsis, “Educational Virtual Environments: A Ten-Year Review of Empirical Research (1999–2009).”

  42. 42.

    Contact the author for a list of the studies used in the meta-analysis.

  43. 43.

    Marcus A. Butavicius, et al., “Evaluation of a Virtual Reality Parachute Training Simulator: Assessing Learning in an off-Course Augmented Feedback Training Schedule,” The International Journal of Aviation Psychology 22, no. 3 (July 2012): 282–98.

  44. 44.

    Susan Persky, et al., “Presence Relates to Distinct Outcomes in Two Virtual Environments Employing Different Learning Modalities,” CyberPsychology & Behavior 12, no. 3 (June 2009): 263–68.

  45. 45.

    See Mustafa Baser and Soner Durmuş. “The Effectiveness of Computer Supported versus Real Laboratory Inquiry Learning Environments on the Understanding of Direct Current Electricity Among Pre-Service Elementary School Teachers,” Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education 6, no. 1 (February 2010): 47–61; Sharon Farra, Elaine Miller, Nathan Timm, and John Schafer, “Improved Training for Disasters Using 3-D Virtual Reality Simulation,” Western Journal of Nursing Research 35, no. 5 (May 2013): 655–71.

  46. 46.

    For example, see Xiaofeng Chen, Keng Siau, and Fiona Fui-Hoon Nah, “Empirical Comparison of 3-D Virtual World and Face-to-Face Classroom for Higher Education,” Journal of Database Management 23, no. 3 (July 2012): 30–49.

  47. 47.

    For example, see Yan Xu, Hyungsung Park, and Youngkyun Baek, “A New Approach Toward Digital Storytelling: An Activity Focused on Writing Self-Efficacy in a Virtual Learning Environment,” Journal of Educational Technology & Society 14, no. 4 (October 2011): 181–91.

  48. 48.

    For example, see Mirari Elcoro and Melissa B. Trundle, “Student Preferences for Live Versus Virtual Rats in a Learning Course,” International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 7, no. 1 (January 1, 2013): 1–13.

  49. 49.

    Marina Bers and Clement Chau, “The Virtual Campus of the Future: Stimulating and Simulating Civic Actions in a Virtual World.” Journal of Computing in Higher Education 22, no. 1 (April 2010): 1–23.

  50. 50.

    Diego Vergara, Manuel Pablo Rubio, and Miguel Lorenzo, “New Approach for the Teaching of Concrete Compression Tests in Large Groups of Engineering Students,” Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education & Practice 143, no. 2 (April 2017): 1–9.

  51. 51.

    Jody L. Lewis, “A Comparison between Two Different Activities for Teaching Learning Principles: Virtual Animal Labs versus Human Demonstrations,” Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology 1, no. 2 (June 2015): 182–88.

  52. 52.

    Therese Gunn, et al., “The Use of Virtual Reality Simulation to Improve Technical Skill in the Undergraduate Medical Imaging Student,” Interactive Learning Environments 26, no. 5 (August 2018): 613–20.

  53. 53.

    Frank L. Schmidt and John E. Hunter, Methods of Meta-analysis: Correcting Error and Bias in Research Findings.

  54. 54.

    Detlef Urhahne, Sabine Nick, and Sascha Schanze, “The Effect of Three-Dimensional Simulations on the Understanding of Chemical Structures and Their Properties,” Research in Science Education 39, no. 4 (December 2009): 495–513.

  55. 55.

    Frank L. Schmidt and John E. Hunter. Methods of Meta-analysis: Correcting Error and Bias in Research Findings.

  56. 56.

    Although studies were identified in the literature search that incorporated interdisciplinary teaching or learning, many did not meet the criteria for inclusion in the meta-analysis. For example, Leslie Jarmon, et al., “Virtual World Teaching, Experiential Learning, and Assessment: An Interdisciplinary Communication Course in Second Life,” Computers & Education 53, no. 1 (August 2009): 169–82 did not include a control group in their study. Erin Drake-Bridges, Andrew Strelzoff, and Tulio Sulbaran, “Teaching Marketing Through a Micro-Economy in Virtual Reality,” Journal of Marketing Education 33, no. 3 (December 2011): 295–311 focused their article on the interdisciplinary team efforts to create teaching materials.

  57. 57.

    Jean E. Kubeck, et al., “Does Job-Related Training Performance Decline with Age?” Psychology and Aging 11, no. 1 (March 1996): 92–107; Schmidt, Frank L. and John E. Hunter. Methods of Meta-analysis: Correcting Error and Bias in Research Findings. 3rd ed. (Thousand Oaks, California: Sage, 2015).

  58. 58.

    Although studies were coded as to whether they included interdisciplinary teaching or learning, there were not a sufficient number to include this variable as a moderator.

  59. 59.

    See, for example, Harris M. Cooper and Larry V. Hedges, The Handbook of Research Synthesis (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1994).

  60. 60.

    Laurence G. Grimm and Paul R. Yarnold Reading and Understanding Multivariate Statistics, eds. Laurence G. Grimm and Paul R. Yarnold (Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 1995).

  61. 61.

    A CAVE system is a type of immersive VR that is created by using projectors and 3D glasses in a square room. See Carolina Cruz-Neira, et al., “The Cave: Audio Visual Experience Automatic Virtual Environment,” Communications of the ACM 35, no. 6 (June 1992): 65–72.

  62. 62.

    John E. Hunter and Frank L. Schmidt, Methods of Meta-analysis: Correcting Error and Bias in Research Findings; Frank L. Schmidt, et al., “Refinements in Validity Generalization Methods: Implications for the Situational Specificity Hypothesis,” Journal of Applied Psychology 78, no. 1 (February 1993): 3–12. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.1.3

  63. 63.

    Scott A. Engum, Pamela Jeffries, and Lisa Fisher, “Intravenous Catheter Training System: Computer-Based Education versus Traditional Learning Methods,” American Journal of Surgery 186, no. 1 (July 2003): 67–74.

Bibliography

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. New York City College of Technology, The City University of New York, Brooklyn, NY, USA

    Jean E. Hillstrom

Authors
  1. Jean E. Hillstrom
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jean E. Hillstrom .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. New York City College of Technology, The City University of New York, Brooklyn, NY, USA

    Reneta D. Lansiquot

  2. New York City College of Technology, The City University of New York, Brooklyn, NY, USA

    Sean P. MacDonald

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Hillstrom, J.E. (2019). Virtual Place-Based Learning in Interdisciplinary Contexts: A Psychological Perspective and a Meta-analytic Review. In: Lansiquot, R., MacDonald, S. (eds) Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Virtual Place-Based Learning. Palgrave Pivot, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32471-1_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32471-1_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Pivot, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-32470-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-32471-1

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation