Dezember 2018

Over the last few years, significant progress has been made in addressing the limitations and challenges of VR tools. Technologies such as the Oculus Rift and Vive headset have the ability to immerse people in a virtual world for much less cost than CAVEs. Importantly, the constant improvement in computing and graphics processing means that the necessary power is plausibly achievable using desktop computers in teaching laboratories or homes. Although research on virtual world experiences has been increasing over the last few years, there is a lack of theorization of how students learn in these environments (Loke, 2015) as most empirical explorations have focused on practical issues (Wang & Burton, 2013). Despite the potential benefits, the pedagogical literature on the educational impact of recent advances with VR headsets remains weak. Additionally, there is a dominance of self‐reported perceptions of effectiveness, without sufficient feedback from users of VR. Nevertheless, some of the more in‐depth studies have indicated that even earlier versions of VR can positively stimulate interaction (Roussou, 2004) and motivate students (Garris, Ahlers, & Driskell, 2002; Ott & Tavella, 2009). It is timely then to conduct research to explore VR headsets‘ effectiveness in virtually placing the learner in an SEEE. Adopting a UX perspective (Hassenzahl & Tractinsky, 2006), which considers the experiential facet, the emotion and affect facet, and the holistic and aesthetic facet, the paper conducts a trial of VR headsets for learning in an SEEE before mapping the participants‘ responses against the conceptualization of SEEE presented in Figure 1.

3 METHOD

The research comprised two stages. The first stage consisted of a range of university stakeholders (academics, professional staff, and students) “visiting” a Unity software‐based virtual island in Fiji by using the Oculus Rift headset. The second stage sought to explore through semistructured interviews what each respondent identified as the strengths and weaknesses of the experience as an SEEE. A total of 11 people, six staff and five students, responded to the invitation to participate; none had previously used a VR headset. Diverse cultural backgrounds largely reflective of undergraduate classes at the authors‘ business school were represented by the student respondents, which included two students of New Zealand European/pakeha background, one international student from Asia, one New Zealand Maori student, and one Pasifika student with Fijian background. Three were female and two males, which is again consistent with broader business school demographics. Staff respondents were evenly balanced in gender terms and included three cultural backgrounds: New Zealand European/pakeha (three staff), European (two staff), and New Zealand Maori (one staff). The roles held by staff covered the breadth of the university’s educational system and included associate dean, academic member of staff (with teaching and research responsibilities), and professional roles in IT and student educational support.

The questions were designed to provide the interviews with a guiding framework while at the same time giving respondents the freedom to modify the sequence of questions and to add additional points. The interviews started by asking about respondents‘ initial impressions of the experience, followed by questions about the strengths and the weaknesses of the virtual SEEE. Each interview lasted on average 20 min, was subsequently transcribed, and analysed in Nvivo using thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006). The analysis process enlisted a combination of inductive–deductive reasoning (Fereday & Muir‐Cochrane, 2006) that saw themes from the literature combined with emergent themes from the interviews.

4 FINDINGS

In order to provide an exploratory assessment of the effectiveness of the virtual island as an SEEE, the key findings from the interviews were mapped in detail against two of the three key features of SEEE: sense of immersion and the complexity of what is studied. Although equally important, the interaction feature of SEEE could not be substantially analysed as it was beyond the scope of this exploratory project.

5 DISCUSSION

Universities across the world are welcoming an increasingly diverse student community into their faculties and departments, and as Altbach, Reisberg, and Rumbley (2009) posit, “an increasingly diverse student body also creates pressure to put in place new systems for academic support and innovative approaches to pedagogy” (p. x). Innovative approaches should include tools that serve traditionally focused learners as well as those who have a more kinaesthetic (active), visual, inductive, sensing, and global learning preference (Felder, 1993). VR‐based opportunities for situated experiential education should be considered in this context as they combine established educational philosophies from the 20th century with 21st century technological innovation. The interviews exhibited strong support for the provision of diverse learning opportunities to match students‘ diverse learning preferences. Respondents commented that VR provides effective opportunities in this context, by making SEEEs available to learners in an era of less real fieldtrips and site visits for students.

Aligning the trial and subsequent interviews with the literature‐based conceptualization of an SEEE, as outlined in Figure 1, the findings will now be discussed with reference to the two key features of SEEE that are the focus of this paper, sense of immersion, and complexity of material studied.

Overall, a strong sense of immersion was reported by respondents. This was in part attributed to the headset’s responsiveness to the user’s instinctive head movement as well as a strong visual appeal and depth perception of the large virtual SEEE visited. Aspects that were particularly emphasized in this context were the bisensory appeal of detailed high‐resolution visuals and situated animated content, coupled with realistic and appropriate sound throughout the island. This was reported to invoke both a strong feeling of immersion and fidelity in the respondents. When mapping the findings on to the intensity scale in Figure 1, the sense of immersion experienced by the respondents can be summarized to be around the elevated midlevel of the scale as certain sensory stimuli are strong while others are absent.

When refining the virtual SEEEs further, additional senses should be catered to in order to increase both the user’s sense of immersion and to enhance the complexity of the material and situation under study. For example, the tactile domain in VR, which is gaining increasing research attention in neuroscience (de Jong, Keizer, Engel, & Dijkerman, 2017), could be incorporated through the use of a small selection of meaningful real items that are connected to appropriate places in the virtual world and can be picked up by learners; in the case of Fiji, these items could include the culturally important carved kava bowls, Pacific sea shells, and/or coconuts. Additionally, there is evidence that thermoceptive stimuli in the form of heat create a more immersive experience for the user than merely providing a visual stimuli in the virtual world (Jones & Dawkins, 2018). Smell, or more aptly olfaction, has been successfully used in a museum context for several decades to create multimodal exhibits. Examples include cigar smoke in the Britain at War experience and the American Museum of Natural History that uses gunpowder smell and odours of the tropical rain forest (Stevenson, 2014). There is consensus that the presence of smell can have a major impact on the sense of immersion (Jones & Dawkins, 2018) as well as our ability to memorize a situation or environment (Chalmers & Zányi, 2009). Of particular significance in an educational context is Aggleton and Waskett’s (1999) finding that exposure to odour cues lead to a highly significant improvement in recall of a museum’s content, even though the interval between the recall test and the last visit to the museum can be a full 6 years.

The integrated and complex nature of the material studied in the virtual SEEE’s also received considerable attention by the respondents, thus validating that this key feature of SEEE was clearly embodied by the virtual world. As discussed earlier, the level of complexity commented on by the respondents can be classified as relatively high on the scale in Figure 1. This is because complexity is discussed not only in relation to the detailed nature of the SEEE and situation under study but also in the context of the complexities and ethics inherent in a visit to the real SEEE, and how this would contribute to the challenges already faced by the island. The nature of the discussed complexities also suggests that the pedagogical aims of the SEEE are being supported, with students reporting awareness of the interplay of factors affecting tourism development in the island.

The last of the three major elements of the model presented in Figure 1 is interaction. The current version of the VR environment is restricted to “single player” mode, which limits the direct human interaction possible “in‐world” but there are opportunities for passive interaction with local people in the simulation, and students are able to engage actively with each other and teaching staff as they debrief and process their experiences. The environment itself is also interactive to the extent that students can make choices about their movements and when engaging with the activities provided. Other SEEE VR environments could provide greater interaction as technological improvements enable multiple simultaneous users; some of which could be teachers acting in roles or artificially intelligent agents that respond according to defined parameters.

6 CONCLUSIONS

Situated experiential education is an important pedagogical approach for the many disciplines that seek to expose students to real world, complex problems as part of their curriculum. The ongoing development of VR technologies is enabling motivating learning activities with high levels of fidelity to be offered at a relatively low cost. The paper’s assessment of the key features of SEEE, as conceptualized in Figure 1, highlighted that the virtual Fijian SEEE “visited” by using the Oculus Rift VR headset embodied both complexity and provided a strong sense of immersion; but only limited interaction. Although limitations with regard to these features are acknowledged in the context of the virtual SEEE, the logistical, resourcing, and ethical implications of a real visit to an SEEE versus a visit to a virtual SEEE also need to be considered here. Figure 1 provides a framework for elaborating the design of SEEEs and ensures the various components combine to create a pedagogically integrated system that stimulates student learning.

This study reports on the experience of a relatively small group of users, and as such, the findings should be seen as indicative rather than as establishing an empirical evidence base. Research with a larger group of users is needed as well as with different VR headsets to explore whether differences exist between headset models with regard to the UX of virtual SEEE. For all forms of situated experiential education, the environment, situational context, and learning activities are critical, and the SEEE framework presented in Figure 1 emphasizes the need to consider whether the learning activities aimed at developing students‘ intellectual abilities are pedagogically robust, balancing immersion with effective educational interaction and cognitively complex experiences. As this important aspect was beyond the scope of this paper, targeted research is required to examine it in depth in the context of virtual SEEE and to develop a broader theoretical framework of pedagogically sound learning activities in virtual SEEEs. Other areas for further research include a more targeted assessment of the third key feature of SEEE by examining the important interaction feature in virtual SEEE, both with regard to interaction with other students and the teaching staff.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This project was funded by a Victoria Business School (Victoria University of Wellington, NZ) Teaching and Learning Innovation Fund. We are grateful to the people of Yasawa‐I‐Rara and Bukama for their hospitality and for participating in this project. Additionally we wish to acknowledge for the excellent digital design work by Alan Proctor‐Thomson (Burnt Pixel) and the cultural advice and translation provided by Maciu Raivoka (VUW Centre for Lifelong Learning).

ETHICS

The research documented in this paper was approved by the Victoria University of Wellington Human Ethics Committee.