Virtual reality (VR) and its close relative augmented reality (AR) have been predicted to revolutionize much of our everyday lives in the near future. Gaming and entertainment are obvious areas where VR and AR are already making inroads, but what about the education sector? Writing in Learning and Instruction, researchers compared the effects of using a biology laboratory simulation presented on a laptop screen with a VR version of the same simulation. The main research question was whether increased levels of immersion in VR laboratory work led to higher levels of student learning.
The participants were 52 students (22 male, 30 female) who worked with a simulation of the undergraduate biology laboratory. The simulation allowed the students to virtually carry out laboratory procedures using the relevant laboratory equipment. The set-up was inquiry-based, and students could experience using techniques such as cell culturing, cell transfection, and protein expression. Students worked individually with two simulations. The order of the two versions of the simulation was counterbalanced, with half the participants receiving the immersive VR condition first, and half receiving the PC condition first.
One interesting aspect of the study was its use of an electroencephalogram (EEG) to measure brain activity. Brain activity was first measured under controlled situations that were more or less cognitively demanding in order to calibrate the system. Once this was done, the researchers claim they could measure the cognitive load of using the system in real time.
Two multiple-choice tests were developed for evaluating student learning outcomes—a knowledge test and a transfer test. The knowledge test consisted of 10 multiple-choice questions designed to assess the conceptual and procedural knowledge practiced in the simulation. The transfer test consisted of 10 multiple-choice questions designed to assess the participants' ability to apply what they had learned to new situations. Participants were also asked to rate their level of engagement and satisfaction with the simulations.
The group of students who used the standard laptop simulation gained significantly more knowledge than the VR group—this despite the VR group reporting higher levels of engagement and satisfaction with the simulation. The cognitive load as measured by the EEG was higher in the VR group.
The main finding of this study of this study is that students felt a greater sense of engagement when they used the high-immersion VR laboratory simulation involving a head-mounted display, but they actually learned less as compared to the low-immersion version of the simulation on a laptop computer. The authors suggest that the reason for the poorer learning outcomes is the increased extraneous cognitive load (Sweller, 2010).
Comment: I actually don’t find the results of this study to be particularly surprizing. Unfortunately, there is a recurring pattern when new educational technology is introduced, where initially the use of the technology itself takes the upper hand over student learning goals (see Cuban, 1986). What is new in this study is the finding that the novelty factor—whilst clearly creating interest—can actually distract students from the learning goals of the simulation. The question we need to ask when introducing new technology is “What is the added value?” It appears that if the answer is simply “The students get to use this new cool stuff” then we should expect learning to be lower. A much better question to ask then is “What can we do educationally with this new technology that we couldn’t do with the old technology?” In research terms, Kress et al (2001) discussed this problem using the concept of affordance.
‘‘What are the affordances of each mode used in the science classroom; what are the potentials and limitations for representing of each mode?’’; and, ‘‘Are the modes specialized to function in particular ways. Is speech say, best for this, and image best for that?’’ (Kress et al., 2001: 1).
VR has the potential to help students experience things that would otherwise be impossible. But it is only when we link this increased potential to our desired learning outcomes that VR can become an effective educational tool.
Text: John Airey, Department of Teaching and Learning
Keywords: virtual reality, science simulation, affordance, engagement, cognitive load, learning outcomes.
Further readning
Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and machines: The classroom use of technology since 1920. Teachers College Press.
Kress, G., Charalampos, T., Jewitt, C., & Ogborn, J. (2006). Multimodal teaching and learning: The rhetorics of the science classroom. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Sweller, J. (2010). Element interactivity and intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load. Educational psychology review, 22(2), 123-138.
