Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Handbook of Mobile Teaching and Learning pp 1–12Cite as

Review of Virtual Reality Hardware Employed in K-20 Science Education

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:

Abstract

Since the 1990s, virtual reality (VR) technology has been promoted to revolutionize learning in K-20 science education. This attribution has been largely focused on the affordances of VR software for scaffolding technical information and providing skill-building opportunities that are not readily available for learners in traditional classrooms. Moreover, VR hardware plays an important role in facilitating robust and memorable virtual learning experiences. Per experts in the field, there are three hardware categories that create VR environments (VREs): desktop, head-mounted displays, and projection systems. Within each of these three groupings, VR technologies have expanded to include both three-dimensional (3D) capabilities and haptic feedback to enhance the virtual experience, immersion, and involvement (i.e., virtual presence) for the user. Current educational research suggests that each VR variety has distinct advantages and disadvantages, each with different efficacies and affordances for different learners. This chapter will explore the historical and current literature on VR hardware, including the incorporation of 3D and haptic-enabled elements, to enhance virtual presence and to promote the learning of science. This includes a discussion on the affordances and challenges of using VR technologies in science education within formal, K-20 science contexts.

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

References

  • Adamo-Villani, N., and R.B. Wilbur. 2008. Effects of platform (immersive versus non-immersive) on usability and enjoyment of a virtual learning environment for deaf and hearing children. In Paper presented at the EGVE 2008-14th Eurographics symposium on virtual environments, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amir, M.H., A. Quek, N.R.B. Sulaiman, and J. See. 2016, November. DUKE: Enhancing virtual reality based FPS game with full-body interactions. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Advances in Computer Entertainment Technology, 35. ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arsenault, R., and C. Ware. 2004. The importance of stereo and eye-coupled perspective for eye-hand coordination in fish tank VR. Presence 13 (5): 549–559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrett, T., and M. Hegarty. 2014, January. Interaction design and the role of spatial ability in moderating virtual molecule manipulation performance. In Proceedings of the Cognitive Science Society (Vol. 36, No. 36).

    Google Scholar 

  • Bower, M., M.J. Lee, and B. Dalgarno. 2017. Collaborative learning across physical and virtual worlds: Factors supporting and constraining learners in a blended reality environment. British Journal of Educational Technology 48 (2): 407–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brinson, J.R. 2015. Learning outcome achievement in non-traditional (virtual and remote) versus traditional (hands-on) laboratories: A review of the empirical research. Computers & Education 87: 218–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bulu, S. T. (2012). Place presence, social presence, co-presence, and satisfaction in virtual worlds. Computers & Education, 58(1), 154–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheng, L.P., T. Roumen, H. Rantzsch, S. Köhler, P. Schmidt, R. Kovacs, J. Jasper, J. Kemper, and P. Baudisch. 2015, November. Turkdeck: Physical virtual reality based on people. In Proceedings of the 28th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software & Technology, 417–426. ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chertoff, D. B., Schatz, S. L., McDaniel, R., & Bowers, C. A. (2008). Improving presence theory through experiential design. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 17(4), 405–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Childers, G. 2014. Ownership of data: Students’ investigations with remote electron microscopy. Doctoral dissertation. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/openview/13da46a9447f119fd946a3527e3f0b87/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y.

  • Childers, G., and M.G. Jones. 2014. Students as virtual scientists: A review of remote microscopy use in education. In Microscopy: Advances in scientific research and education, ed. A. Mendez-Vilas, 1195–1198. Badajoz, Spain: Formatex Research Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Childers, G., and M.G. Jones. 2015. Students as virtual scientists: An exploration of students’ and teachers’ perceived realness of a remote electron microscopy investigation. International Journal of Science Education 37 (15): 2433–2452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Childers, G., and M.G. Jones. 2017. Learning from a distance: High school students’ perceptions of virtual presence, motivation, and science identity during a remote microscopy investigation. International Journal of Science Education 39 (3): 257–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, J.H. 1976. Designing surfaces in 3-D. Communications of the ACM 19 (8): 454–460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cruz-Neira, C., D.J. Sandin, and T.A. DeFanti. 1993, September. Surround-screen projection-based virtual reality: the design and implementation of the CAVE. In Proceedings of the 20th annual conference on Computer graphics and interactive techniques, 135–142. ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dalgarno, B., and M. Lee. 2010. What are the learning affordances of 3-D virtual environments? British Journal of Educational Technology 41: 10–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dede, C. 1995. The evolution of constructivist learning environments: Immersion in distributed, virtual worlds. Educational Technology 35 (5): 46–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eriksson, U., C. Linder, J. Airey, and A. Redfors. 2014. Who needs 3D when the universe is flat? Science Education 98 (3): 412–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fowler, C. 2015. Virtual reality and learning: Where is the pedagogy? British Journal of Educational Technology 46 (2): 412–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graesser, A.C., S.K. D’Mello, and A. Strain. 2014. Emotions in advanced learning technologies. In Handbook of emotions and education, ed. R. Pekrun and L. Linnenbrink-Garcia, 473–493. New York: Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenwald, S., A. Kulik, A. Kunert, S. Beck, B. Frohlich, S. Cobb, S. Parsons, N. Newbutt, C. Gouveia, C. Cook, A. Snyder, S. Payne, J. Holland, S. Buessing, G. Fields, W. Corning, V. Lee, L. Xia and P. Maes. 2017. Technology and applications for collaborative learning in virtual reality. In Making a Difference: Prioritizing Equity and Access in CSCL, 12th international conference on computer supported collaborative learning (CSCL), Pennsylvania, USA, 18–22 June 2017, eds. B. Smith, M. Borge, E. Mercier, and K. Lim, 719–726. Philadelphia, USA: International Society of the Learning Sciences.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hite, R. 2016, April. Perceptions of virtual presence in 3-D, haptic-enabled, virtual reality science instruction. Doctoral dissertation. Retrieved from http://www.lib.ncsu.edu/resolver/1840.16/10986.

  • Hite, R., M.G. Jones, G. Childers, M. Ennes, K. Chesnutt, M. Pereyra, E. Cayton, and R. Stanley. 2017, January. The utility of 3-D, haptic-enabled, virtual reality for learning complex biological systems: Students’ understanding of the human heart. In Paper presentation at the Association for Science Teacher Education (ASTE) National Conference, Des Moines.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang, H.M., S.S. Liaw, and C.M. Lai. 2016. Exploring learner acceptance of the use of virtual reality in medical education: A case study of desktop and projection-based display systems. Interactive Learning Environments 24 (1): 3–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, M.G., J. Minogue, T.R. Tretter, A. Negishi, and R. Taylor. 2006. Haptic augmentation of science instruction: Does touch matter? Science Education 90 (1): 111–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, M.G., G. Childers, B. Emig, J. Chevrier, H. Tan, V. Stevens, and J. List. 2014. The efficacy of haptic simulations to teach students with visual impairments about temperature and pressure. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness 108 (1): 55–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, M.G., R. Hite, G. Childers, E. Corin, M. Pereyra, K. Chesnutt, and T. Goodale. 2015, June 27. Teachers’ and students’ perceptions of presence in virtual reality instruction. In Paper presented at the World Scientific and Engineering Academy and Society: 11th International Conference on Engineering Education, University of Salerno, Salerno, Italy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, M.G., R. Hite, G. Childers, E. Corin, M. Pereyra, and K. Chesnutt. 2016. Perceptions of presence in 3-D, haptic-enabled, virtual reality instruction. International Journal of Education and Information Technologies 10: 73–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jung, T., M.C. tom Dieck, H. Lee, and N. Chung. 2016. Effects of virtual reality and augmented reality on visitor experiences in museum. In Information and communication technologies in tourism 2016, 621–635. Cham: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, J.B., and C. Park. 2017, July. A Study on VR sickness prediction of HMD contents using machine learning technique. In International conference on human-computer interaction, 38–41. Vancouver: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klahr, D., L.M. Triona, and C. Williams. 2007. Hands on what? The relative effectiveness of physical versus virtual materials in an engineering design project by middle school children. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 44: 183–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krange, I., A. Fjuk, A. Larsen, and S. Ludvigsen. 2002, January. Describing construction of knowledge through identification of collaboration patterns in 3D learning environments. In Proceedings of the Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning: Foundations for a CSCL Community, 82–91. International Society of the Learning Sciences.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, K. 2004. Presence, explicated. Communication Theory 14 (1): 27–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, E.A.L., and K.W. Wong. 2014. Learning with desktop virtual reality: Low spatial ability learners are more positively affected. Computers & Education 79: 49–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, H.Y., R.J. Cherng, and C.H. Lin. 2004. Development of a virtual reality environment for somatosensory and perceptual stimulation in the balance assessment of children. Computers in Biology and Medicine 34 (8): 719–733.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, E.A.L., K.W. Wong, and C.C. Fung. 2010. How does desktop virtual reality enhance learning outcomes? A structural equation modeling approach. Computers & Education 55 (4): 1424–1442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, J., A. Olwal, H. Ishii, and C. Boulanger. 2013, April. SpaceTop: integrating 2D and spatial 3D interactions in a see-through desktop environment. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 189–192. ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Limniou, M., D. Roberts, and N. Papadopoulos. 2008. Full immersive virtual environment CAVE™ in chemistry education. Computers & Education 51: 584–593.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lombard, M., and T. Ditton. 1997. At the heart of it all: The concept of presence. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 3 (2), online journal. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.1997.tb00072.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lucente, M. 1997. Interactive three-dimensional holographic displays: Seeing the future in depth. ACM Siggraph Computer Graphics 31 (2): 63–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ma, J., and J. Nickerson. 2006. Hands-on, simulated, and remote laboratories: A comparative literature review. AMC Computing Surveys 38 (3): 1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCreery, M. P., Schrader, P. G., Krach, S. K., & Boone, R. (2013). A sense of self: The role of presence in virtual environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(4), 1635–1640.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McIntire, J.P., P.R. Havig, and E.E. Geiselman. 2014. Stereoscopic 3D displays and human performance: A comprehensive review. Displays 35 (1): 18–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merchant, Z., Goetz, E. T., Keeney-Kennicutt, W., Cifuentes, L., Kwok, O., & Davis, T. J. (2013). Exploring 3-D virtual reality technology for spatial ability and chemistry achievement. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(6), 579–590.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mikropoulos, T.A. 2006. Presence: A unique characteristic in educational virtual environments. Virtual Reality 10 (3): 197–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mikropoulos, T.A., and J. Bellou. 2006. The unique features of educational virtual environments. In Proceedings e-society 2006, International Association for Development of the Information Society, ed. P. Isaias, M. McPherson, and F. Banister, Vol. 1, 122–128. IADIS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mikropoulos, T.A., and A. Natsis. 2011. Educational virtual environments: A ten-year review of empirical research (1999–2009). Computers & Education 56 (3): 769–780.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mikropoulos, T.A., and V. Strouboulis. 2004. Factors that influence presence in educational virtual environments. CyberPsychology & Behavior 7 (5): 582–591.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mikropoulos, T.A., A. Chalkidis, A. Katsikis, and A. Emvalotis. 1998. Students’ attitudes towards educational virtual environments. Education and Information Technologies 3 (2): 137–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minogue, J., and M.G. Jones. 2006. Haptics in education: Exploring an untapped sensory modality. Review of Educational Research 76 (3): 317–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Modjeska, D., and M. Chignell. 2003. Individual differences in exploration using desktop VR. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 54 (3): 216–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mulder, J.D., and B.R. Boscker 2004, March. A modular system for collaborative desktop vr/ar with a shared workspace. In Proceedings of the IEEE virtual reality, 2004, 75–280. IEEE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newbutt, N., C. Sung, H.-J. Kuo, M.J. Leahy, C.-C. Lin, and B. Tong. 2016. Brief report: A pilot study of the use of a virtual reality headset in autism populations. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 46 (9): 3166–3176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osberg, K. 1997. Spatial cognition in the virtual environment. Retrieved from http://ftp.hitl.washington.edu/projects/education/puzzle/spatial-cognition.html.

  • Parsons, S., and S. Cobb. 2011. State-of-the-art of virtual reality technologies for children on the autism spectrum. European Journal of Special Needs Education 26 (3): 355–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parsons, S., and P. Mitchell. 2002. The potential of virtual reality in social skills training for people with autistic spectrum disorders. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research 46: 430–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Papachristos, N. M., Vrellis, I., Natsis, A., & Mikropoulos, T. A. (2014). The role of environment design in an educational Multi-User Virtual Environment. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(4), 636–646.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peled, D., A. Silverman, and J. Adler. 2013. 3d visualization of atomistic simulations on every desktop. Journal of Physics: Conference Series 454 (1): 012076. IOP Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peli, E. 1998. The visual effects of head-mounted display (HMD) are not distinguishable from those of desk-top computer display. Vision Research 38 (13): 2053–2066.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Price, C.A., H.-S. Lee, M. Subbarao, E. Kasal, and J. Aguilera. 2015. Comparing short- and long-term learning effects between stereoscopic and two-dimensional film at a planetarium. Science Education 99 (6): 1118–1142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roussou, M. (1999, May). Incorporating Immersive Projection-based Virtual Reality in Public Spaces. In Proceedings of 3rd International Immerse Projection Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salzmann, H., M. Moehring, and B. Froehlich 2009, March. Virtual vs. real-world pointing in two-user scenarios. In Virtual reality conference, 2009. VR 2009. IEEE, 127–130. IEEE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seo, J., & Kim, G. J. (2002). Design for Presence: A Structured Approach to Virtual Reality System Design. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 11(4), 378–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharples, S., S. Cobb, A. Moody, and J.R. Wilson. 2008. Virtual reality induced symptoms and effects (VRISE): Comparison of head mounted display (HMD), desktop and projection display systems. Displays 29 (2): 58–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheridan, T. 1992. Musings on telepresence and virtual presence. Presence 1: 120–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shibata, T. 2002. Head mounted display. Displays 23 (1): 57–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shibata, T., J. Kim, D.M. Hoffman, and M.S Banks. 2011, February. Visual discomfort with stereo displays: effects of viewing distance and direction of vergence-accommodation conflict. In Proceedings of SPIE (Vol. 7863, 78630P-1). NIH Public Access.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slater, M., & Steed, A. (2000). A virtual presence counter. Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments, 9(5), 413–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Srinivasan, M.A. (1995). What is haptics? Laboratory for human and machine haptics: The touch lab, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stull, A.T., T. Barrett, and M. Hegarty. 2013. Usability of concrete and virtual models in chemistry instruction. Computers in Human Behavior 29: 2546–2556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sun, K.-T., C.-L. Lin, and S.-M. Wang. 2010. A 3-D virtual reality model of the sun and the moon for E-learning at elementary schools. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education 8 (4): 689–710.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tanaka, N., and H. Takagi. 2004. Virtual reality environment design of managing both presence and virtual reality sickness. Journal of Physiological Anthropology and Applied Human Science 23 (6): 313–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trindade, J., C. Fiolhais, and L. Almeida. 2002. Science learning in virtual environments: A descriptive study. British Journal of Educational Technology 33 (4): 471–488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tromp, J. G., Steed, A., & Wilson, J. R. (2003). Systematic Usability Evaluation and Design Issues for Collaborative Virtual Environments. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 12(3), 241–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ukai, K., and P.A. Howarth. 2008. Visual fatigue caused by viewing stereoscopic motion images: Background, theories, and observations. Displays 29 (2): 106–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wann, J., and M. Mon-Williams. 1996. What does virtual reality NEED?: Human factors issues in the design of three-dimensional computer environments. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 44 (6): 829–847.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitelock, D., Romano, D., Jelfs, A, & Brna, P. (2000). Perfect presence: What does this mean for the design of virtual learning environments? Education and Information Technologies, 5(4), 277–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Witmer, B.G., and M.J. Singer. 1994. Measuring immersion in virtual environments (ARI Technical Report 1014). Alexandria: U. S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

    Google Scholar 

  • Witmer, B.G., and M.J. Singer. 1998. Measuring presence in virtual environments: A presence questionnaire. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 7 (3): 225–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wouters, P., C. van Nimwegen, H. van Oostendorp, and E. van der Spek. 2013. A meta-analysis of the cognitive and motivational effects of serious games. Journal of Educational Psychology 105: 249–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeltzer, D. 1992. Autonomy, interaction and presence. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 1 (1): 127–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Curriculum & Instruction, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, USA

    Rebecca Hite

  2. Teacher Education, University of North Georgia, Dahlonega, GA, USA

    Gina Childers

  3. Department of STEM Education, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA

    M. Gail Jones

Authors
  1. Rebecca Hite
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gina Childers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. M. Gail Jones
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rebecca Hite .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. CEO, WEMOSOFT, Wollongong, NSW, Australia

    Yu (Aimee) Zhang

  2. Teaching and Learning, The Ohio State University, Upper Arlington, OH, USA

    Dean Cristol

Section Editor information

  1. Coventry University, Coventry, UK

    Yanguo Jing

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Hite, R., Childers, G., Jones, M.G. (2019). Review of Virtual Reality Hardware Employed in K-20 Science Education. In: Zhang, Y., Cristol, D. (eds) Handbook of Mobile Teaching and Learning. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-41981-2_123-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-41981-2_123-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-41981-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-41981-2

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference Social SciencesReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation