Johnny Cho, Jonathan McMillan
EDUC 508 MakerSpace
Fish and See: VR Maker Studio
“Tell me and I forget, teach me and I remember, involve me and I learn” - Benjamin Franklin
Content Knowledge: Digital makerspace (learning water mammals via virtual reality)
Grade: 4th - 8th
Class size: Max. 20 students
Learning Technology: Virtual reality (VR)
Time per Lesson: 130 mins
Goal(s):
Making VR content connecting to science learning curriculum.
Learning the basic concept of how virtual reality works
Developing computational thinking
Increasing motivation toward science education
Understandings:
Students will understand ...
How to make virtual reality content (storytelling)
Water mammals’ ecosystem (science learning)
Computational thinking (coding skills)
Students will be able to…
Learn principles of how virtual reality works
Blockery-method coding to animate the characters
Understand the habitual nature and environmental purpose of water mammals
Essential Questions:
What is VR? How does VR work? What are some of the pros and cons to using VR?
Why did you choose that character and animation? Science related?
What kinds of features did you use for this content? Manual coding or auto-generated feature?
Why the water mammal moves the way that they do? Is there a particular reason?
What was the biggest challenge you confronted?
Timeline (two sections):
1. 1st session (60 minutes): Introduction of VR and Cospaces (eye opening section)
20 mins: Teaching the concept of VR
10 mins: Opening account
30 mins: Explaining each feature and how it works in Cospaces. The students need to follow the instructor's demo (Ex., making your home)
2. Break section (10 minutes)
3. 2nd session (60 minutes): Making VR ecosystem with water mammals (actual practice section)
10 mins: Educating the habit or feature of water mammals (idealization)
40 mins: Making your own VR content related to water mammals (in order to make it easier, the teacher will show the sample VR content)
10 mins: Simulating the VR content and teaching how to use Google cardboard (if the students have no Google cardboard, we can send them in advanced)
Learning Activities:
Students will have an activity to create VR content. Also, during the activity of making VR content, the students will learn how to code and animate the characters through blockery coding feature. Also, the students will be responsible to make their own VR content. The topic we give them is water mammals. The students need to make and simulate their VR content.
What is the project?
This project aims to increase digital literacy and understand a sector of science education via the channel of virtual reality. It has two overarching themes, not only learning how to make VR content, but also integrating the learning outcomes of the science curriculum. The learning objectives for Fish and See are to enhance digital literacy, provide a general understanding of aquatic ecosystems and understanding the specific role of cetaceans (water mammals) in relation to aquatic environments. The first objective of enhancing digital literacy is an increasingly desirable component for employers. The World Economic Forum released a report titled The Future of Jobs, in which digital literacy was a subcomponent (Gray, 2016). Transitioning into the subject category of understanding aquatic systems, my partner and I wanted to create an interactive experience that would make a challenging course notably engaging.
How does virtual reality makerspace work?
This virtual reality makerspace allows people to meet in the digital world and learn VR and science education. Thus, they do not have to physically be in a space together. Figure 1 demonstrates the whole process of VR makerspace.
First, we host video chat via the Adobe Connect program. In order to optimize the ability for all students to effectively learn, we limit the class size to 20 students per lesson. We recruited students through the GoogleAds or posts on local school websites. Included in these marketing campaigns is a link to fill out the certain student information such as name, grade, affiliation, email address, etc. This information allows for an understanding of each of our cohorts.
Second, the students who signed up the VR makerspace online need to register on the Cospaces websites (A Cospaces classroom code is provided). Cospaces is a collaborative world-building platform with the ability to make VR content. The platform does not require programing experience. After this phase, students may request for a constructed Google Cardboard if they do not have a compatible VR headset.
After the account is created, students may join the virtual class. As we mentioned above, the class divided two sections: one for explaining the experience of VR itself and another for making VR content related to water mammals. Each session takes one hour to complete.
During the lecturing process, we cooperate with students to make VR content together. Cospaces has a feature to lets teachers facilitate control of the student’s content. Thus, it makes a near 1:1 coaching system. If the students have an inquiry, the teacher responds to open the student’s content and fix it together in virtual world.
Lastly, the student may have a chance to simulate based on what they made. The students will keep their VR content and share with their friends as well. One of the benefits of this platform is there is no requirement for rendering. Thus, once they finish to make VR content in website, they will directly watch the VR world via Google cardboard.
Why target students in 4th-8th grade?
The scope of our target demographic is students from grades 4 to 8. With our focus target group of at-risk students in 4th-8th grade, a publication by the National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) cited that many of these students underperformed their peers in science courses (Green, Scott, 1995). Since a substantial amount of the science syllabus in 4th-8th grade includes the importance of aquatic ecosystems (University of Michigan; State of Michigan Content Expectations, National Benchmarks), our subject category was designed around this topic.
What is the Educational Objective?
The reasoning behind specifically targeting sea mammals as the educational focus in our aquatic ecosystem lesson plan is largely thanks to research by Dr. W.D. Bowen. In his publication Role of Marine Mammals in Aquatic Ecosystems, Bowen concluded that cetaceans (water mammals) were some of the most impactful creatures in the aquatic ecosystem (Bowen, 1997). Water mammals contribute by balancing the ecosystem through consumption of prey and provide nutrients through defecation. While the curriculum content is important, most of the research in this explanation will focus on substantiating virtual makerspaces and the benefits these spaces can provide.
Substantiating the Existence of Virtual Makerspaces
To ensure adequate retention of learner knowledge, we constructed a set of essential questions which work to create a structured milestone learning system. The first question proposes the questions of what virtual reality (VR) is, how does virtual reality work and the pros and cons of using virtual reality. Although a relatively new technology, with Sony launching the Glasstron as the first commercial headset in 1994, VR serves many of the same functions as traditional simulated-environment video games, with an added level of user immersion. Depending on the device, VR works in a methodology that heightens user experience by physical involving user sensory. Chotronics Maker Studio’s course utilizes Google Cardboard, an inexpensive and accessible method of virtual reality. How this VR device works is that it becomes a head mount to be used with a compatible smartphone. There are many potential benefits and criticisms to the usage of VR, but very few have the ability to substantially harm the user. Notable criticisms to VR headsets from participants in research have cited eye strains (Basso, 2017), potential mental destabilization from actual reality and the occasional tendency of motion sensory not fully engaging as actual reality would.
The second set of essential questions are why did the student choose their particular ecosystem to look like that? Asking this question helps to gain an understanding of the student’s pre-conceived interpretations of aquatic ecosystems. Using these interpretations, we can create a unique and individual framework around their beliefs to educate them on the effects that each part of their constructed ecosystem plays into the healthiness of the environment.
The third set of questions dives into some of the more advanced coding processes of which particular features the students used for this content. The two available options within the Cospaces platform are either manual coding or the auto-generated feature. This qualitative research will work to address and understand which students gained additional spillover effects of coding. The fourth set of questions seek to ask why water mammals move the way that they do. This is more of a knowledge retention question.
Chotronics also features a notable amount of similarities to faculty-led Maker Spaces and projects. One of the most closely aligned is IPRO led by Dr.’s Berlin, Martin and Benton of the University of Texas campuses. IPRO was also virtual and used programming to inspiring digital literacy (Berland, Martin, & Benton, 2010). Similar programs to IPRO and Chotronics’ maker studio have shown measurable learning gains (Berland, 2008; Martin, 2007; Wilensky & Stroup, 1999a). The core elements that made IPRO a measurable learning benefit for students are practiced in our maker course: a collaborative environment, participatory simulation, increases in digital literacy through simplified programming and a constructionist space.
In Situating Constructionism by Seymour Papert and Idit Harel, both scholars emphasize a sort of “seriousness” versus “playful” nature (p.739) of the maker activity. Fish and See is a course that aims at providing an interactive and immersive learning experience, which can be seen as “fun” or “playful”. The course also strives to have measurable learning gains as expressed earlier in the IPRO comparison, which can be interpreted as “serious”.
Both the faculty-led IPRO and Papert & Harel’s research go to show that the practice of making has far outpaced the research (Wardip, Brahms, 2015). It is important to ground our practice with learning practices, such as some of the elements influencing the learning outcomes of Chotronics’ Fish and See course. Some of the research on learning practices look to identity the following: Learners’ openness to context (Inquire); Learners’ purposeful play, testing, risk taking, and evaluation (Tinker); Learners’ identification, pursuit/recruitment and sharing of expertise with others (Seek). The repurposing or manipulation aspects of the activity such as hacking, fluency and the ability to complexify are identified later in the activity (Par. 5).
What are some of the Benefits of using VR?
The tangible asset to the student group is the creation of a digital world and the ability to view this creation on their mobile device. The establishing of a digital maker studio has notable benefits to student participants according to maker literature. Spaces such as Chotronics are a key component of a larger maker movement comprised of individual makers, region-wide maker events and digital do-it-yourself resources (Dougherty, 2012). Our digital platform also allows students to utilize public resources such as libraries and school computer labs to participate in our maker studio from anywhere.
A common inquiry to Chotronic’s digital approach is how can it provide a “true” experience through a non-traditional, online method? There is a growth of maker communities online(Dougherty, 2012), and the open-access platform of the Cospaces software we use allows for near-limitless customization possibilities of the digital aquatic ecosystem the students create. The ability for students to constantly amend their virtual ecosystem after the course has perdurable effects of developing fluency with virtual reality world creation. The positive effects of fluency are the abilities to express, explore and realize new ideas (Papert and Resnick, 1995).
Many scholars argued that VR provides many fun games and communicative activities in simulation learning (Lai and Kritsonis, 2006). There are a few reasons why playing VR content can be enjoyable for players: (1) they allow players autonomy of controlling the game, which may make the players more active (Ho & Crookall, 1995), (2) VR-based learning offers to learn through repetition (Lai & Kritsonis, 2006) and anonymity (Ortega, 1997) with elements of simulation learning that reduces stress and anxiety while enhancing confidence through practicing skills without fear (Johnson & Wu, 2008; Ortega, 1997), and (3) an authentic environment through a simulation provides a more immersive environment to visualize the virtual world as it the real world (Scoresby & Shelton, 2010).
Taylor (1997) researched the relationship between a feeling of presence and enjoyment in VR learning. Students were given a session in a virtual environment and taught different topics to measure a sense of presence, enjoyment, navigation, and malaise among the students from elementary through high school. The result showed students from all levels enjoyed this experience and were convinced to use VR in the learning process. Hussein and Nätterdal (2015) performed a comparison study on the use of VR and simple technology in education. They incurred that participants were excited to use VR and said they learned things while enjoying the process. Thus, if entertainment is mixed with a VR environment, then learners will maintain interested and experience more enjoyment while learning (SZABÓ, 2011).
What are the Learning Outcomes?
We expect three learning outcomes: (1) increasing the perception of 3D spatiality, (2) conceptual understanding, and (3) increasing motivation.
(1) increasing the perception of 3D spatiality
VR can generate the spatiality due to 3D space. Mathewson (1999, p. 36) stated that “A spatial image preserves relationships among a complex set of ideas as a single chunk in working memory, increasing the amount of information that can be maintained in consciousness at a given moment”.
(2) Conceptual understanding
There are many challenges in science education, they can be categorized under the label of passive learning. In attempts to address this challenge, various scholars argue that virtual reality promotes conceptual understanding via visualization along varied lines.
Virtual reality is an effective tool enhancing students' understanding of abstract concepts (Wu et al., 2013) because it demonstrates abstract concepts (Rutten, van Joolingen, & van der Veen, 2012). AR overlaps the virtual objects in a real environment thus enabling visualization abstract models (Arvanitis et al., 2009; Dunleavy et al., 2009). Kozma (2003) contends that visualization, provided by VR, on scientific courses is important to facilitate a deeper understanding of the context. For example, if students see the abstract concepts such as molecular atom in chemistry or electricity in engineer (Wu et al., 2013), they will understand the concepts properly and precisely.
This visualization aspect is important in aiding conceptual understanding because the learners can increase enthusiasm and pioneering sense, independence. For example, Kaufmann and Schmalstieg (2003) experimented by using an AR application called Construct 3D. The AR tool enables students to solve the mathematics or geometric problem with peers. While watching the virtual objects in Head Mounted Display (HMD), the students enhance interest and motivation and a better understanding of complex spatial problems in the mathematics and geometric education.
(3) Motivation as active learning
The motivation of students is an area of active research by educators (Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 2001; Pinder, 2014). According to many motivation theorists, intrinsic and extrinsic motivation are the two types that largely exist within the conscious (C. P. Cerasoli, J. M. Nicklin, & M. T. Ford, 2014; Deci et al., 2001; Teo, Lim, & Lai, 1999). Intrinsic motivation refers to behavior that can be motivated for intrinsic reasons, such as task enjoyment, and extrinsic motivation is something motivated from an external cause, such as incentives, reinforcement or rewards (Christopher P Cerasoli, Jessica M Nicklin, & Michael T Ford, 2014; Pinder, 2014).
For educational purposes, many researchers argued that intrinsic motivation is more important for learning and adjustment in educational settings than extrinsic motivation (Ryan & La Guardia, 1999). To be highly learner-centered (Ang & Zaphiris, 2006), intrinsic motivation is more important than extrinsic motivation. First, intrinsic motivation can make students more actively engaged in learning (Benware & Deci, 1984). Second, when they find a task enjoyable or interesting, students will engage with the task for longer periods (Deci, 1972). With the importance of intrinsic motivation, subsequent references to motivation and the immersive nature of the student’s created ecosystem in the VR makerspace will work to foster intrinsic motivation.
Motivation can be enhanced if learners can understand and store the information easily. The interaction between user and environment can achieve this. Understanding this, VR is designed in a manner that provides interaction between the learner and virtual environment resulting in an increase of the learners’ motivation (Kreylos, Bethel, Ligocki, & Hamann, 2003). The immersive nature of VR can help block distractions so that the students can focus on the learning objectives. Several VR studies revealed that students are more focused and show better concentration while using immersive VR (Hussein & Nätterdal, 2015) because VR provides the opportunity for learning and developing an idea in an environment similar to reality.
The interactive nature of VR transforms students from passive learners into active learners, which also improves student motivation by giving the user a sense of control over their learning (Pantelidis, 2010). In a VR environment, users play an active role in dictating the occurrence of specific events. For example, Merchant (2012) analyzed the learning of chemistry concepts in a 3D VR environment through spatial instruction where learners could break apart a molecule or bond atoms to form a molecule enabling them to examine its bond angles virtually. He found that the students with 3D molecule seemed better understanding of chemistry concepts and became more active learners.
Evidence exists to indicate the advantages of VR include keeping students motivated, playing an active role in the learning process, and providing an experience with learning autonomy and high immersion (Loftin, Engleberg, & Benedetti, 1993; Regian, Shebilske, & Monk, 1992).
References
Ang, Chee Siang, & Zaphiris, Panayiotis. (2006). Developing enjoyable second language learning software tools: A computer game paradigm. User-centered computer aided language learning, 1-22.
Basso, Alessandro. (2017). Advantages, Critics and Paradoxes of Virtual Reality Applied to Digital Systems of Architectural Prefiguration, the Phenomenon of Virtual Migration. Paper presented at the Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute Proceedings.
Benware, Carl A, & Deci, Edward L. (1984). Quality of learning with an active versus passive motivational set. American Educational Research Journal, 21(4), 755-765.
Berland, Matthew, Martin, Taylor, & Benton, Tom. (2010). Programming standing up: Embodied computing with constructionist robotics. Proceedings of Constructionism.
Bowen, WD. (1997). Role of marine mammals in aquatic ecosystems. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 267-274.
Bricken, Meredith, & Byrne, Chris M. (1993). Summer Students in Virtual Reality: A Pilot Study on Educational Applications of Virtual Reality Technology11© 1992 Washington Technology Center. Sponsored by the US West Foundation, the Washington Technology Center, and the Pacific Science Center Virtual reality (pp. 199-217): Elsevier.
Cerasoli, C. P., Nicklin, J. M., & Ford, M. T. (2014). Intrinsic motivation and extrinsic incentives jointly predict performance: a 40-year meta-analysis. Psychol Bull, 140(4), 980-1008. doi:10.1037/a0035661
Cerasoli, Christopher P, Nicklin, Jessica M, & Ford, Michael T. (2014). Intrinsic motivation and extrinsic incentives jointly predict performance: A 40-year meta-analysis. Psychological bulletin, 140(4), 980.
Deci, Edward L. (1972). The effects of contingent and noncontingent rewards and controls on intrinsic motivation. Organizational behavior and human performance, 8(2), 217-229.
Deci, Edward L, Koestner, Richard, & Ryan, Richard M. (2001). Extrinsic rewards and intrinsic motivation in education: Reconsidered once again. Review of Educational Research, 71(1), 1-27.
Dougherty, Dale. (2012). The maker movement. Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, 7(3), 11-14.
Green, Patricia, and Lesley Scott. “‘At-Risk’ Eighth-Graders Four Years Later.” NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS, July 1995, nces.ed.gov/pubs95/95736.pdf.
Ho, Judy, & Crookall, David. (1995). Breaking with Chinese cultural traditions: Learner autonomy in English language teaching. System, 23(2), 235-243.
Hussein, Mustafa, & Nätterdal, Carl. (2015). The Benefits of Virtual Reality in Education-A comparision Study.
Johnson, W Lewis, & Wu, Shumin. (2008). Assessing aptitude for learning with a serious game for foreign language and culture. Paper presented at the International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems.
Kreylos, Oliver, Bethel, E Wes, Ligocki, Terry J, & Hamann, Bernd. (2003). Virtual-reality based interactive exploration of multiresolution data Hierarchical and geometrical methods in scientific visualization (pp. 205-224): Springer.
Lai, Cheng-Chieh, & Kritsonis, William Allan. (2006). The advantages and disadvantages of computer technology in second language acquisition. Online Submission, 3(1).
Loftin, R Bowen, Engleberg, M, & Benedetti, Robin. (1993). Applying virtual reality in education: A prototypical virtual physics laboratory. Paper presented at the Virtual Reality, 1993. Proceedings., IEEE 1993 Symposium on Research Frontiers in.
Merchant, Zahira Husseinali. (2012). The impact of virtual reality-based learning environment design features on students' academic achievements: Texas A&M University.
Ortega, Lourdes. (1997). Processes and outcomes in networked classroom interaction: Defining the research agenda for L2 computer-assisted classroom discussion.
Pantelidis, Veronica S. (2010). Reasons to use virtual reality in education and training courses and a model to determine when to use virtual reality. Themes in Science and Technology Education, 2(1-2), 59-70.
Papert, S. (1991). Situating Constructionism. In S. Papert & I. Harel (Eds.), (Tran.), Constructionism (1–11). Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Pinder, Craig C. (2014). Work motivation in organizational behavior: Psychology Press.
Regian, JW, Shebilske, Wayne L, & Monk, John M. (1992). Virtual reality: an instructional medium for visual‐spatial tasks. Journal of Communication, 42(4), 136-149.
Ryan, Richard M, & La Guardia, Jennifer G. (1999). Achievement motivation within a pressured society: Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations to learn and the politics of school reform. Advances in motivation and achievement, 11, 45-85.
Scoresby, Jon, & Shelton, Brett E. (2010). Visual perspectives within educational computer games: effects on presence and flow within virtual immersive learning environments. Instructional Science, 39(3), 227-254. doi:10.1007/s11251-010-9126-5
SZABÓ, KLÁRA. (2011). VIRTUAL REALITY FOR LANGUAGE LEARNING: AN INTERNATIONAL ON-LINE PROJECT. The Second International Conference on e-Learning, 29-30.
Tamborini, Ron, Bowman, Nicholas David, Eden, Allison, Grizzard, Matthew, & Organ,
Ashley. (2010). Defining media enjoyment as the satisfaction of intrinsic needs. Journal of Communication, 60(4), 758-777.
Taylor, Wayne. (1997). Student Responses to Their Immersion in a Virtual Environment.
Teo, Thompson SH, Lim, Vivien KG, & Lai, Raye YC. (1999). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in Internet usage. Omega, 27(1), 25-37.
University of Michigan; State of Michigan Content Expectations, National Benchmarks. Teaching Great Lakes Science. Lessons and Data Sets. retrieved from: http://www.miseagrant.umich.edu/lessons/lessons/by-broad-concept/life-science/fish-life-cycle/
Wardrip, Peter S, and Lisa Brahms. “Learning Practices of Making: Developing a Framework for Design.” Children’s Museum of Pittsburgh, ACM, 21 June 2015, dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2771920.
Students at risk study: https://nces.ed.gov/pubs95/95736.pdf
Lesson plan 4th-8th grade aquatic: http://ecosystems.psu.edu/youth/sftrc/lesson-plans/water/6-8