In the 21st century, easy access to visually rich, immersive, student-centered, virtual applications could augment or replace text-based learning. However, the new developments are offset by the lack of insight into pedagogies needed to guide educators through a visual learning environment. The purpose of this directed content analysis was to provide an awareness about opportunities for learning cognitive and creative thinking skills in virtual applications. Analysis showed opportunities to develop one or more skills in 34 selected virtual educational apps. Educators in many subjects could apply insights from the conclusions and recommendations for using virtual applications within established curricula.
BenootC.HannesK.BlisenJ. (2016).
The use of purposeful sampling in a qualitative evidence synthesis: A worked example on sexual adjustment to a cancer trajectory. BMC Medical Research Methodology,
16(1), 21.
2.
BowerM.HoweC.McCredieN.RobinsonA.GroverD. (2014).
Augmented reality in education—Cases, places and potentials. Educational Media International,
51(1), 1–15.
3.
BraceyG. W. (2001).
Blinded by the light. Phi Delta Kappan,
82(6), 476–477.
4.
BrantleyP. (2015).
The VR revolution. Publishers Weekly,
47(18), 262.
5.
ChristopoulosA.ConradM.ShuklaM. (2018).
Interactions with educational games in hybrid virtual worlds. Journal of Educational Technology Systems,
46(4), 385–413. doi:10.1077/0047239518757986
CrossN. (1982).
Designerly ways of knowing. Design Studios,
3(4), 221–227.
8.
de FreitasS.Rebolledo-MendezG.LiarokapisF.MagoulasG.PoulovassilisA. (2010).
The four-dimensional framework. British Journal of Educational Technology,
41(1), 72. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.01024.x
9.
DeweyJ. (1938). Experience and education.
New York, NY:
Simon and Schuster.
10.
D’SousaN.YoonS.IslamZ. (2011).
Understanding design skills of Generation Y: An exploration through the VR-Kids project. Design Studios,
32(2), 180–209.
11.
EisnerE. W. (1999, May).
The use and limits of performance assessment. Phi Delta Kappan,
80(9), 658–660.
12.
FowlerC. (2015).
Virtual reality and learning: Where is the pedagogy?British Journal of Educational Technology,
46(2), 412–422. doi:10.1111/bjet.12135
HadjileontiadouS. J.DiasS. B.DinizJ. A.HadjileontiadisL. J. (Eds.). (2015). Fuzzy logic-based modeling in collaborative and blended learning. Information Science Reference. IGI Global Publishing, Hershey, PA.
15.
HsiehH. F., & ShannonS. (2005).
Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research,
15(9), 1277–1288. doi:10.1177/1049732305276687
16.
JohnstonE.OlivasG.SteeleP.SmithC.BaileyL. (2017).
Exploring pedagogical foundations of existing virtual reality educational applications: A content analysis study. Journal of Educational Technology Systems,
46(4), 414–439. doi:10.1177/0047239517745560
17.
KebritchiM.HirumiA. (2008).
Examining the pedagogical foundations of modern educational computer games. Computers & Education,
51, 1729–1743.
18.
KirschnerP. A.SwellerJ.ClarkR. E. (2006).
Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist,
41(2), 75–86.
19.
KolbD. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
20.
KolkoJ. (2010).
Abductive thinking and sensemaking: The drivers of design synthesis. Design Issues,
26(1), 15–28. doi:10.1162/desi.2010.26.1.15
21.
LangerE. (2000).
Mindful learning. Current Directions in Psychological Science,
9(6), 220–223.
22.
MartinR. (2009). The design of business: Why design thinking is the next competitive advantage.
Boston, MA:
Harvard Business Press.
MikropoulosT. A.NatsisA. (2011).
Educational virtual environments: A ten-year review of empirical research (1999–2009). Computers & Education,
56(3), 769–780.
25.
MilbrandtM. K.ShinR.EçaT. T. D.HsiehK. (2015).
Visual art curricula, art teacher goals, and instructional time: Findings from an international survey. International Journal of Education Through Art,
11(1), 137–156.
26.
MoonS.RoseS.BlackA.BlackJ.HwangY.LynnL.MemoliJ. (2013).
Releasing the social imagination: Art, the aesthetic experience, and citizenship in education. Creative Education,
4, 223–233. doi:10.4236/ce.2013.43033
O’ConnorE. A. (2015).
Open source meets virtual reality: An instructor’s journey unearths new opportunities for learning, community, and academia. Journal of Educational Technology Systems,
44(2), 154–170.
PartonA.NewtonD. P.NewtonL. (2017).
The implementation of object-centered learning through the visual arts: Engaging students in creative, problem-based learning. International Journal for Education Through Art,
13(2), 147–162.
32.
Pour-RahimianF.IbrahimR. (2011).
Impacts of VR 3D sketching on novice designers' spatial cognition in collaborative conceptual architectural design. Design Studies,
32(3), 255–291. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2010.10.003
33.
PsotkaJ. (2013).
Educational games and virtual reality as disruptive technologies. Journal of Educational Technology & Society,
16(2), 69–80.
34.
RoblyerE.EdwardsJ.HavrilukM. A. (1997). Integrating educational technology into teaching.
Merrill, NJ:
Upper Saddle River.
35.
SantosL.CarvahoC. V. (2013, December).
Improving experiential learning with haptic experimentation. International Journal of Online Engineering,
9(8), 7.
36.
SheridanK. M. (2011).
Envision and observe: Using the studio thinking framework for learning and teaching in digital arts. Mind, Brain, and Education,
5(1), 19–26.
37.
ThagardP.ShellyC. P.et al. (1997). Abductive reasoning: Logic, visual thinking, and coherence. In Dalla ChiaraM. L. (Eds.), Logic and Scientific Methods (pp. 413–427).
Dordrecht, the Netherlands:
Kluwer Academic Publishers.
38.
ThomasD.BrownJ. S. (2011). A new culture of learning: Cultivating the imagination for a world of constant change (
Vol.219).
Lexington, KY:
CreateSpace.
39.
Thornhill-MillerB.DupontJ. (2016).
Virtual reality and the enhancement of creativity and innovation: Under recognized potential among converging technologies?Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology,
15(1), 102–121.
40.
WinnerE.GoldsteinT. R.Vincent-LancrinS. (2013a). Art for art’s sake? The impact of arts education.
Paris, France:
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.
41.
WinnerE.HetlandL.VeenemaS.SheridanK. (2013b). Studio thinking 2: The real benefits of visual arts education.
New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.
