With an increase in the number of colleges and universities using virtual reality and augmented reality integrated programs, specific insight for exploring immersive learning approaches utilizing virtual and augmented reality tools and applications in a variety of disciplines is needed. In some instances, pedagogical approaches for creating immersive learning experiences require a sound conceptual framework for course or content design with emphasis on developing opportunities for higher order thinking in virtual reality/augmented reality educational experiences. Public access data were used in this qualitative-directed content analysis study to examine course goals, objectives, and learning outcomes of 14 U.S. Artificial Intelligence universities as to the potential for developing creative and cognitive skills, as described within the pedagogical framework of Studio Thinking Framework. Findings indicated multiple opportunities for creative and cognitive thinking as Studio Thinking Framework was integrated into these immersive spaces.
BakkerA. B. (2005).
Flow among music teachers and their students: The crossover of peak experiences. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
66(1), 26–44.
4.
BaxterG.HaineyT. (2019). Student perceptions of virtual reality use in higher education. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education. Advance online publication. doi:10.1108/JARHE-06-2018-0106
5.
BrandtC.CennamoK.DouglasS.VernonM.McGrathM.ReimerY. (2013).
A theoretical framework for the studio as a learning environment. International Journal of Technology & Design Education,
23(2), 329–348. doi:10.1007/s10798-011-9181-5
6.
ChiniaraG.ColeG.BrisbaneK.HuffmanD.CraggB.LamacchiaM, … Canadian Network for Simulation in Healthcare, Guidelines Working Group. (2013).
Simulation in healthcare: A taxonomy and a conceptual framework for instructional design and media selection. Web Paper. Medical Teacher,
35, 1380–1395. doi:10.3109/0142159X.2012.733451
7.
ChristopoulosA.ConradM.ShuklaM. (2014).
Objects, worlds, and students: Virtual interaction in education. Education Research International, (
2014). 318317.
8.
CsikszentmihalyiM. (2000). Beyond boredom and anxiety.
San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass. (Original work published 1975)
9.
CsikszentmihalyiM.RathundeK.WhalenS. (1993). Talented teenagers: The roots of success and failure.
New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
10.
CsíkszentmihályiM. (2008). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience.
New York, NY:
Harper Perennial. (Original work published 1990)
11.
CurcioigorI. D. D.DipaceannaA.NorlundanitaA. (2017).
Virtual realities and education. Research on Education and Media,
8(2), 60–68. doi:10.1515/rem-2016-0019
12.
De FreitasS.Rebolledo-MendezG.LiarokapisF.MagoulasG.PoulovassilisA. (2010).
The four-dimensional framework. British Journal of Educational Technology,
41(1), 69–85. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.01024.x
13.
DeitcherJ. (2011). Facilitating flow at work: Analysis of the dispositional flow scale-2 in the workplace (Master’s thesis). Saint Mary’s University, Canada. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu/login?
14.
DeweyJ. (1938). Experience and education.
New York, NY:
Simon and Schuster.
GoodJ.HowlandK.ThackrayL. (2008).
Problem-based learning spanning real and virtual words: A case study in second life. Research in Learning Technology,
16(3), 163–172. doi:10.3402/rlt.v16i3.10895
17.
GreenbergJ.NepkieJ.PenceH. E. (2009).
The Suny Oneonta second life music project. Journal of Educational Technology Systems,
37(3), 251–258. doi:10.2190/ET.37.3.b
18.
HetlandL.WinnerE.VeenemaS.SheridanK. (2013). Studio thinking 2: The real benefits of visual arts education (2nd ed.).
New York, NY:
2nd Teachers College Press.
19.
HodgeK.LonsdaleC.JacksonS. A. (2009).
Athlete engagement in elite sport: An exploratory investigation of antecedents and consequences. The Sport Psychologist,
23, 186–202.
20.
HsiehH. F.ShannonS. E. (2005).
Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research,
15(9), 1277–1288. doi:10.1177/1049732305276687
21.
HuffmanL.FigueroaJ., MyersD. (2019, January). Infusing augmented reality & virtual reality experiences in educator preparation. Paper presented at the meeting of the Hawaii International Conference on Education, Honolulu, HI.
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
24.
KawabataM.MalletC. J. (2011).
Flow experience in physical activity: Examination of the internal structure of flow from a process-related perspective. Motivation and Emotion,
35, 393–402.
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.
31.
ParongJ.MayerR. E. (2018).
Learning science in immersive virtual reality. Journal of Educational Psychology,
110(6), 785–797. doi:10.1037/edu0000241
32.
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.
33.
PayneB. R.JacksonJ. J.NohS. R.Stine-MorrowE. A. L. (2011).
In the zone: Flow state in cognition in older adults. Psychology and Aging,
26(3), 738–743.
Rodriguez-SanchezA. M.SchaufeliW. B.SalanovaM.CifreE. (2008).
Flow experience among information and communication technology users. Psychological Reports,
102(1), 29–39. doi:10.2466/pr0.102.1.29-39
36.
SantosW. O.DermevalD.MarquesL.BittencourtI. I.IsotaniS.SilveriaI. F. (2018, May). Flow theory to promote learning in educational systems: Is it really relevant? Brazilian Journal of Computers in Education, 29. Retrieved from http://br-ie.org/pub/index.php/rbie
37.
SheridanK. M. (2011).
Envision and observe: Using the studio thinking framework for learning and teaching in digital arts. Mind, Brain & Education,
5(1), 19–26.
38.
ShinN. (2006).
Online learner’s ‘flow’ experience: An empirical study. British Journal of Educational Technology,
37(5), 705–720.
39.
SteeleP.JohnstonE.LawlorA.SmithC.LamppaS. (2018).
Arts-based instructional and curricular strategies for working with virtual educational applications. Journal of Educational Technology Systems,
47(3), 411–432. doi:10.1177/0047239518803286
40.
StretchL.HarrisR. (2019, January). Virtual clinical training center: Using technology to reach underserved communities while training future practitioners. Paper presented at the meeting of the Hawaii International Conference on Education, Honolulu, HI.
ThagardP.ShellyC. P. (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.
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. doi:10.1891/1945-8959.15.1.102
45.
WangL.ChenM. (2012).
Effects of the sequence of game-play and game-design on novices’ motivation, flow, and performance. Lecture Notes in Computer Science,
7220, 46–55.
46.
WestwoodJ. D.WestwoodS. W.Felländer-TsaiL.FidopiastisC. M.HaluckR. S.RobbR. A., … VosburghK. G. (2014). Medicine meets virtual reality.
Amsterdam, the Netherlands:
IOS Press.
47.
WinnerE.GoldsteinT.Vincent-LancrinS. (2013). Art for art's sake?: The impact of arts education.
Paris, France:
OECD Publishing.
