Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This article presents the Blended Learning Virtual Reality Inquiry Framework, an original framework for creating virtual reality inquiry-based lessons for the modern technology-driven classroom. The framework shared in this article invokes research on blended learning , experiential learning, and inquiry-based learning to structure a virtual reality-specific lesson model. The authors present the theory and research behind each aspect of the framework before explaining how the framework is used. The article concludes by providing practitioners with a standard-aligned Blended Learning Virtual Reality Inquiry Framework lesson example.

Keywords

Virtual reality experiential learning blended learning inquiry

Technology is changing, and with this change, so too are classrooms. The popularization of the one-to-one technology model in which each student and teacher is provided with an Internet-connected mobile device (Greaves and Hayes, 2008) is pivoting the role of teachers. The integration of technology into schools has fundamentally changed the instructional strategies used in daily learning activities, namely with the introduction of blended learning (Kehrwald and McCallum, 2015). Teachers’ responsibilities are shifting away from being the arbiters of knowledge. Teachers in the modern classroom may find themselves pivoting between orchestrating roles in student-inquiry-led lessons and guiding student technology usage (Lakala et al., 2005; Littleton and Kerawalla, 2012). Commonplace uses of technology in classrooms throughout the past decade such as passive Internet research or video viewing are becoming outdated due to an expanding availability of technologies that offer students more meaningful and active learning experiences. Supporting active learning activities in the classroom is the theory of Constructivism, which Mayrose explains as, “a nearly universally accepted learning theory which holds that learning activities that are active, effective, and meaningful, result in superior learning versus those that are passive and non-engaging” (2012: 13). Recently, affordable virtual reality (VR) platforms are presenting instructors with high levels of technology integration and students with meaningful, active, and previously unreachable possibilities for experiential learning.

A combination of factors has phased out the authentic experiences—often referred to as experiential learning—that students of past generations have enjoyed through field trips and similar excursions. Experiential learning transpires when students visit locations outside their classrooms or take part in experiences that link to the content they are learning in their courses (Galizzi, 2014; Kolb, 1984). Not only are field trips costly, consequently making them an addition to the chopping block of shrinking school district budgets, but they present genuine safety and logistical concerns for educators, as well (Whitmeyer and Mogk, 2013). The pervasiveness of affordable technologies already in students’ hands through schools’ one-to-one or bring-your-own-device initiatives combined with the emergence of high-quality VR content already available on these devices necessitates a deeper analysis into the ways in which VR technologies can be leveraged to provide students with more meaningful technology use and learning experiences.

Within this described context, a comprehensive search was performed by the authors in 2018 to find VR lesson frameworks backed by literature that practitioners could use in the modern blended learning classroom. This review of literature was performed in the EBSCOhost, ERIC, and Google Scholar databases using the search terms “blended learning,” “virtual reality,” and “framework” in order to locate relevant articles. The search parameters of peer-reviewed and full text journal articles were used. While these searches netted general results, none of the articles included applicable research-based VR-specific blended learning lesson frameworks. After reviewing the available literature, the authors proposed the Blended Learning VR Inquiry Framework as a model with which practitioners can design active, experiential, and inquiry-driven VR lessons for the blended learning classroom. This article addresses a gap in the literature by providing a scalable, research-based framework for assisting practitioners as they integrate VR into their blended learning classrooms.

The Blended Learning VR Inquiry Framework is a new contribution to the literature that reimagines prominent educational research for modern VR instruction and combines this research with teaching pedagogy, technology integration, and blended learning classroom orchestration. As illustrated in Table 1, teaching strategy, learning theory, instructional delivery, and technology are joined together to form the Blended Learning VR Inquiry Framework. Each element described in the subsequent sections has a direct responsibility within the framework. Blended learning provides the format, technology integration, and overarching organizational structure of the lesson’s differentiated activities. Experiential learning is the theory on which the lesson is based and is the method employed to give students meaningful educational experiences that they will then further investigate and reflect upon. Inquiry is the learning strategy which guides this framework and is present in all its steps. VR is the technology which provides the experiential learning opportunities for students in this framework. Each of these elements works in concert with each other in the Blended Learning VR Inquiry Framework to provide students with deep, enriching, reflective, and differentiated educational experiences.

Table 1.

Lesson framework elements.

Aspect of framework	Element
Format	Blended learning
Method	Experiential learning
Strategy	Inquiry
Platform	Virtual reality

Blended learning

The term blended learning has become ubiquitous in contemporary technology-driven education. The term may be one of the more confusing words in the EdTech lexicon because its definition has changed over time and is open to multiple interpretations and models (Driscoll, 2003; Friesen, 2012; Johnson and Marsh, 2013; Owston, 2018; Smyth et al., 2012; ). In the term’s earliest known usage, a computer training certification company used the term to describe their courses which combined traditional content with the availability of live instruction and collaboration all through an online learning environment (Friesen, 2012). However, as technology has become a larger part of different educational experiences since the late 1990s, the definition of blended learning has consequently transformed. Some contemporary interpretations of blended learning center on the modality of instruction, like the combination of face-to-face instruction with online instruction (Garrison and Vaughan, 2008). Other interpretations focus on the amount of online time that replaces direct instruction (Allen et al., 2007; Parsad et al., 2008). Further, there are interpretations that focus on the chronology and modality of instruction, like using technology to combine aspects of synchronous and asynchronous instruction (So and Brush, 2008). Driscoll’s (2003) research into blended learning found that the commonality between the different contemporary interpretations of blended learning was the notion of combining technology with classroom instruction in order to foster achievement in a student population. Accordingly, in this article, the term blended learning is operationalized as the combination of in-person classroom instruction and technology—specifically mobile hardware and VR software in this context—in order to foster understanding (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

The Three Centers model rotates students between small group, collaborative, and independent digital learning activities in the middle of the lesson.

In addition, the framework described in this article utilizes a station rotational model commonly used in face-to-face blended learning classrooms. In a station rotational model, students follow pre-defined workflows and rotate from one station and activity to another after a set period (Horn and Staker, 2014; Maxwell and White, 2017). Specifically, this framework utilizes the Three Centers rotational model wherein students rotate between teacher-led small group, collaborative, and independent digital activities during class (Education Elements, 2015). The Three Centers rotational model was selected for the framework presented in this article based on its cyclical nature and compatibility with the cycle of Kolb’s (1984) experiential learning theory model. The function of each of the three centers in this framework is explained in Figure 2.

Figure 2.

The function of each step of the Blended Learning VR Inquiry Framework organized within the Three Centers rotational model.

Experiential learning

Kolb’s (1984) experiential learning theory model, based on the works of Dewey (1897, 1938), explains that well-designed experiential learning starts with an experience that is followed by reflective observations on what has occurred. Abstract conceptualization, or learning from the experience by creating mental models, is next (Kolb, 1984). Finally, the new and old knowledge are combined to produce the testing of developed concepts in new contexts (Kolb, 1984). It is upon Kolb’s (1984) outline for well-crafted experiential learning that the lesson framework presented in this article is primarily designed (Figure 3).

Figure 3.

Kolb’s (1984) experiential learning model.

Research suggests that experiential learning has both positive motivational and learning impacts (McManus and Thiamwong, 2015; Smeds et al., 2015). Among these impacts, active authentic experiences that involve more than merely the minds of students have been shown to impact memory on a level beyond that of passive learning modalities (Galizzi, 2014). Experiential learning also has the potential to increase motivation when compared to more passive learning modalities because of the immersive experiences and comradery students and instructors build through these experiences together (Di Blas and Paolini, 2014; Mayrose, 2012).

Research by Kwon (2019) has indicated that experiential learning using VR is possible, as users internalize their virtual experiences as direct experiences. Virtual experiential learning has been suggested to have comparable positive motivational and learning impacts to real-world experiential learning (Chen et al., 2005; Virvou et al., 2005). Therefore, the term experiential learning in our framework refers to immersive group experiential learning—including observation, reflection, conceptualization, and transfer—fostered by VR technology in the classroom. Experiential learning with VR technology satisfies the same instructional goals as class trips, but with fewer financial, safety, and logistical hurdles. The framework presented in this article supports teachers who are combining inquiry, experiential learning, and blended learning in their classrooms.

Inquiry

Inquiry-based learning challenges the behaviorist tradition of teaching in which students are not active participants in the learning process unless called upon to contribute (Khalaf and Zin, 2018). Inquiry is an active learning method which involves creating questions, critical thinking, and problem-solving (Savery, 2006). In inquiry-based learning, student knowledge is continually re-written as students build understanding (Roth and Roychoudhury, 1993). Crafting compelling and supporting questions are integral to inquiry learning and these two inquiry pillars are based on important skills for citizens in civic discourse and decision-making (Croddy and Levine, 2014). According to Lee et al., compelling questions are “academically rigorous” questions which frame inquiry in relevant and interesting ways (2015: 1). Supporting questions focus students down different paths of inquiry (Lee et al., 2015). Through the inquiry process, students develop compelling and supporting questions to guide their investigations. In conjunction, students develop their research skills as they learn where to search for answers to their questions.

Compelling questions, hypotheses, evaluating research, as well as forming conclusions are common aspects of inquiry learning. When initially utilizing inquiry in the classroom, teachers ask students compelling questions which hook students’ interest and guide their learning. Then, students hypothesize what the answers to the compelling questions could be and embark on journeys to find answers to those questions (Cherner and Fegely, 2017; National Council for the Social Studies, 2013). As students advance their understanding of inquiry, the onus is put on students to formulate their own compelling and supporting questions. After the question phase, students may use previous knowledge and new researched knowledge to begin to form conclusions. Then, students evaluate their findings in order to develop and support their claims. At the final step, students are asked to share what they have found with the class, and if possible, with the larger community outside the classroom.

The National Science Foundation (1996) was an early endorser of inquiry learning combined with direct experience for the STEM subjects. Since then, different models of inquiry have been fit into many other school subjects (Lacina, 2007; Shriner et al., 2010). The National Council for the Social Studies’ C3 Inquiry Arc (National Council for the Social Studies, 2013), for example, is a social studies inquiry-based learning model which fosters student creation of strong compelling and supporting questions. The C3 Inquiry Arc (National Council for the Social Studies, 2013) is an inspiration for the framework described in this article because it compliments Kolb’s (1984) definition of experiential learning. Although more traditional classroom teaching strategies may be characterized by textbook reading and lectures, the C3 Inquiry Arc contrasts this style by encouraging teachers to lead students in active learning through disciplinary lenses and thought processes which develop students’ civic and global understanding. Reitinger’s (2013) inquiry learning framework is also an inspiration to the Blended Learning VR Inquiry Framework because much like Kolb’s (1984) experiential learning cycle it is devoid of sequential steps, and instead it is oriented around the concepts of general discovery interest, method affirmation, experience-based hypothesizing, authentic exploration, critical discourse, and conclusion-based transfer.

VR is a new technology to the classroom and thus, inquiry-based learning. Research suggests that VR can be used as a substitute for concrete experience in Kolb’s (1984) experiential learning model (Chee, 2001; Chen et al., 2005; Jensen et al., 2002; Kwon, 2019). Further, numerous studies have led researchers to conclude that there is importance in integrating technology into inquiry-based learning and recommend technology-supported learning environments for inquiry lessons (Barab and Luehmann, 2003; Edelson et al., 1999; Kim and Hannafin, 2009; Kim et al., 2007). While inspired by aspects of C3’s compelling and supporting questions, as well as aspects of Reitinger’s (2013) cycle of exploration, hypothesizing, critical discourse, and transfer, this article presents a new inquiry-based, technology-driven framework designed to be generalizable to fit numerous subject areas while incorporating experiential learning, blended learning, and VR. At each step of the Three Centers rotational model in this framework, students will modify their hypotheses based on the instructional activities they have taken part in during each rotation.

Virtual reality

VR is a three-dimensional simulation of either a real world or computer-generated world wherein users can navigate through and interact with the environment (Chandrasekera and Yoon, 2018). VR is becoming mainstream as previous generations of high-priced VR technologies are overtaken by contemporary, affordable, and consumer-targeted devices that provide equal—and often higher—levels of immersion than their costly forefathers (Slater, 2018). The arrival of VR in consumers’ hands through mobile devices has allowed individuals to become immersed in environments that provide them with the perspectives previously inaccessible to the average person. Based on projections from the technology industry, investment by public consumers in VR devices will amount to over $700 million by 2025 (Johnson, 2019). Moreover, according to a study conducted by Orbis Research, the total VR market—including educational, commercial, and military applications—could surpass the $40 billion mark by 2020 (Costello, 2017). Products such as Google Cardboard have been adopted into education with over 10 million devices shipped to consumers and classrooms all over the world (Vanian, 2017).

Puentadura’s (2010) Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, and Redefinition (SAMR) scale assists teachers with contextualizing the impact technology will make on their instruction when compared to the previous method or tool they were using. Starting with Substitution as its lowest level of impact and finishing with Redefinition as its highest level of impact, the SAMR scale rates the upgrade a new piece of technology would have if introduced into an educational environment. There are brief criteria operationalized by descriptions of changes to instructional possibilities at each level of the SAMR scale. With these criteria teachers can evaluate if the introduction of a new technology into instruction will simply substitute one tool for another, augment the learning task with the new tool through a functional improvement, modify the learning task significantly, or redefine the learning task altogether in a way not possible with a previously used tool (Romrell et al., 2014). It is important to note that SAMR is a scale of a technology’s functional impact on a learning task and not a model for how to integrate technology into one’s teaching. The SAMR scale does not include variable educational factors, like the abilities of learners or the context of the unit of instruction integrating the technology.

Merely substituting one tool for a new tool or improving the functionality of an older tool with a new tool does not accomplish the idyllic goal of technology integration in the classroom as a transformative learning instrument (Hamilton et al., 2016). Moreover, swapping a traditional tool for a newer technology tool often is not a financially justified choice, either. As illustrated by Hamilton et al. (2016), the goal of SAMR is for teachers to introduce technologies into their classrooms that qualify for the Modification or Redefinition levels. Unfortunately, technology in classrooms is often mistakenly used as a substitute to perform the same learning tasks as were performed previously without technology (Romrell et al., 2014). For example, research by Chou et al. (2012) showed that their population of ninth grade teachers mainly used iPad apps that achieved the levels of Substitution or Augmentation on the SAMR scale. In another example, a study by Cherner et al. (2019) indicated that most common language learning technologies only fulfilled the Substitution and Augmentation levels of SAMR. If the ideal for technology integration in education is to reach the top two tiers of SAMR—Modification and Redefinition—then VR technologies and the previously inconceivable experiences VR gives to students achieve the highest level of technology integration.

There are two main types of VR experiences instructors can choose for students: 360-degree-camera-produced VR experiences and fully computer-generated VR experiences. Milgram et al.’s (1994)Reality–Virtuality (R–V) Continuum is used to compare completely real environments with completely virtual ones. Based on Milgram et al.’s (1994) R–V Continuum, artificial and fully computer-generated VR environments would be placed on the far-right side as Virtual Environments. As explained in Figure 4, it can be argued that the Virtual Environment pole on Milgram et al.’s (1994) continuum can be divided into two subsections. The 360-degree-camera-produced copies of real-world environments would be situated immediately next to artificial computer-generated VR environments, but slightly more toward reality and the center of the continuum. Even though 360-degree-camera-produced VR experiences are created by computers, they are immersive copies of real-world environments.

Figure 4.

The 360-degree-camera-produced and artificial computer-generated VR environments situated on Milgram et al.’s (1994) Reality–Virtuality Continuum.

Each of these VR environments can be used by instructors for different lesson goals. Computer-generated VR environments can enhance instruction by introducing possibilities to experiential learning not previously available to students. For example, a computer-generated VR experience may shrink students down to the size of red blood cells and allow students to take an immersive trip through the different systems of the human body. Similarly, when studying a past time period like ancient Egypt, or a difficult to reach location like Pluto, a computer-generated VR experience may be the only option for students to experience that time period or reach that remote location given the inherent limitations of time and space. To contrast, in instances where students are required to make specific observations and reflect upon real, concrete objects or lived experiences, like critiquing museums’ galleries or touring famous landmarks, a computer-generated environment may not be appropriate for answering the compelling questions. A combination of the two different types of VR environments may also be an option in some learning contexts.

VR can be a powerful teaching tool for a variety of reasons. Foremost, when students participate in VR experiences that include real people and places it allows students to develop feelings of immersion and presence in the VR environment (Slater, 2018), which is an active learning and experiential learning upgrade over students reading textbooks or watching videos to learn about a topic. As introduced in the paragraph above, VR provides an avenue for a variety of different experiences that would not ordinarily be possible in the physical world. For example, with VR, students in history lessons can have experiences that place them in the time period being studied in order to enhance their understanding of the lesson topic, and thus aid understanding and transfer into long-term memory (Domingo and Bradley, 2018). Further, VR applications allow students to become immersed in experiences that develop their sense of empathy for the people and events depicted in the VR environments, like the reasons why historical figures made their decisions given the context of the historical events (Van Loon et al., 2018). VR experiences can mimic the social aspects of traditional experiential learning activities, as well. Research suggests that simultaneous group VR experiences with multiple students stimulate students’ sense of community and collaboration in contrast to parallel learning experiences (Di Blas and Paolini, 2014).

Presenting the Blended Learning VR Inquiry Framework

This section provides instructors with a framework for creating VR lessons grounded by Kolb’s (1984) experiential learning theory, structured by the Three Centers rotational model, and driven by aspects of the C3 Inquiry Arc (National Council for the Social Studies, 2013) as well as Reitinger’s (2013) inquiry framework. Kolb’s experiential learning theory and associated experiential learning cycle includes four main parts, each of which is reflected in different parts of the blended learning framework below. Inquiry is integrated into this blended learning framework within its different steps through the C3 (National Council for the Social Studies, 2013) concepts of compelling questions, and Reitinger’s (2013) inquiry framework aspects of experience-based hypothesizing, authentic exploration, critical discourse, and conclusion-based transfer.

Pre-planning

Though much of the planning process is like typical lessons, specific considerations arise when designing VR-driven inquiry. To begin, instructors must identify the standards, objectives, and compelling questions with which to pair a VR experiential learning activity. Then, instructors must identify the specific VR app and VR experience needed based on their instructional objectives and compelling questions.

During the VR experience identification process, instructors must decide if the use of 360-degree-camera-produced VR environments is necessary, or if computer-generated VR environments will be satisfactory for the learning goals. The use of one type of VR environment over the other does not fundamentally change the functionality of the framework. However, teachers should strive to present students with the most-realistic experiential learning possible when deciding between two different VR experiences employing the two different types of environments. It is important to note that instructional objectives or even compelling questions that require students to compare two different ideas may dictate the need for more than one VR experience for students to use throughout a lesson.

VR apps can be experienced on different platforms through mobile devices that students are either provided with through schools’ one-to-one initiatives or already own as part of bring-your-own-device policies. Deeper levels of immersion are tied to stimulating the senses (Schmeil and Eppler, 2009; Steur, 1992). Immersion can be improved by blocking out external sensory inputs (Gadelha, 2018). Therefore, the authors recommend using goggles and headphones when possible. While head-mounted goggles can be the most expensive and lead to simulator sickness which can detract from the VR experience (Draper et al., 2001; Maraj et al., 2017) they do present the highest levels of immersion for students. While not required for VR, a plethora of lower-cost specialized headsets and goggle accessories for mobile devices exist. Some of these accessories have slots for students’ mobile devices in order to attach the devices close to students’ eyes and create more immersive experiences. Similar to kaleidoscope goggles, low-cost cardboard accessories for students’ mobile devices have side blinders to concentrate students’ vision on mobile devices inserted in the viewing slots. Accessories like these are held up to the eyes. The authors recommend these handheld goggle accessories for their ability to offer low-cost immersion and comfort to students as they can be quickly removed from the eyes if students begin to feel sick. As the lowest-cost option and most flexible to different mobile device types, students can simply hold their mobile devices in front of them in order to explore the VR worlds. This lowest-cost option also represents the lowest form of immersion and least-realistic experiential learning because students’ vision is not focused by goggles. The use of headphones at this level is even more important in order to focus the senses and block out external sensory input.

Blended learning VR inquiry lesson structure

Standards: Instructors select the specific standards that will guide their lessons.

Objectives: Instructors craft learning objectives based on the standards.

Compelling question: Instructors craft compelling questions for their students that focus the lesson for students by providing an interesting line of inquiry to guide the VR experience. Compelling questions may implore students to solve a problem, assess an overarching idea, teach or convince others, create opinions, and more creatively, analyze different timelines or imagine themselves in a hypothetical scenario (Vincent, 2014). As students become more familiar with the inquiry process, teachers can scaffold them as they develop their own compelling questions.

VR choice(s): Instructors select the VR experience or experiences that suit the standards, objectives, and compelling questions for the lesson. Objectives and compelling questions that require students to compare multiple experiences may necessitate the selection of two or more VR experiences.

Step 1: Introduction. In this step, instructors will deliver pre-teaching to the whole class before entering the VR experience. Instructors can include engine starter activities or use textbooks, video clips, or other mediums to introduce lesson topics and build student background knowledge. Teachers will share the compelling questions or students will create their own compelling questions in this step. The introduction part of lessons is also the ideal time for instructors to explain their expectations for behavior for the VR activities, how to use or navigate the VR experiences, and what students should be doing, like taking notes, as they embark on the VR experiences together. To conclude this step, students will create hypotheses as in Reitinger’s (2013) framework, based on their previous knowledge.

Step 2: Group VR experience. In form, this step will continue in a whole group arrangement with the teacher leading the class like in Step 1, but with the focus changing from pre-teaching to activity. In this step, students will become immersed in VR environments and take part in authentic exploration (Reitinger, 2013), otherwise known as concrete experience (Kolb, 1984). “Learning is a process whereby knowledge is created through the transformation of experience,” explains Kolb (1984: 38), and the students’ experiences and interactions within the VR environment at this step are the replacement for real-world interaction and experience. To begin, instructors will assist students with setting up their VR devices and selecting the necessary VR apps. In apps such as Google Expeditions, teachers will synchronously lead students through VR environments. In this way, students will move through the selected VR experiences similar to how they would move through a real-life environment in a field trip or experiential learning lesson with a group leader or chaperone. Research indicates that navigating virtual environments can be cumbersome for students (Marsh and Smith, 2001; Smith and Marsh, 2004; Stankiewicz et al., 2003). Thus, the authors suggest that instructors guide students through the VR experience regardless of synchronously guided or unguided platforms. It is important for instructors to plan what they will say and do as they guide students through VR experiences. For apps without the ability for instructors to lead the VR experiences, instructors must clearly guide students with verbal instructions for where to move within the VR environment, and what to interact with. Instructors will call students’ attention to specific parts of the VR experiences that link to the compelling questions, lesson objectives, or lesson topics. Students’ observations can be recorded mentally, on paper, or on devices for reflection and analysis at upcoming steps.

Step 3: Three Centers rotational activities. Students will then divide into the Three Centers rotational model—including teacher-led small group, collaborative, and independent digital activities—for the next phase of the lesson. Students will be divided based on justifications provided by instructors, like grades or exit ticket data. Students will rotate successively from one center to another after set time periods. In accordance with the non-sequential aspects of Kolb’s (1984) and Reitinger’s (2013) frameworks, the Three Centers model is used to rotate students through the different activities wherein the beginning point of the rotations does not matter. What does matter is that students experience all three rotational activities before moving on to the closure part of lessons, ensuring that students have gone through all the thinking processes necessary to make informed conclusions for experiential learning and inquiry learning. These rotational activities are as follows:

Teacher-led small group: In teacher-led small groups, instructors guide students through consciously reflecting upon the VR experiences. This step is aligned with Kolb’s (1984) reflective observation task of the experiential learning cycle. Instructors may debrief students on the VR experiences, discuss what students learned, and work with students on any re-teaching that is needed in order to facilitate the development of new understanding based on their previous knowledge and the addition of their new knowledge. With this instructional activity, students will modify their hypotheses as needed.

Collaborative: At this rotational activity, students discuss their thoughts and feelings about the VR experiences and defend their hypotheses about the compelling questions. The activities in this rotational activity are aligned to a stage of inquiry learning referred to by the term warranted assertibility (Dewey, 1941; Patry, 2008; Reitinger et al., 2016). “Critical Discourse may serve as a room for the collaborative generation,” write Reitinger et al. (2016: 3) when explaining their framework’s process for argumentation and group reflection. This rotational activity provides students with an area to argue their initial conclusions with their peers before solidifying these conclusions in the later steps. “Critical Discourse represents an opportunity to check the viability of drafted inquiry perspectives as well as already found answers,” explain Reitinger et al. (2016: 3). Instructors may prepare discussion questions for students to debate collaboratively. Based on their critical discourse, students will modify their hypotheses to reflect the input of their peers.

Independent digital: Abstract conceptualization is a part of Kolb’s (1984) experiential learning cycle wherein students analyze what they have learned and form new ideas based on modifications to their previous abstract concepts. In this rotation, students reflect upon their VR experiences and independently use the Internet to search for additional information they need for more nuanced connections between context and meaning related to their experiences. Throughout this conceptualizing process, students may formally or informally create supporting questions and follow those lines of inquiry. Based on reflection and further research, students will modify their hypotheses as needed.

Step 4: Closure. In this step, students will either present their answers to the compelling questions or alternatively create learning artifacts which demonstrate their new knowledge of the lesson concepts, compelling questions, and student learning objectives in a whole group setting. Instructors may require students to write essays, create presentations, posters, or multimedia projects. Taking informed action—an outcome where students design solutions for the greater community based on their new knowledge from the compelling questions (National Council for the Social Studies, 2013)—should also be considered as an option for students’ demonstration of learning. In this step, the ultimate aspiration is for students to test their conclusions and then transfer that understanding to a new topic either in the same subject or in a different one (Kolb, 1984; Reitinger, 2013).

An example blended learning VR inquiry lesson

This blended learning VR inquiry-driven lesson plan example demonstrates how VR experiences can be used for experiential learning revolving around compelling questions and state standards. The purpose of this lesson is for students to experience drought and water scarcity in Africa, then reflect upon this experience, converse with peers and their instructor, and further research the impacts of scarcity on gender roles in African societies. By taking part in each rotational activity in the blended learning Three Centers design, students will edit and improve their hypotheses as they advance through the lesson, reporting what they learned to their classmates as the culmination of the lesson.

Standards: SCSS 7.1.4.HS (South Carolina Department of Education, 2011). Compare and contrast the dynamic physical and human conditions that lead to the creation of ethnic, gender, language, and religious landscapes of African societies.

Objectives: Students will be able to analyze the cultural, environmental, and physical geographies of contemporary Africa.

Compelling question: In what ways does scarcity impact the gender roles of citizens in rural Africa?

VR choice(s): WITHIN – VR (2016) app—The Source VR experience.

Step 1: Introduction (15 min). The instructor will introduce the topic of the lesson to students through an engine starter activity in the textbook. Teachers will share the compelling question “In what ways does scarcity of resources impact the gender roles of citizens in rural Africa?” with students. The instructor will explain the expectations for behavior during the VR activities, how to navigate the WITHIN – VR (2016) app on their devices, how students should use headphones, and where to find The Source VR experience within the app. The instructor will explain that students should be taking notes and updating their hypotheses throughout the lesson. Now that students have had time to think about the compelling question, students will write their hypotheses about the compelling question based on their prior knowledge.

Step 2: Group VR experience (15 min). The instructor will make sure students have set up their VR devices and selected the WITHIN – VR (2016) app and The Source VR experience. Once all students are in the app and have found the experience, the instructor will tell the students to begin. Students will take the perspective of Selam, a rural Ethiopian girl similar to their age. As this is an asynchronous VR app, the instructor will tell students when to pause their VR experiences in order to keep everyone together and to point out specific aspects of the experience, like when Selam is in school. The instructor will also ask students to pause at certain points in order to write down notes on their experiences (Figure 5).

Figure 5.

Students’ 360-degree view as they accompany Selam on her journey to find fresh water in the WITHIN – VR (2016) app.

Step 3: Three Centers rotational activities. The instructor will explain what students will do at each rotational activity. Students will then be divided into three different groups in accordance with the Three Centers rotational model. Students will be divided based on exit ticket data from the previous class period. Students will rotate successively from one center to another after 10 min.

Teacher-led small group (10 min): In this activity, the instructor will remind students about what they have experienced in the VR app in order for students to reflect upon their new observations. Instructors will answer students’ questions about the VR experience. Then, the instructor will ask students questions about the VR experience to make sure that they remember key details. Examples of questions include, “Whose responsibility did it become to gather water and cook for the family after Selam’s mother died?” “What did you notice about Salem’s classroom?” “When Selam’s father helps her gather water, what is the result?” Students will reflect upon the VR experience and develop a new understanding of the compelling question. At the end of this activity, students will modify their hypotheses based on their observations and reflections vis-à-vis the VR experience (Figure 6).

Figure 6.

The teacher will encourage students to reflect on outcomes of Selam not needing to journey for water, such as more time for her education (WITHIN – VR, 2016).

Collaborative (10 min): At this rotational activity, students discuss their thoughts and feelings about the VR experiences and defend their hypotheses about the compelling questions. If students need pot-stirring questions, they will scan a QR code with their devices which leads to the discussion questions for students to debate collaboratively. Examples of discussion questions include, “When the well is built, how does it impact Selam’s career opportunities and how do you know?” “Do you believe that women are the main gatherers of water? Why or why not?” “In what other ways do you think scarcity impacts gender roles in rural Ethiopia?” Students will also share their current hypotheses for their peers to critique. Based on questions and critical discourse, students will modify their hypotheses to reflect the input of their peers (Figure 7).

Figure 7.

Students will experience the moment the well is built and analyze how it impacts rural Ethiopians’ way of life (WITHIN – VR, 2016).

Independent digital (10 min): Students will reflect upon both their previous experiences as well as the new VR experience and a new understanding of scarcity and cultural factors that influence gender roles. Then, students will use the Internet to search for more information that will help them fully answer the compelling question. For example, students may perform research on other ways which scarcity and environmental factors influence gender roles in Africa outside this small sample size of rural Ethiopia. Throughout the conceptualizing process, students may formally or informally create supporting questions to research. Based on reflection and further research looking at the bigger picture, students will modify their hypotheses as needed.

Step 4: Closure (30 min). In this step, students will present their answers to the compelling questions by creating learning artifacts which demonstrate their new knowledge of the lesson concepts, compelling questions, and student learning objectives. Students will have the option to create either a multimedia presentation or a digital poster and share their experiences and reflections on the compelling question in front of the class. In future linkage activities, students can plan informed action (National Council for the Social Studies, 2013) strategies for helping the communities they researched by starting school-wide initiatives or fundraisers and by getting in contact with organizations like Charity: Water who help dig wells to make water more easily accessible and improve the lives and career opportunities of rural African citizens.

Implications for practice and future research

Money is pouring into VR development, and the market for VR in consumer, commercial, and educational settings is expected to boom in the coming years (Costello, 2017; Johnson, 2019). As VR becomes a larger part of education, specialized lesson frameworks to guide instructors through the planning process will become more necessary. Frameworks such as this ensure that VR is not used as a sideshow and that lessons institute educational research and theory in order to improve students’ higher order thinking, reflection, and ability to make connections.

When beginning to use the Blended Learning VR Inquiry Framework—especially in younger grades—the authors recommend that instructors start with VR apps that can be led by a chaperone through a synchronous touring system, like Google Expeditions (2019). As students become more comfortable with VR experiential learning and understand the expectations for the VR portion of the lesson, instructors can branch out to asynchronous VR experiences which require step-by-step directions and more classroom management. Instructors must plan detailed directions and points of emphasis for asynchronous VR experiences. The authors recommend that instructors rehearse asynchronous VR activities multiple times before enacting in the classroom, making special note of rendezvous points for the students in the class to wait in before advancing as an entire class to the next areas of the VR experiences.

The authors recommend that researchers conduct case studies examining this framework being used in classrooms in order to qualitatively and quantitatively analyze the implementation of these lessons in practice. Additionally, the authors present researchers with an intriguing line of study into an inherent limitation of this framework, the usage of VR lesson frameworks in hybrid and distance settings. In turn, researchers’ insights and recommendations can be used to improve this framework as the literature on VR in the classroom expands.

Conclusion

VR is a powerful tool for students which can be used to experience things previously inconceivable in the classroom. As authentic experiential learning disappears from education, low-cost VR solutions are likely to become a popular alternative. However, without structure and direction, VR only activates students’ learning at a shallow level. Inquiry provides the backbone for instructors to teach students to go deeper. The inquiry processes outlined in this framework provide the critical thinking, research, debate, and reflection skills needed for students to become more college and career ready. Blended learning’s Three Centers model works as a blueprint to organize inquiry learning activities while integrating technology. Combining purposeful instructional strategy, method, learning theory, format, and platform together, the Blended Learning VR Inquiry Framework can be used to guide educators through planning and enacting meaningful VR lessons. Throughout the Three Centers rotational activities, students develop their hypotheses with input from their instructors, peers, and outside research before testing their hypotheses or sharing with the class. The authors believe that VR technology, inquiry, and blended learning aspects of this framework provide students with technological, analytical, and active learning experiences which will better prepare students for civic engagement and careers outside the classroom. The framework presented in this article presents instructors with a much-needed, flexible approach for a multitude of subjects which instructors can use to plan and implement meaningful VR lessons in the classroom.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Alex G Fegely

Author Biographies

Alex G Fegely is an Assistant Professor in the Instructional Technology program at Coastal Carolina University in Conway, South Carolina

Heather N Hagan is an Assistant Professor in the Elementary Education program at Coastal Carolina University in Conway, South Carolina

George H Warriner III is an Instructional Technology Trainer in the Center for Teaching Excellence to Advance Learning (CeTEAL) at Coastal Carolina University in Conway, South Carolina

References

Allen

Seaman

and Garrett

(2007) Blending in: The extent and promise of blended education in the United States. Sloan Consortium. Available at: https://secure.onlinelearningconsortium.org/publications/survey/blended06 (accessed 6 June 2019).

Barab

and Luehmann

(2003) Building sustainable science curriculum: Acknowledging and accommodating local adaptation. Science Education 87(4): 454–467.

Chandrasekera

and Yoon

(2018) Augmented reality, virtual reality, and their effect on learning style in the creative design process. Design and Technology Education 23(1): 55–75.

Chee

(2001) Virtual reality in education: Rooting learning in experience. In: Proceedings of the international symposium on virtual education, Busan, South Korea, pp.43–54.

Chen

Toh

and Ismail

(2005) Are learning styles relevant to virtual reality? Journal of Research on Technology in Education 38(2): 123–141.

Cherner

and Fegely

(2017) Educational apps in the blended learning classroom: Bringing inquiry-based learning into the mix. Current Issues in Emerging eLearning 4(1).

Cherner

and Fegely

(2019) A systematic exploration of language learning technologies: Insights for developers and educators. In: Ordonez de Pablos

and Lytras

(eds) Opening Up Education for Inclusivity Across Digital Economies and Societies. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, pp.137–155.

Chou

Block

and Jesness

(2012) A case study of mobile learning pilot project in K-12 schools. Journal of Educational Technology Development and Exchange 4(2): 11–26.

Costello

(2017) Global virtual reality market forecast 2020 by major players such as Sony, Microsoft, Facebook, HTC, Google, Samsung Electronics, GoPro, etc. Reuters, 24 April.

10.

Croddy

and Levine

(2014) The C3 Framework: A powerful tool for preparing future generations for informed and engaged civic life. Social Education 78(6): 282–285.

11.

Dewey

(1897) My pedagogical creed. The School Journal 54(3): 77–80.

12.

Dewey

(1938) Logic. The Theory of Inquiry. New York, NY: Henry & Hold.

13.

Dewey

(1941) Propositions, warranted assertibility, and truth. The Journal of Philosophy 38(7): 169–186.

14.

Di Blas

and Paolini

(2014) Multi-user virtual environments fostering collaboration in formal education. Educational Technology & Society 17(1): 54–59.

15.

Domingo

and Bradley

(2018) Education student perceptions of virtual reality as a learning tool. Journal of Educational Technology Systems 46(3): 329–342.

16.

Draper

Viirre

Durness

, et al. (2001) Effects of image scale and system time delay on simulator sickness within head-coupled virtual environments. Human Factors Journal 43(1): 129–146.

17.

Driscoll

(2003) Blended learning: Let’s get beyond the hype. IM Global Services. Available at: https://www-07.ibm.com/services/pdf/blended_learning.pdf (accessed 6 June 2019).

18.

Edelson

Gordin

and Pea

(1999) Addressing the challenges of inquiry based learning through technology and curriculum design. Journal of the Learning Sciences 8(3–4): 391–450.

19.

Education Elements (2015) Model design samples. Available at: http://cdn2.hubspot.net/hubfs/428371/EE.DesignSamples.May2015PDF.pdf?__hssc=10741404.8.1554990560226&__hstc=105741404.ef3a27e1f9ee28ecd0bbb3d6523a1b04.1554990560224.1554990560224.1554990560224.1&__hsfp=420343025&hsCtaTracking=b32813fe-cd6b-4914-bd61-12a57624ba70%7Cb42900cd-f46a-4318-be04-f7b46776eaeb (accessed 6 June 2019).

20.

Friesen

(2012) Report: Defining blended learning. Learning Spaces. Available at: http://learningspaces.org/papers/defining_blended_learning_NF.pdf (accessed 6 June 2019).

21.

Gadelha

(2018) Revolutionizing education: The promise of virtual reality. Childhood Education 94(1): 40–43.

22.

Galizzi

(2014) Bringing Adam Smith’s pin factory to life: Field trips and discussions as forms of experiential learning. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 14(5): 27–47.

23.

Garrison

and Vaughan

(2008) Blended Learning in Higher Education: Framework, Principles, and Guidelines. San Francisco: Jossy-Bass.

24.

Google Expeditions (2019) Version 2.2.1, software, Google LLC, Mountain View, CA. Available at: https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/expeditions/id1131711060?mt=8 (accessed 6 June 2019).

25.

Greaves

and Hayes

(2008) America’s digital schools 2008: The six trends to watch. The Greaves Group. Available at: http://www.lcps.org/cms/lib4/VA01000195/Centricity/Domain/52/Americas_Digital_Schools_2008.pdf (accessed 6 June 2019).

26.

Hamilton

Rosenberg

and Akcaoglu

(2016) The Substitution Augmentation Modification Redefinition (SAMR) model: A critical review and suggestions for its use. TechTrends 1(9).

27.

Horn

and Staker

(2014) Blended: Using Disruptive Innovation to Improve Schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

28.

Jensen

Seipel

Nejdl

, , et al. (2002) COVASE: Collaborative visualization for constructivist learning. Technical Report VASE 3 Q4: 2002. Available at: http://www.kbs.uni-hannover.de/Arbeiten/Publikationen/2002/covase_trq402.pdf (accessed 6 June 2019).

29.

Johnson

and Marsh

(2013) The laureate English program taking a research informed approach to blended learning. Higher Learning Research Communications 3(1): 45–55.

30.

Johnson

(2019) Jumping into the world of virtual & augmented reality. Knowledge Quest 47(4): 22–27.

31.

Kehrwald

and McCallum

(2015) Degrees of change: Understanding academics experiences with a shift to flexible technology-enhanced learning in initial teacher education. Australian Journal of Teacher Education 40(7): 43–56.

32.

Khalaf

and Zin

ZBM

(2018) Traditional and inquiry-based learning pedagogy: A systematic critical review. International Journal of Instruction 11(4): 545–564.

33.

Kim

and Hannafin

(2009) Web-enhanced case-based activity in teacher education: A case study. Instructional Science 37(2): 151–170.

34.

Kim

Hannafin

and Bryan

(2007) Technology-enhanced inquiry tools in science education: An emerging pedagogical framework for classroom practice. Science Education 91(6): 1010–1030.

35.

Kolb

(1984) Experiential Learning: Experience as a Source of Learning and Development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

36.

Kwon

(2019) Verification of the possibility and effectiveness of experiential learning using HMD-based immersive VR technologies. Virtual Reality 23(1): 101–118.

37.

Lacina

(2007) Technology in the classroom: Inquiry-based learning and technology: Designing and exploring WebQuests. Childhood Education 83(4): 251–252.

38.

Lakala

Lallimo

and Hakkarainen

(2005) Teachers’ pedagogical designs for technology-supported collective inquiry: A national case study. Computers & Education 45(3): 337–356.

39.

Lee

Swan

Grant

, et al. (2015) Questions, frameworks, and classrooms. C3 Briefs. Available at: http://www.c3teachers.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Question-RQI-C3-Brief.pdf (accessed 6 June 2019).

40.

Littleton

and Kerawalla

(2012) Trajectories of inquiry learning. In: Littleton

Scanlon

and Sharples

(eds) Orchestrating Inquiry Learning. Chippenham: CPI Antony Rowe.

41.

McManus

and Thiamwong

(2015) Enhancing fourth grade students’ writing achievement through purposeful experiential learning: An action research study. Universal Journal of Educational Research 3(12): 997–1000.

42.

Maraj

Badillo-Urquiola

Martinez

, et al. (2017) Exploring the impact of simulator sickness on the virtual world experience. In: Kantola JI, Barath T, Nazir S and Andre T (eds) Advances in Human Factors, Business Management, Training and Education. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, pp.635–643.

43.

Marsh

and Smith

(2001) Guiding user navigation in virtual environments using awareness of virtual off-screen space. In: Paelke V and Volbracht S (eds) Proceedings of the workshop on guiding users through interactive experiences—Usability centred design and evaluation of virtual 3D environments. Aachen, Germany: Shaker Verlag, pp.149–154.

44.

Maxwell

and White

(2017) Blended Revolution: How 5 Teachers Are Modifying the Station Rotation to Fit Students’ Needs. San Francisco, CA: The Christensen Institute.

45.

Mayrose

(2012) Active learning through the use of virtual environments. American Journal of Engineering Education 3(1): 13–18.

46.

Milgram

Takemura

Utsumi

, et al. (1994) Augmented reality: A Class of displays on the reality–virtuality continuum. In: Proceedings the SPIE: Telemanipulator and Telepresence Technologies, pp.282–292.

47.

National Council for the Social Studies (2013) College, Career & Civic Life C3 Framework for Social Studies State Standards. Silver Spring, MD: National Council for the Social Studies.

48.

National Science Foundation (1996) Shaping the Future. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.

49.

Owston

(2018) Empowering learners through blended learning. International Journal on E-Learning 17(1).

50.

Parsad

Lewis

and Tice

(2008) Distance Education at Degree-Granting Postsecondary Institutions: 2006 – 07. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

51.

Patry

(2008) “Warranted assertibility” im wissenschaftlichen und politischen Diskurs am Beispiel der Diskussion im die Bildungsstandards. Schweizerische Zeitschrift Fur Bildungsforschung 30(1): 135–144.

52.

Puentadura

(2010) SAMR and TPACK: Intro to advanced practice. Available at: http://hippasus.com/resources/sweden2010/SAMR_TPCK_IntroToAdvancedPractice.pdf (accessed 6 June 2019).

53.

Reitinger

(2013) Researching learning: Theory, evaluation, and practice in scientific learning arrangements. In: Series: Theory and Practice of School Pedagogy (12). Immenhausen bei Kassel, Germany: Prolog.

54.

Reitinger

Haberfellner

Brewster

, , et al. (2016) Theory of Inquiry Learning Arrangements: Research, Reflection, and Implementation. Germany: Kassel University Press.

55.

Romrell

Kidder

and Wood

(2014) The SAMR model as a framework for evaluating mLearning. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks 18(2).

56.

Roth

and Roychoudhury

(1993) The development of science process skills in authentic contexts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 30(2): 127–152.

57.

Savery

(2006) Overview of problem-based learning: Definitions and distinctions. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning 1(1): 9–20.

58.

Schmeil

and Eppler

(2009) Formalizing and promoting collaboration in 3D virtual environments—A blueprint for the creation of group interaction patterns. In: Facets of virtual environments: First international conference, pp.121–134.

59.

Shriner

Clark

Nail

, et al. (2010) Social studies instruction: Changing teacher confidence in classrooms enhanced by technology. The Social Studies 101(2): 37–45.

60.

Slater

(2018) Immersion and the illusion of presence in virtual reality. British Journal of Psychology (London, England: 1953) 109(3): 431–433.

61.

Smeds

Jeronen

and Kurppa

(2015) Farm education and the value of learning in an authentic learning environment. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education 10(3): 381–404.

62.

Smith

and Marsh

(2004) Evaluating design guidelines for reducing user disorientation in a desktop virtual environment. Virtual Reality 8(1): 55–62.

63.

Smyth

Houghton

Cooney

, et al. (2012) Students’ experiences of blended learning across a range of postgraduate programmes. Nurse Education Today 32(4): 464–468.

64.

and Brush

(2008) Student perceptions of collaborative learning, social presence and satisfaction in a blended learning environment: Relationships and critical factors. Computers & Education 51(1): 318–336.

65.

South Carolina Department of Education (2011) South Carolina social studies academic standards. Available at: https://ed.sc.gov/scdoe/assets/file/agency/ccr/Standards-Learning/documents/FINALAPPROVEDSSStandardsAugust182011.pdf (accessed 6 June 2019).

66.

Stankiewicz

McCabe

Kelly

, et al. (2003) Lost in virtual space: Estimating state uncertainty. Journal of Vision 3(9).

67.

Steur

(1992) Defining virtual reality: Dimensions determining telepresence. Journal of Communication 42(4).

68.

Van Loon

Bailenson

Zaki

, et al. (2018) Virtual reality perspective-taking increases cognitive empathy for specific others. PLoS One 13(8).

69.

Vanian

(2017) Google has shipped millions of cardboard virtual reality devices. Fortune, 1 March.

70.

Virvou

Katsionis

and Manos

(2005) Combining software games with education: Evaluation of its educational effectiveness. Educational Technology & Society 8(2): 54–65.

71.

Whitmeyer

and Mogk

(2013) Safety and liability issues related to field trips and field courses. Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union 94(40): 349.

72.

WITHIN – VR (2016) Version 3.2.0., Software. Los Angeles, CA: Within Unlimited, Inc.

A practitioner framework for blended learning classroom inquiry-based virtual reality lessons

Abstract

Keywords

Blended learning

Experiential learning

Inquiry

Virtual reality

Presenting the Blended Learning VR Inquiry Framework

Pre-planning

Blended learning VR inquiry lesson structure

An example blended learning VR inquiry lesson

Implications for practice and future research

Conclusion

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID iD

Author Biographies

References