Immersive virtual reality in second level education: a partnered narrative on the challenges and opportunities for STEM engagement
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
This article is not in any list yet, why not save it to one of your lists.Abstract
Digital education in the life sciences has seen several remarkable advances in recent years, not least with the advent of visual and immersive technologies that bring into focus the conceptually challenging molecular concepts that underpin the natural ecosystem. In some cases, limitations in visualising and modelling these concepts can prove to be a barrier to learning. Providing new entry points to learning through “doing” or “seeing” could prove to be a significant enhancer of engagement, unlocking hidden potential in our student cohorts, and increasing the uptake of science as a subject of choice in higher education. In this study, second level education teachers and higher education practitioners worked in partnership to explore the current state of the art around design and integration of immersive virtual reality simulations for the teaching of microbial and human cell structures. We also considered the wider application of virtual reality and immersive learning technologies for STEM engagement and learning.
Article activity feed
-
-
As you can see from the comments below, the reviewers have very different views of your manuscript! Please disregard reviewer 2 issue 2 and 3. Instead, please make it clearer that the paper is written in partnership with secondary school teachers. I think that this could be clearer in the introduction, line 106 onwards. "Therefore, we took a partnership approach to work with teachers" could be misinterpreted as being you co-designed the research with them, rather than they are equal authors in the paper. Please rephrase this to something like "Here, secondary school teachers and higher education lecturers have reviewed the literature and brought their own expertise and reflections to explore.... ". In this paragraph make it very clear what this manuscript is, that is it not a research study, instead it is a narrative piece, exploration …
As you can see from the comments below, the reviewers have very different views of your manuscript! Please disregard reviewer 2 issue 2 and 3. Instead, please make it clearer that the paper is written in partnership with secondary school teachers. I think that this could be clearer in the introduction, line 106 onwards. "Therefore, we took a partnership approach to work with teachers" could be misinterpreted as being you co-designed the research with them, rather than they are equal authors in the paper. Please rephrase this to something like "Here, secondary school teachers and higher education lecturers have reviewed the literature and brought their own expertise and reflections to explore.... ". In this paragraph make it very clear what this manuscript is, that is it not a research study, instead it is a narrative piece, exploration VR through the perceptive of secondary school and higher education practitioners. Please reiterate this in the future directions, and research questions.
-
Comments to Author
Dear Authors, Whilst the the subject matter of Virtual reality in the class room is an interesting one, the summary given of the VR case study in Ireland and more so its place in the literature I do not think is suitable for the access microbiology journal as is. I think it requires more detail on the processes you describe, and more microbiology and or science. I would describe this article as a literature review more so than a case study as is, as there was little data collected, described or shown of the case study in the article. There are major considerations to make before it should be considered as a pedagogic piece of work or microbiology. I have been as honest as I can be, in the hopes you add what I suggest and we are left with a brilliant little article after your hard work for two years. …
Comments to Author
Dear Authors, Whilst the the subject matter of Virtual reality in the class room is an interesting one, the summary given of the VR case study in Ireland and more so its place in the literature I do not think is suitable for the access microbiology journal as is. I think it requires more detail on the processes you describe, and more microbiology and or science. I would describe this article as a literature review more so than a case study as is, as there was little data collected, described or shown of the case study in the article. There are major considerations to make before it should be considered as a pedagogic piece of work or microbiology. I have been as honest as I can be, in the hopes you add what I suggest and we are left with a brilliant little article after your hard work for two years. It will likely need another round of review after these considerations and additions are made, due to the amount of extra data, writing and/or new literature sources that will be needed. I have the following major amendmants I would prefer to see before its publication in Access Microbiology: Major Issue 1. Figure 1.- The first half of this figure is unnecessary as it simply shows the word STEM, this does not give anything to the reader. Remove this. The second lower half (no letters to indicate where in the figure) are also of little value at their current size. It gives the reader little information. The information that I can imagine you would have liked the reader to have or want them to see in this, is the visual aspect of the VR software you are using. If this is the case, this should be the major part of the figure, and larger. You also mention use of 3D printed objects and models. This should be part of the figure and larger so the viewer can see it. Preferably this would show evidence of use by a user, but this isnt absolutely necessary. Major Issue 2. Beyond this, the amount of information given of the study is limited. There was no feedback from participants qualitative or quantitative and therefore there is no success parameters gained, and no reflection beyond the EUs digital plan and guidelines that reflect on the work taken place. This feedback is needed for a serious pedagogical study that is publishable. Major Issue 3. Methodology: You do not provide a timeline of the events, or how you did the work in a methods section, this is extremely vague, you mention for example that the study took place over 2 years, you also dont say how many participants in total (only class sizes), or clarify how many needed to speak irish gaelic, etc. This is an issue. You dont discuss the research topics taught. You do not describe the items used, or the virtual space or how resources were allocated, or how long VR teaching sessions were. Major Issue 4. I see no microbiology in the paper, therefore clearly as is, and unless there are specific references to the microbiology and specific microbiology teaching problems in the text and or figures, (although i do see a cell in figure 1) this isnt sufficient to be in access microbiology as of yet, and will need to have contextualisation of how microbiology plays into VR specifically to be suitable in this journal. Major Issue 6. The review as is is not reflective of the pedological environment of teaching microbiology, and there are no paragraphs that I can find or phrases that suggest this, therefore it is not suitable in this regard for publishing in access microbiology. Therefore considerable more effort into researching specifically pedagogy on microbiology online and offline is needed to bring this contextualisation and improve this aspect, searching access microbiology's own library will help. Minor issue: You reference in line 168 ' digital yellow brick road' can you provide a reference for this. Overall, therefore I recommend the manuscript is majorly revised for further data collection of the case study, along with its timeline and to add microbiology contextualisation, as well as an improvement to the figures to be more informative, and less based on the literature review and guidelines.
Please rate the manuscript for methodological rigour
Very poor
Please rate the quality of the presentation and structure of the manuscript
Very poor
To what extent are the conclusions supported by the data?
Partially support
Do you have any concerns of possible image manipulation, plagiarism or any other unethical practices?
No
Is there a potential financial or other conflict of interest between yourself and the author(s)?
No
If this manuscript involves human and/or animal work, have the subjects been treated in an ethical manner and the authors complied with the appropriate guidelines?
Yes
-
-
Comments to Author
This is a well written paper on the challenges and opportunities for immersive VR in second level schools in Ireland. The manuscript is very readable and easy to follow, it outlines the rationale for use of immersive VR in secondary schools to engage students in STEM as well as going through the benefits and challenges. The authors partnered with secondary school teachers to provide guidance and feedback in how to successfully integrate VR in the classroom. Future research directions were outlined. The manuscript has engaged with wide and current literature and all the sections were explained and summarised in a thorough manner.
Please rate the manuscript for methodological rigour
Very good
Please rate the quality of the presentation and structure of the manuscript
Comments to Author
This is a well written paper on the challenges and opportunities for immersive VR in second level schools in Ireland. The manuscript is very readable and easy to follow, it outlines the rationale for use of immersive VR in secondary schools to engage students in STEM as well as going through the benefits and challenges. The authors partnered with secondary school teachers to provide guidance and feedback in how to successfully integrate VR in the classroom. Future research directions were outlined. The manuscript has engaged with wide and current literature and all the sections were explained and summarised in a thorough manner.
Please rate the manuscript for methodological rigour
Very good
Please rate the quality of the presentation and structure of the manuscript
Very good
To what extent are the conclusions supported by the data?
Strongly support
Do you have any concerns of possible image manipulation, plagiarism or any other unethical practices?
No
Is there a potential financial or other conflict of interest between yourself and the author(s)?
No
If this manuscript involves human and/or animal work, have the subjects been treated in an ethical manner and the authors complied with the appropriate guidelines?
Yes