Immersive virtual reality in second level education: a partnered narrative on the challenges and opportunities for STEM engagement

  1. Niall O'Leary
  2. David Murphy
  3. Ellen Condon
  4. Danny Lonergan
  5. Niamh Lordan
  6. Deirdre Ní Théacháin
  7. Caoimhín Ó Buachalla
  8. Collette Uí Ghealbháin
  9. Martin McHugh
  10. Colm O'Hehir
  11. F. Jerry Reen

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

This article is not in any list yet, why not save it to one of your lists.
Log in to save this article

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 abstract concepts that underpin molecular biology and the life sciences. 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 in the classroom. We also considered the wider application of virtual reality and immersive learning technologies for STEM engagement and learning.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1099/acmi.0.001028.v3 on Access Microbiology
  3. Access Microbiology

    Comments to Author

    Major points: 1. This is really a very nice summary and overview of what is known (published) about using virtual reality (VR) in education. I think a few minor adaptations (see points below) would help to make it a little bit clearer for the reader and help it appeal to a broader audience. I hope the authors will take my following points as intended - as aimed to help improve what is already a good paper. I think that overall, educators will benefit from engaging with the authors' perspective on the use of VR in education, and that this is a very interesting emerging topic in the educational literature. I look forward to reading a follow-up study that describes the authors' work in more detail, and/or more studies in this field - hopefully this work will inspire other educators to begin exploring how they can implement VR simulations in their own practice. 2. Table 1 and Table 2 are great summaries on the use of VR in the classroom and challenges, etc., but it could be slightly clearer where these are derived from - I think that they are based on the author's own experiences of using their designed simulations in the classroom, but I did find myself wondering if they were also based on their literature review? Could this perhaps be made a wee bit clearer? I also find Table 1 to be a little unclear, largely due to its formatting - it isn't immediately obvious to me how the items in each row relate to one another. Reading across a row is often a bit disjointed and items sometimes seem unrelated to one another. In some places, the table feels a little repetitive - limited access to VR/HMDs mentioned twice (second column). I wonder if the authors could present this information in a way that is clearer for the reader. For example, table 2 reads much more clearly for me and is so well-organised. If there is no intended connection between the items in the rows in Table 1: perhaps a two-column table, with three rows (benefits for learning, challenges to integration, and solutions to bottlenecks), with bullet point entries for each item in the second column? Certainly there would be other ways to do this. I just suggest that the authors might consider how they can present the information in this table in the clearest way for their readers. 3. I find myself overall not entirely understanding the simulations the authors have developed, or the 3D printed models that were used in parallel (lines 125-144), what do the students actually do in the simulations/with the models? Are they just given a set amount of time to explore each of the cells shown in Figure 1, or are there assigned tasks that they are asked to complete (identify/label/rotate particular cellular substructures?) How long does the activity take? How, if at all, is the activity assessed? If the VR simulations are an exploration of the cells shown in Figure 1 - the photos as shown (Human Cell, Plant Cell, Bacterial Cell) don't really convey a sense of scale, such that I think a reader would be forgiven for coming to the conclusion that all of these cells are roughly the same size. (Do the students come to the same conclusion when using the VR simulations?) If this is not the case, adding a scale bar to each of the photographs might help correct this misapprehension? I appreciate how difficult it must be to convey the content of a fully immersive VR simulation in text/figures, but I think a little more clarity here as to what the VR simulations involve would really help the reader to better understand the authors' perspective on use of VR in the classroom. I understand from the authors' comments to the previous reviewers, that the authors intend for this to be a perspective piece, rather than a case study - however, I think that for the reader to understand the authors' perspectives (e.g., the points outlined in Tables 1-2?), just a little more detail and clarity would be beneficial. Minor points: 1. Title of the article and elsewhere in the text - "second level education", is this a term specific to the Irish system? Is it similar to what is elsewhere called "secondary education"? Is there a way to make sure this is clear for the reader? Overall perhaps it might be possible to add just a little bit more explanation for readers who aren't familiar with the Irish education system - Junior Cycle, Senior Cycle, Transition Year - I think it would help to engage readers more broadly if these terms could be just very briefly explained. 2. Line 33 - "the natural ecosystem", I am not sure what this means? Which ecosystem? 3. Line 39 - "design and integration" - integration into what? 4. Lines 71-73: is 69 studies "few"? (may be quite subjective but that seems a fair number to me) 5. Line 96 "challenges in cognitive spatial modelling" is a little vague, perhaps the authors could elaborate on what exactly the challenges are, how serious they are, e.g. "90% of students are unable to do X"? 6. A little more description of the previously used simulations (references 8-10) might be helpful for the reader - perhaps a figure or table comparing the VR simulations described in this study? (c.f. lines 99, 127) 7. The flow of figure 1 and the figure legends could perhaps be improved, to make this a little clearer for the reader. I would probably read this figure from top left in rows to bottom right, and so - VR headset, human cell, plant cell, challenges in STEM, bacterial cell, text, 3D models, text, cell diagrams, then the 3 text boxes at the bottom (are these meant to be columns integrated with the elements above?) I don't particularly understand how to access the information presented in this figure - the connections between the elements, when read in that order, aren't very clear. I wonder if the authors could reconsider the layout and/or the figure legend (for example, numbering the different elements in the figure A, B, C, etc. and giving specific descriptions of each element in the figure legend), I think would make this much clearer for the reader. Figure 1 (bottom panel) - not entirely sure I grasp the difference between the cyclical arrow (between the bacterial cell image and the 3D model) elements and the double-headed arrow between the 3D model and diagrams of the cells? Both seem to suggest that the two topics are reinforcing one another? Does a student use immersive VR to look at the bacterial cell, then look at the 3D models, then cycle back to the VR immersion? Figure 1, The Human Cell - the dark background and lack of contrast between some of the elements in this figure, make it a little difficult to make out what is being shown here. 8. Line 182 - "is equal measure" should probably be "in equal measure"? 9. Table 1 - EAL and ICT (the meaning of these acronyms may already be known to many readers, but for the sake of clarity it is still best to define acronyms on first use)

    Please rate the manuscript for methodological rigour

    Satisfactory

    Please rate the quality of the presentation and structure of the manuscript

    Good

    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

  4. Access Microbiology

    Comments to Author

    Thank you for your clarification this now reads more clearly as a review. Your changes to the figure are also very welcome! I can now more clearly visualise what the VR techniques you are reviewing involve. The inclusion of microbiology in some of the introduction and discussion makes this an article that belongs in access microbiology where teachers, policy makers and educators can find it. In summary, this review on the use of VR in secondary education, with the number of benefits it presents and with microbiology context is useful to the scientific community and has a place in Access Microbiology.

    Please rate the manuscript for methodological rigour

    Satisfactory

    Please rate the quality of the presentation and structure of the manuscript

    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

  5. Version published to 10.1099/acmi.0.001028.v2 on Access Microbiology
  6. Access Microbiology

    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.

  7. Access Microbiology

    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

  8. Version published to 10.1099/acmi.0.001028.v1 on Access Microbiology
  9. Access Microbiology

    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