Would you rather collect data in the rain or attend a virtual field trip? Findings from a series of virtual science field studies

Virtual field trips open new possibilities for instructional designers to create more interactive worlds for learners. Three virtual field trips are examined which have all been developed for the Open University undergraduate science courses and make clever and innovative use of QuickTime Virtual Reality to allow students to enter three contrasting environments. Learning gains have been ascertained from pre- and post-test cognitive change scores. Perceived learning was also measured with a post experience questionnaire. The findings are interesting in that students felt they learnt more from the virtual environment than standing in the cold identifying biological samples. However, when it came to dealing with rock samples, students wanted to handle the real thing. This paper describes the advantages and disadvantages of using virtual science field trips and suggests the fine-tuning of feedback to students requires careful consideration in these types of virtual learning environments.

[1]  Roy Kalawsky,et al.  The science of virtual reality and virtual environments - a technical, scientific and engineering reference on virtual environments , 1993 .

[2]  Mel Slater,et al.  Using Presence Questionnaires in Reality , 2000, Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments.

[3]  Paul Brna,et al.  What is the Value of Virtual Reality for Conceptual Learning? Towards a Theoretical Framework , 1996 .

[4]  J. Piaget.  The Child's Conception of Physical Causality , 1927 .

[5]  Mel Slater,et al.  Immersion, presence and performance in virtual environments: an experiment with tri-dimensional chess , 1996, VRST.

[6]  J. Bruner.  Toward a Theory of Instruction , 1966 .

[7]  C. Gunawardena.  Social Presence Theory and Implications for Interaction and Collaborative Learning in Computer Conferences , 1995 .

[8]  Denise Whitelock,et al.  Presence and the Role of Activity Theory in Understanding: How Students Learn in Virtual Learning Environments , 2001, Cognitive Technology.

[9]  Denise Whitelock,et al.  The notion of presence in virtual learning environments: what makes the environment "real" , 2000, Br. J. Educ. Technol..

[10]  Matthew Lombard,et al.  MEASURING PRESENCE: A LITERATURE-BASED APPROACH TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF A STANDARDIZED PAPER-AND-PENCIL INSTRUMENT , 2000 .

[11]  L. Vygotsky,et al.  Thought and Language , 1963 .

[12]  Denise Whitelock.  Investigating the role of task structure and interface support in two virtual learning environments , 1999 .

[13]  Margaret Corbit.  Building Virtual Worlds for Informal Science Learning (SciCentr and SciFair) in the Active Worlds Educational Universe (AWEDU) , 2002, Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments.

[14]  Jonathan Steuer,et al.  Defining virtual reality: dimensions determining telepresence , 1992 .

[15]  Hirokazu Kato,et al.  Explorations in the Use of Augmented Reality for Geographic Visualization , 2002, Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments.

[16]  C. Gunawardena,et al.  Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer‐mediated conferencing environment , 1997 .

[17]  David Zeltzer,et al.  Autonomy, Interaction, and Presence , 1992, Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments.

[18]  John Short,et al.  The social psychology of telecommunications , 1976 .

[19]  Myron W. Krueger,et al.  Artificial reality II , 1991 .