Harron, J. R., Petrosino, A. J., & Jenevein, S. (2019). Using virtual reality to augment museum-
based field trips in a preservice elementary science methods course. Contemporary Issues in
Technology and Teacher Education, 9(4), 687-707.
687
Using Virtual Reality to Augment Museum-
Based Field Trips in a Preservice Elementary
Science Methods Course
Jason R. Harron
The University of Texas at Austin
Anthony J. Petrosino
Southern Methodist University
Sarah Jenevein
, The University of Texas at Austin
Positioned in the context of experiential learning, this paper reports findings of a virtual
reality field trip (VRFT) in conjunction with an in-person field trip involving preservice
teachers in an elementary science methods course to a local natural history museum.
Findings included that virtual reality (VR) is best used after a field trip to encourage student
recall of the experience, but only when done for a limited time to avoid VR fatigue. The types
of experiences that preservice teachers thought VR would be good for in their science
classrooms included the ability to visit either inaccessible or unsafe locations, to explore
scales of size that are either too big or too small, and to witness different eras or events at
varying temporal scales. Furthermore, this study uncovered potential equity issues related
to VRFTs being seen as a viable alternative if students could not afford to go on field trips.
Further research needs to be conducted to better understand the impact of VRFTs on
student learning outcomes and take advantage of recent improvements in VR technology.
Museum-based field trips are a form of experiential learning with roots that date back to
educational pioneers such as John Dewey (1900). Yet, despite being a mainstay in
education, the number of field trip visitors to museums has substantially declined over the
past decade, largely due to the lasting impact of budget cuts from the Great Recession
(Ellerson, 2015). For example, in 2010 field trips accounted for 195,000 visitors to The
Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago (The Field Museum, 2012), down from an
annual peak of over 300,000 (Greene, Kisida, & Bowen, 2014). Although the broader
economy had since recovered, attendance further declined to 160,000 field trip visitors in
2017 (Galaboff, personal communication, May 26, 2018).
Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 19(4)
688
This trend toward fewer museum-based field trips is taking place nationally, as
demonstrated by a 2015-16 report from the American Association of School Administrators
which found that only 12% of administrators surveyed were implementing field trips at
prerecession levels (Ellerson, 2015). The decline in field trips has also been attributed to
the shifting of financial and time resources toward high-stakes testing (Behrendt &
Franklin, 2014; Whitesell, 2016) and the increasingly complex logistics of planning such
trips (Adedokun et al., 2012). As a result, many students are being denied these museum-
based field trips as part of their formal educational experience.
Field trips to science museums and museums of natural history have been shown to
increase students’ interest, motivation, and attitudes toward science (Potvin & Hasni,
2014), positively affect students’ science test scores and proficiency (Whitesell, 2016), and
provide social learning experiences that students find enjoyable (Gutwill & Allen, 2012;
Sample McMeeking, Weinberg, Boyd, & Balgopal, 2016).
Furthermore, participation in self-paced education programs at science museums have
been shown to enhance K-12 students’ motivation and program-related content knowledge
when compared using pre/posttest design (e.g., health awareness in a medical science
museum; (Martin, Durksen, Williamson, Kiss, & Ginns, 2016). In contrast to the decline of
field trips, evidence remains strong that science museum-based experiences are beneficial
tools to enhance student learning.
Researchers have been seeking alternative solutions to recapture these benefits of
museum-based field trips within the budget, time, and high-stakes testing constraints of
the current educational environment. One possible solution has been to implement virtual
field trips (VFTs) in the classroom (e.g., Adedokun, Liu, Parker, & Burgess, 2015; McKnight
et al., 2016; Morgan, 2015). Enabled by increased access to multimedia-rich technologies,
such as laptops, tablets, and smartphones, VFTs allow students to interact with text, audio,
images, video, and/or immersive 3D environments while exploring real-world locations.
More recent advances in technology have made it possible to use mobile devices, such as
smartphones, for virtual reality (VR) as a means of going on VFTs.
Rather than using VR as a replacement for in-person, physical field trips, we were
interested to investigate VRFT experiences as a means of enhancing and amplifying
existing field trips. VR holds promise as a cognitive tool for improving student learning
while on field trips.
Consistent with the cognitive load theory of learning (Sweller, 1994), VR may ameliorate
the effects of novelty (Falk, Martin, & Balling, 1978) when students enter the museum and
view its collections for the first time. It may also reduce the burden of logistics by helping
to familiarize students and teachers with the layout and physical features of the museum
(Anderson & Lucas, 1997). By diminishing procedural impacts of an initial visit, VR may
enhance opportunities for student learning. VR may also serve to enhance recall by
extending the opportunities for students to be fully immersed with the field trip experience
without having to physically revisit the destination.
In this paper, we report findings of a study using student mobile devices for a virtual reality
field trip (VRFT), that is a VFT that uses VR, in conjunction with a separate in-person field
trip to a museum of natural history as part of a preservice elementary science method
course.
Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 19(4)
689
Literature Review
The following section is a review of the literature related to field trip experiences in
preservice science method courses, the implementation of VFTs in science courses, and the
use of student mobile devices for VR in the K-12 classroom.
Field Trip Experiences in Preservice Elementary Science Method Courses
Preservice teachers are generally not taught how to orchestrate and implement field trips
as part of their pedagogical training (Behrendt & Franklin, 2014). As a result, inexperienced
teachers may not be aware that students benefit from contextual learning that takes place
before, during, and after the field trip (Falk & Dierking, 2016).
This before-during-after pedagogical sequence is important since it allows the teacher to
scaffold a field trip so it is rooted in students’ prior experiences, interest, and knowledge.
Without appropriate planning, students can be overwhelmed by the novelty of the new
experience, leading to heavy cognitive load and a reduction in desired learning outcomes
(Falk et al., 1978). During the field trip, student learning can be enhanced through the
guidance of a docent (i.e., a museum volunteer, employee, or teacher who acts as a guide)
and through interactions with displays, exhibits, and kiosks (Metz, 2005). Furthermore,
after the visit, the teacher can help reinforce the experience and enhance recall by engaging
students in discussion, activities, readings, and videos (Behrendt & Franklin, 2014).
Implementing field trips as part of a preservice elementary science method course provides
an opportunity to engage in contextual learning while also modeling the before-during-
after pedagogical sequence. Preservice elementary teachers often lack confidence in their
science teaching abilities (Howitt, 2007), but elementary science method courses have
been shown to have a positive outcome toward developing preservice teachers’ beliefs,
attitudes, and self-efficacy towards science (Kazempour & Sadler, 2015).
These courses introduce preservice teachers to science pedagogy while also exposing them
to activities that extend beyond the walls of the classrooms, including workshops, family
days, and field trips (Kisiel, 2013). During these trips students can develop their conceptual
understanding of scientific concepts, while also assessing the advantages and
disadvantages of museum-based field trips (Morentin & Guisasola, 2015).
Even with this pedagogical training, however, the advantages of these visits may never be
realized if the teacher goes on to teach in a school where time, budget, and testing
constraints make the field trips impossible. The possibility of virtual field trips adds a new
dimension to teacher field trip preparation. Thus, we turn our attention to VFTs, their
affordances and constraints, and how other researchers have studied them in the
classroom.
Virtual Field Trips
Limited research has been done with the incorporation of VFTs as part of a preservice
science education program. One possible reason is the reliance on technology needed to
make VFTs possible. Preservice teacher programs typically lack the time, experience, and
materials to effectively implement technology in their own courses (e.g., Banerjee, Xu,
Jiang, & Waxman, 2017; Yuksel, Soner, & Zahide, 2009).
Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 19(4)
690
Even once teachers get into the classroom, challenges remain with helping newly inducted
teachers develop lesson plans that effectively integrate technology. Pringle, Dawson, and
Ritzhaupt (2015) studied a yearlong intervention that aimed to enact technological,
pedagogical, and content practices in science lessons. They found that their intervention
increased device use and the frequency of some technology-mediated classroom activities,
such as simulations of science experiments. However, after collecting 525 lessons they
found no instances of VFTs. Access to technology alone is not the only barrier when
introducing new pedagogical practices to the classroom. Rather, as technology usage
increases in the classroom, the need for effective pedagogical practices becomes even more
important (Philip & Garcia, 2013).
VFT experiences vary in their depth of immersion and interactions with the learning
environment (see Table 1). This variation is partially due to the lack of an agreed-upon
definition of what constitutes a VFT and partially due to the advancement of technology
over the past 2 decades. For example, Spicer and Stratford (2001) conducted a study using
VFTs to explore ocean tidepools using text, images, video, and interactive two-dimensional
simulations stored on a CD-ROM. While students both enjoyed and learned from the
experience, they unanimously agreed that the VFT did not substitute for an actual field
experience. Unlike actual field trips, where students are usually provided with time to roam
and explore, VFTs can be less effective since students are able to experience only what has
been included by the designers of the media (Behrendt & Franklin, 2014).
Table 1
Levels of Immersion for Virtual Field Trips
Examples
Research or Application
Low
Text, images, and interactive 2D simulations on a CD-
ROM
Spicer & Stratford (2001)
Gathering of text and images on the World Wide Web
Tuthill & Klemm (2002)
Partial
Prerecorded video broadcasts of scientists’ field work
with live video
Adedokum et al. (2012)
Q&A
Controllable 3D avatar, third-person view
Tutwiler, Lin, & Chang (2013);
Jones & Alba (2016)
Full
VR first-person with smartphone, or stand-alone
headsets (e.g., Oculus Rift / HTC Vive)
Howard (2016);
Apollo 11 VR;
Titanic VR
One way to overcome this limitation is by having students curate their own resources from
the Internet, allowing them to personalize their experience and visit more locations than
Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 19(4)
691
they could in person (Tuthill & Klemm, 2002). This idea of personalization can apply to
more than learning about physical locations. For example, VFTs have also been used to
help middle school students explore STEM-related professions. Through the use of
interactive video broadcasts, students were able to hear about actual research being
conducted by scientists and see how they conducted their research in the field without
having to travel to remote sites (Adedokun et al., 2015).
While video can be effective in exposing students to a wide variety of current scientific
work, it does not provide much room for the student to explore and make their own
discoveries. More recently, VFTs have started to include partially immersive 3D
environments where students can explore using virtual avatars, similar to the online virtual
world Second Life (https://secondlife.com/
).
This approach has proven to be effective when the location is too far away, such as a
museum in a different country (Jones & Alba, 2016), or if the climate or terrain is unsafe
for children, such as the mountains of Taiwan (Tutwiler, Lin, & Chang, 2013). These VFTs
are typically done with students working on computers in partners or small groups and
controlling their avatar with the arrow keys on the keyboard.
While these 3D experiences with controllable avatars are much more immersive than
images and multimedia on a CD-ROM, they do not represent a fully immersive experience
where the student has the feeling of presence in the virtual environment (Steuer, 1992).
However, recent advancements in mobile technology combined with student ownership of
smartphones has made it possible to implement fully immersive VR experiences in the
classroom.
Virtual Reality and Student Smartphones
The introduction of VR to the K-12 classroom was reported by the 2017 edition of the
NMC/CoSN Horizon Reports for K-12 as a technology with a time-to-adoption of 2-3 years
(Freeman, Adams Becker, Cummins, Davis, & Giesinger Hall, 2017). The industry leaders
in commercial VR headsets include Oculus Rift, HTC Vive, and PlayStation VR.
In a primary school context, these technologies are prohibitively expensive, because they
require specialized high-end hardware and are limited to one user at a time. Affordable
alternatives, such as Google Cardboard (https://www.google.com/get/cardboard/
),
provide a more equitable method of bringing VR technology to the classroom. Based on
low-tech solutions, Google Cardboard uses a cardboard box with lenses to transform
smartphones into a virtual reality headset (Brown & Green, 2016).
This feature allows users to have three-degrees of freedom (looking up/down, left/right,
and tilting side-to-side) in a virtual space. Students also have the ability to interact with
their environment by pressing a button on the top of the box, which is covered with
conductive foam to simulate a finger touching the smartphone screen.
As smartphone ownership has become widespread, the possibility of engaging all students
in educational VR experiences has become increasingly possible. According to an
EDUCAUSE (2016) student survey, 96% of college students own a smartphone, with 79%
of respondents reporting to have used their smartphone in at least one college course for
class-related activities. Unfortunately, smartphones may also serve as distraction devices
in higher education classrooms: sending text messages, composing e-mails, viewing social
media, surfing the web, and playing games (McCoy, 2016).
Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 19(4)
692
Similar concerns have been raised in K-12, where some teachers view digital devices as
distractions (Cho & Littenberg-Tobias, 2016). While one option is to simply ban the device,
other educators have found ways to take advantage of these devices to help students engage
in scientific exploitation (Cartwright, 2016; Kamarainen et al., 2013). We propose that
smartphones have a great deal of untapped potential in the classroom, particularly when
used for VRFTs.
Compared to students on college campuses, fewer K-12 students have access to
smartphones. According to a Pearson (2015) survey, about 35% of elementary, 61% of
middle school, and 81% of high school students have their own smartphone. As prices
continue to fall for mobile devices, however, districts have been able to afford entire class
sets that can be shared among schools, such as with the Google Expeditions program
(https://edu.google.com/expeditions
).
Google Expeditions allows teachers to take students on guided field trips to over 200
locations (Howard, 2016), including exploring sunken ships at Pearl Harbor (Yap, 2016).
Google Expeditions has drawbacks, though. It requires specific applications to be installed
on each device, limits students to a passive viewing experience that is controlled by the
teacher, and supports only limited availability of local destinations that could be visited as
part of a traditional field trip. In addition, teachers who use such experiences may not be
following the before-during-after pedagogical sequence of traditional field trips or may
simply be exposing students to VR for the novelty of the experience.
Purpose of the Study
With these limitations in mind, we wanted to create an experience where college students
in a preservice science methods course could be introduced to both traditional museum-
based field trips and VFTs/VRFTs. As part of the study, we were trying to develop new and
innovative ways to use technology in elementary science classrooms, specifically around
science museum field trips. The VRFT was introduced as a way for preservice teachers to
gain experience with advanced technologies and be exposed to their challenges and benefits
in a real-world context.
Using a museum of natural history at a research university in the southwestern United
States, we developed a VR museum tour using 360-degree photospheres, Google
Cardboard, and the students’ own personal mobile devices for viewing (Harron, Petrosino,
& Jenevein, 2017). Students were introduced to best practices for museum visits, focusing
on before-during-after pedagogies from Falk and Dierking (2016). So as not to bias
students’ responses on later open-ended tasks, no details specific to VR pedagogy were
given, so we could capture the participants’ firsthand experiences with VR.
Research was guided by the following questions:
1. What are the differences in how participants explored a museum using VR before
and after they visited the physical museum in person?
2. How do preservice science teachers think VR could be used to teach science in
their elementary science classroom?
3. What do preservice science teachers perceive as the affordances and constraints
of using mobile devices for VR in the classroom?
Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 19(4)
693
Research Design
Theoretical Perspectives
We drew upon two distinct theoretical perspectives in the design of this study. First,
interactive virtual environments can provide a powerful source of data to assess how
student learning takes place. Unlike a traditional classroom activity, where it can be
difficult to track all participants, virtual environments allow researchers to continuously
log data about user interactions. By utilizing learning analytics we are able generate
intuitive data visualizations, such as heatmaps, which can be used to display either the
amount of time or frequency that a user visits a specific location in the virtual environment
(Dede, Grotzer, Kamarainen, & Metcalf, 2017; Serrano-Laguna, Torrente, Moreno-Ger, &
Fernández-Manjón, 2014). As such, more can be learned at both the individual and group
level about interactions within the virtual environment.
Second, while learning analytics are powerful for learning about user interactions, they fail
to capture how the user perceives the experience. Taking an interpretivist perspective
(Koro-Ljungberg, Yendol-Hoppey, Smith, & Hayes, 2009), we believe that as individuals
experience and act within the world they make sense of it in relation to their past
knowledge, beliefs, and experiences. These perspectives are important to account for since
preservice teachers bring with them their own perspectives regarding how technological,
pedagogical, and content knowledge could be implemented in their science teaching
(Koehler & Mishra, 2009).
Participants
Participants in this study were preservice elementary teachers (n = 27) enrolled in two class
sections of an elementary science methods course at a large research university in the
southwestern United States. This methods course is required for all undergraduate
students who are seeking to earn their EC-6 generalist teaching certificate. Each section
had its own instructor, which included both the third author and a graduate student with a
science teaching background.
Convenience sampling was used to recruit the participants. The participants included 15
Hispanic women (56%), seven white women (26%), two Asian women (7%), and three
Hispanic males (11%). The gender distribution reflected the common gender gap in
elementary teacher preparation programs (Sparks, 2012). Participants ranged from low- to
high-SES. Multiple students were bilingual and spoke English as a second language after
either Spanish, in the majority of cases, or Mandarin, in the case of one international
student.
The elementary science methods course met once a week for 3 hours. All participants had
their own smartphones, and we provided a Google Cardboard headset to each participant
for the VRFT portion of the study. We had additional smartphones available for any
participants who experienced technical issues with their personal device, such as a dead
battery or trouble connecting to the wireless Internet. One participant declined to use the
Google Cardboard due to past nausea, but was able to participate in the VRFT experience
using a browser-based version of the tour on a laptop computer that could be controlled
via touchpad.
Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 19(4)
694
Methods
The in-person field trip and VRFT were of a natural history museum located at the
participants’ university campus. Prior to conducting the study, all four floors of the
museum were captured using a Ricoh Theta S 360-degree camera. We designed a custom
VR tour of the museum (Authors, 2017) where participants could move through the
museum by looking at arrows and pressing the button on the top of their Google Cardboard
(see Figure 1.) This study took place over a period of 3 weeks, with each week representing
one portion of the before-during-after field trip sequence (see Table 2).
Figure 1. Stereoscopic view of the virtual reality field trip as displayed in Google
Cardboard.
Table 2
Timeline of Study
Week 1 - Before
Week 2 - During
Discuss the importance of
learning outside of school and
benefits of field trips.
Students met on main floor
(2nd) and went down to 1st
floor for guided tour.
Pre-assessment titled
“Museum Trip Survey.”
Guided tour by instructor for
1 hour and 45 minutes.
15) taken to conference
About half of participants (n =
12) taken to conference room
for VR experiences.
45 minutes of unstructured
time to explore.
all participants complete
Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 19(4)
695
Before the trip. The week before the trip, the instructors gave students general
background information about the local natural history museum, an overview of the trip
itinerary, and a description of the goals for the trip, which included (a) the importance of
learning outside of the school, (b) benefits of informal science programs, and (c) benefits
of field trips. In addition, the instructor shared a recorded lecture on the role of outside of
school learning to prepare students for the field trip.
All students were given the preassessment, titled “Museum Trip Survey,” which included
open-ended and sorting questions to assess their current knowledge of sedimentary rock
and fossils, as well as open-ended general questions about using museum field trips, other
field experiences, and VR when teaching science. This assessment took approximately 15
minutes to complete.
After completing the survey, one randomly selected half of the participants was taken to a
conference room to try a VR tour of the museum in order to capture their interactions prior
to physically visiting the museum. The other half stayed in the classroom to discuss class
material unrelated to the field trip and would later receive the virtual experience after the
museum field trip. This process was repeated for the second sections of the course.
Premuseum virtual reality field trip. The VRFT was conducted in a conference room
around a large conference table with rotating chairs. Participants connected their phones
to the campus Wi-Fi and were given a Google Cardboard to insert their phone. We provided
a URL for the virtual tour and assisted with participants who were having technical
problems. During the first few minutes participants were given time to orient themselves
in the virtual environment by exploring the third floor of the museum, which they had not
visited as part of their in-person trip to the museum. This provided us with time to deal
with technical issues, gave participants time to get familiar with the one-button interface,
and served as a control for the novelty of the VR experience. Once everybody was familiar
with the interface, instructions were given to unveil a hidden menu that allowed
participants to move to the first floor of the museum.
As participants explored the virtual museum, their virtual movement was captured in a
database that recorded participant ID, current photosphere being viewed, and duration in
seconds. Participants were free to explore the VRFT for as long as they liked. Immediately
following their virtual experience each participant was given a survey about the experience
and was encouraged to write additional comments on the back.
Museum field trip. Participants met their instructor on the main floor (level 2) of the
natural history museum. Any participants who arrived early were free to explore the glass
cases and exhibits on the main floor while they waited for the rest of the class. Once all
participants had arrived, the instructor handed out printed packets (“My trip to the
museum,” a K-3 guide designed for elementary students who visit the museum) and gave
a brief introduction to the museum (e.g., its history, floor plan, where bathrooms were
located, and how the trip would proceed).
The instructor led a tour of the first floor, and students completed an activity with the
associate director of the museum about interpreting fossil dinosaur tracks. Students had to
calculate the stride length of two different dinosaurs in order to figure out if the dinosaurs
were running or walking. After the activity, participants were free to explore the remaining
parts of the first floor of museum by themselves to complete the packets.
The third author served as the docent for the field trip, leading students through the first
floor as a "tour of geological time” – pointing out key events in the timeline of geologic
Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 19(4)
696
history represented by the artifacts at the museum, such as the variety of body plans after
the Cambrian explosion and the end-Permian and end-Cretaceous extinctions. The main
focus was on fossils, specifically the different kinds of fossils, where fossils are most likely
to be found, and what fossils reveal about past life on Earth. In total, students spent 150
minutes at the museum, with 45 minutes to explore the museum on their own.
Postmuseum virtual reality field trip. The week following the museum visit was held
in their regular classroom. The other half of the class who had not tried the VR museum
field trip was brought to a conference room to experience the VRFT. Participants completed
surveys about the VRFT, and we captured field notes of their conversations. Following the
VRFT, these participants rejoined the rest of the class in their regular classroom.
In addition to the postmuseum VRFT, the entire class debriefed with the instructor about
what they thought of the museum, what were their favorite parts of the museum, and what
science content they had learned. In addition, the instructor also asked about their
impressions of the VR experience and how it might be used in their teaching. After the
discussion, all participants completed the postassessment of the Museum Trip Survey.
Data Analysis
The information captured in our database was used to generate heatmaps using
Heatmap.JS, which was layered on top of a map from the museum website. Based on the
guidelines for creating heatmaps by Bojko (2009), frequency of visiting each photosphere
was used instead of duration in order to account for users who were idle, such as setting
down the headset to write a comment on their survey.
The use of frequency also makes it easier to identify locations that were popular with
multiple users, since in a duration heatmap one user visiting a location for 60 seconds has
the same cumulative time as six users visiting for 10 seconds. To account for the larger n of
the postmuseum group (n = 12 versus n = 15), each frequency was given 80% of the weight
in the postmuseum visualizations to provide a normalized representation between the pre-
and postmuseum groups.
We performed an analysis of the pre- and postassessment open-ended question (“How
might you use virtual reality experiences when teaching science?”) and any comments that
participants wrote on the back of their VR experience survey. First, one researcher coded
the responses using open-thematic coding with constant comparison (Creswell, 2014;
Strauss & Corbin, 1990). This initial coding generated 17 codes related to types of VR
experiences.
A second researcher then checked these coded responses, and the codes were verified and
modified until agreement was achieved. These codes were then refined through axial
coding to identify four broader themes. Through the coding of the open-ended question
and additional comments on the back of the VR experience survey, two additional codes
emerged related to VR fatigue and equity issues related to using VR in the classroom.
Findings
In the following section the findings from the data collected from students using the VR
experience are described, as well as the surveys completed immediately after the VR
experience and the open-ended assessment questions.
Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 19(4)
697
Exploration Patterns of the Virtual Reality Experience
In an effort to reduce the novelty effect of using VR, all participants started on the third
floor of the museum (which they had not visited during their trip). Usage patterns of the
before and after groups were similar during this orientation period, with participants
mostly staying one or two photospheres from their starting point or exploring only the main
hallway (see Figure 2 and Table 3). Both the before and after groups spent about 5 minutes
getting oriented before they were instructed to use a hidden menu to change to the first
floor of the museum.
Figure 2. Heatmap of the before (top) and after (bottom) virtual reality field trip
groups during their orientation period (third floor of the museum.)
Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 19(4)
698
Table 3
Length of Time and Number of Photospheres Viewed on Virtual Reality Field Trip
Variable
Premuseum
(n = 12)
Postmuseum
(n = 15)
Average time on first floor
5 min 40 sec
6 min 8 sec
Average number of photospheres
viewed
18.8
23.4
Average time per photosphere
18.1 sec
15.6 sec
Note. min = minutes; sec = seconds
The group who had never visited the museum focused on the room where they started the
VR field trip. This usage pattern shared similarities with the limited exploration of both
groups during their orientation period. Students were often attracted to a large blue
prehistoric fish exhibit that was in the field of view when they arrived on the first floor. Of
the 12 participants, only three ventured more than one photosphere outside of the starting
room, with seven stopping one picture into the main hall, and two participants never
leaving the starting room.
Students commented that the signs in the museum were difficult or impossible to read due
to the resolution of the images. The average premuseum participant engaged in the VR tour
for 5 minutes and 40 seconds, which was less time than we had anticipated.
The postmuseum group exhibited a completely different usage pattern when compared to
the before-museum group (see Figure 3). To our knowledge, this is the first study to report
such a finding. First, participants immediately engaged in recall of the exhibits. Students
could be heard discussing elements they remembered from the trip, such as, “There is the
meteorite,” or “I’m going to go find the mosasaurs.” In the after-museum group, 14 of the
15 participants left the starting room, with eight of the participants specially seeking out
the dinosaur exhibit, which was at the opposite end of the museum from their starting
point. Participants in the after-museum group spent an average of 6 minutes and 8 seconds
in VR.
After discovering that the hidden menu allowed them to travel to any floor of the museum,
one participant asked whether she could go to the fourth floor. After receiving permission,
the participant chose to engage in self-exploration of this additional part of the museum
that was not intended for the study. Following suit, three other participants in the post
group also engaged self-exploration on the fourth virtual floor of the museum.
Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 19(4)
699
Figure 3. Heatmap of the before (top) and after (bottom) virtual reality field trip
groups exploring the portion of the museum they visited in person.
Types of Virtual Reality Experiences
Participants reported four broad categories when describing the types of experiences that
they might use VR for when teaching science (see Table 4.) First, the most commonly
described experience was based on locations that were inaccessible, or those that were seen
as “too far” or “far away.” Specific examples including visiting the first cave drawings in
Spain, along with several examples of types of habitats such as mountains, beaches/tides,
deserts, and rain forests. The second category included experiences that were viewed as
unsafe to visit in person. These included heat-intense events such as an active volcano, as
well as dangerous weather like tornadoes.
Third, scale of size was a determining factoring when selecting where to visit. This category
included scales that were far too small to see in person, such as atoms, molecules, and
chemical reactions so that students could “see abstract concepts” or “something that is hard
to represent and explain.” Participants were also interested in scales that were too large to
experience in a classroom, such as weather systems and the solar system.
Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 19(4)
700
Finally, participants described scale of time to experience VR in science teaching. This
category included being able to visit different eras, such as walking with the dinosaurs or
living in a different century. Participants also expressed interest in exploring time
longitudinally, such as observing evolution over time or watching the sedimentary rock
layers form.
Table 4
Types of Virtual Reality Experiences When Teaching Science
Type of Experience
Examples
Inaccessible
Visit “Far away”
Cave Drawings in Spain
Mountains
Beaches / Tides
Deserts
Rainforest
Unsafe
Active Volcano
Tornado
Scale of Size
Too Small
Atoms
Molecules
Chemical Reactions
Too Big
Weather System
Solar System
Scale of Time
Past Era
Extinct Animals (e.g. Dinosaurs)
Travel Back in Time
Longitudinal
Evolution
Rock Formation
Virtual Reality Fatigue
While the in-person visit to the museum took place over the period of 2.5 hours, we found
that students actively engaged in the VRFT for far less time. In our study, both the pre- and
postmuseum VR groups explored the space for about 10 minutes, including their
orientation time. After that 10-minute period the majority of participants began to
experience VR fatigue. Multiple participants commented about eye-strain and feelings of
dizziness. The majority of the Google Cardboards used in this study had lenses that could
be adjusted to change the pupil distance, which may have contributed to some eye-strain if
the lenses were not properly adjusted by the participant.
Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 19(4)
701
The relatively brief time participants were able to tolerate the physical strains of the Google
Cardboard VR experience are recognized as a constraint of the study design. However, the
brevity of the VR experience did not interfere with the goal of assessing students’ feelings
about VR and ideas about how to use VR to enhance in-person field trip experiences.
Students quickly formed attitudes toward VR based on only a few minutes of exposure to
the VR environment. In addition, the VR experience prompted lively discussion between
students about what they were looking at in the Google Cardboard.
Virtual Reality Field Trips as an Alternative
In the analysis of open-ended survey questions, many participants mentioned VR could be
an alternative for those who do not have the financial means to go on in-person field trips.
Some comments showed recognition of some of the barriers teachers face when it comes to
in-person field trips, such as, “In case you can’t afford to leave the classroom due to time
or financial limitations…”
Although the majority of comments were about the general lack of time and funds, some
participants specifically mentioned low-income students. For example, one participant
wrote, “With low income students this can help students have a virtual tour of a museum,
or another place the class can’t go.” Despite the wide variety of experiences the participants
said they were interested in trying in VR, they indicated a preference for in-person field
trips.
Discussion
The findings described in this section are specifically related to the sequencing of pre-
versus post-VRFTs with in-person museum field trips, the use of local experiences,
recommendations to reduce VR fatigue, and emerging equity issues related to VRFTs.
Sequencing of In-Person and Virtual Field Trips
Based on the findings of this study, VRFTs are best used for recall of the experience after
an in-person field trip. The before museum field trip group exhibited less exploration,
possibly due to being unfamiliar with the environment – a finding that aligns with the
novelty effect identified by Falk et al. (1978). Participants in the postmuseum VRFT group
showed higher levels of recall from their in-person field trip, particularly when seeking out
their favorite exhibits. In addition, participants in the postmuseum group more freely
explored the space and sought to explore parts of the museum they had not seen on the
trip, such as the fourth floor. As such, the ways local and virtual field trip experiences can
be used to complement each other may need to be reconsidered.
Opportunity to Rethink the Local Field Trip Experience.
Although participants in this study visited a local museum, VR was still perceived as a way
to visit “far away” rather than as a supplementary tool to enhance local field trips. Further
work needs to be done so the posttrip benefits of VR can be fully utilized in the classroom
with more museums, zoos, and other popular field trip destinations.
Numerous user-friendly advances have occurred since the custom software for this study
was developed. First, many locations have already been captured as 360-degree
photospheres and can be viewed in VR using the Google Street View App on both Android
Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 19(4)
702
and iOS devices. While VR in Street View was not an option when we conducted our study,
it has since opened the door to Google’s vast image collection to be used in VRFTs.
A second solution could include students using 360-degree cameras to capture their own
360-degree photos or video while they are on the field trip. The photos or video can be
viewed after the field trip using the application included with the camera. This strategy
would provide an opportunity to give students authorship over their virtual experience.
Scaffolding to Reduce Virtual Reality Fatigue
After only about 10 minutes of using low-cost VR technologies, VR fatigue begins to set in.
As such, educators should consider how they plan to implement the virtual experience in
the classroom. Given that 10 minutes is not long enough to explore larger destinations,
such as a four-story museum of natural history, teachers may need to scaffold the virtual
experience with periodic small-group and whole-class discussion to reduce eye-strain and
dizziness. For example, students could locate their favorite exhibit and describe what they
recall about it to a classmate. Alternatively, the teacher could send the students on a virtual
scavenger hunt to find multiple exhibits throughout the museum, which may aide in the
recall of the in-person experience.
Equity Issues Related to Virtual Reality Field Trips
Fewer students are having the opportunity to participate in field trips as part of their K-12
experience due to financial and time constraints. In this study, many participants perceived
VRFTs as an alternative for those who could not go on in-person field trips, including low-
income students. This circumstance raises two important questions: Could the use of
VRFTs reproduce educational inequities that are already present in the system?
Furthermore, could the use of VRFTs unintentionally justify the lack of access to in-person
field trips, particularly with low-income populations?
At the moment, the cost of implementing VRFTs with an entire class continues to be high
when compared to in-person field trips. As increased student ownership of smartphones
and affordable class sets of devices become more available, however, VRFTs may become
more common in the education system. Moving forward proactive steps should be taken to
ensure that this technology is not used to justify, replicate, and widen existing gaps between
high- and low-income populations. As such, we reiterate that this study used VRFTs in
conjunction with an in-person field trip experience, not as a replacement.
Further Research
Additional research needs to be conducted to replicate the findings of this study. While
evidence is strong that student recall took place when using VR after the museum visit, we
do not have evidence whether it contributed to their understanding of the concepts learned
during their actual field trip. Studies with a control group and validated pre- and
postassessments need to be conducted before any claims can be made about student
learning outcomes.
Such studies could help further our understanding of what can be learned from the physical
versus the virtual learning environment. This research could play an important role when
developing methods to integrate VR with physical field trips in terms of both sequencing
and choice of content.
Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 19(4)
703
This study relied on the first generation of 360-degree cameras, which had a limited
resolution. While these cameras were simple to use, their resolution was too low to capture
fine details such as small text on signs and plaques next to exhibits. As such, students often
commented that they could not read the text. As imaging capturing technology continues
to improve, additional research needs to be conducted with higher resolution images to
improve the VRFT experience. In addition, further research may choose to augment the
virtual experience with pop-up textboxes when looking at an exhibit as a way of overcoming
the resolution limitations.
As suggested in our discussion, students could capture 360-degree photos and videos while
on an in-person field trip. Further research could explore whether students capturing their
own VR photos as part of a field trip have a positive or negative impact on their recall of
the experience and associated learning outcomes.
Furthermore, the role of the docent or tour guide remained unexplored in this study.
Further research could explore the use of both physical and virtual docents to help guide
participants through their museum experience and the effect on learning outcomes.
Limitations
This study makes no claims about whether VRFTs could be used as a substitute for actual
field trips. Rather, our research focused on the virtual experience being used in conjunction
with an actual field trip involving preservice teachers in an elementary science methods
course. This study relied on convenience sampling since there was a limited pool of
students enrolled in elementary science methods in any given semester. We did not control
for participants who may have visited the natural history museum prior to the start of the
study. As such, the premuseum VR group may have had at least one participant who was
already familiar with the museum. All participants in this study were elementary preservice
teachers; thus, we cannot make any claims about whether the outcomes are generalizable
to K-12 students.
Conclusion
In this study we implemented a VRFT in conjunction with an in-person field trip involving
preservice teachers in an elementary science methods undergraduate course to a local
natural history museum. Our findings included that VR is best used after a field trip to
encourage student recall of the experience, but only when done for a limited time to avoid
VR fatigue. The types of experiences that preservice teachers thought VR would be good
for in their science classrooms includes the ability to visit either inaccessible or unsafe
locations, explore scales of size that are either too big or too small, and to witness different
eras or events at varying temporal scales.
Furthermore, this study revealed potential equity issues related to VRFTs being seen as a
viable alternative if students could not afford to go on field trips. Further research needs to
be conducted to better understand the impact of VRFTs on student learning outcomes and
take advantage of recent improvements in VR technology.
References
Adedokun, O. A., Hetzel, K., Parker, L. C., Loizzo, J., Burgess, W. D., & Paul Robinson, J.
(2012). Using virtual field trips to connect students with university scientists: Core
elements and evaluation of zipTrips™. Journal of Science Education and Technology,
21(5), 607-618. doi: 10.1007/s10956-011-9350-z
Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 19(4)
704
Adedokun, O. A., Liu, J., Parker, L., & Burgess, W. (2015). Meta-analytic evaluation of a
virtual field trip to connect middle school students with university scientists. Journal of
Science Education and Technology, 24(1), 91-102. doi: 10.1007/s10956-014-9524-6
Anderson, D., & Lucas, K. B. (1997). The effectiveness of orienting students to the physical
features of a science museum prior to visitation. Research in Science Education, 27(4),
485–495.
Banerjee, M., Xu, Z., Jiang, L., & Waxman, H. (2017 March). A systematic review of factors
influencing technology use by pre-service and novice teachers. Paper presented at the
Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2017,
Austin, TX.
Behrendt, M., & Franklin, T. (2014). A review of research on school field trips and their
value in education. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 9(3),
235-245.
Bojko, A. (2009, July). Informative or misleading? Heatmaps deconstructed. Paper
presented at the Human-Computer Interaction International Conference, San Diego, CA.
Brown, A., & Green, T. (2016). Virtual reality: Low-cost tools and resources for the
classroom. TechTrends, 60(5), 517-519.
Cartwright, J. (2016). Technology: Smartphone science. Nature, 531(7596), 669-671. doi:
10.1038/nj7596-669a
Cho, V., & Littenberg-Tobias, J. (2016). Digital devices and teaching the whole student:
Developing and validating an instrument to measure educators’ attitudes and beliefs.
Educational Technology Research and Development, 64(4), 643-659. doi:
10.1007/s11423-016-9441-x
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dede, C., Grotzer, T. A., Kamarainen, A., & Metcalf, S. J. (2017). Virtual reality as an
immersive medium for authentic simulations. In D. Liu, C. Dede, R. Huang, & J. Richards
(Eds.), Virtual, augmented, and mixed realities in education (pp. 133-156). Singapore:
Springer Singapore.
Dewey, J. (1900). The school and society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
EDUCAUSE. (2016). Student study 2016. Retrieved from
https://library.educause.edu/
~/media/files/library/2016/10/eig1605.pdf
Ellerson, N. M. (2015). Education cuts have yet to heal: How the economic recession
continues to impact our nation's schools. Retrieved from
http://aasa.org/uploadedFiles/
Policy_and_Advocacy/Resources/EducationCutsDontHeal_121515.pdf
Falk, J. H., & Dierking, L. D. (2016). The museum experience revisited. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 19(4)
705
Falk, J. H., Martin, W. W., & Balling, J. D. (1978). The novel field-trip phenomenon:
Adjustment to novel settings interferes with task learning. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 15(2), 127-134. doi: 10.1002/tea.3660150207
Freeman, A., Adams Becker, S., Cummins, M., Davis, A., & Giesinger Hall, C. (2017).
NMC/CoSN Horizon report: 2017 K-12 edition. Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium.
Greene, J. P., Kisida, B., & Bowen, D. H. (2014). The educational value of field trips.
EducationNext, 14(1). Retrieved from
http://educationnext.org/the-educational-value-of-
field-trips/
Gutwill, J. P., & Allen, S. (2012). Deepening students' scientific inquiry skills during a
science museum field trip. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21(1), 130-181. doi:
10.1080/10508406.2011.555938
Harron, J., Petrosino, A., & Jenevein, S. (2017). Development of museum learning
experience using virtual reality and mobile devices. In P. Resta & S. Smith
(Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education
International Conference (SITE) 2017 (pp. 1592-1597). Austin, TX: Association for the
Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved
from https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/177441/
Howard, N. R. (2016). Come along and ride on a Google expedition. Edutopia. Retrieved
from http://www.edutopia.org/blog/ride-on-a-google-expedition-nicol-howard
Howitt, C. (2007). Pre-service elementary teachers' perceptions of factors in an holistic
methods course influencing their confidence in teaching science. Research in Science
Education, 37(1), 41-58. doi: 10.1007/s11165-006-9015-8
Jones, G., & Alba, A. D. (2016). Reviewing the effectiveness and learning outcomes of 3D
virtual museum: A pilot study. In F. M. M. Neto, R. d. Souza, & A. S. Gomes (Eds.),
Handbook of Research on 3-D Virtual Environments and hypermedia for ubiquitous
learning (pp. 168-191). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Kamarainen, A. M., Metcalf, S., Grotzer, T., Browne, A., Mazzuca, D., Tutwiler, M. S., &
Dede, C. (2013). EcoMOBILE: Integrating augmented reality and probeware with
environmental education field trips. Computers & Education, 68(Supplement C), 545-556.
doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2013.02.018
Kazempour, M., & Sadler, T. D. (2015). Pre-service teachers’ science beliefs, attitudes, and
self-efficacy: a multi-case study. Teaching Education, 26(3), 247-271. doi:
10.1080/10476210.2014.996743
Kisiel, J. (2013). Introducing future teachers to science beyond the classroom. Journal of
Science Teacher Education, 24(1), 67-91. doi: 10.1007/s10972-012-9288-x
Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge
(TPACK)? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60-70.
Retrieved from
https://www.citejournal.org/volume-9/issue-1-09/general/what-is-
technological-pedagogicalcontent-knowledge
Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 19(4)
706
Koro-Ljungberg, M., Yendol-Hoppey, D., Smith, J. J., & Hayes, S. B. (2009).
(E)pistemological awareness, instantiation of methods, and uninformed methodological
ambiguity in qualitative research Projects. Educational Researcher, 38(9), 687-699. doi:
10.3102/0013189X09351980
Martin, A. J., Durksen, T. L., Williamson, D., Kiss, J., & Ginns, P. (2016). The role of a
museum-based science education program in promoting content knowledge and science
motivation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(9), 1364-1384. doi:
10.1002/tea.21332
McCoy, B. R. (2016). Digital distractions in the classroom phase II: Student classroom use
of digital devices for non-class related purposes. Journal of Media Education, 7(1), 5-32.
McKnight, K., O'Malley, K., Ruzic, R., Horsley, M. K., Franey, J. J., & Bassett, K. (2016).
Teaching in a digital age: How educators use technology to improve student learning.
Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 48(3), 194-211. doi:
10.1080/15391523.2016.1175856
Metz, D. (2005). Field based learning in science: Animating a museum experience.
Teaching Education, 16(2), 165-173. doi: 10.1080/10476210500122733
Morentin, M., & Guisasola, J. (2015). The role of science museum field trips in the primary
teacher preparation. International Journal of Science & Mathematics Education, 13(5),
965-990. doi: 10.1007/s10763-014-9522-4
Morgan, H. (2015). Virtual field trips: Going on a journey to learn without leaving school.
Childhood Education, 91(3), 220-222. doi: 10.1080/00094056.2015.1047316
Pearson. (2015). Student mobile device survey 2015. Retrieved from
http://www.pearsoned.com/wp-content/uploads/2015-Pearson-Student-Mobile-Device-
Survey-Grades-4-12.pdf.
Philip, T., & Garcia, A. (2013). The importance of still teaching the iGeneration: New
technologies and the centrality of pedagogy. Harvard Educational Review, 83(2), 300-
319. doi: 10.17763/haer.83.2.w221368g1554u158
Potvin, P., & Hasni, A. (2014). Interest, motivation and attitude towards science and
technology at K-12 levels: A systematic review of 12 years of educational research. Studies
in Science Education, 50(1), 85-129. doi: 10.1080/03057267.2014.881626
Pringle, R. M., Dawson, K., & Ritzhaupt, A. D. (2015). Integrating science and technology:
Using technological pedagogical content knowledge as a framework to study the practices
of science teachers. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 24(5), 648-662. doi:
10.1007/s10956-015-9553-9
Sample McMeeking, L. B., Weinberg, A. E., Boyd, K. J., & Balgopal, M. M. (2016). Student
perceptions of interest, learning, and engagement from an informal traveling science
museum. School Science and Mathematics, 116(5), 253-264. doi: 10.1111/ssm.12176
Serrano-Laguna, Á., Torrente, J., Moreno-Ger, P., & Fernández-Manjón, B. (2014).
Application of learning analytics in educational videogames. Entertainment Computing,
5(4), 313-322. doi: 10.1016/j.entcom.2014.02.003
Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 19(4)
707
Sparks, S. D. (2012, May 8). Despite downturn, few men sign up to teach. Education Week.
Retrieved from
https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2012/05/09/30maleteacher_ep.
h31.html
Spicer, J. I., & Stratford, J. (2001). Student perceptions of a virtual field trip to replace a
real field trip. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 17(4), 345-354. doi:
10.1046/j.0266-4909.2001.00191.x
Steuer, J. (1992). Defining virtual reality: Dimensions determining telepresence. Journal
of Communication, 42(4), 73-93. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.1992.tb00812.x
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory
procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design.
Learning and Instruction, 4(4), 295-312
The Field Museum. (2012). Economic and community impact statement. Retrieved from
https://www.fieldmuseum.org/sites/default/files/TFM Impact Statement_0.pdf
Tuthill, G., & Klemm, E. B. (2002). Virtual field trips: Alternatives to actual field trips.
International Journal of Instructional Media, 29(4), 453-468.
Tutwiler, M. S., Lin, M.-C., & Chang, C.-Y. (2013). Determining virtual environment “fit”:
The Relationship between navigation style in a virtual field trip, student self-reported
desire to visit the field trip site in the real world, and the purposes of science education.
Journal of Science Education and Technology, 22(3), 351-361. doi: 10.1007/s10956-012-
9398-4
Whitesell, E. R. (2016). A day at the museum: The impact of field trips on middle school
science achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(7), 1036-1054. doi:
10.1002/tea.21322
Yap, M. C. (2016). Google Cardboard for a K12 social studies module. ScholarSpace.
Retrieved from http://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/handle/10125/40604
Yuksel, G., Soner, Y., & Zahide, Y. (2009). Main barriers and possible enablers of ICTs
integration into pre-service teacher education programs. Journal of Educational
Technology & Society, 12(1), 193-204.
Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education is an online journal. All text, tables, and figures in
the print version of this article are exact representations of the original. However, the original article may also
include video and audio files, which can be accessed online at http://www.citejournal.org