the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 28 Jan 2025
Usability and motivational impact of a fast-paced immersive virtual reality lecture on international middle school students in geoscience education
Abstract. Immersive Virtual Reality (VR) offers educators an innovative tool to teach geoscience, addressing challenges in conveying the Earth’s 3D characteristics traditionally taught through field visits and experiences that are often inaccessible to many due to socioeconomic, political, and logistical barriers. VR provides an alternative experience, allowing users to virtually explore geological sites beyond physical and situational constraints. Despite its potential, the implementation of geoscience-focused VR lectures remains largely unexplored. As a pioneering case study, this research investigates the usability and motivational impact of VR by developing a fast-paced virtual reality lecture on landslides for middle school students. Approximately 60 students from diverse cultural and educational backgrounds participated. Results revealed that the VR lecture was usable, with key strengths in its ability to engage students and deliver satisfaction. Compared to traditional teaching methods (lecture and hands-on), VR excelled in fostering interest, enjoyment, and perceived choice. This study provides valuable insights into the practical implementation of VR in geoscience education, demonstrating its potential to make geoscience topics more accessible and engaging for diverse student groups. Future research should explore strategies to address usability challenges and enhance the motivational attributes of VR, paving the way for its broader adoption in geoscience educational settings.
- Preprint
(1202 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(23 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 30 Apr 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-129', Liam Taylor, 03 Mar 2025
reply
This is an interesting study that offers an excellent commentary on the practicalities, benefits, and limitations of using VR for geoscience communication activities. The methodology of the study allows for a robust evaluation of the effectiveness of the activity in comparison to traditional (e.g. lecture-based) educational delivery. I particularly value the detail of the study setup provided through Section 2 to allow others to broadly replicate the activity. Overall, I recommend publication of this manuscript with some minor changes:
- The introduction / rationale for the study should include further references to literature that demonstrates a VR-lecture approach – e.g. Jong et al. (2020), Hagge (2024), and Harknett et al. (2022) (Full references below). The study rightly outlines that there is a clear gap in the literature for the evaluation of VR-based pedagogies, but there has been some work in this field that goes above and beyond that presented in Lines 73 – 80.
- The development of the activity (lines 142 – 147) is good and this level of specificity is very helpful – did you choose to custom design this activity because there were no ready-to-go apps that suited this purpose? It might be helpful for a reader looking to replicate your activity to understand the decision-making behind putting extensive effort in to this design.
- The presentation of results through Section 3.2 is good, but a table that compares the total scores between the VR, lecture, and hands-on activity would be beneficial to allow an easier comparison between the activities.
- Following on from (2), it’d be interesting to hear some further reflection (beyond what is suggested in lines 378 – 379) on the lack of a significant difference in perceived competence. This opens a broader question that many VR-based pedagogy studies have seldom addressed – is the time and cost effort of creating VR activities worth it if attainment and understanding of taught concepts is largely the same? Some reflection from the authors on this point (perhaps in Section 4.3) would help to draw out the purpose and value of bringing VR into education spaces.
- The conclusion notes that students had a motivational preference for VR teaching (line 478), but then subsequently that the activity could be made better to improve motivation (line 481) – please just check these sentences for this contradiction!
Dr Liam Taylor, School of Geography, University of Leeds
Hagge, P.D. 2024. Metaverse in in the geography lecture classroom? Evaluating ‘group VR’ possibilities using the multiplayer ‘Wooorld’ VR app. Journal of Geography in Higher Education 48(5): 864-872.
Harknett, J., Whitworth, M., Rust, D. et al. 2022. The use of immersive virtual reality for teaching fieldwork skills in complex structural terrains. Journal of Structural Geology 163.
Jong, M.S-Y., Tsai, C-C., Xie, H. et al. 2020. Integrating interactive learner-immersed video-based virtual reality into learning and teaching of physical geography. British Journal of Educational Technology 51(6): 2064-2079.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-129-RC1 - The introduction / rationale for the study should include further references to literature that demonstrates a VR-lecture approach – e.g. Jong et al. (2020), Hagge (2024), and Harknett et al. (2022) (Full references below). The study rightly outlines that there is a clear gap in the literature for the evaluation of VR-based pedagogies, but there has been some work in this field that goes above and beyond that presented in Lines 73 – 80.
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 173 | 46 | 5 | 224 | 17 | 5 | 7 |
- HTML: 173
- PDF: 46
- XML: 5
- Total: 224
- Supplement: 17
- BibTeX: 5
- EndNote: 7
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| United States of America | 1 | 91 | 39 |
| Germany | 2 | 26 | 11 |
| China | 3 | 22 | 9 |
| Japan | 4 | 19 | 8 |
| India | 5 | 11 | 4 |
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
- 91