Paper No. 239-8
Presentation Time: 9:00 AM-1:00 PM
ASSESSING PRESENCE IN GEOSCIENCE VIRTUAL FIELD TRIPS
GLEASMAN, Gavin, Environmental Engineering and Earth Sciences, Clemson University, 342 Computer Court, Anderson, SC 29625, BABU, Sabarish, School of Computing, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634, BOYER, D. Matthew, Engineering, Computing and Applied Sciences, Clemson Univeristy, Clemson, SC 29634, HAGGE, Kyra, Coastal Studies, East Carolina Univeristy, 263 Flanagan Building, Greenville, NC 27858, LAZAR, Kelly, Engineering and Science Education, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634; Environmental Engineering and Earth Sciences, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634, MOBLEY, Catherine, Department of Sociology, Anthropology, and Criminal Justice, Clemson, SC 29634, MOYSEY, Stephen M., Geological Sciences, East Carolina University, 101 Graham Building, Greenville, NC 27858, WIITABLAKE, Leah, Engineering and Science Education, Clemson University, 262 Sirrine Hall, 515 Calhoun Drive, CLEMSON, SC 29634 and WU, Rui, Computer Science, East Carolina Univeristy, East 5th Street, Greenville, NC 27858
To develop and assess the most effective virtual reality (VR) experiences, it is critical to consider the concept of “presence”, generally (though not universally) defined as the sense of being in a virtual world. Researchers at an R1 institution in the southeastern United States investigated virtual world experiences with varying modalities of technology interfaces (head-mounted displays [HMDs] vs. phone/computer screens) and navigation (open-world exploration vs. logic branching of individual photospheres) to understand their influence on presence. Three trials (n=91) of varying modalities and navigation methods were investigated: (T1) a low-cost HMD with a sequence of photospheres, (T2) a low-cost HMD with open-world navigation, and (T3) a screen-based photosphere experience with no HMD. Presence was measured using the Igroup Presence Questionnaire, composed of three subscales (spatial presence, involvement, and experienced realism) and thirteen items, measured on a five-point Likert-type scale (strongly agree=5 to strongly disagree=1).
Participants in the open-world experience (T2) reported the highest level of presence among all trials (3.028 ± 0.117); those in the photosphere experiences (T1 and T3) reported presence scores less than a neutral response (2.871 ± 0.123 and 2.884 ± 0.129, respectively). An ANOVA indicated that T3 scored significantly higher than T1 on the realism subscale (p=0.033). This may indicate that participation in real-image photosphere experiences is more ‘natural’ on a click-based external screen than an HMD. Across all trials, the spatial presence subscale averaged greater than a neutral response, while involvement and realism subscales scored lower than a neutral response. Yet, students still reported fascination with geology/STEM, as indicated by scores above a neutral value to a general interest question “Geology/earth science fascinates me” (T1 and T2; 3.244 ± 0.163 and 3.636 ± 0.194, respectively) and “I am fascinated by STEM topics” (T3; 3.833 ± 0.294). Overall, the trials indicate that researchers interested in developing VR experiences for geoscience classrooms might focus on immersion, rather than captivating (involvement) and/or hyper-realistic (experienced realism) characteristics, to provoke or maintain student fascination with geology.
![[Visit Client Website]](/img/gsa/banner.jpg)