Paper No. 120-11
Presentation Time: 4:20 PM
MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL INVESTIGATION OF THE USE OF VIRTUAL REALITY IN UNDERGRADUATE INTRODUCTORY GEOSCIENCE COURSES
LAZAR, Kelly1, BABU, Sabarish2, BOYD, Evelyn3, BOYER, D. Matthew4, GLEASMAN, Gavin5, MOBLEY, Catherine6, MOYSEY, Stephen M.7 and TOLCHINSKY, Mark2, (1)Environmental Engineering and Earth Sciences, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634; Engineering and Science Education, Clemson University, 262 Sirrine Hall, Clemson, SC 29634, (2)School of Computing, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634, (3)Engineering and Science Education, Clemson University, 262 Sirrine Hall, 515 Calhoun Drive, CLEMSON, SC 29634; Department of Chemistry, Colorado School of Mines, 1500 Illinois St, Golden, CO 80401, (4)Engineering, Computing and Applied Sciences, Clemson Univeristy, Clemson, SC 29634; Engineering and Science Education, Clemson University, CLEMSON, SC 29634, (5)Environmental Engineering and Earth Sciences, Clemson University, 342 Computer Court, Anderson, SC 29625, (6)Department of Sociology, Anthropology, and Criminal Justice, Clemson, SC 29634, (7)Geological Sciences, East Carolina University, 101 Graham Building, Greenville, NC 27858
The use of virtual reality (VR) in geoscience coursework has the potential to transform both how we teach geoscience concepts and develop affective student learning outcomes. Undergraduate students at four institutions participated in one of three VR experiences. Paired pre- and post-experience surveys (n=199) were investigated to understand the relationships between three affective student outcomes (connectedness to nature, sense of belonging, and aspects of STEM identity) and VR outcomes (cybersickness and presence in the virtual environment) across experiences, institutions, and demographics. The sample was 58% female and non-binary students, 23% students of a minoritized race and/or ethnicity, and 36% STEM majors.
Independent-samples t-tests and ANOVA analyses found that differences between institutions, specific VR experience, travel mechanism through the experience, and VR content focus did not significantly change any of the affective geoscience variables nor influence VR outcomes. Similarly, no differences in affective variables or presence following the VR experience were found across race/ethnicity, gender, nor years in college.
Student majors were aggregated into four groups (science, engineering, business, and arts/humanities/social sciences/education [AHSSE]); one-way ANOVAs revealed significant differences between groups for the four subscales of STEM identity (performance [p=.050], interest [p=.003], competence [p=.003], and recognition [p=<.001]). Post hoc tests found significant increases in STEM interest and recognition for AHSSE majors when compared to both science and engineering majors and increases in STEM competence when compared to engineering majors.
These results indicate that specific characteristics of the experience (e.g., travel mechanism, content focus) and the implementation setting (e.g., student demographics or institution) may not influence affective and VR outcomes, allowing for more flexibility when choosing to implement a VR experience. While it is not surprising that differences in STEM identity exist between STEM and AHSSE majors, it is encouraging that AHSSE students were found to have significantly greater increases in STEM identity, suggesting that VR may be a pathway for increasing STEM identity for these students.
![[Visit Client Website]](/img/gsa/banner.jpg)