Field tours in 80 clicks
•
1 like•654 views
This document summarizes the use of virtual reality (VR) technologies in higher education classrooms and activities at Swansea University's College of Engineering. It describes several VR projects created by faculty to enhance learning, including virtual field tours of ecosystems created by Dr. Wendy Harris and Marc Holmes, and a VR application on capital allowances created by Dr. Terry Filer. Student feedback indicated that VR helped learning and understanding, was engaging and fun to use, and would be useful for other modules. The document discusses adapting VR projects based on student feedback to include video, audio, pair work, and improved image quality. It outlines plans for a new VR anatomy application being created by Drs. Laura Mason and Marc Holmes.
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (13)
Similar to Field tours in 80 clicks
Similar to Field tours in 80 clicks (20)
More from Jisc
More from Jisc (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Field tours in 80 clicks
- 2. College of Engineering Motivation • The College of Engineering at Swansea University is aiming to lead in the implementation of innovative learning and teaching methodology. • One of the technologies identified with potential to enhance the learning and teaching provision is Virtual Reality (VR). • VR products have seen significant development in recent years with the introduction of products such as the HTC Vive which provides a wealth of new learning possibilities.
- 3. Why VR • Recent research has shown that game based VR environments have a higher impact on learning than virtual worlds or VR simulation alone Goetz, T. G. et al (2014), . • Integrating gamification with state-of-the-art VR systems for 3-D model identification, walk-throughs and other VR related teaching interventions form part of a fascinating and new pedagogical research area that has great potential as a method to provide effective feedback and increased learning gain. • With increasing student numbers (40 – 800 class size) and pressure on finite resources in the College of Engineering, VR and gamification offers the opportunity of additional flexible learning experiences beyond the lecture theatres.
- 5. IMO - Immersive Media Observatory Phase 3 Full scale VR space and Major Projects Software Development Teams. Phase 2 Small scale projects (14), with key software development (InProgress) Phase 1 Prototypes and small scale usability (Complete)
- 6. Focus of this lecture. Virtual Tours • Dr Terry Filer – Capital Allowances - completed • Dr Wendy Harris – Virtual Field Tours - completed • Dr Patricia Xavier – Phase of construction – Developing Assembly • Dr Laura Mason – Anatomy Application – Medical Engineering
- 7. Virtual field courses: access to ecosystems Wendy Harris & Marc Holmes Swansea University
- 8. What are we doing? The project • Creating a more inclusive field work environment through development of virtual field courses using virtual reality technology • Students free to navigate and explore in own time and space, for unlimited visits • Currently based on actual field sites provided by Bioscience – a post tour • Working to create virtual habitats which will be embedded with practical guides to key sampling methods and associated species information
- 9. Why are we doing it? Current pressures faced • Increasing student numbers with disabilities (over 50% increase from 2010 to 2016) including ‘hidden’ disabilities – 6% of students with disabilities had physical disabilities (Wolf 2006; HEFCE 2017) • Drop-out rate increases in students with disabilities (deFur et al. 1996) • Retention increased by effective support programmes, but may be costly (Lewis 2014, Wessell et al. 2009) • Swansea University seen 219 % increase in students with disabilities in last 5 years (SPLD 168%; other 274 %) 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 20122013 2015 2017 Number of students Year Other SPLD
- 10. Why are we doing it? Current pressures faced • Field work under threat from variey of compounding factors (SMITH 2004; DAVENPORT 1998) • May promote a model of privilege and exclusion, in particular for students from ethnic minorities or those unable to access the environment (EASTON & GILBURN 2012; HALL ET AL. 2002; NAIRN 1999; KOBAYASHI 1994) • Virtual unlimited access would allow opportunity familiarisation with habitat, development of taxonomic and practical skills and exploration of new ecosystems
- 11. Why are we doing it? The evidence • Technology supports open access (DANIEL 1997), leads to improvements in teaching and learning process and changes students’ role from passive to active learners (ALLEY 1996; REPP 1996; ROBLYER ET AL. 1997) • Like practical work, virtual reality allows for experiential learning and enhances motivation and engagement (JARMON ET AL. 2009; KALYUGA 2007; KOLB ET AL 2002) • Games and virtual worlds are suitable for knowledge attribution or skill-based learning outcomes; retention is beyond short-term learning (MERCHANT ET AL. 2014)
- 12. the virtual field course Creation Preliminary Ecological Appraisal Used to identify biodiversity of area prior to development Assessment outline Oxwich National Nature Reserve Special Area of Conservation Site of Special Scientific Interest Multiple high value habitats, including saltmarsh, ancient woodland, lakes, sand dune Study site 5 months between site visit and report submission Challenges
- 13. The virtual field course creation • 360 photos of site recorded using Samsung 360 gear camera • Locations of photos recorded (GPS tagging unreliable) • Two pictures taken to remove photographer (no behind camera with a 360 camera) • Earlier testing showed users reacted to constant presence of photographer rather than focusing on learning objective
- 14. the virtual field course Creation • Unity used to build 360 google cardboard tour • Swansea University created open source framework for developing tours • Information on using the tool and the entire process can be found here: https://github.com/SwanseaIMO/Tour360 • Site-specific information embedded into spheres • App for Android built into third-party sharable APK • Test flight app for iPhone submitted to app store 76% 15% 9% iphone Android Unsuitable Ratio of phones, From previous testing for 200 Swansea student users
- 15. the virtual field course Creation • Staff and students invited to trial during development to allow opportunities for creative engagement • Final class arranged for completed app use • Aim for Bring Your Own Device deployment for phones with 10% Corporate-owned Personally Enabled (COPE) • Google Cardboard provided in class and available to borrow from library • Feedback collected using structures questionnaire
- 17. The Questionnaire 1. The app was easy to use 2. It was easy to navigate around the virtual site 3. The coloured spheres helped me to navigate 4. The compass and arrows helped me to navigate 5. The directions and shortcuts helped me to navigate 6. Using the app made me feel dizzy/ill 7. The app is fun to use 8. I will use the app several times to help me remember key features of the site 9. The information provided in the app was sufficient to help me remember the site 10.The information provided allowed me to link the location with my own notes 11.The information provided in the app was easy to find 12.It would be useful to flag up where the information is in each sphere to help navigate towards it 13.It would be useful to include more detailed information within the spheres 14.The app will help me to successfully complete the assessment 15.This technology would be relevant for other modules
- 20. Feedback from Zoology Image quality: “Clearer text, better quality pictures/environments; text shouldn't be used/minimal though odd document with text alongside (like labelling a figure); writing was more difficult to read on some phones; clarity of images could be improved - not unusable as it is though; difficult to focus on the wording” Hardware: “To be more accessible adjustable headsets would be best (and would provide better quality images); the padded cardboard was more comfortable; cardboard headsets have eye pieces that are too close together” Navigation and use: “Easier to navigate if use names/descriptions instead of numbers; if I went too quickly I felt a bit motion sick”
- 21. Feedback from Zoology Navigation: “The spheres were good in navigating” Mobility: “Nice to be capable to 'walk' around. Info attached to location would make it very useful” Refresher: “It was useful for jogging my memory. Very useful to have a refresher of what the site looks like; useful as it has been 5 months since I have been - refreshed my memo Enjoyment: “The technology is enjoyable, accessible and has great potential; absolutely love it! I would really enjoy using this again, perhaps for looking closer into the anatomy of animals too”ry”
- 23. • Setting the scene • UG, year 3 taxation module • Cohort of 200 students • VR in seminar sessions • Supplement/compare with Project Based Learning • Capital allowances exercise VR – An experiential approach
- 27. • Students enjoyed the experience and found it fun • Provides opportunity for “real world” experiences in taxation - good for employability • Students would like to use VR more in their studies • Enhances student learning • Would not have been possible without technical expertise • I enjoyed the experience and will be introducing more VR next term! VR – An experiential approach – Conclusions
- 28. Recreation and adaptation • Students preferred to work in pairs - perform better than individually and remember more factual material (WOOD ET AL. 1995; JOHNSON ET AL. 1979) • Games shown to be more effective at promoting higher learning, but experience with games helped students navigate (MERCHANT ET AL. 2014; MONAHAN ET AL. 2008) • Allow access prior to field trip to develop familiarity with landscape and key biodiversity features (BURDEN ET AL., 2017) • VR considered most effective when combined with other technologies such as videos, podcasts, blogs – include videos, task-specific features (MINOCHA, 2017)
- 29. • Keep coloured spheres – track progress and help navigation • Keep writing to minimum – explore presentation – size/ fonts/colours • Include video and audio options – feedback suggested both options • Expand to selected modules? Overseas field courses? • Affordable but quality limitations? • What next! Recreation and adaptation
- 30. Build a Skeleton Anatomy App • Marc Holmes • Laura Mason • Paul Holland • Rhian Kerton • Sam Webster
- 31. Why Anatomy • Requires understanding of 3D objects • Internal research shows that stereo imagery benefits teaching (Dr Sam Webster, 2014) • External research based on older CAVE system show that its benefits from VR(Nicholson, D. T., Chalk, C., Funnell, W. R. J. and Daniel, S. J. (2006))
- 32. Why Anatomy : Target Group • Its is a subject which Sport Science students do well but Medical Engineering Students have difficulty with despite having the same course. • Medical Engineers don’t have related anatomy modules. Group Exam Min Max Failure Rate Overall Mark Sport Sci 65.8% 24% 92% 3% 68.2% Med Eng 61.5% 24% 83% 6% 59.2%
- 33. Aim of Anatomy Teaching Aid • To act as a continuation on from the lectures provided. • Student have to assemble a skeleton on the hang man. • Main learning objectives are: • The position of bones • The names of the bones • The surrounding bones. • 20 to 60 minutes of VR time per student for this trial.
- 34. SteamVR - HTC Vive • A room scale VR Kit • Head Mounted Display HMD with Translation and Rotation. • 2 Motion Controller • Works with a Windows (Linux and Mac in development) • Need a powerful graphics we chose Nvidia 1070 and the ATI 480 RX as our based devices. • Other headset can be used: Oculus Rift, Nolo VR, Mix Reality.
- 35. Unity3D + SteamVR Plugin + VRTK • GUI with scripts • Easily created a 3D environment • Online Developer Course for Unity • Unity3D https://unity3d.com/ • SteamVR Unity Plugin https://www.assetstore.unity3d.com /en/#!/content/32647 • VRTK (Virtual Reality Tool Kit) https://github.com/thestonefox/VRTK
- 36. Why not the commercial solutions • 3D Organon VR Anatomy came out after we started the project. We decided not to use it as • Not specialised to the course material • Content out of our control • Our solution can be used for other teaching such as surveying or engine construction, etc… • We can add any additional feature's we want such as tracking, badges and even go as far as to create entire courses.
- 38. Anatomy: Source Material “Digital diseases” Database of scanned diseases anatomy using a combination of: • Photogrammetry • CT • MRI Not used for this project, but example of where we could go.
- 41. Methods • Module SR113 – N=43 • N=9 volunteered to take part • Crossover repeated measures design. • MCQ pre-mid-post (quantitative) • Survey (qualitative) • Module exam performance (skeletal system and as a whole)
- 42. Short-term exposure to VR • Average time in VR: 21.2 ± 10.9 mins • As a group (N=9) test scores improved from 121 pre-test to 143 post VR (P= 0.056) • 0% of students has experienced VR apps prior to this
- 43. Longer-term data testers • Significantly higher exam performance in those who took part in the VR project (P≤0.020) • Results – Long-term. Those who took part in the VR project achieved 15% higher marks on the end of module exam (54% versus 69%) than those who did not. As is consistent with previous years students who did not take part in the VR score ~5% lower on this module than the average of their other TB1 exams whereas those who took part maintained the same average mark as their other modules suggesting that VR gave a measurable improvement in learning rather than it just being the ‘better’ or more engaged students who took part.
- 45. Student Feedback: Benefits • ‘It gave a clearer image of how the bones fit together.’ • ‘Great experience’ • ‘Really helped me to learn the skeleton’.
- 46. Student Feedback: What should we do differently? • ‘Would like to see more bones.’ • ‘The regular use of this.’ • ‘Add muscles, urinary/digestive systems.’ • I would like to use this often in various modules if possible.’
- 47. Student Feedback: Anything else? • ‘I am happy our course had this opportunity. Would be glad to participate in something like that again J’ • ‘I think it would be interesting to look deeper in systems, for example I’m expecting cardiovascular and respiratory systems being pretty hard. If we would have VR exercise to make content clearer, would be perfect’. • A great interactive way to learn about the anatomy’
- 50. Content in development by lecturers for 2017-2018 trails Phase 2 AR mobile phones • Dr Kirill Yusenko – Phase Diagrams & Crystal Structures • Dr Zoran Jelic – Aerospace Design Choices explained in VR • Dr Chenfeng Li – Fluid simulations • Dr Joanne Hudson – Empathy in VR
- 51. Content in development by lecturers for 2017-2018 trails Phase 2 Google Cardboard • Dr Wendy Harris – Virtual Field Tours • Dr Terry Filer – Capital Allowances • Dr Patricia Xavier – Phase of construction • Dr Joanne Hudson – Empathy in VR • Dr Clare Wood / Ping Yin – Building Information Systems with VR integration
- 52. Content in development by lecturers for 2017-2018 trails Phase 2 Room Scale • Dr Laura Mason – Anatomy Application • Dr Richard Johnson – Inside Material microstructure • Dr James Holness – VR for team building • Dr Peter Dorrington & Dr William Harrison – CAD VR design • Dr Enrico Andreoli – Renewable energy production
- 53. Content in development by lecturers for 2017-2018 trails Phase 2 Dr Laura Mason – Anatomy Application - Complete Dr Richard Johnson – Inside Material microstructure - Complete Dr Peter Dorrington & Dr William Harrison – CAD VR automotive design - InProgress Dr Enrico Andreoli – Renewable energy production - Dr Terry Filer – Capital Allowances – Complete Dr Wendy Harris – Virtual Field Tours - Complete Dr Clare Wood / Ping Yin – Building Information Systems with VR integration Dr Patricia Xavier – Phase of construction – InProgress Dr Joanne Hudson – Empathy in VR – InProgress Dr Kirill – Phase Diagrams – Complete Dr Zoran Jelic – Aerospace Design Choices explained in VR Dr Chenfeng Li – Fluid simulations Dr Andrew Tappenden – AR/VR simulating beams during bending.
- 54. Planned Expansion based on feedback from students testers • Levels – to break up the content • Hints with penalties to the timer if they get stuck • Blended learning content to help contextualize the content • Plans to make a more simplified work flow with error message to fix common problems using the new unity tutorial system
- 55. References [1] Goetz, T. G. et al (2014), Effectiveness of virtual reality-based instruction of students’ learning outcomes in K-12 and higher education: A meta-analysis. Computers and Education 70 pp29-40 [2] Dr Sam Webster, Anatomy in 3D. SALT Case Study at Swansea University (accessed on the 16th November 2016) http://swansealearninglab.pbworks.com/w/page/82063805/SALT%20Case%20Study%3A%20%20An atomy%20in%203D [3] Nicholson, D. T., Chalk, C., Funnell, W. R. J. and Daniel, S. J. (2006), Can virtual reality improve anatomy education? A randomised controlled study of a computer-generated three-dimensional anatomical ear model. Medical Education, 40: 1081–1087. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02611.x
- 57. Achievement of VR teaching aid • Early data collection has shown that completion of the gamification task within the platform significantly increased students’ understanding of the basic anatomy of the skeletal system • From : score of 60 ± 36 % • To : a score of 70 ± 31% (P = 0.011) • Following just one (5-15 minute) use of the VR platform. • It is envisaged that improvements of this magnitude will impact student attainment on the module as a whole, in turn positively influencing progression statistics for a module with a previously high failure rate. • Full Scale Testing on 20th November with the Med Eng Students. • Med Eng Students exam in January • Result at HEA academy STEM conference in February
- 58. VRTK SDK Virtual Reality Tool Kit • We used VRTKs: Snap Zones and Radial UI. • Initially we went for character physics based snapping but resulted in skeleton snakes. Used parenting to snap zone. • We also had to add our own collider as using the visual mesh for collider did not give expect results. VRTK requires a collider for join. • Main design step is to improve make a suitable work follow which is the next step in the project. • Currently mesh separated, scaled and anchored. • VRTK scripts, prefabs, object, layers, collider, unity events. • Then set up game controller scripts. • Then set up the name tag • Bugs in VRTK need to be addressed
- 62. Why are we doing it? Current pressures faced Practical work is: • key component of Biosciences degree programmes (Lewis 2014; QAA 2015) • associated with experiential learning; promotes deeper level learning through: • development of subject-specific theory and techniques • use of transferable skills and personal development • encouragement of active learning (Easton & Gilburn 2012; Hope 2009; Boyle et al. 2007; Fuller et al. 2006; Nundy 2001; Healey &Jenkins 2000; Kent et al. 1997; Haigh 1996) • Opportunities for additional training in taxonomy and field skills KOLB 1984
- 63. Why are we doing it? Pedagogic evidence • Accessibility of VR using low cost devices via Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) and Google Cardboard demonstrated (RODRIGUEZ, 2016) • Google Expeditions provide access to a range of VR experiences • Shown to be effective at: • engaging students for higher level learning and promote active learning • addressing equity of access • providing employability skills • developing collaborative skills (ARGLES ET AL., 2017; MINOCHA & TUDOR, 2017; BROWN & GREEN, 2016; HOWARD, 2016)