Teacher Perceptions on Virtual Reality Escape Rooms for STEM Education
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Theoretical Background
2.1. STEM Education
2.2. Digital Educational Escape Rooms
2.3. Virtual Reality
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Materials
3.2. Methods
4. Results
4.1. Demographics
4.2. Evaluation of the Experience
Participant A: “More detailed instructions or support to proceed when stuck”.
Participant B: “I did not manage to break out through the escape room. Neither did I truly understood what I had to do. Having more information about the procedural steps would have been really helpful”.
Participant C: “I managed to escape the room and found it overly interesting as a game. However, it should be noted that I am a Mathematician with a Master’s degree in Computer Science!!”.
Participant D: “The instructions should have been in Greek. If we are to consider transferring these activities in the classroom context, with school students who have no prior-experience with such tools, the language barrier will be a serious issue”.
Participant E: “Very interesting material! Congratulations to the creators!”.
Participant F: “The 3D environment, the flying keys, as well as the white ladder created by the individual pieces (in combination with the music) were impressive! The graphics are of very good quality and can be compared to the standards that modern computer games have in terms of immersion and user experience”.
5. Discussion
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Item | Description | Source |
---|---|---|
C1 | Perceived Enjoyment | [41] |
1 | I find using virtual reality/computer simulations enjoyable. | |
2 | Using virtual reality/computer simulations is pleasant. | |
3 | I have fun using virtual reality/computer simulations. | |
C2 | Motivation | [42] |
4 | I enjoy working with the virtual escape room very much. | |
5 | Virtual escape room activities are fun to do. | |
6(R) * | The virtual escape room was boring. | |
7(R) | The virtual escape room did not hold my attention at all. | |
8 | I would describe virtual escape rooms as very interesting. | |
9 | I thought that the virtual escape room was quite enjoyable. | |
10 | While I was doing the virtual escape room I was thinking about how much I enjoyed it. | |
C3 | Cognitive Benefits | [42] |
11 | This type of virtual reality/computer program makes the comprehension easier. | |
12 | This type of virtual reality/computer program makes the memorization easier. | |
13 | This type of virtual reality/computer program helps me to better apply what was learned. | |
14 | This type of virtual reality/computer program helps me to better analyze the problems. | |
C4 | Perceived Learning | [42] |
15 | I was more interested to learn the topics. | |
16 | I learned a lot of factual information in the topics. | |
17 | I gained a good understanding of the basic concepts of the enzymes. | |
18 | I learned to identify the main and important issues of the topics. | |
19 | I was interested and stimulated to learn more. | |
20 | I was able to summarize and concluded what I learned. | |
21 | The learning activities were meaningful. | |
22 | I can apply what I learned in real context. | |
C5 | Satisfaction | [42] |
23 | I was satisfied with this type of virtual reality/computer-based learning experience. | |
24 | A wide variety of learning materials was provided in this type of virtual reality/computer-based learning environment. | |
25(R) | I don’t think this type of virtual reality/computer-based learning environment would benefit my learning achievement. | |
26 | I was satisfied with the immediate information gained in this type of virtual reality/computer-based learning environment. | |
27 | I was satisfied with the teaching methods in this type of virtual reality/computer-based learning environment. | |
28 | I was satisfied with this type of virtual reality/computer-based learning environment. | |
29 | I was satisfied with the overall learning effectiveness. |
References
- Misra, S.; Roy, C.; Mukherjee, A. Introduction to Industrial Internet of Things and Industry 4.0; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2021; ISBN 9781003020905. [Google Scholar]
- Penprase, B.E. The Fourth Industrial Revolution and Higher Education. In Higher Education in the Era of the Fourth Industrial Revolution; Gleason, N.W., Ed.; Springer: Singapore, 2018; pp. 207–229. ISBN 978-981-13-0194-0. [Google Scholar]
- Mystakidis, S.; Papantzikos, G.; Stylios, C. Virtual Reality Escape Rooms for STEM Education in Industry 4.0: Greek Teachers Perspectives. In Proceedings of the 2021 6th South-East Europe Design Automation, Computer Engineering, Computer Networks and Social Media Conference (SEEDA-CECNSM), Preveza, Greece, 24–26 September 2021; pp. 1–5. [Google Scholar]
- Leopold, T.A.; Stefanova Ratcheva, V.; Zahidi, S. The Future of Jobs Report 2018; World Economic Forum: Geneva, Switzerland, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Abe, E.N.; Abe, I.I.; Adisa, O. Future of Work: Skill Obsolescence, Acquisition of New Skills, and Upskilling in the 4IR. In Future of Work, Work-Family Satisfaction, and Employee Well-Being in the Fourth Industrial Revolution; Abe, E.N., Ed.; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2021; pp. 217–231. [Google Scholar]
- Antunes, V.T.; Armellini, A.; Howe, R. Beliefs and engagement in an institution-wide pedagogic shift. Teach. High. Educ. 2021, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wurdinger, S.; Allison, P. Faculty perceptions and use of experiential learning in higher education. J. E-Learn. Knowl. Soc. 2017, 13, 15–26. [Google Scholar]
- Mystakidis, S.; Fragkaki, M.; Filippousis, G. Ready Teacher One: Virtual and Augmented Reality Online Professional Development for K-12 School Teachers. Computers 2021, 10, 134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fragkaki, M.; Mystakidis, S. Distance Higher Education Learning and Professional Pedagogy: Training the Trainers. In Proceedings of the 20th European Conference on e-Learning (ECEL 2021), Berlin, Germany, 28–29 October 2021; Academic Conferences International Limited: Berlin, Germany, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Kennedy, T.J.; Odell, M.R.L. Engaging Students In STEM Education. Sci. Educ. Int. 2014, 25, 246–258. [Google Scholar]
- Chang, D.; Hwang, G.-J.; Chang, S.-C.; Wang, S.-Y. Promoting students’ cross-disciplinary performance and higher order thinking: A peer assessment-facilitated STEM approach in a mathematics course. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 2021, 69, 3281–3306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mystakidis, S.; Christopoulos, A.; Pellas, N. A systematic mapping review of augmented reality applications to support STEM learning in higher education. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Priemer, B.; Eilerts, K.; Filler, A.; Pinkwart, N.; Rösken-Winter, B.; Tiemann, R.; Zu Belzen, A.U. A framework to foster problem-solving in STEM and computing education. Res. Sci. Technol. Educ. 2020, 38, 105–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hickey, D.T. Motivation and contemporary socio-constructivist instructional perspectives. Educ. Psychol. 1997, 32, 175–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thibaut, L.; Ceuppens, S.; de Loof, H.; de Meester, J.; Goovaerts, L.; Struyf, A.; Boeve-de Pauw, J.; Dehaene, W.; Deprez, J.; de Cock, M.; et al. Integrated STEM Education: A Systematic Review of Instructional Practices in Secondary Education. Eur. J. STEM Educ. 2018, 3, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Warin, B.; Talbi, O.; Kolski, C.; Hoogstoel, F. Multi-Role Project (MRP): A New Project-Based Learning Method for STEM. IEEE Trans. Educ. 2016, 59, 137–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ketelhut, D.J. The Impact of Student Self-efficacy on Scientific Inquiry Skills: An Exploratory Investigation in River City, a Multi-user Virtual Environment. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 2007, 16, 99–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mystakidis, S. Distance Education Gamification in Social Virtual Reality: A Case Study on Student Engagement. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Information, Intelligence, Systems and Applications (IISA 2020), Piraeus, Greece, 15–17 July 2020; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
- Gao, F.; Li, L.; Sun, Y. A systematic review of mobile game-based learning in STEM education. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 2020, 68, 1791–1827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mystakidis, S.; Filippousis, G.; Tolis, D.; Tseregkouni, E. Playful Metaphors for Narrative-Driven E-Learning. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 11682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tolentino, A.; Roleda, L. Gamification and its effect to student motivation in physics. In Empowering Science and Mathematics for Global Competitiveness, Proceedings of the Science and Mathematics International Conference (SMIC 2018), Jakarta, Indonesia, 2–4 November 2018; Rahmawati, Y., Taylor, P.C., Eds.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2018; p. 612. [Google Scholar]
- Lameras, P.; Arnab, S.; Dunwell, I.; Stewart, C.; Clarke, S.; Petridis, P. Essential features of serious games design in higher education: Linking learning attributes to game mechanics. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2017, 48, 972–994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shaffer, D.W. Epistemic frames for epistemic games. Comput. Educ. 2006, 46, 223–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grande-de-Prado, M.; García-Martín, S.; Baelo, R.; Abella-García, V. Edu-Escape Rooms. Encyclopedia 2020, 1, 12–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nicholson, S. Creating Engaging Escape Rooms for the Classroom. Child. Educ. 2018, 94, 44–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Makri, A.; Vlachopoulos, D.; Martina, R.A. Digital Escape Rooms as Innovative Pedagogical Tools in Education: A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability 2021, 13, 4587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stolee, M. A Descriptive Schema for Escape Games. Well Play. J. Video Games Value Mean. 2021, 10, 5–28. [Google Scholar]
- Clarke, S.J.; Peel, D.J.; Arnab, S.; Morini, L.; Keegan, H.; Wood, O. EscapED: A Framework for Creating Educational Escape Rooms and Interactive Games to For Higher/Further Education. Int. J. Serious Games 2017, 4, 73–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mystakidis, S. Combat Tanking in Education—The TANC Model for Playful Distance Learning in Social Virtual Reality. Int. J. Gaming Comput. Simul. 2021, 13, 1–20. [Google Scholar]
- Lathwesen, C.; Belova, N. Escape Rooms in STEM Teaching and Learning—Prospective Field or Declining Trend? A Literature Review. Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mystakidis, S. Metaverse. Encyclopedia 2022, 2, 486–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pellas, N.; Mystakidis, S.; Kazanidis, I. Immersive Virtual Reality in K-12 and Higher Education: A systematic review of the last decade scientific literature. Virtual Real. 2021, 25, 835–861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yee, N.; Bailenson, J.N.; Ducheneaut, N. The Proteus Effect: Implications of Transformed Digital Self-Representation on Online and Offline Behavior. Commun. Res. 2009, 36, 285–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pellas, N.; Mystakidis, S.; Christopoulos, A. A Systematic Literature Review on the User Experience Design for Game-Based Interventions via 3D Virtual Worlds in K-12 Education. Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2021, 5, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Christopoulos, A.; Mystakidis, S.; Cachafeiro, E.; Laakso, M.-J. Escaping the Cell: Virtual Reality Escape Rooms in Biology Education. Behav. Inf. Technol. 2022, in press. [Google Scholar]
- Karageorgiou, Z.; Mavrommati, E.; Fotaris, P. Escape Room Design as a Game-Based Learning Process for STEAM Education. In Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Game Based Learning, Sophia Antipolis, France, 4–5 October 2018; ACPI: Reading, UK, 2019; Volume 2019, p. 46. [Google Scholar]
- Elford, D.; Lancaster, S.J.; Jones, G.A. Stereoisomers, Not Stereo Enigmas: A Stereochemistry Escape Activity Incorporating Augmented and Immersive Virtual Reality. J. Chem. Educ. 2021, 98, 1691–1704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Janonis, A.; Kiudys, E.; Girdžiūna, M.; Blažauskas, T.; Paulauskas, L.; Andrejevas, A. Escape the Lab: Chemical Experiments in Virtual Reality. In Communications in Computer and Information Science; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; Volume 1283, pp. 273–282. ISBN 9783030595050. [Google Scholar]
- Christopoulos, A.; Conrad, M.; Shukla, M. Increasing student engagement through virtual interactions: How? Virtual Real. 2018, 22, 353–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mystakidis, S.; Cachafeiro, E.; Hatzilygeroudis, I. Enter the Serious E-scape Room: A Cost-Effective Serious Game Model for Deep and Meaningful E-learning. In Proceedings of the 2019 10th International Conference on Information, Intelligence, Systems and Applications (IISA), Patras, Greece, 15–17 July 2019; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
- Tokel, S.T.; İsler, V. Acceptance of virtual worlds as learning space. Innov. Educ. Teach. Int. 2015, 52, 254–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ai-Lim Lee, E.; Wong, K.W.; Fung, C.C. How does desktop virtual reality enhance learning outcomes? A structural equation modeling approach. Comput. Educ. 2010, 55, 1424–1442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gay, L.R.; Mills, G.E.; Airasian, P.W. Educational Research: Competencies for Analysis and Applications; Pearson College Division: London, UK, 2012; ISBN 9780133018011. [Google Scholar]
- Mystakidis, S. Deep Meaningful Learning. Encyclopedia 2021, 1, 988–997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heo, M.; Kim, N.; Faith, M.S. Statistical power as a function of Cronbach alpha of instrument questionnaire items. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2015, 15, 86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Park, C.; Kim, D.; Cho, S.; Han, H.-J. Adoption of multimedia technology for learning and gender difference. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2019, 92, 288–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heo, M.; Toomey, N. Learning with multimedia: The effects of gender, type of multimedia learning resources, and spatial ability. Comput. Educ. 2020, 146, 103747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mystakidis, S. Motivation Enhancement Methods for Community Building in Extended Reality. In Augmented and Mixed Reality for Communities; Fisher, J.A., Ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2021; pp. 265–282. [Google Scholar]
- Fornós, S.; Cermak, D. Towards an Assessment Framework for Learner-Created Game Levels in Chemical Engineering Education. In Proceedings of the 15th European Conference on Game Based Learning ECGBL 2021, Brighton, UK, 23–24 September 2021; Academic Conferences and Publishing International Limited: Reading, UK, 2021; pp. 222–232. [Google Scholar]
- El-Nasr, M.S.; Smith, B.K. Learning through game modding. Comput. Entertain. 2006, 4, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Francisco, J.M.; Maher, C.A. Conditions for promoting reasoning in problem solving: Insights from a longitudinal study. J. Math. Behav. 2005, 24, 361–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Christopoulos, A.; Sprangers, P. Integration of educational technology during the Covid-19 pandemic: An analysis of teacher and student receptions. Cogent Educ. 2021, 8, 1964690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Category | n | Percent | |
---|---|---|---|
Sex | Male | 12 | 29.30 |
Female | 29 | 70.70 | |
Prefer not to answer | 0 | 0.00 | |
Age group | 18–34 | 2 | 4.90 |
35–44 | 10 | 24.40 | |
45–54 | 20 | 48.80 | |
55+ | 9 | 22.00 | |
Occupational service level | Primary education | 19 | 46.34 |
Lower secondary education | 8 | 19.50 | |
Upper secondary education | 14 | 34.14 | |
Scientific field | Humanities | 13 | 31.70 |
Natural sciences | 10 | 24.40 | |
Engineering and technology | 11 | 26.80 | |
Sociology | 1 | 2.40 | |
Other | 6 | 14.60 |
Category | Response | n | Percent |
---|---|---|---|
Familiarity with VR | Extremely familiar | 0 | 0.00 |
Very familiar | 3 | 7.30 | |
Familiar | 5 | 12.20 | |
Moderately familiar | 4 | 9.80 | |
Somewhat familiar | 7 | 17.10 | |
Slightly familiar | 7 | 17.10 | |
Not at all familiar | 15 | 36.60 | |
VR Escape Room completion | Yes | 25 | 61.00 |
No | 16 | 39.00 | |
VR Escape Room completion time | Less than 10 min | 8 | 19.50 |
10 min | 10 | 24.40 | |
15 min | 7 | 17.10 | |
20 min | 10 | 24.40 | |
30 min | 1 | 2.40 | |
More than 30 min | 5 | 12.20 | |
Scaffolding of difficulty per stage | Extremely easy | 4 | 9.80 |
Very easy | 2 | 4.90 | |
Easy | 7 | 17.10 | |
Neutral | 16 | 39.00 | |
Difficult | 9 | 22.00 | |
Very difficult | 2 | 4.90 | |
Extremely difficult | 1 | 2.40 | |
Experienced Difficulties | Fully agree | 8 | 26.80 |
Agree | 10 | 29.30 | |
Neither agree nor disagree | 12 | 24.40 | |
Disagree | 11 | 19.50 | |
Fully disagree | 0 | 0.00 |
Construct | Min | Max | M | Med | Std. Dev. | Cronbach’s a |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
(C1) Perceived enjoyment | 2 | 5 | 4.18 | 4 | 0.76 | 0.92 |
(C2) Motivation | 1 | 5 | 3.29 | 4 | 1.29 | 0.93 |
(C3) Cognitive benefits | 2 | 5 | 3.75 | 4 | 0.74 | 0.83 |
(C4) Learning effectiveness | 1 | 5 | 3.72 | 4 | 0.84 | 0.93 |
(C5) Satisfaction | 1 | 5 | 3.48 | 4 | 0.96 | 0.95 |
Dependent Variable | Independent Variable | Spearman’s rho | p |
---|---|---|---|
Familiarity with VR | Gender | 0.016 | 0.921 |
Escape Room completion | 0.171 | 0.280 | |
Completion time | −0.096 | 0.547 | |
Experienced difficulties | 0.079 | 0.621 | |
Scaffolding of challenges | −0.118 | 0.457 |
Dependent Variable | Grouping Variable | U | Z | p |
---|---|---|---|---|
Perceived enjoyment | Gender | 147 | −0.804 | 0.422 |
Motivation | 150.5 | −0.681 | 0.496 | |
Cognitive benefits | 169.5 | −0.132 | 0.895 | |
Perceived learning | 123.5 | −1.457 | 0.145 | |
Satisfaction | 123.5 | −1.460 | 0.144 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Mystakidis, S.; Christopoulos, A. Teacher Perceptions on Virtual Reality Escape Rooms for STEM Education. Information 2022, 13, 136. https://doi.org/10.3390/info13030136
Mystakidis S, Christopoulos A. Teacher Perceptions on Virtual Reality Escape Rooms for STEM Education. Information. 2022; 13(3):136. https://doi.org/10.3390/info13030136
Chicago/Turabian StyleMystakidis, Stylianos, and Athanasios Christopoulos. 2022. "Teacher Perceptions on Virtual Reality Escape Rooms for STEM Education" Information 13, no. 3: 136. https://doi.org/10.3390/info13030136
APA StyleMystakidis, S., & Christopoulos, A. (2022). Teacher Perceptions on Virtual Reality Escape Rooms for STEM Education. Information, 13(3), 136. https://doi.org/10.3390/info13030136