Authored by Michael D Brazley
Abstract
What is the next generation of learning technology: the cellphone, your watch, virtual reality, or all of the above? The research question being asked is: How can Virtual Reality (VR) assist students in learning? This research proves that virtual reality technology does enhance 3D spatial visualization skills of students. Due to the nature of their learning styles, many students need to interact with 3D scenes to enhance their spatial visualization skills, to see and understand the 3D model. This research proves that virtual reality technology will assist in giving both online and face-to-face architectural students a better education and help them to improve their spatial visualization skills.Keywords: Virtual Reality; Spatial visualization
Introduction
Each year the number of students taking at least one online course increases. This study investigates using virtual reality to increase 3D spatial visualization skills for both online and face-toface teaching of architectural students.Everyone has their own learning style(s); virtual reality and M-Learning (mobile learning) for architectural students include visual and real-world contexts, followed by verbal information for best results. Interaction between teacher and student, real world problems, and making their own decisions about learning, gives architectural students the most satisfaction with M-Learning and Virtual Reality [1].
Due to the nature of spatial visualization, many students need to see and interact with 3D scenes to get tangible feelings of the 3D model. The outcomes of this research include but is not limited to the following: a better understanding of online education, how to enhance 3D spatial visualization skills with the use of Virtual Reality technology, a reduction in the gender gap in spatial visualization abilities and making this knowledge generalizable.
Literature Review
Constructivism is a belief of learning based on the idea that knowledge is created by the individual through his/her contacts with their environment [2]. Constructivists believe in individual understanding of reality [3]. Sjoberg S [3] argues that constructivism is a learning methodology that gives learners the opportunity to gain experiences by which they can solicit their own questions and build their own models. Sjoberg [3] also argues that constructivism enables a community of learners to participate in reflection, activities, and discourse; inspires learners to ownership of ideas and purse independence, shared social relationships, and enablement as the goal. Learning becomes a self-regulatory activity: students figure out things for themselves instead of responding to stimuli.Constructivists argued that everyone has their own special learning style. Sometimes, the learning styles have as much to do with how the brain works as environment. Autopsies have been performed on both dyslexic and normal brains. The dyslexic brain showed even development on both spheres of the mind, while the normal mind showed asymmetrical growth in only one sphere.
Equal development of both spheres permits learning-differently students to enjoy special gifts. They “see” things 3-dimensionally, giving them a unique kind of spatial awareness. This allows some of them to be, among other things, excellent architects, inventors, directors of film and theatre, interior decorators, and teachers for other learning-differently students (students who learn differently) [4].
Learning Styles
Mobile learning [5] has been compared to constructivist learning involving creativity and spontaneity [6,7]. Corrent Agostinho [8] argues four general principles of a constructivistlearning situation: (1) learning is a development of construction; learning happens through social consultations of meaning; learners are occupied with authentic contexts; philosophical thinking is a final goal. “However, at the postgraduate level, provision of extensive background material as downloadable text-based or media-rich resources is vital if mobile learners are to start constructing their own understanding of complex issues” [9].Ferriman [6] argues that there are seven categories of learning styles: visual, physical, aural, verbal, logical, social, and solitary. In the visual category, individuals use images, pictures, color, and diagrams to learn. The physical category individuals learn by doing. Aural, people use sound to learn, recordings, rhythms, and music. The verbal category, individuals use words to learn, reading aloud, speech, and writing. The logical category, individuals use logic and reasoning to comprehend a concept. Social, these individuals learn best in groups and enjoy working with others. The solitary category includes individuals that enjoy working & learning alone. It is safe to say that most individuals have no one learning style but use a combination of styles to learn. Architect use visual, physical, logical, and solitary styles to learn.
Attributes Relevant to M-learning
First, mobile learning will not be effective unless you have highquality internet service. M-learning opportunities are created when educational technologies and resources are coupled with mobile devices. Despite socio-political isolation, cultural or geographical distance, mobile learning allows contact and communication with other professionals. Lessons from the past have taught us that effective pedagogy leads to effective learning [9]. Beckmann argues other attributes relevant to mobile learning include: rather than the technology, it is the student that is mobile; learning is intertwined with other actions as part of life; learning can produce as well as gratify goals; the management and control of learning can be dispersed; context is built by students through interaction; formal education can both conflict and complement mobile learning; mobile learning increases ethical issues of ownership and privacy.Mobile learners construct their own conceptual understanding of the social and physical world and interact accordingly. Gary Long & Carol Marchetti [10] argue, that students that take online courses with high levels of interaction make better grades, report more learning than students in similar face-to–face classes.
M-Learning
It has been argued by many that the best predictors of student satisfaction with online courses are learner-instructor interaction, internet (and software) self-efficacy, and learnercontent interaction. It was also argued that gender, year in school, and learner-learner interaction were not factoring in student satisfaction with online courses. Barriers to M-Learning include internet down, cheating, miscommunication, and lack of student motivation. Architectural students claim to learn best with visual instruction, followed by ‘real world’ context [1].A survey given to online architectural graduate students in 2013, revealed that they learn best with visual information, followed by real world contexts and third with verbal information. Graduate students appeared to be very satisfied with their learnerinstructor interaction; not as enthusiastic or satisfied with learnerlearner interaction; showed mixed satisfaction for authentic learning; expressed some satisfaction for active learning and personal relevance. The majority of students expressed satisfaction with student autonomy and their online class. The scales that brought the students the most satisfaction are Learner-Instructor Interaction, Active Learning, Student Autonomy, and Satisfaction with M-Learning [1].
Graduate students listed “anytime, anywhere learning” as one of the major benefits to M-Learning. Some of the barriers to M-Learning mentioned were software, missing personal connections, communication, and D2L. Students commented that video and recorded lectures along with online D2L classes would help improve M-Learning [1]. Felix Kamuche [11] argues “This study provides clear evidence that faculty can use learning styles data to help them design creative matches with students learning preferences. …Clearly, the author can say students learned better when instruction was geared toward their learning style”. Everyone has their own learning style(s); M-Learning for architectural students should include more visual and real-world contexts, followed by verbal information for best results. Interaction between teacher and student, real world problems, and making their own decisions about learning, gives architectural students the most satisfaction with M-Learning.
Scribner & Anderson [12] argue the success of integrating teaching methods that enhances different learning styles to improve scholarship.
The literature review and the results of this research study support the following recommendations for teaching graphical representation. Educators in technical education programs should Incorporate instructional methods that address modality learning styles when teaching spatial visualization.
1. Use modality learning styles to help students with a single dominant learning style strengthen weaker learning styles
2. Incorporate tools such as sketching, three-dimensional handheld models, three-dimensional solid model software, and orthographic and isometric projections to aid in developing spatial visualization [12].
Spatial Visualization
Spatial ability is characterized as one’s innate capability to visualize and rotate objects, mentally, before formal training, i.e., one is born with the gift [13]. But spatial visualization skills can be acquired or learned through training. “It is well documented that spatial visualization skills are teachable [14-16].Sheryl Sorby [17] was one of the first researchers to connect the gender gap with spatial visualizations skills. “Unfortunately, studies show that 3-D spatial visualization skills of women often lag behind those of their male counterparts” [18-21]. Smith [22] and Maier (1994) found visualization skills to be a major predictor of success in technical professions. In her paper, Sort by explains the Piagetian theory of the three stages of spatial visualization development, the Purdue Spatial Visualization Test, and the development of a new curriculum to improve spatial visualization skills. The course consisted of four hours of lab and lecture per week for ten weeks, computer lab manual, textbook, and instructional aids. The Preand Posttest responses were studied according to gender; spatial visualization skills improved overall but the gender gap continued to exist [18,23,24].
It is argued that computer & video games, physical sports, construction toys, and courses such as drafting, math, and shop have a positive relationship with 3D spatial visualization skills [17,18,25,26].
Sorby argues that spatial visualization skills training has a positive impact on grades earned, student retention and graduation rates for students of all ages, especially underrepresented minorities and women [27]. Yet in another study “it was determined that the spatial skills of some minority groups, in particular African Americans, Asian Americans, and Native American males, appear to be significantly lower than those of White students” [28]. The spatial skills of international students were also found to be behind the majority of American students.
Toptas, et al. [29] in their study of 8th graders using Google Sketch Up (GSU) software, argues that there was a significant increase in spatial visualization skills, differential aptitudes, and mental rotation skills after the posttests. The use of Google Sketch Up helped to improve all students’ spatial visualization skills; but female students, compared to male students, performed better on the posttests [29].
If the debate is to be moved forward, a better understanding of other types of training programs that increase spatial visualization such as three-dimensional virtual reality programs need to be developed. We may want to revise our treatment program. Students may require more time outside of the classroom to work with GSU. If students are provided with a computer for use, we can log the amount of time they use the software and for what purpose [29].
Feng, et al. [30] argue that existing learning materials and courses are not well suited to aid students in developing their spatial visualization skills and that a new approach is needed. “The main contention of this study is that a thorough understanding of students learning styles and abilities combined with the exploitation of advances in Virtual Reality technology, especially online Virtual Reality applications, has the potential to offer an effective instruction tool for improving CAD student’s spatial visualization skills” [30]. A learning environment of virtual models in Web3D will allow students to gain a better understanding of 3D objects and increase their spatial visualization skills [30].
To read more about this article...Open access Journal of of Engineering Sciences
Please follow the URL to access more information about this article
https://irispublishers.com/gjes/fulltext/virtual-reality-and-distance-education.ID.000521.php
To know more about our Journals....Iris Publishers
To know about Open Access Publishers
No comments:
Post a Comment