Week 8 Activity 1

Reflecting back on my own experiences learning physics and chemistry earlier on in life, I vividly recall how difficult both subjects were for me to wrap my head around since they are both subjects taught predominantly in abstract. As a visual learner, I struggled significantly to make sense of theories and formulas in physics class with no way to “see” them in action. Students, like me, who benefit from a visual element when trying to grasp new concepts, would be able to develop a richer understanding of topics and be better able to apply theories and manipulate formulas when they can observe the results of changing a variable or factor involved in determining quantities of acoustics, optics, magnetism, etc – things that aren’t easily viewable in a traditional classroom. Likewise, running experiments in Chemistry class, such a making compounds and solutions, are dramatically hampered in traditional classrooms for a number of reasons such as safety or availability/cost of obtaining materials. With VR googles like those created by Michael Bodekar, these problems all but disappear. Students can experiment with rare/expensive materials with no risk of hurting themselves of the lab if they improperly combine caustic, flammable, or explosive substances. This allows for greater experimentation, instead of the very limited experimentation that occurs in classrooms nowadays.

From what I read, the significant benefits of using VR in science education (such as physics and chemistry) are cost effectiveness and safety. Will VR be as good as real labs? I doubt so. (At least using the existing VR technology). First of all, I believe the current VR creates a visually immersive environment. But the user’s other senses (eg. sense of touch, sense of smell, sense of hearings) will remain unaffected. Secondly, the VR environment is pre-conditioned by humans. That means the rules dictating the VR are fixed by known principles. However many science discoveries came out of unexpected accidents, that is how we step into unknowns. For example, the discovery of penicillin. Thirdly, existing VR still makes the learning experience solo. From what I see from the videos, students still cannot interact with each other in such environment. They cannot discuss nor collaborate for experiments. Therefore though I acknowledge the obvious benefits of using VR in science education I still recognize it is not a replacement of real laboratory.

I was very excited for this week as I had already done research on VR/AR in a previous MET course and was eager to see someone else's take on its potentials. The headsets might cost more than the schools are expecting, but in the long run would most likely be less expensive than replacing old equipment (beakers, burners, etc.) and constantly ordering new chemicals or other necessary supplies. In the same thread, the lack of actual danger is also one of its biggest benefits. As science is a set of rules, and high school level chemistry for example are mostly experiments to witness and understand specific concepts, the risk of injury is almost zero when not actually mixing chemicals or causing actual error. In VR, it can show as an error and the students can experience the downsides of a potential accident without actually getting hurt.

Already we are at place where there a number of simulation tools, animations etc., available for Chemistry and physics that are geared towards simulating the lab environment, however, they have a difficult time replicate the lab environment, however, it would seem that VR can does this better in so many ways and could truly replicate the lab environment. In an educational landscape where cost-cutting is the norm, schools and universities are looking at ways of cutting costs with labs in physics and chemistry often targeted. Introducing VR would allow for a similar type of learning experience while simultaneously reducing costs and possibly allowing to bring in more enrollment now that the school would be less reliant on having physical space available. Apart from cost-cutting, safety would also be a concern as there is an inherent danger associated with chemistry labs in particular that can be avoided through VR. Regarding physics specifically, VR offers the ability for the student to see what they could not necessarily see with naked – ie., quantum physics – VR could offer an experiential learning experience for topics and subjects that otherwise students would just have to learn about through more passive means like texts and ppts.

I can definitely see how VR can play an important role in science subjects like physic and chemistry. These tend to be subjects that involve experiments and hands-on activities for students to fully immerse themselves in their learning in order to gain better understanding. As one of the videos highlighted, VR allows students the opportunity to ‘step inside’ and explore DNA, diseases, viruses, etc. to gain further insight. Teachers would also have the opportunity to ‘add’ content that further supports and facilitates student learning. It would seem that the prospects would be unlimited to teachers and students. I also see that VR provides the chance to better engage students in their learning. This is obviously a concern for educators and science seems to be a subject where teachers have great concern regarding the engagement level of their students. A further exploration of the topic seems to indicate that VR can greatly help to shorten the learning time for students. Here is a link to one article: https://unimersiv.com/why-virtual-reality-should-be-used-in-the-classroom/ Yet, I think that Virtual Reality also lends itself quite naturally to other subject areas. Imagine the possibility for students to use VR to immerse themselves back in history to an important moment in time. Students could have the chance to see and ‘feel’ what a particular time was like. How do people interact with others? What values were particularly present during this time? What issues were prevalent? What activities did people have in their lives? What about in areas like mechanics? Students could use VR to build or repair cars and other items before actually working on real ones. There are so many ways that VR could work in different subject areas. I think that students could benefit from VR goggles like those that were invented by Michael Bodekaer. Students would have the ability to perform experiments that may be impossible to do in a typical classroom, due to costs or availability of supplies/equipment. Will the VR lab be as good or as authentic as the real lab? Well, that depends on the quality of the VR lab itself. I believe that VR can allow for experiments that would be difficult to conduct otherwise. It could remove the ‘impossible’ that real-world situations would not allow for.

I would be interested in seeing how VR would play in the home economics classroom. I could see it for runway shows for fashion, child care at home and cooking classes or even food safety classes?

How can VR play a role in science subjects, such as physics and chemistry? If schools do purchase the VR goggles that Michael Bodekaer invented, how well do you think the students will learn from the virtual experience? Will the VR lab be as good as the real lab? I think VR could play a huge role in science subjects like physics and chemistry where students can enter into a world of where physics equations can be applied and then simplified for them. Chemistry would be great because they could see the reactions of different chemicals being tested and used to create something new. I think students would enjoy learning through the use of VR goggles because it just takes them to the next step of learning and using their senses. It's very engaging and immersive which can be helpful in acquiring knowledge in the sciences. I think VR would be great for people who are immobile, in very rural areas and poor because they could have access to new realities and tours around the world. I think for regular students, they would learn more also because it's like playing a game while learning.

I think there is value in learning by virtual experience in instances where the real experience is inaccessible, not possible, too expensive or dangerous. How teachers use the technology to explain concepts is likely a determining factor in the success of this technology. If students are left to engage with VR without discussion or real human interaction, the overall quality of student engagement may be less than expected. This is corroborated by the additive success of instructor-led discussion/activities and VR as reported by Bodekaer. Physics and chemistry are important examples of scientific learning that could benefit from the support of VR tools, because they involve the understanding of concepts that exist on nonhuman scales or are idealized (eg. valence electrons, point particles). VR allows these concepts to be experienced visually as opposed to illustrated through analogy or diagram.

There is a lot of potential for VR is the science classes that are offered. The technology lends itself very well to be inserted into lessons and labs. Proving a realistic approach via VR technology can only enhance the learning that takes. VR can really impact labs. In my opinion, labs can really be brought to a whole new level that wasn't previously possible. The labs no longer need to just include what is at hand. It can include almost anything and bring the learner to a different world. The goggle headsets are going to have an incredible impact on the education market. The technology will enhance learning and allow for the learner to have access to worlds previously unattainable.

For the first few years of my teaching career I taught junior science, and I can see the benefits of VR goggles. The difficulty with teaching many school subjects comes from the inability to make abstract concepts tangible. To overcome this difficulty science teachers often create models, or run simulations to allow students the opportunity to interact and experience the needed concepts. With the introduction of VR one is now able to fully immerse a student into simulations previously unthinkable. When I was watching the Michael Bodekaer video I kept thinking of all the interesting places students could now explore. For example Mitosis and Meiosis, are two concepts that are often taught through watching dry videos or making posters. Imagine instead if the student could go inside of the cell and interact with either process. Though this technology is exciting I will add a caveat, no technology I have seen yet can overcome the abilities/inabilities of the teacher themselves. If I were to introduce this technology into my classroom I would need to ensure that I personally knew enough to use the technology to the best of its ability.