Jenn’s Week 6 Blog

Question 1

1. The need to go virtual as a result of Covid19 has been the most significant change in our teaming approach. We have scheduled 2 weekly Zoom meetings: one to work on our blog and one to work on our project. 
2. Weekly meetings have led us to be more organized and specific with the tasks we wish to complete in the time we have allotted.
3. As our organization improved, we were better able to identify issues with our project or our individual weakness. I had a lot to learn about programming in Unity.
4. The more we worked together the more we were able to use our strengths to overcome our weaknesses. Junior and Beigie are much better at programming in Unity than I am, but Junior is a very patient teacher. He developed YouTube tutorials from our work sessions so I could replay them as many times as I needed to in order to complete my weekly tasks.
5.  Beige is fantastic at summarizing our meetings. I have been watching her as she takes notes on our shared document and it has helped me condense my thoughts before I share them. 
6. I used to write directly into my blog but after I lost two consecutive posts because I didn’t save it, I started writing my blogs in a Google doc and then copy and paste it when I am ready to post my blog. 
7. When we meet with our Faculty advisors and other shareholders, I feel like we really work together as a team to make sure everyone feels heard and satisfied with our work.
8. We have taken very large strides, as a group, to view our venture more globally. When we started in the Spring, it was difficult to see how project could have an impact farther than the Lehigh Valley
9. Our group is so diverse, Beige is a second year undergrad, Junior just passed his oral exams, and I am in my 25th year of teaching high school with one Master’s degree under my belt. We all have a different skill set but it feels like we are always on the same page in terms of our project.
10. We each feel comfortable enough with each other that criticisms are always constructive and made with the goal of the venture in mind. We may disagree occasionally, but I don’t think we’ve ever argued. I have never worked with such a cohesive group. 

Question 2

• The Big Goal of this project is to complete development of the virtual reality headset game and distribute it to non-formal education centers to inform people of the significance of their local  watershed in the Lehigh Valley. 
• Junior is most likely to be the Implementer and Specialist because he has the most experience with the project and is the one actively doing development work via Unity as well as mentoring new members on how to use the program.
•  Jennifer is the group’s Shaper and Resource Investigator because she leverages her experience in teaching and formal education to bring a new perspective to the project. She also reaches out to collaborative partners for resources such as media/historical photos for our game. She is also a Completer/Finisher because she looks over the text resources and catches corrections and edits. 
• Beigie also satisfies the role of Implementer because she is now contributing to creative and technological development with the game now that she has learned how to use Unity and has adapted to the workflow of the team. She will also be assisting Junior if there are new members to the team so she can also be considered a Specialist. She also does the Recording in the team with minutes.
• The working process of our team is still generally the same. Team procedures for decision making usually switch between coming to a consensus after discussion or deference to experts in the relevant field. Decision making is done at team meetings where we attempt to give everyone a say because this project is not one which might require more authoritative leadership, and it is important that we allow everyone who is a part of this project to voice their opinions. The process of our meetings is generally going over status updates quickly and then reviewing things that require either editing or decision making; everyone has access to the minutes, but it is usually one person making direct edits while others leave comments. 

Communication methods involve Gmail/Hangouts, GSuite, and Zoom, since some platforms are more convenient for different purposes. Whole team meetings occur every one or two weeks for about 1 and a half hours. We meet amongst ourselves two times a week for updates and working sessions together. Responsiveness is very high and not a problem for our team because everyone is very on point with checking their emails; at most, it will take a day for a response due to time zone and location differences.

• Our interpersonal relationships are getting better and better with frequent communication; we’ve come a long way since the start of last semester. We Zoom frequently and also share details of our personal lives with each other so we are very comfortable with working and providing feedback to each other. We recognize each other’s strengths and are leveraging those in a way to make our work flow even better. 

 

Question 3—potential funding source

• Facebook Reality Labs Research Grant Request for proposals on responsible innovation in AR/VR: “Consider Everyone

 

→ General Outline

• Educational technology and STEM curriculum development, designed to also address the learning needs of multiple groups such as children/adults, English language learners, and informal educators. 
• We are creating virtual reality (VR) games that are cross-compatible (i.e., computers and mobile devices, including VR headsets). These learning games have their foundation on active, game-based, and situated learning experiences to immerse learners in aspects of local history, geography, and environmental science of the watershed they live in, in fun and engaging manners.
• Our PI, Dr. Al Bodzin has an extensive history of many years of research in this area 
• We have previously developed a prototype that was tested among 60 students at a local urban high-school.

→ Product description

• Design and Development of  five iVR gaming learning experiences;
• They will focus on promoting users’ spatial knowledge of the Lehigh Valley watershed using environmental case studies which impact the watershed and water quality within it;
• Each will be designed to take 15-25 minutes to complete.

→ Results of Prior NSF and Other Support

Socio-Environmental Science Investigations (SESI) Using the Geospatial Curriculum Approach with Web GIS. (NSF #1614216, August, 2016-July 2020, with one-year no cost extension, $1,199,794). Primary Investigators: Alec M. Bodzin, David Anastasio, Thomas Hammond, Kate Popejoy, and Breena Holland. Resulting publications are noted with an * in the References.
Broader impacts: The developed SESI investigations have great societal relevance since environmental problems have a disproportionate impact on underrepresented groups, and also promote the development of STEM-related skills.

 

→ Expected Outcomes

 

• Educational

 

1. Promote learning regarding the concept of watersheds.
   1. Increase awareness about importance of one’s watershed
2. Systems-thinking and feedback loops;
   1. How a small action (e.g., littering) can have a huge impact on the environment.
3. Changes in affect, behavior towards games to learn.

 

• Research  
  1. Advancing our iVR learning model
  2. Understanding how the iVR learning model impacts interest in the games, engagement, and learning with a full spectrum of users from age 13 to adults.

• Social
  Increase in number of visitors to local nature centers, especially from target groups such as adolescents, adults, and English language learners.

 

→ Measure of Learning:  

Environmental issues and impacts in local watershed: Open-ended questionnaire prompt about knowledge of environmental issues and impacts in a player’s watershed. (pretest and posttest)

 

→ Timeline

• • Initial funding during the research and dissemination phases will be the University and grants from different organizations whose programs are in line with our venture’s vision. After that, we will be working on building scale with our product from local to regional in order for our venture to be self-sustaining. Ideally, we would be reaching a steady state by two years after launching our product. 

 

Work Plan

Table 2. iVR game design, development and implementation timeline

	Y1 (Aug 20 – July 21)	Y2 (Aug 21 – July 22)	Y3 (Aug 22 – July 23)	Y4 (Aug 23 – July 24)	Y5 (Aug 24 – July 25)
Design and Development	iVR1,
Prototype Testing	iVR1 (LGNC)
Pilot Testing (building capacity)		iVR1 (LGNC) (professional development with staff)
Field Testing		iVR1 (LGNC)
Libraries and all sites			iVR1 1 informal STEM centers 1 public libraries	iVR1, iVR2, iVR3	iVR1, iVR2, iVR3, iVR4, iVR5

Note: Site locations are in parentheses