Does your work require IRB approvals…right now? At a later stage? If Yes, articulate your detailed IRB strategy. If No, explain why you don’t need IRB approval and identify situations when you might need IRB approval.

As of right now, our team will not be applying for IRB approval. However, in the future, when our project has a fully functioning prototype, we will need to apply for IRB approval as our research will qualify for human subjects research, albeit at a low-risk. Our project goals are to design, develop, and test a set of 5 game-based learning activities in an iVR environment to promote spatial understandings of the Lehigh Valley watershed, including historic and contemporary environmental issues. Each will be designed to take 15-25 minutes to complete. Our team is working on the second game, iVR2 – Lehigh Gap Superfund Site and Restoration (LGNC). This iVR game will focus on the historical, ecological, and environmental issues of the Palmerton Superfund site at the Lehigh Gap.

In this project, we will use the opportunities afforded by iVR, such as exploring multiple time frames (geologic, historical, personal) and providing abstraction (e.g., animations and 3D spatial markup to illustrate differences in topography and geology) to direct learners’ attention and support broader environmental science understandings.  Learning materials that are typically presented in more traditional ways will instead become highly immersive, immediate, and personal by situating the learning in the learner’s lived experience.  In the end, we hypothesize that adolescent and adult learners will demonstrate high levels of engagement and significant knowledge gains about their watershed and relevant environmental issues. 

Research Questions

Our research primarily focuses on how the iVR learning model impacts interest in the games, engagement, and learning with a full spectrum of users from age 13 to adults.  In addition, the research investigates whether the impact of iVR gaming features varies across social conditions (individual player, player within a group setting, non-headset participant within a group setting).  Specifically, the following are the research questions (RQs):

RQ1: For iVR headset wearing game players, 

1a: What perceptions do iVR game players have of the game features (challenge, curiosity, narrative, guidance, reward) and local contexts (place-based, local, relevant) in the games they played? 

1b: What levels of engagement and flow do they experience?

1c: Do these levels of engagement and flow vary by the two social conditions (individual player, headset player within a group setting)?

 

RQ2: For iVR non-headset game participants, what levels of engagement do they experience? 

 

RQ3: Is there any significant difference across social conditions (individual player, headset player within a group setting, non-headset participant within a group setting) in the following measures?

3a: interest in the games;

3b: levels of engagement; 

3c: learning outcomes in terms of their knowledge of environmental issues in their local watershed;

3d: learning outcomes in terms of their spatial understandings of the watershed.

 

RQ4: To what extent are local contexts, gaming features, and VR experience related to participant interest, engagement, and learning in an iVR environment? Specifically, 

4a. To what extent are participants’ perceived local contexts related to their interest in the games?
4b. To what extent are participants’ perceived gaming features related to their VR experience?

4c. To what extent are participants’ VR experience and interest in the games related to their engagement?
4d. To what extent is participant engagement (or flow for players) related to participant post-learning outcomes (in two areas— knowledge about environmental issues and spatial components of watershed), holding constant their pre-learning measures?

RQ5: To what extent do returning participants’ learning measures (two areas— knowledge about environmental impact in local watershed and spatial components of watershed) change across the duration of the grant, holding constant their interest and engagement and conditions?

 

Participants:
Participants include Lehigh and Northampton county Pennsylvania (Lehigh Valley) residents from ages 13 to adult who will attend (a) iVR individual player and headset player within a group setting experiences at four informal STEM centers – LGNC, NNC, D&L, and Jacobsburg and (b) iVR individual player experiences at seven public libraries.  Over the course of the entire grant period, we expect over 4,000 participants.  

 

Instruments and Measures:

Each of the data measures aligns to an immersive VR learning model component and will be used to address each research question. When combined, it will take a participant 15-20 minutes to complete a pre-test or post-test. They will be administered before and after an iVR game at the STEM centers and libraries. Total implementation time for pretest, iVR game, and posttest is estimated at 1 hour.  A survey will be used to measure the following:

• Attitudes toward learning with VR games
• Immersion and presence
• Specific gaming features (challenging tasks, curiosity, strong narrative, guidance and feedback, and intrinsically rewarding)
• Perceptions of learning about their local environment, environmental issues, authenticity, relevance, and local historical contexts
• Self-reported cognitive, behavioral, and affective engagement
• Flow
• Self-reported interest or intrinsic motivation
• Knowledge of environmental issues and impacts in a user’s watershed. 
• Gender, age, ethnicity, and for returning iVR participants 

 

Engagement Observation Protocol: 

Trained observers will score individuals’ engagement with the VR social learning experiences (one person in a VR headset with others viewing on a projected screen).  This protocol records the affective, behavioral, and cognitive engagement of a participant.

Focus groups: Focus groups will be conducted with questions designed to elicit users’ perceptions of learning with iVR games, features that made users feel engaged, and immersed in the experience.

 

 

Mid-Semester Presentation Outline:

1.Title Slide (slide 1)

Who we are (Backgrounds of everybody) (Short & sweet)

2. Problem  (slide 2):

Lack of engagement, interest, and often understanding among students in formal education’s traditional classroom model.

3. Solution (slide 3): 

Widespread use of game-oriented, immersive technology as a tool in educational settings.

4. Stakeholders and Partners (slide 3): 

Lehigh University natural scientists, instructional technologists, and learning researchers, with informal educators at four different informal STEM centers – Lehigh Gap Nature Center (LGNC), Nurture Nature Center (NNC), Delaware & Lehigh National Heritage Corridor/National Canal Museum (D&L).

5. What we’re working on ( Role of the team)(slide 4): IVR 2 game which will focus on the historical, ecological, and environmental issues of the Palmerton Superfund site at the Lehigh Gap

6. Individual Roles: Marcos => 3D backgrounds, Mayra => UI, Josie => UX, Udita => programming 

• • Provide visuals on coding, imagery, and UI/UX planning strategies that recur during meetings. 

7. Timeline=  (Current Phase + Next Phase)   (slide 6): summarises plans visually

 

• What supporting evidence will you provide for each point?
  • For each point, we will provide an example of how we address that point with our current partnership with the LGNC. For example, in questioning the accuracy of our information, we can explain that we have weekly meetings with the LGNC staff and experts from Lehigh’s EES department.

 

• How will you boost your credibility every step of the way?
  • We will provide details about the success of our current partnership and development to prove our credibility for future partnerships.