Vol. 15 No. 3 (2024): (Issue in progress)
Research Article

Virtual Field Trip: A study to analyse the raising awareness of biodi-versity loss through biodiversity analyses in Virtual Reality

PDF
Nina Heuke genannt Juergensmeier
Institute of Geography, Department of Human-Environment-Research, Bergische Universität Wuppertal, Germany
René Schmidt
Institute of Geography, Department of Human-Environment-Research, Bergische Universität Wuppertal, Germany
Britta Stumpe
Institute of Geography, Department of Human-Environment-Research, Bergische Universität Wuppertal, Germany
DOI: https://doi.org/10.48088/ejg.n.heu.15.3.214.231
Categories

Published 2024-09-11

Keywords

  • Virtual Reality,
  • Biodiversity,
  • Environment Education,
  • Virtual Field Trip,
  • Higher Education,
  • Geography Education
    • ...More
    Less

How to Cite

Heuke genannt Juergensmeier, Nina, René Schmidt, and Britta Stumpe. 2024. “Virtual Field Trip: A Study to Analyse the Raising Awareness of Biodi-Versity Loss through Biodiversity Analyses in Virtual Reality”. European Journal of Geography 15 (3):214-31. https://doi.org/10.48088/ejg.n.heu.15.3.214.231.

Copyright (c) 2024 Nina Heuke genannt Juergensmeier, René Schmidt, Britta Stumpe

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Received 2024-06-22
Accepted 2024-09-04
Published 2024-09-11

Abstract

Biodiversity loss poses a significant threat to global ecosystems, with human activities driving extinction at an increasing rate. Despite international agreements such as the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Biodiversity Strategy 2030, biodiversity continues to decline. Education about biodiversity is therefore of crucial importance, mainly as part of teacher education. This study examined the effectiveness of Virtual Field Trips (VFTs) in university-based geography teacher education to raise awareness of biodiversity loss. Therefore, two study groups, the experimental group (EG) and the control group (CG), participated in a quasi-experimental longitudinal study. The EG carried out a VFT as an intervention in which two different ecosystems in Berlin, Germany, were experienced and analysed in terms of biodiversity. With a pre-test and post-test, we examined if the VFT as an intervention affects the EG. The results show no significant differences between the groups after the intervention. However, high mean values for most of the questionnaire scales can already be found for both groups in the pre-test. Likewise, the EG showed intrinsic motivation after the intervention based on the VFT, indicating its potential in education.

Highlights:

  • Geography pre-service teachers show a high level of interest in biodiversity and a willingness to act to protect it.
  • Virtual Reality promotes the student’s intrinsic motivation.

 

PDF

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

References

  1. Allcoat, D., & von Mühlenen, A. (2018). Learning in virtual reality: Effects on performance, emotion and engagement. Research in Learning Tech-nology, 26, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.25304/rlt.v26.2140
  2. Austin, P. C., & Brunner, L. J. (2003). Type I Error Inflation in the Presence of a Ceiling Effect. The American Statistician, 57(2), 97. https://doi.org/10.1198/0003130031450
  3. Bengel, P., & Peter, C. (2024). Promoting Technological Literacy through Virtual Game-Based Field Trips: Effects on Knowledge, Attitudes, and Gender. European Journal of Geography, 15(2), 120-34. https://doi.org/10.48088/ejg.p.ben.15.2.120.134
  4. Book Creator app. (2021). Book Creator - bring creativity to your classroom - Book Creator app. https://bookcreator.com/
  5. Bürki, R., & Buchner, J. (2020). Immersive Virtuelle Realität mit VR-Brillen im Geographieunterricht: Potentiale und Herausforderungen. 49-53 / Progress in Science Education (PriSE), Vol. 3 No. 2 (2020): Special Issue: Proceedings of the DiNat Forum 2020 (K. Kampourakis and A. Müller Eds.) (Vol. 3). Progress in Science Education (PriSE). n https://doi.org/10.25321/prise.2020.1001
  6. Chen, J., Fu, Z., Liu, H., & Wang, J. (2024). Effectiveness of Virtual Reality on Learning Engagement: A Meta-Analysis. International Journal of Web-Based Learning and Teaching Technologies, 19(1). https://doi.org/10.4018/IJWLTT.334849
  7. Cho, Y., & Park, K. S. (2023). Designing Immersive Virtual Reality Simulation for Environmental Science Education. Electronics, 12(2), 315. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics12020315
  8. Coban, M., Bolat, Y. I., & Goksu, I. (2022). The potential of immersive virtual reality to enhance learning: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2022.100452
  9. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (Second edition). L. Erlbaum Associates. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203771587
  10. Cohen, J. (1992). A Power Primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155–159. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155
  11. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1993). Die Selbstbestimmungstheorie der Motivation und ihre Bedeutung für die Pädagogik. Zeitschrift Für Pädagogik, 39(2), 223–238.
  12. Döring, N., & Bortz, J. (2016). Forschungsmethoden und Evaluation in den Sozial- und Humanwissenschaften (5., vollst. überarb., akt. u. erw. Aufl. 2016). Springer-Lehrbuch. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Imprint: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-41089-5
  13. European Parliament. (2021a). Biodiversity loss: What is causing it and why is it a concern? https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/headlines/society/20200109STO69929/biodiversity-loss-what-is-causing-it-and-why-is-it-a-concern
  14. European Parliament. (2021b). Endangered species in Europe: Facts and figures (infographic). https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/headlines/society/20200519STO79424/endangered-species-in-europe-facts-and-figures-infographic
  15. Fauville, G., Queiroz, A. C. M., Bailenson, J. N., Kim, J., & Song, H. (2020). Virtual reality as a promising tool to promote climate change awareness. Promoting attitude and behavior change. Kim, Jihyun, (Ed); Song, Hayeon, (Ed); pp. 91-108; San Diego, CA, US: Elsevier Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-816958-2.00005-8
  16. Fiebelkorn, F., & Menzel, S. (2013). Student Teachers’ Understanding of the Terminology, Distribution, and Loss of Biodiversity: Perspectives from a Biodiversity Hotspot and an Industrialized Country. Research in Science Education, 43(4), 1593–1615. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-012-9323-0
  17. Field, A. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (5th edition). SAGE. http://digitale-objekte.hbz-nrw.de/storage2/2018/07/05/file_26/8054238.pdf
  18. Gebhardt, H., Glaser, R., Radtke, U., Reuber, P., & Vött, A. (2020). Geographie: physische Geographie und Humangeographie (3. Auflage). Lehr-buch. Springer. http://digitale-objekte.hbz-nrw.de/storage2/2020/02/20/file_7/8825224.pdf
  19. German Commission for UNESCO. (2014). UNESCO Roadmap zur Umsetzung des Weltaktionsprogramms ’Bildung für nachhaltige Entwicklung’. Booklet. https://www.bmbf.de/files/2015_Roadmap_deutsch.pdf
  20. Gifford, R., & Nilsson, A. (2014). Personal and social factors that influence pro-environmental concern and behaviour: A review. International Journal of Psychology, 49(3), 141–157. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12034
  21. Grünberlin. (2024a). Natur & Geschichte. https://gruen-berlin.de/projekte/parks/tempelhofer-feld/natur-geschichte
  22. Grünberlin. (2024b). Park auf dem Nordbahnhof. https://gruen-berlin.de/projekte/parks/park-auf-dem-nordbahnhof
  23. Hamilton, D., McKechnie, J., Edgerton, E., & Wilson, C. (2021). Immersive virtual reality as a pedagogical tool in education: a systematic literature review of quantitative learning outcomes and experimental design. Journal of Computers in Education, 8(1), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-020-00169-2
  24. Heuke genannt Jürgensmeier, N., Schmidt, R., & Stumpe, B. (2023). Creating Virtual Field Trips for Education: A Comparison of Software and Tools for Creating Virtual Field Trips with 360° Images. International Journal of Technology in Education, 6(3), 385–417. https://www.ijte.net/index.php/ijte/article/view/441/pdf
  25. Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (2006). The Four-Phase Model of Interest Development. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 111–127. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_4
  26. Horota, R. K., Rossa, P., Marques, A., Gonzaga, L., Senger, K., Cazarin, C. L., Spigolon, A., & Veronez, M. R. (2023). An Immersive Virtual Field Expe-rience Structuring Method for Geoscience Education. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 16(1), 121–132. https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2022.3207089
  27. IBM Corp. (2023). IBM Statistics for Windows, Version 29.0.
  28. Janssen, J., & Laatz, W. (2016). Statistische Datenanalyse mit SPSS : Eine anwendungsorientierte Einführung in das Basissystem und das Modul Exakte Tests. Springer Gabler.
  29. Kals, E. (1998). Übernahme von Verantwortung für den Schutz von Umwelt und Gesundheit. Weinheim. https://doi.org/with
  30. Kals, E., Schumacher, D., & Montada, L. (1998). Naturerfahrungen, Verbundenheit mit der Natur und ökologische Verantwortung als Determi-nanten naturschützenden Verhaltens. Zeitschrift Für Sozialpsychologie, 29(1), 5–19. https://www.psychauthors.de/psychauthors/index.php?wahl=forschung&uwahl=psychauthors&uuwahl=p00144LM
  31. Krapp, A., Schiefele, U., Wild, K. P., & Winteler, A. (2009). Der „Fragebogen zum Studieninteresse’ (FSI). Advance online publication. https://doi.org/online
  32. Kyburz-Graber, R., Hofer, K., & Wolfensberger, B. (2006). Studies on a socio-ecological approach to environmental education: a contribution to a critical position in the education for sustainable development discourse. Environmental Education Research, 12(1), 101–114. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620500527840
  33. Lee, E. A.‑L., Wong, K. W., & Fung, C. C. (2010). How does desktop virtual reality enhance learning outcomes? A structural equation modeling approach. Computers & Education, 55(4), 1424–1442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.06.006
  34. Leske, S., Bögeholz, S., & Grube, D. (2009). Biologische Vielfalt weltweit und regional erhalten - Einflussfaktoren für Handlungsbereitschaften von Schüler(inne)n der Sekundarstufen I und II; Protecting biodiversity on a global and on a local level - influencing factors to protect biodiversity by lower and upper secondary school students [Thesis]. BibTeX. https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:gbv:7-webdoc-2198-9
  35. LimeSurvey GmbH. (2024). LimeSurvey — Free Online Survey Tool. https://www.limesurvey.org/
  36. Makransky, G., Andreasen, N. K., Baceviciute, S., & Mayer, R. E. (2021). Immersive Virtual Reality Increases Liking but Not Learning with a Science Simulation and Generative Learning Strategies Promote Learning in Immersive Virtual Reality. Journal of Educational Psychology, 113(4), 719–735. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000473
  37. Makransky, G., Borre-Gude, S., & Mayer, R. E. (2019). Motivational and Cognitive Benefits of Training in Immersive Virtual Reality Based on Mul-tiple Assessments. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 35(6), 691–707. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12375
  38. Makransky, G., & Lilleholt, L. (2018). A structural equation modeling investigation of the emotional value of immersive virtual reality in educa-tion. Educational Technology Research and Development, 66(5), 1141. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-018-9581-2
  39. Markowitz, D. M., Laha, R., Perone, B. P., Pea, R. D., & Bailenson, J. N. (2018). Immersive Virtual Reality Field Trips Facilitate Learning About Cli-mate Change. Frontiers in Psychology, 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02364
  40. Mentsiev, A., Aygumov, T., & Zaripova, R. (2023). Harnessing virtual reality and simulation technologies in education for sustainable develop-ment. E3S Web of Conferences, 451. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202345106002 (Booklet).
  41. Menzel, S., & Bögeholz, S. (2008). The loss of biodiversity as a challenge for sustainable development: How do pupils in Chile and Germany per-ceive resource dilemmas? Res.. ; http://webdoc.sub.gwdg.de/pub/springer/2008/16_menzel.pdf
  42. Minocha, S., Tilling, S., & Tudor, A.‑D. (2018). Role of Virtual Reality in Geography and Science Fieldwork Education. Booklet. http://oro.open.ac.uk/55876/1/ORO-KESS-Paper-in-Template-25April2018-FINAL-Submitted.pdf
  43. Moosbrugger, H., & Kelava, A. (2020). Testtheorie und Fragebogenkonstruktion (3rd ed. 2020). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Imprint: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-61532-4
  44. Navarro-Perez, M., & Tidball, K. G. (2012). Challenges of Biodiversity Education: A Review of Education Strategies for Biodiversity Education. International Electronic Journal of Environmental Education, 2(1), 13. http://www.iejeegreen.com
  45. Nelson, K. M., Anggraini, E., & Schlüter, A. (2020). Virtual reality as a tool for environmental conservation and fundraising. PLoS ONE, 15(4), e0223631. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0223631
  46. Parong, J., & Mayer, R. E. (2018). Learning Science in Immersive Virtual Reality. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110(6), 785–797. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000241
  47. Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A Motivational Science Perspective on the Role of Student Motivation in Learning and Teaching Contexts. Journal of Educa-tional Psychology, 95(4), 667–686. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.667
  48. Rambach, J., Lilligreen, G., Schäfer, A., Bankanal, R., Wiebel, A., Stricker, D., Goos, Gerhard, Founding Editor, Hartmanis, Juris, Founding Editor, Bertino, E. B. M., Gao, W. B. M., Steffen, B. B. M., Woeginger, G. B. M., Yung, M. B. M., Chen, J. Y. C., & Fragomeni, G. (2021). A Survey on Ap-plications of Augmented, Mixed and Virtual Reality for Nature and Environment. Virtual, Augmented and Mixed Reality : 13th International Con-ference, VAMR 2021, Held as Part of the 23rd HCI International Conference, HCII 2021, 12770. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-77599-5_45
  49. Rasch, B., Friese, M., Hofmann, W., & Naumann, E. (2021). Quantitative Methoden 1 (5., überarb. Aufl.). Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-63282-6
  50. Rebenitsch, L., & Owen, C. (2021). Estimating cybersickness from virtual reality applications. Virtual Reality, 25(1), 165–174. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-020-00446-6
  51. Richardson, K., Bendtsen, J., Nogués-Bravo, D., Steffen, W., Lucht, W., Donges, J. F., Drüke, M., Bloh, W. von, Feulner, G., Gerten, D., Hof-mann, M., Huiskamp, W., Petri, S., Rahmstorf, S., Schaphoff, S., Thonicke, K., Tobian, A., Wang-Erlandsson, L., Rockström, J [J.], . . . Virkki, V. (2023). Earth beyond six of nine planetary boundaries. Science Advances, 9(37). https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.adh2458
  52. Rockström, J. (2009). A safe operating space for humanity. Nature, 461(7263), 472–475. https://doi.org/10.1038/461472a
  53. Rost, D. (2022). Interpretation und Bewertung pädagogischer und psychologischer Studien (4., überarb. u. erw. Aufl.). UTB, Band 8518. Bad Heil-brunn.
  54. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. Ame-rican Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
  55. Schecker, H., Parchmann, I., & Krüger, D. (2014). Formate und Methoden naturwissenschaftsdidaktischer Forschung. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-37827-0_1
  56. Schmitt, N. (1996). Uses and Abuses of Coefficient Alpha. Psychological Assessment, 8(4). https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.8.4.350 (Booklet).
  57. Schwartz, S. H. (2012). An Overview of the Schwartz Theory of Basic Values. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture. Advance online publica-tion. https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1116
  58. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (1992). Convention on Biological Diversity: Text and Annexes. https://www.cbd.int/doc/legal/cbd-en.pdf
  59. Senatsverwaltung für Mobilität, Verkehr, Klimaschutz und Umwelt. (2024). Tempelhofer Feld. https://www.berlin.de/sen/uvk/natur-und-gruen/stadtgruen/stadtgruen-projekte/tempelhofer-feld/
  60. Singla, A., Robitza, W., & Raake, A. (2019). Comparison of Subjective Quality Test Methods for Omnidirectional Video Quality Evaluation. 2473-3628. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1109/MMSP.2019.8901719
  61. Stainfield, J., Fisher, P., Ford, B., & Solem, M. (2000). International Virtual Field Trips: A New Direction? Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 24(2), 255–262. https://doi.org/10.1080/713677387
  62. Stapp, W. B. (1970). The Concept of Environmental Education. American Biology Teacher, 32(1), 14–15. https://doi.org/10.2307/4442877
  63. Streiner, D. L. (2003). Starting at the Beginning: An Introduction to Coefficient Alpha and Internal Consistency. Journal of Personality Assessment, 80(1), 99–103. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327752JPA8001_18
  64. Thoma, S. P., Hartmann, M., Christen, J., Mayer, B., Mast, F. W., & Weibel, D. (2023). Increasing awareness of climate change with immersive virtual reality. Frontiers in Virtual Reality, 4. https://doi.org/10.3389/frvir.2023.897034
  65. Tremp, H. (2005). Aufnahme und Analyse vegetationsökologischer Daten. utb GmbH.
  66. Trzaska, T. (2024). Virtual Reality Suite (v.2.1.0) [software] – present4D GmbH. https://present4d.com/de/
  67. Wang, L., Zhang, Z., McArdle, J. J., & Salthouse, T. A. (2009. Investigating Ceiling Effects in Longitudinal Data Analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 43(3), 476–496. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273170802285941
  68. Wilde, M., Bätz, K., Kovaleva, A., & Urhahne, D. (2009). Überprüfung einer Kurzskala intrinsischer Motivation (KIM). : Testing a short scale of intrinsic motivation. 0949-1147, 31–45. https://doi.org/online
  69. Winter, J. de, & Dodou, D. (2010). Five-point likert items: T test versus Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 15(11).