Evaluating the effectiveness of 360 videos when teaching primary school subjects related to environmental education

Abstract

The study presents the results of a project in which 360 o videos were used for informing students about subjects related to environmental education. The target group was forty-four, nine-to ten-year-old students, who used three teaching tools, namely printed material, web pages, and 360o videos. The project lasted for twelve two-teaching-hour sessions (four for each tool), and data were collected by means of evaluation sheets and a questionnaire for recording their views and attitudes. It was found that the 360o videos yielded better learning outcomes compared to the other tools. The sense of presence was also greater in this tool. Then again, all tools were considered as equally motivating and effective. Moreover, the 360o videos were considered more enjoyable and easier to use only when compared to the printed material. Though the findings confirmed that 360 o videos can be effective in raising students' awareness of environmental problems, they also point to the need of finding innovative methods and teaching frameworks that would allow educators to fully exploit their educational potential.

360-Degree Virtual Reality Utilising Head-Mounted Devices in Undergraduate Nursing and Midwifery Education: A Scoping Review

“…However, in IVR simulations, students do not directly interact with instructors, making it challenging to apply this concept in IVR programmes. There are alternative frameworks that can be used, including the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) used to design digital information systems and to study the acceptability of technology [12]. A review of TAM involving over 400 articles published between 1999-2017 revealed that the model was widely used in fields related to education [70].…”

“…However, despite the numerous advantages of videos, such as improved understanding and enhanced collaboration [11], they lack certain features that can enhance effectiveness and interest. For example, videos are only shown from one angle, and viewers are usually passive observers, whereas 360-degree videos can be shown from various angles and perspectives [12] and can be viewed on various devices such as smartphones, tablets, and computers (in nonimmersive formats), or as part of an IVR experience via an HMD. HMD IVR packages are becoming increasingly popular in educational applications, as they enable curricula and content to be developed and edited for specific educational purposes [13].…”

Are hologram-like pyramid projections of an educational value? Results of a project in primary school settings

“…Second, the "novelty effect," might have played a negative role. It refers to students' overexcitement when a new "gadget" is introduced in their teaching, acting as a distraction factor derailing the learning process and diminishing the learning outcomes (Fokides & Arvaniti, 2020). Students' increased enjoyment in the holograms group might be an indicator of the presence of the "novelty effect."…”

Lessons learned from a project examining the learning outcomes and experiences in 360o videos

“…For examining the learning outcomes, we deemed that a Mixed Model Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was the appropriate statistical method for determining whether significant differences exist in the learning outcomes, between boys and girls, after controlling for students' prior knowledge (as recorded in the Pre-test). The following tests examined whether the data were fit for this type of statistical analysis: (i) we assessed the assumption of normality using Q-Q scatterplots (DeCarlo, 1997); (ii) we plotted the residuals against the predicted values for evaluating homoscedasticity (Field, 2013); (iii) we assessed the assumption of sphericity using Mauchly's test (Mauchly, 1940); (iv) we calculated Mahalanobis distances and compared them to a χ 2 distribution for identifying influential points in the residuals, (Newton & Rudestam, 2012); (v) we rerun the mixed model ANCOVA by including interaction terms between each independent variable and the covariate, for assessing the assumption for homogeneity of regression slopes (Field 2013); and (vi) we conducted an ANOVA for each covariateindependent variable pair, to assess covariate-independent variable independence (Field 2013). Out of the above, only the sphericity assumption was violated [χ 2 (2) = 26.90, p < .001].…”