Thank you, Lorna! Extended reality is going to play an interesting role, especially considering these unusual times. We would like our platform to be a sort of hub for educators interested in this innovation and similar technologies. 

Hi Dave. Thanks for the great questions! 

Right now, our focus is on preservice teachers' professional noticing & pedagogical content knowledge. Although, we do see the potential connections & applications with inservice teachers. With that said, we are providing 'activity sheets' and lesson descriptions where they make sense to do so. These are included with videos on our website (xr.kent.edu). We are also developing some free professional development for this summer (startin June 15) for teachers, administrators, etc. for using 360 video and another for creating 360 video (such as for virtual observations, specialized content for their K-12 students, etc.). 

In terms of grammar usage, we've been analyzing preservice teachers' grammar in their written noticing and aligning it with where they look during a recorded session (they are wearing a VR headset and we record where they turn their head). Some findings are what you would expect (i.e., specifying the teacher means they look at the teacher a good bit) and point to perceptual symbol systems being developed. There's more coming out of this analysis but we have a good bit of this "under review" currently.

In terms of heat maps, we are currently in our first year so have only utilized "self reported" heat maps in our courses. We hope to have something usable by teacher educators & educational researchers in the next couple years (some of this will make use of eye tracking and some will be more general). 

I agree! I think the largest question mark is the nature of the hardware we will end up using. I'm sure that at some point we can be 'wearable device free' but that feels a long distance away. I have been advocating for entry level, good quality devices such as the Oculus Go and Quest, but there are some wonderful devices on the horizon. Time will tell if these newer devices are cost conscious of K-12 and Higher Education needs.

Thanks for the question!

We're currently using this with our second early childhood / elementary education math methods course. It actually supplements field based assignments, but we are thinking of how they can be used earlier in the program.

Thank you for the questions!

We have measured perceived presence. There are a few conference papers from SITE available now and a few papers in review (here is one conference paper: https://www.learntechlib.org/p/215856/). 

We have many single-perspective 360 videos already accessible to anyone wishing to use them for teacher ed (https://xr.kent.edu/videos-2/). We have used them with as many as 60 preservice teachers in any given time. Viewers can use a VR headset (YouTube VR is a good option to see our YouTube Channel) or their laptop.

Right now, we are working on our multi-perspective 360 Video viewer so that people can view videos at a larger scale (it works functionally, but we are ironing things out). This viewer will also incorporate many video annotation features (ways of interacting with the 360 video content in single or multi-perspective). 

In terms of scalability, the answer is "it depends." First, if you want users to wear a VR Headset (this has the most benefit) then there is cost associated. We use the Oculus Go as it is an entry-level model and affordable ($150 per headset). However, we also have our preservice teachers complete "homework" assignments in our courses with the 360 Videos. They watch them on their laptops and smartphones in those situations. If using the "bring your own device" route, there aren't any costs to scaling things up.

In terms of PRODUCING 360 Videos, the cost for scaling things up depends almost entirely on time. Cameras are relatively inexpensive (we sought to use consumer-grade cameras to show what is possible and to provide recommendations for others). For example, you can do a lot with the $200 GoPro Fusion (there are better cameras, but this is very affordable). We have tutorials on our website and more tutorials to come on how teacher educators can create and share their own 360 videos. We also will be hosting a free PD this summer on this very topic.

Please let me know if I've answered your questions or if you have any followups! 

 

Thanks for these answers, Karl.  Can you talk a little about the connection between "perceived presence" and pre-service teacher training of noticing and content knowledge?

Good question. Different scholars have studied variation in how we represent practice, and how closely those representations approximate "being there" in the classroom. This has gone by many names. Friesen & Kuntz (2018) and Herbst et al. (2013) each looked at sense of 'immersion' when comparing animations/comics with video of classroom practice and used it as one way of examining the viability of the representation. Others have looked at recordings of 'others' versus 'own' classroom teaching, or use of wearable cameras, etc. In many of these contexts, the conjecture has been a better sense of immersion should lead to more contextualized, or tacit PCK. 

We are effectively working with "non-responsive VR" when using 360 video. So, we use the term "presence" more often than "immersion" as it is more prevalent in that literature. However, we investigate this same conjecture. For example, we've found that preservice teachers with higher sense of presence also provide more specificity in their teacher noticing (specific to the content). We believe the relationship points to teacher noticing in particular (and Pedagogical Content Knowledge in general) as being embodied. Thus, by more closely approximating the sense of "being there" (presence), we believe preservice teachers develop more contextualized PCK. 

Thank you Kellie for your words and interest! It is indeed an immersive and embodied "inside look" that can make a difference in comparison with standard videos. 

Hi Sasha. Thanks for the question!

One reason for selecting the course we did was because we are focusing on creating 360 videos for multiplication/division and fractions, and that is the course they are taught. Two of us on the project also happen to teach that particular course regularly, so it helps enable our 'pedagogical tinkering.' The last thing I want to do is thrust material on someone without having tried it out myself. 

One of our grad students on the project is also Science Ed, so we have talked about that aspect as well. We have one video on our website (xr.kent.edu) that we present as focusing on measurement, but is really about programming robots (we've used it to introduce using robots for STEM before our students go into our Maker Space). Placing the camera to capture the 'hubbub' of student interaction made this one of my early favorites (in terms of 360 video content), and I think it helps demonstrate some of the similarities between filming in each content area, as well as how to engage teachers. A key piece is camera placement. It's tempting to put a 360 camera in a location like we would a standard video camera, but the camera itself needs to be immersed in the activity. Another point to make is what we ask our teachers to notice, or look for, in a video. In the course I teach, preservice teachers will comment on the mathematics in our "measurement with robots" video. However, if used in science, the conversation will look different. 

A major difference in using 360 video (or photos) in science methods is that there are more options for "content" to be created. For example, it is easy to go on YouTube and find 360 content related to the most recent solar eclipse in the U.S. (it is a surreal video) or of a specific environment (Angel Falls by AirPano is a nice example). Preservice teachers can learn to take students on virtual field trips to such different environments, or they can create a virtual tour of sorts. For example, one of our Masters students used 360 Photos in a preschool setting to have children identify living and non-living things. 

We had many of the same thoughts. For example, not all preservice teachers will have opportunities to go into classrooms with different student backgrounds, and this provides a better approximation of such an experience (think of preservice teachers in a rural setting able to see a more urban school location, or vice versa).

It's interesting you bring up nursing majors. I know that some of our nursing program faculty are incorporating VR in some novel ways for preparing for simulations, etc. 

Hi Candace! Something like TeachLive is more simulation-based, whereas the 360 videos we've used are what are referred to as "non-responsive VR." We are developing annotation software that can allow student work to be interacted with (seeing scanned work for each student, etc.), but that is part of our next year of the project. 

The technology exists to create classrooms that you can physically walk around in, but you would have to create the space with 3D animation software (or something similar). With video recordings, that is referred to as volumetric video and that technology is in its infancy (such a setup would costs tens of thousands of dollars at minimum currently). We've done the 'next best thing' and are using multi-perspective video to "jump to" another viewing perspective. This is similar to using StreetView on Google Maps (but with video instead of still images). 

There are definitely pros and cons to responsive versus non-responsive representations. We do think that more responsive VR is a possibility, but there are layers of complexity to that which we aren't focusing on this current project. One complexity is having multiple students you can interact (which is partly why many simulations still use human actors on the back end). 

Hi Kristen! Great questions. 

YES! We have shared many videos both on our website (xr.kent.edu) and on our YouTube Channel for XRi at Kent State. If accessing with a laptop/phone/tablet, you can use our website or the YouTube App without needing VR Goggles or Headset. If using something like a Google Cardboard or Oculus/HTC type device, we recommend using the YouTube app (in a dedicated headset, you may search for YouTube VR). 

To answer your second question, there are two answers with one related to "pre-NSF funding" and "post-NSF funding." Prior to being awarded the grant, we recorded videos mainly as a matter of convenience. That's why I'm in so many of our shared videos as the teacher, as these early videos were a way of demonstrating and testing the technology. This is both in terms of use with preservice teachers, but also learning the best ways of positioning the cameras. For example, in April/May 2018, I started recording 360 video with me and a pair of students, me with a small group of students, and me with two classrooms of students (each using the same set of tasks). The classroom videos are the ones that we share because we found the 360 video to be less useful for recording small group math (the standard camera gave an equivalent experience).

POST NSF funding, we have purposefully selected classrooms. Our project is focusing on multiplication/division and fractions in Grades 3-5, with the goal of recording 12 multi-perspective lessons. We are also attempting to use classrooms to demonstrate diverse education settings (or as much as we are able in our particular region). In doing all of this, we are seeking to create shareable representations (posted on our website as they are curated), but also provide some resources for others to do the same. This last comment points to our own admittance that we won't be able to represent all varieties of classrooms, students, concepts, etc. Our own project has a narrower content / grade focus, but we also want to allow for broader impacts to occur (so that is why tutorials are also being added to our website).