Submitted Successfully!
To reward your contribution, here is a gift for you: A free trial for our video production service.
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1
Ensaf Nasser Al Mulhim
 -- 4006 2022-07-28 19:10:19 |
2 Update references
Sirius Huang
-1688 word(s) 2318 2022-08-01 03:02:09 |

Video Upload Options

Do you have a full video?
Send video materials Upload full video

Confirm

Are you sure to Delete?
Yes No
Cite
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Mulhim, E.N.A.;  Zaky, Y.A.M. E-Scaffolding and Virtual Learning Environments in Education. Encyclopedia. Available online: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/25628 (accessed on 07 July 2024).
Mulhim ENA,  Zaky YAM. E-Scaffolding and Virtual Learning Environments in Education. Encyclopedia. Available at: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/25628. Accessed July 07, 2024.
Mulhim, Ensaf Nasser Al, Yara Ahmed Mohebeldin Zaky. "E-Scaffolding and Virtual Learning Environments in Education" Encyclopedia, https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/25628 (accessed July 07, 2024).
Mulhim, E.N.A., & Zaky, Y.A.M. (2022, July 28). E-Scaffolding and Virtual Learning Environments in Education. In Encyclopedia. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/25628
Mulhim, Ensaf Nasser Al and Yara Ahmed Mohebeldin Zaky. "E-Scaffolding and Virtual Learning Environments in Education." Encyclopedia. Web. 28 July, 2022.
E-Scaffolding and Virtual Learning Environments in Education
Edit
This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/electronics11142172

Educational institutions around the world were forced to suspend traditional classroom activities as part of the preventive actions taken to limit the spread of COVID-19. This has led to an increased interest in using e-learning, and the use of computers, mobile devices, and technology in general has become crucial across the curricula. Three-dimensional (3D) virtual environments are a good choice for this purpose. E-scaffolding is a way to provide temporary support and direction to learners during the learning process to help them to complete new learning tasks and to encourage them to build knowledge by themselves.

teacher e-scaffolding peer e-scaffolding mobile learning environments 3D virtual learning environment

1. Introduction

With the spread of mobile devices, the interest in using them in education through smartphones and tablets has increased [1]. Their use is no longer limited to exchanging messages or playing games. Many new applications have appeared in various fields, including educational applications that can be employed in classrooms to help teachers and learners communicate rapidly, improve the processes of interaction, deliver content in an attractive and interactive way, and share various types of information (texts, images, videos, etc.) easily [2].
Furthermore, distance education can be asynchronous, so learning is self-paced, which provides the learner with the flexibility to learn and interact at any time and in any place. As learners are on their own while learning distantly, they need support, guidance, and assistance, so e-scaffolding may be provided to them through the mobile learning environment.
The greater dependence on technology during the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in more reports of technology fatigue [3][4][5][6]—a concept that can result from being required to stay in front of technology screens using platforms and video programs for long periods of time [7]. It is becoming increasingly clear that physical and psychological stress from technology fatigue can affect people’s work and personal lives, making them less motivated, productive, and attentive. Therefore, the issue of the interaction between humans and computers, and its consequences, should be highlighted.
E-scaffolding is a way to provide temporary support and direction to learners during the learning process to help them to complete new learning tasks and to encourage them to build knowledge by themselves. This is something that learners may not be able to do without this help [8]. E-scaffolding may take the form of instructions, tips, and/or messages of help. It may involve asking questions and presenting additional examples related to an educational situation to ensure the continuity of the educational process, and to guide the learners towards mastering various areas of knowledge, ability, and skills to achieve their educational goals successfully [9].

2. E-Scaffolding

Scaffolding is a Vygotskyan concept that focuses on providing supportive aid from adults or experts to learners within the learning zone of proximal development. According to Dabbagh [10], the zone of proximal development refers to the difference between the current knowledge and ability of learners and what they can accomplish with or without assistance when tackling a challenge. Scaffolding helps learners by gradually limiting complexities present in the learning context, and then removing those limits as the learners gain knowledge, confidence, and skills in tackling complex concepts. In scaffolding, assistance is provided to learners when needed. However, as task competency increases, assistance fades gradually, allowing low-level learners to complete tasks independently.
There are three types of scaffolding: hard, teacher, and peer scaffolding. Hard scaffolding is static support that can be planned with learners who face potential difficulties in a given context [11]. Inquiry-based learning students widely use hard scaffolding. For example, hard scaffolding includes professional videos that offer problem-solving support through clues and samples in the form of text or video to aid in understanding. Although hard scaffolding has a positive impact on the learning environment, it has various deficiencies. The method excludes learners from interacting with more advanced learners and teachers. As a result, students who use hard scaffolding without interacting can inadequately internalize information presented to them. Peer scaffolding is the process in which learners offer problem-solving solutions to their peers when needed [12]. Peer scaffolding encourages group collaborative learning, and enhances face-to-face interactions during discussions [13]. In addition, peer scaffolding promotes a high level of cognitive thinking, since the method encourages the use of extra clues and immediate feedback [12]. According to Amerian et al. [14], the use of sociocultural theory in peer scaffolding provides opportunities for students to develop their language skills. Teacher scaffolding is also known as institutional scaffolding, and it involves support from teachers throughout the learning process to enhance mastery of tasks [15]. Teachers use various strategies to achieve scaffolding functions in the zone of proximal development [16]. For instance, teachers provide resources, questions, prompts, and expert advice to learners, as well as learning tools and guides [17]. In addition, teachers ensure self-regulated learning through teacher scaffolding, dialogue, and graduated (considering academic level) education [18].
According to Ebadi and Beigzadeh [19], peer and teacher scaffolding are effective techniques for helping students to improve their reading comprehension abilities. However, comprehension development research has shown that teacher scaffolding mediates learners’ comprehension skills more effectively than peer scaffolding [20]. Teacher scaffolding enables students to become independent and self-regulated learners when solving problems [21]. In addition, teacher scaffolding helps to facilitate the ability of learners to build prior knowledge and internalize new information [22]. Riazi and Rezaii [15] conducted a study in which they examined the effect of scaffolding on EFL students’ writing ability. The study compared teacher and peer scaffolding in terms of their ability to help students improve their English. The findings revealed that the EFL students in the teacher scaffolding group performed better in writing. Sun et al. [23] investigated the use of teacher scaffolding in digital game-based learning in primary mathematics classrooms, as well as its effects on students’ perceptions of learning in a digital game environment. For this purpose, the authors conducted a study involving 141 primary school students and 4 mathematics teachers, and collected qualitative data through classroom observations and student interviews. The results showed that both whole-class and one-to-one scaffolding strategies are important for students’ learning activities and perceptions when learning mathematics in a digital games context in primary education. Kuhoof [24] studied the effects of interaction between the support source (teachers/peers) and the participating group size (medium/large) in an e-learning environment on attitude development and the quality of e-tests created for students at the faculty of Science and Arts in Sharurah, Saudi Arabia. The results revealed that the group who received teacher scaffolding developed better attitudes towards the e-learning environment and produced better e-test results, regardless of the size of the participating group (medium/large). Another study by AlThiyabi and Al-Bargi [25] examined the effect of teacher scaffolding on the level of classroom interaction in a learning English as a foreign language course at King Abdulaziz University, Saudi Arabia. The analysis of qualitative data obtained from video recordings of 10 male EFL classes indicated that teacher scaffolding exerted a positive impact on the level of classroom interaction.
A significant body of literature recommends the use of peer scaffolding to improve students’ learning. For instance, a study conducted by Ozlem [26] used three sources of scaffolding—teachers, peers, and learning technology materials—to deliver course content in a networked learning environment. The findings of the study showed that peer scaffolding was the best source of the three. A study by Shehadeh [27] found that peer scaffolding enhanced students’ writing competence, speaking ability, and self-confidence. A comparative study by Jamali Kivi et al. [28] that examined the effects of teacher versus peer scaffolding on EFL learners’ incidental vocabulary learning and reading comprehension reported that learners’ reading comprehension scores were better in the peer-scaffolding group. Another study by Abune [29] examined the effect of peer scaffolding on grammar proficiency development in 101 students. The experimental group was involved in a peer-scaffolding-based learning experience aimed at improving grammar proficiency for two months. The control group participated in the same grammar proficiency activities, but had teacher instruction only. The findings from the pre- and post-tests illustrated that the experimental group showed greater improvement in grammar proficiency than the control group. Kim et al. [30] suggested the use of a peer scaffolding system to enhance K–12 students’ autonomy and competence by providing scaffolding in accordance with students’ different needs and difficulties in problem-based learning environments. The study concluded that peer scaffolding between students with similar abilities satisfied students’ needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Saleh et al. [31] conducted a case study where students provided scaffolding to facilitate collaborative game-based learning centered on an ecological problem. The results suggested that the students collaborated productively—both face-to-face and digitally (through in-game chat)—to solve the ill-defined problem in the game-based learning environment.
Mansouri and Heidar [32] conducted a study aimed at exploring the effects of peer and teacher scaffolding in a technology-enhanced environment on vocabulary learning among a total of 120 high- and low-self-regulated learners. The participants were divided into three groups, namely, peer scaffolding, teacher scaffolding, and control groups, each consisting of 40 learners. The teacher scaffolding was delivered via the Telegram application. The results revealed that both peer and teacher scaffolding have significant effects on vocabulary learning, but no significant difference between peer and teacher scaffolding was identified in terms of their effects on vocabulary learning. Sabet et al. [33] examined the influence of peer scaffolding through a process approach on the writing fluency of 40 EFL learners. The results did not show any impact of peer scaffolding on the experimental group. This result is consistent with findings from a study by Karimi and Jalilvand [16]. The authors conducted an experiment to compare the effects of the source of scaffolding on the reading comprehension of EFL learners. The experiment consisted of two experimental groups and one control group. The first experimental group received both teacher and peer scaffolding, whereas the second group received only peer scaffolding. The findings illustrated that the use of teacher scaffolding accompanied by peer scaffolding can have more positive effects on the reading comprehension of EFL learners. This result is consistent with that of a study conducted by El-Tabakh and El-Moher [34] on the effects of different support sources (teacher/peers) in the cloud learning environment on the development of skills related to the design of Web 2.0 applications for students from the Faculty of Specific Education in Egypt. They reported that teacher e-scaffolding may be more appropriate when the cognitive aspect of skills is considered, whereas peer e-scaffolding is preferable when practical skills are involved.
In sum, previous studies have presented different views on which source of scaffolding may have a better effect on students’ learning outcomes. Each opinion is supported by a number of studies, as shown above. Thus, the literature has not yet confirmed the best source of scaffolding for students. 

3. Three-Dimensional Virtual Learning Environments

Three-dimensional (3D) virtual environments create interactive environments by employing the feature of the third dimension. The main goal of 3D virtual learning environments is to motivate and stimulate learners [35]. Such learning environments provide students with opportunities to experience practical learning without the risks that may be involved in traditional instructional environments [36]. Learners have the ability to experience real environments and be actively involved with the components of the virtual environment, thereby increasing their immersion, interaction, and sense of realism [37]. Three-dimensional virtual environments are an effective way to create interactive environments in which abstract concepts and skills can be developed through problem solving, exploration, and experimentation [38][39][40].
Tilhou et al. [41] defined 3D virtual environments as 3D interactive spaces that can be used for various purposes. They mostly involve the use of games to simulate real-world environments for entertainment purposes. According to López et al. [40], 3D virtual environments are computer-generated environments that users can interact with using a variety of tools, such as virtual reality headsets, smartphones, or computers. There are three main virtual environment types: non-immersive, semi-immersive, and fully immersive simulations. The most immersive virtual environments are created using 3D graphics [42].
This environment has been applied extensively in the education field, and there has been remarkable growth in the application of these environments for distance learning [39]. These environments are reportedly useful for sharing activities and cooperation among learners [43]. Furthermore, a study conducted by Glaser and Schmidt [44] reported that the use of a customizable 3D virtual environment enhanced the development of knowledge and skills and met the unique needs of individuals with autism. Another study was conducted by Cantey et al. [45] on the use of a virtual learning environment by nursing students during the COVID-19 pandemic, whereby clinical skills were simulated in a virtual laboratory environment. The results indicated that the students found that the virtual environment was engaging and helpful. They stated that nursing skills were taught successfully in a virtual learning environment.
On the other hand, 3D virtual environments have some challenges. The related body of literature details some of the limitations of virtual environments, including health issues such as cyber sickness [46], nausea, motion sickness, and headaches while using the devices [36][47]. Another drawback is technical issues and Internet outages [48][49]. Users also might miss realistic visual–haptic interactions [46]. Boyles [48] stated that the application of virtual environments requires teachers and students to spend additional time learning how to use virtual reality devices. Schroeder [50] added that the process of producing and using virtual environments can be time-consuming and resource-intensive. There may also be an additional cognitive load caused by navigating and exploring in the virtual world [49]. Teachers need to procure or design virtual environments or hire specialists, taking into account the fact that these environments need to be customizable so that teachers can adjust them to fit their teaching and students’ learning needs [48]. Virtual reality is not always the best method for achieving learning goals [51], so teachers need to be careful when selecting this technology. There is also concern about the isolated social user experience, especially when using the fully immersive environments [46].
To summarize, the employment of virtual environments in education involves many benefits and drawbacks. Thus, these environments require more attention from designers as well as teachers when designing and utilizing them to ensure that their benefits are taken advantage of and their disadvantages are avoided.‏

References

  1. Romero-Rodríguez, J.M.; Aznar-Díaz, I.; Hinojo-Lucena, F.J.; Gómez-García, G. Mobile learning in higher education: Structural equation model for good teaching practices. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 91761–91769.
  2. Palincsar, A.S.; Fitzgerald, M.S.; Marcum, M.B.; Sherwood, C.A. Examining the work of “scaffolding” in theory and practice: A case study of 6th graders and their teacher interacting with one another, an ambitious science curriculum, and mobile devices. Int. J. Educ. Res. 2018, 90, 191–208.
  3. Bailenson, J.N. Nonverbal overload: A theoretical argument for the causes of Zoom fatigue. Technol. Mind Behav. 2021, 2, 1–16.
  4. Bennett, A.A.; Campion, E.D.; Keeler, K.R.; Keener, S.K. Videoconference fatigue? Exploring changes in fatigue after videoconference meetings during COVID-19. J. Appl. Psychol. 2021, 106, 330–344.
  5. Wiederhold, B.K. Connecting through technology during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic: Avoiding “Zoom Fatigue”. Cyberpsychol. Behav. Soc. Netw. 2020, 23, 437–438.
  6. Williams, N. Working through COVID-19: ‘Zoom’ gloom and ’Zoom’ fatigue. Occup. Med. 2021, 71, 164.
  7. Golu, F. Tech Fatigue-A new pandemic. Studia Dr. 2021, 12, 85–87.
  8. Krzic, M.; Wilson, J.; Hoffman, D. Scaffolding student learning: Forest floor example. Nat. Sci. Educ. 2018, 47, 17.
  9. Loparev, A. The Impact of Collaborative Scaffolding in Educational Video Games on the Collaborative Support Skills of Middle School Students; University of Rochester: Rochester, NY, USA, 2016; Available online: https://www.proquest.com/docview/1794167603?pq-origsite=gscholar&fromopenview=true (accessed on 26 May 2021).
  10. Dabbagh, N. Scaffolding: An important teacher competency in online learning. TechTrends 2003, 47, 39–44.
  11. Shin, S.; Brush, T.A.; Glazewski, K.D. Examining the hard, peer, and teacher scaffolding framework in inquiry-based technology-enhanced learning environments: Impact on academic achievement and group performance. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 2020, 68, 2423–2447.
  12. Hou, H.T.; Keng, S.H. A Dual-Scaffolding Framework Integrating Peer-Scaffolding and Cognitive-Scaffolding for an Augmented Reality-Based Educational Board Game: An Analysis of Learners’ Collective Flow State and Collaborative Learning Behavioral Patterns. J. Educ. Comput. Res. 2021, 59, 547–573.
  13. Lai, M.; Law, N. Peer scaffolding of knowledge building through collaborative groups with differential learning experiences. J. Educ. Comput. Res. 2006, 35, 123–144.
  14. Amerian, M.; Ahmadian, M.; Mehri, E. Sociocultural theory in practice: The effect of teacher, class, and peer scaffolding on the writing development of EFL learners. Int. J. Appl. Linguist. Engl. Lit. 2014, 3, 2.
  15. Riazi, M.; Rezaii, M. Teacher- and Peer-Scaffolding Behaviors: Effects on EFL Students’ Writing Improvement. In Proceedings of the 12th National Conference for Community Languages and ESOL, Dunedin, New Zealand, 1–4 October 2011; pp. 55–63. Available online: http://www.tesolanz.org.nz/ (accessed on 13 February 2022).
  16. Karimi, L.; Jalilvand, M. The effect of peer and teacher scaffolding on the reading comprehension of EFL learners in asymmetrical and symmetrical groups. J. Teach. Lang. Ski. 2014, 32, 1–17. Available online: https://jtls.shirazu.ac.ir/article_1860_7d531b852ed556ae80d9ed4d2db4c077.pdf (accessed on 30 April 2021).
  17. Van de Pol, J.; Volman, M.; Beishuizen, J. Promoting teacher scaffolding in small-group work: A contingency perspective. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2012, 28, 193–205.
  18. Hsieh, Y.C. A case study of the dynamics of scaffolding among ESL learners and online resources in collaborative learning. Comput. Assist. Lang. Learn. 2017, 30, 115–132.
  19. Ebadi, S.; Beigzadeh, M. The effect of teacher scaffolding vs. peer scaffolding on EFL learners’ reading comprehension development. Int. J. Engl. Educ. 2015, 4, 105–116. Available online: http://www.ijee.org/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/11.86141504.pdf (accessed on 12 January 2022).
  20. Pifarre, M.; Cobos, R. Promoting metacognitive skills through peer scaffolding in a CSCL environment. Int. J. Comput.-Supported Collab. Learn. 2010, 5, 237–253.
  21. Khodamoradi, A.; Irvani, H.; Jafarigohar, M.; Amerian, M. Teacher’s scaffolding vs. peers’ collaborative dialogue: Im-plementing innovation in the sociocultural context of Iranian universities. Middle-East J. Sci. Res. 2013, 14, 1212–1220.
  22. Hanjani, A.M. Collective peer scaffolding, self-revision, and writing progress of novice EFL learners. Int. J. Engl. Stud. 2019, 19, 41–57.
  23. Sun, L.; Ruokamo, H.; Siklander, P.; Li, B.; Devlin, K. Primary school students’ perceptions of scaffolding in digital game-based learning in mathematics. Learn. Cult. Soc. Interact. 2021, 28, 100457.
  24. Kuhoof, S.A.E. The impact of the interaction between the support source (teacher/peers) and the participating group Size (medium/large) in e-learning environment, BlackBoard, in developing the attitude towards it and the quality of creating e-tests for students at the faculty of Science and Arts in Sharurah. J. Educ. Al-Azhar Univ. 2020, 188, 291–356. Available online: https://journals.ekb.eg/article_146175.html (accessed on 26 May 2021).
  25. AlThiyabi, M.S.; Al-Bargi, A. The effect of teacher scaffolding on Learning English as a foreign language at King Abdulaziz University: A classroom discourse analysis. Int. J. Educ. Investig. 2016, 3, 1–20. Available online: http://www.ijeionline.com/attachments/article/55/IJEI.Vol.3.No.6.01.pdf (accessed on 3 December 2021).
  26. Ozlem, O.Z.A.N. Scaffolding in connectivist mobile learning environment. Turk. Online J. Distance Educ. 2013, 14, 44–55.
  27. Shehadeh, A. Effects and student perceptions of collaborative writing in L2. J. Second Lang. Writ. 2011, 20, 286–305.
  28. Kivi, P.J.; Namaziandost, E.; Alamdari, E.F.; Saenko, N.R.; Inga-Arias, M.; Fuster-Guillén, D.; Sirisakpanich, D.; Nasirin, C. The Comparative Effects of Teacher Versus Peer-Scaffolding on EFL Learners’ Incidental Vocabulary Learning and Reading Comprehension: A Socio-Cultural Perspective. J. Psycholinguist. Res. 2021, 50, 1031–1047.
  29. Abune, A.A. Effects of Peer Scaffolding on Students’ Grammar Proficiency Development. Online Submiss. 2019, 7, 105–120.
  30. Kim, N.J.; Belland, B.R.; Axelrod, D. Scaffolding for optimal challenge in K–12 problem-based learning. Interdiscip. J. Probl. Based Learn. 2018, 13, 1831–1834.
  31. Saleh, A.; Silver, C.H.; Chen, Y.; Shanahan, K.; Rowe, J.; Lester, J. Scaffolding Peer Facilitation in Computer-Supported Problem-Based Learning Environments. In Rethinking Learning in the Digital Age: Making the Learning Sciences Count, 13th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS) 2018, London, UK, 23–30 June 2018; Kay, J., Luckin, R., Eds.; International Society of the Learning Sciences: London, UK, 2018; Volume 3.
  32. Mansouri, S.; Heidar, D.M. Peer/teacher technology-enhanced scaffolding through process approach and Iranian EFL learners’ vocabulary knowledge: A probe into self-regulation. Teach. Engl. A Second Lang. (Former. J. Teach. Lang. Ski.) 2019, 38, 189–223.
  33. Sabet, M.K.; Tahriri, A.; Pasand, P.G. The impact of peer scaffolding through process approach on EFL learners’ academic writing fluency. Theory Pract. Lang. Stud. 2013, 3, 1893.
  34. El-Tabakh, H.A.; El-Moher, A.A. The effect of different support sources (teacher/peers) in the cloud learning environment on developing the skills of designing some web 2.0 applications for students of the Faculty of Specific Education. Educ. J. Sohag Univ. 2020, 75, 501–610.
  35. Huang, H.; Lin, C.; Cai, D. Enhancing the learning effect of virtual reality 3D modeling: A new model of learner’s design collaboration and a comparison of its field system usability. Univers. Access Inf. Soc. 2021, 20, 429–440.
  36. Hussein, M.; Nätterdal, C. The Benefits of Virtual Reality in Education-A Comparison Study. Bachelor’s Thesis, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden, 2015. Available online: https://gupea.ub.gu.se/bitstream/2077/39977/1/gupea_2077_39977_1.pdf (accessed on 15 December 2021).
  37. Avcı, Ş.K.; Coklar, A.N.; İstanbullu, A. The effect of three dimensional virtual environments and augmented reality applications on the learning achievement: A meta-analysis study. Egit. Bilim 2019, 44, 149–182.
  38. Çoklar, A.N.; Sahin, Y.L. Technostress levels of social network users based on ICTs in Turkey. Eur. J. Soc. Sci. 2011, 23, 171–182.
  39. Ghanbarzadeh, R.; Ghapanchi, A.H. Investigating various application areas of three-dimensional virtual worlds for higher education. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2018, 49, 370–384.
  40. López, C.E.; Cunningham, J.; Ashour, O.; Tucker, C.S. Deep reinforcement learning for procedural content generation of 3d virtual environments. J. Comput. Inf. Sci. Eng. 2020, 20, 051005.
  41. Tilhou, R.; Taylor, V.; Crompton, H. 3D virtual reality in K-12 education: A thematic systematic review. Emerg. Technol. Pedagog. Curric. 2020, 2020, 169–184.
  42. Alghamdi, M.; Regenbrecht, H.; Hoermann, S.; Swain, N. Mild stress stimuli built into a non-immersive virtual envi-ronment can elicit actual stress responses. Behav. Inf. Technol. 2017, 36, 913–934.
  43. Tseng, W.T.; Liou, H.J.; Chu, H.C. Vocabulary learning in virtual environments: Learner autonomy and collaboration. System 2020, 88, 102190.
  44. Glaser, N.J.; Schmidt, M. Usage considerations of 3D collaborative virtual learning environments to promote develop-ment and transfer of knowledge and skills for individuals with autism. Technol. Knowl. Learn. 2020, 25, 315–322.
  45. Cantey, D.S.; Sampson, M.; Vaughn, J.; Blodgett, N.P. Skills, community, and rapport: Prelicensure nursing students in the virtual learning environment. Teach. Learn. Nurs. 2021, 16, 384–388.
  46. Carvalho Mano, R.M. The benefits of Virtual Reality in Education. Ph.D. Thesis, Hochschule für Angewandte Wis-senschaften Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany, 2019. Available online: https://reposit.haw-hamburg.de/bitstream/20.500.12738/8592/1/thesis.pdf (accessed on 28 February 2022).
  47. Kinateder, M.; Ronchi, E.; Nilsson, D.; Kobes, M.; Müller, M.; Pauli, P.; Mühlberger, A. Virtual reality for fire evacuation research. In Proceedings of the 2014 Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems, Warsaw, Poland, 7–10 September 2014; pp. 313–321.
  48. Boyles, B. Virtual Reality and Augmented Reality in Education. Center for Teaching Excellence; United States Military Academy: West Point, NY, USA, 2017; Available online: https://www.westpoint.edu/sites/default/files/inline-images/centers_research/center_for_teching_excellence/PDFs/mtp_project_papers/Boyles_17.pdf (accessed on 23 January 2022).
  49. Wu, H.K.; Lee, S.W.Y.; Chang, H.Y.; Liang, J.C. Current status, opportunities and challenges of augmented reality in education. Comput. Educ. 2013, 62, 41–49.
  50. Schroeder, N.L. Pedagogical agents for learning. In Emerging Tools and Applications of Virtual Reality in Education; Choi, D.H., Dailey-Hebert, A., Estes, J.S., Eds.; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2016; pp. 216–238.
  51. Pantelidis, V.S. Reasons to use virtual reality in education and training courses and a model to determine when to use virtual reality. Themes Sci. Technol. Educ. 2010, 2, 59–70.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Upload a video for this entry
Information
Subjects: Education & Educational Research
Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :
Ensaf Nasser Al Mulhim
,
Yara Ahmed Mohebeldin Zaky
View Times: 571
Revisions: 2 times (View History)
Update Date: 02 Aug 2022
Table of Contents
    1000/1000
    Hot Most Recent
    Video Production Service
    Feedback