Opportunities and challenges of using immersive technologies to support students’ spatial ability and 21st-century skills in K-12 education

The unpopularity of chemistry among students (Broman et al., 2011) may be due to (a) students not understanding the concepts and elements on which the discipline is based (Trajano Raupp et al., 2020) and (b) students lacking the spatial skills necessary to understand the complexity of the spatial atomic distribution and its consequences (Carlisle et al., 2015; Tamayo & Cadavid, 2013). In chemistry, “Students learn molecular geometry, how to draw organic structures in a variety of formats, stereochemistry, and group theory. All these concepts require the involvement of spatial skills” (Harle & Towns, 2010). However, spatial skills are often underdeveloped and should not be taken for granted. Veurink and Sorby (2011) conducted a longitudinal study in which students who had taken a spatial ability course reported achieving better results on calculus, physics, and chemistry tests, although the improvement in scores in chemistry was “marginally significant”. Furthermore, spatial ability is described as a necessary skill within the areas of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Despite these results, described as “marginally significant” in the area of chemistry, it could be that spatial ability, as Trajano Raupp et al. (2020) affirmed, is not enough if the fundamental concepts of the subject are not learned. In line with this idea, neither element is exclusive, but rather they work together.

However, educators and researchers have explored spatial ability and students’ development of it by means of training activities and by using different types of technologies. Copolo and Hounshell (1995) presented three ways for students to develop their spatial ability: (a) intellectual exercises based on a 2D environment (tests), (b) ball-and-stick models, and (c) 3D computer reconstructions, including VR and AR. In their study, they compared using 3D computer reconstructions with the commonly used so-called ball-and-stick models. They found that both physical and computational models could offer benefits as an effective tool for teaching molecular structures and isomers. However, they also suggested that manually manipulating physical models might distract students from focusing on the image of molecules, whereas using computer models allowed students to concentrate on the molecular representations (Copolo & Hounshell, 1995).

It is not only necessary to support students’ spatial ability in teaching chemistry, as researchers have stressed, but also to support their overall 21st-century skills as future competences they need for living and working in a digitized society. Such skills as collaboration, critical reasoning, communication, solving complex problems, and being able to use and manage digital tools and devices are often referred to as 21st-century skills. However, there is a lack of clarity as to what the concept of 21st-century skills really means, and according to Dede (2010), the same terminology is used to mean different things. Further, Dede states that organizations such as, for example, Partnership for 21st-Century Skills, the North Central Regional Education Laboratory, Metri Group, OECD, the National Leadership Council for Liberal Education, and America’s Promise have developed their own frameworks for supporting students’ 21st-century skills concerning the content and processes for teachers and for students’ education. Hence, in a digitized society, where the advancement of digital technologies changes quickly, students need skills such as being able to think creatively, collaborate, solve complex problems, and make full use of the opportunities that digitalization offers to a greater extent than before. For example, Jahnke (2015) stressed the importance of changing learning approaches towards what she called a “learning expedition,” where the students are able to make independent decisions during their learning process and teaching activities are designed to support self-reflection (e.g., part of supporting 21st-century skills). In line with Jahnke (2015), Jonassen et al. (2002) stressed the importance of using technology to support students’ learning and these different skills. They argued that when students are allowed to use technology for complex problem-solving tasks and information-retrieving purposes, it may benefit their learning processes. They further argued for student-centred approaches for achieving what they termed “meaningful learning” (Jonassen et al., 2002).

The regular use of VR and AR technologies for educational purposes in schools is still quite uncommon, and teachers must be digitally competent and confident enough to adopt new teaching approaches (Mårell-Olsson & Broman, 2020). Studies have shown that the use of immersive technologies in teaching also has an effect on students’ motivation and engagement in their learning processes (Di Serio et al., 2013; Hung et al., 2017; Kaufmann, 2002). For example, Qin et al. (2021) studied VR spaces designed to promote concentration, and they described VR environments as “pure information spaces: malleable learning environments where the objects of study are highlighted, and distractions are downplayed” (p. 521). Häfner et al. (2018) described how diverse opportunities can be enhanced by using immersive technologies, and they categorized the opportunities and conveniences of using VR in education into seven categories: (a) enhanced student motivation through the use of technology; (b) enhanced communication as a result of language barriers being overcome through the use of VR and evaluation of a learner’s performance being more substantive and objective when using computer-supported evaluation processes; (c) improved understanding of complex phenomenon that can be visualized or repeatedly trained; (d) flexibility and adaptability to individual needs (e.g., visualized processes can be slowed down or additional information easily added); (e) safety and health aspects, where dangerous tasks are simulated instead of experienced in reality and these scenarios can be trained in advance without the pressure of the danger of a real environment; (f) the environmental friendliness of simulations because the use of VR for training leads to a reduction in material consumption; and (g) time and cost effectiveness for certain kinds of training and a shorter preparation and debriefing time (Häfner et al., 2018, p. 103).

However, Garzón et al. (2019) emphasized the importance of developing immersive technologies because their potential for learning is high and the use of immersive technologies in education has only just begun. Further, in their systematic review and meta-analysis of using AR in educational settings, conducted between 2012 and 2018, they found that AR, for example, has a medium effect on learning, and the most explicit benefits concern learning gains and motivation. For example, students in Hung et al. (2017) stated that it was hard to move between a virtual 3D representation and the 2D representation of 3D figures, and the researchers found that the students liked the use of an AR graphic book more than the use of a regular picture book and physical 3D figures. Kaufmann (2002) found that the students rated learning about geometry in 3D using AR versus a PC-based computer-aided design programme significantly higher (i.e., more satisfying); however, the usability of the AR programme was rated lower than the PC alternative. DiSerio et al. (2013) compared an AR teaching approach with a slide-based approach in a visual arts class, and their results showed that student motivation was significantly higher with the AR teaching approach compared to the slide-based approach. Furthermore, Echeverría et al. (2016) identified a difference in motivation between male and female students, where the male students explored the technology beyond the designated tasks more and therefore learned more about the technology itself than the subject. The female students tended to complete the tasks but did not further investigate the technology. In Mårell-Olsson and Broman’s (2020) study of the use of AR technology in teaching organic chemistry to support university students’ spatial ability and 21st-century skills, they did not find any gender differences in the use of the AR technology between male and female students, but they found that integrating immersive technologies such as AR technology and changing traditional teaching designs is overall a rather complex process. Furthermore, they argued that both students and teachers’ preparedness for this appears to be low. Moreover, they stated that integrating, for example, AR technology into teaching design is a very complex process for teachers to handle. Teachers must combine competences such as technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge (see the TPACK model by Koehler et al., 2013) to find what Mårell-Olsson (2019) termed a “pedagogical balance” when designing a teaching activity in which students can use advanced technology to enhance their spatial ability, for example, in stereochemistry.

However, it could be important for today’s contemporary education to explore further the use of VR and AR technologies in teaching to support students’ understanding of molecules’ 3D representation in chemistry (i.e., spatial ability) and to support their 21st-century skills within this context as well. Based on this background, we raised questions about whether it is possible to design a teaching activity for compulsory school where the students can train 21st-century skills while simultaneously using VR and AR technology to support their spatial ability by visualizing the 3D representation of molecules in the classroom.

Hence, this paper reports on a design-based research study investigating a teaching activity specifically designed to develop students’ 21st-century skills and spatial ability. More specifically, the study aimed to empirically investigate the opportunities and challenges students experienced when using VR and AR technologies, in addition to being able to collaborate and reason critically by solving complex problems in groups to support their understanding in chemistry. Furthermore, the purpose was also to investigate the participating teacher’s motives and goals (i.e., what the teacher wanted to achieve) and experiences (e.g., perceived opportunities and challenges) with the designed teaching activity.

The designed classroom activity was inspired by a gamification perspective and consisted of three activities at different stations in the classroom. One activity was based on VR technology (i.e., using VR glasses), and another on AR technology (i.e., using AR glasses). The content at all the stations was decided and designed by the teacher, although the VR and AR activities (i.e., the VR and AR stations) were designed together with the researchers due to their complexity. Five activities were going on at the same time in the classroom, which were done in groups of 3 to 5 students in each group. The students collaborated in each activity (e.g., station) and had up to 8 min in each for solving the given problem/task. The groups earned points depending on how they succeeded in each station. One reason for using a station design for the activity was the limited number of VR and AR devices available.

The station based on AR used a pair of Microsoft HoloLens 1 glasses (i.e., AR glasses). The design of the activity was limited by the availability of only one pair of glasses. A virtual 3D molecule was designed using Google SketchUp software. Through the glasses, the students could see a virtual 3D model of a nicotine molecule (see Fig. 1), and it was overlapped to the real world (i.e., students using the glasses could see in parallel both a virtual object and the real world). They could walk around the molecule and see it from different perspectives and interact with it, even walk through it. Once they had seen the molecule, they had to find out which molecule it was by counting the atoms and identifying the types of atoms involved. They had computers at that station which they could use as they wished.

In contrast to the AR station, the VR station had five Oculus Quest 2 VR headsets at hand. It allowed five students to share a virtual environment at the same time (see Figs. 2a and b). The activity used a VR platform called Nanome, which is a collaborative virtual reality tool for molecular design. Teachers and students can naturally interact with any molecular structure together in an immersive virtual environment. This platform is recommended for higher education, but it was possible to use it in comprehensive school by using only part of its potential. The teacher designed four molecules and uploaded them to the platform. Students using the headsets could access Nanome, and with the right password provided in advance, they could access a virtual room at the same time and see each other’s avatars and the molecules the teacher had prepared for the activity. The assignment for the students in this activity was to find out what types of molecules were on display. They were invited to discuss it and collaborate while in the virtual environment and, in collaboration, decide what types of molecules were projected, write them down on paper, and give it to the teacher, who awarded points depending on whether the answers were correct.

As mentioned above, the Nanome software (see Fig. 2b) was used with the VR glasses, and it has advanced features for both education and research. The activity’s design for the presented study was grounded on (a) self-design of molecules which can be uploaded and put on display for others to view; (b) a virtual platform for displaying the molecules that allows avatars to move the molecules around, manipulate them, and zoom in or out; and (c) a communication tool that allows users to communicate remotely.

The empirical material was collected through observations, and we wrote field notes focusing on the students’ actions and words while testing and on discussions with them during the activities. For example, the discussions with them could be to clarify what they meant by a specific expression (e.g., both verbal, facial, and bodily expression) while testing or what they meant by something they said. As stated above, this aided in the design process and provided instant on-site feedback.

A postsurvey with 42 of the participating students was also conducted to collect their individual experiences on the opportunities and challenges they perceived during the activity regarding both the use of the VR and AR technologies for learning and how the projecting of 3D molecules could support their understanding and learning of stereochemistry. The survey was voluntary, and nearly 50% of the participants agreed to respond to the survey about what had occurred during the lesson. The survey focused on the following areas of the experience: (a) their experience of using the VR and AR technology in the classroom, (b) their thoughts about opportunities and challenges related to VR and AR in education, (c) the possibilities of cooperation within virtual worlds, and (d) their ideas about learning stereochemistry through VR and AR.

A postinterview was also conducted with the participating teacher, focusing on her motive and goal for the designed activity (e.g., what she wanted to achieve with the activity) and her experiences with regard to the outcomes and lessons learned. It was essential to understand the students’ experiences concerning opportunities and challenges related to the use of immersive technologies and their benefits in school in relation to the teacher’s expressed intentions for the activity (i.e., motive and goal) and the station-based designed activity for the students to perform in the classroom (i.e., operationalization). The teacher interview was held on Zoom and lasted for 1 h. The interview touched upon planning and implementation of the activities in the classroom and opportunities and challenges of immersive realities in education.

To construct an understanding and meaning of the empirical material and identify key themes and an emerging pattern, we used thematic analysis (Ely, 1991). This type of analysis process in qualitative research could be described as a process for encoding qualitative information. Hence, thematic analysis can assist researchers in the search for insight. Boyatzis (1998) described this process as including two perspectives concerning both “seeing” and “seeing as”. Creswell (2013) explained the process of “seeing as” in the process of analysing qualitative data as searching for repetitive patterns of significance (i.e., meaning). Hence, the analysis process of both “seeing” and “seeing as” for constructing meaning includes several readings of the empirical material in an iterative process to identify emerging patterns and then construct themes. The iterative analysis process included various steps: (a) reduction of data (coding), (b) categorizing the data (categorization), (c) constructing and presenting the data (thematization), and (d) summarising the data (conclusions and verification). According to Ely (1991), a theme can be described as a definition of utterances or expressions that all informants express in response to a question or a single statement of an opinion that has a great emotional significance. In this study, the data from the student survey and the teacher interview were first coded into categories within the focus areas for the survey and the interview, and then the themes were constructed within each category. The data include what the students expressed as their experiences of opportunities and challenges in using immersive technologies in the classroom and how the teaching was organized and implemented (i.e., actions and operationalization) and the teacher’s description of what she wanted to achieve with the designed activity (i.e., motives and goals).

The themes constructed from the empirical material, as presented in the next section of findings, were thus derived from and formed during several iterative steps in the analysis process. In Section 6 below, the quotations should not be regarded as evidence but as illustrations of the constructed themes in the analysis process. All quotations are translations to English from the original surveys in Swedish.

The findings are presented in four themes. The first theme concerns the students’ experiences related to the use of the immersive technologies in the activities. The second theme illustrates their thoughts about learning supported by immersive technologies. The third theme regards their reflections on immersive technologies as means to boost collaboration in learning. The fourth theme concerns the role of immersive technologies as support for developing students’ spatial ability and understanding of abstract content in chemistry.

Comments from the students referring to learning and education using immersive technologies can be clustered in six subthemes: (a) 3D visualizations as a valuable assistant for learning, (b) learning by playing, (c) motivation, (d) an embodied experience, (e) distance education, and (f) the use of immersive technologies as counterproductive for learning.

The interpretation of the results suggests that the technologies used were suitable for promoting collaborative work. Almost all students expressed having participated in good collaboration within their groups. The quotations below illustrate the most generalized emotions regarding collaboration:

Apparently, not all groups worked equally well. Some of the students said that participation in their group was unbalanced, which could be interpreted as a negative experience of teamwork, and some students expressed the concern that it could prevent some of the students from learning. The quotations below address differences in group participation that were perceived as bad for those students with less knowledge regarding the content or the use of the technologies.

The students described visualizations as supportive in understanding organic chemistry for different reasons. For example, the content was recognized as real, and it provided different perspectives and more accurate visualization of the molecules. Examples of answers are as follow:

The experiences students expressed about immersive technologies as an aide to spatially understanding the molecules were also forwarded. This mainly concerned contrasting the VR and AR technology with the ball-and-stick models they had been using in the chemistry class. Some students reflected on both systems and their capacities to support understanding of stereochemistry. In the following quotations, it is possible to read how some students did not see any added value when using immersive technologies:

Among students who considered that VR and AR did not help them more than the book or even a simple piece of paper without referring to the ball-and-stick models, one student said, “I thought it was cool, but it didn’t help much. You have already seen what the molecules look like, for example, in the book or in a film”. Some students stated that they could see these technologies as an efficient means of content revision and mentioned a need for previous knowledge to take advantage of technology use. One student expressed it as follows:

“You understand better how the bindings are and stuff like that, but it didn’t help much more than what I already knew. Actually, it hasn’t helped very much, because I already knew to some extent how the molecules looked in 3D with the help of other school materials. If anything, it helped to remember or rehearse things that we have gone through”.

In this last part of the Section 6, we present the interview of the participating teacher in two themes: (a) planning and implementation of the activities in the classroom and (b) opportunities and challenges of using immersive technologies in teaching.