1. “TPACKInstructionalDesignModelinVirtual
RealityforDeeperLearninginScienceand
HigherEducation:FromApathytoEmpathy”
M. Fragkaki, S. Mystakidis, I. Hatzilygeroudis, K. Kovas,
Z. Palkova, Z. Salah, G. Hamed, W. M. Khalilia, A. Ewais

2. Higher
Education
Institutions
1. CEID Department, University of Patras (GREECE)
2. Slovak University of Agriculture in Nitra (SLOVAKIA)
3. Polytechnica University of Bucharest (ROMANIA)
4. Palestine PolytechnicUniversity (PALESTINIAN
TERRITORY)
5. Al-Quds Open University (PALESTINIANTERRITORY)
6. Al-Istiqlal University (PALESTINIANTERRITORY)
7. Arab American University (PALESTINIANTERRITORY)

3. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
 This work has received financial support from the
Erasmus+ KA2 project “Virtual Reality as an Innovative
and ImmersiveTool for HEIs in Palestine (TESLA)”.

4. Introduction
 Science education in Higher Education is crucial for the social,
scientific and economic progress of both advanced and developing
countries. (Gray, 1999)
Specifically:
 Notable records of persisting skills’ shortage in Science,
Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) fields. (Caprile
et all, 2015)
 In Higher Education, policies depend on the quality of teaching
and learning practices as curricula are live experiences. (Alvunger
et all, 2017);
 Passive teacher-centred approaches relying on knowledge
transmission often diminish motivation and interest in science up
to the point of ‘apathy’. (Vedder-Weiss & Fortus, 2011);
 Low levels of affective involvement have in turn a detrimental
effect on students’ self-efficacy to identify themselves with STEM
professions. (Papastergiou, 2009

5. Conceptual
and
Theoretical
Framework
Deeper learning is associated with increased retention, intrinsic
motivation, the durability of knowledge and a solid understanding
of the underlying principles of studied concepts.
Six competencies:
1. Mastery of core academic content;
2. Critical thinking and complex problem solving skills;
3. Collaboration;
4. Effective communication;
5. Life-long learning;
6. Academic mindset development.

6. Deeper learning
student-centred
teachingand
learning
strategies
Conceptual and
Theoretical Framework

7. Desktop
Virtual Reality
DesktopVirtual Reality (VR) features pervasive, computer-
generated 3D virtual immersive environments.
Specifically:
 Users interact through digital agents or avatars.
 Virtual worlds offer a series of affordances for learning including
enhanced spatial knowledge representation through
contextualized, experiential learning (Dalgarno & Lee, 2010)
 Learning experiences in virtual spaces support empathy creation
and embodied cognition (Berson et all, 2018)
 Leads to episodic, autobiographical memory of events within
specific spatiotemporal context rather than semantic, abstract
memory. (Sauzeon et al, 2012)

8. TPACK Model
The TPACK Model features a complex interplay of three primary
forms of knowledge: (Misra & Koehler, 2006)
1. Content Knowledge (CK),
2. Pedagogy Knowledge (PK), and
3. Technology Knowledge (TK)
 Knowledge about the subject matter (CK), and knowledge about
specific ways of thinking and acting withVR tools and resources
(TK) need to be coupled with the pedagogical understanding why
learners learn, what they learn and how they can use it (PK).

9. TPACK Model

10. Methodology
Research question:
 Does the instructional design of learning scenarios in
Virtual Reality support deeper learning in Higher
Education?
More specific, we explore if the instructional design of three learning
scenarios following theTPACK model support deeper learning.
Qualitative research approach using content analysis
of all design documents and transcripts of
communications as a basis of inference and explanation.
 Examining the afore-mentioned ten criteria for deeper
learning, we code and categorize systematically data.

11. Learning
Scenarios
Scenario 1:
Topography of Jericho
and Dead Sea
Scenario 2: Crime
scene investigation &
DNATechnology
Scenario 3: Carry my
stuff!

12. Learning
Scenarios
Scenario 2: Crime scene
investigation & DNA
Technology

13. Discussion
Academic teachers were able to enrich their teaching paradigm by
integrating learning activities in virtual reality that evoke students’
interest, engagement, motivation and autonomy towards deeper
learning.
Specifically:
 Case-based learning,
 Multiple, varied representations,
 Self-directed, life-wide, open-ended learning and (6) Learning for
transfer.
Students are immersed in virtual indoor and outdoor environments
of varying scale of visualization to formulate hypotheses,
experiment, discuss, reflect and learn by doing.

14. Discussion
Absent Strategies
 Interdisciplinary studies.These scenarios are
developed within the constraints of specific academic
courses.
 Diagnostic assessments. It wasn’t foreseen however it
can be part of the holistic course design.
Notable Element
 The scenarios were of increasing level of design and
development complexity.

15. Implications
for Practice
 Aim deep early, keep your eyes high: they were
prompted in all stages of the immersive instructional
design process to reflect on the impact of their course
design decisions and avoid reverting to practices that
aren’t linked with the intended learning outcomes.
 Break the conventional student – teacher stereotypes:
AcademicTeachers can be active contributors to more
aspects of course design, development and
implementation towards a harmonic creation of
sustainable virtual Community of Practice.
 Unleash student creativity and initiative: Educators
are advised to facilitate spaces, time, methods, and
even intrinsic incentives for informal peer interactions
even outside the strict course boundaries.

16. Conclusion
 TheTPACK Instructional Design Model inVirtual Reality
can be well aligned with deeper learning principles.
 Passive, teacher-centred approaches in science
education often cause a sentiment of “apathy” to
students.
 Active simulated and collaborative student-centred
approaches for deeper learning inVR environments can
evoke feelings of “empathy” towards scientific roles
and practices through simulated experiences, thus
enhancing learning quality and STEM career prospects.

17. References
 V Gray, “Guest Editorial: Science education in the developing world: Issues and
considerations,” J. Res. Sci.Teach., vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 261–268, Mar. 1999.
 M. Caprile, R. Palmén, P. Sanz, andG. Dente, “Encouraging STEM Studies. labour market
situation and comparison of practices targeted at young peolple in different member states,”
2015.
 D.Alvunger, D. Sundberg, and N.Wahlström, “Teachers matter – but how?,” J. Curric. Stud., vol.
49, no. 1, pp. 1–6, Jan. 2017.
 D.Vedder-Weiss and D. Fortus, “Adolescents’ Declining Motivation to Learn Science: Inevitable
or Not?,” J. Res. Sci.Teach., vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 199–216, Feb. 2011.
 M. Papastergiou, “DigitalGame-Based Learning in high school Computer Science education:
Impact on educational effectiveness and student motivation,” Comput. Educ., vol. 52, no. 1, pp.
1–12, Jan. 2009. B. Dalgarno and M. J.W. Lee, “What are the learning affordances of 3-D virtual
environments?,” Br.J. Educ.Technol., vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 10–32, Jan. 2010.
 I. R. Berson, M. J. Berson, A. M. Carnes, and C. R.Wiedeman, “Excursion into Empathy:
Exploring Prejudice withVirtual Reality,” Soc. Educ., vol. 82, no. 2, pp. 96–100, 2018.
 D. Parmar, “Evaluating the Effects of Immersive Embodied
 H. Sauzéon et al., “The Use ofVirtual Reality for Episodic Memory Assessment,” Exp. Psychol.,
vol. 59, no. 2, pp. 99–108, Nov. 2012.
 P. Mishra and M. J. Koehler, “Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for
teacher knowledge,” Teachers College Record, vol. 108, no. 6.Teachers College, Columbia
University, pp. 1017–1054, 2006.