Development and Integration of Immersive 360-Videos in ... · The developed 360-videos follow an...
Transcript of Development and Integration of Immersive 360-Videos in ... · The developed 360-videos follow an...
Paper ID #31992
Development and Integration of Immersive 360-Videos in Surveying Engi-neering Education
Dr. Dimitrios Bolkas, Pennsylvania State University, Lehman
Dimitrios Bolkas, Ph.D., is currently an Assistant Professor of Surveying Engineering at the PennsylvaniaState University, Wilkes-Barre Campus. He has a diverse geodetic and geoscientific experience that in-cludes terrestrial, mobile, and airborne laser scanning, digital elevation models, unmanned aerial systems,GNSS networks, geoid and gravity-field modeling. His main research interest is on building methods toincrease, understand, and assess quality/uncertainty in 3D geospatial datasets. His research develops newmethods and techniques to enhance functionality of 3D geospatial data and models. In addition, recentresearch interests include utilizing 3D data for creating realistic environments in immersive virtual reality,as well as the application of virtual reality in engineering education.
Mr. Jeffrey Daniel Chiampi II, The Pennsylvania State University
Mr. Chiampi is a Lecturer of Computer Science and Mathematics at The Pennsylvania State UniversityWilkes-Barre campus. He holds master degrees in Business Administration and Software Engineering.He regularly teaches courses in computer science, game development, and information sciences and tech-nology. Before coming to Penn State Mr. Chiampi worked in the information technology industry forover 10 years. His primary research interest is the application of Virtual Reality (VR) on engineeringeducation. He recently received funding to create a VR lab to investigate the extent VR can be used toaugment surveying education.
Mr. Jason Robert Kepner, The Pennsylvania State UniversityLuke Jacob KepnerMr. David Neilson
c©American Society for Engineering Education, 2020
Development and Integration of Immersive 360-Videos in Surveying
Engineering Education
Abstract
This paper discusses the development and integration of immersive 360-videos in surveying
engineering education. Education of surveying students requires an extensive number of
laboratories (indoor and outdoor). Outdoor laboratories are used to develop skills with surveying
instruments, teach field techniques, and reinforce concepts taught in lectures. Instructors use a
considerable portion of the allotted time to provide an overview of the lab, which reduces the
time students can spend in the field conducting the lab. Due to the spatial nature of the tasks, it is
often difficult for students to visualize the steps to complete the labs. As a result, students are
often underprepared for the activities. In outdoor labs students move from one location to
another to collect data related to each task. During the lab students frequently have questions, but
it is difficult for the instructor to assist all groups in a timely manner as groups work at different
locations of the campus. In some situations, students hesitate to ask questions, which leads to
mistakes and frustration. This creates unique instructional challenges and an unpleasant
experience for the students. To address these challenges, we created a multi-disciplinary team
consisting of students and faculty from surveying engineering, communications and computer
science, to create instructional and immersive 360-videos. These videos replicate the outdoor lab,
and they are used to prepare students for the real-world lab. The videos are also available during
the lab (through the course management system) for students to reference. This assists the
instructor by addressing common questions. The videos offer the students a perspective which
facilitates the difficult visualization these labs require. The videos allow for student immersion
and give the perspective of students being outside conducting the lab, allowing them to better
comprehend lab procedures. The developed 360-videos follow an experiential learning
pedagogical approach, where students learn through experiencing the labs. Assessment of 360-
video effectiveness was measured through anonymous student surveys and results are provided.
Student survey results indicate that 360-videos help them (i) understand surveying methods and
techniques, (ii) understand how to operate surveying equipment, and (iii) prepare for the real lab.
Background
Education of engineering students often includes laboratories that simulate and train students in
realistic scenarios. Experiences and skills developed in these laboratories become important for
their academic and professional success. Traditional laboratory instruction includes handouts,
oral instruction, students shadowing instructors, and students mimicking tasks completed by the
instructor. This workflow can be efficient in indoor laboratories where both instructor and
students can access computers, instruments, and equipment simultaneously in dedicated working
stations. In addition, any questions that arise can be answered promptly by simply walking to
students’ workstations. For instance, imagine the simple case of a computer lab where the
instructor’s computer screen is projected to the classroom allowing students to follow the steps
completed by the instructor. Laboratory instruction becomes more complicated and more
challenging when the labs are conducted in an outdoor setting. Students often have to work in
groups, often in different locations. This introduces the following important challenges: (i)
students need to understand the tasks they have to complete before going outside and (ii) student
questions cannot be answered promptly because of the distance between groups. Both challenges
lead to students making mistakes, having to complete steps or entire labs again, and experiencing
delays in lab completion. This leads to student frustration and an overall negative lab experience.
The advent of head mounted displays (HMD) signaled a widespread dissemination of immersive
technologies such as augmented reality, virtual reality, 360-images and 360-videos [1]-[7].
Virtual and immersive technologies are often incorporated in education to address challenges
related to physical inaccessibility, cost, liability, etc., that introduce important constraints [1].
Compared to desktop-based implementations, immersive experiences have an advantage when
the content to be learned is complex, 3D, and dynamic [8]-[10]. Augmented and virtual reality
have the ability to create immersive, interactive, realistic implementation; however, they require
the development of virtual environments, 3D models, and software which can be time-
consuming and costly e.g., [4], [11], [12]. On the other hand, 360-videos are easier and cheaper
to produce, although, their instructional approach is more passive than augmented and virtual
reality implementations. Note though that 360-videos offer a more active learning approach than
traditional video because they do not limit the viewer to the direction’s point-of-view [7]. Thus,
360-videos are preferred when the learning objectives do not depend on the user interaction with
the environment. For instance, 360-videos have found application in organic chemistry
laboratories [13], nursing for trauma treatment education [14], foreign language learning [15],
and teaching climbing [16]. In engineering some examples of 360-video implementations are
safety training before entering engineering sites [17], field trip recordings for future use in civil
engineering education [18], entrepreneurial related 360-videos for management and production
engineering [7], and alternative approaches of conducting field laboratories for traffic
engineering courses [19]. Other than the implementation of Jones et al. [19] the authors of this
paper did not find an example of using 360-videos to prepare engineering students for field
laboratories.
In general, virtual reality implementations are built upon the following pedagogical foundations
[20], [21]: (i) direct instruction, (ii) experiential learning, (iii) discovery learning, (iv) situated
cognition, and (v) constructivism. Of the above pedagogical foundations, experiential learning is
often encountered in the literature because it is a potential element in most of them, as virtual
reality opens the door to experiences that are not possible in the physical world [21]. This is the
case for 360-videos which aim to engage students in real-life situations and promote learning
through observation and experience.
Challenges in surveying engineering
Many courses in surveying engineering contain an outdoor lab component, which train students
to use surveying instruments and techniques to complete field tasks of surveying data collection.
Surveying laboratories use complicated instruments such as total stations, automatic levels, and
Global Navigation Satellite Systems, with students working in groups of two or three and
moving from one location to another. Time allotted for field work in surveying engineering labs
is usually three hours. Typical lab procedures include the instructor providing an overview of the
lab (instruments, techniques, and procedures), followed by the practical application from
students. For some students it is difficult to spatially visualize the tasks they have to complete.
This is related to their spatial abilities [22], which deteriorate when the students have to visualize
unfamiliar objects [22]. Reduced prior comprehension leads to questions in the field, which
creates difficult management situations as the instructor must walk to different locations (based
on the location of the group). This produces delays when multiple groups have questions at the
same time. In addition, consider that some students hesitate to ask questions while others will
make an assumption without consulting the instructor first. These can lead to mistakes that often
will necessitate the repetition of some tasks or even worse starting the lab from the beginning.
These challenges can create unpleasant lab experiences for students and hinder their academic
success and continuation in surveying programs.
Objectives
To address the above challenges in surveying engineering education, we developed immersive
training 360-videos through multi-disciplinary collaboration of students and faculty from
engineering, communications, and computer science. The 360-videos are used in surveying
courses to demonstrate the use of instruments and replicate laboratory procedures, thus,
preparing students for the physical implementation. Surveying students were not initially familiar
with receiving instructions from videos, let alone from 360-videos, and they had to develop basic
skills in virtual reality and 360-videos.
Creating a multi-disciplinary team
Development of immersive 360-videos requires a diverse set of skills. This project therefore
required the formation of a multidisciplinary team. Students from surveying engineering, civil
engineering, and communications collaborated on the project with faculty from surveying
engineering, civil engineering, and computer science. Because the identified introductory labs
are also often conducted in civil engineering majors, faculty from surveying engineering
connected with faculty from civil engineering. Collaboration was achieved through a university
funded summer research experience for undergraduates. A total of six undergraduate students
were involved in different stages of this project: two communications students, two surveying
students, and two civil engineering students. In addition, the team consisted of one faculty
member each from surveying engineering, computer science, and civil engineering. The civil
engineering department is in a different campus about 2-hours away, which necessitated frequent
trips of the communications students and surveying faculty. The trips were facilitated through the
aforementioned university funded research program for undergraduates, which allowed filming
of videos in both locations.
Figure 1 shows the main steps followed in this study for the development of the 360-videos and
the contribution from each discipline. The surveying faculty and students were involved in all
stages of the project, such as planning and executing the lab tasks and in general providing input
to ensure that correct educational information is conveyed. Communications students provided
useful input in video planning and filming such as keeping video length short, positioning of
camera and surveying instruments, and planning for lighting conditions. In addition, they
oversaw video editing with contributions from the surveying students and faculty. The civil
engineering faculty and students helped with filming and narration; in addition, they filmed
additional videos tailored for their implementation. The computer science faculty assisted in the
implementation, ensuring compatibility of the videos with Oculus Rift and being present during
the implementation in courses to provide technical assistance with the virtual reality hardware
and software. Collaboration with communications students presented a challenge because they
had no knowledge of surveying instruments and methods. This required spending extra time with
them explaining the labs before filming could take place. A significant amount of time was spent
discussing the 360-video scenes, image overlays, and equipment close up shots. To address this
challenge the surveying faculty and surveying students taught the two communications students
how to operate surveying instruments and many of the surveying procedures. The exercise itself
was beneficial as having learned how to conduct the labs the communications students were
better positioned to create and edit the instructional videos themselves. It should be noted that the
two communications students even participated in several of the filmed videos as actors who
demonstrated the proper use of the surveying instruments.
Figure 1: Flowchart of main workflow and assigned tasks by major for the development of the
360-videos.
Video production methodology
For filming we used a Garmin VIRB 360-degree camera to record RAW format footage out of
two 180-degree view lenses, each facing the opposite direction. Filming was done in RAW
because it allowed the camera to capture footage at 5.7k or 5,760 pixels x 2,880 pixels. The 5.7k
resolution provides 30 frames per second (fps), which provided a good video quality overall. The
RAW format means that the camera output is an unprocessed image. Clips captured in RAW had
to be stitched manually using Adobe After Effects. The recordings were placed side by side and
then converted to a fish-eye (full dome) that covered the full screen, opposed to circular clips
with black space creating a square (Figure 2). The two clips were then stretched onto each other
until the objects in the background (such as the trees and buildings) lined up with one another
(Figure 3). After getting the two clips to match each other, stitching lines were removed by
creating a mask. Some color correction was used to make sure that the light on both lenses was
the same. Since the sun was typically on one side, it would expose more light to one lens than the
other, creating a visible box. Finally, the tripod holding the 360-camera had to be removed using
a clone stamp tool (Figure 3). The clone stamp allows you to take part of an image from one spot
and duplicate it in another. The grass image was used to cover up the tripod. Once the tripod was
removed, the videos were ready for the editing phase.
Figure 2: Raw camera views (a) rear view and (b) front view.
The videos were edited using Adobe Premiere Pro CC and CSS. To start the editing process, the
videos were first trimmed down to length. We used close-up clips or pictures to illustrate certain
important focus areas during each video. A Nikon D3300 was used to film such close-up clips
showing in detail important steps (e.g., manipulation of instrument, step by step instrument
software options). Explanatory text was added to help students identify location of monuments
on the ground (used in surveying for many tasks), main instrument parts, measurements,
equations, and points of focus. Sample data were shown as they should be recorded in the
student’s fieldbook with sample computations. Arrows and other shapes were added to point out
talking points and to indicate measurements. Each video has its own voiceover explaining main
instrument parts, the purpose of the lab, step by step instructions and lab outcomes (e.g.,
accuracy of survey). Transitions were added along with music to make the videos appealing.
Figure 3: Software view of the blended and covered stitch with the visible separation.
Multimedia learning theory suggests that [23]: (a) humans possess separate channels for
processing visual and verbal material, (b) each channel can process a small amount of material at
any one time, and (c) that deep learning depends on the learner’s cognitive processing during
learning. Based on the above model, working memory of humans create a verbal model (based
on sounds, spoken words, and converting printed text to spoken text) and a pictorial model
(based on images, printed words, and spoken words converted to images) [24]. The learner
integrates these models with prior knowledge to achieve long-term memory. One of the main
instructional challenges is how to engage learners in appropriate cognitive processing while not
overloading the processing capacity of the verbal and pictorial channels [24]. Mayer et al. [24]
and Mayer and Jackson [25] provide the following key elements: (a) reducing extraneous
processing (cognitive processing that does not support the instructional goal to avoid confusing
students), (b) managing essential processing (related to cognitive processing to mentally
represent the essential material), and (c) fostering generative processing (making sense of
essential material, including organizing and integrating with prior knowledge). Mayer and
Fiorella [26] suggested 12 principles related to the above three key elements. These were
analyzed in [7]; the authors discussed each principle and how these are related and can be
applied in 360-video design and production. These were followed in this study and are
summarized in Table 1.
Figures 4 and 5 show examples of the 360-videos that were developed in this study. The figures
show that only participating students and faculty are visible following the principle of
“Decreasing irrelevant material” to avoid distraction of students. Figure 4 shows an example of
how we use images and text to identify key elements and help the student understand what is
important. Related principles are “Focus on necessary material” and “Display printed words with
the related graphics.” Figure 5 shows an example of embedded video in the 360-videos, which
guides the students on the use of instrument software for data collection. To help students
understand the sequence of measurements and how these will be used in following steps of the
lab, we sequentially populate an excel spreadsheet with the corresponding measurements.
Table 1: Twelve principles for 360-video production from [7] and [26], and how these were used
in our study. Element Principle How it is used in this study
Reducing
extraneous
processing
Decrease irrelevant material 360-videos filmed in campus fields with
only two students
Focus on necessary material Animations help students focus on what
matters
Do not include on-screen text at animation On-screen text was avoided except when
necessary
Display printed words with the related
graphics
Words added near objects to identify such
objects
Show related narration and animation
simultaneously
Animation and narration were
synchronized
Managing
essential
processing
Do not show animation in a continuous unit
but in self-paced segments
Larger tasks are broken down in multiple
videos. Students can pause, fast forward,
and rewind.
Show the name and characteristics of key
concepts previously
Students pre-trained from lectures and
videos
Present new information to the person by
audio narration rather than on-screen text
Narration is used in addition to necessary
on-screen text
Fostering
generative
processing
Use conversational style rather than formal
style
Narrator speaks directly to students
Put words in human voice rather than
machine voice
Used human voice
Have on screen agents who present
humanlike gesturing, movement, eye
contact, and facial expressions
Only students and faculty participate in
filming
Do not necessarily put speaker’s image on
the screen
Narrator does not appear on screen
Figure 4: Example use of images and text identifying key objects in the 360-videos.
Figure 5: Example of embedded video showing use of instrument software to record
measurements and sequence of measurements in an excel spreadsheet.
360-video implementation and assessment
The 360-videos were implemented in surveying engineering courses. In the future we expect that
civil engineering students will use most of these videos in similar surveying courses. In total,
eight 360-videos were developed that were used in five labs. The videos demonstrate how to
handle instruments and use the software on the instruments to complete the labs and prepare
them for real-world labs. The videos gave the impression that students were outside, thus they
could understand where and how they had to use instruments. The five labs were (1) introduction
to differential leveling, (2) differential leveling circuit, (3) introduction to total stations, (4) total
station measurements, and (5) traversing with a total station. Lab (1) had four videos and all
other labs had one video each. Lab (1) had more videos because it introduced students to basic
instruments, equipment, and concepts that were going to be used in subsequent labs as well. One
or two days prior to the physical lab students had to watch the corresponding 360-videos.
Students watched the videos using head-mounted displays in a dedicated virtual reality lab,
which currently has six high performance working stations with virtual reality hardware and
software. The labs were also available online during the lab through the course management
system, although students would have to use their cellphone devices to watch them.
After each lab, students completed a survey to provide pedagogical and technical feedback. The
survey included questions in the following categories: (a) experience with surveying methods
and virtual reality, (b) 360-video technical feedback, (c) pedagogical related feedback, (d) side
effects and symptoms. Seven out of the nine student enrolled in the course decided to participate
in the study. In terms of student experience levels, one student had prior-experience both with
surveying labs and virtual reality. Another student had experience in surveying through
employment. The other five students had no prior surveying experience with any of the labs
discussed here.
In terms of symptoms, only one student reported feeling a little nauseous in the first two labs
while watching the 360-videos. In the remaining labs no student reported any symptoms. Table 2
presents some results related to the technical feedback of the 360-videos. Original responses of
the first three questions were strongly disagree, somewhat disagree, neither agree or disagree,
somewhat agree, and strongly agree. The fourth question (video length) had the possible
responses of too short, somewhat short, neither long or short, somewhat long, and too long.
These were converted to scores from one to five, respectively, for ease of presentation, and
average scores are shown in Table 2. Students rated each video with average scores ranging from
4.5 to 4.9; this feedback confirmed that the videos were efficient in providing the necessary
information. Students also indicated that they found the inserts (close-up videos, pictures, Excel
examples) and voice-overs helpful with scores ranging from 4.2 to 4.6.
Table 2: Technical feedback of 360-videos. Sample is based on seven students who were
enrolled in SUR 111.
Lab 360-Video (length in
minutes)
How would
you rate
each video?
(Best is 5.0)
I found the
inserts
helpful.
(Best is 5.0)
I found the
voice-overs
helpful.
(Best is 5.0)
How would you
rank the length
of each video?
(Best is 3.0)
Lab 1 Introduction to setting up a
level (3:24 min)
4.6 4.6 4.6 3.1
How to use a level (2:35
min)
4.6 2.9
Using an automatic level
(10:33 min)
4.5 3.7
Differential leveling loop
(8:33 min)
4.6 3.0
Lab 2 Leveling Circuit (7:20 min) 4.6 4.4 4.2 2.9
Lab 3 Setting up a total station
(4:22 min)
4.6 4.4 4.4 3.1
Lab 4 Total station measurements
(9:32 min)
4.6 4.6 4.6 3.0
Lab 5 Traversing with a total
station (19:21 min)
4.9 4.6 4.6 3.5
Final
Survey
Overall 4.6 4.6 4.6 -
In terms of length, feedback shows that in most cases the length of the video was suitable based
on the described lab / task, as scores are close to 3.0. Note that the best score of the length
question is 3.0 with 1.0 meaning a too short video and 5.0 a too long video. Two videos had
higher scores indicating the videos were too long. Specifically, the “traversing with a total
station” video had a length of 19:21 minutes and received a score of 3.5. The project team made
efforts to reduce the length of the video by playing some parts of the video in double speed;
however, traversing is a lengthy process. In addition, total station instruments are operated
through a handheld controller with software. This required many inserts in order to show step by
step procedures. The other length video named “using an automatic level” was a longer and more
elaborate version of videos “introduction to setting up a level” and “how to use a level.” Student
feedback indicated that both the longer version and shorter versions are helpful in different
circumstances. The longer version is helpful for students with no-prior experience to understand
the leveling procedure. Once students get a basic idea of the leveling procedure, they would like
to use the shorter version videos in the field to answer questions or remind them about the
leveling procedure. In terms of the ease of interaction of students with virtual reality scores
ranged from 4.3 to 4.6, thus indicating that students were able to use the Oculus Rift with no
significant problems.
Pedagogical feedback showed that 360-videos helped students complete the laboratories, as
scores were consistently between 4.4 to 4.7 out of 5.0, in the questions asked in Table 3, for all
five lab implementations and for the final survey. Note that in Table 3 original responses were
strongly disagree, somewhat disagree, neither agree or disagree, somewhat agree, and strongly
agree. These were converted to scores from one to five, respectively, for ease of presentation,
and the average scores are provided. The developed immersive videos assisted students with
understanding surveying methods and techniques regarding the operation of surveying
instruments and with preparing them for the real-world labs in general. Feedback from the course
instructor further suggests that this year students were prepared better for the physical labs than
previous years. Despite the low number of students, which facilitates answering questions
promptly, about one to three students watched the virtual labs during the real-world lab through
the course management system. This highlights the contribution of developed immersive videos
both as an instructional tool to prepare students for physical labs and as a valuable resource
during the labs that students can use to answer questions.
Table 3: Student feedback of 360-video implementations. Sample is based on seven students who
were enrolled in SUR 111.
Immersive videos helped
me understand surveying
methods / techniques.
(Best is 5.0)
Immersive videos helped
me understand how to
operate surveying
instruments.
(Best is 5.0)
Immersive videos
can helped me
prepare for the real
labs.
(Best is 5.0)
Lab 1 (intro to
differential leveling)
4.7 4.7 4.6
Lab 2 (differential
leveling circuit)
4.4 4.6 4.6
Lab 3 (intro to total
station)
4.4 4.4 4.4
Lab 4 (total station
measurements)
4.4 4.4 4.6
Lab 5 (traversing) 4.7 4.4 4.4
Final Course Survey 4.4 4.6 4.4
Comparison of average scores for each assignment with previous years shows an improvement in
most of the five labs, with Lab 2 being the only exception (Figure 6). The same instructor has
taught the course in all years except for 2018. Efforts were made to apply a consistent grading
scheme (e.g., similar point deductions, late penalties, etc.). Several students in years 2016 to
2018, because of the challenges discussed in the introduction, failed to complete the lab
assignments in the allotted time and achieve required misclosures as per the assignment
instructions. Thus, students either had to repeat data collection to satisfy such misclosures (which
sometimes led to late submission penalties) or submit an incomplete assignment. With the
implementation of the 360-videos, these challenges were considerably reduced which led to
increased average grades (as shown in Figure 6). Furthermore, of note are the error bars shown in
Figure 6 for the various years, which are considerably larger in the years 2016 to 2018 than year
2019 were we implemented the 360-videos. This further highlights the importance of multimedia
and 360-video instruction in surveying engineering.
Figure 6: Average grade (in percentages) comparison of the labs with 360-videos (2019) with
previous years. In the legend we show the number of students in each year. Note that the
standard deviations are also shown.
Conclusions
This paper developed immersive 360-videos to enhance outdoor laboratory instruction. 360-
videos can provide more spatial information to students about their outdoor activities and,
therefore, they were preferred in this study over traditional videos. The key elements and
principles of multimedia learning theory were discussed, as well as how these principles were
utilized in this paper to develop efficient and high-quality instructional videos. In total, eight
videos were created that were implemented and tested in five outdoor laboratories in surveying
engineering education. Student feedback indicates that 360-videos assisted in their understanding
of surveying methods, operation of surveying instruments, and preparation for the physical lab.
In addition, the videos added to their engagement and reduced frustration. Due to the
instructional challenges in previous years, students could not complete labs in the allotted time,
which sometimes led to grade deduction because of late submissions. With the implementation
of the 360-videos, average lab scores were considerably higher than previous years. Technical
feedback highlighted the high quality of the developed videos, as well as the usefulness of
narration and inserts (close-up videos, images, text) that were used to provide focused detail.
This study can be applicable to similar engineering disciplines that have outdoor laboratories and
use complicated instrumentation, techniques, and procedures. Future steps include the
continuous development and assessment of 360-videos in surveying engineering courses, and the
application of such videos in civil engineering courses that have a surveying component.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Ms. Carla Seward for providing the Garmin VIRB 360-degree camera
and for supporting this project. We would also like to thank Mr. Brian Naberezny and his
students for the assistance in filming the “using an automatic level” video and for narrating in
some videos.
References
[1] L. Freina and M. Ott, “A Literature Review on Immersive Virtual Reality in Education:
State Of The Art and Perspectives,” eLearn. Soft. Educ., vol. 1, no. 133, pp. 10-1007,
2015.
[2] W. Li, A. Y. C. Nee, S. K. Ong, “A state-of-the-art review of augmented reality in
engineering analysis and simulation,” Multimodal Techn. Interact., vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 17,
2017.
[3] P. Wang, et al., "A critical review of the use of virtual reality in construction engineering
education and training," Int. J. Environ. Res. Pu., vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 1204, 2018.
[4] D. Bolkas and J. Chiampi, “Enhancing experience and learning of first-year surveying
engineering students with immersive virtual reality,” in Proc. 2019 ASEE FYEE, State
College, PA, July 28-30, 2019.
[5] A. Klippel, J. Zhao, D. Oprean, J. O. Wallgrün, and J. S. K. Chang, “Research framework
for immersive virtual field trips,” in Proc. 2019 IEEE Conf. Virtual Real. 3D User
Interfaces (VR), Osaka, Japan, March 23-27, 2019, pp. 1612-1617.
[6] C. Snelson, and Y. C. Hsu, “Educational 360-Degree Videos in Virtual Reality: a
Scoping Review of the Emerging Research,” TechTrends, pp. 1-9, 2019.
[7] M. G. Violante, E. Vezzetti, and P. Piazzolla, “Interactive virtual technologies in
engineering education: Why not 360° videos?,” Int. J. on Inter. Des. Manuf., vol. 13, no.
2, pp. 729-742, 2019.
[8] W. Winn, M. Windschitl, R. Fruland, Y. Lee, “When does immersion in a virtual
environment help students construct understanding,” in Proc. 5th Int. Conf. Learn. Sci.,
ICLS, Seattle, Washington, October 23-26, 2002, No. 206, pp. 497-503.
[9] T. A. Mikropoulos, “Presence: a unique characteristic in educational virtual
environments,” Virtual Real., vol. 10, no. 3-4, pp. 197-206, 2006.
[10] N. Adamo-Villani and R. B. Wilbur, “Effects of platform (immersive versus non-
immersive) on usability and enjoyment of a virtual learning environment for deaf and
hearing children,” in Proc. 14th Eurographics Symp. on Virtual Env., EGVE 2008,
Eindhoven, Netherlands, May 29-30, 2008, pp. 8-19.
[11] S. Côté, P. Trudel, M. Desbiens, M. Giguère, R. Snyder, “Live mobile panoramic high
accuracy augmented reality for engineering and construction,” in Proc. 13th Constr. App.
Virtual Real. (CONVR), London, England, October 30-31, 2013, pp. 1-10.
[12] D. Bolkas, J. Chiampi, J. Chapman, and V. F. Pavill, "Creating a virtual reality
environment with a fusion of sUAS and TLS point-clouds," Int. J. Img. Data Fusion, pp.
1-26, 2020.
[13] A. Ardisara and F. M. Fung, “Integrating 360° Videos in an Undergraduate Chemistry
Laboratory Course,” J. Chem. Educ., vol. 95, pp. 1881−1884, 2018.
[14] R. C. Herault, A. Lincke, M. Milrad, E. S. Forsgärde and C. Elmqvist, “Using 360-
degrees interactive videos in patient trauma treatment education: design, development
and evaluation aspects,” Smart Learn. Env., vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 26, 2018.
[15] A. Berns, J. M. Mota, I. Ruiz-Rube and J. M. Dodero, “Exploring the potential of a 360°
video application for foreign language learning,” in Proc. 6th Intern. Conf. Techn.
Ecosyst. Enhancing Multiculturality, Slamanca, Spain, October 24-26, 2018, pp. 776-
780.
[16] M. Gänsluckner, M. Ebner, and I. Kamrat, “360 Degree Videos within a Climbing
MOOC,” in Proc. Int. Assoc. Develop. Inf. Soc., Vilamoura, Algarve, Portugal, October
18-20, 2017.
[17] H. C. Pham et al., “Virtual field trip for mobile construction safety education using 360-
degree panoramic virtual reality,” Int. J. Eng. Educ, vol 34, pp. 1174-1191, 2018.
[18] F. Wehking, M. Wolf, H. Söbke, and J. Londong, “How to Record 360-degree Videos of
Field Trips for Education in Civil Engineering,” in Proc. of DELFI Workshops 2019,
Berlin, Germany, September 16, 2019, S. Schulz, Eds., Gesellschaft für Informatik eVz,
pp. 177-188.
[19] E. G. Jones, M. Soltaninejad, and C. Ponce de Leon C., “Work in Progress: Moving from
Outside to Inside-Traffic Engineering Field Exercises through Virtual Reality,” in Proc.
of the 126th Annual Conf. Expo., ASEE, Tampa, Florida, June 15-19, 2019.
[20] M. Kebritchi and A. Hirumi, “Examining the pedagogical foundations of modern
educational computer games,” Comp. Educ., vol. 51, no. 4, pp. 1729-1743, 2008.
[21] E. Johnston, G. Olivas, P. Steele, C. Smith, and L. Bailey, “Exploring pedagogical
foundations of existing virtual reality educational applications: A content analysis
study,” J. Educ. Tech. Syst., vol. 46, no. 4, pp. 414-439, 2018.
[22] S. A. Sorby, “ Developing 3-D spatial visualization skills,” Eng. Des. Graph. J., vol. 63,
no. 2, 2009.
[23] R. E. Mayer, “Applying the science of learning: Evidence-based principles for the design
of multimedia instruction,” Am. Psychol., vol. 63, no. 8, pp. 760, 2008.
[24] R. E. Mayer, J. Heiser, S. Lonn, “Cognitive constraints on multimedia learning: When
presenting more material results in less understanding,” J. Educ. Psychol., vol. 93, no. 1,
pp. 187, 2001.
[25] R. E. Mayer and J. Jackson, “The case for coherence in scientific explanations:
Quantitative details can hurt qualitative understanding,” J. Exp. Psychol. – Appl., vol. 11,
no. 1, pp. 13, 2005.
[26] R. E. Mayer and L. Fiorella, “Principles for Reducing Extraneous Processing in
Multimedia Learning: Coherence, Signaling, Redundancy, Spatial Contiguity, and
Temporal Contiguity Principles,” in The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning, R.
E. Mayer, Ed. New York: The Cambridge University Press, 2014, pp. 279-315.