Submitted:
21 June 2024
Posted:
24 June 2024
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Young Students' Misconceptions and Problems Related to Animals
3. 360o Videos in Education
4. Method
- ▪
- RQ1. Does the viewing of 360° videos result in a better understanding of subjects related to animals, compared to printed materials and conventional videos? To what extent do students' gender and previous knowledge influence learning outcomes?
- ▪
- RQ2a-d. Do 360° videos offer a more enjoyable (a), immersive (b), and motivational (c) experience compared to printed materials and conventional videos? Furthermore, do students find them easier to use (d) relative to the aforementioned media? Does students' gender play a role?
- ▪
- RQ3: Do the above factors (enjoyment, immersion, motivation, and ease of use) significantly impact learning outcomes?
4.1. Participants
4.2. Materials and Apparatus
4.3. Instruments
4.4. Procedure
5. Results
5.1. Initial Data Processing
5.2. Analysis of the Evaluation Tests
5.3. Analysis of the Questionnaires
5.4. Factors Impacting the Learning Outcomes
6. Discussion
- ▪
- Regarding learning effectiveness, 360o videos were found to be superior only in comparison to printed materials, with no significant differences observed between printed materials and conventional videos. While students' prior knowledge influenced evaluation test results across all media, the absence of an interaction effect indicates that prior knowledge did not impact the relative learning outcomes among the three media types. Gender did not influence the results in any capacity.
- ▪
- In terms of enjoyment/positive feelings, 360o videos provided a more positive and enjoyable experience only when compared to printed materials. Conventional videos were similarly found to be more enjoyable than printed materials.
- ▪
- ▪ Predictably, the sense of immersion was significantly stronger in 360o videos compared to both other media types, with no differences between printed materials and conventional videos.
- ▪
- Printed materials were identified as the least motivating medium, whereas conventional videos and 360o videos were equally motivating.
- ▪
- However, 360o videos were perceived as the least easy to use among the media evaluated, with no ease-of-use differences between printed materials and conventional videos.
- ▪
- Gender did not influence any of the aforementioned factors.
- ▪
- Importantly, only the immersion experienced in 360o videos had a noticeable impact on learning outcomes. For the other media, none of the examined factors significantly influenced learning outcomes.
6.1. Implications for Research and Practice
6.2. Limitations and Future Work
7. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Allen, M. (2015). Preschool children's taxonomic knowledge of animal species. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(1), 107-134. [CrossRef]
- Almeida, A., García Fernández, B., & Silva, T. (2017). Changing negative perceptions of animals through teaching practice: A research in primary education. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 16(4), 446-458. [CrossRef]
- Barnidge, M., Sherrill, L. A., Kim, B., Cooks, E., Deavours, D., Viehouser, M., Broussard, R., & Zhang, J. (2022). The effects of virtual reality news on learning about climate change. Mass Communication and Society, 25(1), 1-24. [CrossRef]
- Bowd, A. D. (1982). Young children's beliefs about animals. The Journal of Psychology, 110(2), 263-266. [CrossRef]
- Braund, M. (1998). Trends in children's concepts of vertebrate and invertebrate. Journal of Biological Education, 32, 112-118. [CrossRef]
- Breves, P., & Heber, V. (2019). Into the wild: The effects of 360° immersive nature videos on feelings of commitment to the environment. Environmental Communication, 14(3), 332–346. [CrossRef]
- Çardak, O. (2009). Students' ideas about dangerous animals. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning & Teaching, 10(2), 1-15.
- Cohen, J. (2013). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Academic Press. [CrossRef]
- Dede, C. J., Jacobson, J., & Richards, J. (2017). Introduction: virtual, augmented, and mixed realities in education. In Virtual, augmented, and mixed realities in education, 1-16. Springer. [CrossRef]
- Dhimolea, T. K., Kaplan-Rakowski, R., & Lin, L. (2022). A systematic review of research on high immersion virtual reality for language learning. TechTrends 66, 810-824. [CrossRef]
- Evens, M., Empsen, M. & Hustinx, W. (2022). A literature review on 360-degree video as an educational tool: towards design guidelines. Journal of Computers in Education, 10, 325-375. [CrossRef]
- Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G* Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175-191. [CrossRef]
- Ferdig, R. E., & Kosko, K. W. (2020). Implementing 360o video to increase immersion, perceptual capacity, and teacher noticing. TechTrends, 64(6),849-859. [CrossRef]
- Filter, E., Eckes, A., Fiebelkorn, F., & Büssing, A. G. (2020). Virtual reality nature experiences involving wolves on YouTube: Presence, emotions, and attitudes in immersive and nonimmersive settings. Sustainability, 12(9), 3823. [CrossRef]
- Fokides, E. (2023a). The educational uses of 360o videos and low-cost HMDs. Reflecting on the results of seven projects. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 2023, 1-23. [CrossRef]
- Fokides, E. (2023b). Development and testing of a scale for examining factors affecting the learning experience in the Metaverse. Computers & Education: X Reality, 2023(2), 100025. [CrossRef]
- Fokides, E., & Arvaniti, P. A. (2020). Evaluating the effectiveness of 360o videos when teaching primary school subjects related to environmental education. Journal of Pedagogical Research, 4(3), 203-222. [CrossRef]
- Fokides, E., Atsikpasi, P., & Arvaniti, P. (2021). Lessons learned from a project examining the learning outcomes and experiences in 360o videos. Journal of Educational Studies and Multidisciplinary Approaches (JESMA), 1(1), 50-70. [CrossRef]
- Fokides, E., & Kefalinou, M. (2020). Examining the impact of spherical videos in teaching endangered species/environmental education to primary school students. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 19, 427-450. [CrossRef]
- Fokides, E., Polydorou, E., και Mazarakis, P. (2020). Using Google Cardboard compatible HMDs and spherical videos for teaching history to High School students. International Journal of Smart Education and Urban Society, 11(4), 18–34. [CrossRef]
- Franquesa-Soler, M., & Serio-Silva, J. (2017). Through the eyes of children: Drawings as an evaluation tool for children's understanding about endangered Mexican primates. American Journal of Primatology, 79(12), e22723. [CrossRef]
- Gaudin, C., & Chaliès, S. (2015). Video viewing in teacher education and professional development: A literature review. Educational Research Review, 16, 41-67. [CrossRef]
- Geerdts, M. S. (2016). (Un) real animals: Anthropomorphism and early learning about animals. Child Development Perspectives, 10(1), 10-14. [CrossRef]
- Gray, P., Elser, C. F., Klein, J. L., & Rule, A. C. (2016). Literacy and arts-integrated science lessons engage urban elementary students in exploring environmental issues. Science Education International, 27(1), 151-175.
- Kavanagh, S., Luxton-Reilly, A., Wüensche, B., & Plimmer, B. (2016). Creating 360o educational video: A case study. Proceedings of the 28th Australian Conference on Computer-Human Interaction, 34-39. ACM. [CrossRef]
- Kellert, S. R., & Westervelt, M. O. (1984). Children's attitudes, knowledge and behaviors towards animals. Children's Environments Quarterly, 1(3), 8-11.
- Kos, M., Jerman, J., & Torkar, G. (2023). Preschool children’s attitude toward some unpopular animals and formation of a positive attitude toward them through hands-on activities. Journal of Biological Education, 57(1), 83-100. [CrossRef]
- Krasnova, E., Masalova, M., & Shelkovnikova, S. (2023). Motivation as a necessary condition for learning in the age of digitalization. Proceedings of the E3S Web of Conferences (Vol. 371, p. 05076). EDP Sciences. [CrossRef]
- Kubiatko, M., & Prokop, P. (2018). Pupils' understanding of mammals: an investigation of the cognitive dimension of misconceptions. Orbis Scholae, 3(2), 97-112. [CrossRef]
- Lampropoulos, G., Barkoukis, V., Burden, K., Theofylaktos, A. (2021). 360-degree video in education: An overview and a comparative social media data analysis of the last decade. Smart Learning Environments, 8(20), 1-24. [CrossRef]
- Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press. [CrossRef]
- Li, W., Qian, L., Feng, Q., & Luo, H. (2023). Panoramic video in education: A systematic literature review from 2011 to 2021. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 39(1), 1-19. [CrossRef]
- Lin, M. H., Chen, H. C., & Liu, K. S. (2017). A study of the effects of digital learning on learning motivation and learning outcome. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 13(7), 3553-3564. [CrossRef]
- Mateos Jiménez, A. (1998). Concepciones sobre algunas especies animales: ejemplificaciones del razonamiento por categorías: dificultades de aprendizaje asociadas. Enseñanza de las ciencias: revista de investigación y experiencias didácticas. Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 16(1), 147-157. [CrossRef]
- Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. [CrossRef]
- Mohd Adnan, A. H., Shak, Y., Karim, M. S. A., Mohd Tahir, R., & Mohamad Shah, D. S. (2020). 360-degree videos, VR experiences and the application of Education 4.0 technologies in Malaysia for exposure and immersion. Advances in Science Technology and Engineering Systems Journal, 5(1), 373–381. [CrossRef]
- Montoya, A. K. (2023). Selecting a within-or between-subject design for mediation: Validity, causality, and statistical power. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 58(3), 616-636. [CrossRef]
- Mourtou, S., & Fokides, E. (2022). Evaluating 360o video's learning effectiveness and experiences: Results of a comparative study. International Journal of Smart Education and Urban Society (IJSEUS), 13(1), 1-20. [CrossRef]
- Murat, M., Kanadli, S., & Ünişen, A. (2011). Seventh grade students’ misconceptions about animals’ reproduction, growth and development and their likely resources. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 8(1), 179-197.
- Noetel, M., Grifth, S., Delaney, O., Sanders, T., Parker, P., del Pozo Cruz, B., & Lonsdale, C. (2021). Video improves learning in higher education: A systematic review. Review of Educational Research, 91(2), 204-236. [CrossRef]
- Patrick, P., Byrne, J., Tinnucliffe, S. D., Asunta, T., Carvalho, G. S., Havu-Nuutinen, S., Sigurjónsdóttir, H., Óskarsdóttir, G., & Tracana, R. B. (2013). Students (ages 6, 10, and 15years) in six countries knowledge of animals. NorDiNa, 9(1), 18-32. [CrossRef]
- Pirker, J., & Dengel, A. (2021). The potential of 360° virtual reality videos and real VR for education-A literature review. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 41(4), 76-89. [CrossRef]
- Prokop, P., Prokop, M., & Tunnicliffe, S. D. (2008). Effects of keeping animals as pets on children's concepts of vertebrates and invertebrates. International Journal of Science Education, 30(4), 431-449. [CrossRef]
- Prokop, P., & Tunnicliffe, S. D. (2008). "Disgusting" animals: Primary school children’s attitudes and myths of bats and spiders. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 4(2), 87-97. [CrossRef]
- Prokop, P., Usak, M., Özel, M., & Fancovicová, J. (2009). Children's conceptions of animal breathing: a cross-age and cross-cultural comparison. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 8(3), 191-207.
- Ranieri, M., Luzzi, D., Cuomo, St., Bruni, I. (2022). If and how do 360° videos fit into education settings? Results from a scoping review of empirical research. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 38(5), 1199-1219. [CrossRef]
- Rosendahl, P., & Wagner, I. (2024). 360 videos in education–A systematic literature review on application areas and future potentials. Education and Information Technologies, 29(2), 1319-1355. [CrossRef]
- Rupp, M., Kozachuk, J., Michaelis, J., O., Smither, J., McConnell, D. (2016). The effects of immersiveness and future VR expectations on subjective-experiences during an educational 360o video. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 60, 2108-2112. [CrossRef]
- Rupp, M. A., Odette, K. L., Kozachuk, J., Michaelis, J. R., Smither, J. A., & McConnell, D. S. (2019). Investigating learning outcomes and subjective experiences in 360-degree videos. Computers & Education, 128, 256-268. [CrossRef]
- Sablić, M., Mirosavljević, A., & Škugor, A. (2021). Video-based learning (VBL)-past, present and future: An overview of the research published from 2008 to 2019. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 26(4), 1061-1077. [CrossRef]
- Shadiev, R., Yang, L., & Huang, Y. M. (2022). A review of research on 360-degree video and its applications to education. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 54(5), 784-799. [CrossRef]
- Shepardson, D. (2002). Bugs, butterflies, and spiders: Children's understandings about insects. International Journal of Science Education, 24, 627-643. [CrossRef]
- Shilpa, S., & Sunita, M. (2013). Impact of multimedia in early childhood education. Journal of Management and Science, 3(3), 430-435. [CrossRef]
- Snaddon, J. L., Turner, E. C., & Foster, W. A. (2008). Children's perceptions of rainforest biodiversity: which animals have the lion's share of environmental awareness? PLoS One, 3(7), e2579. [CrossRef]
- Snelson, C., & Hsu, Y. C. (2020). Educational 360-degree videos in virtual reality: A scoping review. TechTrends, 64, 404-412. [CrossRef]
- Taber, K. S. (2018). The use of Cronbach's alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education. Research in Science Education, 48(6), 1273-1296. [CrossRef]
- Tepekuyu, H. Z., & Topsakal, Ü. U. (2015). Turkish primary school students’ attitudes toward 'disgusting animals': Insects. International Journal for Innovation Education and Research, 3(3), 15-26. [CrossRef]
- Trowbridge, J., & Mintzes, J. (1988). Alternative conceptions in animal classification: A cross-age study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 25(7), 547-571. [CrossRef]
- Tunnicliffe, S., & Reiss, M. (1999). Building a model of the environment: how do children see animals? Journal of Biological Education, 33(3), 142-148. [CrossRef]
- Vuorre, M., & Bolger, N. (2018). Within-subject mediation analysis for experimental data in cognitive psychology and neuroscience. Behavior Research Methods, 50, 2125-2143. [CrossRef]
- Yousef, A. M. F., Chatti, M. A., & Schroeder, U. (2014). The state of video-based learning: A review and future perspectives. International Journal on Advances in Life Sciences, 6(3), 122-135.



| Variable (N = 44) | min | max | M | SD |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pre-test | 33 | 86 | 59.32 | 11.01 |
| Evaluation tests printed materials | 38 | 90 | 69.55 | 11.76 |
| Evaluation tests conventional videos | 40 | 97 | 70.34 | 13.14 |
| Evaluation tests 360o videos | 35 | 97 | 73.80 | 14.36 |
| Enjoyment/positive feelings printed materials | 1.80 | 5.00 | 3.74 | 0.73 |
| Enjoyment/positive feelings conventional videos | 2.40 | 4.80 | 4.12 | 0.58 |
| Enjoyment/positive feelings 360o videos | 1.80 | 5.00 | 4.15 | 0.68 |
| Immersion printed materials | 1.25 | 5.00 | 3.55 | 0.87 |
| Immersion conventional videos | 2.00 | 5.00 | 3.80 | 0.68 |
| Immersion 360o videos | 3.25 | 5.00 | 4.56 | 0.48 |
| Motivation printed materials | 1.00 | 5.00 | 3.92 | 0.94 |
| Motivation conventional videos | 2.33 | 5.00 | 4.36 | 0.63 |
| Motivation 360o videos | 2.33 | 5.00 | 4.47 | 0.71 |
| Ease of use printed materials | 3.00 | 5.00 | 4.32 | 0.55 |
| Ease of use conventional videos | 3.00 | 5.00 | 4.20 | 0.60 |
| Ease of use 360o videos | 1.20 | 5.00 | 3.74 | 0.85 |
| Source | SS | df | MS | F | p | ηp2 |
| Between-Subjects | ||||||
| Pre-test | 0.202 | 1 | 0.202 | 5.41 | .025 | .117 |
| Gender | 0.026 | 1 | 0.026 | 0.70 | .409 | .017 |
| Residuals | 1.534 | 41 | 0.037 | |||
| Within-Subjects | ||||||
| Evaluation tests | 0.004 | 2 | 0.002 | 0.40 | .671 | .010 |
| Pre-test*Evaluation tests | 0.011 | 2 | 0.006 | 0.99 | .376 | .024 |
| Gender*Evaluation tests | 0.009 | 2 | 0.004 | 0.80 | .452 | .019 |
| Residuals | 0.458 | 82 | 0.006 |
| Factor | Factor |
Mean Difference |
Std. error |
p | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | -0.903 | 1.595 | .999 | |
| 1 | 3 | -4.173 | 1.396 | .014 | |
| 2 | 3 | -3.270 | 1.784 | .222 |
| Source | SS | df | MS | F | p | ηp2 |
| Between-Subjects | ||||||
| Gender | .616 | 1 | .616 | 1.03 | .315 | .024 |
| Residuals | 25.023 | 42 | .596 | |||
| Within-subjects | ||||||
| Enjoyment/positive feelings | 4.900 | 2 | 2.450 | 6.64 | .002 | .137 |
| Gender*Enjoyment/positive feelings | .523 | 2 | .261 | 0.71 | .495 | .017 |
| Residuals | 30.975 | 84 | .369 |
| Factor | Factor |
Mean Difference |
Std. error |
p | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | -0.391 | 0.128 | .012 | |
| 1 | 3 | -0.428 | 0.147 | .018 | |
| 2 | 3 | -0.037 | 0.113 | .999 |
| Source | SS | df | MS | F | p | ηp2 |
| Between-Subjects | ||||||
| Gender | 0.336 | 1 | 0.336 | 0.41 | .525 | .010 |
| Residuals | 34.339 | 42 | 0.818 | |||
| Within-subjects | ||||||
| Immersion | 24.757 | 1.652 | 14.986 | 38.83 | <.001 | .480 |
| Gender*Immersion | 0.882 | 1.652 | 0.534 | 1.38 | .256 | .032 |
| Residuals | 26.782 | 69.386 | 0.386 |
| Factor | Factor |
Mean Difference |
Std. error |
p | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | -0.247 | 0.141 | .263 | |
| 1 | 3 | -1.021 | 0.124 | <.001 | |
| 2 | 3 | -0.774 | 0.092 | <.001 |
| Source | SS | df | MS | F | p | ηp2 |
| Between-Subjects | ||||||
| Gender | 0.070 | 1 | 0.070 | 0.10 | .756 | .002 |
| Residuals | 30.031 | 42 | 0.715 | |||
| Within-subjects | ||||||
| Motivation | 7.186 | 2 | 3.593 | 6.63 | .002 | .136 |
| Gender*Motivation | 0.613 | 2 | 0.307 | 0.57 | .570 | .013 |
| Residuals | 45.508 | 84 | 0.542 |
| Factor | Factor |
Mean Difference |
Std. error |
p | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | -0.426 | .169 | .046 | |
| 1 | 3 | -0.546 | .168 | .007 | |
| 2 | 3 | -0.119 | .133 | .999 |
| Source | SS | df | MS | F | p | ηp2 |
| Between-Subjects | ||||||
| Gender | 0.029 | 1 | 0.029 | 0.04 | .847 | .001 |
| Residuals | 32.759 | 42 | 0.780 | |||
| Within-subjects | ||||||
| Ease of use | 7.817 | 1.521 | 5.140 | 12.63 | <.001 | .231 |
| Gender*Ease of use | .769 | 1.521 | 0.506 | 1.24 | .287 | .029 |
| Residuals | 25.985 | 84 | 0.309 |
| Factor | Factor |
Mean Difference |
Std. error |
p | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 0.135 | 0.079 | .285 | |
| 1 | 3 | 0.573 | 0.132 | <.001 | |
| 2 | 3 | 0.438 | 0.137 | .008 |
| Printed materials | Model summary | F(4, 39) = 0.42, p = .797, R = .202, R2 = .041 | ||||
| Factors | B | SE B | β | t | p | |
| Enjoyment/positive feelings | -2.049 | 2.979 | -.128 | -0.688 | .496 | |
| Immersion | 0.429 | 2.580 | .032 | 0.166 | .869 | |
| Motivation | 0.577 | 2.543 | .046 | 0.227 | .822 | |
| Ease of use | 4.018 | 3.713 | .189 | 1.082 | .286 | |
| Conventional videos | Model summary | F(4, 39) = 4.17, p = .007, R = .547, R2 = .299 | ||||
| Factors | B | SE B | β | t | p | |
| Enjoyment/positive feelings | 3.479 | 3.762 | .153 | 0.925 | .361 | |
| Immersion | 4.912 | 3.082 | .253 | 1.594 | .119 | |
| Motivation | 0.118 | 3.333 | .006 | 0.035 | .972 | |
| Ease of use | 5.868 | 3.926 | .268 | 1.494 | .143 | |
| 360o videos | Model summary | F(4, 39) = 2.87, p = .035, R = .477, R2 = .228 | ||||
| Factors | B | SE B | β | t | p | |
| Enjoyment/positive feelings | 4.786 | 3.378 | .226 | 1.417 | .164 | |
| Immersion | 11.952 | 4.553 | .399 | 2.625 | .012 | |
| Motivation | -5.495 | 3.298 | -.270 | -1.666 | .104 | |
| Ease of use | 0.169 | 2.553 | .010 | 0.066 | .948 | |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).