3rd Year project thesis

January 18, 2020

USING VIRTUAL REALITY TO EDUCATE

PHYSICS

Supervised by Prof. Vijay Tymms & Assessed by Dr. Mark Richards

Patrick Masso Walsh

Imperial College London
Department of Physics

CID: 01349433
pm4217@ic.ac.uk

WORD COUNT: 6196

Abstract
An investigation was undertaken into the potential of Virtual Reality (VR) technology
as a medium for physics education. The primary aim of the project was to develop a
proof-of-concept virtual learning environment for A-level physics students, focusing on
the topic of Projectile Motion. It was hoped that VR would enable a higher degree of
immersion for the student, increasing focus and decreasing distractions. The aim of the
project was met successfully. A prototype lesson environment was built and tested with 25
student volunteers, and anonymous feedback was taken through an online survey. Despite
the small sample size, the results were overwhelmingly positive. The students level of
focus was shown to increase in VR as opposed to an ordinary classroom environment,
and every single student said they would like to see more VR physics lessons alongside
their existing curriculum.

Acknowledgements
• VIJAY TYMMS, PROJECT SUPERVISOR
For your ongoing feedback and encouragement with the project, and for your
invaluable help in getting in touch with schools.

• MARK RICHARDS, PROJECT ASSESSOR

For your useful feedback and advice leading up to the writing of this report.

• CAROL YANG & FLORE FAILLE, HENRIETTA BARNETT GRAM-

MAR SCHOOL
For trusting me with a handful of your capable students and letting me test my
project in your school.

• JASON HIGGINS, STEAMEDEGG VR

For trusting me with your equipment and letting me use it during the testing phase.
Without it I would not have been able to test the sample size I did.

• JACK WINDOW
For your invaluable help on the day of testing.

Declaration of Work Undertaken

This project was a solo, and was not conducted with a lab partner. All work discussed in
this report, whether it be during the research phase or the computational phase, was
done by the writer of this report. Any exceptions to this, where I was helped by either
another person or an external source, have been referenced, and the sources can be found
in the Bibliography section at the end.
Contents
Abstract 1

Acknowledgements 1

Declaration of Work Undertaken 1

Introduction 3
Project Aims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

1. Virtual Reality 3
1.1. What is VR? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. How is it used? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

2. Existing Research: VR for Education 8

2.1. VR for Education? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.2. Game-based learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.3. VR for Physics? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

3. Methods Employed 11
3.1. Computational . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.1.1. Hardware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.1.2. Software . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.2. Educational . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.2.1. PART 1: Lecture Environment (Cannon) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.2.2. PART 2: Game Environment (Archery) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.3. Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.3.1. Preparation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.3.2. Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.3.3. Test Day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

4. Results & Discussion 15

4.1. Quantitative Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.2. Qualitative Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

5. Final Reflections 17

Bibliography 18

Appendix A. VR Lesson: Complete Breakdown 20

Appendix B. Results: Complete Set 34

Introduction lesson in VR, teaching the simple but
nuanced topic of Projectile Motion.
Alongside other developments such as AI,
Neurology, and Robotics; VR is set to heav- • To demonstrate this lesson to a group
ily disrupt existing industries and change of A-level Physics students and gain
the way we live our every-day lives. From quantitative and qualitative feedback.
the way we digest information & consume
• To use this feedback, alongside exist-
entertainment, to the way we interact with
ing research, to see if VR could be
our friends and peers.
a useful tool in the “Future Physics
Classroom”.
VR has a multitude of use-cases and ap-
plications already (discussed in Section 1.2)
but many applications are yet to undergo 1. Virtual Reality
a widespread implementation. One such
application is VR for use in education. Before getting into the details of the project.
It is important to have an understanding of
This project is an attempt to explore the Virtual Reality. As mentioned previously,
potential of Virtual Reality as a tool in the this is difficult to grasp unless you have
Physics classroom. After discussing the ad- tried VR first-hand. In this section, I will
vantages that VR may have for education, a cover a basic but thorough overview of the
prototype VR lesson will be built and tested technology and its uses.
with a group of 25 students. Feedback from
this session will be taken in the form of 1.1. What is VR?
an anonymous survey, and the results will
be presented in a cohesive and digestible At its simplest, VR can be defined as a com-
manner. bination of hardware and software elements
which place the user into a fully controlled
By its very nature, VR is difficult to ex- digital 3D universe.
plain to somebody who has never tried it. In some future, with developments in neu-
This has been kept in mind throughout the rology from companies like Neuralink, this
writing of this report, and effort has been may consist of some ’Matrix-like’ technol-
made to explain any nuances and details. ogy which would interface directly with our
brains and transport us to a digital universe.

Project Aims For now, however, VR usually refers to

Through the development and presentation
of an immersive Virtual Reality lesson, this
project aims to show the potential of VR as
a supplement to current teaching methods,
specifically in the Physics classroom. To
make this easier to achieve, I have split the
aim into a handful of specific objectives:
• To build a proof-of-concept physics
a Head Mounted Display (HMD or ’Head-
set’). This is a device which is worn by
the user that covers their eyes completely
(See Figure 1). The headset replaces the
users field of view with two screens (one for
each eye) combined with optics (typically
fresnel lenses) that focus the image onto the
user’s eyes. A digital world is then rendered
through both screens, giving the user an

3
immersive and 3D first-person perspective.
Figure 1: Image of a person wearing the HTC
Vive, one of the most popular head-
sets available commercially on the
market. The person can also be seen
holding tracked controllers, which fa-
cilitate interactions with the virtual
world [9].
Embodiment & Interaction
In combination with the headset, controllers
are often used, one for each hand. This
allows the user to inhabit a virtual body
within the virtual world. The headset and
the controllers are tracked in real-time.
Typically, the tracking technology relies
on multiple external tracking cameras to be
placed around the room. History
The headset and controllers emit light in
the infrared frequencies, and the cameras
track their movement, triangulating their
position at frequencies hundreds of times
every second (See Figure 2).
4
Figure 2: Schematic of external tracking cam-
eras, triangulating the position and
rotation of the headset and con-
trollers in real-time. [10].
This allows 6DOF Virtual Reality, which
stands for ‘6 degrees of freedom’ - 3 degrees
of rotation (pitch, roll & yaw) and 3 degrees
of position (x, y & z).
The user can interact with the world
using their controllers, and any movement
in the ’real world’ is matched through a
one-to-one correspondence to the virtual
one. This means that the user can look
around, move around, and interact with the
virtual world intuitively, as they would in
the real physical world, giving them a deep
sense of presence and immersion.
The virtual world in which the user is
placed depends entirely on the application
of choice. The objects present in the scene;
the mechanics of the interactions between
objects; and the interactions between an
object and the user; are all decided by the
programmer.
Virtual Reality is not a new idea by any
means. The first HMD was developed more
than 50 years ago. In 1968, Ivan E. Suther-
land of The University of Utah published
a paper titled “A head-mounted three di-
mensional display” in which he outlined his is accelerating. Global revenue in VR/AR
developments building a tracked and stereo- is forecast to grow from $7.3 billion in 2018
scopic HMD (See Figure 3) [11]. to an excess of $120 billion by 2026, with
half of that revenue expected to come from
hardware sales alone [13].

1.2. How is it used?

Figure 3: Sutherland’s HMD prototype. Used

mini cathode ray tubes and optics to In this section, some of the uses of VR are
project separate images into each of discussed, so that you can gain a brief but
the users eyes [11]. thorough understanding of the scale of this
technology.
Sutherland was ahead of his time. Un-
fortunately, due to processing power being
too low at the time, and screen technology
being too basic, high fidelity experiences
could not be obtained; meaning VR didn’t
take off immediately. Gaming

Thanks in part to the mobile revolution,

this changed. Processing power increased One application you may be familiar with
exponentially, screen technology improved is gaming. VR is perfect for interactive
massively, and VR technology gradually stories and games due to the unparalleled
improved. sense of immersion. Rather than controlling
a character in a game through a mouse and
In 2012 Palmer Lucky launched Oculus keyboard, or a gaming controller, you can
on Kickstarter [12], offering the first Rift literally BE the character in the game, and
Developer Kit. inhibit their body.
This was the first time a VR headset
was offered commercially to the public, and Imagine being a character in a Star Wars
sparked the ’new-wave’ of VR. Since then, story, controlling your own starship and
billions in funding has gone into the indus- zipping into hyperspace. Or perhaps meet-
try, competition has increased, and the tech- ing Darth-Vader face-to-face, with his gaze
nology’s progress has accelerated to an un- looming over you, ominously. This is exactly
precedented rate. what you can do in the “Vader Immortal”
To date, there have been tens of millions series; a game series published by IMLxLabs
of headsets sold worldwide. The size of the - Lucasfilm Ltd.’s immersive entertainment
VR market is growing daily, and the growth studio. (See Figure 4).

5

Figure 4: Screenshots of a lightsaber bat-
tle from Vader Immortal I - the
firstgame of the series [3].
Robotics
VR goes way beyond gaming, and finds a
great synergy with the real world, in the
field of Robotics.
Figure 5: HaptX gloves. Force feedback ex-
oskeleton and tactile feedback on the
fingertips & palms allow a user to
touch, hold and feel virtual objects.
HaptX recently partnered up with
Shadow Robot Company in developing
”The Tactile Telerobot” [2]. This is an in-
credible cross between VR and Robotics,
allowing someone wearing the gloves to con-
trol a pair of highly dexterous robotic hand,
remotely (see Figure 6). The person control-
ling the hands gets realistic force & tactile
feedback from the robotic hand in real-time,
so it feel like its their hand..

A company called HaptX has developed

a haptic glove that fits on a VR user’s
hand, providing physical force feedback and
thermal feedback. The gloves are motion
tracked using magnetic tracking, removing
the need for controllers (the user can simply
use their real hands in the virtual world).
[1].
This incredible technology allows the per-
son in VR to hold virtual objects, and feel Figure 6: Tactile Telerobot: HaptX gloves
them using their real hands (see Figure 5). in combination with Shadow Robot
Company’s robotic hands. The per-
Tactile and force actuators on the gloves son wearing the gloves controls the
give realistic sensory feedback to the user. hands remotely, receiving real-time
Different textures can be distinguished, and sensory feedback. [2]
a virtual object won’t let your fingers pass
through it. It is easy to imagine a near-future where

6
this could be life-changing. Perhaps fire- Figure 7).
fighters no longer need to put their lives
at risk when rescuing & putting out fires.
Using a combination of VR and robotics,
they could do this remotely, yet experience
and control the situation as if they were
present.
Bomb-diffusal squads could do their work
remotely, removing unnecessary risk of ca-
sualty whilst still allowing them to work
effectively in removing the threat.
Figure 7: A British Army platoon undergoing
combat training in Virtual Reality.
Training
[8].
Virtual Reality finds a home across many
industries through training. The immersion VR not only increases safety of training,
that it provides allows students or employ- but it can also improve performance. A
ees to undergo realistic simulations in a safe 2015 study at the National Taiwan Normal
controlled learning environment. University in Taipei [6] split a group of 160
high-school students into 4 groups of 40: A
For instance, in the medical industry; control group, trained via traditional meth-
where VR is widely used to train surgeons ods; and three experimental groups using
in surgery simulations. The virtual training different versions of a virtual combat train-
allows medics to better prepare for a actual ing simulation.
surgery, and to prepare for intense situa- The study found that students learning
tions which would otherwise be reserved for outcomes, motivation and actual live-firing
emergencies. performance were all significantly improved
Touch surgery [4] is one of many com- after having trained in Virtual Reality, as
panies dedicated to developing immersive opposed to traditional training.
medical training. They have developed over
300 medical simulations and have helped Virtual training environments are not
millions of medical students around the only used in medicine and the military, they
world practice in a safe environment before are used in practices across almost all in-
putting humans at risk. dustries. A peer-reviewed article written
There is even a research team here at in 2016 [7] details a (desktop 3D) virtual
Imperial College working on VR surgery training system for the maintenance and
simulations [5]: The MSk Lab, Faculty of operation of high-voltage overhead power
Medicine, led by Prof Cobb and Dr Auvinet. lines.
The researchers, from UNAM University
Another big example is in the military. Mexico, placed participants into four sepa-
Flight simulators, battlefield simulators, rate groups. Once again, those trained in
and combat training are all examples of how the virtual environment outperformed the
soldiers use virtual reality to prepare them- control groups, both in immediate evalua-
selves for life-threatening situations (See tion and knowledge retention.

7
 Since the system became public, it has brain activity of people whilst using Virtual
been used to train thousands of operators Reality [16]. The team built an immersive
in Mexico, and has proven to be a cost- driving simulator, with steering wheel and
effective and time-efficient way to train new pedals, that was specifically designed to
workers in safe environment. function during an fMRI scan.
The study found that during the virtual
driving simulation, the subjects’ brains lit
2. Existing Research: VR for up with activity in regions related to visual-
Education motor and visual-spatial coordination. The
brain was perceiving the virtual world as if
The human brain has evolved over hundreds it was the real world; evidence that embod-
of thousands of years to remember experi- iment is a real neurological phenomenon.
ences, captured through our senses, rather
than complex data or mathematical equa-
2.1. VR for Education?
tions. It follows that the more senses a
student engages during learning, and the Despite not yet being mainstream, the po-
more that they can turn it into an expe- tential for VR in education has definitely
rience: the more likely a memory is to be not gone unnoticed. VR is being used today
formed and retained. in classrooms around the world in several
Virtual Reality is perfect for this. Due to different ways.
its high level of immersion, it is more likely
to make learning experiences memorable For example, in chemistry classrooms to
compared to alternatives on a desktop com- teach the analysis of 3D crystal structures.
puter or on a whiteboard. A study held at the National Hsinchu Uni-
versity of Education, Taiwan, details the
There is a lot of existing research on ‘em- development of a virtual TEM (Transmis-
bodiment’ in VR: a phenomenon whereby sion Electron Microscope) [17]. TEM’s have
the user experiences a digital avatar as if it significantly higher resolution than light mi-
was their own body. One particularly inter- croscopes, making them important in the
esting study published in 2007 describes the examination of nanostructures as small as
Proteus Effect [15], where an individual’s a single layer of atoms.
social behavior conforms to their digital self- The virtual lab provided a good alterna-
representation. tive to purchasing an actual TEM, which is
Embodiment is what makes VR so pow- a very expensive piece of equipment.
erful over other digital mediums - it’s what The study found that students performed
makes VR so immersive and memorable for significantly better in the analysis of nanos-
people who experience it. Within minutes tructures after having trained in the Vir-
of putting on a VR headset, your percep- tual TEM lab, as opposed to being taught
tion is transported to a digital universe, through a standard instructional video.
and your brain begins to accept it as if it
were real. Another example is the CLEVR project
by MIT Step Lab (Collaborative Learn-
A fascinating study by Tom A. Schweizer ing Environments in Virtual Reality) [18].
and peers details an investigation into the Their application Cellverse is being used to

8
teach high-school students the complexities making the information learned more mem-
of cell biology, by allowing them to explore orable.
a cell from inside (See Figure 8). The National Foundation for Educational
Research published a paper in April 2013,
which extensively summarised the existing
research on GBL at the time [21]. There
were many interesting findings in the sum-
mary, which pulled from several different
studies.
For instance, six of the eight studies focus-
ing specifically on student motivation found
motivation and engagement was increased
by the games.
All five studies focusing on problem solv-
Figure 8: A screenshot from Cellverse: stu-
dent explores the inside of a cell, a
ing skills found a degree of improvement
unique perspective that is impossible through exposure to game based learning.
without VR. The paper makes the conclusion that the
current research demonstrates a “positive
There is wide evidence of growing inter- relationship between gaming in the class-
est in VR for education. An edtech startup room, learning outcomes and motivation
called NearPod focuses on building immer- and engagement”.
sive lessons for students in the US . The
company has built hundreds of immersive Another systematic review of GBL re-
lessons and deployed in more than 10,000 search was presented in a thorough analysis
US schools (roughly 10% of the US school by Douglas B. Clark and peers from SRI In-
system); and has reached millions of stu- ternational [22]. The study found evidence
dents directly. that compared to other teaching methods,
In 2017, NearPod raised $21 million in “digital games showed significant positive ef-
a series B funding round [20] bringing to- fects on science, math, and literacy” scores.
tal investment to over $30 million, which is
a staggering amount of money, and shows More recently, in May 2017, Douglas
that there is considerable interest in VR for Clark co-authored a first-of-its kind exper-
education. iment conducted by a team at Vanderbilt
University, Nashville. The study looked at
1002 participating students in seven differ-
2.2. Game-based learning
ent states - in schools with varying socio-
Game-based learning (GBL) is broadly de- economic backgrounds and geographical lo-
fined as any game experience designed with cations. A wide variety of game types were
the intention of teaching something to the tested, and the performance of the gaming
player. students was tested against that of their
The primary idea is that requiring the non-gaming peers.
user to interact with and explore the envi- The study found that students who
ronment should increase the level of focus; played games outperformed their peers on

9
standardized tests, and there was signifi- Examples: Teaching physics in VR
cantly higher student engagement in the
game environment as opposed to an ordi- A recent paper published in Dec 2019 de-
nary teaching environment. Furthermore, tails an investigation into the education of
12 out of 13 teachers involved in the study astronomy using Virtual Reality [24]. The
either agreed or strongly agreed that they researchers, at San Diego State University,
would like to use games like these in the compared the efficacy of VR against con-
future in their classrooms. ventional teaching methods using the topic
of moon phases and eclipses.
Preliminary results suggest that students
who learned in VR benefited considerably
2.3. VR for Physics?
over students taught in a conventional lec-
ture environment, and those taught through
Hopefully by now you’re convinced of the
a hands-on activity.
huge potential VR has for education, but
how could it help with physics in particular?
Another paper titled ‘A Case Study: The
Impact of VR on Academic Performance’
[25] also focused on teaching astronomy us-
Visualisation ing Virtual Reality.
The investigation saw students in Beijing
Physics can be nuanced sometimes. Some high-schools split into groups. One group
physical models are counter-intuitive and took the VR lesson, and one acted as a con-
require lots of thinking to get to grips with. trol with conventional teaching methods.
One of the most important tools in the
The study found a clear advantage of VR
physics classroom has always been visuali-
against other methods for immediate test
sation.
peformance.
Without the ability to visualise the be-
The immediate test pass rate of the VR
haviour of physical objects, it is very diffi-
group was 90%, while that of the traditional
cult for a student to understand the under-
teaching group was just 40%.
lying physics.
Even more impressively, the average test
Often, the visualisation tools used may score achieved by grade-C students who
involve a diagram on a chalkboard, a practi- took the VR lesson was 15.7% more than
cal, a video presented by the teacher which the average achieved by a group of naturally
demonstrates some physical phenomenon. capable grade-A students who didn’t take
However, general physics is three- the VR lesson, but went through conven-
dimensional, and there is no better way tional teaching methods instead.
to visualise 3D concepts or 3D data than In a memory retention test (two weeks
doing so in a simulated 3D environment. after the initial session), the average score
For this reason, I believe VR has partic- of the VR group was 90%, compared to just
ularly useful applications in Physics, and 68% in the control group: suggesting that
could change the way it is taught and shared information taught in VR is more likely to
(not only in high-schools but at university be remembered.
level and beyond).

10
Beyond Physics 3. Methods Employed
VR does not only allow us to simulate real- In this section, the methods employed
world physics, but even allows us to simulate throughout the project are discussed. This
universes with different physical laws. has been split into three categories: compu-
tational, educational and testing.

3.1. Computational
3.1.1. Hardware

The VR market is well saturated. There are

many competing companies building VR
headsets, including Sony, HTC and Oculus
(now owned by Facebook). The majority
Figure 9: A screenshot from the hyperbolic of the market is dominated by PC head-
space simulation [26]) sets, like the HTC Vive or the Oculus Rift.
These headsets rely on a high-end computer
to run applications, and also rely on a wire
For instance, a team led by Vi Hart at connecting the headset and the PC. Most
Houston Advanced Research Center de- PC headsets use external tracking technol-
veloped a fascinating simulation of non- ogy to achieve the best tracking quality.
euclidean hyperbolic space which can be ex-
plored in virtual reality [26]. This has never For certain applications, a PC headset
been possible before, and only through VR is the obvious choice, as the graphics card
can we explore this space-time geometry. on the connected computer can be used
(See Figure 9). to its full advantage, providing the highest
fidelity graphics and experiences. However,
VR allows for parameters in a simulated the need for a computer makes this option
universe to be tweaked, leading to experi- expensive, and the need for a wire and
ences that could never happen in the real external trackers makes it significantly less
physical world. portable.
This could be very powerful for students
trying to learn advanced topics like relativ- An alternative is to use a ”standalone”
ity and quantum physics. Constants like headset. There are a few on the mar-
the speed of light, or Planck’s constant can ket, most notably the Oculus Quest and
now be modified to enhance the effect of the Vive Cosmos. Both of these headsets
certain physical phenomena such as length have internal processors which handle all
contraction or quantum tunneling. computation. They also have ‘Inside-out’
The ability to control all the parameters tracking., which replaces external tracking
in the simulation means we can set up al- cameras with internal cameras cleverly posi-
ternate realities which may help us to un- tioned on the VR headsets. These cameras,
derstand the real world even better. along with sophisticated computer vision

11
algorithms, map the room surrounding the 3.1.2. Software
player. Since the cameras are on the front
To build the lesson, Unity Engine was used.
side of the headset, there are some tracking
This is a piece of free software which has a
blindspots for the controllers, like behind
handful of in-built tools to help a program-
the players back. However, it removes the
mer make quicker progress when designing
need for external tracking cameras to be
3D (or 2D) environments. Unreal Engine
positioned, and without the need for a wire
was also considered as an alternative, but
or PC, this makes the standalone headsets
Unity was decided on due to its larger com-
extremely portable and easy to set up.
munity of developers.
For this investigation, the Oculus Quest
The Oculus Integration Package and SDK
headset was chosen (See Figure 10). It is
were used to handle the basic VR function-
significantly cheaper than the Vive Cosmos
ality of the program. This includes the
(£399 as opposed to £699) and has a better
tracking of the controllers & the headset,
reputation when it comes to the quality of
and the real-time display of the scene to
tracking.
the viewers eyes.

All other behaviour scripts were written

using the C# programming language from
scratch. C# provided an ideal balance be-
tween simplicity and functionality, as it is
relatively easy to get into, but can be very
sophisticated when needbe.

Figure 10: Oculus Quest [14]. Four wide-

Programming Principles
angle cameras on the face of the An object-oriented approach was chosen to
headset (one at each corner) facili-
handle the behaviour between objects in
tate tracking, on-board tracking al-
lows the headset to be wireless.
the scene. This makes the most intuitive
sense and is very similar to the way objects
behave in the real world, making it ideal
All in, this makes the Quest the cheapest
for a physics simulation.
and most reliable device for 6DOF Virtual
Reality. The processing power on the head-
set is not the best in the world, but it is
Physics Modelling
surprisingly powerful for a mobile device,
and more than powerful enough to handle To model the physics of projectiles, Unity’s
a scene with a few 3D assets and simple built-in physics engine was used. The pow-
physics. In my opinion, the Quest offers erful physics engine allowed any object to be
the best value for money, and is the current categorised as a ‘rigidbody’; an object that
best choice for any schools who may be responds appropriately to physical forces.
looking to invest in several VR headsets. This allowed the projectiles to respond to a
simulated gravitational field, and to collide

12
with other objects in the scene. The calculated angle was then used in
the VR application, and it always hit the
The projectiles were initially parented to desired target; confirming that the arbitrary
their launcher. When a launch needs to units behave as if they were SI units and no
be made, the projectile is detached from further changes needed to be made.
its parent, and an impulse force acts on it
in the desired direction. The physics en- 3.2. Educational
gine then handles its behaviour as it travels
through the air. I had around two months to program the
The cannon launch mechanism (See Sec- lesson. This gave me plenty of time to learn
tion 3.2.1) was very easy to implement, as C# and the basic principles of 3D devel-
the cannon was stationary and so the launch opment. However, I knew this would not
direction was known, and fixed. be enough time to build a polished final
The bow and arrow mechanism (see Sec- version, so I decided that the focus was
tion 3.2.2) was more tricky. When the VR to build a proof-of-concept/prototype that
player pulls back the string on the bow, two demonstrated the technology’s potential.
key behaviours are triggered: With this in mind, a short lesson was
planned, consisting of two separate environ-
• The direction that the bow is point- ments: a lecture environment and a game
ing is measured every frame (72Hz for environment.
Quest). This direction is used as the I want to reiterate that it’s difficult to
launch direction whenever the player communicate the VR app to somebody who
releases the string. has not tried it. However, I have included
relevant images to make this easier, and
• The distance between the player’s bow have put a complete breakdown of the les-
hand and their pulling hand is mea- son, along with a video link that demon-
sured every frame. The greater the strates it in full, in the appendix of this
distance, the greater the force applied report.
to the arrow when the player releases
the string, and hence the greater the 3.2.1. PART 1: Lecture Environment
launch velocity (from a minimum of (Cannon)
0m/s−1 to a maximum of 50ms−1 ).
The lecture environment was aimed at re-
Unity Engine and the in-built physics en- freshing the student’s memory on some ba-
gine operate on arbitrarily defined units of sic principles of Projectile Motion, with the
length and time. It wasn’t certain whether assumption that they had already encoun-
behaviour predicted in metres and seconds tered the topic during their A-level physics
would translate perfectly to the VR imple- lessons.
mentation, so a simple test was devised. To do this, an environment was built that
Using the SUVAT equations, several ex- consisted of two raised columns in front of
amples were tested. The target position the student. On the left column, a cannon
was set relative to the launch position, and was placed, which launched cannon balls to-
the required angle was calculated for a ran- wards the right column, following projectile
domly assigned velocity. motion.

13
 A red button in front of the student al-
lowed them to progress through each stage
of the lesson and launch cannon balls when-
ever necessary.
(See Figure 23, Appendix A), which asked
for the distance x between the two columns
(i.e. the horizontal range of the cannon)
given an initial velocity u = 19.81ms−1 at
an angle of 45°to the horizontal.

3.2.2. PART 2: Game Environment

(Archery)
To take full advantage of the VR medium,
I wanted to place the student into a unique
first person perspective; one which they
had likely never encountered in relation to
projectile motion.
Figure 11: Pushing the button triggers the
To achieve this, I built an environment
launch of a cannon ball, following
a parabolic path and colliding with where the launch mechanism was a bow and
the second column. The force of arrow (See Figure 12). The student held a
gravity is visualised by a downward longbow in their left hand, and using their
arrow on the cannon ball. right hand, pulled the string of the bow
back. When the string is released, a force is
The basic concepts covered in the les- added to the arrow in whichever direction
son are summarised below. For a complete the bow is pointing.
breakdown of the lesson, please see the Ap-
pendix at the end of the report.

• No Horizontal Forces, constant hori-

zontal velocity.

• Vertical Force of Gravity, constant

downward acceleration.

• Resolving Velocity into components,

to simplify the problem into separate
horizontal and vertical parts.

• SUVAT equations for constant accel-

eration, used for vertical behaviour.
Figure 12: Bow and Arrow mechanic: launch
• standard displacement, velocity & velocity & angle are labelled.
time equation for horizontal be-
haviour. The initial velocity of the arrow depends
how far the student pulls back the string:
The lesson also went through one exam- ranging from a minimum of 0m/s to a max-
ple question using the same cannon setup imum of 50m/s. The arrow then follows

14
projectile motion, but this time away from the day, so it was arranged to have 4 groups
the student, rather than from a side-on of 4 students come in throughout the hour,
perspective. giving 16 students each 15 minutes to go
through the experience and fill in the survey.
The narrator in this environment wel-
comes the student, congratulates them on 3.3.2. Survey
their progression through the first part of
the lesson, and then introduces the bow and To gain feedback from the students, an
arrow mechanic. After successfully firing anonymous Google Forms survey was used.
off an arrow, the student is then presented To avoid redundancy, I have excluded the
with a target (See Figure 32, Appendix A). questions here as they are detailed in the
Results & Discussion section of the report
The narrator makes the point that most (See Section 4).
people already have some intuitive under-
standing of the way projectiles move, due 3.3.3. Test Day
to their encounters with projectile motion
in every day life. The student is then asked Test day was successful, within the hour we
to shoot at the target which explodes upon demonstrated the VR lesson to 25 students,
impact (See Figure 33, Appendix A ). considerably more than the planned 16.
The narrator then challenges the student The students all submitted responses to
to hit as many targets as possible within 60 the anonymous survey. The feedback (Sec-
seconds. tion 4) was positive and constructive, with
This ending was implemented to add a the students giving valuable perspectives
fun competitive element to the lesson, and on what they liked and what could be im-
to finish off the lesson with a game-based ap- proved.
proach that, based on previously discussed
evidence, should lead to a better retention
of memory. 4. Results & Discussion
This section will be a summary of the re-
sults. For a comprehensive breakdown of
3.3. Testing the results, including individual responses
to the qualitative questions, please refer to
3.3.1. Preparation
the Appendix.
To test the VR lesson, I needed to find a
group of A-level physics students to try it 4.1. Quantitative Results
and give their feedback. My supervisor sent
out requests to a few schools around Lon- All are asked on a scale of 1-5.
don. Shortly after, I received a response
from the physics department at Henrietta Q1: How would you rate your VR
Barnett School in Hampstead. lesson experience for enjoyment?
A date was set in late December for test-
ing and a one hour session during lunchtime All the students enjoyed the experience.
was confirmed. 4 Quests were available for The average enjoyment score was 4.8 ± 0.4

15
points (or 96 ± 8%), with 5 students an- 4.2. Qualitative Results
swering 4/5 and the other 20 answering 5/5
Q5: In the future, do you think
(See Figure 38, Appendix B).
you would benefit from more vir-
tual reality lessons like this alongside
Q2: How would you rate the vir- your normal lessons? Please explain
tual lesson for clarity of information? whether yes or no.

100% of the participating students said

The average clarity score was 4.2 ± 0.75
they would benefit from further VR expe-
points (or 84 ± 18%) - with 80% of the
riences alongside their normal studies. 17
students answering either 4/5or 5/5 (See
students directly mentioned the benefit of
Figure 39, Appendix B). This is positive,
increased focus/engament when in VR, as
but the clarity could definitely be improved.
opposed to ordinary lessons. 7 students
directly mentioned its usefulness as a visu-
Q3: How focused are you when alisation tool.
studying physics normally (without
VR)? Q6: What do you find hardest when
learning in a traditional classroom en-
The average focus in an ordinary class- vironment?
room environment was 3.64/5, with a stan-
dard deviation of 0.89: giving a mean of 10 students mentioned they typically
µ1 = 3.64 ± 0.88 (See Figure 40, Appendix struggle with focus/concentration, 5 stu-
B). dents mentioned they struggle with visu-
alisation, and 5 students mentioned issues
with the pacing of lessons; sometimes falling
Q4: How focused were you when behind in class.
studying physics in virtual reality?
Q7: What would you improve
The average focus in the virtual environ- about the virtual lesson experience?
ment was 4.16, with a standard deviation
of 0.83: giving a mean of µ2 = 4.16 ± 0.83 7 students wanted more interaction or
(See Figure 41, Appendix B). more practical examples of projectile mo-
tion. 4 students mentioned the addition of a
”replay” feature at each stage of the lecture.
Increase in focus is significant at
4 students directly requested more detail in
α = 0.05
the explanations.
Other requests involved simple fixes like
Based on a cross-mean hypothesis test, at increasing the volume, slowing things down,
a significance level of α = 5%: the 14% rise and disabling buttons which are not being
in the average focus was significant. The used.
probability of this being an anomaly was
just 1.90% when considered over the entire Q8: What other challenging topics
sample. See Figure 42 for details. would you like to explore in this way?

16
 A wide variety of physics topics were
mentioned; electromagnetism, astronomy,
vectors & forces, nuclear physics, parti-
cle physics, waves, electricity, mechanics,
circular motion, simple harmonic motion,
orbital motion, nuclear fission.

The most frequent answers were mechan-

ics related, closely followed by electricity,
magnetism and astronomy. This makes
sense, these topics rely heavily on visualisa-
tion to enforce understanding.

5. Final Reflections
Overall, the investigation was very success-
ful. all three of the initial aims were met:
a prototype virtual lesson was developed
an tested with a group of 25 students who
enjoyed the experience and found it valu-
able. Every single student said they would
benefit from future VR lessons.
The feedback was critical and construc-
tive. It is clear that the lesson is a success-
ful prototype, but not a finished product,
and there are many things to be improved;
more example questions, more scenes with
different launch mechanics, and higher in-
teractivity.
Some students wanted the ability to ask
questions as they would do with a teacher
in class. This could be easily solved by
having a multiplayer virtual environment.
In fact, educational platforms already ex-
ist that facilitate this. Such as ENGAGE
[27], a platform designed as an easy tool for
teachers to make their own VR lessons.
I am happy with the progress made in the
time given, and am looking forward to con-
tinuing work on this project at some point
in the future.

17
References fall joint computer conference, part I
(AFIPS ’68 (Fall, part I)). Association
[1] HaptX Gloves — https://haptx.com/ for Computing Machinery, New York,
technology/ NY, USA, 757–764. https://doi.org/
10.1145/1476589.1476686
[2] HaptX Robotic Partnership — https:
//haptx.com/robotics/ [12] Basu, Aryabrata. “A brief
[3] Vader Immortal Screenshot — https: chronology of Virtual Reality.”
//www.oculus.com/vader-immortal/ ArXiv abs/1911.09605 (2019):
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1911.09605
[4] TouchSurgery VR Medical Platform —
https://www.touchsurgery.com/ [13] Virtual Reality Market Size,
Share, and Industry Analy-
[5] Imperial MSkLab — https: sis. Original Report — https:
//www.imperial.ac.uk/msk-lab/ //www.fortunebusinessinsights.
research/surgical-technology/ com/industry-reports/
augmented-and-virtual-reality/ virtual-reality-market-101378

[6] Bhagat, K.K., Liou, WK. Chang, CY. [14] Image of Oculus Quest HMD — https:
Virtual Reality (2016) 20: 127. https:// //www.oculus.com/quest/
doi.org/10.1007/s10055-016-0284-x
[15] Yee, N. Bailenson, J.N. (2007).
[7] Ayala Garcı́a, A., Galván Bobadilla, The Proteus Effect: Self transforma-
I., Arroyo Figueroa, G. et al. Vir- tions in virtual reality. Human Com-
tual reality training system for main- munication Research, 33 (3), 271-
tenance and operation of high-voltage 290. https://vhil.stanford.edu/mm/
overhead power lines. Virtual Reality 2007/yee-proteus-effect.pdf
20, 27–40 (2016) https://doi.org/10.
1007/s10055-015-0280-6 [16] Tom A. Schweizer, Karen Kan, Yuwen
Hung, Fred Tam, Gary Naglie and Si-
[8] https://www.wareable.com/vr/
mon J. Graham. (2013). Front. Hum. Neu-
how-vr-is-training-the-perfect-soldier-1757
rosci., 28 February 2013 — https://doi.
[9] Image of Vive HMD — https://www. org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00053
overclockers.co.uk/media/image/
[17] Tarng, W., Tsai, C., Lin, C.
ocuk-2017-vr-mid-handson-2.png
et al. Development of an educa-
[10] Trackers Schematic — https://www. tional virtual transmission electron mi-
howtogeek.com/wp-content/uploads/ croscope laboratory. Virtual Reality
2016/03/xhtc1-1-650x400.png. 19, 33–44 (2015) https://doi.org/10.
pagespeed.gp+jp+jw+pj+ws+js+rj+ 1007/s10055-014-0253-1
rp+rw+ri+cp+md.ic.SilTUnItKb.png
[18] CLEVR: Collaborative Learning
[11] Ivan E. Sutherland. 1968. A head- Environments in Virtual Reality
mounted three dimensional display. In — https://education.mit.edu/
Proceedings of the December 9-11, 1968, project/clevr/#overview

18
[19] NearPod VR Education platform — Into Extended Curricula. Journal of the
https://nearpod.com/ Learning Sciences. https://doi.org/
10.1080/10508406.2017.1333431
[20] Article on NearPod Financing round —
UploadVR — https://uploadvr.com/ [24] Philip Blanco, Gur Windmiller,
nearpod-raises-21-million-virtual-reality-education/
William Welsh, Sean Hauze. Lessons
[21] Carlo Perrotta, Gill Featherstone, Learned from Teaching Astron-
Helen Aston, Emily Houghton. omy with Virtual Reality. (2019).
Game-based learning: latest evi- https://arxiv.org/abs/1912.12393
dence and future directions. NFER.
[25] A Case Study - The Impact of VR
(2013) — https://www.nfer.ac.uk/
on Academic Performance. https:
publications/GAME01/GAME01.pdf
//mk0uploadvrcom4bcwhj.kinstacdn.
[22] Clark, D., Tanner-Smith, E., com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/
Killingsworth, S ., Bellamy, S. A-Case-Study-The-Impact-of-VR-on-Academic-Perform
(2013). Digital Games for Learning: 20161125.pdf
A Systematic Review and Meta-
Analysis (Executive Summary). [26] Hart V, Hawksley A, Matsumoto EA,
Menlo Park, CA: SRI Interna- Segerman H. Non-euclidean virtual real-
tional. http://www.gamesandlearning. ity II: explorations of H2 × E — https:
org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/ //arxiv.org/abs/1702.04004
digital-games-for-learning-exec-summ.
pdf [27] ENGAGE Platform - tool for teach-
ers and collaborators in VR — https:
[23] Clark, Douglas Tanner-Smith, Emily //engagevr.io/
Hostetler, Andrew Fradkin, Aryah Po-
likov, Vadim. (2017). Substantial Inte- [28] Video play through of the VR Lesson.
gration of Typical Educational Games https://youtu.be/rpplQtHW0cQ

19
A. VR Lesson: Complete Breakdown

In this appendix, I have included a more detailed breakdown of the VR projectile motion
lesson by including several screenshots of the application during runtime.
Please note, a 2D screenshot of a VR app is not an accurate representation of the
way things appear to the student. In actuality, the stereoscopic and tracked VR headset
means that the student sees the scene in three dimensions, and they are free to look
around the scene as they please.
For a more accurate (whilst still imperfect) representation of the lesson, please view
the following video, which shows the view of the user’s left eye throughout the lesson.

https://youtu.be/rpplQtHW0cQ [28]

PART 1: Lecture Environment

The first scene of the lesson is the lecture environment. The student is refreshed
with the basics of projectile motion, and is led through an example by a narrator.

Figure 13: The button used by the student for interaction in the lecture part of the lesson. The
student uses their hand to physically push down on the button and trigger events.

20
Figure 14: Two columns rise, with a cannon placed on the left column. There is an arrow
pointing out of the cannon ball, visualising the direction of launch in three dimensions.

Figure 15: Pushing the button triggers the launch of a cannon ball, which follows a parabolic
path and collides with the top of the second column. The vertical force of gravity can
be seen as constant downward arrow on the cannon ball.

21
Figure 16: The narrator reminds the student that, during the flight of the cannon ball, the only
force acting is the vertical force of gravity, and there are no horizontal forces.

Figure 17: The SUVAT equations for constant acceleration are introduced. The narrator tells
the student to take some time to get familiar with the equations and the key before
continuing.

22
Figure 18: After each stage, the narrator waits for the student to push the button again before
continuing, giving them time to consolidate their understanding.

Figure 19: Student is reminded how to resolve a vector into horizontal and vertical components,
an essential part of solving A-level projectile questions.

23
Figure 20: The narrator uses the zero horizontal acceleration a = 0ms−2 to demonstrate that
the SUVAT equations yield the obvious result that velocity is constant.

Figure 21: Putting constant velocity u = v and zero acceleration a = 0ms−2 into the SUVAT
equations returns the standard simple equation for displacement, velocity and time.

24
Figure 22: Vertically, there is a constant downward acceleration of a = g = −9.81ms−2 due to
gravity. This means we can use the SUVAT equations for the vertical motion.

Figure 23: The student is shown an example problem: Find the distance x between the two
columns (i.e. the horizontal range of the cannon) given an initial velocity of u =
19.81ms−1 at an angle of 45°to the horizontal.

25
Figure 24: First, we need to split up the problem into its horizontal and vertical components,
by resolving the initial velocity.

Figure 25: We need to find the time at which the cannon ball hits the second column using the
vertical motion of the cannon ball. We do this by considering that when the ball hits
the second column its vertical displacement is zero: s = 0m

26
Figure 26: Using the s = ut + 12 at2 suvat equation with the known vertical displacement, initial
velocity, and acceleration; yields a quadratic with two results for time. The t = 0s
answer makes sense, it is the time at which the cannon ball launched, when it also
had a vertical displacement of zero. The second answer, t = 2.854s is the one we are
looking for, the time at which the cannon ball hits the second column.

Figure 27: Finally, we can find the unknown x using the horizontal equation.

27
Figure 28: Known values of v = u = 14.0ms−1 and the calculated time t = 2.854s yield the
resulting range: x = 40.0m.

28
PART 2: Game Environment

The second scene was the game environment. The student is presented with a new
launch mechanism: a bow and arrow. The narrator introduces the mechanism and
tells the user to fire an arrow by pulling back and releasing the string of the bow.

Figure 29: The narrator welcomes the student to the archery test zone, and congratulates them
on their progression through the lecture. Then, the point is made that the student
probably has some intuitive understanding of projectile motion already, due to their
exposure to it in every day life.

29
Figure 30: The narrator then introduces the bow and arrow mechanic, and tells the student
to fire an arrow into the air. As the student pulls the string, the launch angle and
initial velocity of the arrow are displayed. Pulling back the string further increases
the initial velocity of the arrow, from a minimum of 0ms−1 to a maximum 50ms−1 .

Figure 31: When the student releases the string, the arrow flies away from them at said initial
speed, and proceeds to follow projectile motion. There is a pink trail that is left behind
the arrow so that the student can see it more easily.

30
Figure 32: The narrator then introduces a target 40m away from the student, and tells them to
aim for it with their next arrow. The target has labels for its position relative to the
student, both horizontally forwards and vertically upwards.

Figure 33: If an arrow hits the target, it explodes with an animation and sound effects designed
to immerse the student further.

31
Figure 34: A second target is placed, this time further away from the student, 70m away. The
narrator asks the student to aim for this more challenging target.

Figure 35: Once the second target is hit, the narrator challenges the student to hit as many
targets as possible within 60 seconds. A timer automatically starts, and a score
counter is displayed. A new target automatically spawns, and from here on, a new
target is spawned every time the existing one is hit.

32
Figure 36: The score counter is iterated by one every time a target is hit, and this is immediately
fed back to the student who can see the live score in front of them.

Figure 37: When the timer reaches zero, any targets currently in the scene are removed, and
the score counter is fixed. The narrator congratulates the student on their efforts,
and asks them to remove the headset and return to the real world.

33
B. Results: Complete Set

Here, the full set of results can be seen, including all individual quantitative and
qualitative responses from students.

Quantitative

Q1: On a scale of 1-5, how would you rate your VR lesson experience
for enjoyment?

Figure 38: Histogram of the responses to Q1. The average enjoyment score was 4.8 ± 0.4 points
(or 96 ± 8%) - with all 25 students answering either 4/5 or 5/5.

Q2: On a scale of 1-5, how would you rate the virtual lesson for clarity
of information?

Figure 39: Histogram of the responses to Q2. The average clarity score was 4.2 ± 0.75 points
(or 84 ± 18%) - with 80% of the students answering either 4/5or 5/5.

Q3: On a scale of 1-5, how focused are you when studying physics
normally (without VR)?

34
Figure 40: Histogram of the responses. The average focus in the classroom environment is 3.64,
with a standard deviation of 0.89: giving a mean of µ1 = 3.64 ± 0.88

Q4: On a scale of 1-5, how focused were you when studying physics in
virtual reality?

Figure 41: Histogram of the responses. The average focus in the virtual environment is 4.16,
with a standard deviation of 0.83: giving a mean of µ2 = 4.16 ± 0.83

Increase in focus is significant at α = 0.05

Based on a cross-mean hypothesis test, at a significance level of 5%.

The 14% increase in average focus, from 3.64 ± 0.89 in the classroom environment
to 4.16 ± 0.83 in the VR environment, was found to be significant (See Figure 42),
with a probability of just 1.90% when considered over the entire

35
Figure 42: Cross-mean hypothesis test at 5% significance level. The 14% increase in average
focus from 3.64 ± 0.89 points to 4.16 ± 0.83 points was found to be significant, with a
probability of just 1.90% when considered over the sample size η = 25.

Qualitative
Q5: In the future, do you think you would benefit from more virtual
reality lessons like this alongside your normal lessons? Please explain
whether yes or no.
All 25 students said they would benefit from further VR experiences alongside their
normal studies. 17 students mentioned increased engagement/enjoyment when in
VR as opposed to ordinary lessons. 7 students directly mentioned its usefulness as
a visualisation tool.

1. yes, it makes lessons more interesting and makes students space out less

2. Yes - it makes problems much easier to visualise

3. Definitely, as it allows us to see the theory in practise whilst also making

learning more fun and interactive.

36
 4. Yes as it makes it easier to visualise things like motion in real life without
having to draw complicated diagrams
5. yes, it was very useful to help visual the concept
6. Yes - makes it easier to visualise and this is more interactive, so more focused
7. yesss, cause who doesn’t love vr
8. I would benefit more from using virtual reality during normal lessons as it
increases involvement and interaction.
9. Yes, because it makes it more engaging and interactive so I would concentrate
more, but I don’t think it can be a substitute a normal lesson where you can
ask for help if you need it. It would be good as a resource for consolidating
information or for introducing the topic (without the formulas) so that you
can gain a more intuitive understanding of the topic beforehand.
10. Yes, helps visualise forces in mechanics; depends on topic
11. Yes as its more engaging then a normal lesson
12. yes. it introduces a change in the method of teaching which helps to increase
interest. moreover it is easier to stay focused as you are submerged into the
lesson
13. yes because it is more engaging and i enjoy and learn better from practical
lessons
14. yes because it made the lesson much more fun and it made me want to
concentrate more than I probably would have otherwise done.
15. it would being a lot more excitement to the lessons (sorry to my teachers)
and you are isolated in the zone so it is easier to concentrate on the task
16. yes its quite interactive
17. Yes as they are more entertaining as a form of independent study rather than
working alone in silence
18. yes! it was super engaging
19. yeah! I felt very focused, and visualising the concepts felt easier in VR
20. Yes, I think a combination of both would be useful because it ensures that
we can understand the concepts we learn by seeing its practical use
21. Yes because you are able to visualise the problems set to you

37
 22. yes, it is more exciting to learn in that way
23. it would be enjoyable to review things i already know but it worked with
projectile motion as i already understand it. i would find it difficult to grasp
new concepts using VR
24. Yes! Because I think VR can help demonstrate lots of physical modelling much
better than lecturers do on the blackboard (and also figures in textbooks)
25. Yes providing a more interactive, less boring, approach

Q6: What do you find hardest when learning in a traditional

classroom environment?
10 students mentioned they typically struggle with focus/concentration, 5 students
mentioned they struggle with visualisation, and 5 students mentioned issues with
the pacing of lessons.

1. visualising what the teacher is trying to be explain

2. I find it difficult to visualise physical problems, since my spatial awareness
isn’t very good
3. The theories explained need to be shown practically as well, especially as to
how they relate with the world around us so that we can apply our knowledge
to everyday problems.
4. being able to visualise the theories and see them happening in real life
5. visualising things is sometimes hard if there is no practical involved
6. keeping focused
7. concentrating for long periods of timeee
8. Not enough interaction or hands-on involvement
9. Concentrating on what the teacher is saying and understanding quickly
enough.
10. Paying attention for prolonged periods of time
11. Its boring
12. staying focused
13. its boring and hard to engage
14. not always being able to go at your own pace

38
 15. other people put pressure on you when they know the answer, but you feel
like you are too slow and don’t want to ask questions. links to pace of the
lessons - if the pace is too fast then the information piles up and if you don’t
understand the basic concepts then it makes you less confident in the long
run

16. imagining the concepts

17. Trying to pay attention to explanations whilst forming questions and devel-
oping understanding

18. keeping my interest

19. application of knowledge

20. It’s difficult to get down the important information

21. calculations

22. staying engaged

23. not having time to process new concepts

24. The concepts are easy to understand, but I seldom have the chance to test in
real life if the physics I learnt in classes is right.

25. concentrating

Q7: What would you improve about the virtual lesson experience?
4 students mentioned the addition of a ”replay” feature at each stage of the
lecture. 7 students wanted more interaction or more practical examples of projectile
motion. 4 students directly requested more detail in the explanations.

1. provide a way to repeat the information given, to properly process it

2. The teaching bit at the beginning (going through the formulae) could be a
bit more interactive - it’s very easy to zone out, especially as looking around
the surroundings in VR is much more exciting than real life.

3. Perhaps have a back button or a replay button if people do not understand

the concept being explained the first time.

4. During the shooting session it was a bit difficult to tell how far the target
was an option for the information to replay so if you missed anything you can
listen to it again

39
 5. be able to replay the explanations without having to restart the whole pro-
gramme
6. I think it would be more useful in terms of actual learning if you *had* to use
the formulae in order to complete the game, that way you would get good
practice with what you learn in the beginning
7. Louder headset and longer games
8. The beginning was similar to a normal powerpoint presentation with the
information in front and someone reciting whats on the board. To improve, the
lesson could be more interactive throughout and perhaps move the perspective
a little more and take advantage of the vr experience.
9. Disable buttons that are not being used;
10. More clarity in instructions
11. louder sound; speed control
12. The colours are a bit bright, feels like you might fall off the platform, can’t
ask questions
13. maybe have an option to go back and hear what you missed again
14. there were a few lags in the program and it starts quietly and gets louder
after. otherwise good :)
15. the sound
16. Have some more practice examples and possibly ass it to real life solutions
17. sound could be a little louder
18. it was a bit blurry but could be cause i’m wearing glasses and was a bit quiet
but the archery bit was quite fun
19. A variety of setting to describe the concept. E.g. could show the monkey pro-
jectile motion simulation to better understand how the vertical and horizontal
components are independent
20. ”The voice talking was very monotonous which made listening to slightly
boring.
21. Have more examples of different types of questions and how to solve them.
22. I don’t think everyone would understand what is going on if you listened to it
once, so you could have a slightly more detailed explanation.”

40
23. even more informative
24. I fell off the stand because i moved my thumb
25. The presentation of theories and calculations? I felt the equations just appear
without many pedagogical instructions

Q8: What other challenging topics would you like to explore in this
way?
A wide variety of physics topics were mentioned; electromagnetism, astronomy,
vectors & forces, nuclear physics, particle physics, waves, electricity, mechanics,
circular motion, simple harmonic motion, orbital motion, nuclear fission.
The most frequent answers were mechanics related topics, closely followed by
electricity and magnetism and astronomy.
There was even a student who saw potential benefits in other subjects like
Chemistry and P.E.

1. magnetism
2. Space/astrophysics topics would be really cool
3. Astronomy
4. Electromagnetism
5. vectors and forces
6. Nuclear and Particle physics
7. probably just more physics haha
8. waves, light, electricity
9. Mechanics
10. electricity
11. electromagnetism and mechanics
12. forces
13. upthrust, anything mechanics and forces
14. momentum
15. Chemistry reactivity and perhaps physical education for techniques or methods
during training

41
 16. more mechanics/circular motion
17. electricity
18. Simple harmonic motion, circular motion
19. other mechanics topics. eg simple harmonic motion, circular motion
20. mechanics
21. visual topics such as electricity
22. orbital motion - I wish I could have a much better understanding why ac-
celeration is centripetal. Also I would like to see EM to be treated in this
way.
23. nuclear fission would be sick

42