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.