Female and non-Japanese EMI instructors have background and training preferences very similar to this typical profile with one exception: EMI instructors who are non-native English speakers also expressed some interest in receiving support for their English speaking, pronunciation, and vocabulary skills - but this support is not a priority. The years of teaching experience, the type of university and other contextual factors did not play a role in such preferences.

What does this mean for the designers of EMI training for Japanese universities?

• Focus on helping EMI teachers develop class activities that they can use in their practice, and/or provide ready-to-use resources with such activities.

• Help EMI teachers and/or their universities establish clear and easy-to-follow guidelines for assessing EMI students (e.g., how to grade submissions lacking in English fluency, whether to differentiate assessment criteria between domestic and international students).

• Create opportunities for teacher collaboration: instead of lecture-based workshops, let instructors work together within and across their disciplines. Help English teachers collaborate with EMI instructors.

• Provide general teaching methodological support, including how to create student-centered classrooms, how to incorporate English learning in EMI, etc.

• Offer optional English skills development support to EMI instructors who want to improve their English but do not make it mandatory; when offered, focus on language production skills (speaking, pronunciation, vocabulary).

Deigning a mobile Virtual Reality application for a remedial spatial thinking course (2018-2019)

The problem

Spatial thinking is the skill of processing and navigating the space around us, and is considered one of the foundations of success in STEM disciplines. An instructor at a large American university who was in charge of a remedial spatial thinking course (which aimed to help students improve their spatial thinking) was curious if VR technology can help students become better at 3D visualizations and spatial reasoning. Our team offered to design a series of mobile Virtual Reality applications to explore this problem.

We focused on two research questions:

#1: How do students evaluate the usability of the developed mobile VR apps?

#2: Do the designed apps improve students’ spatial thinking skills?

Project constraints

Our team had a set of about 15 smartphones with Google Cardboard mobile VR headsets and Bluetooth VR controllers. The processing power and the functionality of the controllers were limited, and the class size was about 30 people, meaning that the apps had to be lightweight and designed to work with pairs of students. We chose to design the apps as an aid and focus on developing detailed instructional materials to guide students through spatial training.

Application & instructional material design

Using the existing literature on spatial thinking and iterative feedback from several colleagues not involved in the project, I prototyped the structure and UI of the applications. The app was built by two students with expertise in programming using Unity 3D; I created 3D models for the apps using Blender.

For instructional materials, I created self-paced worksheets that guided students through VR-facilitated activities and encouraged reflection. The activities centered around an ongoing dialogue to help learners verbalize their problem-solving process.

Application demo

Research method & process

To test the usability of the developed apps, I used a triangulation of three methods: 

• in-class observations of students using the apps

• student feedback via a post-course survey

• one-on-one interviews

To measure the impact of the apps on students’ spatial skills, I used a quantitative approach: participants took a spatial ability assessment (Purdue Spatial Visualization Test) before and after the course, and their performance on each pre- and post-unit test (designed by the course instructor) was also collected. I used Excel and SPSS to analyze the quantitative data, and NVivo for qualitative analysis.

Insights & Impact

My in-class observations revealed learners’ pain points in the VR apps usability that were later confirmed in the survey responses (55 students) and interviews (25 students). Three pain points were related to the mobile VR technology itself: 

• poor controller connectivity

• discomfort or dizziness from wearing the headset

• clunky controller navigation system (unusual button positioning)

The fourth pain point is about the non-intuitive menu design of the applications: learners were often unsure about what each menu button meant.

While 29 learners in the survey found the VR apps helpful in visualizing objects and manipulations that are hard to imagine, 16 noted that technical difficulties such as unstable controllers and unintuitive menus made it hard to benefit from the apps. 6 learners described physical discomfort because of dizziness or headache, 5 emphasized that the VR experience was enjoyable and fun, and 9 did not find the apps useful in developing their spatial skills.

In short, the usability of the developed apps received substantial negative feedback from the learners, even though many of them found the apps helpful in the learning process. 

Learners’ performance data showed no significant improvements in their spatial ability test scores; they may have enjoyed using VR but the tool did not help develop better spatial skills.

Recommendations for using mobile VR apps in the classroom:

• Consider using mobile VR apps that do not require Bluetooth controllers (e.g., apps that use gaze control).

• Alternatively, allocate more budget for more expensive and more stable controllers.

• Motion sickness is a common problem when using VR. Adjust the app settings to ensure smooth camera transitions, make starting scenes more static and less disorienting, and allow learners to take frequent breaks if needed.

• Conduct an in-depth usability test of the app menu items - do users understand what they do?