Environmental outreach aims to create opportunities for students to engage with nature, but this can be challenging when ecosystems are difficult to access. In such cases, outreach programs often rely on hands-on games and classroom-based activities to foster learning and connection. These approaches, however, cannot replicate the experience of being in the habitat itself. Extended reality (XR) applications, including immersive 360° videos, can simulate realistic experiences with the potential to increase access to important ecosystems and promote deeper connection with nature.
Methods
Our goal was to determine how an immersive 360° video experience impacted student learning and connectedness to nature compared to a traditional, hands-on classroom-based outreach lesson. Oyster reefs were used as a case study habitat. A 360° video experience was created and displayed through immersive virtual reality headsets. A hands-on lesson, incorporating live invertebrate animals commonly found on oyster reefs, was developed to mirror the 360° video content. Seventy-nine middle school students participated in a crossover study design.
Results
The 360° video experience increased student learning, and the hands-on lesson improved both learning and connectedness to nature. However, the combination of the 360° video and hands-on lesson provided the most comprehensive outreach experience.
Discussion
These findings offer relevant insights for educators, outreach practitioners, and environmental scientists seeking innovative ways to connect students with nature. While both outreach methods offer educational value, combining immersive virtual content with experiential hands-on opportunities provides the most effective and engaging way for students to explore important ecosystems within a classroom setting.
environmental educationFloridaIndian River Lagoonlive animalsmarine educationrestorationvirtual realityThe author(s) declared that financial support was received for this work and/or its publication. This research was funded by the National Science Foundation (#16173740), the Disney Conservation Fund, the Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program, and UCF Biology, article processing charges were provided in part by the UCF College of Graduate Studies Open Access Publishing Fund.section-at-acceptanceDigital EducationIntroduction
In recent decades, major environmental changes have been driven by anthropogenic activity, altering ecosystems and contributing to the loss of natural areas (Vitousek et al., 1997; IPCC, 2023). Community awareness and support for conservation and restoration efforts are critical to mitigate negative human impacts and maintain important habitats and their ecosystem functions (Walters et al., 2022; Christensen et al., 2024). However, many of the consequences of anthropogenic activity develop over decades or centuries and can be geographically removed from human populations (Miller, 2005). This can make environmental issues seem obscure and difficult to quantify concretely in people’s day-to-day lives (Moser, 2010; Tang and Chooi, 2023). With increasing urbanization and lack of access to natural areas, fewer people experience nature on a consistent basis, reducing the likelihood that they will support solutions to environmental issues (Palmberg and Kuru, 2000; Miller, 2005; Bickford et al., 2012). Environmental outreach programs, a type of informal education, aim to overcome these barriers and build awareness and support for conservation by providing community members with opportunities to connect with nature (Braun and Dierkes, 2017; Struminger et al., 2021).
Sense of place, initially defined by Tuan (1975), is the relationship that an individual develops with a physical space through experiential and emotional connections. This concept highlights how people form attachments to a place, which often motivate care for that space, making it an effective way to create dialogue around environmental issues (Kudryavtsev et al., 2012). Positive experiences in nature are a dominant factor in shaping sense of place and facilitating a person’s concern for the environment and their future engagement in conservation practices (Tanner, 1980). For example, recreational activities such as kayaking and swimming were associated with positive support for shellfish restoration in Puget Sound, Washington (Poe et al., 2016). Hawthorne et al. (2022) demonstrated that coastal restoration efforts can benefit from focusing on locations with an established sense of place, measured through level of emotional attachment. Areas with high emotional attachment were deemed important by the local community and had greater initial support for restoration, bridging conservation science with stakeholder priorities. In areas with lower emotional attachment, Hawthorne et al. (2022) suggested using targeted outreach to increase visibility for necessary restoration projects and garner community support. Environmental outreach can provide opportunities for people to interact positively with nature, which is particularly important for people in urban or suburban areas with reduced ability to experience nature on a regular basis (Tanner, 1980). These facilitated opportunities are critical to developing a connectedness to nature and a sense of place, motivating people to protect natural spaces (Tanner, 1980; Miller, 2005; Bickford et al., 2012; Poe et al., 2016; Hawthorne et al., 2022).
Personal connections to nature are often longer lasting when formed during childhood (Tanner, 1980; Choe and Sheffield, 2025). Additionally, people that do not have the opportunity to connect with nature in their youth are more likely to stay disconnected as adults (Chawla, 2020). Early adolescence, ranging from 10 to 14 years old, is a critical time for environmental literacy, with interest in nature often declining after this age particularly for children and adolescents not already engaged in outdoor activities or hobbies (Stevenson et al., 2013; Hughes et al., 2019; Andrews et al., 2020; Neurohr et al., 2023; Choe and Sheffield, 2025). For this reason, many environmental outreach programs focus on early adolescents to promote connection and encourage pro-environmental behavior. Ideally, these programs take students outdoors to actively engage with nature (Stern et al., 2014). For schools, this can occur in the form of class field trips or curriculums with outdoor activities such as planting a garden on campus (Dale et al., 2020). Integrating field trips and outdoor activities into lesson plans, however, can be a burden on school administrators and teachers due to lack of resources, limits on teacher training, cost of transportation, and school district safety policies (Michie, 1998; Anderson and Zhang, 2003; Ordon et al., 2021). These barriers are particularly difficult or impossible to overcome for less accessible habitats, like coastal and marine ecosystems. In these cases, environmental outreach instead focuses on approaches that can be carried out within the classroom (Gall et al., 2020).
Traditional, classroom-based science outreach often involves scientists visiting formal education spaces with the goal of increasing students’ understanding of scientific topics, inspiring interest and increasing positive attitudes toward science (Guarrella et al., 2025). Conducting outreach in formal education settings can be beneficial for topics that focus on complex or abstract issues, including long-term human impacts and climate change, or are in inaccessible locations like the deep sea. Traditional classroom outreach has been shown to positively impact students’ knowledge and awareness of environmental issues (Zelezny, 1999; Counsell et al., 2020; Choe and Sheffield, 2025). Gall et al. (2020) determined that in-class science outreach was able to reach a more diverse audience of students, including underrepresented groups, by removing barriers that limit access to other types of informal science education, such as admission fees at a science museum. In-class science outreach improved students’ attitudes toward science, particularly for students that started out with less positive attitudes (Gall et al., 2020). Environmental outreach programs often range from lectures to hands-on games and activities brought to classrooms to engage students in environmental issues (Zelezny, 1999). In some circumstances, these programs bring live animals to school classrooms. Live animals and touch tanks (i.e., aquatic animals in tanks with water) are seen as one of the most engaging ways to teach audiences about important organisms and habitats (Wellnitz et al., 2002; Silva dos Santos et al., 2020). However, none of these classroom-based activities provide students with a first-hand perspective of actually being in these habitats, possibly limiting students’ connection to these spaces which is critical to developing a sense of place and fostering engagement in conservation (Tanner, 1980).
The use of innovative and creative mediums of communication may help increase connectedness to nature, defined as emotional and experiential connection, and understanding of environmental topics (Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, 2025; Semken et al., 2025). Extended reality (XR) technologies, including virtual reality and immersive 360° videos, can be utilized as educational tools able to simulate realistic experiences and promote deeper understanding of complex systems (Harrington, 2011; Slater and Sanchez-Vives, 2016). Here, we refer to virtual reality (VR) as computer-modeled, simulated virtual space, whereas 360° videos refer to video footage that captures a real space in all directions; both can be viewed through head-mounted displays, making them fully immersive (Slater and Sanchez-Vives, 2016). XR applications can bring inaccessible or distant places directly to viewers, increasing access to first-hand perspectives of important places and ecosystems (Pirker and Dengel, 2021; Barbagallo et al., 2024). For this reason, these technologies have gained popularity as a way to create compelling, experience-based methods of communicating environmental science (Mendoza et al., 2025).
Immersive VR and 360° videos have been shown to increase participants’ enjoyment and engagement in science topics when compared to 2D media and conventional lectures (Pirker and Dengel, 2021). For example, Behm-Morawitz and Shin (2024) compared wetland conservation outreach between an immersive 360° video and a 2D video. The 360° video increased participants’ feeling of presence within the wetland environment and was correlated with higher pro-environmental attitudes compared to the 2D version (Behm-Morawitz and Shin, 2024). Learning outcomes in XR applications, however, have been decidedly mixed with some studies showing increased learning (Markowitz et al., 2018; Liou and Chang, 2018; Wu et al., 2021; Ou et al., 2021) and others showing no difference or reduced learning (Parong and Mayer, 2018; Slavova and Mu, 2018; Klingenberg et al., 2020; Makransky et al., 2021). The high cognitive load associated with immersive XR, especially interactive XR, is thought to contribute to these inconsistent results (Ahn et al., 2022).
A major limitation of computer-modeled VR is the substantial cost and time required to create these kinds of experiences (Pirker and Dengel, 2021). It would be incredibly difficult to develop computer-modeled VR applications for all the specific habitats and ecosystems highlighted in many environmental outreach programs. For these reasons, 360° videos have gained popularity among environmental scientists (Nelson et al., 2020; Behm-Morawitz and Shin, 2024). Immersive 360° videos are comparatively inexpensive, easier to create, and allow for the most realistic representation of important habitats, offering an accessible way for environmental scientists to create immersive outreach programs (Pirker and Dengel, 2021; Loizzo et al., 2023; Barnett et al., 2024; Behm-Morawitz and Shin, 2024). For these reasons, we focus here on the use of immersive 360° videos in environmental outreach.
Previous research has compared 360° video experiences to traditional, non-interactive classroom teaching methods (Duwan et al., 2019; Slavova and Mu, 2018; Ou et al., 2021; Loizzo et al., 2023; Behm-Morawitz and Shin, 2024), and a couple of studies have examined real life hands-on activity outcomes following XR lessons (Duwan et al., 2019; Klingenberg et al., 2024). However, real and hands-on participation is the current standard in environmental outreach whether outdoors or within a classroom, and it should be the baseline for understanding the effectiveness of immersive technologies (Stern et al., 2014). Therefore, the goal of this study was to address the following questions: How does an immersive 360° video lesson impact students’ knowledge retention and connectedness to nature compared to a hands-on, classroom-based environmental outreach lesson? Does the combination of these two lessons impact knowledge retention and connectedness to nature differently than either method alone?
Materials and methodsAudience
Our outreach program focused on middle school students in eighth grade (13–14 years old) attending school in central Florida, United States. Classes were recruited through a professional development workshop for K-12 educators hosted by Biology faculty at the University of Central Florida. Teachers attending the workshop volunteered to have their students participate in this study. Participating classes were then selected on a basis of class availability, public school district research approval, and the number of students granted parental consent to participate. In total, 120 students in elective environmental science classes from one middle school participated in the outreach program. This was a public middle school (non-Title 1) in a suburb of Orlando, Florida about 80 km from the east coast. Of this group, 79 students completed all portions of the pre-post-assessments and surveys to allow for a direct comparison between the 360° video experience and hands-on lesson. Thirty-seven of the students were male and 40 were female (two did not specify gender), none of the students had ever seen an oyster reef in person, and over 85% of students had used a VR headset at least once before this study. The University of Central Florida Institutional Review Board approved this study (IRB #4846). Signed parental or guardian consent and student assent forms were obtained prior to student participation in this study. All assessments and surveys were conducted anonymously to protect student data and privacy.
Outreach program topic
Oyster reefs, one of the most threatened coastal habitat types globally (Beck et al., 2011), were the focus of our outreach program. These reefs can be found in the Indian River Lagoon, an estuarine system that extends 251 km, encompassing about 40% of the east coast of Florida, United States. Over 1.6 million people live within the Indian River Lagoon watershed and are therefore impacted by environmental and ecological issues that occur there (IRLNEP Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan, 2019). Intertidal oyster reefs are a dominant habitat in the northern portion of the Indian River Lagoon system, known as Mosquito Lagoon. These reefs provide numerous ecosystem services that benefit the lagoon by creating reef habitat and filtering and cleaning the water (Coen et al., 2007; Grabowski et al., 2012). Unfortunately, human impacts have resulted in a 63% loss of oyster reef area in Mosquito Lagoon (Benson et al., 2023). To mitigate this loss, oyster reef restoration has been underway in Mosquito Lagoon since 2007 to restore reef functionality and associated ecosystem services (Walters et al., 2021). Oyster reefs in Mosquito Lagoon are primarily accessible by boat and people without this access have limited opportunities to explore these habitats or observe the long-term benefits of restoration.
Community awareness and engagement are vital to the success of these oyster reef restoration projects (Walters et al., 2022). Therefore, scientists and restoration practitioners have been conducting oyster-focused outreach events throughout central Florida for the past 20 years. For K-12 audiences, these events have engaged students through live animal touch tanks, opportunities to assist in creating restoration materials, and oyster-themed games and crafts. Field trips to an oyster reef are not possible and restoration deployment requires participants to be 18 years of age or older. Thus, an immersive 360° video experience is the best way to provide K-12 students with a first-hand perspective of these reef habitats and the opportunity to see the benefits of restoration. Live animal touch tanks and immersive 360° video experiences are the activities most frequently requested by educators (L.J. Walters, personal communication).
To address our research questions, we developed an outreach program that included some of these hands-on, classroom-based outreach activities and an immersive 360° oyster reef experience. The 360° video and hands-on components were created to be similar in length and content (approximately 15 min each) and, when combined, fit within a single class period (50 min) during a standard seven-period school day, allowing multiple classes to participate.
° video experience
The goal of the oyster reef exploration 360° video experience was to teach students about the importance of oyster reef habitats and how oyster reef restoration can help increase the resilience of the lagoon and improve reef ecosystem services. We wanted to capture these habitats as realistically as possible; therefore, the experience was created using 360° videos of oyster reefs in Mosquito Lagoon. The videos were filmed with a GoPro MAX camera (v02.02). The camera was mounted to a 15 cm Telesin Super Clamp handlebar mount. To better engage participants, most videos were shot from a “crabs-eye-view,” where the mounted camera was placed among the oysters on the reef, providing a close-up perspective of the habitat. For any standing point of view, the camera mount was attached to a 1 m tall metal pole (5 cm diameter) with a weighted foot that could be placed on the reefs. All videos were recorded during low tide, while the intertidal reefs were exposed. The camera remained stationary while recording, as camera movement within immersive experiences is often a cause of motion sickness (Litleskare and Calogiuri, 2019). Individual video clips were edited and combined into a single storyline using Adobe Premiere Pro (v23.6.5) video editing software. The lead author recorded narration that was added to the storyline in Adobe Premiere to guide participants through the 360° video experience. The experience was 8 min 30 s long; this duration allowed us to include all relevant information, be similar in length to the hands-on lesson, and remain under 10 min which is the maximum recommended duration for immersive content (Moss and Muth, 2011). The 360° video was displayed through fully immersive Meta Quest 2 headsets (128GB, Model No. KW49CM), allowing students to experience the ecosystem from a personal, first-hand perspective.
Ten headsets were set up in one classroom. The headsets were placed at individual desks, spread out around the room. Outreach leaders took about 5 min at the beginning of this activity to explain that students would see oyster reefs in the Indian River Lagoon and the process of oyster reef restoration in the immersive experience. The leaders demonstrated how to use the headsets and asked students to save any content questions until the end. Students remained seated throughout the 360° video experience but were encouraged to shift in their chairs to look in all directions. Afterward, students were able to ask the outreach leaders questions about the content they had seen. The headsets were then wiped down with disinfecting wipes to prepare for the next group of students.
The 360° video experience told the story of oyster reef restoration. Initially, students were virtually brought to natural, functioning oyster reefs to learn how oysters create habitat and filter and clean the water, benefiting the entire ecosystem (Figure 1A). Next, students saw a degraded oyster reef that had been damaged by human impacts. Students observed how boat wakes caused erosion of the reef, that over time form tall, sun-bleached mounds of disarticulated shells with very few live oysters present. The degraded reefs did not provide the same quality of habitat or benefits to the ecosystem (Figure 1B). Then, students were taken to a reef undergoing restoration with non-plastic, biodegradable materials, where they were able to see scientists and community volunteers actively restoring a degraded reef and how these reefs looked immediately after restoration (Figure 1C). Finally, students were brought to a reef that had been restored 2 years prior to observe how the reef was once again able to provide habitat and water filtration services to the system (Figure 1D).
Still images from the oyster reef exploration 360° video experience. (A) Natural oyster reef, functioning as a habitat for many animals including wading birds. (B) Degraded reef, with a sun-bleached mound of shell caused by boat wakes. (C) Oyster reef restoration in action. (D) Restored oyster reef at 2 years post-restoration.
Panel A shows a wide view of an oyster reef at low tide under a clear blue sky, with a white bird flying above the reef. Panel B depicts a large pile of oyster shells on the shore with a single mangrove tree in the distance, under partly cloudy skies. Panel C presents people and boats in shallow water near an oyster restoration area where oyster shells on mats are distributed in rows, surrounded by mangrove trees in the distance. Panel D displays a close view of live oyster clusters on a reef at the water’s edge, with a sunny sky and a posted sign visible in the background.Hands-on lesson
The hands-on outreach lesson was created to replicate the content in the 360° video experience by combining three hands-on, classroom-based outreach activities. All the hands-on activities were conducted in a separate classroom from the 360° video experience. At the start of this lesson, the outreach leader told students that they would be learning about oyster reefs in the Indian River Lagoon and the process of oyster reef restoration. An oyster reef touch tank activity was created to demonstrate how live oyster clusters create habitat for other animals. Live oysters and disarticulated shells were placed into plastic aquariums (30 × 18 × 18 cm) along with invertebrate animals like crabs, shrimp, and marine worms that are commonly found on oyster reefs. Four touch tank habitats were set up, and students were split into groups of 3–4 for this activity. While wearing safety gloves, students sorted through the animals in their touch tank habitats using a biodiversity guide to identify the different species (Figure 2A). Students were given 5 min for this activity. Next, a water filtration activity was used to demonstrate how oysters filter and clean the water. Students filtered lagoon water themselves using a filtering apparatus and hand pump. Everyone took turns using the hand pump to pull lagoon water through a 0.45-micron filter. Afterward, the filter paper was removed to show students what was being removed from the water by oysters (Figure 2B). Additionally, during the filtering activity two tanks (30 × 18 × 18 cm), one with live oysters and one without, were used to show the differences in water clarity with oyster presence (Figure 2C). This activity took approximately 5 min. Finally, to highlight current restoration practices, we brought in different biodegradable, non-plastic restoration materials for students to examine (Figure 2D). Students were told how boat wakes cause damage to oyster reefs and that the goal of restoration was to create stability on the reef to allow new oysters to recruit and grow. Then, students debated the pros and cons of different materials based on dimensions, weight, and shape and discussed which material could provide the best structure for oyster recruitment. This activity took approximately 5 min. All talking points from the outreach leader (lead author) followed a script similar to the narration in the 360° video experience. Total activity time was about 8.5 min, similar to the 360° video experience, and all additional time was spent on instructions and activity set up. Students were able to interact with peers and the outreach leader, as would be possible during a traditional outreach event, to ensure this lesson replicated a typical outreach experience.
Activities from the hands-on oyster reef lesson. (A) Students sorting through an oyster reef habitat touch tank. (B) Water filtering activity: a student using a hand-pump to filter lagoon water; petri dishes show filter papers before filtering (right) and after filtering (left). (C) Water filtering activity: the two tanks show the difference in water clarity with live oysters (right tank) and without (left tank) after 5 min. (D) Examples of biodegradable, non-plastic oyster reef restoration materials; the blue ruler represents 15 cm.
Panel A shows gloved individuals handling oysters or shells over plastic tubs while another person writes observations on a worksheet. Panel B displays hands using a manual vacuum filter system on a table. Panel C has two rectangular plastic tanks, one with murky water and one with clearer water and oysters in the tank, in a laboratory setting, with a scale bar indicating thirty centimeters. Panel D presents two oyster restoration substrates on a black surface, one with rough texture in the shape of a ring and the other a gridded mat with oyster shell attached, next to a blue ruler for scale.Crossover study design
This study was conducted with a crossover study design to allow us to compare each lesson individually (360° video vs. hands-on), as well as compare the individual lessons to the impact of these lessons when combined (Figure 3). Before the program, students completed a background questionnaire, a pre-assessment, and pre-survey. On the day of the program, students in each class were split into two groups (Groups A, B). During session one, Group A students participated in the 360° video experience first and Group B participated in the hands-on lesson first. At the end of session one, all students completed a post-assessment and post-survey to determine the difference between the 360° video and hands-on lessons. For session two, the groups swapped activities and then completed a final post-assessment and post-survey to determine the difference of the combined impact of both the 360° video and hands-on lesson compared to either method alone.
Crossover study design used to compare the 360° video and hands-on lessons to each other (session 1) and compare both methods alone to the lessons combined (session 2).
Diagram showing a crossover study design with Group A and Group B. In session 1, Group A starts with 360-degree video and Group B with hands-on activity, both preceded by a pre-assessment and survey. During a break and swap, both groups complete and initial post-assessment and survey. Session 2 has Group A and B switch activities, ending with a final post-assessment and survey.Learning assessment and connectedness to nature survey
Before participating in the outreach program, students completed a background questionnaire to measure student demographics that could influence assessment and survey scores. This questionnaire included student gender, whether the student had previously visited the Indian River Lagoon, previous use of immersive XR applications (no experience, 1–2 times total, couple of times per year, monthly, weekly), and students’ self-reported level of environmental concern (not concerned, neutral, somewhat concerned, and very concerned). The background questionnaire was only completed before students participated in the outreach program. The 360° video experience and hands-on lesson were compared with a pre-post learning assessment consisting of seven multiple choice questions based on topics covered in both lessons. We identified key topics we wanted students to learn during the program and focused on these topics in pre-post-assessments to measure changes in knowledge retention. These topics included oyster ecosystem services (i.e., habitat creation and water filtration), causes of reef degradation, and the process of oyster reef restoration. In addition, a pre-post survey, the Connectedness to Nature Scale (CNS) (Mayer and Frantz, 2004), was used to measure students’ emotional and experiential connection compared between the 360° video and hands-on lessons. Connectedness to nature was measured using a 5-point Likert scale, where an average score closer to 5 indicated an overall higher connection with nature and a more positive attitude. An average score closer to 1 indicated a lower connection with nature and more negative attitude. The background questionnaire, assessments and surveys were completed electronically via Qualtrics. Additionally, outreach leaders observed and recorded student reactions during the different lessons to better understand how students felt and were interacting with the activities.
Statistical analyses
In total, 79 students completed all portions of this study. RStudio (v2025.05.0.496) was used to analyze all data (R Core Team, 2025). Assessments and surveys were split into four groups: Pre-assessment/survey (n = 79), 360° video only (n = 38), hands-on only (n = 41), and combined (n = 79). This allowed for a comparison between the different versions of this program.
A general linearized mixed model (GLMM) with a Gaussian distribution was used in RStudio to determine how the assessment scores varied between the different lessons. Assessment version (pre-assessment, 360° video only, hands-on only, or combined) was the main predictor included in the models. Additionally, background information was tested in the models to help explain the results. These variables included student gender, frequency of XR use before the study, student reported level of concern for the environment, and which lesson (360° video or hands-on) was completed first. The random effect of study ID was tested in the model to account for the repeated measure design, as the same students completed the same assessment after each lesson. Akaike information criterion (AIC) model selection was used to determine which variables best predicted assessment scores, and model fit was assessed using the Performance package (Lüdecke et al., 2021) and DHARMa package (Hartig, 2022) to assure that all assumptions were met. The model effect size was estimated using the multi-modal inference (MuMIn) package to obtain R2 values for the fixed effects (marginal R2) and the fixed plus random effects (conditional R2) included in the GLMM (Bartoń, 2025).
The CNS survey was completed as specified by Mayer and Frantz (2004). The mean CNS scores per student were determined for each survey version (pre-survey, 360° video only, hands-on only, or combined). A GLMM with Gaussian distribution was used to analyze this data (Sneed et al., 2021). The mean CNS score was used as the response variable and survey version was the main predictor variable included in all models. Background information including student gender, previous XR usage, which lesson (360° video or hands-on) was completed first, and self-reported level of concern for the environment was tested in the models. The random effect of study ID was also tested in these models. Akaike information criterion (AIC) model selection was used to determine which variables best predicted survey scores, and model fit was assessed using the Performance package (Lüdecke et al., 2021) and DHARMa package (Hartig, 2022) to assure that all assumptions were met. The model effect size was estimated using the MuMIn package (Bartoń, 2025) to obtain the marginal and conditional R2 values.
ResultsStudent demographics
Of the 79 students included in this study, 37 were male, 40 were female, and 2 students chose not to specify their gender. None of the students that participated in the study had ever been to the Indian River Lagoon before. Fourteen percent of students had no prior experience with immersive XR applications, 41% had used XR once or twice before, 30% typically used XR a couple of times per year, 9% used XR monthly, and 6% of students used XR weekly. Finally, the students in these elective environmental science classes reported their level of concern for the environment; 13% reported they were very concerned, 40% were somewhat concerned, 32% felt neutral, and 15% had no concern for the environment.
Learning assessment
The learning assessment questions measured student knowledge on oyster reef and restoration content compared between the different lesson versions (pre-assessment, 360° video only, hands-on only, combined). The most parsimonious statistical model included assessment version, initial level of concern for the environment, student gender, previous XR use, first lesson completed, and the random effect of study ID. The model effect size was relatively high, with the fixed effects capturing a large portion of the variance (marginal R2 = 0.52) and the combination of the fixed and random effects capturing slightly more variation (conditional R2 = 0.60). Assessment version significantly impacted student learning. The pre-assessment had a lower score than all three post-assessment versions (GLMM: z = −13.63, p < 0.0001), with a pre-assessment score mean of 43.2% (± 18.7% SD) (Figure 4). The 360° video only post-assessment score was 62.1% (± 21.7% SD), and the hands-on only lesson scored a mean of 83.6% (± 11.8% SD). After completing both the 360° video and hands-on lesson, the combined post-assessment scores had a mean of 79.6% (± 16.9% SD), which was 84% greater than the pre-assessment. The scores from 360° video experience alone were significantly lower than the scores for both the hands-on lesson (z = −5.2, p < 0.0001) and combined lesson (z = −5.8, p < 0.0001). There was no difference in assessment scores between the hands-on and combined lessons (z = 0.6, p = 0.54). Furthermore, student gender, self-reported level of environmental concern, and which lesson was completed first did not impact the assessment scores (p > 0.10 for both). However, previous XR usage was correlated with better assessment scores, where XR use on at least a monthly basis was associated with higher scores compared to students that had never used XR before this study (z = 2.3, p = 0.02).
Students’ knowledge assessment scores compared between the four assessment versions. N = 79 students. Assessment scores improved after all lesson versions compared to the pre-assessment (GLMM: p < 0.0001). Letters above each bar denote significance, where different letters indicate a significant difference between the groups and the same letters indicate there is no difference between the groups.
Bar chart comparing mean assessment scores across four assessment versions: Pre-Assessment, 360-degree Video Only, Hands-on Only, and Combined. Pre-Assessment scores are lowest, 360-degree Video Only is higher, and Hands-on Only and Combined have the highest, similar scores, each group marked A, B, or C to indicate statistically significant differences. Error bars represent standard error.Connectedness to nature survey
The most parsimonious model included survey version, initial level of concern for the environment, student gender, and the random effect of study ID. Previous XR use and first lesson completed were not impactful in any of the models and decreased the model fits and violated assumptions; therefore, these factors were excluded. The model effect size was moderate to high, with the fixed effects capturing some of the variance (marginal R2 = 0.26) and the combination of the fixed and random effects capturing most of the variance (conditional R2 = 0.84). This indicates that initial differences between individual students were the main drivers of the connectedness to nature scores. In the pre-survey, students’ connectedness to nature scores ranged from 1.8 to 4.4 (out of 5.0), with a mean of 3.4 (± 0.5 SD), indicating a generally high connectedness to nature at the start of this study (Figure 5). Survey version played a marginal role in influencing survey scores, where the hands-on lesson was correlated with higher positive attitudes compared to the pre-survey (GLMM: z = 2.7, p = 0.008). After completing the hands-on lesson, connectedness to nature ranged from 2.5 to 4.4, with a mean of 3.5 (± 0.4 SD). However, the 360° video only and combined lessons did not increase survey scores (z = 0.0.8, p = 0.43; and z = 1.57, p = 0.12; respectively). The 360° video experience and combined lessons both had a mean score of 3.4 (± 0.5 SD). Additionally, student gender was not correlated with any difference in survey score (z = −0.7, p = 0.50).
Connectedness to nature scale (CNS) mean scores compared across the different lesson versions. N = 79 students. Most students had mean scores > 3 indicating an overall greater connectedness to nature. Survey scores increased after the hands-on lesson (GLMM: p = 0.008). Letters above each bar denote significance, where different letters indicate a significant difference between the groups and the same letters indicate there is no difference between the groups.
Bar chart comparing mean CNS scores by survey version: Pre-Survey and 360 Degree Video Only show similar scores around 3.3, Hands-on Only is higher near 3.6, and Combined is intermediate around 3.5. Letters A, B, and AB indicate statistical groupings.
Initial level of concern for the environment was the most important predictor of connectedness to nature over the different lessons in this program. Students that reported being “very” concerned about the environment on their background questionnaire tended to have higher connectedness to nature scores compared to all other reported levels of concern (p ≤ 0.005) with a mean survey score of 3.9 (± 0.4 SD) at the end of the program. Students that were “somewhat concerned” about the environment were intermediate (z = −2.8, p = 0.005) and had a mean score of 3.5 (± 0.4 SD). Finally, students that reported neutral or no concern tended to have lower connectedness scores (z = −4.3, p < 0.0001; and z = −4.8, p < 0.0001; respectively), with means of 3.2 (± 0.5 SD) and 3.1 (± 0.5 SD).
Observations of students—program impact
Student reactions to the hands-on activities and the 360° video experience were observed by researchers during the outreach program. While participating in the hands-on lesson, students consistently engaged with their fellow classmates and the outreach leaders. During the touch tank activity, students vocalized their initial hesitation to reach into the touch tanks and search for the animals. They expressed surprise at finding crabs hiding within the oyster clusters and at oysters “spitting” water as a part of their filter-feeding process. Students encouraged each other to take turns holding the crabs, calling for friends to look at particularly large crabs (i.e., crabs about 5 cm in length). During the water filtration activity, students expressed collective disgust at the muck that accumulated on the filter paper and discussed the water clarity differences in the tanks with and without live oysters. Students talked about the benefits of oyster reef restoration and commented on the different restoration materials, thinking through the pros of each material. When students were curious about certain content, they were able to ask questions and receive immediate answers from the outreach leaders. Overall, most students said they had more fun with the hands-on activities, particularly the touch tanks, and said that this lesson increased their understanding of the important role oysters play in creating habitat and filtering water.
During the 360° video experience, students commented that it felt like they were “actually there” in the lagoon and on the oyster reefs. They stated that the videos shot from the crabs-eye-view perspective were particularly interesting, giving them the chance to look closely at the reef and notice the small animals among the oysters. Students generally preferred the crabs-eye-view videos to the videos from a typical “standing” perspective or the videos that included scientists and volunteers actively conducting restoration. As a bird flew directly overhead in the 360° video experience, students exclaimed and physically ducked as the bird flew toward them, and students turned their heads to follow the bird’s flight path. For students that were unable to overcome their apprehension with the hands-on activities, the 360° video experience was more accessible and less intimidating. These students stated they preferred 360° video as it allowed them to see the animals and the lagoon without needing to engage with the organisms directly. Occasionally, there were technical issues with certain headsets, which took students out of the experience, limiting the impact of the immersion. Students said the 360° video experience helped them better understand how the reefs look in their natural ecosystem, and that visualizing how boat wakes negatively impact the reefs and seeing the restoration process in action helped them better understand the importance of restoration for oyster reefs in the lagoon compared to the hands-on activities that could not show these details.
Discussion
The 360° video experience increased students’ knowledge about threatened oyster reef habitats and reef restoration. This indicates that immersive 360° video-based environmental outreach can positively impact learning by providing a first-hand perspective of inaccessible ecosystems. In this study, we compared our oyster reef 360° video experience to a hands-on lesson that included live animals. In this comparison, the hands-on lesson was correlated with greater student knowledge and connectedness with nature compared to the 360° video experience. Student reactions to the overall outreach program suggested that the combination of the hands-on and 360° video lessons gave students the most well-rounded understanding of the ecosystem and how oyster reefs and restoration benefit the Indian River Lagoon and other estuaries. These findings demonstrate that 360° videos are likely more impactful when reinforced by hands-on activities. Ultimately, immersive 360° videos should not be used in place of hands-on outreach activities in classrooms, but even when used on their own, 360° videos can increase understanding of environmental topics and teach students about less accessible habitats and ecosystems in an engaging way.
Compared to educational material delivered via 2D formats like videos or lectures, immersive 360° videos are better at promoting engagement and comprehension of broad ideas (Slavova and Mu, 2018; Behm-Morawitz and Shin, 2024). However, like 2D formats, 360° video experiences offer limited to no interaction. Our oyster reef 360° video experience was able to immerse students in the lagoon setting, but they were unable to interact with the virtual space, creating a more passive learning environment (Liang et al., 2024). Active learning, through hands-on engagement, can create more opportunities for knowledge retention and connection, positively impacting students’ academic achievement and pro-environmental behavior (Zelezny, 1999; Freeman et al., 2014; Gray et al., 2025). In this study, learning assessment scores were 31.1% higher after the hands-on lesson compared to scores from the 360° video experience, indicating students retained more information from the hands-on activities. Simulated, computer-modeled VR environments allow for interaction that boosts active engagement in virtual nature settings and produces similar psychological benefits as actual outdoor experiences more often than 360° videos (Liang et al., 2024). Even so, it is unclear whether computer-modeled VR benefits learning outcomes (Markowitz et al., 2018) or if they reduce learning due to a higher cognitive load requirement that can detract from the educational content (Ahn et al., 2022; Queiroz et al., 2023). In-person, hands-on activities do not seem to have the same active engagement vs. learning trade-off, and instead hands-on activities typically increase both engagement and knowledge retention (Freeman et al., 2014).
Prior exposure to immersive XR applications also impacts learning outcomes. The novelty of the virtual environment can be distracting for people that have never used an immersive headset; it takes time for new viewers to get accustomed to the experience before they begin paying attention to the educational content (Lee et al., 2025). In this study, we determined that frequent, previous XR use correlated with better assessment scores, likely because students with greater immersive XR familiarity were able to pay more attention to the narration content at the start of the experience. Pre-training in XR applications, where participants are exposed to unrelated immersive content before the actual educational 360° video experience, may help reduce this novelty effect and improve learning outcomes (Howard and Lee, 2020).
Live animals and touch tanks used in science outreach have been shown to greatly increase participant engagement and enjoyment both in previous studies as well as in our design (Saunders and Young, 1985; Wellnitz et al., 2002; Silva dos Santos et al., 2020). Although mainly studied with vertebrates, people that have up-close encounters with an animal or are able to touch or hold an animal demonstrate increased connection, place greater importance on wildlife, and are more likely to support conservation (Wellnitz et al., 2002; Fuhrman and Ladewig, 2008; Hacker and Miller, 2016; Newberry et al., 2017). Silva dos Santos et al. (2020) demonstrated that positive perception toward nature increased when people interacted with invertebrate animals including holding crabs or observing live zooplankton under microscopes. Our findings provide support for including live invertebrate animals in environmental outreach to promote learning and connection with important ecosystems.
During our outreach program, students enjoyed the touch tank activity the most. The other hands-on activities, used to understand how oysters filter and clean the water and discuss different biodegradable materials used in oyster reef restoration, encouraged students to ask questions and allowed them to connect with each other and the outreach leaders. After the hands-on lesson, there was an overall 5% increase in students’ connectedness to nature scores. In the 360° video experience, students were able to observe animals that were not included in the touch tank activity, such as coastal birds; however, this did not translate into greater connectedness to nature. Additionally, a 360° video displayed through an immersive headset is typically centered around one person, lacking a social component. Social interaction plays a critical role in developing connections, with shared experiences and engagement with peers often being more meaningful and memorable than individual experiences (Slavova and Mu, 2018; De Felice et al., 2023). The hands-on lesson was better able to provide students with close animal encounters and social interaction, likely contributing to the positive impact on connectedness to nature.
Despite marginal increases in students’ connectedness to nature after the hands-on lesson, these scores were more strongly associated with students’ self-reported level of environmental concern. Connectedness to nature, sense of place, and environmental attitudes are typically developed over time and are associated with personal identity and previous, positive experiences in nature (Hoover, 2021). One-hour long environmental outreach programs are often too short of an intervention to significantly and permanently modify a person’s feelings about the environment (Choe and Sheffield, 2025). Students that cared about environmental issues prior to this program maintained higher connectedness throughout, regardless of outreach activity. Although 1-h programs may not demonstrate noticeable attitude shifts, they can spark interest in new topics, which is the first step to altering perspectives and attitudes (Tanner, 1980; Neurohr et al., 2023).
Access to animals for outreach may be limited and the ability to bring live organisms into the classroom is not always possible. When this is the case, immersive 360° videos can be used to connect people with important ecosystems and habitats, fostering learning and increasing presence in nature (Markowitz et al., 2018; Ou et al., 2021; Behm-Morawitz and Shin, 2024). For students that were unable to overcome their apprehension with the live animals, the 360° video experience was preferred, allowing these students to see these animals without having to engage directly. Immersive 360° videos can provide a way to connect with nature that is less unpredictable than when in natural settings, potentially increasing comfort and engagement for people that would typically shy away from those experiences. Interestingly, many of the students stated that the 360° video experience made them feel like they were “really there” in the lagoon and on the oyster reefs. This feeling of presence has been reported in other studies utilizing 360° videos for environmental education (Behm-Morawitz and Shin, 2024). Although the habitat touch tanks were more exciting to students, the feeling of “being there” was not mentioned when students explored the oyster touch tanks or held the crabs. This feeling of presence may have benefited from focusing on the crabs-eye-view perspective in the 360° videos, which not only brings viewers to a new location but also allows them to experience the world from the perspective of animals that live in that environment (Markowitz et al., 2018). This indicates that 360° videos can provide a unique experience that would otherwise not be possible in a classroom setting and are able to increase students’ spatial presence in nature.
To our knowledge, this study is the first, or among the first, to directly compare an immersive 360° video experience to a hands-on classroom outreach lesson, providing important insight into how researchers and outreach leaders can engage students in environmental science.
We contend that 360° videos are a more accessible way to create immersive XR content for outreach, particularly for environmental scientists without a background in computer science (including the lead author of this paper). These videos can then be shared with broader audiences than would normally be reachable. We utilized Meta Quest 2 headsets which can provide a high-quality immersive experience. These headsets are on the expensive side of consumer available VR technology; in 2026, these headsets sold for 270 USD. Lower-cost headset alternatives include Google Cardboard and other headsets that utilize smartphones to display video content. These options are typically available for under 25 USD, although level of immersion may be sacrificed (Rupp et al., 2019). Some schools have VR headsets for use in classrooms and providing educational content in these cases would be an easy way to facilitate outreach. However, large-scale adoption of VR technology in public schools faces many hurdles including cost and maintenance, teacher training and comfortability with the technology, and practicality in executing VR lessons (Thrasher et al., 2025). Considering this, VR headsets and environmental outreach content brought to classes and facilitated by outreach leaders may make these experiences more feasible for formal education settings.
Outreach is vital to promote education and community support for environmental issues (Braun and Dierkes, 2017), with early adolescents being a prime audience to benefit from these experiences (Choe and Sheffield, 2025). Tanner (1980) reported that learning about and positively interacting with nature at a young age was a universal experience in fostering a life-long interest in the environment. As human populations become more isolated from nature, immersive 360° videos and other XR applications can be utilized as communication tools that can increase access to ecosystems all over the world, promoting learning and generating greater support for conservation (Ou et al., 2021). Our 360° video experience was able to increase student knowledge on oyster reef habitats and the process of restoration. The 360° video experience helped students better understand how oysters fit into the ecosystem and how human impacts, both negative (boat wakes) and positive (restoration), altered these habitats. The hands-on lesson provided students with the ability to see oyster’s ecosystem services in action, how oysters create habitat that provides shelter to many small organisms and how oysters’ filter feeding helps to improve water quality and clarity in the lagoon. Combining the 360° video and hands-on lessons gave students the most well-rounded understanding of this important habitat. Immersive 360° videos can be an exceptionally useful tool in teaching students about habitats and ecosystems that they may not be able to visit in person, and 360° video experiences that are reinforced through other activities and educational material will produce the greatest positive outcomes for student learning and connectedness to nature within the classroom setting.
Data availability statement
The datasets presented in this article are not readily available because the participants of this study did not give written consent for their data to be shared publicly; therefore, supporting data is not available. Requests to access the datasets should be directed to Katherine Harris, Katherine.Harris2@ucf.edu.
Ethics statement
The studies involving humans were approved by University of Central Florida Institutional Review Board (IRB #4846). The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. Written informed consent for participation in this study was provided by the participants’ legal guardians/next of kin. Written informed consent was obtained from the individual(s) for the publication of any potentially identifiable images or data included in this article.
We thank the Seminole County School District, Tuskawilla Middle School, and environmental science teacher S. Rolfe for making this research possible, and P. Sacks and the many UCF student volunteers for their assistance in the classroom.
Conflict of interest
The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declared that generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
ReferencesAhnS. J.NowakK. L.BailensonJ. N. (2022). Unintended consequences of spatial presence on learning in virtual reality.Comput. Educ.186:104532. 10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104532AndersonD.ZhangZ. (2003). Teacher perceptions of field-trip planning and implementation.Visitor Stud. Today66–11.AndrewsM. Y.WhitakerA. H.SowersT. D.DuckworthO. W. (2020). Soil and water iron microbes in North Carolina (SWIMNC) outreach: Positive impact of combining classroom and field experiences to promote learning and shift attitudes.Front. Educ.4:151. 10.3389/feduc.2019.00151BarbagalloB.SeneseA.AmbrosiniR.CresiL.FranceschiniM.AlmagioniC. D. (2024). “Immersive 360° experiences for geoscience learning” in XR Salento 2024 (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Vol. 15030, edsDe PaolisL. T.ArpaiaP.SaccoM. (Cham: Springer), 161–178. 10.1007/978-3-031-71713-0_11BarnettC. P.LoizzoJ.BunchJ. C.BakerS.AndersonM. P. (2024). Influence of charismatic animals on youths’ environmental knowledge and connection to water through the application of virtual reality tours.J. Environ. Educ.55389–401. 10.1080/00958964.2024.2349561BartońK. (2025). MuMIn: Multi-model Inference. R package version 1.48.11. Available online at: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=MuMIn(accessed April 1, 2025).BeckM. W.BrumbaughR. D.AiroldiL.CarranzaA.CoenL. D.CrawfordC. (2011). Oyster reefs at risk and recommendations for conservation, restoration, and management.Bioscience61107–116. 10.1525/bio.2011.61.2.5Behm-MorawitzE.ShinH. (2024). Using VR for science communication: Presence, message perception, and pro-environmental effects.Sci. Commun.4636–64. 10.1177/10755470231217535BensonG. W.DonnellyM. J.SacksP. E.WaltersL. J. (2023). Documenting loss and fragmentation of intertidal oyster (Crassostrea virginica) reefs in a subtropical estuary.Environments10:133. 10.3390/environments10080133BickfordD.PosaM. R. C.QieL.Campos-ArceizA.KudavidanageE. P. (2012). Science communication for biodiversity conservation.Biol. Conserv.15174–76. 10.1016/j.biocon.2011.12.016BraunT.DierkesP. (2017). Connecting students to nature - how intensity of nature experience and student age influence the success of outdoor education programs.Environmental Education Research23937–949. 10.1080/13504622.2016.1214866ChawlaL. (2020). Childhood nature connection and constructive hope: a review of research on connecting with nature and coping with environmental loss.People Nat.2619–642. 10.1002/pan3.10128ChoeE. Y.SheffieldD. (2025). Rebuilding human-nature connections in children and adolescents: insights from a meta-analysis.Environ. Educ. Res.31245–261. 10.1080/13504622.2024.2404206ChristensenM.SeeleyR.UngosJ.LymanZ.IngleyS. J. (2024). Sustainable restoration: addressing critical challenges through university-led projects.Restoration Ecol.33:e14337. 10.1111/rec.14337CoenL. D.BrumbaughR. D.BushekD.GrizzleR.LuckenbachM. W.PoseyM. H. (2007). Ecosystem services related to oyster restoration.Marine Ecol. Prog. Series341303–307. 10.3354/meps341303CounsellG.MoonA.LittlehalesC.BrooksH.BridgesE.MossA. (2020). Evaluating an in-school zoo education programme: an analysis of attitudes and learning.J. Zoo Aquarium Res.899–106. 10.19227/jzar.v8i2.439DaleR. G.PowellR. B.SternM. J.GarstB. A. (2020). Influence of the natural setting on environmental education outcomes.Environ. Educ. Res.26613–631. 10.1080/13504622.2020.1738346De FeliceS.HamiltonA. F. D.PonariM.ViglioccoG. (2023). Learning from others is good, with others is better: the role of social interaction in human acquisition of new knowledge.Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B-Biol. Sci.378:20210357. 10.1098/rstb.2021.035736571126DuwanE.ChoiF.HelmuthB. (2019). Assessing the use of virtual reality technology in teaching marine ecological concepts.J. STEM Outreach21–11. 10.15695/jstem/v2i1.14FreemanS.EddyS. L.McDonoughM.SmithM. K.OkoroaforN.JordtH. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.1118410–8415. 10.1073/pnas.131903011124821756FuhrmanN. E.LadewigH. (2008). Characteristics of animals used in zoo interpretation: a synthesis of research.J. Interpret. Res.1331–42. 10.1177/109258720801300203GallA. J.VollbrechtP. J.TobiasT. (2020). Developing outreach events that impact underrepresented students: Are we doing it right?Eur. J. Neurosci.523499–3506. 10.1111/ejn.1471932153062GrabowskiJ. H.BrumbaughR. D.ConradR. F.KeelerA. G.OpaluchJ. J.PetersonC. H. (2012). Economic valuation of ecosystem services provided by oyster reefs.Bioscience62900–909. 10.1525/bio.2012.62.10.10GrayC. E.KahnP. H.Jr.LawlerJ. J.TandonP. S.BratmanG. N.PerrinsS. P. (2025). The importance of (not just visual) interaction with nature: a study with the Girl Scouts.J. Environ. Educ.56126–143. 10.1080/00958964.2024.2436166GuarrellaC.HillJ. L.MillarV.ToscanoM.van DrielJ.ChakrabortyD. (2025). A systematic review of science outreach: characteristics and research quality.Stud. Sci. Educ.62, 1–31. 10.1080/03057267.2025.2576976HackerC. E.MillerL. J. (2016). Zoo visitor perceptions, attitudes, and conservation intent after viewing African elephants at the San Diego Zoo Safari Park.Zoo Biol.35355–361. 10.1002/zoo.2130327291643HarringtonM. C. R. (2011). Empirical evidence of priming, transfer, reinforcement, and learning in the real and virtual Trillium Trails.IEEE Transact. Learn. Technol.4175–186. 10.1109/tlt.2010.20HartigF. (2022). DHARMa: Residual Diagnostics for Hierarchical (Multi-Level / Mixed) Regression Models. R package version 0.4.6. Available online at: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=DHARMa(accessed October 18, 2024).HawthorneT. L.ToohyK. R.YangB.GrahamL.LorenzoE. M.TorresH. (2022). Mapping emotional attachment as a measure of sense of place to identify coastal restoration priority areas.Appl. Geogr.138:102608. 10.1016/j.apgeog.2021.102608HooverK. S. (2021). Children in nature: exploring the relationship between childhood outdoor experience and environmental stewardship.Environ. Educ. Res.27894–910. 10.1080/13504622.2020.1856790HowardM. C.LeeJ. (2020). Pre-training interventions to counteract seductive details in virtual reality training programs.Hum. Resource Dev. Q.3113–29. 10.1002/hrdq.21378HughesJ.RogersonM.BartonJ.BraggR. (2019). Age and connection to nature: when is engagement critical?Front. Ecol. Environ.17:265–269. 10.1002/fee.2035IPCC (2023). “Summary for policymakers,” in Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edsLeeH.RomeroJ. (Geneva: IPCC), 1–34. 10.59327/IPCC/AR6-9789291691647.001IRLNEP Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (2019). Looking Ahead to 2030: A 10-year Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan for the Indian River Lagoon, Florida.Indian River Lagoon, FL: Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program.KlingenbergS.BosseR.MayerR. E.MakranskyG. (2024). Does embodiment in virtual reality boost learning transfer? Testing an immersion-interactivity framework.Educ. Psychol. Rev.36:116. 10.1007/s10648-024-09956-0KlingenbergS.JorgensenM. L. M.DandanellG.SkriverK.MottelsonA.MakranskyG. (2020). Investigating the effect of teaching as a generative learning strategy when learning through desktop and immersive VR: a media and methods experiment.Br. J. Educ. Technol.512115–2138. 10.1111/bjet.13029KudryavtsevA.StedmanR. C.KrasnyM. E. (2012). Sense of place in environmental education.Environ. Educ. Res.18229–250. 10.1080/13504622.2011.609615LeeJ.ChenC.BasuA. (2025). From novelty to knowledge: a longitudinal investigation of the novelty effect on learning outcomes in virtual reality.IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph.313204–3212. 10.1109/tvcg.2025.354989740063496LiangL. Y.GobeawanL.LauS. K.LinE. S.AngK. K. (2024). Urban green spaces and mental well-being: a systematic review of studies comparing virtual reality versus real nature.Future Internet16:182. 10.3390/fi16060182LiouW. K.ChangC. Y. (2018). “Virtual reality classroom applied to science education [Conference proceedings],” in Proceedings of the 23rd International Scientific-Professional Conference on Information Technology (IT), (Zabljak).LitleskareS.CalogiuriG. (2019). Camera stabilization in 360° videos and its impact on cyber sickness, environmental perceptions, and psychophysiological responses to a simulated nature walk: a single-blinded randomized trial.Front. Psychol.10:2436. 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.0243631736832LoizzoJ.NickersonC.BarnettC.NashT.WarnerL.BarryS. (2023). Restore the shore: online STEM engagement impacts on youths’ conceptualizations of living shorelines and connection to water.Appl. Environ. Educ. Commun.22158–176. 10.1080/1533015x.2023.2268074LüdeckeD.Ben-ShacharM. S.PatilI.WaggonerP.MakowskiD. (2021). performance: An R package for assessment, comparison and testing of statistical models.J. Open-Source Soft.6:3139. 10.21105/joss.03139MakranskyG.AndreasenN. K.BaceviciuteS.MayerR. E. (2021). Immersive virtual reality increases liking but not learning with a science simulation and generative learning strategies promote learning in immersive virtual reality.J. Educ. Psychol.113719–735. 10.1037/edu0000473MarkowitzD. M.LahaR.PeroneB. P.PeaR. D.BailensonJ. N. (2018). Immersive virtual reality field trips facilitate learning about climate change.Front. Psychol.9:2364. 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.0236430555387MayerF. S.FrantzC. M. (2004). The connectedness to nature scale: a measure of individuals’ feeling in community with nature.J. Environ. Psychol.24503–515. 10.1016/j.jenvp.2004.10.001MendozaK. R.GlaserN.KrügerJ. M.YangM.MoellerK. (2025). A systematic literature review on the impact of XR on pro-environmental knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors.J. Environ. Educ.5685–125. 10.1080/00958964.2025.2471299MichieM. (1998). Factors influencing secondary science teachers to organise and conduct field trips.Aust. Sci. Teach. J.4443–50.MillerJ. R. (2005). Biodiversity conservation and the extinction of experience.Trends Ecol. Evol.20430–434. 10.1016/j.tree.2005.05.01316701413MoserS. C. (2010). Communicating climate change: history, challenges, process and future directions.Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change131–53. 10.1002/wcc.11MossJ. D.MuthE. R. (2011). Characteristics of head-mounted displays and their effects on simulator sickness.Hum. Fact.53308–319. 10.1177/001872081140519621830515NelsonK. M.AnggrainiE.SchlüterA. (2020). Virtual reality as a tool for environmental conservation and fundraising.PLoS One15:e0223631. 10.1371/journal.pone.022363132251442NeurohrA. L.PaschN.OttoS.MöllerA. (2023). Measuring adolescents’ level of interest in nature: a promising psychological factor facilitating nature protection.Front. Psychol.14:1186557. 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.118655737416546NewberryM. G.FuhrmanN. E.MorganA. C. (2017). Naming “animal ambassadors” in an educational presentation: effects on learner knowledge retention.Appl. Environ. Educ. Commun.16223–233. 10.1080/1533015x.2017.1333051Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (2025). Sanctuaries 360° Virtual Reality.Silver Spring, MA: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.OrdonK. J.BartelheimerM.AsshoffR. (2021). Biology student teachers’ interest and self-efficacy in planning and conducting field trips after participation in a university course.Environ. Educ. Res.2788–109. 10.1080/13504622.2020.1849565OuK. L.ChuS. T.TarngW. (2021). Development of a virtual wetland ecological system using VR 360° panoramic technology for environmental education.Land10:829. 10.3390/land10080829PalmbergI. E.KuruJ. (2000). Outdoor activities as a basis for environmental responsibility.J. Environ. Educ.3132–36. 10.1080/00958960009598649ParongJ.MayerR. E. (2018). Learning science in immersive virtual reality.J. Educ. Psychol.110785–797. 10.1037/edu0000241PirkerJ.DengelA. (2021). The potential of 360° virtual reality videos and real VR for education-A literature review.IEEE Comput. Grap. Appl.4176–89. 10.1109/mcg.2021.306799933755559PoeM. R.DonatutoJ.SatterfieldT. (2016). “Sense of place”: Human wellbeing considerations for ecological restoration in Puget Sound.Coastal Manage.44409–426. 10.1080/08920753.2016.1208037QueirozA. C. M.FauvilleG.AbelesA. T.LevettA.BailensonJ. N. (2023). The efficacy of virtual reality in climate change education increases with amount of body movement and message specificity.Sustainability15:5814. 10.3390/su15075814R Core Team (2025). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing.Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.RuppM. A.OdetteK. L.KozachukJ.MichaelisJ. R.SmitherJ. A.McConnellD. S. (2019). Investigating learning outcomes and subjective experiences in 360-degree videos.Comput. Educ.128256–268. 10.1016/j.compedu.2018.09.015SaundersW. L.YoungG. D. (1985). An experimental study of the effect of the presence or absence of living visual aids in high school biology classrooms upon attitudes toward science and biology achievement.J. Res. Sci. Teach.22619–629. 10.1002/tea.3660220703SemkenS.MeadC.FoleyK.RubertoT.BruceG.AnbarA. D. (2025). Research on teaching geoscience with virtual field experiences.Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci.53425–442. 10.1146/annurev-earth-060923-115406Silva dos SantosM.KelseyK. D.FuhrmanN. E.IrwinK. (2020). Animals in environmental education: assessing individuals’ emotional reactions to interactions with wildlife.J. Agric. Educ.6161–77. 10.5032/jae.2020.04061SlaterM.Sanchez-VivesM. V. (2016). Enhancing our lives with immersive virtual reality.Front. Robot. AI3:74. 10.3389/frobt.2016.00074SlavovaY.MuM. (2018). “A comparative study of the learning outcomes and experience of VR in education,” in Proceedings of the 25th IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (IEEE VR, (Reutlingen).SneedJ. C.DeringerS. A.HanleyA. (2021). Nature connection and 360-degree video: an exploratory study with immersive technology.J. Exp. Educ.44378–394. 10.1177/10538259211001568SternM. J.PowellR. B.HillD. (2014). Environmental education program evaluation in the new millennium: what do we measure and what have we learned?Environ. Educ. Res.20581–611. 10.1080/13504622.2013.838749StevensonK. T.PetersonM. N.BondellH. D.MertigA. G.MooreS. E. (2013). Environmental, institutional, and demographic predictors of environmental literacy among middle school children.PLoS One8:e59519. 10.1371/journal.pone.005951923533631StrumingerR.ShortR. A.ZarestkyJ.VilenL.LawingA. M. (2021). Biological field stations promote science literacy through outreach.Bioscience71953–963. 10.1093/biosci/biab057TangY. T.ChooiW. T. (2023). From concern to action: the role of psychological distance in attitude towards environmental issues.Curr. Psychol.4226570–26586. 10.1007/s12144-022-03774-9TannerT. (1980). Significant Life Experiences: a new research area for environmental education.J. Environ. Educ.1120–24. 10.1080/00958964.1980.9941386ThrasherT.ChunD.Kaplan-RakowskiR.SadlerR.OvsiannikovaU.MeyrJ. (2025). Implementing large-scale virtual reality in K-12 education: a report on lessons learned from practice.Techtrends10.1007/s11528-025-01159-w[Epub ahead of print].TuanY. F. (1975). Place: an experiential perspective.Geograficidade84–15. 10.2307/213970VitousekP. M.MooneyH. A.LubchencoJ.MelilloJ. M. (1997). Human domination of Earth’s ecosystems.Science277494–499. 10.1126/science.277.5325.494WaltersL. J.RoddenberryA.CrandallC.WaylesJ.DonnellyM.BarryS. C. (2022). The use of non-plastic materials for oyster reef and shoreline restoration: understanding what is needed and where the field is headed.Sustainability14:8055. 10.3390/su14138055WaltersL. J.SacksP. E.CampbellD. E. (2021). “Boating impacts and boat-wake resilient restoration of the eastern oyster Crassostrea virginica in Mosquito Lagoon, Florida, USA,” in Proceedings of the Florida Scientist, Proceedings of the Indian River Lagoon Symposium 2020, (Mosquito Lagoon, FL), 173–199.WellnitzT.MacRuryN.ChildA.BensonD. (2002). Spreading the wealth: graduate students and educational outreach.Conserv. Biol.16560–563. 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2002.00428.xWuJ. N.GuoR.WangZ.ZengR. Q. (2021). Integrating spherical video-based virtual reality into elementary school students’ scientific inquiry instruction: effects on their problem-solving performance.Interact. Learn. Environ.29496–509. 10.1080/10494820.2019.1587469ZeleznyL. C. (1999). Educational interventions that improve environmental behaviors: a meta-analysis.J. Environ. Educ.315–14. 10.1080/00958969909598627
Edited by: Rawad Chaker, Lumière University Lyon 2, France
Reviewed by: Shirley Baker, University of Florida, United States
Carol Oliver, University of New South Wales, Australia