Career and Technical Education (CTE) has become a mainstay in public schools,
which evolved from various bills such as the Smith-Hughes Act giving rise to
Agricultural Education programs (ACTE, 2022). Agricultural Education uses a
combination of classroom and laboratory instruction, experiential learning, and
leadership education to prepare students for jobs in industry (Roberts, 2006; NAAE,
2022).
The foundation of Virtual Reality (VR), Augmented Reality (AR), and Mixed
Reality (MR), are based on an artificial and digital environment provided by a computer
and in which a user’s actions determines what happens in the environment. This
technology is an option for teachers who wish to incorporate experiential learning and
give students real experiences who otherwise might not have the opportunity (Liarokapis
et al., 2004; Johnson et al., 2010; Domingo & Bradley, 2018). Virtual Reality has been
used across many industries as a form of training, such as medicine, pedestrian safety,
construction, manufacturing, military training programs, tractor and machinery operation
(McComas et al., 2002; Aggarwal et al., 2006; Tichon & Burgess-Limerick, 2011; Sacks
et al., 2013; Namkoong et. Al., 2022).
Agriculture is one of the most hazardous industries in the U.S. for all workers,
and even more so for young workers (U.S. Department of Labor, 2020). Research has
iii
shown that educators and students are unaware of basic farm safety information, or where
to find the necessary information. In the United States, legislation prescribes training for
youth under the age of 16, working in hazardous situations in production agriculture.
Specific to tractor and machinery operation, one national curriculum is the National Safe
Tractor and Machinery Operation Program. It includes comprehensive lessons around
equipment safety, and evaluates students’ competencies though a skills checklist and a
driving course.
The purpose of this mixed-methods study was to determine the feasibility of a VR
curriculum to provide a realistic and positive user experience for students and teachers in
tractor and machinery safety operation lessons. A mixed-method approach was utilized
with Ohio student and teacher participants using survey research, semi-structured
interviews, and performance scores to explain user experiences. Data were triangulated
within the teacher population to determine if a relationship existed between the measured
variables.
Objective 1 sought to describe how students (n =38) performed in the VR
program. On average, students accrued a high number of points across the precheck
questions and the driving course, which resulted in low performance.
Objective 2 sought to describe if there was a difference between a traditional
tractor training and a tractor training with a VR intervention. The passing rates of the two
groups (n = 42) that completed the tractor operation program were evaluated and found
that there was no significant difference between the two groups. It can be concluded that
the VR intervention had no significant effect over the traditional training in this one case.
iv
Objective 3 and 4 used a quantitative survey to describe the 10 constructs of the
user experience model. The constructs were Presence, Immersion, Engagement, Flow,
Skill, Usability, Emotion, Judgement, Experience Consequence, and Technology
Adoption. The survey measured the constructs on a 10-point Likert scale.
Objective 3 sought to describe students' (n = 132) user experience from the VR
program. Every construct had a mean score over neutral; the Experience Consequence
and Technology Adoption constructs scored the highest, while the Flow and Usability
constructs scored the lowest. This concludes that the students’ user experience towards
this program was positive.
Objective 4 sought to describe teachers' (n =13) user experience from the VR
program. Every construct had a mean score over neutral except for Flow; the highest
constructs were Experience Consequence and Engagement, while the Flow and Skill
constructs were the lowest. This concludes that the teachers’ user experience towards this
experience was positive.
In Objective 5, teachers (n = 11) participated in semi-structured interviews to
describe their user experience. Two themes and 9 sub-themes emerged from those results.
Three main barriers that impede VR adoption were identified as classroom and resource
management, technology barriers, and negative emotions. When these are present, it is
challenging for students and teachers to see the benefits of integrating VR into their skillbased activities. However, the benefits of a VR program can still have a positive effect in
v
classroom applications. This concludes that teachers had a valuable and positive
experience.
In Objective 6, teachers (n = 11) participated in semi-structured interviews to
describe their sense of realism in the program. It was concluded that teachers had a semirealistic experience as they described their movements while interacting with the virtual
environment.
Objective 7 sought to explore if there was a relationship between teachers’ user
experience scores and teachers' quantified realism scores and determine if the user
experience instrument could be an indicator of realism. It was concluded that the
relationship was negligible between the teachers’ realism and user experience.
The findings from this study identified three main factors that influence the
integration of VR into Agricultural Education. The implications of these finding suggest
VR can provide a supplemental training method for tractor and machinery programs. By
ensuring that teachers and students have positive user experiences, addressing students’
performance, and providing a realistic interpretation of a hands-on activity VR can be
successfully integrated into skill-based education.
Both students and teachers expressed excitement about a new teaching method for
a traditional topic that has experienced little change over the years. This study will
contribute to the body of literature to further the integration of virtual reality into
educational environments.