Skip to main content

Exploring the Effects of Immersive Virtual Reality on Learning Outcomes: A Two-Path Model

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Augmented Cognition. Human Cognition and Behavior (HCII 2020)

Abstract

Immersive virtual reality (VR) has attracted widespread attention and has been increasingly adopted in education. However, the influence of immersive VR on learning outcomes is still unclear, with conflicting results emerging from the research. The contradictory research can be attributed to the fact that little research has systematically analyzed the effects of immersive VR on learning processes and ultimately on learning outcomes. Therefore, this study focuses on analyzing how immersive VR affects learning outcomes and explaining the reasons behind the contradictory research about immersive VR’s effects. A survey was conducted in a laboratory setting in which the participants were asked to play an immersive VR application for learning. The results show that immersive VR affects learning outcomes through affective and cognitive paths. In the affective path, immersive VR features influence learning outcomes through the mediation of immersion and enjoyment. In the cognitive path, immersive VR features influence learning outcomes through the mediation of usefulness, control and active learning, and cognitive benefits. By providing a nuanced understanding of the effects of immersive VR on learning outcomes, this study contributes to the VR literature for learning.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Dede, C.: The evolution of constructivist learning environments: immersion in distributed, virtual worlds. Educ. Technol. 35(5), 46–52 (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Biocca, F., Delaney, B.: Immersive virtual reality technology. Commun. Age Virtual Reality 15, 32 (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Parong, J., Mayer, R.E.: Learning science in immersive virtual reality. J. Educ. Psychol. 110(6), 785 (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Chittaro, L., Buttussi, F.: Assessing knowledge retention of an immersive serious game vs. a traditional education method in aviation safety. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 21(4), 529–538 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Lee, E.A.-L., Wong, K.W.: A review of using virtual reality for learning. In: Pan, Z., Cheok, A.D., Müller, W., El Rhalibi, A. (eds.) Transactions on Edutainment I. LNCS, vol. 5080, pp. 231–241. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-69744-2_18

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  6. Makransky, G., Lilleholt, L.: A structural equation modeling investigation of the emotional value of immersive virtual reality in education. Educ. Tech. Res. Dev. 66(5), 1141–1164 (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Ekstrand, C., et al.: Immersive and interactive virtual reality to improve learning and retention of neuroanatomy in medical students: a randomized controlled study. CMAJ Open 6(1), E103 (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Freina, L., Ott, M.: A literature review on immersive virtual reality in education: state of the art and perspectives. In: Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference ELearning and Software for Education, “Carol I” National Defence University (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Webster, R.: Declarative knowledge acquisition in immersive virtual learning environments. Interact. Learn. Environ. 24(6), 1319–1333 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Makransky, G., Terkildsen, T.S., Mayer, R.E.: Adding immersive virtual reality to a science lab simulation causes more presence but less learning. Learn. Instr. 60, 225–236 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Moreno, R., Mayer, R.E.: Learning science in virtual reality multimedia environments: role of methods and media. J. Educ. Psychol. 94(3), 598 (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Makransky, G., Petersen, G.B.: Investigating the process of learning with desktop virtual reality: a structural equation modeling approach. Comput. Educ. 134, 15–30 (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Van Dam, A., et al.: Immersive VR for scientific visualization: a progress report. IEEE Comput. Graph. Appl. 20(6), 26–52 (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Chavez, B., Bayona, S.: Virtual reality in the learning process. In: Rocha, Á., Adeli, H., Reis, L.P., Costanzo, S. (eds.) WorldCIST’18 2018. AISC, vol. 746, pp. 1345–1356. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77712-2_129

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  15. Bailenson, J.N., et al.: The use of immersive virtual reality in the learning sciences: digital transformations of teachers, students, and social context. J. Learn. Sci. 17(1), 102–141 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Jensen, L., Konradsen, F.: A review of the use of virtual reality head-mounted displays in education and training. Educ. Inf. Technol. 23(4), 1515–1529 (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Papanastasiou, G., et al.: Virtual and augmented reality effects on K-12, higher and tertiary education students’ twenty-first century skills. Virtual Reality 23(4), 425–436 (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Lee, E.A.-L., Wong, K.W., Fung, C.C.: How does desktop virtual reality enhance learning outcomes? A structural equation modeling approach. Comput. Educ. 55(4), 1424–1442 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Whitelock, D., Brna, P., Holland, S.: What is the value of virtual reality for conceptual learning? Towards a theoretical framework. Edições Colibri (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Dalgarno, B., Hedberg, J., Harper, B.: The contribution of 3D environments to conceptual understanding (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Jennings, M.: Theory and models for creating engaging and immersive ecommerce websites. In: Proceedings of the 2000 ACM SIGCPR Conference on Computer Personnel Research. ACM (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Fiorentino, M., et al.: Spacedesign: a mixed reality workspace for aesthetic industrial design. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality. IEEE Computer Society (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Thorsteinsson, G., Page, T., Niculescu, A.: Using virtual reality for developing design communication. Stud. Inform. Control 19(1), 93–106 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Roussou, M.: A VR playground for learning abstract mathematics concepts. IEEE Comput. Graph. Appl. 29(1), 82–85 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Ryan, M.-L.: Immersion vs. interactivity: virtual reality and literary theory. SubStance 28(2), 110–137 (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Kaufmann, H., Schmalstieg, D., Wagner, M.: Construct3D: a virtual reality application for mathematics and geometry education. Educ. Inf. Technol. 5(4), 263–276 (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Huang, H.-M., Rauch, U., Liaw, S.-S.: Investigating learners’ attitudes toward virtual reality learning environments: based on a constructivist approach. Comput. Educ. 55(3), 1171–1182 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Patel, K., et al.: The effects of fully immersive virtual reality on the learning of physical tasks. In: Proceedings of the 9th Annual International Workshop on Presence, Ohio, USA (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  29. Bliss, J.P., Tidwell, P.D., Guest, M.A.: The effectiveness of virtual reality for administering spatial navigation training to firefighters. Presence Teleoper. Virtual Environ. 6(1), 73–86 (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  30. Pedram, S., Perez, P., Palmisano, S., Farrelly, M.: The factors affecting the quality of learning process and outcome in virtual reality environment for safety training in the context of mining industry. In: Cassenti, Daniel N. (ed.) AHFE 2018. AISC, vol. 780, pp. 404–411. Springer, Cham (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94223-0_38

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  31. Chowdhury, T.I., Costa, R., Quarles, J.: Information recall in a mobile VR disability simulation. In: Proceedings of the 2017 9th International Conference on Virtual Worlds and Games for Serious Applications (VS-Games). IEEE (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  32. Stepan, K., et al.: Immersive virtual reality as a teaching tool for neuroanatomy. In: Proceedings of the International Forum of Allergy & Rhinology. Wiley Online Library (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  33. Vincent, D.S., et al.: Teaching mass casualty triage skills using immersive three-dimensional virtual reality. Acad. Emerg. Med. 15(11), 1160–1165 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  34. Han, I., Ryu, J., Kim, M.: Prototyping training program in immersive virtual learning environment with head mounted displays and touchless interfaces for hearing-impaired learners. Educ. Technol. Int. 18(1), 49–71 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  35. Wong, E.Y.-C., Kong, K.H., Hui, R.T.-Y.: The influence of learners’ openness to IT experience on the attitude and perceived learning effectiveness with virtual reality technologies. In: Proceedings of 2017 IEEE 6th International Conference on Teaching, Assessment, and Learning for Engineering (TALE). IEEE (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  36. Chen, Y.-L.: The effects of virtual reality learning environment on student cognitive and linguistic development. Asia-Pac. Educ. Res. 25(4), 637–646 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  37. Bailenson, J., et al.: The effect of interactivity on learning physical actions in virtual reality. Media Psychol. 11(3), 354–376 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  38. Limniou, M., Roberts, D., Papadopoulos, N.: Full immersive virtual environment CAVETM in chemistry education. Comput. Educ. 51(2), 584–593 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  39. Cheng, K.-H., Tsai, C.-C.: A case study of immersive virtual field trips in an elementary classroom: students’ learning experience and teacher-student interaction behaviors. Comput. Educ. 140, 103600 (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  40. Leder, J., et al.: Comparing immersive virtual reality and powerpoint as methods for delivering safety training: impacts on risk perception, learning, and decision making. Saf. Sci. 111, 271–286 (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  41. Chen, X., et al.: ImmerTai: immersive motion learning in VR environments. J. Vis. Commun. Image Represent. 58, 416–427 (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  42. Kickmeier-Rust, M.D., Hann, P., Leitner, M.: Increasing learning motivation: an empirical study of VR effects on the vocational training of bank clerks. In: van der Spek, E., Göbel, S., Do, E.Y.-L., Clua, E., Baalsrud Hauge, J. (eds.) ICEC-JCSG 2019. LNCS, vol. 11863, pp. 111–118. Springer, Cham (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34644-7_9

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  43. Alavi, M., Leidner, D.E.: Research commentary: technology-mediated learning—a call for greater depth and breadth of research. Inf. Syst. Res. 12(1), 1–10 (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  44. McMahan, A.: Immersion, engagement, and presence: a method for analyzing 3-D video games. In: The Video Game Theory Reader, pp. 89–108. Routledge (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  45. Kearney, P.: Affective learning. In: Communication Research Measures: A Sourcebook, pp. 81–85 (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  46. Chory-Assad, R.M.: Classroom justice: perceptions of fairness as a predictor of student motivation, learning, and aggression. Commun. Q. 50(1), 58–77 (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  47. Sidelinger, R.J., McCroskey, J.C.: Communication correlates of teacher clarity in the college classroom. Commun. Res. Rep. 14(1), 1–10 (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  48. Witt, P.L., Wheeless, L.R., Allen, M.: A meta-analytical review of the relationship between teacher immediacy and student learning. Commun. Monogr. 71(2), 184–207 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  49. Buchanan, M.T., Hyde, B.: Learning beyond the surface: engaging the cognitive, affective and spiritual dimensions within the curriculum. Int. J. Child. Spiritual. 13(4), 309–320 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  50. Bloom, B.S.: Taxonomy of educational objectives. Cogn. Domain 1, 120–124 (1956)

    Google Scholar 

  51. Mandal, S.: Brief introduction of virtual reality & its challenges. Int. J. Sci. Eng. Res. 4(4), 304–309 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  52. Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P., Warshaw, P.R.: Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use computers in the workplace 1. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 22(14), 1111–1132 (1992)

    Google Scholar 

  53. Kleinginna, P.R., Kleinginna, A.M.: A categorized list of motivation definitions, with a suggestion for a consensual definition. Motiv. Emot. 5(3), 263–291 (1981)

    Google Scholar 

  54. Hui, W., et al.: Technology-assisted learning: a longitudinal field study of knowledge category, learning effectiveness and satisfaction in language learning. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 24(3), 245–259 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  55. Young, M.R., Klemz, B.R., Murphy, J.W.: Enhancing learning outcomes: the effects of instructional technology, learning styles, instructional methods, and student behavior. J. Mark. Educ. 25(2), 130–142 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  56. Kapralos, B., Moussa, F., Collins, K., Dubrowski, A.: Fidelity and multimodal interactions. In: Wouters, P., van Oostendorp, H. (eds.) Instructional Techniques to Facilitate Learning and Motivation of Serious Games. AGL, pp. 79–101. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-39298-1_5

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  57. Gerling, K.M., et al.: The effects of graphical fidelity on player experience. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Making Sense of Converging Media. ACM (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  58. Lee, J., Kim, M., Kim, J.: A study on immersion and VR sickness in walking interaction for immersive virtual reality applications. Symmetry 9(5), 78 (2017)

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  59. Han, S., Kim, J.: A study on immersion of hand interaction for mobile platform virtual reality contents. Symmetry 9(2), 22 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  60. Chittaro, L., Ranon, R.: Web3D technologies in learning, education and training: motivations, issues, opportunities. Comput. Educ. 49(1), 3–18 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  61. Zhang, X., et al.: How virtual reality affects perceived learning effectiveness: a task–technology fit perspective. Behav. Inf. Technol. 36(5), 548–556 (2017)

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  62. Halabi, O.: Immersive virtual reality to enforce teaching in engineering education. Multimed. Tools Appl. 79(3), 2987–3004 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-019-08214-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Blackledge, J., Barrett, M.: Development and evaluation of a desktop VR system for electrical services engineers. In: Proceedings of the World Congress on Engineering (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  64. Wang, R., et al.: How does web-based virtual reality affect learning: evidences from a quasi-experiment. In: Proceedings of the ACM Turing 50th Celebration Conference, China. ACM (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  65. Davis, F.D.: Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 13, 319–340 (1989)

    Google Scholar 

  66. Barrett, M., Blackledge, J.: Evaluation of a prototype desktop virtual reality model developed to enhance electrical safety and design in the built environment (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  67. Sowndararajan, A., Wang, R., Bowman, D.A.: Quantifying the benefits of immersion for procedural training. In: Proceedings of the 2008 Workshop on Immersive Projection Technologies/Emerging Display Technologies. ACM (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  68. Baker, D.S., Underwood III, J., Thakur, R.: Factors contributing to cognitive absorption and grounded learning effectiveness in a competitive business marketing simulation. Mark. Educ. Rev. 27(3), 127–140 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  69. Cybinski, P., Selvanathan, S.: Learning experience and learning effectiveness in undergraduate statistics: modeling performance in traditional and flexible learning environments. Decis. Sci. J. Innov. Educ. 3(2), 251–271 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  70. Williams, M.D.: Learner-control and instructional technologies. Handb. Res. Educ. Commun. Technol. 2, 957–983 (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  71. Merrill, M.D.: Learner control: Beyond aptitude-treatment interactions. AV Commun. Rev. 23(2), 217–226 (1975)

    Google Scholar 

  72. Phan, H.P.: An examination of reflective thinking, learning approaches, and self-efficacy beliefs at the university of the south pacific: a path analysis approach. Educ. Psychol. 27(6), 789–806 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  73. Fitzpatrick, J.: Interactive virtual reality learning systems: are they a better way to ensure proficiency, 15 March 2007 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  74. IJsselsteijn, W., et al.: Virtual cycling: effects of immersion and a virtual coach on motivation and presence in a home fitness application. In: Proceedings of Virtual Reality Design and Evaluation Workshop (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  75. Githua, B.N., Mwangi, J.G.: Students’ mathematics self-concept and motivation to learn mathematics: relationship and gender differences among Kenya’s secondary-school students in nairobi and rift valley provinces. Int. J. Educ. Dev. 23(5), 487–499 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  76. Waheed, M., et al.: Perceived learning outcomes from Moodle: an empirical study of intrinsic and extrinsic motivating factors. Inf. Dev. 32(4), 1001–1013 (2016)

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  77. Novo-Corti, I., Varela-Candamio, L., Ramil-DíAz, M.: E-learning and face to face mixed methodology: evaluating effectiveness of e-learning and perceived satisfaction for a microeconomic course using the Moodle platform. Comput. Hum. Behav. 29(2), 410–415 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  78. Hair, J.F., et al.: Multivariate Data Analysis, vol. 6. Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  79. Fassbender, E., et al.: VirSchool: the effect of background music and immersive display systems on memory for facts learned in an educational virtual environment. Comput. Educ. 58(1), 490–500 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  80. Cheng, M.T., She, H.C., Annetta, L.A.: Game immersion experience: its hierarchical structure and impact on game-based science learning. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 31(3), 232–253 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  81. Larsen, R., Reif, L.: Effectiveness of cultural immersion and culture classes for enhancing nursing students’ transcultural self-efficacy. J. Nurs. Educ. 50(6), 350–354 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  82. Hamari, J., et al.: Challenging games help students learn: an empirical study on engagement, flow and immersion in game-based learning. Comput. Hum. Behav. 54, 170–179 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  83. Riva, G., Castelnuovo, G., Mantovani, F.: Transformation of flow in rehabilitation: the role of advanced communication technologies. Behav. Res. Methods 38(2), 237–244 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  84. Choi, B., Baek, Y.: Exploring factors of media characteristic influencing flow in learning through virtual worlds. Comput. Educ. 57(4), 2382–2394 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  85. Bellur, S., Sundar, S.S.: Talking health with a machine: how does message interactivity affect attitudes and cognitions? Hum. Commun. Res. 43(1), 25–53 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  86. Huang, T.-L., Hsu Liu, F.: Formation of augmented-reality interactive technology’s persuasive effects from the perspective of experiential value. Internet Res. 24(1), 82–109 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

This research was supported by the UGC Teaching and Learning Grant titled “Developing Multidisciplinary and Multicultural Competences through Gamification and Challenge-based Collaborative Learning.” This research was also partly supported by grant No. CityU 11505118 from the Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong SAR.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yongqian Lin .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Appendix: Measurement Items

Appendix: Measurement Items

Constructs

Items

Sources

Representational fidelity

1. The objects (e.g., the red blood cell) in the VR application seemed real

Self-developed based on [84]

2. The change of images due to view change and object motion in the VR application seemed smooth

3. My actions directly resulted in expected changes in the VR application

4. The audio effect of the VR application sounded real

Immediacy of control

1. The ability to change the viewpoint in the VR application allowed me to learn better

[12]

2. The ability to change the viewpoint in the VR application made learning more motivating and interesting

3. The ability to manipulate the objects (e.g., hit, move, rotate) in the VR application made learning more motivating and interesting

4. The ability to manipulate the objects in real time helped to enhance my understanding

Interactivity

1. I had the impression that I could be active in the virtual environment

[85]

2. The objects in the VR application gave me the feeling that I could do something with them

3. I felt that the objects in the VR application could almost be touched

4. There were times during which I felt like I was directly interacting with the objects in the VR application

5. I felt the objects in the VR application were aware of my presence

Aesthetic quality

1. The visual design of the VR application was attractive

[86]

2. The VR application was aesthetically pleasing

3. The VR application displayed a visually pleasant design

4. The VR application appealed to my visual senses

5. Overall, I found that the VR application was visually appealing

Usefulness

1. Using the VR application as a tool for learning increased my learning and academic performance

[12]

2. Using the VR application enhanced the effectiveness of my learning

3. The VR application allowed me to progress at my own pace

Immersion

1. I lost track of time while playing the VR application

[12, 82];

2. I became very involved in the VR application forgetting about other things

3. I was involved in the VR application to the extent that I lost track of time

Enjoyment

1. I found using the VR application enjoyable

[12]

2. Using the VR application was pleasant

3. I had fun using the VR application

Control and active learning

1. The VR application helped me to have a better overview of the content learned

[12]

2. The VR application allowed me to be more responsive and active in the learning process

3. The VR application allowed me to have more control over my own learning

4. The VR application promoted self-paced learning

5. The VR application helped to get me engaged in the learning activity

Cognitive benefits

1. The VR application made the comprehension easier

[18]

2. The VR application made the memorization easier

3. The VR application helped me to better apply what was learned

4. The VR application helped me to better analyze the problems

5. The VR application helped me to have a better overview of the content learned

Reflective thinking

1. The VR application enabled me to reflect on how I learned

[12]

2. The VR application enabled me to link new knowledge with previous knowledge and experiences

3. The VR application enabled me to become a better learner

4. The VR application enabled me to reflect on my own understanding

Motivation

1. The VR application could enhance my learning interest

[5, 12, 27]

2. The VR application could enhance my learning motivation

3. The realism of the VR application motivated me to learn

4. I was more interested to learn the topics

5. I was interested and stimulated to learn more

Learning effectiveness

1. I learned a lot of biological information in the topics

[18]

2. I gained a good understanding of the basic concepts of the materials

3. I learned to identify the main and important issues of the topics

4. The learning activities were meaningful

5. What I learned, I could apply in real context

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Lin, Y., Wang, G., Suh, A. (2020). Exploring the Effects of Immersive Virtual Reality on Learning Outcomes: A Two-Path Model. In: Schmorrow, D., Fidopiastis, C. (eds) Augmented Cognition. Human Cognition and Behavior. HCII 2020. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 12197. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-50439-7_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-50439-7_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-50438-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-50439-7

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics