Advertisement

Educational Technology Research and Development

, Volume 66, Issue 5, pp 1141–1164 | Cite as

A structural equation modeling investigation of the emotional value of immersive virtual reality in education

  • Guido Makransky
  • Lau Lilleholt
Research Article

Abstract

Virtual reality (VR) is projected to play an important role in education by increasing student engagement and motivation. However, little is known about the impact and utility of immersive VR for administering e-learning tools, or the underlying mechanisms that impact learners’ emotional processes while learning. This paper explores whether differences exist with regard to using either immersive or desktop VR to administer a virtual science learning simulation. We also investigate how the level of immersion impacts perceived learning outcomes using structural equation modeling. The sample consisted of 104 university students (39 females). Significantly higher scores were obtained on 11 of the 13 variables investigated using the immersive VR version of the simulation, with the largest differences occurring with regard to presence and motivation. Furthermore, we identified a model with two general paths by which immersion in VR impacts perceived learning outcomes. Specifically, we discovered an affective path in which immersion predicted presence and positive emotions, and a cognitive path in which immersion fostered a positive cognitive value of the task in line with the control value theory of achievement emotions.

Keywords

Virtual reality Emotions Simulations Presence CVTAE Structural equation modeling 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Malene Thisgaard and Josefine Pilegaard Larsen for their extensive work related to collecting data for this study. We would also like to thank Ainara Lopez Cordoba and her team from Labster for their work related to preparing the two versions of the Crime Science Investigation Virtual Lab used in this study.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

There are no conflicts of interest to report related to this paper.

Funding

This study was funded by Innovation Fund Denmark.

References

  1. Adams, W. K., Reid, S., LeMaster, R., McKagan, S. B., Perkins, K. K., Dubson, M., et al. (2008a). A study of educational simulations part I—engagement and learning. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 19(3), 397–419.Google Scholar
  2. Adams, W. K., Reid, S., LeMaster, R., McKagan, S. B., Perkins, K. K., Dubson, M., et al. (2008b). A study of educational simulations part II—interface design. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 19(4), 551–577.Google Scholar
  3. Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (2001). Research commentary: Technology-mediated learning—a call for greater depth and breadth of research. Information Systems Research, 12(1), 1–10.  https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.12.1.1.9720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Alhalabi, W. S. (2016). Virtual reality systems enhance students’ achievements in engineering education. Behaviour & Information Technology, 35(11), 919–925.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2016.1212931.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Archer, J., Cantwell, R., & Bourke, S. (1999). Coping at University: an examination of achievement, motivation, self-regulation, confidence, and method of entry. Higher Education Research & Development, 18(1), 31–54.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0729436990180104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bayraktar, S. (2000). A meta-analysis on the effectiveness of computer-assisted instruction in science education. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34(2), 173–189.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2001.10782344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Belini, H., Chen, W., Sugiyama, M., Shin, M., Alam, S., & Takayama, D. (2016). Virtual & augmented reality: Understanding the race for the next computing platform. Retrieved from http://www.goldmansachs.com/our-thinking/pages/technology-driving-innovation-folder/virtual-and-augmented-reality/report.pdf.
  8. Benner, K., & Wingfield, N. (2016). Apple sets its sights on virtual reality. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/30/technology/apple-sets-its-sights-on-virtual-reality.html.
  9. Biocca, F. (1992). Communication within virtual reality: Creating a space for research. Journal of Communication, 42(4), 5–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Blascovich, J., & Bailenson, J. (2011). Infinite reality. New York, NY: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
  11. Bodekaer, M. (2015). Michael Bodekaer: This virtual lab will revolutionize science class. Retrieved November, 2017, from http://www.ted.com/talks/michael_bodekaer_this_virtual_lab_will_revolutionize_science_class.
  12. Bonde, M. T., Makransky, G., Wandall, J., Larsen, M. V., Morsing, M., Jarmer, H., et al. (2014). Improving biotech education through gamified laboratory simulations. Nature Biotechnology, 32(7), 694–697.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.2955.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bric, J. D., Lumbard, D. C., Frelich, M. J., & Gould, J. C. (2015). Current state of virtual reality simulation in robotic surgery training: a review. Surgical Endoscopy.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-015-4517-y.Google Scholar
  14. Burdea, G. C., & Coiffet, P. (1994). Virtual reality technology (1st ed.). London: Wiley-Interscience.Google Scholar
  15. Choi, B., & Baek, Y. (2011). Exploring factors of media characteristic influencing flow in learning through virtual worlds. Computers & Education, 57(4), 2382–2394.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.06.019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cruz-Neira, C., Sandin, D. J., DeFanti, T. A., Kenyon, R. V., & Hart, J. C. (1992). The CAVE: Audio visual experience automatic virtual environment. Communications of the ACM, 35(6), 64–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Beyond boredom and anxiety. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  18. Cummings, J. J., & Bailenson, J. N. (2016). How immersive is enough? A meta-analysis of the effect of immersive technology on user presence. Media Psychology, 19(2), 272–309.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2015.1015740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dalgarno, B., & Lee, M. J. W. (2010). What are the learning affordances of 3-D virtual environments? British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(1), 10–32.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.01038.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319.  https://doi.org/10.2307/249008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Deci, E. L., Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). Motivation and education: The self-determination perspective. Educational Psychologist, 26(3–4), 325–346.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.1991.9653137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dewey, J. (1913). Interest and effort in education. Cambridge, MA: Houghton Mifflin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. Chicago: Henry Regnery.Google Scholar
  24. Dredge, S. (2016). Three really real questions about the future of virtual reality. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jan/07/virtual-reality-future-oculus-rift-vr.
  25. Edelson, D. C., Gordin, D. N., & Pea, R. D. (1999). Addressing the challenges of inquiry-based learning through technology and curriculum design. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8(3–4), 391–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Greenlight VR., & Roadtovr. (2016). 2016 virtual reality industry report. Retrieved from http://www.greenlightvr.com/reports/2016-industry-report.
  27. Hardré, P. L., & Sullivan, D. W. (2008). Student differences and environment perceptions: How they contribute to student motivation in rural high schools. Learning and Individual Differences, 18(4), 471–485.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2007.11.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  29. Herrmann-Werner, A., Nikendei, C., Keifenheim, K., Bosse, H. M., Lund, F., & Wagner, R. (2013). “Best practice” skills lab training vs. a “see one, do one” approach in undergraduate medical education: An RCT on students’ long-term ability to perform procedural clinical skills. PLoS ONE, 8(9), e76354.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0076354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Issenberg, S. B. (1999). Simulation technology for health care professional skills training and assessment. JAMA, 282(9), 861.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.282.9.861.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kai, S., Paquette, L., Baker, R. S., Bosch, N., D’Mello, S., Ocumpaugh, J., et al. (2015). A comparison of video-based and interaction-based affect detectors in physics playground. Paper presented at the 8th International Conference on Educational Data Mining, Madrid, SpainGoogle Scholar
  33. Kyndt, E., Dochy, F., Struyven, K., & Cascallar, E. (2011). The perception of workload and task complexity and its influence on students’ approaches to learning: a study in higher education. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 26(3), 393–415.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-010-0053-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Labster. (2017). Crime Science Investigation Virtual Lab. Retrieved November, 2017, from https://www.labster.com/simulations/crime-scene-investigation/.
  35. Lee, K. M. (2004). Presence. Explicated. Communication Theory, 14(1), 27–50.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2004.tb00302.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lee, E. A.-L., & Wong, K. W. (2014). Learning with desktop virtual reality: Low spatial ability learners are more positively affected. Computers & Education, 79, 49–58.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.07.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lee, E. A.-L., Wong, K. W., & Fung, C. C. (2010). How does desktop virtual reality enhance learning outcomes? A structural equation modeling approach. Computers & Education, 55(4), 1424–1442.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.06.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Linnenbrink, E. A., & Pintrich, P. R. (2002). Motivation as an enabler for academic success. School Psychology Review, 31(3), 313–327.Google Scholar
  39. Makransky, G., Bonde, M. T., Wulff, J. S. G., Wandall, J., Hood, M., Creed, P. A., et al. (2016a). Simulation based virtual learning environment in medical genetics counseling: An example of bridging the gap between theory and practice in medical education. BMC Medical Education, 16(98), 1–9.Google Scholar
  40. Makransky, G., Lilleholt, L., & Aaby, A. (2017a). Development and validation of the multimodal presence scale for virtual reality environments: A confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory approach. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 276–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Makransky, G., Terkildsen, T. S., & Mayer, R. E. (2017b). Adding immersive virtual reality to a science lab simulation causes more presence but less learning. Learning and Instruction.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.12.007.Google Scholar
  42. Makransky, G., Thisgaard, M. W., & Gadegaard, H. (2016b). Virtual simulations as preparation for lab exercises: Assessing learning of key laboratory skills in microbiology and improvement of essential non-cognitive skills. PLoS ONE, 11(6), 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? American Psychologist, 59(1), 14–19.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.59.1.14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. McGaghie, W. C., Issenberg, S. B., Petrusa, E. R., & Scalese, R. J. (2010). A critical review of simulation-based medical education research: 2003-2009. Medical Education.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03547.x.Google Scholar
  46. Merchant, Z., Goetz, E. T., Cifuentes, L., Keeney-Kennicutt, W., & Davis, T. J. (2014). Effectiveness of virtual reality-based instruction on students’ learning outcomes in K-12 and higher education: A meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 70, 29–40.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.07.033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2002). Learning science in virtual reality multimedia environments: Role of methods and media. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(3), 598–610.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.94.3.598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. (2007). Interactive multimodal learning environments. Educational Psychology Review, 19(3), 309–326.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-007-9047-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2012). Mplus (Version 7). California: Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  50. Natioan Research Council. (2011). Learning science through computer games and simulations comitte on science learning: Computer games, simulations and education. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  51. Norman, D. A. (1993). Things that make us smart: Defending human attributes in the age of the machine. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  52. Pekrun, R. (2000). A social-cognitive, control-value theory of achievement emotions. In J. Heckhausen (Ed.), Motivational psychology of human development: Developing motivation and motivating development (pp. 143–163). New York, NY: Elsevier Science.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Pekrun, R. (2006). The control-value theory of achievement emotions: assumptions, corollaries, and implications for educational research and practice. Educational Psychology Review, 18(4), 315–341.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-006-9029-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Pekrun, R. (2016). Emotions at school. In K. R. Wentzel & D. B. Miele (Eds.), Handbook of motivation at school (2nd ed., pp. 120–144). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  55. Pekrun, R., & Stephens, E. J. (2010). Achievement emotions: A control-value approach. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4(4), 238–255.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00259.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Picard, R. W., Papert, S., Bender, W., Blumberg, B., Breazeal, C., Cavallo, D., et al. (2004). Affective learning—a manifesto. BT Technology Journal, 22(4), 253–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Piccoli, G., Ahmad, R., & Ives, B. (2001). Web-based virtual learning environments: A research framework and a preliminary assessment of effectiveness in basic IT training. MIS Quarterly, 25, 401–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Plass, J. L., & Kaplan, U. (2016). Emotional design in digital media for learning. In Emotions, technology, design, and learning (pp. 131–161). Elsevier, Amsterdam. http://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-801856-9.00007-4.
  59. Renninger, K. A., & Hidi, S. E. (2016). The power of interest for motivation and engagement. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  60. Rutten, N., Van Joolingen, W. R., & Van Der Veen, J. T. (2012). The learning effects of computer simulations in science education. Computers & Education, 58(1), 136–153.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.07.017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54–67.  https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Salzman, M. C., Dede, C., Loftin, R. B., & Chen, J. (1999). A model for understanding how virtual reality aids complex conceptual learning. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 8(3), 293–316.  https://doi.org/10.1162/105474699566242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Schuemie, M. J., van der Straaten, P., Krijn, M., & van der Mast, C. A. P. G. (2001). Research on presence in virtual reality: A survey. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 4(2), 183–201.  https://doi.org/10.1089/109493101300117884.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Singer, N. (2015). Google virtual-reality system aims to enliven education. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/29/technology/google-virtual-reality-system-aims-to-enliven.
  65. Slater, M., & Wilbur, S. (1997). A framework for immersive virtual environments (FIVE): Speculations on the role of presence in virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 6(6), 603–616.  https://doi.org/10.1162/pres.1997.6.6.603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Smetana, L. K., & Bell, R. L. (2012). Computer simulations to support science instruction and learning: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 34(9), 1337–1370.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.605182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Sousa Santos, B., Dias, P., Pimentel, A., Baggerman, J.-W., Ferreira, C., Silva, S., et al. (2008). Head-mounted display versus desktop for 3D navigation in virtual reality: A user study. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 41(1), 161.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-008-0223-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Standen, P. J., & Brown, D. J. (2006). Virtual reality and its role in removing the barriers that turn cognitive impairments into intellectual disability. Virtual Reality, 10(3–4), 241–252.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-006-0042-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Stepan, K., Zeiger, J., Hanchuk, S., Del Signore, A., Shrivastava, R., Govindaraj, S., et al. (2017). Immersive virtual reality as a teaching tool for neuroanatomy. International Forum of Allergy & Rhinology, 7(10), 1006–1013.  https://doi.org/10.1002/alr.21986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Sutcliffe, A., Gault, B., & Shin, J. E. (2005). Presence, memory and interaction in virtual environments. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 62(3), 307–327.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2004.11.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Sweller, J., Ayres, P. L., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory. New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Taylor, G. L., & Disinger, J. F. (1997). The potential role of virtual reality in environmental education. The Journal of Environmental Education, 28(3), 38–43.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.1997.9942828.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Thisgaard, M., & Makransky, G. (2017). Virtual learning simulations in high school: Effects on cognitive and non-cognitive outcomes and implications on the development of STEM academic and career choice. Frontiers in Psychology, 8(805), 1–13.Google Scholar
  74. Tokel, S. T., & İsler, V. (2015). Acceptance of virtual worlds as learning space. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 52(3), 254–264.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2013.820139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2008). Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decision Sciences, 39(2), 273–315.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.2008.00192.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Vogel, J. J., Vogel, D. S., Cannon-Bowers, J., Bowers, C. A., Muse, K., & Wright, M. (2006). Computer gaming and interactive simulations for learning: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 34(3), 229–243.  https://doi.org/10.2190/FLHV-K4WA-WPVQ-H0YM.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Wan, Z., Fang, Y., & Neufeld, D. J. (2007). The role of information technology in technology-mediated learning: A review of the past for the future. Journal of Information Systems Education, 18(2), 183.Google Scholar
  78. Webster, R. (2016). Declarative knowledge acquisition in immersive virtual learning environments. Interactive Learning Environments, 24(6), 1319–1333.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2014.994533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Wentzel, K. R., & Miele, D. B. (Eds.). (2016). Handbook of motivation at school (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  80. Witmer, B. G., & Singer, M. J. (1998). Measuring presence in virtual environments: A presence questionnaire. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 7(3), 225–240.  https://doi.org/10.1162/105474698565686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of CopenhagenCopenhagen KDenmark

Personalised recommendations