Investigating the feasibility of using assessment and explanatory feedback in desktop virtual reality simulations

Abstract

There is great potential in making assessment and learning complementary. In this study, we investigated the feasibility of developing a desktop virtual reality (VR) laboratory simulation on the topic of genetics, with integrated assessment using multiple choice questions based on item response theory (IRT) and feedback based on the cognitive theory of multimedia learning. A pre-test post-test design was used to investigate three research questions related to: (1) students’ perceptions of assessment in the form of MC questions within the VR genetics simulation; (2) the fit of the MC questions to the assumptions of the partial credit model (PCM) within the framework of IRT; and (3) if there was a significant increase in intrinsic motivation, self-efficacy, and transfer from pre- to post-test after using the VR genetics simulation as a classroom learning activity. The sample consisted of 208 undergraduate students taking a medical genetics course. The results showed that assessment items in the form of gamified multiple-choice questions were perceived by 97% of the students to lead to higher levels of understanding, and only 8% thought that they made the simulation more boring. Items within a simulation were found to fit the PCM and the results showed that the sample had a small significant increase in intrinsic motivation and self-efficacy, and a large significant increase in transfer following the genetics simulation. It was possible to develop assessments for online educational material and retain the relevance and connectedness of informal assessment while simultaneously serving the communicative and credibility-based functions of formal assessment, which is a great challenge facing education today.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  1. Adesope, O. O., Trevisan, D. A., & Sundararajan, N. (2017). Rethinking the use of tests: A meta-analysis of practice testing. Review of Educational Research, 87(3), 659–701.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Ai-Lim Lee, E., 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Almond, R. G., Mislevy, R. J., Steinberg, L., Yan, D., & Williamson, D. (2015). Bayesian networks in educational assessment. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Andrich, D., Sheridan, B., & Luo, G. (2010). Rasch models for measurement: RUMM2030. Perth, Australia: RUMM Laboratory.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Au, W. (2007). High-stakes testing and curricular control: A qualitative metasynthesis. Educational Researcher,36(5), 258–267. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X07306523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bangert-Drowns, R. L., Kulik, C.-L. C., Kulik, J. A., & Morgan, M. (1991). The instructional effect of feedback in test-like events. Review of Educational Research,61(2), 213–238. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543061002213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Black, P. J., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education,5(1), 7–73.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Bonde, M. T., Makransky, G., Wandall, J., Larsen, M. V., Morsing, M., Jarmer, H., et al. (2014). Improving biotechnology education through simulations and games. Nature Biotechnology,32(7), 694–697. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.2955.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Boud, D. (1995). Assessment and learning: Contradictory or complementary? In P. Knight (Ed.), Assessment for learning in higher education (pp. 35–48). London: Kogan.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Brown, P. C., Roediger, H. L., & McDaniel, M. A. (2014). Make it stick: The science of successful learning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Burbules, N. C. (2006). Rethinking the virtual. In J. Weiss, J. Nolan, J. Hunsinger, & P. Trifonas (Eds.), The international handbook of virtual learning environments (pp. 37–58). Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-3803-7.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Butler, A. C., Karpicke, J. D., & Roediger, H. L., III. (2008). Correcting a metacognitive error: feedback increases retention of low-confidence correct responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition,34(4), 918.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Butler, A. C., & Roediger, H. L. (2008). Feedback enhances the positive effects and reduces the negative effects of multiple-choice testing. Memory & Cognition,36(3), 604–616.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Cranney, J., Ahn, M., McKinnon, R., Morris, S., & Watts, K. (2009). The testing effect, collaborative learning, and retrieval-induced facilitation in a classroom setting. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology,21, 919–940.

    Google Scholar 

  16. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Dantas, A. M., & Kemm, R. E. (2008). A blended approach to active learning in a physiology laboratory-based subject facilitated by an e-learning component. Advances in Physiology Education,32, 65–75. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00006.2007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. De Jong, T., & Van Joolingen, W. R. (1998). Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains. Review of Educational Research,68(2), 179–201.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Deci, E., Eghrari, H., Patrick, B., & Leone, D. (1994). Facilitating internalization: the self-determination theory perspective. Journal of Personality,62(1), 119–142.

    Google Scholar 

  20. DeVellis, R. F. (1991). Scale development: Theory and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., & Willingham, D. T. (2013). Improving students’ learning with effective learning techniques: Promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest,14, 4–58.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Embretson, S., & Reise, S. P. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists. Books.google.com. Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&id=rYU7rsi53gQC&oi=fnd&pg=PP11&dq=ORDERED+LATENT+CLASS+MODELS+IN+NONPARAMETRIC+ITEM+RESPONSE+THEORY&ots=ZAESC95fcK&sig=Rvmsiq0-E7GYnGqw9ejqivzaKd4

  23. Gardner, L., Sheridan, D., & White, D. (2002). A web-based learning and assessment system to support flexible education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,18, 125–136.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Gerjets, P., & Kirschner, P. (2009). Learning from multimedia and hypermedia. In S. Ludvigsen, et al. (Eds.), Technology-enhanced learning (pp. 251–272). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Groth-Marnat, G. (2000). Visions of clinical assessment: Then, now, and a brief history of the future. Journal of Clinical Psychology,56(3), 349–365. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4679(200003)56:3%3c349:AID-JCLP11%3e3.0.CO;2-T.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of 800 + meta-analyses on achievement. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Johnson, C. I., & Priest, H. A. (2014). The feedback principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 449–463). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Jones, N. (2018). The virtual lab: Can a simulated laboratory experience provide the same benefits for students as access to a real-world lab? Nature,562, S5–S7.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Kapur, M. (2008). Productive failure. Cognition and instruction,26(3), 379–424.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Khan, K. S., Davies, D. A., & Gupta, J. K. (2001). Formative self-assessment using multiple true-false questions on the Internet: feedback according to confidence about correct knowledge. Medical Teacher,23, 158e163.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin,119(2), 254–284. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Kraiger, K., Ford, J. K., & Salas, E. (1993). Application of cognitive, skill-based, and affective theories of learning outcomes to new methods of training evaluation. Journal of Applied Psychology,78(2), 311–328. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.2.311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Kruglikova, I., Grantcharov, T. P., Drewes, A. M., & Funch-Jensen, P. (2010). The impact of constructive feedback on training in gastrointestinal endoscopy using high-fidelity virtual-reality simulation: a randomised controlled trial. Gut,59(2), 181–185.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Labster. (2019). Labster—Cytogenetics lab. Retrieved January 16th 2019 from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VsabhW1LkA.

  35. Larsen, D. P., Butler, A. C., & Roediger, H. L. (2009). Repeated testing improves long-term retention relative to repeated study: A randomized controlled trial. Medical Education,43, 1174–1181.

    Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Makransky, G., Bonde, M. T., Wulff, J. S. G., Wandall, J., Hood, M., Creed, P. A., et al. (2016). 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. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-016-0620-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Makransky, G., Borre-Gude, S., & Mayer, R. E. (2019a). Motivational and cognitive benefits of training in immersive virtual reality based on multiple assessments. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Makransky, G., & Lilleholt, L. (2018). A structural equation modeling investigation of the emotional value of immersive virtual reality in education. Educational Technology Research and Development,66, 1141–1164.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Makransky, G., Lilleholt, L., & Aaby, A. (2017). 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.02.066.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Makransky, G., Mayer, R. E., Veitch, N., Hood, M., Christensen, K. B., & Gadegaard, H. (2019b). Equivalence of using a desktop virtual reality science simulation at home and in class. PLoS ONE,14(4), e0214944. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0214944.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Makransky, G., & Petersen, G. B. (2019). Investigating the process of learning with desktop virtual reality: A structural equation modeling approach. Computers & Education. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.02.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Makransky, G., Schnohr, C., Torsheim, T., & Currie, C. (2014). Equating the HBSC family affluence scale across survey years: A method to account for item parameter drift using the Rasch model. Quality of Life Research,23(10), 2899–2907. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-014-0728-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Makransky, G., Terkildsen, T. S., & Mayer, R. E. (2019c). Adding immersive virtual reality to a science lab simulation causes more presence but less learning. Learning and Instruction,60, 225–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.12.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Makransky, G., Wismer, P., & Mayer, R. E. (2018). A gender matching effect in learning with pedagogical agents in an immersive virtual reality science simulation. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Marcus, N., Ben-Naim, D., & Bain, M. (2011). Instructional support for teachers and guided feedback for students in an adaptive elearning environment. In Information Technology: New Generations (ITNG), 2011 Eighth International Conference on (pp. 626–631). IEEE.

  48. Masters, G. N. (1982). A rasch model for partial credit scoring. Psychometrika,47(2), 149–174. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02296272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Mayer, R. E. (2008). Learning and instruction (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Boston: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  52. McDaniel, M. A., Agarwal, P. K., Huelser, B. J., McDermott, K. B., & Roediger, H. L. I. I. I. (2011). Test-enhanced learning in a middle school science classroom: The effects of quiz frequency and placement. Journal of Educational Psychology,103(2), 399–414.

    Google Scholar 

  53. McDermott, K. B., Agarwal, P. K., D’Antonio, L., Roediger, H. L., & McDaniel, M. A. (2014). Both multiple-choice and short-answer quizzes enhance later exam performance in middle and high school classes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied,20, 3–21.

    Google Scholar 

  54. McGaghie, W. C., Issenberg, S. B., Cohen, E. R., Barsuk, J. H., & Wayne, D. B. (2011). Does simulation-based medical education with deliberate practice yield better results than traditional clinical education? A meta-analytic comparative review of the evidence. Academic Medicine : Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges,86(6), 706–711. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e318217e119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. 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,44(1), 50–63. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03547.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Meyer, O. A., Omdahl, M. K., & Makransky, G. (2019). Investigating the effect of pre-training when learning through immersive virtual reality and video: A media and methods experiment. Computers & Education. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103603.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Mislevy, R., J. (2016). Postmodern test theory. The gordon commission on the future of assessment in education. Retrieved from http://www.gordoncommission.org/rsc/pdf/mislevy_postmodern_test_theory.pdf

  59. Moreno, R. (2004). Decreasing cognitive load for novice students: Effects of explanatory versus corrective feedback in discovery-based multimedia. Instructional Science,32(1/2), 99–113. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:TRUC.0000021811.66966.1d.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Moreno, R., & Valdez, A. (2005). Cognitive load and learning effects of having students organize pictures and words in multimedia environments: The role of student interactivity and feedback. Educational Technology Research and Development,53(3), 35–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504796.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. National Research Council. (2011). Learning science through computer games and simulations. Washington: National Research Council.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Nitko, A. J. (1996). Educational assessment of students. Des Moines, IA: Prentice-Hall Order Processing Center.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Pallant, J. F., & Tennant, A. (2007). An introduction to the Rasch measurement model: An example using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). British Journal of Clinical Psychology,46(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466506X96931.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Pellegrino, J. W., Chudowsky, N., & Glaser, R. (Eds.). (2001). Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Pellegrino, J. W., & Hilton, M. L. (2012). Education for life and work: Developing transferable knowledge and skills in the 21st century. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Perkins, D. (1994). Do students understand understanding? Education Digest,59(5), 21.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Pintrich, P. R. R., Smith, D., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. (1991). A manual for the use of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Polly, P., Marcus, N., Maguire, D., Belinson, Z., & Velan, G. M. (2014). Evaluation of an adaptive virtual laboratory environment using Western Blotting for diagnosis of disease. BMC Medical Education,14(1), 222.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Richardson, M., Abraham, C., & Bond, R. (2012). Psychological correlates of university students’ academic performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin,138(2), 353–387. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026838.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Roediger, H. L., & Butler, A. C. (2011). The critical role of retrieval practice in long-term retention. Trends in Cognitive Sciences,15(1), 20–27.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Roelle, J., & Berthold, K. (2017). Effects of incorporating retrieval into learning tasks: The complexity of the tasks matters. Learning and Instruction,49, 142–156.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Ronen, M., & Eliahu, M. (2000). Simulation—a bridge between theory and reality: the case of electric circuits. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,16(1), 14–26.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Rummer, R., Schweppe, J., Scheiter, K., & Gerjets, P. (2008). Lernen mit Multimedia: die kognitiven Grundlagen des Modalitätseffekts. Psychologische Rundschau,59(2), 98–107.

    Google Scholar 

  74. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Ryan, R. M., Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55 (1): 68–78. CiteSeerX10.1.1.529.4370. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.55.1.68.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2016). Facilitating and hindering motivation, learning, and well-being in schools: Research and observations from self-determination theory. In K. R. Wentzel & D. B. Miele (Eds.), Handbook of motivation at school (2nd ed., pp. 96–119). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Sackett, P. R., Borneman, M. J., & Connelly, B. S. (2008). High-stakes testing in higher education and employment. American Psychologist,64, 215–227. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.63.4.215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Sadler, D. R. (1998). Formative assessment: revisiting the territory. Assessment in Education,5(1), 77e84.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Schraw, G., Mayrath, M. C., ClarkeMidura, J., & Robinson, D. H. (Eds.). (2012). Technology based assessments for 21st century skills: Theoretical and practical implications from modern research. IAP

  80. Schunk, D. H., & DiBenedetto, M. K. (2016). Self-efficacy theory in education. In K. R. Wentzel & D. B. Miele (Eds.), Handbook of motivation at school (pp. 34–54). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  81. Shavelson, R. J., Young, D. B., Ayala, C. C., Brandon, P. R., Furtak, E. M., Ruiz-Primo, M. A., ··· & Yin, Y. (2008). On the impact of curriculum-embedded formative assessment on learning: A collaboration between curriculum and assessment developers. Applied Measurement in Education, 21(4), 295–314.

  82. Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research,78(1), 153–189. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654307313795.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Shute, V. J. (2011). Stealth assessment in computer-based games to support learning. Computer Games and Instruction,55(2), 503–524.

    Google Scholar 

  84. Shute, V. J., & Becker, B. J. (2010). Innovative assessment for the 21st century. New York, NY: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  85. Shute, V. J., & Ke, F. (2012). Assessment in game-based learning. In D. Eseryel (Ed.), Assessment in game-based learning: Foundations, innovations, and perspectives (pp. 43–58). New York: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3546-4.

    Google Scholar 

  86. Shute, V. J., Leighton, J. P., Jang, E. E., & Chu, M.-W. (2016). Advances in the science of assessment. Educational Assessment,21(1), 34–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2015.1127752.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Shute, V. J., Ventura, M., Bauer, M., & Zapata-Rivera, D. (2009). Melding the power of serious games and embedded assessment to monitor and foster learning. Serious Games: Mechanisms and Effects,2, 295–321.

    Google Scholar 

  88. Smith Jr., E. V. (2002). Detecting and evaluating the impact of multidimensionality using item fit statistics and principal component analysis of residuals. Journal of Applied Measurement, 3(2), 205–231. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12011501

  89. Stiggins, R. J., Arter, J. A., Chappuis, J., & Chappuis, S. (2004). Classroom assessment for student learning: doing it right–using it well. Portland: Assessment Training Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  90. Strandbygaard, J., Bjerrum, F., Maagaard, M., Winkel, P., Larsen, C. R., Ringsted, C., ··· & Sorensen, J. L. (2013). Instructor feedback versus no instructor feedback on performance in a laparoscopic virtual reality simulator: a randomized trial. Annals of Surgery, 257(5), 839–844.

  91. Tennant, A., & Conaghan, P. G. (2007). The Rasch measurement model in rheumatology: What is it and why use it? When should it be applied, and what should one look for in a Rasch paper? Arthritis Care and Research,57(8), 1358–1362. https://doi.org/10.1002/art.23108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. 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. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00805.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Tsai, F.-H., Tsai, C.-C., & Lin, K.-Y. (2015). The evaluation of different gaming modes and feedback types on game-based formative assessment in an online learning environment. Computers & Education,81, 259–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.10.013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Uner, O., & Roediger, H. L. (2018). The effect of question placement on learning from textbook chapters. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition,7(1), 116–122.

    Google Scholar 

  95. Wigfield, A., Guthrie, J. T., Tonks, S., & Perencevich, K. C. (2004). Children’s motivation for reading: Domain specificity and instructional influences. Journal of Educational Research,97(6), 299–309. https://doi.org/10.3200/joer.97.6.299-310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Williams, J. R. (2008). The declaration of Helsinki and public health. Bulletin of the World Health Organization. https://doi.org/10.2471/BLT.08.050955.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  97. Wilson, M., & Sloane, K. (2000). From principles to practice: An embedded assessment system. Applied Measurement in Education,13(2), 181–208.

    Google Scholar 

  98. Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemporary Educational Psychology,25(1), 82–91.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This research was funded by Innovation fund Denmark.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Guido Makransky.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Mads Bonde is a co-founder of the simulation development company Labster that provided the simulation that was used in this study. Ainara Lopez Cordoba works at Labster. The remaining authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Informed consent

Ethical consent was obtained from all participants in accordance with the ethical regulations of the Health Research Ethics Committee in Denmark.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix 1: Questionnaire items and sources

Appendix 1: Questionnaire items and sources

  1. aDeci et al. (1994).
  2. bPintrich et al. (1991).
  3. cMakransky et al. (2016).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Makransky, G., Mayer, R., Nøremølle, A. et al. Investigating the feasibility of using assessment and explanatory feedback in desktop virtual reality simulations. Education Tech Research Dev 68, 293–317 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09690-3

Download citation

Keywords

  • Simulations
  • Desktop virtual reality
  • Assessment
  • Explanatory feedback
  • Item response theory
  • Cognitive theory of multimedia learning
  • Retrieval practice