Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Using the Summarizing Strategy to Engage Learners: Empirical Evidence in an Immersive Virtual Reality Environment

  • Regular Article
  • Published:
The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

According to the current literature, it is unknown whether summarizing can enhance learning and engagement in an immersive environment. To fill this gap, we conducted an experimental study to investigate the potential effects of using summarizing strategy in an immersive virtual reality learning environment on comprehension, cognitive load, and intrinsic motivation. Seventy-five college students were randomly assigned to one of the four conditions formed by a 2 × 2 factorial design with the immersive environment (virtual reality vs. interactive video) as one factor and the use of the summarizing strategy (yes vs. no) as the other factor. The results indicated that (a) summarizing significantly reduced learners’ perceived effort; (b) summarizing resulted in lower perceived success than not summarizing in the interactive video condition; and (c) learning from the immersive virtual reality environment led to increased interest and value. These findings suggest the use of appropriate strategies in immersive learning environments.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Adopted from Ketelhut et al. (2007)

Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Almousa, O., Prates, J., Yeslam, N., Mac Gregor, D., Zhang, J., Phan, V., et al. (2019). Virtual reality simulation technology for cardiopulmonary resuscitation training: An innovative hybrid system with haptic feedback. Simulation & Gaming,50(1), 6–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, M. C. M., & Thiede, K. W. (2008). Why do delayed summaries improve metacomprehension? Acta Psychologica,128, 110–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arici, A., Barab, S., & Borden, R. (2016). Gaming 8up the practice of teacher education: Quest2Teach. In L. Lin & R. K. Atkinson (Eds.), Educational technologies: Challenges, applications and learning outcomes (pp. 95–114). New York: Nova Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barab, S. A., Sadler, T. D., Heiselt, C., Hickey, D., & Zuiker, S. (2007). Relating narrative, inquiry, and inscriptions: Supporting consequential play. Journal of Science Education and Technology,16, 59–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Başer, M., & Durmuş, S. (2010). The effectiveness of computer supported versus real laboratory inquiry learning environments on the understanding of direct current electricity among pre-service elementary school teachers. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education,6(1), 47–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, M. W. (2008). Toward a definition of “virtual worlds”. Journal for Virtual Worlds Research, 1(1).

  • Chen, O., Manalo, E., & She, Y. (2019). Examining the influence of expertise on the effectiveness of diagramming and summarising when studying scientific materials. Educational Studies,45, 57–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H., & Wylie, R. (2014). The ICAP framework: Linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes. Educational Psychologist,49(4), 219–243.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, D. B., Nelson, B. C., Chang, H. Y., Martinez-Garza, M., Slack, K., & D’Angelo, C. M. (2011). Exploring Newtonian mechanics in a conceptually-integrated digital game: Comparison of learning and affective outcomes for students in Taiwan and the United States. Computers & Education,57(3), 2178–2195.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, J., Dede, C., Ketelhut, D. J., & Nelson, B. (2006). A design-based research strategy to promote scalability for educational innovations. Educational Technology,46(3), 27–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Codd, A. M., & Choudhury, B. (2011). Virtual reality anatomy: Is it comparable with traditional methods in the teaching of human forearm musculoskeletal anatomy? Anatomical sciences education,4(3), 119–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawley, L., & Dede, C. (2014). Situated learning in virtual worlds and immersive simulations. In J. M. Spector, et al. (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 723–734). New York, NY: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dede, C. (2009). Immersive interfaces for engagement and learning. Science,323(5910), 66–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dede, C., Ketelhut, D., & Ruess, K. (2003). Designing for motivation and usability in a museum-based multi-user virtual environment. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Conference, Chicago, IL, USA.

  • Dickes, A. C., Kamarainen, A., Metcalf, S. J., Gün-Yildiz, S., Brennan, K., Grotzer, T., et al. (2019). Scaffolding ecosystems science practice by blending immersive environments and computational modeling. British Journal of Educational Technology,50, 2181–2202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2016). Eight ways to promote generative learning. Educational Psychology Review,28, 717–741.

    Google Scholar 

  • Girvan, C. (2018). What is a virtual world? Definition and classification. Educational Technology Research and Development,66(5), 1087–1100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart, S. G., & Staveland, L. E. (1988). Development of NASA-TLX (task load index): Results of experimental and theoretical research. In P. A. Hancock & N. Meshkati (Eds.), Human mental workload (pp. 139–183). Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jang, S., Vitale, J. M., Jyung, R. W., & Black, J. B. (2017). Direct manipulation is better than passive viewing for learning anatomy in a three-dimensional virtual reality environment. Computers & Education,106, 150–165.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalyuga, S., Rikers, R., & Paas, F. (2012). Educational implications of expertise reversal effects in learning and performance of complex cognitive and sensorimotor skills. Educational Psychology Review,24, 313–337.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ketelhut, D. J., Dede, C., Clarke, J., & Nelson, B. (2007). Studying situated learning in a multi-user virtual environment. In E. Baker, J. Dickieson & W. Wulfeck & H. O’Neil (Eds.), Assessment of problem-solving using simulations. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

  • Ketelhut, D. J., & Nelson, B. (2018). The role of immersive virtual environments in raising science self-efficacy. In 12th European Conference on Game Based Learning, ECGBL 2018 (pp. 281–287). Dechema eV.

  • Kim, A. (1992). Comparison of self-questioning, summarizing, and notetaking-review as strategies for learning from lectures. American Educational Research Journal,29, 303–323.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leopold, C., Doerner, M., Leutner, D., & Dutke, S. (2015). Effects of strategy instructions on learning from text and pictures. Instructional Science,43, 345–364.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leopold, C., & Leutner, D. (2012). Science text comprehension: Drawing, main idea selection, and summarizing as learning strategies. Learning and Instruction,22, 16–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leopold, C., Sumfleth, E., & Leutner, D. (2013). Learning with summaries: Effects of representation mode and type of learning activity on comprehension and transfer. Learning and Instruction,27, 40–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin, L., & Atkinson, R. K. (2013). Enhancing learning from different visualizations by self-explanations prompts. Journal of Educational Computing Research,49(1), 83–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin, L., Atkinson, R. K., Savenye, W. C., & Nelson, B. C. (2016). Effects of visual cues and self-explanation prompts: Empirical evidence in a multimedia environment. Interactive Learning Environments,24, 799–813.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin, L., Ginns, P., Wang, T., & Zhang, P. (2020). Using a pedagogical agent to deliver conversational style instruction: What benefits can you obtain? Computers & Education, 143, 103658.

  • Lin, L., & Li, M. (2018). Optimizing learning from animations: Examining the impact of biofeedback. Learning and Instruction,55, 32–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (2005). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 31–48). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (2014). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp. 43–71). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, B. (2007). Exploring the use of individualized, reflective guidance in an educational multi-user virtual environment. Journal of Science Education and Technology,16(1), 83–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, B. C., & Erlandson, B. E. (2008). Managing cognitive load in educational multi-user virtual environments: Reflection on design practice. Educational Technology Research and Development,56(5–6), 619–641.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, B., Ketelhut, D. J., Clarke, J., Bowman, C., & Dede, C. (2005). Design-based research strategies for developing a scientific inquiry curriculum in a multi-user virtual environment. Educational Technology,45(1), 21–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, B., Kim, Y., Foshee, C., & Slack, K. (2014). Visual signaling in virtual world-based assessments: The SAVE Science project. Information Sciences,264, 32–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plass, J. L., & Kalyuga, S. (2019). Four ways of considering emotion in cognitive load theory. Educational Psychology Review,31(2), 339–359.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, R. M. (1982). Control and information in the intrapersonal sphere: An extension of cognitive evaluation theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,43, 450–461.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sherman, W. R., & Craig, A. B. (2018). Understanding virtual reality: Interface, application, and design. Burlington: Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shin, D., & Park, S. (2019). 3D learning spaces and activities fostering users’ learning, acceptance, and creativity. Journal of Computing in Higher Education,31, 210–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J., & Paas, F. (2019). Cognitive architecture and instructional design: 20 years later. Educational Psychology Review,31(2), 261–292.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thiede, K. W., Anderson, M., & Therriault, D. (2003). Accuracy of metacognitive monitoring affects learning of texts. Journal of Educational Psychology,95(1), 66–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang, X., Lin, L., Cheng, P. Y., Yang, X., Ren, Y., & Huang, Y. M. (2018). Examining creativity through a virtual reality support system. Educational Technology Research and Development,66(5), 1231–1254.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The research was supported by Grant BHA170132 from National Social Science Foundation in China, Major Program of National Social Science Foundation of China (18ZDA335), and Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (2018ECNU-YY005). The authors would like to thank Peilin Zhang for assisting data coding.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Open Learning and Education, East China Normal University, Shanghai, 200062, China

    Jian Zhao

  2. School of Psychology and Cognitive Science, East China Normal University, Shanghai, 200062, China

    Lijia Lin

  3. Department of Education Information Technology, East China Normal University, Shanghai, 200062, China

    Jiangshan Sun & Yuan Liao

Authors
  1. Jian Zhao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lijia Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jiangshan Sun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yuan Liao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lijia Lin.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zhao, J., Lin, L., Sun, J. et al. Using the Summarizing Strategy to Engage Learners: Empirical Evidence in an Immersive Virtual Reality Environment. Asia-Pacific Edu Res 29, 473–482 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-020-00499-w

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-020-00499-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation