Skip to main content

Examining Virtual Reality as an Alternative to In-Person and Online Learning Environments

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Proceedings of the Future Technologies Conference (FTC) 2023, Volume 1 (FTC 2023)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems ((LNNS,volume 813))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 468 Accesses

Abstract

The continuous advances in virtual reality (VR) technology have increased its potential for tasks that require hands-on learning. One potential target for VR is its use as an alternative to online learning when a physical lab cannot be accessed due to learner’s financial, travel, or pandemic-related constraints. We enrolled 15 participants to assess VR’s feasibility as a modality to teach A + certification skills. Each participant was randomly assigned to three groups (in-person lab, online lab, virtual reality lab). Participants completed System Usability Scale (SUS) and User Burden Scale (UBS) surveys and interviewed about their lab experience. In addition, VR participants completed a Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) survey. Participants reported the VR experience with lower system usability and higher user burden than other learning modalities. Virtual Reality participants in the study scored VR highly in its perceived usefulness, average for its perceived use, and high in perceived usefulness for learning and engagement. Learner adoption and onboarding of VR is a challenge worth surmounting. VR retains attention, increases learner retention, and incentivizes failure recovery. This study provides preliminary evidence supporting that further development of VR for training in spatial tasks holds promise over traditional learning modalities.

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

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Shen, C.W., Ho, J.T., Kuo, T.C., Luong, T.H.: Behavioral intention of using virtual reality in learning. In: Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on World Wide Web Companion, pp. 129–137, April 2017

    Google Scholar 

  2. Makransky, G., Borre-Gude, S., Mayer, R.E.: Motivational and cognitive benefits of training in immersive virtual reality based on multiple assessments. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 35(6), 691–707 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12375

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Liou, H.H., Yang, S.J., Chen, S.Y., Tarng, W.: The influences of the 2D image-based augmented reality and virtual reality on student learning. J. Educ. Technol. Soc. 20(3), 110–121 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Donally, J.: New Realities: virtual and augmented reality programs can provide uniquely immersive personalized learning experiences. Educ. Leadersh. 76(5), 41 (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Murodillayevich, N.F., Eshpulatovich, U.G., Pardaboyevich, J.O.: Integration of virtual reality and 3D modeling use of environments in education. In: 2019 International conference on information science and communications technologies (ICISCT), pp. 1–6. IEEE, November 2019

    Google Scholar 

  6. Carruth, D.W.: Virtual reality for education and workforce training. In: 2017 15th International Conference on Emerging eLearning Technologies and Applications (ICETA), pp. 1–6. IEEE, October 2017

    Google Scholar 

  7. Sattar, M., Palaniappan, S., Lokman, A., Shah, N., Khalid, U., Hasan, R.: Motivating medical students using virtual reality-based education. Int. J. Emerg. Technol. Learn. (iJET) 15(2), 160–174 (2020)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Merchant, Z., Goetz, E.T., Keeney-Kennicutt, W., Lwok, O., Cifuentes, L., Davis, T.J.: The learner characteristics, features of desktop 3D virtual reality environments, and college chemistry instruction: a structural equation modeling analysis. Comput. Educ. 59, 551–568 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Huang, H.-M., Liaw, S.-S., Lai, C.-M.: Exploring learner acceptance of the use of virtual reality in medical education: a case study of desktop and projection-based display systems. Interact. Learn. Environ. 24(1), 3–19 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2013.817436

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Garcia-Bonete, M.J., Jensen, M., Katona, G.: A practical guide to developing virtual and augmented reality exercises for teaching structural biology. Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ. 47(1), 16–24 (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Gładysz, K., Szpiech, K., Kuś, A., Szypłowska, M., Neścior, M.: Virtual reality–future of diagnosis, medical education and therapy. J. Educ. Health Sport 9(9), 58–65 (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Gunn, T., Jones, L., Bridge, P., Rowntree, P., Nissen, L.: The use of virtual reality simulation to improve technical skill in the undergraduate medical imaging student. Interact. Learn. Environ. 26(5), 613–620 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Kamińska, D., et al.: Virtual reality and its applications in education: survey. Information 10(10), 318 (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Roman, T.A., Racek, J.: Virtual reality as a pedagogical tool to design for social impact: a design case. TechTrends 63(1), 79–86 (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Shih, S.L., Ou, S.J., Huang, Y.C., Mu, Y.C.: The difficulties and countermeasures of applying virtual reality to industrial design education. In: Proceedings of the 2019 3rd International Conference on Education and Multimedia Technology, pp. 269–272, July 2019

    Google Scholar 

  16. Patterson, K., Lilja, A., Arrebola, M., McGhee, J.: Molecular genomics education through gamified cell exploration in virtual reality. In: The 17th International Conference on Virtual-Reality Continuum and Its Applications in Industry, pp. 1–2 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1145/3359997.3365724

  17. Billingsley, G., Smith, S., Smith, S., Meritt, J.: A systematic literature review of using immersive virtual reality technology in teacher education. J. Interact. Learn. Res. 30(1), 65 (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Putman, S., Id-Deen, L.: I Can See It!: math understanding through virtual reality. Educ. Leadersh. 76(5), 36–40 (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Gavish, N., et al.: Evaluating virtual reality and augmented reality training for industrial maintenance and assembly tasks. Interact. Learn. Environ. 23(6), 778–798 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Frevert, M., Di Fuccia, D.S.: Virtual reality as a means of teaching contemporary chemistry. In: Proceedings of the 2019 The 3rd International Conference on Digital Technology in Education, pp. 34–38, October 2019

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Elkoubaiti, H., Mrabet, R.: How are augmented and virtual reality used in smart classrooms? In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Smart Digital Environment, pp. 189–196, October 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Mohamed, F., Abdeslam, J., Lahcen, E.B.: Towards new approach to enhance learning based on internet of things and virtual reality. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning and Optimization Algorithms: Theory and Applications – LOPAL, vol. 18, pp. 1–5 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1145/3230905.3230955

  24. Saunier, J., Barange, M., Blandin, B., Querrec, R., Taoum, J.: Designing adaptable virtual reality learning environments. In: Proceedings of the 2016 Virtual Reality International Conference, pp. 1–4, March 2016

    Google Scholar 

  25. Smutny, P., Babiuch, M., Foltynek, P.: A review of the virtual reality applications in education and training. In: 2019 20th International Carpathian Control Conference (ICCC), pp. 1–4. IEEE, May 2019

    Google Scholar 

  26. Elmqaddem, N.: Augmented reality and virtual reality in education. myth or reality? Int. J. Emerg. Technol. Learn. (IJET) 03, 234 (2019). https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v14i03.9289

  27. Kavanagh, S., Luxton-Reilly, A., Wuensche, B., Plimmer, B.: A systematic review of virtual reality in education. Themes Sci. Technol. Educ. 10(2), 85–119 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Pensieri, C., La Marca, A.: Virtual worlds and virtual reality. An analysis in the healthcare education. Form@ re-Open J. per la formazione in rete 19(1), 256–273 (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  29. Soto, N.C., Navas-Parejo, M.R., Guerrero, A.J.M.: Virtual reality and motivation in the educational context: bibliometric study of the last twenty years from scopus. Alteridad 15(1), 47 (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  30. Qualtrics Survey Tool. https://www.qualtrics.com/support/survey-platform/survey-module/survey-tools/survey-tools-overview/

  31. Otter Software. https://otter.ai/

  32. Atlas.ti Qualitative Insight Software. https://atlasti.com/

  33. Gogl, G., Zambo, B., Kostmann, C., et al.: Quantitative fragmentomics allow affinity mapping of interactomes. Nat. Commun. 13, 5472 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-33018-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Oeldorf-Hirsch, A.: The sage encyclopedia of communication research methods (2017). https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483381411

  35. Ross, M.G., Russ, C., Costello, M., et al.: Characterizing and measuring bias in sequence data. Genome Biol. 14, R51 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1186/gb-2013-14-5-r51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Vlachogianni, P., Tselios, N.: Perceived usability evaluation of educational technology using the system usability scale (SUS): a systematic review. J. Res. Technol. Educ. 54(3), 392–409 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2020.1867938

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Bangor, A.: Determining what individual SUS scores mean: Adding an adjective rating scale - jux. JUX - The Journal of User Experience. Accessed 31 March 2023, 12 July 2014). https://uxpajournal.org/determining-what-individual-sus-scores-mean-adding-an-adjective-rating-scale/

  38. Suh, H., Shahriaree, N., Hekler, E.B., Kientz, J.A.: Developing and validating the user burden scale. In: Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM Conferences. Accessed 31 March 2023, 1 May 2016. https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858448

  39. Davis, F.: User acceptance of information technology: System characteristics, user perceptions and behavioral impacts. International journal of man-machine studies. Accessed 31 March 2023, 6 June 2014. https://www.academia.edu/502926/User_Acceptance_of_Information_Technology_System_Characteristics_User_Perceptions_and_Behavioral_Impacts

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pranali Shinde .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Appendix A: Survey Instruments & Interview Protocol

Appendix A: Survey Instruments & Interview Protocol

System Usability Scale [5-point Likert Scale]

  1. 1.

    I think that I would like to use this method of learning frequently.

  2. 2.

    I found the method of learning unnecessarily complex.

  3. 3.

    I thought the method of learning was easy to use.

  4. 4.

    I think that I would need the support of a technical person to be able to use this method of learning.

  5. 5.

    I found the various functions in this method of learning were well integrated.

  6. 6.

    I thought there was too much inconsistency in this method of learning.

  7. 7.

    I would imagine that most people would learn to use this method of learning very quickly.

  8. 8.

    I found the method of learning very cumbersome to use.

  9. 9.

    I felt very confident using the method of learning.

  10. 10.

    I needed to learn a lot of things before I could get going with this method of learning.

User Burden Scale [5-point Likert Scale]

[Difficulty of use]

  1. 1.

    I needed assistance from another person to use the system.

  2. 2.

    The learning system demanded too much mental effort.

  3. 3.

    It took too long for me to do what I wanted to do with the learning system.

  4. 4.

    The system was hard to learn.

[Physical]

  1. 1.

    Using this learning system created too much physical discomfort.

  2. 2.

    The learning system made me feel physical pain.

  3. 3.

    The use of this learning system was too physically demanding.

[Mental & Emotional]

  1. 1.

    The learning system required me to remember too much information.

  2. 2.

    The learning system presented too much information at once.

Technology Acceptance Model [Only for VR group]

[Perceived Usefulness of VR]

  1. 1.

    Using VR improves the quality of my learning.

  2. 2.

    Using VR gives me greater control over my learning.

  3. 3.

    VR enables me to accomplish my learning more quickly.

  4. 4.

    VR supports critical aspects of my learning.

  5. 5.

    Using VR increases my learning.

  6. 6.

    Using VR allows me to learn more than would otherwise be possible.

  7. 7.

    Using VR enhances the effectiveness of my learning.

  8. 8.

    Using VR makes it easier to learn.

  9. 9.

    Overall, I find VR useful in my learning.

[Perceived Ease of Use of VR]

  1. 1.

    I find VR cumbersome to use.

  2. 2.

    Learning to operate VR is easy for me.

  3. 3.

    Interacting with VR is often frustrating.

  4. 4.

    I find it easy to get VR to do what I want it to do.

  5. 5.

    VR is rigid and inflexible to interact with.

  6. 6.

    It is easy for me to remember how to perform tasks using VR.

  7. 7.

    Interacting with VR requires a lot of mental effort.

  8. 8.

    Interacting with virtual objects inside VR is clear and understandable.

  9. 9.

    I find it takes a lot of effort to become skillful at using VR.

  10. 10.

    Overall, I find VR easy to use.

[Perceived usefulness of VR for Learning and Engagement]

  1. 1.

    I find VR fun to use.

  2. 2.

    I prefer learning hands-on tasks in VR.

  3. 3.

    Learning spatial tasks is hard in VR.

  4. 4.

    I understand new material in VR.

  5. 5.

    I remember what I learned in VR.

  6. 6.

    I recommend learning in VR to others.

  7. 7.

    I enjoy learning to use VR.

  8. 8.

    It is disorienting to learn in VR.

Post-Usability Testing Interview Questions

  1. 1.

    How helpful was the information from the pre-requisite video to perform this task?

  2. 2.

    What difficulties did you face while performing the task?

  3. 3.

    What did you like about this exercise?

  4. 4.

    Do you have any feedback for us?

  5. 5.

    Do you have prior online learning experience? [Only for VR group]

  6. 6.

    If yes, which experience do you think is better? in-person, Online or VR? Why? [Only for VR group]

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Shinde, P., Murillo, A., Wood, Z.M. (2023). Examining Virtual Reality as an Alternative to In-Person and Online Learning Environments. In: Arai, K. (eds) Proceedings of the Future Technologies Conference (FTC) 2023, Volume 1. FTC 2023. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, vol 813. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-47454-5_36

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics