3.8 Article

Long-term effectiveness of immersive VR simulations in undergraduate science learning: lessons from a media-comparison study

期刊

RESEARCH IN LEARNING TECHNOLOGY
卷 29, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ASSOC LEARNING TECHNOLOGY-ALT
DOI: 10.25304/rlt.v29.2482

关键词

virtual reality; longitudinal; science education; higher education; educational technology

资金

  1. Danish Ministry of Education and Science

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that using iVR simulations in practice allowed students to better learn knowledge, but had no significant impact on intrinsic motivation and self-efficacy.
Our main goal was to investigate if and how using multiple immersive virtual reality (iVR) simulations and their video playback, in a science course, affects student learning over time. We conducted a longitudinal study, in ecological settings, at an undergraduate field-course on three topics in environmental biology. Twenty-eight undergraduates were randomly assigned to either an iVR-interaction group or a video-viewing group. During the field-course, the iVR group interacted with a head-mounted device-based iVR simulation related to each topic (i.e. total three interventions), while the video group watched a pre-recorded video of the respective simulation on a laptop. Cognitive and affective data were collected through the following checkpoints: a pre-test before the first intervention, one topic-specific post-test immediately after each intervention, a final post-test towards the end of the course, and a longitudinal post-test deployed approximately 2 months after the course. Through a descriptive analysis, it was found that student performance on the knowledge tests increased considerably over time for the iVR group but remained unchanged for the video group. While no within- or between-group differences were noted for intrinsic motivation and self-efficacy measures, students in the iVR group enjoyed all the simulations, and perceived themselves to benefit from those simulations.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据