Effects of virtual presence and learning outcome using low-end virtual reality systems☆
Introduction
Virtual Reality (VR) is an immersive technology that engages and motivates the user and provides visualizations and interactions otherwise impossible to perform in a real environment. Virtual technologies have the potential of making students feeling more committed and motivated [1], [2], [3], allowing the exploration of new teaching and learning methods [4].
VR systems can be classified in low-end and high-end based on their hardware specifications. Generally, this classification also relates to the cost of the system. High-end VR systems, such as the Oculus Rift,1 have proved to increase the students’ learning performance and cognitive skills in educative VR applications [5]. However, most of the educative institutions cannot afford this high-end VR technology considering the number of students in a classroom environment. For this reason, low-end VR systems must be considered. In general, low-end and high-end VR systems generate a different level of virtual presence.
Virtual presence is related to the concept of being perceptually present in a virtual environment so deeply as “if the medium were not there” [6]. Hence, the technology must be able to simulate the real world in terms of visual fidelity, laws of physics, and social interactions. In such simulated and highly interactive environments, students are free to experience and explore.
Learners’ active involvement seems to influence virtual presence [3]. In fact, the learners’ feeling of virtual presence positively influence the interest and the motivation to interact and continue playing the game or simulation [7]. It is generally assumed that the greater a medium provides visual, auditory, and haptic stimulation, the greater the capability of that medium to produce virtual presence [3].
Many studies in the literature link virtual technologies with improvements in students’ academic performance and motivation [8], [9], [10], students’ social and collaborative skills [11], and students’ psycho-motor and cognitive skills [12]. In [13] the authors presented a test to evaluate whether presence can be enhanced in less immersive virtual environments by using emotional content. Their results suggest that both affective content and immersion have an important effect on the sense of presence. The use of immersive technologies in education has been addressed on previous studies [11], [14], [15], [16], [17], however they tend to be focused on specific experiences and topics.
Virtual Reality based Learning Environments (VRLEs) motivate the students to learn by freely exploring the virtual environment, providing unprecedented learning experiences within a safe and controlled environment [18]. Since VR can easily simulate many different situations, VRLEs are also used for spatial cognition training [19], [20], [21], [22]. For instance, Korallo et al. [19] proposed the possibility of using spatial memory to help students remember history chronology. They suggested that achieving the intended learning outcome requires spatial thinking ability either directly or indirectly.
The general relationship between spatial cognition and learning suggest that there may be a similar relationship between learning and virtual presence, which is directly related to the VR system used. Also, even though high-end VR systems have proved to enhance the learning process, low-end and less immersive VR systems might improve the learning process as well. Therefore, this research study was guided by two hypotheses. First, we hypothesized a positive relationship between virtual presence and the learning outcome arising from a VR educational experience. Second, we hypothesized that low-end and high-end VR systems achieve a comparable learning outcome regardless their immersion level. To test these hypotheses, this study analyzed and compared the participants’ learning outcome and virtual presence on three different immersive VR configurations.
The rest of the paper is structured as follows. In Section 2 the materials and methods used in the current study are presented. Section 3 shows the results of the evaluation and the analysis of the corresponding variables. The discussion is detailed in Section 4, followed by guidelines to further study. Finally, Section 5 provides the conclusions of the study.
Section snippets
Current Study
This study presents an experiment involving three configurations with a different level of immersion according to the hardware used, namely: a desktop system, a low-end VR system, and a high-end VR system. Based on previous research works [23], a higher level of virtual presence is expected for the high-end VR system, followed by the low-end VR system, and finally by the desktop system. By using the desktop configuration as the control learning approach, we can compare the impact of virtual
Results
Table 1 provides an overview of the mean score and standard deviation of all dependent variables on each configuration. The results of the statistical analyses are presented next.
Discussion
The use of VR technology as a motivational and engaging tool for education has been widely studied in the literature [20], [21], [22]. VRLEs emerged as a promising option to be implemented in educational institutions. Nevertheless, the massive adoption of immersive technologies is directly related to the cost of the hardware. High-end VR systems still are prohibitive in this aspect, and even more in developing countries. On the other hand, low-end VR headsets such as the widespread Google
Conclusions
VRLEs allow learners to acquire knowledge by experiencing and interacting in a multisensory feedback environment. This learning process can be repeated at almost no cost, allowing learners to gradually build their own knowledge or skills on specific learning domains. However, the massive adoption of VR is constrained to the cost of the hardware.
Our study tried to shed some light on the use of low-end VR technologies in educational environments. The most important finding that supports our
Funding
This work was partially supported by the following research projects: PGI 24/N037 and PGI 24/ZN29 from the Secretaría General de Ciencia y Tecnología, Universidad Nacional del Sur, Argentina.
Conflict of interest
We wish to confirm that there are no known conflicts of interest associated with this publication.
References (32)
- et al.
Interactive augmented reality system for enhancing library instruction in elementary schools
Comput. Educ.
(2012) - et al.
Learning science in virtual reality multimedia environments: role of methods and media
J. Educ. Psychol.
(2002) - et al.
Design and validation of an augmented book for spatial abilities development in engineering students
Comput. Graph.
(2010) - et al.
Impact of an augmented reality system on students’ motivation for a visual art course
Comput. Educ.
(2013) - et al.
Educational virtual environments: a ten-year review of empirical research (1999–2009)
Comput. Educ.
(2011) - et al.
Can multiple “spatial” virtual timelines convey the relatedness of chronological knowledge across parallel domains?
Comput. Educ.
(2012) - et al.
Learning with desktop virtual reality: low spatial ability learners are more positively affected
Comput. Educ.
(2014) - et al.
Direct manipulation is better than passive viewing for learning anatomy in a three-dimensional virtual reality environment
Comput. Educ.
(2017) - et al.
Visually induced motion sickness, visual stress and photosensitive epileptic seizures: what do they have in common?-preface to the special issue
Appl. Ergon.
(2010) - et al.
The influence of virtual presence: effects on experienced cognitive load and learning outcomes in educational computer games
Comput. Human Behav.
(2012)
Virtual reality sickness questionnaire (VRSQ): Motion sickness measurement index in a virtual reality environment
Appl. Ergon.
“Making it real”: exploring the potential of augmented reality for teaching primary school science
Virtual Real.
TactileVR: integrating physical toys into learn and play virtual reality experiences
At the heart of it all: the concept of presence
J. Comput. Mediat. Commun.
Cited by (0)
- ☆
This paper was recommended for publication by Richard H.Y. So.