Introduction
Definition of key terms
Previous literature and reviews
Rationale for review
-
To assess the subject area, discipline, and learning domain that I-VR has been employed in.
-
Understand where I-VR confers an educational benefit in terms of quantitative learning outcomes over non-immersive and traditional teaching methods.
-
To examine the experimental design of studies, focusing on how learning outcomes are assessed, and how the I-VR intervention is delivered.
-
To inform future experimental and applied practice in the field of pedagogical I-VR application.
Methodology
Search strategy
Due to the scope and parameters of the research objectives, only peer-reviewed literature published between January 2013 and December 2018 was included in the final review. Early access articles due to be published in 2019 were also included if these were found using the database searches. Date criteria was based upon an initial scoping review that found a substantial growth in relevant I-VR literature from 2013 onwards. A major contributing factor was the release of the Oculus Rift Development Kit 1 (DK-1) in early 2013, which is regarded as one of the first economically viable and high quality HMDs that could be used both within educational institutions, and at home (Lyne 2013).("Virtual Reality" OR "Virtual-Reality" OR “Immersive Virtual Reality” OR “Head Mounted Display” OR “Immersive Simulation”) AND (Education OR Training OR Learning OR Teaching)
Selection and screening
Quality assessment tool
Results
Quality of studies
Subject areas and learning domains
Study (year) | Learning domain | HMD(s) used | Comparison variable(s) | Findings |
---|---|---|---|---|
Harrington et al. (2018) | Cognitive | Samsung Gear VR | 2D video | No difference in information retention between both mediums |
Yoganathan et al. (2018) | Procedural | Unspecified | 2D video Face-to-face training | I-VR produced higher scores in knot tying skills. No difference in completion time |
Makransky et al. (2017) | Cognitive | Samsung Gear VR | Desktop VR | Knowledge test score worse when using I-VR. No difference in transfer score |
Greenwald et al. (2018) | Cognitive | HTC Vive | 2D system | Study found no difference in test scores or number of moves between both mediums. One session was slower in I-VR compared to 2D |
Lamb et al. (2018) | Cognitive | HTC Vive | Lecture Serious game Hands-on activity | I-VR produced a better test score than a traditional lecture. No difference between I-VR and educational game or hands-on activity |
Webster (2016) | Cognitive | Sony HMZ | Lecture | I-VR produced significantly higher test scores than a lecture |
Smith et al. (2018) | Cognitive and procedural | Oculus Rift | Desktop VR Written instructions | No difference in test score or completion time between I-VR and other methods |
Ostrander et al. (2018) | Cognitive | HTC Vive | Instructor lesson | In 6 out of 7 lessons, I-VR was no more effective than a lesson delivered by an instructor |
Angulo and de Velasco (2013) | Cognitive | Other | 3D physical model | Higher appraisal of architectural spaces designed with I-VR than physical model |
Stepan et al. (2017) | Cognitive | Oculus Rift | Online textbook | No difference in test score at pre-test, post-test, or 8-week follow-up |
Sankaranarayanan et al. (2018) | Cognitive and procedural | Oculus Rift | No I-VR (written material only) | Using I-VR produced higher learning gains in procedural activity and transfer test. There was no difference in MCQ test scores |
Fogarty et al. (2017) | Cognitive | Oculus Rift | No I-VR (lectures only) | At pre-intervention the participants performed significantly poorer than the control group. At post-intervention, this difference disappeared showing improvement in cognitive knowledge |
Rupp et al. (2019) | Cognitive | Google Cardboard Oculus CV1 Oculus DK2 | 2D video (on phone screen) | Significantly better learning outcomes were demonstrated on test scores when I-VR was used compared to non-immersive condition |
Bharathi and Tucker (2015) | Procedural | Oculus Rift | Desktop VR | Functional analysis task was carried out significantly faster in I-VR condition compared to D-VR |
Johnston et al. (2018) | Cognitive | Oculus Rift | No I-VR (lectures only) | Those participants who underwent the I-VR experience performed better on final exam question than those who did not use I-VR |
Allcoat and von Mühlenen (2018) | Cognitive | HTC Vive | Textbook 2D Video | Those who used I-VR performed better on a test than 2D control group. The I-VR group performed better on remembering questions than those in the textbook group, but no difference in understanding questions |
Kozhevnikov et al. (2013) | Cognitive | nVisor SX60 | Desktop VR | Performance in understanding relative motion concepts were significantly higher when participants used I-VR compared to D-VR |
Parong and Mayer (2018) | Cognitive | HTC Vive | Slideshow | I-VR was demonstrated to cause significantly poorer results on a cell biology test than those who learned using a traditional PowerPoint |
Olmos-Raya et al. (2018) | Cognitive | Samsung Gear VR | Desktop VR | Those participants who learned about geography using I-VR demonstrated significantly higher learning gains and medium term retention than those who used D-VR |
Akbulut et al. (2018) | Cognitive | Mobile VR | Lecturers and lab sessions | Test scores were significantly higher in those who used the I-VR platform compared to those who learned through lectures and lab sessions alone |
Ray and Deb (2016) | Cognitive | Google Cardboard | Slideshow Lectures | Over the course of 16 sessions, those who learned computer science through I-VR tended to score higher on test scores than those who did not |
Moro et al. (2017) | Cognitive | Oculus Rift | Desktop VR | I-VR and D-VR were shown to be equally effective modes of learning on an anatomy skill test |
Maresky et al. (2019) | Cognitive | Oculus Rift | Independent study | Those who used I-VR to learn about cardiac anatomy scored significantly higher on post-test than a control group who used independent study |
Madden et al. (2018) | Cognitive | Oculus Rift | Desktop VR Ball-and-stick method | I-VR was no more effective than D-VR or a traditional model demonstration when learning about astronomy |
Liou and Chang (2018) | Cognitive | HTC Vive | Traditional didactic teaching | I-VR was shown to produce significantly higher levels of learning in anatomy and chemistry tests than those who did not use the technology |
Molina-Carmona et al. (2018) | Cognitive | Mobile VR | Desktop VR | I-VR was shown to improve the spatial ability of those participants who used it, compared to those that used D-VR |
Babu et al. (2018) | Cognitive | HTC Vive | Desktop VR (tablet based) | Although I-VR and D-VR produced similar post-test scores, I-VR was shown to improve retention of knowledge learned |
Alhalabi (2016) | Cognitive | Oculus Rift | Traditional methods | I-VR was shown to produce significantly higher attainment in engineering content than traditional educational methods. Furthermore, HMD based I-VR produced better results than a CAVE based system |
Gutiérrez-Maldonado et al. (2015) | Affective and cognitive | Oculus Rift DK1 | Stereoscopic desktop VR | Both immersive and non-immersive mediums produced similar results in psychiatric interview training |