Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This study explored the effects of immersive virtual reality (IVR) supported sustainability-focused differentiated science instruction on gifted students’ engagement, self-regulated learning skills, and scientific creativity. A systematically developed instructional design incorporated Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) related to Clean Water and Sanitation (SDG-6), Accessible and Clean Energy (SDG-7), Climate Action (SDG-13), Life Below Water (SDG-14), and Life on Land (SDG-15). Thirteen 3D scenes, created using Blender, were integrated into the Imedu 3D Metaverse. The embedded mixed-methods design included 40 gifted sixth graders (23 females, 17 males), divided into experimental (IVR-based) and control (non-IVR) groups. The experimental group used Oculus Quest 2 IVR headsets for a 10-week (40-lesson) intervention. Repeated measures ANOVA revealed significant group-by-time interaction effects, indicating that the IVR-supported group showed greater gains than the control group in science engagement, F(1, 38) = 5.181, η² = 0.12; self-regulated learning skills, F(1, 38) = 6.883, η² = 0.153; and scientific creativity, F(1, 38) = 68.237, η² = 0.642. Interviews, self-assessments, and student products confirmed these findings. Future research should explore larger samples and diverse SDG applications.

Plain Language Summary

How Do Immersive Virtual Reality Science Lessons Help Gifted Students Engage, Take Ownership of Their Learning, and Think More Creatively?

This study examined how immersive virtual reality (IVR) science lessons help gifted students in grade six become more engaged, self-directed, and creative learners. The lessons focused on global challenges such as clean energy, climate change, and protecting oceans and forests. Using VR headsets, students explored vivid three-dimensional environments that made these issues easier to understand. Forty gifted students were split into two groups. One group learned with IVR while the other relied on traditional classroom tools such as textbooks and videos. Although both groups covered the same topics, the IVR group showed much higher engagement, they were more curious, interested, and emotionally invested in the lessons. They also displayed stronger self-regulation skills, setting goals, managing their time and attention, and evaluating their own progress. In addition, the IVR group produced more original and practical ideas to solve real-world problems, demonstrating greater scientific creativity. Researchers confirmed these findings through interviews, classroom observations, and student products. Overall, the results suggest that well-designed IVR lessons can motivate gifted students, foster independent learning habits, and nurture creative thinking in science.

Keywords

embedded mixed-methods design gifted students student engagement self-regulated learning skills scientific creativity

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Şen Akbulut

Soydan

Yildirim

(2024). Designing educational metaverses: A literature review to determine guidelines. Interactive Learning Environments. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2024.2365956

Akhan

N. E.

Çiçek

Kocaağa

(2022). Critical and creative perspectives of gifted students on global problems: Global climate change. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 46, Article 101131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2022.101131

Alali

Wardat

(2024). Assessing the utilization level of Metaverse: Teaching mathematics at the primary level. International Journal of Distance Education Technologies, 22(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJDET.346988

Al-Duhani

Saat

R. M.

Abdullah

M. N. S.

(2024). Effectiveness of web-based virtual laboratory on grade eight students’ self-regulated learning. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 20(3), Article em2410. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/14282

Al-Kfairy

Alzaabi

Snoh

Almarzooqi

Alnaqbi

(2024, May). Metaverse-based classroom: The good and the bad. In 2024 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON) (pp. 1–7). IEEE.

Andonova

Reinoso-Carvalho

Jimenez Ramirez

M. A.

Carrasquilla

(2023). Does multisensory stimulation with virtual reality (VR) and smell improve learning? An educational experience in recall and creativity. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, Article 1176697. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1176697

Araiza-Alba

Keane

Chen

W. S.

Kaufman

(2021). Immersive virtual reality as a tool to learn problem-solving skills. Computers & Education, 164, Article 104121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104121

Arici

(2024). Investigating the effectiveness of augmented reality technology in science education in terms of environmental literacy, self-regulation, and motivation to learn science. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2024.2310921

Ateş

(2024). Designing a self-regulated flipped learning approach to promote students’ science learning performance. Educational Technology & Society, 27(1), 65–83. https://www.jstor.org/stable/48754842

10.

Ayverdi

Asker

Aydın

S. Ö.

Sarıtaş

(2012). Determination of the relationship between elementary students’ scientific creativity and academic achievement in science and technology courses. Elementary Education Online, 11(3), 646–659.

11.

Ayverdi

Öz Aydın

(2022). The effects of instructional design based on the STEM approach on the teaching process of training of gifted secondary school students. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 37(1), 254–273. https://doi.org/10.16986/HUJE.2020062717

12.

Azevedo

(2008). The role of self-regulation in learning about science with hypermedia. In Robinson

Schraw

(Eds.), Recent innovations in educational technology that facilitate student learning (pp. 127–156). Information Age.

13.

Bagher

M. M.

Sajjadi

Wallgrün

J. O.

La Femina

P. C.

Klippel

(2021). Move the object or move the user: The role of interaction techniques on embodied learning in VR. Frontiers in Virtual Reality, 2, Article 695312. https://doi.org/10.3389/frvir.2021.695312

14.

Barabanschikov

V. A.

Selivanov

V. V.

(2022). In a didactic VR environment of various immersiveness. Experimental Psychology (Russia), 15(2), 4–19. https://doi.org/10.17759/exppsy.2022150201

15.

Betts

Kercher

(2009). Autonomous learner. Encyclopedia of Giftedness, Creativity, and Talent, 1, 83–84.

16.

Biswas

Roscoe

Jeong

Sulcer

(2009, December). Promoting self-regulated learning skills in agent-based learning environments. In Proceedings of the 17th international conference on computers in education (pp. 67–74). Asia-Pacific Society for Computers in Education.

17.

Bonnardel

Pichot

(2020). Enhancing collaborative creativity with virtual dynamic personas. Applied Ergonomics, 82, Article 102949. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2019.102949

18.

Bourgeois-Bougrine

Richard

Burkhardt

J. M.

Frantz

Lubart

(2020). The expression of users’ creative potential in virtual and real environments: An exploratory study. In Creative learning in digital and virtual environments (pp. 96–117). Routledge.

19.

Büyüköztürk

Ş.

(2014). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı istatistik, araştırma deseni, SPSS uygulamaları ve yorum [Data analysis handbook for social sciences—Statistics, research design, SPSS applications and interpretation]. Pegem Akademi.

20.

Büyüköztürk

Ş.

Akgün

Ö. E.

Demirel

Karadeniz

Ş.

Çakmak

E. K.

(2022). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri [Scientific research methods]. Pegem Akademi.

21.

Byeon

(2022). The effect of biology inquiry program using metaverse platform on the affective field of elementary science gifted student. Korean Association for Learner-Centered Curriculum and Instruction, 22(13), 641–657. https://doi.org/10.22251/jlcci.2022.22.13.641

22.

Ceja Salgado

(2022). Embodied learning in immersive virtual reality: The role of sensory-motor affordances in shaping conceptual and procedural understandings [Doctoral dissertation, University College London]. UCL Discovery. https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10157845/

23.

Chandler

K. L.

(2012). Science curriculum for the gifted: Innovations for meeting student needs. Journal of Science Education in Japan, 36(2), 113–121. https://doi.org/10.14935/jssej.36.113

24.

Chang

Y. S.

Chou

C. H.

Chuang

M. J.

W. H.

Tsai

I. F.

(2023). Effects of virtual reality on creative design performance and creative experiential learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 31(2), 1142–1157. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1821717

25.

Chen

Yun Dai

Zhou

(2013). Enable, enhance, and transform: How technology use can improve gifted education. Roeper Review, 35(3), 166–176. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2013.794892

26.

Chen

S. J.

Chen

C. Q.

Shan

X. F.

(2024). The effects of an immersive virtual-reality-based 3D modeling approach on the creativity and problem-solving tendency of elementary school students. Sustainability, 16(10), Article 4092. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16104092

27.

Chen

Lin

Zheng

Xue

Chen

(2022). Application of active learning strategies in metaverse to improve student engagement: An immersive blended pedagogy bridging patient care and scientific inquiry in pandemic. SSRN Electronic Journal. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4098179

28.

Chen

Y. L.

Hsu

C. C.

(2020). Self-regulated mobile game-based English learning in a virtual reality environment. Computers & Education, 154, Article 103910. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103910

29.

Çiğdem

Öncü

(2023). Learner engagement in the metaverse: A community of inquiry for self-regulated learners. In Durak

Cankaya

(Eds.), Shaping the future of online learning: Education in the Metaverse (pp. 17–36). IGI Global.

30.

Cohen

(1973). Eta-squared and partial eta-squared in fixed factor ANOVA designs. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 33(1), 107–112. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316447303300111

31.

Cooper

Thong

L. P.

Tang

K. S.

(2024). Transforming science education with virtual reality: An immersive representations model. Educational Media International, 61(3), 229–251. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2024.2389348

32.

Corral

C. S.

Maier

M. I.

Argus-Calvo

(2023). Developing imagination and creativity in a music and arts-based program. Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion, 20(2), 143–162. https://doi.org/10.51327/mqpr5605

33.

Cotabish

Dailey

Miller

Coxon

S. V.

Adams

C. M.

(2021). The next generation science standards and high-ability learners. In Danielian

Fugate

C. M.

Fogarty

(Eds.), Teaching gifted children (pp. 275–282). Routledge.

34.

Creswell

J. W.

(2021). A concise introduction to mixed methods research. Sage.

35.

Delisle

J. R.

(2012). Reaching those we teach: The five Cs of student engagement. Gifted Child Today, 35(1), 62–67. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217511427513

36.

Dhahri

Omri

(2018). Entrepreneurship contribution to the three pillars of sustainable development: What does the evidence really say? World Development, 106, 64–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.01.008

37.

Efklides

(2019). Gifted students and self-regulated learning: The MASRL model and its implications for SRL. High Ability Studies, 30(1–2), 79–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2018.1556069

38.

Elme

Jørgensen

M. L.

Dandanell

Mottelson

Makransky

(2022). Immersive virtual reality in STEM: Is IVR an effective learning medium and does adding self-explanation after a lesson improve learning outcomes? Educational Technology Research and Development, 70(5), 1601–1626. https://10.1007/s11423-022-10139-3

39.

Eriksson

(2022). Pretense or belief: Creating meaningful scenarios and simulations for authentic learning about diverse underserved gifted students. Education Sciences, 12(8), Article 532. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12080532

40.

Fakhriyah

Masfuah

Roysa

Rusilowati

Rahayu

E. S.

(2017). Student’s science literacy in the aspect of content science? Journal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia, 6(1), 81–87. https://doi.org/10.15294/jpii.v6i1.7245

41.

Fakolade

O. A.

Adeniyi

S. O.

(2010). Efficacy of enrichment triad and self-direct models on academic achievement of gifted students in selected secondary schools in Nigeria. International Journal of Special Education, 25(1), 10–16.

42.

Fauville

Queiroz

A. C. M.

Bailenson

J. N.

(2020). Virtual reality as a promising tool to promote climate change awareness. Technology and Health, 2020, 91–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-816958-2.00005-8

43.

Fredricks

J. A.

McColskey

(2012). The measurement of student engagement: A comparative analysis of various methods and student self-report instruments. In Christenson

S. L.

Reschly

A. L.

Wylie

(Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 763–782). Springer US.

44.

Frith

Miller

Loprinzi

P. D.

(2020). A review of experimental research on embodied creativity: Revisiting the mind–body connection. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 54(4), 767–798. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.406

45.

Gallagher

(2021). Guiding gifted students toward science expertise. In Dixon

Kettler

(Eds.), The handbook of secondary gifted education (2nd ed., pp. 333–366). Routledge.

46.

George

Mallery

(2010). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference, version 17.0 update (10th ed.). Pearson.

47.

Gibbs

Poskitt

(2010). Student engagement in the middle years of schooling (years 7–10): A report to the Ministry of Education. Ministry of Education.

48.

Gong

Georgiev

G. V.

(2020). Literature review: Existing methods using VR to enhance creativity. In Boujut

J.-F.

Cascini

Ahmed-Kristensen

Georgiev

G. V.

Iivari

(Eds.), Proceedings of the sixth international conference on design creativity (ICDC 2020) (pp. 117–124). The Design Society. https://doi.org/10.35199/ICDC.2020.15

49.

Gong

Lee

L. H.

Soomro

S. A.

Nanjappan

Georgiev

G. V.

(2022). A systematic review of virtual brainstorming from the perspective of creativity: Affordances, framework, and outlook. Digital Creativity, 33(2), 96–127. https://doi.org/10.1080/14626268.2022.2064879

50.

Gorski

A. T.

Ranf

E. D.

Badea

Halmaghi

E. E.

Gorski

(2023). Education for sustainability—Some bibliometric insights. Sustainability, 15(20), Article 14916. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152014916

51.

Grover

Phutela

Guess

(2023). Metaverse and students engagement—Instructors’ perspective. In 2023 IEEE Pune Section International Conference (PuneCon) (pp. 1–6). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/PuneCon58714.2023.10450138

52.

Harris

L. R.

Brown

G. T.

(2018). Using self-assessment to improve student learning. Routledge.

53.

Epp

C. D.

Chen

Cui

(2024). Examining change in students’ self-regulated learning patterns after a formative assessment using process mining techniques. Computers in Human Behavior, 152, Article 108061. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2023.108061

54.

Hein

Rauschnabel

Hassib

Alt

(2023, August). Sick in the car, sick in VR? Understanding how real-world susceptibility to dizziness, nausea, and eye strain influences VR motion sickness. In Abdelnour Nocera

Lárusdóttir

M. K.

Petrie

Piccinno

Winckler

(Eds.), Human—computer interaction—INTERACT 2023 (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 14143, pp. 552–573). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-42283-6_30

55.

Housand

Reis

S. M.

(2008). Self-regulated learning in reading: Gifted pedagogy and instructional settings. Journal of Advanced Academics, 20(1), 108–136. https://doi.org/10.4219/jaa-2008-865

56.

Adey

(2002). A scientific creativity test for secondary school students. International Journal of Science Education, 24(4), 389–403. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690110098912

57.

Huang

H. T.

Chang

Y. S.

(2023). Effects of virtual reality on creative performance and emotions: A study of brainwaves. Computers in Human Behavior, 146, Article 107815. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2023.107815

58.

Huang

Huss

North

Williams

Boyd-Devine

(2023). Cognitive and motivational benefits of a theory-based immersive virtual reality design in science learning. Computers and Education Open, 4, Article 100124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2023.100124

59.

Ichimura

(2023). Effects of virtual reality’s viewing medium and the environment’s spatial openness on divergent thinking. PLOS ONE, 18(3), Article e0283632. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0283632

60.

Jalhotra

Sharma

Dev Sharma

Pathak

Lande

(2024). Application of metaverse in education. In 2024 IEEE 1st Karachi Section Humanitarian Technology Conference (Khi-HTC) (pp. 1–6). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/KHI-HTC60760.2024.10482118

61.

Jiang

Clarke-Midura

Baker

R. S.

Paquette

Keller

(2018). How immersive virtual environments foster self-regulated learning. In Zheng

(Ed.), Digital technologies and instructional design for personalized learning (pp. 28–54). IGI Global.

62.

Johnson

Davies

(2014). Self-regulated learning in digital environments: Theory, research, praxis. British Journal of Research, 1(2), 1–14.

63.

Johnson

(2012). Examining self regulated learning in relation to certain selected variables. Acta Didactica Napocensia, 5(3), 1–12.

64.

Kanevsky

Keighley

(2003). To produce or not to produce? Understanding boredom and the honor in underachievement. Roeper Review, 26(1), 20–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783190309554235

65.

Kim

E. J.

Kim

H. K.

(2022). The effect of science class using smart devices on the perceptions and scientific attitude of middle school gifted students. Journal of the Korean Chemical Society, 66(4), 323–332. https://doi.org/10.5012/jkcs.2022.66.4.323

66.

Landis

R. N.

Reschly

A. L.

(2013). Reexamining gifted underachievement and dropout through the lens of student engagement. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 36(2), 220–249. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353213480864

67.

Laurens-Arredondo

(2021, November). Mobile augmented reality adapted to the Gentry-Gable motivation model: An experience of gifted students. In 2021 40th International Conference of the Chilean Computer Science Society (SCCC) (pp. 1–8). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/SCCC54552.2021.9650370

68.

Lawson

A. P.

Mayer

R. E.

(2024). Individual differences in executive function affect learning with immersive virtual reality. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 40(3), 1068–1082. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12925

69.

Lin

X. P.

B. B.

Yao

Z. N.

Yang

Zhang

(2024). The impact of virtual reality on student engagement in the classroom—A critical review of the literature. Frontiers in Psychology, 15, Article 1360574. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1360574

70.

Liu

Cui

(2023). How do students’ self-regulation skills affect learning satisfaction and continuous intention within desktop-based virtual reality? A structural equation modelling approach. British Journal of Educational Technology, 54(3), 667–685. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13278

71.

López-Belmonte

Pozo-Sánchez

Moreno-Guerrero

A. J.

Lampropoulos

(2023). Metaverse in education: A systematic review. Revista de Educación a Distancia, 23(73), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.6018/red.511421

72.

Luo

Zhang

Liang

Yin

(2024). July). Metaverse improves the learning experiences rather than learning outcomes: Evidence from an experimental study in higher education. In 2024 International Symposium on Educational Technology (ISET) (pp. 217–222). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISET61814.2024.00050

73.

Makransky

Lilleholt

(2018). A structural equation modeling investigation of the emotional value of immersive virtual reality in education. Educational Technology Research and Development, 66(5), 1141–1164.

74.

Makransky

Mayer

R. E.

(2022). Benefits of taking a virtual field trip in immersive virtual reality: Evidence for the immersion principle in multimedia learning. Educational Psychology Review, 34(3), 1771–1798. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-022-09675-4

75.

Makransky

Petersen

G. B.

(2021). The cognitive affective model of immersive learning (CAMIL): A theoretical research-based model of learning in immersive virtual reality. Educational Psychology Review, 33(3), 937–958. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09586-2

76.

Malinin

L. H.

(2019). How radical is embodied creativity? Implications of 4E approaches for creativity research and teaching. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article 2372. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02372

77.

Markowitz

D. M.

Bailenson

J. N.

(2021). Virtual reality and the psychology of climate change. Current Opinion in Psychology, 42, 60–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.03.009

78.

Marzetta

Mason

Wee

(2018). ‘Sometimes they are fun and sometimes they are not’: Concept mapping with English Language Acquisition (ELA) and Gifted/Talented (GT) elementary students learning science and sustainability. Education Sciences, 8(1), Article 13. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci8010013

79.

Matovu

Ungu

D. A. K.

Won

Tsai

C. C.

Treagust

D. F.

Mocerino

Tasker

(2023). Immersive virtual reality for science learning: Design, implementation, and evaluation. Studies in Science Education, 59(2), 205–244. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2022.2082680

80.

Matthews

M. S.

(2021). Science curriculum for gifted learners. In Stephens

K. R.

Karnes

F. A.

(Eds.), Introduction to curriculum design in gifted education (pp. 175–193). Routledge.

81.

Mayer

R. E.

(2014). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In Mayer

R. E.

(Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 43–71). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139547369.005

82.

Mayer

R. E.

(2021). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In Mayer

R. E.

Fiorella

(Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 57–72). Cambridge University Press.

83.

Miguel-Alonso

Checa

Guillen-Sanz

Bustillo

(2024). Evaluation of the novelty effect in immersive virtual reality learning experiences. Virtual Reality, 28(1), Article 27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-023-00926-5

84.

Ministry of National Education. (2024). BILSEM guideline (Guideline No. 64832509). https://umraniyebilimvesanatmerkezi.meb.k12.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/34/21/765047/dosyalar/2024_02/02140122_bilsemyonergesi.pdf?CHK=112ddab0c70ca7d3675cfeb13f54fea

85.

Mukhopadhyay

Sen

M. K.

(2013). Scientific creativity: A new emerging field of research: Some considerations. International Journal of Education and Psychological Research, 2(1), 1–9.

86.

Mutlu

Nacaroglu

(2019). Examination of perceptions of gifted students about climate change and global warming. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 18(5), 780–192.

87.

Nacaroğlu

Bektaş

(2023). The effect of the flipped classroom model on gifted students’ self-regulation skills and academic achievement. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 47, Article 101244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2023.101244

88.

Nanjappan

Uunila

Vaulanen

Välimaa

Georgiev

G. V.

(2023). Effects of immersive virtual reality in enhancing creativity. Proceedings of the Design Society, 3, 1585–1594. https://doi.org/10.1017/pds.2023.159

89.

Oppong

Shore

B. M.

Muis

K. R.

(2019). Clarifying the connections among giftedness, metacognition, self-regulation, and self-regulated learning: Implications for theory and practice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 63(2), 102–119. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986218814008

90.

Özarslan

(2022). Environmental problems according to the gifted and talented students and their solution proposals: A qualitative research. International Journal of New Trends in Arts, Sports & Science Education (IJTASE), 11(4), 201–216.

91.

Palombi

Galli

Giancamilli

D’Amico

Alivernini

Gallo

Neroni

Predazzi

De Pietro

Lucidi

Giordano

Chirico

(2023). The role of sense of presence in expressing cognitive abilities in a virtual reality task: An initial validation study. Scientific Reports, 13(1), Article 13396. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-40510-0

92.

Papanastasiou

Drigas

Skianis

Lytras

Papanastasiou

(2019). Virtual and augmented reality effects on K-12, higher and tertiary education students’ twenty-first century skills. Virtual Reality, 23(4), 425–436. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-018-0363-2

93.

Park

(2010, June). Practical ways for teaching and evaluating scientific creativity. In Proceedings of the XIV IOSTE Symposium: Socio-Cultural and Human Values in Science and Technology Education (pp. 1–16). International Organization for Science and Technology Education.

94.

Paz-Baruch

Hazema

(2023). Self-regulated learning and motivation among gifted and high-achieving students in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics disciplines: Examining differences between students from diverse socioeconomic levels. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 46(1), 34–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/01623532221143825

95.

Pedrosa

Morgado

Beck

(2023). June). Immersive learning environments for self-regulation of learning: A literature review. In International Conference on Immersive Learning (pp. 497–511). Springer Nature.

96.

Petersen

G. B.

Petkakis

Makransky

(2022). A study of how immersion and interactivity drive VR learning. Computers & Education, 179, Article 104429. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104429

97.

Phelps

(2022). Successful online learning with gifted students: Designing online and blended lessons for gifted and advanced learners in grades 5–8. Routledge.

98.

Plass

J. L.

Hovey

Saurina Maso

Fröhlich

Ghosh

Olsen

Perlin

(2022). Designing effective immersive VR learning experiences. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference of the Immersive Learning Research Network (iLRN2022) Practitioner Proceedings. Immersive Learning Research Network. https://doi.org/10.56198/A6PFY1CBT

99.

Reis

I. W.

Romeiro

A. E.

Berg

C. H.

Ulbricht

V. R.

(2024). Sociodigital experiences and creativity in the metaverse: An integrative review. Heliyon, 10(7), Article e29047. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e29047

100.

Reis

S. M.

(2021). Self-regulated learning and academically talented students. In J. L. Jolly, D. J. Treffinger, T. F. Inman, & J. F. Smutny (Eds.), Parenting gifted children (pp. 42–52). Routledge.

101.

Ronksley-Pavia

Neumann

M. M.

(2020). Conceptualising gifted student (dis) engagement through the lens of learner (re) engagement. Education Sciences, 10(10), Article 274. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10100274

102.

Root-Bernstein

R. S.

Root-Bernstein

(2001). Sparks of genius: The thirteen thinking tools of the world’s most creative people. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

103.

Saeed

Zyngier

(2012). How motivation influences student engagement: A qualitative case study. Journal of Education and Learning, 1(2), 252–267. https://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v1n2p252

104.

Sakdavong

J. C.

Burgues

Huet

(2019). May). Virtual reality in self-regulated learning: Example in art domain. In Lane

H. C.

Zvacek

Uhomoibhi

(Eds.), Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU 2019) (Vol. 2, pp. 79–87). SciTePress. https://doi.org/10.5220/0007718500790087

105.

Saphira

H. V.

Prahani

B. K.

Hariyono

Marianus . (2024). Metaverse: A paradigm shift in STEM education for science learning beyond the review. E3S Web of Conferences, 482, Article 04004. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202448204004

106.

Schroth

S. T.

Helfer

J. A.

(2017). Gifted & green: Sustainability/environmental science investigations that promote gifted children’s learning. Gifted Child Today, 40(1), 14–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217516675903

107.

Scurati

G. W.

Bertoni

Graziosi

Ferrise

(2021). Exploring the use of virtual reality to support environmentally sustainable behavior: A framework to design experiences. Sustainability, 13(2), Article 943. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13020943

108.

Shi

Park

J. Y.

(2024). A systematic review of the metaverse in formal education. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 16(5), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1108/JARHE-04-2024-0162

109.

Shim

K. C.

Kim

H. S.

Park

Y. C.

(2000). Science education and virtual reality. In Application of multi-media in biology education, summer program of Korean Society of Biology Education (pp. 25–37). Korean Society of Biology Education.

110.

Sidek

Halim

Buang

N. A.

Arsad

N. M.

(2020). Fostering scientific creativity in teaching and learning science in schools: A systematic review. Jurnal Penelitian dan Pembelajaran IPA, 6(1), 13–35.

111.

Sisk

D. A.

(2009). Making great kids greater: Easing the burden of being gifted. Corwin Press.

112.

Skinner

E. A.

Kindermann

T. A.

Furrer

C. J.

(2009). A motivational perspective on engagement and disaffection: Conceptualization and assessment of children’s behavioral and emotional participation in academic activities in the classroom. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 69(3), 493–525. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316440832323

113.

Slade

M. L.

(2021). Global citizenship as a means for teaching environmental education to gifted learners. In Schroth

S. T.

Daniels

(Eds.), Building STEM skills through environmental education (pp. 1–13). IGI Global.

114.

Smutny

J. F.

Von Fremd

S. E.

(2004). Differentiating for the young child: Teaching strategies across the content areas (K–3). Corwin Press.

115.

Son

M. J.

(2009). A study of Korean students’ creativity in science using structural equation modeling [Doctoral dissertation, University of Arizona]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.

116.

Stenberdt

V. A.

Makransky

(2023). Mastery experiences in immersive virtual reality promote pro-environmental waste-sorting behavior. Computers & Education, 198, Article 104760. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2023.104760

117.

Taber

K. S.

(2007). Enriching school science for the gifted learner. Gatsby Science Enhancement Programme.

118.

Tanik Önal

Önal

(2021). The effect of augmented reality on the astronomy achievement and interest level of gifted students. Education and Information Technologies, 26(4), 4573–4599. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10474-7

119.

Tekel

K. Y.

Yaman

(2023). Metaverse Risk Perceptions of Gifted Students. International Journal of Contemporary Educational Research, 10(4), 1035–1049. https://doi.org/10.52380/ijcer.2023.10.4.355

120.

Thornhill-Miller

Dupont

J. M.

(2016). Virtual reality and the enhancement of creativity and innovation: Under recognized potential among converging technologies? Journal of Cognitive Education & Psychology, 15(1), 102–121. https://doi.org/10.1891/1945-8959.15.1.102

121.

Turan Gürbüz

Açıkgül Fırat

Aydın

(2020). The adaptation of math and science engagement scales in the context of science course: A validation and reliability study. Adiyaman University Journal of Educational Sciences, 10(2), 122–131. https://doi.org/10.17984/adyuebd.670173

122.

Ucar

Ustunel

Civelek

Umut

(2017). Effects of using a force feedback haptic augmented simulation on the attitudes of the gifted students towards studying chemical bonds in virtual reality environment. Behaviour & Information Technology, 36(5), 540–547. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2016.1264483

123.

UNESCO. (2020). Education for sustainable development: A roadmap. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000374802

124.

United Nations. (2016). Sustainable development goals: 17 goals to transform our world. https://sdgs.un.org/goals

125.

VanTassel-Baska

Wood

S. M.

(2023). The integrated curriculum model. In Renzulli

J. S.

Gubbins

E. J.

McMillen

K. S.

Eckert

R. D.

Little

C. A.

(Eds.), Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented (pp. 655–691). Routledge.

126.

Villegas-Ch

García-Ortiz

Sánchez-Viteri

Jr. (2024). Educational advances in the metaverse: Boosting learning through virtual and augmented reality and artificial intelligence. IEEE Access, 12, 59093–59109. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3393776

127.

Vogt

A. G.

(2022). Fostering deep learning in immersive virtual reality: Interplay of learner’s characteristics with internal and external support [Doctoral dissertation, Universität Ulm]. OPARU—Ulm University Publication System. https://oparu.uni-ulm.de/xmlui/handle/123456789/46161

128.

Wang

M. T.

Fredricks

J. A.

Hofkens

T. L.

Linn

J. S.

(2016). The math and science engagement scales: Scale development, validation, and psychometric properties. Learning and Instruction, 43, 16–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.01.008

129.

Wang

S. T.

Liu

L. M.

Wang

S. M.

(2018, June). The design and evaluate of virtual reality immersive learning: The case of serious game “calcium looping for carbon capture.” In 2018 International Conference on System Science and Engineering (ICSSE) (Article 8520002). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSSE.2018.8520002

130.

Wang

Lajoie

S. P.

(2023). How does cognitive load interact with self-regulated learning? A dynamic and integrative model. Educational Psychology Review, 35(3), Article 69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09794-6

131.

Wang

W. S.

Pedaste

Lin

C. J.

Lee

H. Y.

Huang

Y. M.

T. T.

(2024). Signaling feedback mechanisms to promoting self-regulated learning and motivation in virtual reality transferred to real-world hands-on tasks. Interactive Learning Environments, 32(10), 7661–7676. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2024.2331151

132.

Washington

A. M.

Andersen

(2016). Efficacy of creative training for gifted science students. In M. K. Demetrikopoulos & J. L. Pecore (Eds.), Interplay of creativity and giftedness in science (pp. 71–85). Brill.

133.

Wigfield

Eccles

J. S.

(2002). The development of competence beliefs, expectancies for success, and achievement values from childhood through adolescence. In Wigfield

Eccles

J. S.

(Eds.), Development of achievement motivation (pp. 91–120). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012750053-9/50006-1

134.

Winne

P. H.

(2019). Self-regulated learning in research with gifted learners. High Ability Studies, 30(1–2), 277–287. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2019.1622224

135.

W. L.

Hsu

Yang

Q. F.

Chen

J. J.

Jong

M. S. Y.

(2023). Effects of the self-regulated strategy within the context of spherical video-based virtual reality on students’ learning performances in an art history class. Interactive Learning Environments, 31(4), 2244–2267. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2021.1878231

136.

Yang

Lin

Cheng

P. Y.

Yang

Ren

Huang

Y. M.

(2018). Examining creativity through a virtual reality support system. Educational Technology Research and Development, 66, 1231–1254. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-018-9604-z

137.

Young

G. W.

Stehle

Walsh

B. Y.

Tiri

(2020). Exploring virtual reality in the higher education classroom: Using VR to build knowledge and understanding. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 26(8), 904–928. https://doi.org/10.3897/jucs.2020.049

138.

Wang

(2025). Enhancing college students’ creativity through virtual reality technology: A systematic literature review. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 12(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-05044-y

139.

Zeidner

Stoeger

(2019). Self-regulated learning (SRL): A guide for the perplexed. High Ability Studies, 30(1–2), 9–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2019.1589369

140.

Zhang

Luo

(2023). Using virtual reality interventions to promote social and emotional learning for children and adolescents: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Children, 11(1), Article 41. https://doi.org/10.3390/children11010041

141.

Zhao

J. H.

Panjaburee

Hwang

G. J.

Wongkia

(2024). Effects of a self-regulated-based gamified virtual reality system on students’ English learning performance and affection. Interactive Learning Environments, 32(9), 5509–5536. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2023.2219702

142.

Zimlich

S. L.

(2016). Motivating gifted students: Technology as a tool for authenticity and autonomy. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 15(13), 1–11.

143.

Zimmerman

B. J.

Schunk

D. H.

(2012). Motivation: An essential dimension of self-regulated learning. In Zimmerman

B. J.

Schunk

D. H.

(Eds.), Motivation and self-regulated learning (pp. 1–30). Routledge.

Differentiated Science With IVR: Effects on Gifted Students’ Engagement,Self-Regulation,and Scientific Creativity

Abstract

Plain Language Summary

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References