In an immersive virtual reality (IVR) environment, this study investigated: (1) the role of learner characteristics in various learning and psychological outcomes, including knowledge retention, perceived learning, cognitive load, self-efficacy, enjoyment, presence, and usefulness; and (2) the relationship among these intended outcomes. Forty adult participants experienced an IVR nature trail tour involving science learning topics, followed by a knowledge test and multiple surveys. Multivariate analysis of covariance results indicated age by gender interaction effects on perceived presence and usefulness as well as an age by IVR prior experience interaction effect on perceived presence. Additionally, multiple correlational relationships were detected among the intended outcomes. This study contributes to the limited research on the role of learner characteristics in STEM learning and psychological outcomes in IVR environments.
BanduraA. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Freeman.
2.
BanduraA. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In PajaresF.UrdanT. (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 307–337). Information Age Publishing.
3.
BoelC.VleeschouwerN.ValckeM., & StruyfD. (2022). SAVR–Design and evaluation of an immersive virtual reality serious game on hazard perception in technical and vocational education (pp. 1–5).
4.
BowerM.DeWittD.LaiJ. W. (2020). Reasons associated with preservice teachers’ intention to use immersive virtual reality in education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(6), 2215–2233. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13009
5.
BrysonS. (2013). Virtual reality: A definition history-a personal essay. arXiv preprint. arXiv:1312.4322.
6.
ChangC. W.LiM.YehS. C.ChenY.RizzoA. (2020). Examining the effects of HMDs/FSDs and gender differences on cognitive processing ability and user experience of the Stroop Task-Embedded Virtual Reality Driving System (STEVRDS). IEEE Access, 8, 69566–69578. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2966564
7.
ChangW. T. (2020). The effects of age, gender, and control device in a virtual reality driving simulation. Symmetry, 12(6), 995. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym12060995
8.
ChiangT. H. C. (2021). Investigating effects of interactive virtual reality games and gender on immersion, empathy and behavior into environmental education. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 608407. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.608407
9.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
DavisF. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
Di NataleA. F.RepettoC.RivaG.VillaniD. (2020). Immersive virtual reality in K-12 and higher education: A 10-year systematic review of empirical research. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(6), 2006–2033. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13030
FelnhoferA.KothgassnerO. D.HaukN.BeutlL.HlavacsH.Kryspin-ExnerI. (2014). Physical and social presence in collaborative virtual environments: Exploring age and gender differences with respect to empathy. Computers in Human Behavior, 31, 272–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.10.045
16.
FranssonP. A.PatelM.JensenH.LundbergM.TjernströmF.MagnussonM.Ekvall HanssonE. (2019). Postural instability in an immersive Virtual Reality adapts with repetition and includes directional and gender specific effects. Scientific Reports, 9.https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-39104-6
17.
GiganteM. A. (1993). Virtual reality: Definitions, history and applications. In Virtual reality systems (pp. 3–14). Academic Press.
18.
GrassiniS.LaumannK. (2020). Are modern head-mounted displays sexist? A systematic review on gender differences in HMD-mediated virtual reality. Frontiers in Psychology, 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01604
19.
HamiltonD.McKechnieJ.EdgertonE.WilsonC. (2021). Immersive virtual reality as a pedagogical tool in education: A systematic literature review of quantitative learning outcomes and experimental design. Journal of Computers in Education, 8(1), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-020-00169-2
HassenfeldtC.JacquesJ.BaggiliI. (2020). Exploring the learning efficacy of digital forensics concepts and bagging & tagging of digital devices in immersive virtual reality. Forensic Science International: Digital Investigation, 33, 301011. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsidi.2020.301011
22.
HoS. S.LwinM. O.SngJ. R. H.YeeA. Z. H. (2017). Escaping through exergames: Presence, enjoyment, mood experience in predicting children’s attitude toward exergames. Computer in Human Behaviors, 72, 381–389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.03.001
23.
HongJ.-C.HwangM.-Y.TaiK.-H.TsaiC.-R. (2018). Effects of gender and age on learning spatial concepts from a virtual reality game. Proceedings of 2018 IEEE International Conference on Teaching, Assessment, and Learning for Engineering (TALE), December, 1206–1207.
24.
HuangC. L.LuoY. F.YangS. C.LuC. M.ChenA. S. (2020). Influence of students’ learning style, sense of presence, and cognitive load on learning outcomes in an immersive virtual reality learning environment. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 58(3), 596–615. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633119867422
25.
HuangH.LinC.CaiD. (2021). Enhancing the learning effect of virtual reality 3D modeling: A new model of learner’s design collaboration and a comparison of its field system usability. Universal Access in the Information Society, 20(3), 429–440.
26.
HuangH. M.LiawS. S. (2018). An analysis of learners’ intentions toward virtual reality learning based on constructivist and technology acceptance approaches. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 19(1), 91–115. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v19i1.2503
27.
HuangW.RoscoeR. D.Johnson-GlenbergM. C.CraigS. D. (2021). Motivation, engagement, and performance across multiple virtual reality sessions and levels of immersion. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 37(3), 745–758. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12520
28.
HuangY.RichterE.KleickmannT.RichterD. (2023). Comparing video and virtual reality as tools for fostering interest and self-efficacy in classroom management: Results of a pre-registered experiment. British Journal of Educational Technology, 54(2), 467–488. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13254
29.
Huang, X., Huss, J., North, L., Williams, K., & Boyd—Devine, A. (2023). Cognitive and motivational benefits of a theory based immersive virtual reality design in science learning. Computers and Education Open, 4, 100124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2023.100124
30.
Huang, X., & Mayer, R. E. (2016). Benefits of adding anxiety-reducing features to a computer-based multimedia lesson on statistics. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 293–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.034
31.
Huang, X., & Mayer, R. E. (2019). Adding self-efficacy features to an online statistics lesson. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 57(4), 1003–1037. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633118771085
32.
HwangG. J.ChenM. R. A.SungH. Y.LinM. H. (2019). Effects of integrating a concept mapping-based summarization strategy into flipped learning on students’ Reading performances and perceptions in Chinese courses. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(5), 2703–2719. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12708
33.
KimP. (2006). Effects of 3D virtual reality of plate tectonics on fifth grade students’ achievement and attitude toward science. Interactive Learning Environments, 14(1), 25–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820600697687
34.
KitsonA.SprollD.RieckeB. E. (2016). Influence of ethnicity, gender and answering mode on a virtual point-to-origin task. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2016.00022
35.
KochM.von LuckK.SchwarzerJ.DraheimS. (2018). The novelty effect in large display deployments–Experiences and lessons-learned for evaluating prototypes. In Proceedings of 16th European conference on computer-supported cooperative work-exploratory papers. European Society for Socially Embedded Technologies (EUSSET).
36.
LachlanK.KrcmarM. (2011). Experiencing presence in video games: The role of presence tendencies, game experience, gender, and time spent in play. Communication Research Reports, 28(1), 27–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824096.2010.518924
37.
LeeE. A.-L.WongK. W.FungC. C. (2010). How does desktop virtual reality enhance learning outcomes? A structural equation modeling approach. Computers and Education, 55(4), 1424–1442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.06.006
38.
LiuQ.WangY.TangQ.LiuZ. (2020). Do you feel the same as I do? Differences in virtual reality technology experience and acceptance between elderly adults and college students. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 573673. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.573673
39.
MaddenJ.PanditaS.SchuldtJ. P.KimB.WonA. S.HolmesN. G. (2020). Ready student one: Exploring the predictors of student learning in virtual reality. PLoS ONE, 15(3), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0229788
40.
MakranskyG.LilleholtL. (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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-018-9581-2
41.
MakranskyG.MayerR. 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
42.
MakranskyG.PetersenG. B. (2019). Investigating the process of learning with desktop virtual reality: A structural equation modeling approach. Computers & Education, 134, 15–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.02.002
43.
MakranskyG.PetersenG. 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
44.
MakranskyG.WismerP.MayerR. E. (2019). A gender matching effect in learning with pedagogical agents in an immersive virtual reality science simulation. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 35, 349–358. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12335
45.
MashfufahA.NurkamtoJ.NovendaI. L. (2019, March). Conceptual: Digital book in the era of digital learning approaches (DLA). In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science (Vol. 243, No. 1, p. 012107). IOP Publishing.
46.
MengF.UysalM. (2008). Effects of gender differences on perceptions of destination attributes, motivations, and travel values: An examination of a nature-based resort destination. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 16(4), 445–466. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669580802154231
47.
MerchantZ.GoetzE. T.Keeney-KennicuttW.KwokO. M.CifuentesL.DavisT. J. (2012). The learner characteristics, features of desktop 3D virtual reality environments, and college chemistry instruction: A structural equation modeling analysis. Computers & Education, 59(2), 551–568. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.02.004
48.
MorenoR. E.MayerR. E. (2002). Learning science in virtual reality environments: Role of methods and media. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(3), 598–610. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.94.3.598
49.
MorenoR. E.MayerR. E. (2010). Techniques that increase generative processing in multimedia learning: Open questions for cognitive load research. In PlassJ.MorenoR.,, & BrünkenR. (Eds.), Cognitive load theory (pp. 153–178). Cambridge University Press.
50.
PaasF.van MerriënboerJ. J. G.AdamsJ. J. (1994). Measurement of cognitive load in instructional research. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 79, 419–430. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1994.79.1.419
51.
PandeP.ThitA.SørensenA. E.MojsoskaB.MoellerM. E.JepsenP. M. (2021). Long-term effectiveness of immersive VR simulations in undergraduate science learning: Lessons from a media-comparison study. Research in Learning Technology, 29. https://doi.org/10.25304/rlt.v29.2482
52.
PetersenG. B.PetkakisG.MakranskyG. (2022). A study of how immersion and interactivity drive VR learning. Computers & Education, 179, 104429. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104429
53.
PlechatáA.SahulaV.FayetteD.FajnerováI. (2019). Age-related differences with immersive and non-immersive virtual reality in memory assessment. Frontiers in Psychology, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01330
54.
RosaC. D.LarsonL. R.ColladoS.CloutierS.ProficeC. C. (2023). Gender differences in connection to nature, outdoor preferences, and nature-based recreation among college students in Brazil and the United States. Leisure Sciences, 45(2), 135–155. https://doi.org/10.1080/01490400.2020.1800538
55.
SagnierC.Loup-EscandeE.ValléryG. (2019, July). Effects of gender and prior experience in immersive user experience with virtual reality. In International conference on applied human factors and ergonomics (pp. 305–314). Springer.
56.
SalomonG. (1984). Television is “easy” and print is “tough”: The differential investment of mental effort in learning as a function of perceptions and attributions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(4), 647–658. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.76.4.647
57.
SchraderC.BastiaensT. (2012). Relations between the tendency to invest in virtual presence, actual virtual presence, and learning outcomes in educational computer games. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 28(12), 775–783. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2011.654200
58.
SulaimanH.IbrahimN.LatifR. A.YusofA. M. (2020). Students and teachers’ perception on future use of virtual reality (VR) in learning physics: A preliminary analysis. In 2020 IEEE Conference on e-Learning, e-Management and e-Services (IC3e) (pp. 1–6). IEEE.
59.
SunH.ZhangP. (2006). Causal relationships between perceived enjoyment and perceived ease of use: An alternative approach. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 7(9), 618–645. https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00100
60.
SwellerJ.Van MerrienboerJ. J.PaasF. G. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251–296. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022193728205
61.
SylaiouS.ManiaK.KaroulisA.WhiteM. (2010). Exploring the relationship between presence and enjoyment in a virtual museum. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 68(5), 243–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2009.11.002
62.
TangQ.WangY.LiuH.LiuQ.JiangS. (2022). Experiencing an art education program through immersive virtual reality or iPad: Examining the mediating effects of sense of presence and extraneous cognitive load on enjoyment, attention, and retention. Frontiers in Psychology, 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.957037
63.
TangY. M.NgG. W. Y.ChiaN. H.SoE. H. K.WuC. H.IpW. H. (2021). Application of virtual reality (VR) technology for medical practitioners in type and screen (T&S) training. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 37(2), 359–369. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12494
64.
TerleckiM.NewcombeN. (2005). How important is the digital divide? The relation of computer and videogame usage to gender differences in mental rotation ability. Sex Roles, 53(5–6), 433–441. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-005-6765-0
65.
TingY. L. (2015). Tapping into students’ digital literacy and designing negotiated learning to promote learner autonomy. The Internet and Higher Education, 26, 25–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.04.004
66.
TokelS. T. (2015). Acceptance of virtual worlds as learning space. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 52(3), 254–264. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2013.820139
67.
TussyadiahI. P.WangD.JungT. H.Tom DieckM. C. (2018). Virtual reality, presence, and attitude change: Empirical evidence from tourism. Tourism Management, 66, 140–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2017.12.003
68.
VasileC.MarhanA. M.SingerF. M.StoicescuD. (2011). Academic self-efficacy and cognitive load in students. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 12, 478–482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.02.059
69.
VesgaJ. B.XuX.HeH. (2021, March). The effects of cognitive load on engagement in a virtual reality learning environment. In 2021 IEEE Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR) (pp. 645–652). IEEE.
70.
WangH. Y.SunJ. C. Y. (2022). Influences of online synchronous VR co-creation on behavioral patterns and motivation in knowledge co-construction. Educational Technology & Society, 25(2), 31–47.
71.
WirthW.HartmannT.BöckingS.VordererP.KlimmtC.SchrammH., et al. (2007). A process model of the formation of spatial presence experiences. Media Psychology, 9, 493–525. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213260701283079
WitmerB. G.SingerM. J. (1998). Measuring presence in virtual environments: A presence questionnaire. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 7(3), 225–240. https://doi.org/10.1162/105474698565686
74.
WuB.YuX.GuX. (2020). Effectiveness of immersive virtual reality using head-mounted displays on learning performance: A meta-analysis. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(6), 1991–2005. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13023
75.
YangH.CaiM.DiaoY.LiuR.LiuL.XiangQ. (2023). How does interactive virtual reality enhance learning outcomes via emotional experiences? A structural equation modeling approach. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1081372. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1081372
76.
YehY.-L.LanY.-J.LinY.-T. R. (2018). Gender-related differences in collaborative learning in a 3D virtual reality environment by elementary school students. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 21(4), 204–216. https://doi.org/10.2307/26511549
77.
YiM. Y.HwangY. (2003). Predicting the use of web-based information systems: Self-efficacy, enjoyment, learning goal orientation, and technology acceptance model. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 59, 431–449. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1071-5819(03)00114-9
78.
YilmazR. M.BaydasO.KarakusT.GoktasY. (2015). An examination of interactions in a three-dimensional virtual world. Computers & Education, 88, 256–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.06.002
79.
YoonS. Y.ChoiY. J.OhH. (2015). User attributes in processing 3D VR-enabled showroom: Gender, visual cognitive styles, and the sense of presence. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 82, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2015.04.002
80.
ZhaoQ.HuangX. (2020). Individual differences in response to attributional praise in an online learning environment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68, 1069–1087. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09720-0
81.
ZhouR.FengC. (2017). Difference between leisure and work contexts: The roles of perceived enjoyment and perceived usefulness in predicting mobile video calling use acceptance. 8, 1–14.
