Virtual reality (VR) has a high potential to facilitate education. However, the design of many VR learning applications was criticized for lacking the guidance of explicit and appropriate learning theories. To advance the use of VR in effective instruction, this study proposed a model that extended the cognitive-affective theory of learning with media (CATLM) into a VR learning context and evaluated this model using a structural equation modeling (SEM) approach. Undergraduate students (n = 77) learned about the solar system in a VR environment over three sessions. Overall, the results supported the core principles and assumptions of CATLM in a VR context (CATLM-VR). In addition, the CATLM-VR model illustrated how immersive VR may impact learning. Specifically, immersion had an overall positive impact on user experience and motivation. However, the impact of immersion on cognitive load was uncertain, and that uncertainty made the final learning outcomes less predictable. Enhancing students’ motivation and cognitive engagement may more directly increase learning achievement than increasing the level of immersion and may be more universally applicable in VR instruction.
AdadanE. (2020). Analyzing the role of metacognitive awareness in preservice chemistry teachers’ understanding of gas behavior in a multirepresentational instruction setting. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 57(2), 253–278. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21589
2.
AltasB. (2015). Knowledge construction in multimedia learning at both cognitive and affective level. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 191, 1448–1454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.709
3.
AlwinD. F.HauserR. M. (1975). The decomposition of effects in path analysis. American Sociological Review, 40(1), 37–47. https://doi.org/10.2307/2094445
4.
AnazcoM. S. (2020). Multimodal virtual learning environments: The effects of visuo-haptic simulations on conceptual learning [Doctoral dissertation, Purdue University].
5.
AndersonJ. C.GerbingD. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423.
6.
AnguloA.VelascoG. V. D. (2014). Immersive simulation of architectural spatial experiences (Eds.), Proceedings of the XVII Conference of the Iberoamerican Society of Digital Graphics (SIGraDi) (pp. 495-499). SIGraDi.
7.
AnimeshA.PinsonneaultA.YangS.OhW.AnimeshA.PinsonneauitA. (2011). An odyssey into virtual worlds: Exploring the impacts of technological and spatial environments on intention to purchase virtual products. Mis Quarterly, 35(3), 789–810.
8.
AukstakalnisS.BlatnerD. (1992). Silicon mirage: The art and science of virtual reality. Peach Pit Press.
9.
AyresP. (2006). Using subjective measures to detect variations of intrinsic cognitive load within problems. Learning and Instruction, 16(5), 389–400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.09.001
10.
BaddeleyA. (1992). Working memory. Science, 255(5044), 556-559.
11.
BagozziR. P.YiY. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74-94. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02723327
12.
BarabS.ZuikerS.WarrenS.HickeyD. A. N.Ingram-gobleA.KwonE.KouperI.HerringS. C. (2007). Visual representations in science education: The influence of prior knowledge and cognitive load theory on instructional design principles. Science Education, 90(6), 1073–1091. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce
13.
BennieS. J.RanaghanK. E.DeeksH.GoldsmithH. E.O’ConnorM. B.MulhollandA. J.GlowackiD. R. (2019). Teaching enzyme catalysis using interactive molecular dynamics in virtual reality. Journal of Chemical Education, 96(11), 2488–2496. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.9b00181
14.
BentlerP. M. (2006). EQS 6 structural equations program manual. Multivariate Software, Inc.
15.
Bianchi-BerthouzeN. (2013). Understanding the role of body movement in player engagement. Human–Computer Interaction, 28(1), 40–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370024.2012.688468
16.
BiardN.CojeanS.JametE. (2018). Effects of segmentation and pacing on procedural learning by video. Computers in Human Behavior, 89, 411-417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.12.002.
17.
BirtJ.HovorkaD. S.NelsonJ. (2015). Interdisciplinary translation of comparative visualization. ACIS 2015 Proceedings—26th Australasian Conference on Information Systems, November 30–December 4, 2015, Adelaide, Australia.
18.
BoyleE. A.ConnollyT. M.HaineyT.BoyleJ. M. (2012). Engagement in digital entertainment games: A systematic review. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(3), 771–780. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.11.020
19.
BrancheauJ. C. (1989). The diffusion of information technology: Testing and extending innovation diffusion theory in the context of end-user computing [Doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota].
20.
BrondiR.AvvedutoG.CarrozzinoM. (2015). Immersive technologies and natural interaction to improve serious games engagement (Eds.), International Conference on Games and Learning Alliance.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-40216-1.
21.
BrownI. T. J. (2004). Testing and extending theory in strategic information systems planning through literature analysis. Information Resources Management Journal, 17(4), 20–48. https://doi.org/10.4018/irmj.2004100102
22.
BystromK.-E.BarfieldW.HendrixC. (1999). A conceptual model of the sense of presence in virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments, 8(2), 241–244
23.
ChiM. T. H.AdamsJ.BoguschE. B.BruchokC.KangS.LancasterM. (2018). Translating the ICAP theory of cognitive engagement into practice. Cognitive Science, 42(6), 1777–1832. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12626
24.
ChiM. T. H.WylieR. (2014). The ICAP framework: Linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes. Educational Psychologist, 49(4), 219–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.965823
25.
ChukwudiI.ZhangM.GableG. (2020). Extensive theory testing using case study. 40th International Conference on Information Systems, ICIS 2019 (pp. 1−17. Bitektine.
26.
CierniakG.ScheiterK.GerjetsP. (2009). Explaining the split-attention effect: Is the reduction of extraneous cognitive load accompanied by an increase in germane cognitive load?Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 315–324.
27.
ClarkR. E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research, 53(4), 445–459.
28.
ColquittJ. A.Zapata-PhelanC. P. (2007). Trends in theory building and theory testing: A five-decade study of the academy of management journal. Academy of Management Journal, 50(6), 1281–1303. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2007.28165855.
29.
CordovaD. I.LepperM. R. (1996). Intrinsic motivation and the process of learning: Beneficial effects of contextualization, personalization, and choice. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(4), 715–730.
30.
CsikszentmihalyiM. (1997). Finding flow: The psychology of engagement in everyday life. Basic Books.
31.
DeciE. L.RyanR. M. (1994). Intrinsic motivation inventory. Center for Self-Determination Theory.
32.
DeciE. L.RyanR. M. (2010). Intrinsic motivation. In WeinerI. B.CraigheadW. E. (Eds.), The corsini encyclopedia of psychology (pp. 1-2). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
33.
DengS. (2017). Multimodal interactions in virtual environments using eye tracking and gesture control. British Library EThOS service. http://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/30470/.
34.
DingL.VelicerW. F.HarlowL. L. (1995). Effects of estimation methods, number of indicators per factor, and improper solutions on structural equation modeling fit indices. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 2(2), 119–143.
35.
DomagkS.SchwartzR. N.PlassJ. L. (2010). Interactivity in multimedia learning: An integrated model. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(5), 1024–1033. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.03.003
FalkR.MillerN. B. (1992). A primer for soft modeling. University of Akron Press.
39.
FernandesL. M. A.Cruz MatosG.AzevedoD.Rodrigues NunesR.ParedesH.MorgadoL. (2016). Exploring educational immersive videogames: An empirical study with a 3D multimodal interaction prototype. Behaviour & Information Technology, 35(11), 907–918. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2016.1232754
40.
GarrisR.AhlersR.DriskellJ. E. (2002). Games, motivation, and learning: A research and practice model. Simulation & Gaming, 33(4), 441–467. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878102238607
Gonzalez-FrancoM.PeckT. C. (2018). Avatar embodiment: Towards a standardized questionnaire. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 5, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2018.00074
44.
GrabowskiA. (2019). Innovative and comprehensive support system for training people working in dangerous conditions. International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, Orlando, FL, July 26–31, 2019 (pp. 394-405). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-22216-1
45.
GranićA.MarangunićN. (2019). Technology acceptance model in educational context: A systematic literature review. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(5), 2572–2593. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12864
HairJ. F.BlackW. C.BabinB. J.AndersonR. E. (2009). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Prentice Hall, Inc.
48.
HaydukL. A.LittvayL. (2012). Should researchers use single indicators, best indicators, or multiple indicators in structural equation models?BMC Medical Research Methodology, 12(1), 159.
49.
HoffmanB.NadelsonL. (2010). Motivational engagement and video gaming: A mixed methods study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(3), 245–270. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-009-9134-9
HoganN. S.SchmidtL. A. (2002). Testing the grief to personal growth model using structural equation modeling. Death Studies, 26(8), 615–634. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481180290088338
52.
HolmesA. G. (2018). The role of interest and enjoyment in determining students’ approach to learning. Educational Process: International Journal, 7(2), 140–150. https://doi.org/10.22521/edupij.2018.72.4
53.
HouH.-T.LiM.-C. (2014). Evaluating multiple aspects of a digital educational problem-solving-based adventure game. Computers in Human Behavior, 30, 29–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.07.052
54.
HsuC. Y.TsaiC. C.WangH. Y. (2012). Facilitating third graders’ acquisition of scientific concepts through digital game-based learning: The effects of self-explanation principles. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 21(1), 71–82.
55.
HuangW. (2019). Examining the impact of head-mounted display virtual reality on the science self-efficacy of high schoolers. Interactive Learning Environments, 4, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1641525
56.
HuangW. (2020). Investigating the novelty effect in virtual reality on STEM learning [Doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University].
57.
HuangW.RoscoeR. D. (2021). Head‐mounted display‐based virtual reality systems in engineering education: A review of recent research. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 29(5), 1420–1435. https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.22393
58.
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
59.
HuL.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 37–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
JaccardJ.JacobyJ. (2010). Theory construction and model-building skills: A practical guide for social scientists (1st ed.). Guilford Publications.
62.
JacksonS.EklundB. (2004). The flow scales manual. Publishers Graphics.
63.
Johnson-GlenbergM. C. (2018). Immersive VR and education: Embodied design principles that include gesture and hand controls. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 5(81), 81–19. https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2018.00081.
64.
JohnsonC. I.BaileyS. K. T.BuskirkW. L. V. (2017). Designing effective feedback messages in serious games and simulations: A research review. In OostendorpH.WoutersP.. Instructional techniques to facilitate Learning and motivation of serious Games (pp. 119-140). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-39298-1
65.
Johnson‐GlenbergM. C.BartolomeaH.KalinaE. (2021). Platform is not destiny: Embodied learning effects comparing 2D desktop to 3D virtual reality STEM experiences. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 37(5), 1263–1284. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12567
66.
KalyugaS. (2007). Expertise reversal effect and its implications for learner-tailored instruction. Educational Psychology Review, 19(4), 509–539. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-007-9054-3
67.
KalyugaS. (2011). Cognitive load theory: How many types of load does it really need?Educational Psychology Review, 23(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9150-7
68.
KalyugaS.AyresP.ChandlerP.SwellerJ. (2003). The expertise reversal effect. Educational Psychologist, 38(3), 23-31.
69.
KellerJ. M. (Eds.). (2010). Generating and sustaining attention forethought. Motivational design for learning and performance: The ARCS model approach (pp. 75-96). Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1250-3
70.
KilteniK.GrotenR.SlaterM. (2012). The sense of embodiment in virtual reality. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 21(4), 103–105. https://doi.org/10.1162/PRES_a_00124
71.
KochM.LuckK. V.SchwarzerJ.DraheimS. (2018). The novelty effect in large display deployments—Experiences and lessons-learned for evaluating prototypes (Eds.), IProceedings of 16th European Conference on computer-supported Cooperative work-exploratory Papers, Salzburg, Austria, June 8-12, 2019. https://doi.org/10.18420/ecscw2018.
72.
KokkinaraE.KilteniK.BlomK. J.SlaterM. (2016). First person perspective of seated participants over a walking virtual body leads to illusory agency over the walking. Scientific Reports, 6(1), 28879–28911. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep28879
73.
KrämerN. C.BenteG. (2010). Personalizing e-learning. The social effects of pedagogical agents. Educational Psychology Review, 22(1), 71–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9123-x
74.
KuldasS.SatyenL.IsmailH. N.HashimS. (2014). Greater cognitive effort for better learning: Tailoring an instructional design for learners with different levels of knowledge and motivation. Psychologica Belgica, 54(4), 350–373. https://doi.org/10.5334/pb.aw
75.
LeeY.-H.HeeterC. (2017). The effects of cognitive capacity and gaming expertise on attention and comprehension. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 33(5), 473–485. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12193
76.
LeeE. A.-L.WongK. W.FungC. C. (2010). How does desktop virtual reality enhance learning outcomes? A structural equation modeling approach. Computers & Education, 55(4), 1424–1442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.06.006
77.
LepperM. R.IyengarS. S. (2005). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations in the classroom: Age differences and academic correlates. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(2), 184–196. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.97.2.184
78.
LeppinkJ.PaasF.Van Der VleutenC. P. M. (2013). Development of an instrument for measuring different types of cognitive load. Behavior Research Methods, 45(4), 1058–1072. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-013-0334-1
LiQ.MaX. (2010). A meta-analysis of the effects of computer technology on school students’ mathematics learning. Educational Psychology Review, 22(3), 215–243. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9125-8
81.
LindgrenR.TschollM.WangS.JohnsonE. (2016). Enhancing learning and engagement through embodied interaction within a mixed reality simulation. Computers & Education, 95(1), 174-187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.01.001
82.
LittlejohnS. W.FossK. A.OetzelJ. G. (2017). Theories of human communication (11th ed.). Waveland Press, Inc.
83.
LøkkeA.SørensenP. D. (2014). Theory testing using case studies. The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 12(1), 66-74.
84.
MakranskyG.AndreasenN. K.BaceviciuteS.MayerR. E. (2020). Immersive virtual reality increases liking but not learning with a science simulation and generative learning strategies promote learning in immersive virtual reality. Journal of Educational Psychology, 113(4), 719–735. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000473
85.
MakranskyG.LilleholtL. (2018). A structural equation modeling investigation of the emotional value of immersive virtual reality in education (pp. 1-24). Educational Technology EResearch and Development.
86.
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(1), 937–958. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09586-2
87.
MakranskyG.TerkildsenT. S.MayerR. E. (2019). Adding immersive virtual reality to a science lab simulation causes more presence but less learning. Learning and Instruction, 60(1), 225–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.12.007
88.
MaloneT.LepperM. R. (1987). Making learning fun: A taxonomy of intrinsic motivations for learning. In SnowR. E.FarrM. J. (Eds.), Aptitude, learning and instruction: Vol. III. Cognitive and affective process analysis (pp. 223–253). Lawrence Erlbaum.
89.
MarchR.WoodsideA. G. (2005). Testing theory of planned versus realized tourism behavior. Annals of Tourism Research, 32(4), 905–924. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2004.07.012
90.
MashfufahA.NurkamtoJ.SajidanW.NovendaI. L. (2019). Conceptual: Digital book in the era of digital learning approaches (DLA). IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 243(1), 12107. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/243/1/012107
McGuinnessC. (1990). Talking about thinking: The role of metacognition in teaching thinking. In GilhoolyM. D. K.ErdosG. (Eds.), Lines of thinking (pp. 310-312). Academic.
97.
McGuireS. Y. (2015). Teach students how to learn: Strategies you can incorporate into any course to improve student metacognition, study skills, and motivation. Stylus Publishing, LLC.
98.
McmillanK.FloodK.GlaeserR. (2017). Virtual reality, augmented reality, mixed reality, and the marine conservation movement. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 27(S1), 162–168. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.2820
99.
MilgramP.KishinoF. (1994). A taxonomy of mixed reality visual displays. IEICE Transactions on Information Systems, E77(12), 1–15.
100.
MorenoR. (2006). Does the modality principle hold for different media? A test of the method-affects-learning hypothesis. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22(3), 149–158. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2006.00170.x
NijsL.CoussementP.MoensB.AmelinckD.LesaffreM.LemanM. (2012). Interacting with the music paint machine: Relating the constructs of flow experience and presence. Interacting With Computers, 24(4), 237–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2012.05.002
103.
OnyesoluM. O.EzeF. U. (2011). Understanding virtual reality technology: Advances and applications. In ZengD. (Eds.), Advances in computer science and Engineering. InTech.
PaasF.SwellerJ. (2012). An evolutionary upgrade of cognitive load theory: Using the human motor system and collaboration to support the learning of complex cognitive tasks. Educational Psychology Review, 24(1), 27–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-011-9179-2
106.
ParkerL. E.LepperM. R. (1992). Effects of fantasy context on children’s learning and motivation: Making learning more fun. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(4), 625–633.
107.
ParongJ.MayerR. (2018). Learning science in immersive virtual reality. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110(6), 785. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000241
108.
PetersenG. B.KlingenbergS.MayerR. E.MakranskyG. (2020). The virtual field trip: Investigating how to optimize immersive virtual learning in climate change education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(6), 2099–2115. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12991
109.
PinedaB. (2015). Using computer simulations as a pre-training activity in a hands-on lab to help community college students improve their understanding of physics. [Doctoral dissertation, The University of San Francisco].
110.
PintrichP. R. (2003). Motivation and classroom learning. In ReynoldsW. M.MillerG. E. (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Educational psychology (pp. 103–122). Wiley.
111.
PlassJ. L.KaplanU. (2016). Emotional design in digital media for learning. In GartmeierM.TettegahS. Y. (Eds.), Emotions, technology, design, and Learning (pp. 131-161). Elsevier Inc. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-801856-9.00007-4.
112.
PlassJ. L.SchwartzR. N. (2014). Multimedia learning with simulations and microworlds. In MayerR. E. (Ed.), The cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139547369.036.
113.
RadiantiJ.MajchrzakT. A.FrommJ.WohlgenanntI. (2020). A systematic review of immersive virtual reality applications for higher education: Design elements, lessons learned, and research agenda. Computers & Education, 147, 103778. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103778.
114.
RaganE. D.BowmanD. A.KopperR.StinsonC.ScerboS.McmahanR. P. (2015). Effects of field of view and visual complexity on virtual reality training effectiveness for a visual scanning task. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 21(7), 794–807.
115.
RitterfeldU.ShenC.WangH.NoceraL.WongW. L. (2009). Multimodality and interactivity: Connecting properties of serious games with educational outcomes. Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 12(6), 691–697. https://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2009.0099
116.
RobinsonL. J.StevensL. H.ThreapletonC. J.VainiuteJ.McAllister-WilliamsR. H.GallagherP. (2012). Effects of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation on attention and memory. Acta Psychologica, 141(2), 243–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2012.05.012
117.
RoetsA.Van HielA.CornelisI.SoetensB. (2008). Determinants of task performance and invested effort: A need for closure by relative cognitive capacity interaction analysis. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(6), 779–792. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167208315554
118.
SajjadiP.HoffmannL.CimianoP.KoppS. (2018). On the effect of a personality-driven ECA on perceived social presence and game experience in VR. 10th International Conference on virtual worlds and Games for serious applications, VS-Games 2018 - Proceedings, Würzburg, Germany, September 5–7 2018. https://doi.org/10.1109/VS-Games.2018.8493436.
119.
SalzmanM. C.DedeC.LoftinR. B.ChenJ. (1999). A model for understanding how virtual reality aids complex conceptual learning. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 8(3), 293–316. https://doi.org/10.1162/105474699566242
120.
SatoA.YasudaA. (2005). Illusion of sense of self-agency: Discrepancy between the predicted and actual sensory consequences of actions modulates the sense of self-agency, but not the sense of self-ownership. Cognition, 94(3), 241–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2004.04.003
SchraderC.BastiaensT. J. (2012). The influence of virtual presence: Effects on experienced cognitive load and learning outcomes in educational computer games. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(2), 648–658. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.11.011
124.
ShernoffD. J.StratiA. D. (2011). Advances in engineering education measuring engagement as students learn dynamic systems and control with a video game department of mechanical engineering. Advances in Engineering Education, 2(3), 1–32.
125.
ShinD. (2017). The role of affordance in the experience of virtual reality learning: Technological and affective affordances in virtual reality. Telematics and Informatics, 34(8), 1826–1836. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2017.05.013
126.
ShinD. H.BioccaF.ChooH. (2013). Exploring the user experience of three-dimensional virtual learning environments. Behaviour and Information Technology, 32(2), 203–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2011.606334
127.
ShuB.SziebigG.PietersR. (2019). Architecture for safe human-robot collaboration: Multi-modal communication in virtual reality for efficient task execution. IEEE International Symposium on Industrial Electronics, (pp. 2297–2302). https://doi.org/10.1109/ISIE.2019.8781372.
128.
SlaterM. (2009). Place illusion and plausibility can lead to realistic behaviour in immersive virtual environments. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 364(1535), 3549–3557. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2009.0138
129.
SlaterM.McCarthyJ.MaringelliF. (1998). The influence of body movement on subjective presence in virtual environments. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 40(3), 469–477.
130.
SlaterM.UsohM.ChrysanthouY. (1995). The influence of dynamic shadows on presence in immersive virtual environments. Virtual Environments’, 95, 8–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7091-9433-1.
131.
SlaterM.UsohM.SteedA. (1994). Depth of presence in immersive virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments, 3(2), 130–144.
132.
SlaterM.WilburS. (1997). A framework for immersive virtual environments (FIVE): Speculations on the role of presence in virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 6(6), 603–616. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-008-9541-7
133.
SongJ.KimS. I.BongM. (2019). The more interest, the less effort cost perception and effort avoidance. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02146.
134.
SosaG. W.BergerD. E.SawA. T.MaryJ. C. (2011). Effectiveness of computer-assisted instruction in statistics: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 81(1), 97–127. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654310378174.
135.
SpekE. D. V. D.WoutersP.OostendorpH. V. (2008). Efficient learning in serious games: A cognition-based design guidelines approach.In. Conference Proceedings for the Association for Educational Communications and Technology Conference, 18 December, 2021 (pp. 382–390).
136.
StraubD.LimayemM.Karahanna-EvaristoE. (1995). Measuring system usage: Implications for IS theory testing. Management Science, 41(8), 1328–1342. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.41.8.1328
137.
SvinickiM. D. (2004). Motivating students to learn.In. SvinickiM. D. (Ed.), Learning and motivation in the postsecondary classroom (pp. 141-176). Jossey-Bass.
138.
SwellerJ. (1999). Instructional design in technical areas. ACER Press.
139.
SwellerJ. (2010). Element interactivity and intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load. Educational Psychology Review, 22(2), 123–138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9128-5
140.
SwellerJ.MerrienboerJ. J. G. V.PaasF. G. W. C. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251–296. https://doi.org/10.1023/a
141.
TaZ. (2018). Proposing an instructional design model with designing and developing sensory immersive VRLE to teach concepts and procedures. Academic Studies in Educational Science.
142.
TakataloJ. (2002). Presence and flow in virtual environments: An explorative study. University of Helsinki.
143.
Tcha-tokeyK.ChristmannO.Loup-escandeE.LoupG.RichirS. (2018). Towards a model of user experience in immersive virtual environments. Advances in Human-Computer Interaction, 2018, 1-10.
144.
TimcenkoO.KofoedL. B.Schoenau-fogH.RengL. (2017). Purposive game production in educational setup investigating team collaboration in virtual reality. International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, 714, 184-191. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58753-0.
145.
Tindall-fordS.ChandlerP.SwellerJ.BartlettS. (1997). When two sensory modes are better than one. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Applied, 3(4), 257–287.
146.
TinsleyH. E. A.TinsleyD. J. (1987). Uses of factor analysis in counseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 34(4), 414–424. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.34.4.414
147.
TsayC. H.-H.KofinasA. (2018). Student engagement and the novelty effect in a technology-mediated gamified course. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2018(1), 13030. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2018.13030abstract
148.
TulvingE. (1977). Episodic and semantic memory. In TulvingE.DonaldsonW. (Eds.), Organization of memory (pp. 381–403). Academic.
149.
Valverde-BerrocosoJ.del Carmen Garrido-ArroyoM.Burgos-VidelaC.Morales-CevallosM. B. (2020). Trends in educational research about e-learning: A systematic literature review (2009-2018). Sustainability, 12(12), 5153. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12125153
150.
ViswesvaranC.OnesD. S. (1995). Theory testing: Combining psychometric meta-analysis and strucutural equation modeling. Personnel Psychology, 48(4), 865–885.
151.
WadeS.KiddC. (2019). The role of prior knowledge and curiosity in learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 26(4), 1-11.
152.
WangJ.WangX. (2012). Structural equation modeling: Applications using Mplus. John Wiley & Sons Inc.
153.
WardP. R.MamerowL.MeyerS. B. (2014). Interpersonal trust across six asia-Pacific countries: Testing and extending the “high trust society” and “low trust society” theory. Plos One, 9(4), e95555. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0095555
WickenC. D. (1992). Introduction to engineering psychology and human performance. In WickenC. D. (Ed.), Engineering psychology and human performance (pp. 1–23). Ebook.
156.
WirthW.HartmannT.BöckingS.VordererP.KlimmtC.SchrammH.BioccaF. (2007). A process model of the formation of spatial presence experiences. Media Psychology, 9(3), 493–525. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213260701283079
157.
WitmerB. G.SingerM. J. (1998). Measuring presence in virtual environments: A presence questionnaire. Presence, 7(3), 225–241.
158.
ZamanM.AnandaM.DaiQ. (2010). Experiencing flow with instant messaging and its facilitating role on creative behaviors. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(5), 1009–1018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.03.001
159.
ZestcottC. A. (2017). The role of conscious attention in embodiment: Initial evidence of a dual process model of embodied cognition. The university of arizona.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
