See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/345671892

Effects of an immersive virtual reality-based classroom on students' learning

performance in science lessons

Article  in  British Journal of Educational Technology · November 2020

DOI: 10.1111/bjet.13028

CITATIONS READS

63 3,707

5 authors, including:

Ruixue Liu Lei Wang

The Northwest Normal University Syracuse University
9 PUBLICATIONS   141 CITATIONS    3 PUBLICATIONS   67 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Qiu Wang
Syracuse University
53 PUBLICATIONS   878 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Development and Application of 3D virtual environment and agumented reality in preschool children in China View project

quantitative and statistical analysis View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ruixue Liu on 10 November 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 51 No 6 20202034–2049
doi:10.1111/bjet.13028

Effects of an immersive virtual reality-based classroom on

students’ learning performance in science lessons

Ruixue Liu , Lei Wang , Jing Lei, Qiu Wang and Youqun Ren
Ruixue Liu is currently a Ph.D. student in the Department of Educational Technology at East China Normal
University, Shanghai, China, as well as a visiting scholar at Syracuse University from 2019 to 2020. Her primary
research interests include emerging technologies for education. She has published several research papers in national
and international journals, as well as presenting at a range of conferences. Lei Wang is currently a Ph.D. student
in the Department of Instructional Design, Development and Evaluation at Syracuse University. Her research
interests include technology integration to facilitate learning and teaching practices, teacher preparation and self-
regulation. Jing Lei is a professor in the Department of Instructional Design, Development and Evaluation at
Syracuse University. Her research interests focus on technology integration into instruction, online teaching and
learning and digital citizenship. Qiu Wang is an associate professor of quantitative research methodology at Syracuse
University. His research interests include psychometrics and educational assessment, large-scale modeling and big-
data analyses, intervention effect estimation and propensity score matching in program evaluation. Youqun Ren is
a professor in the Department of Curriculum and Teaching at East China Normal University. His research interest
includes educational technology and learning science. Address for correspondence: Ruixue Liu, East China Normal
University, 3663 North Zhongshan Road, Shanghai, 200062, China. Email: isnow0211@163.com

Abstract
The increased availability and development of immersive technologies have given students
growing opportunities to engage in different educational subjects. However, there is
a lack of empirical research exploring the educational influence of using Immersive
Virtual Reality (IVR) in science classrooms. To address this gap, this study developed
a series of IVR-based science lessons for middle-school students and further examined
these lessons’ effects on learning performance. Our quasi-experimental approach
employed a pretest and posttest to measure academic achievement and questionnaires
to measure engagement and technology acceptance. A total of 90 sixth-grade students
from two classes were randomly assigned to the experimental and control groups. The
experimental group engaged with the science lessons using Head-Mounted Displays,
whereas the control group learned the same material through traditional teaching
methods. The results revealed that the experimental group obtained significantly higher
academic achievement and engagement scores (cognitive, behavioral, emotional and
social) than the control group. Moreover, the experimental group had a high level of
technology acceptance for IVR usage in classrooms. Our study provides empirical
evidence for IVR’s use in science education. Furthermore, it also sheds light on how to
develop and implement an IVR-based classroom for formal educational purposes.

Introduction
Technologies that can provide a sense of immersion, such as Virtual Reality (VR), are increas-
ingly prevalent in our daily lives (Suh & Prophet, 2018). VR has become a hot topic in recent
years. VR refers to a technology that emphasizes the sense of presence in the computer-generated
simulation of a three-dimensional (3D) image or environment (Steuer, 1992). Many researchers

© 2020 British Educational Research Association

 Learning performance in IVR-based Classroom    2035

Practitioner Notes
What is already known about this topic?
• Virtual Reality (VR) technology has been applied to different educational subjects and
there is some empirical evidence indicating its potential benefits for students’ learning.
• VR is considered to have potential for educational uses in classrooms.
• Many studies have applied non-immersive VR to science subjects, but few have focused
on the use of Immersive VR (IVR) in everyday classrooms.
What this paper adds
• We developed and implemented an IVR-based teaching platform containing a set of
systematic science lessons that students can engage in with Head-Mounted Displays
in classrooms.
• The results revealed that adopting IVR science lessons in the classroom can improve
students’ academic achievement and engagement.
Implications for practice and/or policy
• This study contributes to identifying the positive influences of an IVR-based classroom
on students’ science academic achievement and engagement.
• The results provide practical insights into developing and implementing an IVR-based
classroom for educational purposes.
• This study offers a concrete example of using IVR in middle-school classrooms for for-
mal science education.

have attempted to apply VR in a number of educational settings or labs to explore how it can help
students learn various subjects, such as ecosystems science (Dickes et al., 2019), geography (Lv,
Li, & Li, 2017), geometry (Hwang & Hu, 2013) and history (Yildirim, Elban, & Yildirim, 2018).
Research endeavors like these have shown that using VR has a positive impact on spatial knowl-
edge representation, experiential learning, motivation and learning performance (Chang, Hsu,
Kuo, & Jong, 2019; Dalgarno & Lee, 2010).
These explorations assessing the use of VR in numerous educational subjects provided pos-
itive results and empirical evidence for its potential applications in classrooms. The Annual
Horizon Report indicated that VR has received attention as a new medium for providing
students with simulated first-hand experiences in the classroom (Freeman, Adams Becker,
Cummins, Davis, & Hall Giesinger, 2017). Researchers have also pointed out several poten-
tial advantages of using VR in classrooms. First, VR offers 3D virtual environments with
advanced forms of interaction that are highly motivational for learning (Oigara, 2018) and
allow learners to actively participate in virtual environments rather than remain passive
observers (Kim & Song, 1997). Second, VR can offer learners a unique educational experi-
ence in which they can engage with different scenarios anytime and anywhere. Additionally,
it has the potential to help reduce students’ distractions in classroom settings (Bonner &
Reinders, 2018).
The rapid advancement of technology and reduced costs have made it possible to use high-end
Head-Mounted Displays (HMDs) in classrooms. Generally, VR is categorized into non-immersive
VR and immersive VR (IVR). Full IVR displays, such as HMDs, can maximize perceived realism
and immersion within virtual spaces (Xu, Chen, Lin, & Radwin, 2015), ultimately creating more
immersive learning experiences than those that do not use IVR displays. Recent studies have found

© 2020 British Educational Research Association

2036    British Journal of Educational Technology  Vol 51 No 6 2020

that participating in Immersive Virtual Field trips with the use of HMDs in elementary classrooms
enhanced students’ virtual presence and motivation (Cheng & Tsai, 2019; Han, 2020). Moreover,
in science, some studies showed promising results regarding IVR’s applications in classrooms. For
example, Sun, Li, Liu, Cai, and Li (2017) examined the effect of IVR with Google Cardboard in pri-
mary school science classes and found that IVR technology has a positive effect on learning expe-
riences, interests and knowledge achievement. Additionally, Cheng and Tsai (2020) indicated
that using IVR learning activities in classrooms may help students with low levels of self-efficacy
in science learning. Therefore, considering the aforementioned potential, it is essential to extend
the use of IVR with HMDs in classrooms and further examine its effect on educational subjects.
However, to our knowledge, few studies have investigated the educational influence of using IVR
with HMDs in schools and classrooms (Liu, Dede, Huang, & Richards, 2017; Southgate et al.,
2019), especially in the field of science for young students. Therefore, in order to expand the liter-
ature on this topic, this study aimed to integrate IVR with HMDs into the classroom and further
explore its effects on middle-school students’ learning performance in science lessons. In parallel
with the purpose of the study, we examined the following research questions:

1. Do students obtain better academic achievement in an IVR-based classroom than in a

classroom in which traditional teaching methods are used?
2. Do students show stronger engagement with the science lessons in an IVR-based classroom
than in a classroom in which traditional teaching methods are used?
3. What is the degree of acceptance by students in terms of perceived ease of use and perceived
usefulness when learning with IVR in classroom?

Literature review
Science is an inquiry-driven and open-ended process in which students need to observe and in-
vestigate scientific phenomena, and build meaningful personal experiences (Edelson, Gordin, &
Pea, 1999; Linn, Songer, & Eylon, 1996). In science education, teachers must provide students
with opportunities to explore and search for information or engage in “hands-on” activities to in-
crease learning effectiveness (Kober, 1993). The use of VR in this context is particularly promis-
ing. Through the VR environment, students get a chance to engage in scientific inquiry in formal
learning environments in ways that were not previously possible (Mills, Jass Ketelhut, & Gong,
2019). For example, students can engage with an immersive environment, along with realistic
learning experiences, to explore scientific phenomena and processes, undertake scientific inves-
tigations and solve problems.
As mentioned before, it is important to note the differences between the two types of VR: non-im-
mersive VR and immersive VR (IVR). The former, also termed desktop VR, refers to the virtual
environment (VE) displayed on a desktop computer screen, with interactions typically occurring
through the use of a keyboard and mouse (Lee & Wong, 2014). Examples of non-IVR include
Second Life and Multi-User Virtual Environments accessed through a desktop machine. In con-
trast, IVR often involves high interaction levels and more costly external equipment, such as
HMDs or Cave Automatic Virtual Environment (Huang, Hwang, & Chang, 2020), which can be
used to create IVR environments (sometimes referred to as Immersive Virtual Environments, or
IVEs). IVR technologies seek to reproduce reality in a more convincing way by offering partici-
pants a virtual sensation that is both more inclusive and perceptually richer than desktop envi-
ronments (Birenboim et al., 2019). Use of IVR is becoming increasing popular, especially in the
form of HMDs, a device with a motion sensor that allows a 360-degree vision of a virtual world

© 2020 British Educational Research Association

 Learning performance in IVR-based Classroom    2037

while eliminating the visual contact with external reality (Calogiuri et al., 2018). Although some
negative effects such as motion sickness have been observed when using HMDs, students are gen-
erally satisfied when learning through IVR (Sun et al., 2017). As well as providing learners with
a more immersive experience, IVR can result in better memory recall ability than desktop VR
conditions (Buttussi & Chittaro, 2017; Krokos, Plaisant, & Varshney, 2019).
Over the past few years, various non-IVR environments have gained increasing attention for sci-
ence educational applications. As such, many scholars have applied non-IVR in science education
and have demonstrated that non-IVR environments can be used as an effective tool to aid students
in their learning process. For example, it can help students learn challenging scientific concepts
(Dede, Salzman, & Loftin, 1996), engage with the conceptual development of astronomical phe-
nomena (Gazit, Yair, & Chen, 2005; Sun, Lin, & Wang, 2010) and develop an understanding of
complex causality in ecosystems, as well as promote their self-efficacy and interests (Chen et al.,
2016; Metcalf, Kamarainen, Tutwiler, Grotzer, & Dede, 2011). It can also contribute to academic
achievement, motivation and problem-solving performance (Al Amri, Osman, & Al Musawi,
2020; Chang et al., 2019; Wu, Guo, Wang, & Zeng, 2019). However, despite all these positive
results, these studies mostly reported the promising advantages of non-IVR.
As IVR is becoming increasingly accessible, research on the application of IVR in science education
is also gradually growing. Previous studies have found positive effects of IVR on science learning
in informal educational settings. For example, one study indicated that participating in simulation
activities in an IVR environment improved students’ understanding of relative motion concepts, as a
result of IVR’s features (eg, immersivity, first-hand experience) (Kozhevnikov, Gurlitt, & Kozhevnikov,
2013). Additionally, Webster (2016) showed that military personnel obtained higher gains in basic
corrosion prevention and control knowledge by using an IVR environment because it provided higher
levels of immersion, engagement, motivation and interaction than desktop presentations.
Studies in the literature have also reported that using IVR increased students’ virtual presence,
interest and self-efficacy in science lab simulations. For example, Makransky, Terkildsen, and
Mayer (2019) found that students who used IVR science lab simulation with HMDs felt a greater
scene of presence because this method elicits more presence compared to conventional media.
A recent study also investigated the value of using IVR lab simulations in science topics. Their
results indicated that IVR simulation significantly increased students’ interest and self-efficacy in
laboratory work and safety (Makransky, Petersen, & Klingenberg, 2020).
Despite the above literature showing a consensus regarding the importance of VR in science edu-
cation in informal educational settings, empirical research on the educational effect of using IVR
with HMDs in classroom settings for science learning has not been verified. Therefore, this study
was conducted to explore the use of IVR with HMDs in the context of the classroom setting to
further investigate its effectiveness with respect to learning performance. We hope this study can
broaden the empirical evidence for incorporating IVR into classrooms for future research.

Development of an IVR-based classroom for science learning

Classroom structure overview
In this study, an IVR-based Classroom (IVRC) was developed in a selected middle school. This
school is one of the main experimental pedagogy spots taking part in the VR education program.
The IVRC was a physical classroom measuring approximately 12m*7.5m, in which we integrated
the hardware devices and IVR teaching system. Specifically, it consisted of two interactive white-
boards, 10 sets of IVR devices (each of which included a high-performance computer, an HMD and
two controllers), and a mobile tablet containing the IVR teaching system with the set of systematic
IVR lessons. Figure 1a shows the teaching system’s structure, designed to support the teacher in
© 2020 British Educational Research Association
2038    British Journal of Educational Technology  Vol 51 No 6 2020

Figure 1:  (a) Teaching system’s structure and four modules (b) Devices (c) Learning process
[Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

conducting the classroom activities. It consisted of the following modules: (1) play module—de-
signed for presenting the lessons, (2) contents preview module—used for previewing the lessons,
(3) functional module—established to manage/implement the lessons and (4) status detection
module—designed for monitoring the network connection status of a student’s IVR device.
The mobile tablet and IVR devices were networked through a dependable high-speed Internet
connection in the IVRC (Figure  1b). We installed an IVRC app on the mobile tablet and each
computer beforehand. The students’ IVR devices were connected to the teacher’s mobile tablet
through the app, allowing them to follow the teacher’s guidance in the virtual scene.
Figure 1c displays the students’ real learning process in the IVRC, where they were able to inter-
act with the virtual scene. Five students formed a group in which they shared one set of IVR
devices and a square physical area that provided them with more space for the learning experi-
ence. Meanwhile, the teacher used the mobile tablet to present the specific virtual scenes, manage
students’ experience time and monitor the IVR devices’ connections.

Immersive virtual reality science content

We developed four IVR science learning units for sixth-grade students, based on a widely used
science textbook, and followed the curriculum standards of the Ministry of Education in China.
Figure  2 shows the interface of these units. The units consisted of (1) Knowing the tools: the
principle of leverage, (2) Knowing the tools: leverage classification, (3) Into the animal world and
(4) Knowing the plants. The learning objective was to help students develop a conceptual under-
standing of science knowledge (leverage, animals and plants). The four IVR learning units were
divided into six 45-minute science lessons. The teaching time of units a and b was 45 minutes
each, and that for units c and d was 90 minutes each. Therefore, the total time for all units was
270 minutes.

© 2020 British Educational Research Association

 Learning performance in IVR-based Classroom    2039

Figure 2:  The interface of the learning units in the IVR teaching system
[Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

Figure 3:  The interface of the “Into the animal world” in the IVR teaching system
[Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

Figure  3 offers an example of a unit’s learning contents and process (Into the animal world).
In this virtual scene, numerous dynamic 3D animals (eg, Greenhead Duck, Siberian Tiger and
Rhinoceros) are associated with their own knowledge items. Students could navigate the virtual
scene and freely observe and manipulate the 3D animals using the VR controllers. They could
also interact with a specific 3D animal to learn about them through the knowledge items, includ-
ing introductions, encyclopedia content, external features, habits and life cycles. An intelligent
robot narrated these knowledge items in the virtual scene.
© 2020 British Educational Research Association
2040    British Journal of Educational Technology  Vol 51 No 6 2020

Figure 4:  The interface of the questions of animal classifications

[Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

After learning the animals’ knowledge items, students were required to enter another virtual
scene that presented questions on animal classifications according to their bone characteristics
(eg, vertebrate or invertebrate) (Figure 4). They answered the questions by using the VR control-
lers to click on the menu box that was displayed by the intelligent robot. The intelligent robot gave
instant feedback on the results, and if all the classification answers were correct, the robot would
continue to guide the students until they completed all the animal classification tasks. Conversely,
if the students chose an incorrect answer, the intelligent robot would ask them to answer the
question again until they chose the correct answer.

Methods
Participants
The study was conducted in an urban public school in the east region of China. The study sample
consisted of 90 sixth-grade students (mean age = 11 years old, 46 boys and 44 girls) from two
classes (47 students in one class and 43 in the other class). Each class had an approximately equal
proportion of boys and girls. The same science instructor, a male teacher with more than 3 years
of teaching experience, taught both classes. Before the experiment, the teacher received 3 months
of IVR training, including device operation and teaching practices using IVR. Moreover, he re-
ceived instructional guidance from VR experts on how to integrate IVR into his teaching practices.
Students were not previously exposed to the science lessons, nor had they taken IVR lessons before.

Research design
A quasi-experimental method was used to examine the IVRC’s effect on students’ science learn-
ing performance. We assigned one class to the experimental group and the other to the control
group after they took a pretest determining that both had equal prior knowledge levels. Prior
to the experiment, all students signed informed consent forms and performed this pretest. The
experimental group took the science lessons in the IVRC, while the control group completed the
© 2020 British Educational Research Association
 Learning performance in IVR-based Classroom    2041

same content through traditional teaching methods in a normal classroom. After the experiment
was over, a posttest and questionnaires were administered to the students.

Measurement tools
To examine learning performance, the measurement tools included the pre- and posttests, de-
signed by two experienced science teachers in China, as well as the questionnaires on engage-
ment and technology acceptance. The content of the pre- and posttests was differently designed
to reduce the learning effect that could ensue as a result of potential similarities between the two
tests. The pretest included 25 items that focused on evaluating whether the students’ prior sci-
ence knowledge was equivalent before participation. It consisted of 15 true-or-false items and 10
single-choice items (perfect score = 50). For example, one of the true-or-false questions is “Many
liquids become larger when heated, and shrink when cooled.”
The posttest included 24 items that measured students’ science knowledge and comprehension
abilities in relation to the learning units. It consisted of eight single-choice items (eg, Which ani-
mal is a mammal? (A) hen (B) snake (C) rabbit), eight true-or-false items, five fill-in-the-blank
items and three short-answer items (eg, Is the flat-blade screwdriver a lever tool or an axle
tool? Why?) (perfect score = 100). The reliability of the pre- and posttests were evaluated using
Cronbach’s alpha values, both of which were larger than 0.80 and indicated acceptable internal
consistency. An expert panel of three educators verified the content validity of the tests. Both the
science teachers and the expert panel reviewed the final versions of the pre- and posttests. We
revised any problematic items to ensure high reliability and validity. The language of both the
pre-and posttests in this study was Chinese.
The engagement scale, developed by Wang, Fredricks, Ye, Hofkens, and Linn, (2016), consisted
of 33 items, assessed using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly
agree). Divided into four sections, it contained eight items for cognitive engagement (eg, I try to
connect what I am learning to things I have learned before), eight for behavioral engagement (eg,
I stay focused), 10 for emotional engagement (eg, I look forward to science class) and seven for
social engagement (eg, I try to understand other people’s ideas in science class). The Cronbach’s
alpha values for overall engagement and the four subscales were all above 0.8, indicating good
reliability.
The technology acceptance questionnaire we used, developed by Chu, Hwang, Tsai, and Tseng
(2010), consisted of 13 items, examined through a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). It included six items for perceived usefulness (eg, The learning
system helped me obtain useful information when needed) and seven for perceived ease of use
(eg, It is not difficult for me to learn to operate the learning system). The Cronbach’s alpha values
for the two dimensions were 0.84 and 0.86 respectively, indicating the questionnaire’s reliability.
All questionnaires were translated into Chinese to ensure they were in line with the language
culture in China. Then, the researchers and two experienced teachers verified the questionnaires
to confirm the items’ accuracy.
Descriptive quantitative analysis by comparison of the means and standard deviations of both
groups was performed using SPSS 23. Moreover, to ensure that the data of the academic achieve-
ment test have the same scale, the perfect scores of the pre- and posttests were normalized using
Min-Max Normalization during the data process.

Procedure
As shown in Figure 5a, the experiment’s duration was 8 weeks, with six 45-minute classes per
week, beginning in early September 2018. In the first week, both student groups completed the
© 2020 British Educational Research Association
2042    British Journal of Educational Technology  Vol 51 No 6 2020

Figure 5:  (a) Procedure (b) A example of a 45-min IVRC activity

[Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

pretest. After that, we tested the IVR lessons and devices for optimal implementation in the IVRC.
Meanwhile, the experimental group was required to familiarize themselves with the IVR device
and classroom setting operations, which helped reduce the novelty effects that may influence
students’ learning while using new technologies.
From the second to the seventh week, the teacher conducted six science lessons per week.
Figure 5b shows an example of a 45-min IVR science lesson in the IVRC. Each week, the experi-
mental group was introduced to the content and requirements of the learning units for approxi-
mately 10 minutes. They then followed the teacher’s guidelines to acquire the science knowledge
and experience the virtual scenes. As there were not enough IVR devices for each student to have
their own, the students were randomly divided into 10 subgroups of five students and took turns
using the IVR devices during the learning process. Each student experienced the virtual scenes
for approximately 4 to 5 minutes. After that, each subgroup conducted face-to-face collaborative
activities in which they had discussions and completed an activity sheet that contained the learn-
ing tasks (printed material).
The control group, also randomly separated into ten subgroups of five students, studied the same
material through traditional teaching methods in a normal classroom. Each week, the teacher
used PowerPoint and ordinary videos to introduce the science content. Then, each subgroup
learned the units through science textbooks and worked together to complete the tasks on the
activity sheet. Following that, the teacher summarized the answers after the students finished
their discussion. The learning process, including collaborative activities and study times, was the
same in both groups except for the IVR environment.

© 2020 British Educational Research Association

 Learning performance in IVR-based Classroom    2043

In the eighth week, the students in both groups completed the posttest and the engagement scale.
The experimental group also answered the technology acceptance questionnaire.

Results
Academic achievement
The pretest examined the students’ science knowledge prior to the learning activities. As shown
in Table 1, the t-test result (t = 1.29, p = .2 > .05) shows no significant difference between the two
groups, indicating equivalent prior knowledge before the learning activities.
After the learning activities, the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to test the differ-
ence between the two groups by using the pretest scores as the covariate and the posttest scores
as dependent variables. The homogeneity test result showed that the posttest scores of the two
groups were homogeneous (p = .89 > .05), implying that ANCOVA could be applied. Table 2 sum-
marizes the ANCOVA results of the posttest, in which the adjusted mean values of the posttest
scores were 0.713 for the experimental group, and 0.563 for the control group. Moreover, a
significant difference was found between the two groups (p = .002 < .05), indicating that the
students who took the science lessons in the IVRC showed significantly higher academic achieve-
ment than those learning through traditional teaching methods.

Student engagement
Table 3 illustrates the comparisons between the experimental and control groups’ general engage-
ment. The t-test results show a significant difference between the general engagement ratings of
the two groups (p = .03 < .05), indicating that the IVRC significantly increased the students’ gen-
eral engagement in the science lessons, compared to the traditional teaching methods.
This study further compared the four subdimensions of engagement: cognitive, behavioral, emo-
tional and social. As shown in Table 3, the t-test results reveal that the cognitive (p = .03 < .05),
behavioral (p = .02 < .05), emotional (p = .03 < .05) and social (p = .03 < .05) dimensions of the
experimental group were significantly higher than those of the control group. These results indi-
cate that students who took the science lessons in the IVRC had better cognitive, behavioral, emo-
tional and social engagement compared to those learning through traditional teaching methods.

Table 1:  t-test result of pretest scores

Group N Mean SD F t
0.007 1.29
Pretest Experimental 47 0.50 0.21
Control 43 0.56 0.21

Table 2:  Descriptive data and ANCOVA of the posttest results

Group N Mean SD Adjusted mean Std. Error F

Experimental group 47 0.706 0.222 0.713 0.032 10.47**

Control group 43 0.569 0.221 0.563 0.033

**p < .01.

© 2020 British Educational Research Association

2044    British Journal of Educational Technology  Vol 51 No 6 2020

Table 3:  t-test result of engagement scores

Posttest

Category Group N Mean SD t

Cognitive Experimental 47 4.30 0.59 2.13*

Control 43 4.05 0.52
Behavioral Experimental 47 4.48 0.49 2.25*
Control 43 4.23 0.56
Emotional Experimental 47 4.50 0.49 2.16*
Control 43 4.24 0.64
Social Experimental 47 4.01 0.50 2.03*
Control 43 3.78 0.58
General Experimental 47 4.34 0.46 2.12*
Control 43 4.12 0.53

*p < .05.

Technology acceptance
Regarding the experimental group evaluations of the IVR device’s perceived usefulness and ease
of use, most students gave positive feedback with respect to its effectiveness in science learning.
The mean values and standard deviations of the perceived usefulness were 4.49 and 0.60, and
the mean values and standard deviations of the ease of use were 4.51 and 0.53. It can be con-
cluded that the students gave high ratings for technology acceptance, signifying that they felt the
benefits of using IVR in the classroom in terms of its effect on their learning performance.

Discussion and conclusions

In this study, we developed an IVRC with the use of HMDs and a mobile tablet containing a set
of systematic IVR science lessons. To explore the effectiveness of the proposed approach, we
conducted an experiment on the four learning units of science in a middle school. The results
demonstrated that the students who engaged in the IVRC had significantly higher academic
achievement and better engagement (cognitive, behavioral, emotional and social) compared to
those who learned through traditional teaching methods in a normal classroom. Moreover, the
experimental group had a high degree of technology acceptance for IVR usage in classrooms.
Regarding the academic achievement test, the findings are consistent with the results of similar
studies that found that IVR has a positive impact on learning achievements (Parong & Mayer,
2018; Shi, Wang, & Ding, 2019). In the current study, the revealed benefits of IVR may be due
to three specific reasons. First, the experimental group’s higher achievement may be a result of
VR’s positive features (immersion, interaction and immediate feedback). This is similar to previ-
ous studies that VR’s efficient interactions and communication would allow users to focus more
on the learning itself, thus, leading to better acquisition (Ragan et al., 2015; Richert, Plumanns,
Gross, Schuster, & Jeschke, 2015). Second, face-to-face interactions are better for creative problem
exploration and idea generation, whereas computer conferencing environments better support
linking ideas, interpretations and problem integration (Newman, Johnson, Webb, & Cochrane,
1997). Therefore, the face-to-face group learning activities combined with IVR-supported inter-
active environments may provide a rich learning experience. In addition, the visual descrip-
tions of science content and the intelligent robot’s immediate feedback in the virtual scene may
improve the conceptual development of science knowledge.

© 2020 British Educational Research Association

 Learning performance in IVR-based Classroom    2045

Moreover, students who learned via the IVRC showed better engagement than those following
the traditional teaching methods, thus, confirming other studies’ similar results (Bouta, Retalis,
& Paraskeva, 2012; Lim, Nonis, & Hedberg, 2006). We investigated engagement through four
dimensions to more accurately predict the learning performance in a science context. For cogni-
tive engagement, the students seemed to put additional efforts into acquiring science knowledge.
For instance, they were able to freely manipulate the 3D objects and learn their knowledge items
presented in the IVR (eg, plants, animals, etc.), which provided a highly interactive learning envi-
ronment. Regarding behavioral and social engagement, the students had extensive opportunities
to actively participate in collaborative activities in the IVRC. The latter can engage student partic-
ipation and interaction, thereby allowing students to work together toward a common learning
objective. For example, the students explained and shared information with their peers regarding
what they observed and learned in the virtual scene during the learning activities. Additionally,
using IVR in the classroom made the students more interested in and motivated by the science
lessons, thus, leading to better emotional engagement. Based on the IVRC observations during
the learning activities, we found that students became more excited and enthusiastic about the
IVR lessons compared to traditional conditions. Although some specific challenges, such as fewer
opportunities for individuals to experience IVR learning scenes in groups, the inflexibility of the
IVR controller operation or IVR controller malfunction, and a limited number of IVR devices,
may exist during the learning process, the students were still engaged cognitively, behavioral,
emotionally and socially.
This study also revealed that experimental group students had a positive attitude on technology
acceptance for IVR usage in classrooms. They found that IVR was easy to use and it improved
their understanding of science knowledge. Moreover, the high level of usefulness and perceived
ease of use suggested that IVR did not distract students during the learning activities.

Implications, limitations and future research

As there is very limited information on this topic, one of this study’s contributions stems from its
attempt to further the research on IVR usage in classrooms. The novelty of this study was that—
in a classroom setting—a real IVR-based classroom was examined consisting of 50 students and
one teacher, who was in charge of the students’ learning process and classroom management
through IVR tools. This implies that IVR tools have the potential to enhance classroom instruc-
tion by providing visual knowledge and motivating young students with authentic learning ex-
periences. For example, the mobile tablet (IVR teaching system) used in this study, applied as a
teaching tool, allowed the teacher to directly interact with students by monitoring and managing
their learning content in HMDs. Therefore, the teacher could manage the classroom and learn-
ing content to more effectively carry out learning activities. This study provides a reference for
educators who wish to use this approach in classrooms to implement similar learning activities
in different subjects.
This study also contributes to identifying and confirming the empirical benefits (academic
achievement and engagement) of using IVR with HMDs in classrooms. Moreover, IVR lessons
could be integrated into the existing science curriculum as complementary resources. In this way,
students have more opportunities to engage in the practices of scientific content and processes.
However, issues such as investment and training of teachers are all important considerations that
need to be dealt with before the IVR with HMDs can successfully be used in school classrooms. It
should be noted that the IVRC is adopted in the present study because it is mainly encouraged by
government policy and the companies’ investment. Therefore, schools and educators who desire
to use IVRC without investment might consider low-cost alternatives. In addition, teachers may

© 2020 British Educational Research Association

2046    British Journal of Educational Technology  Vol 51 No 6 2020

be challenged by the technical skills required to design IVR lessons or use IVR technology for
classroom practices. Since they need to put a lot of time and additional effort into understanding
the potential attributes of IVR, participating in the design of virtual environments and classroom
activities, and preparing for IVR lessons.
This study also has several limitations. First, it only proved that the current IVRC is effective for
sixth-grade students, meaning that the results may not be generalizable to all age levels. Future
IVR designs or implementations for science learning activities in classrooms should consider fur-
ther learner characteristics (age, gender and perceived immersion). For example, as suggested by
Cheng and Tsai (2020), future studies could consider the immersion factors of basic attention
and enjoyment. We also agree with Makransky and Lilleholt (2018) that VR features, such as
control immediacy, should be taken into account when designing VR environments. In addition,
although the present study demonstrated that the virtual intelligent robot can provide immedi-
ate feedback for students learning, it remains uncertain whether this kind of IVR design, which
includes the feedback elements, is as effective as many other online systems or traditional class-
room conditions. Thus, future studies should consider how well the IVR’s feedback elements
are designed pedagogically and technologically, in order to improve science learning. Moreover,
since the student groups had to take turns using the HMDs during the learning activities, future
research should make an effort to prepare students to effectively use shared HMD time and inves-
tigate how these groups of students collaborate in IVR environments. Finally, investigations on
the long-term effects of using IVR in classrooms for science learning are also needed.

Acknowledgements
The research is granted by the China Scholarship Council (No.201906140073). We are grateful
to the staff of Baidu company for supporting the development of the IVR-based classroom. We
are also grateful to the teacher Sen Wang for participating in teaching practice.

Statements on open data, ethics and conflict of interest

For inquires or admission to the data collected during this research, please contact the author via
the contact information given at the correspondence section.
The study was approved by the standards of the human experiment ethics committee of East
China Normal University. It complies with the ethical rules applicable to this journal.
The author declares no conflicts of interest.

References
Al Amri, A. Y., Osman, M. E., & Al Musawi, A. S. (2020). The effectiveness of a 3D-virtual reality learning
environment (3D-VRLE) on the Omani eighth grade students’ achievement and motivation towards phys-
ics learning. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 15, 4–16.
Birenboim, A., Dijst, M., Ettema, D., de Kruijf, J., de Leeuw, G., & Dogterom, N. (2019). The utilization of
immersive virtual environments for the investigation of environmental preferences. Landscape and Urban
Planning, 189, 129–138.
Bonner, E., & Reinders, H. (2018). Augmented and virtual reality in the language classroom: Practical ideas.
Teaching English with Technology, 18(3), 33–53.
Bouta, H., Retalis, S., & Paraskeva, F. (2012). Utilising a collaborative macro-script to enhance student en-
gagement: A mixed method study in a 3D virtual environment. Computers & Education, 58(1), 501–517.

© 2020 British Educational Research Association

 Learning performance in IVR-based Classroom    2047

Buttussi, F., & Chittaro, L. (2017). Effects of different types of virtual reality display on presence and
learning in a safety training scenario. IEEE Transactions on Visualization Computer Graphics, 24(2),
1063–1076.
Calogiuri, G., Litleskare, S., Fagerheim, K. A., Rydgren, T. L., Brambilla, E., & Thurston, M. (2018).
Experiencing nature through immersive virtual environments: environmental perceptions, physical en-
gagement, and affective responses during a simulated nature walk. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 2321.
Chang, S. C., Hsu, T. C., Kuo, W. C., & Jong, M. S. Y. (2019). Effects of applying a VR-based two-tier test
strategy to promote elementary students’ learning performance in a Geology class. British Journal of
Educational Technology, 51(1), 148–165.
Chen, J. A., Tutwiler, M. S., Metcalf, S. J., Kamarainen, A., Grotzer, T., & Dede, C. (2016). A multi-user virtual
environment to support students’ self-efficacy and interest in science: A latent growth model analysis.
Learning Instruction, 41, 11–22.
Cheng, K. H., & Tsai, C. C. (2019). A case study of immersive virtual field trips in an elementary classroom:
Students’ learning experience and teacher-student interaction behaviors. Computers & Education, 140,
103600. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compe​ndu.2019.103600
Cheng, K. H., & Tsai, C. C. (2020). Students’ motivational beliefs and strategies, perceived immersion and
attitudes towards science learning with immersive virtual reality: A partial least squares analysis. British
Journal of Educational Technology. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12956
Chu, H.-C., Hwang, G.-J., Tsai, C.-C., & Tseng, J. C. R. (2010). A two-tier test approach to developing lo-
cation-aware mobile learning systems for natural science courses. Computers & Education, 55(4),
1618–1627.
Dalgarno, B., & Lee, M. J. (2010). What are the learning affordances of 3-D virtual environments? British
Journal of Educational Technology, 41(1), 10–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.01038.x
Dede, C., Salzman, M. C., & Loftin, R. B. (1996). Science space: Virtual realities for learning complex and
abstract scientific concepts. In Proceedings of the IEEE 1996 Virtual Reality Annual International Symposium
(pp. 246–252), Santa Clara, CA. https://doi.org/10.1109/VRAIS.1996.490534
Dickes, A. C., Kamarainen, A., Metcalf, S. J., Gün-Yildiz, S., Brennan, K., Grotzer, T., & Dede, C. (2019).
Scaffolding ecosystems science practice by blending immersive environments and computational mod-
eling. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(5), 2181–2202. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12806
Edelson, D. C., Gordin, D. N., & Pea, R. D. (1999). Addressing the challenges of inquiry-based learning
through technology and curriculum design. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8(3–4), 391–450. https://
doi.org/10.1080/10508​406.1999.9672075
Freeman, A., Adams Becker, S., Cummins, M., Davis, A., & Hall Giesinger, C. (2017). NMC/CoSN horizon
report: 2017 K-12 edition. Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium.
Gazit, E., Yair, Y., & Chen, D. (2005). Emerging conceptual understanding of complex astronomical phenom-
ena by using a virtual solar system. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 14, 459–470.
Han, I. (2020). Immersive virtual field trips in education: A mixed-methods study on elementary students’
presence and perceived learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(2), 420–435. https://doi.
org/10.1111/bjet.12842
Huang, H. L., Hwang, G. J., & Chang, C. Y. (2020). Learning to be a writer: A spherical video-based virtual
reality approach to supporting descriptive article writing in high school Chinese courses. British Journal
of Educational Technology, 51(4), 1386–1405.
Hwang, W. Y., & Hu, S. S. (2013). Analysis of peer learning behaviors using multiple representations in vir-
tual reality and their impacts on geometry problem solving. Computers & Education, 62, 308–319. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.compe​du.2012.10.005
Kim, J., & Song, Y. S. (1997). Instructional design guidelines for virtual reality in classroom applications. Retrieved
from ERIC Database (ED415832).
Kober, N. (1993). EdTalk: What we know about science teaching and learning. Washington, DC: Council for
Educational Development and Research, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
Kozhevnikov, M., Gurlitt, J., & Kozhevnikov, M. (2013). Learning relative motion concepts in immersive and
non-immersive virtual environments. Journal of Science Education Technology, 22, 952–962. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s1095​6-013-9441-0

© 2020 British Educational Research Association

2048    British Journal of Educational Technology  Vol 51 No 6 2020

Krokos, E., Plaisant, C., & Varshney, A. (2019). Virtual memory palaces: immersion aids recall. Virtual
Reality, 23(1), 1–15.
Lee, E.- A.-L., & Wong, K. W. (2014). Learning with desktop virtual reality: Low spatial ability learners
are more positively affected. Computers & Education, 79, 49–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compe​
du.2014.07.010
Lim, C. P., Nonis, D., & Hedberg, J. (2006). Gaming in a 3D multiuser virtual environment: Engaging
students in science lessons. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37(2), 211–231. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2006.00531.x
Linn, M. C., Songer, N., & Eylon, B. (1996). Shifts and convergences in science learning and instruction.
In D. C. Berliner, & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of Educational Psychology (pp. 438–490). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
Liu, D., Dede, C., Huang, R., & Richards, J. (2017). Virtual, augmented, and mixed realities in education. Berlin,
Germany: Springer.
Lv, Z., Li, X., & Li, W. J. N. (2017). Virtual reality geographical interactive scene semantics research for immer-
sive geography learning. Neurocomputing, 254, 71–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucom.2016.07.078
Makransky, G., & Lilleholt, L. (2018). A structural equation modeling investigation of the emotional value of
immersive virtual reality in education. Educational Technology Research and Development, 66, 1141–1164.
Makransky, G., Petersen, G. B., & Klingenberg, S. (2020). Can an immersive virtual reality simulation in-
crease students’ interest and career aspirations in science? British Journal of Educational Technology,
https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12954
Makransky, G., Terkildsen, T. S., & Mayer, R. E. (2019). Adding immersive virtual reality to a science lab
simulation causes more presence but less learning. Learning Instruction, 60, 225–236. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.learn​instr​uc.2017.12.007
Metcalf, S., Kamarainen, A., Tutwiler, M. S., Grotzer, T., & Dede, C. (2011). Ecosystem science learning via
multi-user virtual environments. International Journal of Gaming Computer-Mediated Simulations, 3(1),
86–90.
Mills, K., Jass Ketelhut, D., & Gong, X. (2019). Change of teacher beliefs, but not practices, following integra-
tion of immersive virtual environment in the classroom. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 57(7),
1786–1811. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356​33119​854034
Newman, D., Johnson, C., Webb, B., & Cochrane, C. (1997). Evaluating the quality of learning in computer
supported co-operative learning. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 48(6), 484–495.
Oigara, J. N. (2018). Integrating virtual reality tools into classroom instruction. In J. Keengwe (Ed.),
Handbook of research on mobile technology, constructivism, and meaningful learning (pp. 147–159). Hershey,
PA: IGI Global.
Parong, J., & Mayer, R. E. (2018). Learning science in immersive virtual reality. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 110(6), 785–797. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu00​00241
Ragan, E. D., Bowman, D. A., Kopper, R., Stinson, C., Scerbo, S., & McMahan, R. (2015). Effects of field of view
and visual complexity on virtual reality training effectiveness for a visual scanning task. IEEE Transactions
on Visualization Computer Graphics, 21(7), 794–807. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2015.2403312
Richert, A., Plumanns, L., Gross, K., Schuster, K., & Jeschke, S. (2015). Learning 4.0: Virtual immersive
engineering education. Digital Universities, 2(2), 51–66.
Shi, A., Wang, Y., & Ding, N. (2019). The effect of game–based immersive virtual reality learning environ-
ment on learning outcomes: Designing an intrinsic integrated educational game for pre–class learning.
Interactive Learning Environments, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494​820.2019.1681467
Southgate, E., Smith, S. P., Cividino, C., Saxby, S., Kilham, J., Eather, G., … Bergin, C. (2019). Embedding im-
mersive virtual reality in classrooms: Ethical, organizational and educational lessons in bridging research
and practice. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 19, 19–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijcci.2018.10.002
Steuer, J. (1992). Defining virtual reality: Dimensions determining telepresence. Journal of Communication,
42, 73–93. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1992.tb008​12.x
Suh, A., & Prophet, J. (2018). The state of immersive technology research: A literature analysis. Computers
in Human Behavior, 86, 77–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.04.019

© 2020 British Educational Research Association

 Learning performance in IVR-based Classroom    2049

Sun, J., Li, H., Liu, Z., Cai, S., & Li, X. (2017). An empirical case on integration of immersive virtual envi-
ronment into primary school science class. In Proceedings of 25th International Conference on Computers
in Education (ICCE) (pp. 566–575), Christchurch, New Zealand. Retrieved from https://apsce.net/icce/
icce2​017/140.115.135.84/icce/icce2​017/sites/​defau​lt/files/​proce​eding​s/main/C4/An%20Emp​irica​
l%20Cas​e%20on%20Int​egrat​ion%20of%20Imm​ersiv​e%20Vir​tual%20Env​ironm​ent%20int​o%20Pri​
mary%20Sch​ool%20Sci​ence%20Cla​ss.pdf
Sun, K. T., Lin, C.-L., & Wang, S.-M. (2010). A 3-D virtual reality model of the sun and the moon for e-learn-
ing at elementary schools. International Journal of Science Mathematics Education, 8, 689–710. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s1076​3-009-9181-z
Wang, M.-T., Fredricks, J. A., Ye, F., Hofkens, T. L., & Linn, J. S. (2016). The math and science engagement
scales: Scale development, validation, and psychometric properties. Learning Instruction, 43, 16–26.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learn​instr​uc.2016.01.008
Webster, R. (2016). Declarative knowledge acquisition in immersive virtual learning environments. Interactive
Learning Environments, 24(6), 1319–1333. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494​820.2014.994533
Wu, J., Guo, R., Wang, Z., & Zeng, R. (2019). Integrating spherical video-based virtual reality into ele-
mentary school students’ scientific inquiry instruction: effects on their problem-solving performance.
Interactive Learning Environments, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494​820.2019.1587469
Xu, X., Chen, K. B., Lin, J.-H., & Radwin, R. G. (2015). The accuracy of the Oculus Rift virtual reality head-
mounted display during cervical spine mobility measurement. Journal of Biomechanics, 48(4), 721–724.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiom​ech.2015.01.005
Yildirim, G., Elban, M., & Yildirim, S. J. (2018). Analysis of use of virtual reality technologies in history edu-
cation: A case study. Asian Journal of Education and Training, 4(2), 62–69.

© 2020 British Educational Research Association

View publication stats