International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/hihc20

Effect of Pre-Training and Role of Working Memory

Characteristics in Learning with Immersive Virtual
Reality

Alyssa P. Lawson & Richard E. Mayer

To cite this article: Alyssa P. Lawson & Richard E. Mayer (11 Mar 2024): Effect of Pre-Training
and Role of Working Memory Characteristics in Learning with Immersive Virtual Reality,
International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, DOI: 10.1080/10447318.2024.2325176

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2024.2325176

Published online: 11 Mar 2024.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hihc20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN–COMPUTER INTERACTION
https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2024.2325176

Effect of Pre-Training and Role of Working Memory Characteristics in Learning

with Immersive Virtual Reality
Alyssa P. Lawson and Richard E. Mayer
Psychological & Brain Sciences, University of California Santa Barbara, Putney, VT, USA

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Immersive virtual reality (IVR) is being incorporated into education, but not all learners have Executive function;
expertise in using this technology. As such, this research examined whether pre-training in IVR immersive virtual reality;
can reduce the novelty of this technology and enhance learning from IVR lessons and understand learning; pre-training;
working memory capacity
the role of individual differences in managing incoming information (i.e., executive function) and
capacity for holding information (i.e., working memory capacity) in learning from an IVR lesson.
Participants were split into two conditions; half of the participants played a game in IVR to
become knowledgeable about IVR technology and the other half did not play this game. All par­
ticipants then learned a lesson in IVR, took a posttest, and completed working memory tasks. The
results showed that playing the game prior to learning in IVR did not change the learners’ experi­
ence of distraction or their learning outcome, indicating that IVR game-playing was not an effect­
ive form of pre-training. Additionally, several measures of executive function and working memory
capacity were correlated with posttest performance, indicating that students with better executive
function learn better with distracting media such as IVR, regardless of pre-training. Theoretical and
practical implications are discussed.

1.1. Objectives and rationale
Learning in immersive virtual reality can enhance learning
by motivating students (Bailenson, 2018; Makransky &
Petersen, 2021), but also can hurt learning by distracting
students (Mayer et al., 2022). The primary objective of this
study is to examine whether we can reduce distraction and
improve learning in IVR by exposing learners to IVR before
they experience the IVR lesson as a way to support learners
in getting used to the perceptual richness of the modality.
The rationale of this objective derives from the assumption
that students who are unfamiliar with IVR technology—such
as what an immersive virtual reality environment looks like,
how to use the controllers, and how to move in a virtual
environment—may need to get used to the experience and
learn these skills at the same time as they learn academic
content from an IVR lesson, thereby distracting them from
attending to and deeply processing the lesson content. If
they receive pre-exposure to IVR experiences, such as by
playing an IVR simulation game before the lesson, they may
be able to devote more of their cognitive resources to proc­
essing the lesson content, and therefore learn the material
better. Thus, finding appropriate pre-training experiences
should be a way to enhance academic learning in IVR. As
such, the first goal of this study is to understand if provid­
ing exposure to an IVR experience before presenting an IVR
lesson can enhance learning outcomes from the lesson.
The secondary goal of this study is to determine whether
students who have better skills in managing and holding
information in working memory benefit more from pre-
exposure to IVR before learning from an IVR lesson. The
rationale for this derives from the fact that learning in IVR
can be a distracting experience because learners must inhibit
paying attention to the detailed perceptual richness of the
environment and focus on the academic content of the les­
son. Accordingly, individual differences in the ability to
manage and hold information in working memory may be
particularly important for learning in IVR. Thus, we are
interested in identifying individual difference characteristics
related to learning in IVR.
1.2. Learning in immersive virtual reality
Immersive virtual reality (IVR) is a technology that
allows users to become completely immersed in a computer-
generated environment. IVR is commonly implemented with
a head-mounted display and hand controllers using a system
such as the HTC Vive or Oculus Quest. This technology is
being incorporated into educational venues because of the
benefits for motivating students (Bailenson, 2018). As an
example of how IVR could be beneficial to learning, individ­
uals may be more motivated to want to learn about the
impacts of ocean acidification if they use IVR to create an
experience in which they feel as though they are really under
the sea, watching how carbon dioxide can harm sea animals.

CONTACT Alyssa P. Lawson alyssaplawson@gmail.com Psychological & Brain Sciences, University of California Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA, USA
� 2024 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
2 A. P. LAWSON AND R. E. MAYER
Research on the benefits and pitfalls of using IVR in
learning environments is in its initial stages, yielding prelim­
inary findings about the impact on learning (Mayer et al.,
2022). In some studies, IVR has been shown to be more
effective in teaching content compared to more traditional
types of media (Alhalabi, 2016; Calvert & Abadia, 2020;
Makransky et al., 2019; Webster, 2016). One explanation of
the benefits that IVR technology is that IVR positively
impacts how students feel about learning and how motivated
they are to learn (e.g., Lee et al., 2017; Makransky &
Petersen, 2021; Mayer et al., 2022; Stepan et al., 2017). Thus,
the immersive experience afforded by IVR may be beneficial
in getting learners excited about learning and motivating
them to develop a deeper understanding of the material.
However, IVR has not consistently shown to be beneficial
for learning. In several studies, learning using IVR did not
result in better learning outcomes than learning with more
traditional media such as a computer-based slideshow (e.g.,
Ekstrand et al., 2018; Kozhevnikov et al., 2013; Lee et al.,
2017). Furthermore, in some cases, IVR was worse for learn­
ing than more traditional forms of instruction (e.g.,
Makransky et al., 2020; Parong & Mayer, 2018, 2021a,
2021b). A review of the literature on IVR has suggested that
one issue that may be contributing to these mixed findings
is that many studies investigating the use of IVR technology
in learning environments do not consistently use evidence-
based learning theories to design and implement this tech­
nology (Matovu et al., 2022).
One factor likely related to these findings is that learning
in IVR can cause an increase in cognitive load (Makransky
& Petersen, 2021; Mayer et al., 2022). Prior research has
demonstrated that experiencing an IVR lesson increases the
amount of cognitive load learners must deal with during
learning (e.g., Han, 2020; Huang et al., 2020; Makransky
et al., 2019; Parong & Mayer, 2018, 2021a, 2021b). As cogni­
tive load increases, specifically extraneous cognitive process­
ing (i.e., cognitive processing during learning that does not
support the instructional goal), learning decreases (Mayer,
2021; Paas & Sweller, 2022; Sweller et al., 2011). As such, it
is important to use cognitive theories to develop methods to
decrease the cognitive load IVR puts on learners, especially
load that does not contribute to understanding the material.
In this introduction, we explore two approaches to
understanding the challenges of learning in IVR: (1) using
pre-training to address novelty effects and (2) considering
individual differences in cognitive skills for managing and
holding information in working memory in relation to
learning with IVR.
1.3. Using pre-training to mitigate novelty effects in IVR
A potential reason that cognitive load may increase in IVR
is that learners are likely unfamiliar with learning in this
environment and thus may not know how best to use and
interact with this device (Wu et al., 2020), what we call the
novelty effect. One potential way to decrease the amount of
cognitive load learners deal with while learning in IVR is to
off-load some of the information to before the lesson via
pre-training.
Pre-training is a learning strategy in which certain infor­
mation is presented prior to the lesson that is intended to
reduce cognitive load during the lesson and thereby allow
learners to focus on building connections during the lesson
(Mayer, 2021; Mayer & Fiorella, 2022). Prior literature has
demonstrated that using pre-training in lessons leads to ben­
efits for learners (e.g., Clarke et al., 2005; Mayer et al., 2002;
Meyer et al., 2019; Pollock et al., 2002). As an example, in
an experiment where participants learned about the braking
system of a car, half of the group learned the lesson nor­
mally, in which all the material was presented as a narrated
animation (Mayer et al., 2002, Exp. 1). The other half of the
group were first exposed to the definitions of each part of
the braking system (pre-training), then moved on to the
same lesson that other group received. Those who were in
the pre-training condition achieved significantly better postt­
est scores than the group without pre-training. Another
study demonstrated that when students engaged with pre-
training worksheets prior to a lesson about spreadsheets,
they performed much better on a posttest compared to those
who did not, especially for those with low prior knowledge
(Clarke et al., 2005).
Pre-training is typically done by presenting some of the
background content from the lesson prior to showing the les­
son, such as definitions of key terms. However, for learning in
IVR, the problem may not necessarily be the amount of con­
tent learners are taking in. Instead, the problem may result
from individuals having to learn how to use and interact with
the IVR device at the same time as being introduced to the
content of the lesson. From a cognitive load perspective,
learners’ understanding of the material would benefit
if the demands of understanding how to use the device were
off-loaded to before the lesson. In this case, the pre-training
introduced in this paper is focused on reducing how novel the
perceptual experience of an IVR device is for individuals in
order to allow the learners to focus more on the content of the
lesson during the presentation of the lesson. The main aim of
this research is to understand if pre-training on how to use
IVR technology can reduce the novelty effect and thus benefit
learners.
Although IVR has motivating features that make it bene­
ficial for use in an educational environment, it also has dis­
tracting features that reduce the effectiveness of the
technology (Mayer et al., 2022; Parong, 2021). Specifically,
one of these distractions could be that IVR is a new technol­
ogy to many learners and the many beneficial features of
using IVR, like interactivity and presence, may be over­
whelming for learners to adapt to when they are first
exposed to the device. By interactivity, we mean that the
environment is highly responsive to the learner’s head
movements, and by presence, we mean that the learner has
the subjective experience of being in a computer-generated
environment. There have been only few studies that have
investigated the impact of the novelty of IVR technology in
an educational context (Huang, 2020; Miguel-Alonso et al.,
2023, Miguel-Alonso et al., 2024), although it is unclear

from this limited research whether reducing novelty could
have a positive or negative impact on learning.
One study that has investigated the novelty of using IVR
for learning focused on how the novelty of using IVR may
benefit students’ motivation more at the beginning of an
experience with IVR, theoretically improving performance,
but this would likely go down as the novelty of the device
wares off (Huang, 2020). Participants in this study learned
about astronomy, with the IVR training phase teaching
about the first four planets in the solar system and the
learning phase teaching about the Jupiter and Saturn. One
condition had participants learn in a less immersive VR
condition all three sessions, another condition had partici­
pants transition from a less immersive to a more immersive
VR condition between the second and third session, and the
third condition had participants learn in a more immersive
VR condition all three sessions. However, there was no evi­
dence that self-reported engagement with the material
decreased over time, and there was no evidence that the
groups differed in their learning outcomes.
Another study posits that IVR can create a novelty effect
because learners must figure out how to use the device,
explore the environment, and interact with different objects
while learning (Miguel-Alonso et al., 2023). This study
attempted to counteract this effect by providing a tutorial
on how to use parts of the IVR device prior to learning
(e.g., pre-training explained the different buttons on the
hand controls). The pre-training led to high satisfaction
with the learning experience, and the learners reported that
the tutorial was useful to them.
Additionally, a study used IVR to teach participants
learn how to assemble a PC computer either with or
without pre-training on how to use the IVR device prior
to the lesson (Miguel-Alonso et al., 2024). Participants
were either given a tutorial that allowed them to practice
the mechanics of the game at their own pace prior to the
lesson or not given this opportunity. Those who had pre-
training prior to the lesson reported higher scores for
engagement, presence, flow, and skill, and reported lower
scores for immersion in the VR environment in compari­
son to the group without the pre-training. The pre-train­
ing group also completed the introduction and guided
assembly portions of the lesson more quickly than the
group without pre-training. However, both groups made a
similar number of mistakes throughout the lesson. Lastly,
the pre-training group had higher scores on the posttest
than those without pre-training. This suggests that the
pre-training may have been helpful in reducing the nov­
elty of the IVR experience and benefited learning.
These initial studies have begun the investigation into the
novelty effect in IVR, but much more work is needed on
whether the novelty effect does exist for learning from IVR
devices and if exposure to IVR prior to learning can
improve learning. One consistent aspect across the previous
research on pre-training with IVR is that the pre-training
experiences all involved content that matched the lesson
content. Although this type of content specific pre-training
could be more helpful as the match between the pre-training
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN–COMPUTER INTERACTION 3
and the lesson is high, it does not answer the question
addressed in this study about whether more general experi­
ence in IVR can act as a pre-training. As such, the present
study attempts to fill this gap by examining whether more
general experience with IVR, through playing an off-the-
shelf IVR simulation game with different content than the
lesson, impacts subsequent learning from an IVR-based aca­
demic learning experience.
1.4. Recognizing individual differences in working
memory for learning in IVR
A secondary goal of this research is to examine the relation­
ship between individual differences in working memory
characteristics and academic learning outcomes in IVR.
Working memory is one of the components of the memory
system that information must go through to be encoded
into long-term memory (Atkinson & Shiffrin, 1968). Within
working memory during learning, individuals must organize
incoming information and integrate it with knowledge acti­
vated from long-term memory, but working memory is con­
strained by being limited in processing capacity (Mayer &
Fiorella, 2022). When processing capacity is being used to
process the novelty of IVR technology, it cannot be used for
learning. As such, it is important to be aware of the limita­
tions of working memory when it comes to learning, as all
information that students learn must go through this part of
the memory system to be of use later.
There are several classic theories of working memory.
Baddeley and Hitch (1974, 1994; Baddeley et al., 2015)
model posits that working memory is made up of two sub-
systems that are responsible for holding different types of
information in working memory with two other sub-systems
which help integrate information. Engle et al. (1999; Engle,
2002; Pak et al., 2023) model posits that information in
working memory is what is being attended. Cowan’s (1999;
Cowan et al., 2005) posits that working memory consists of
memory elements that are activated at different times.
Although a detailed analysis of working memory theories is
beyond the scope of this paper (e.g., Logie et al., 2020), we
note that all of them explain that in some way working
memory is limited in how much information can be proc­
essed at one time. This limitation is essential to recognize in
the context of learning with new media because it can have
an impact on how much various students can absorb from a
lesson.
This paper focuses on two individual difference factors
that impact how learners may be able to deal with this limi­
tation: (1) how well individuals are able to manage informa­
tion entering working memory, (i.e., executive function),
and (2) how much information someone can hold in work­
ing memory at one time (i.e., working memory capacity).
Although related, these two components are investigated
separately because conceptually they involve different aspects
of working memory that have been measured by qualita­
tively different tasks in the literature.
4 A. P. LAWSON AND R. E. MAYER
1.4.1. Executive function
In this research, managing incoming information is opera­
tionalized as measures of executive function. Executive func­
tion is defined as a set of cognitive processes that allow
learners to use their attentional control to focus on relevant
information; this includes the processes of inhibition, updat­
ing, and task switching (Banich, 2009; Diamond, 2013;
Miller & Cohen, 2001). However, executive function is not
uniform across all individuals; individuals vary in their
executive function (Friedman et al., 2008; Osaka et al., 2004;
Parong et al., 2017).
Variations in executive function are important to con­
sider in learning because if someone is better able to sort
relevant information from irrelevant information and focus
only on the relevant information, then only relevant infor­
mation should move into working memory where it can be
processed and moved into long-term memory. However, if
someone has weaker ability to focus only on relevant infor­
mation, then more irrelevant material is likely to enter
working memory, thus making learning more difficult. As
such, this research seeks to understand whether a learner’s
ability to manage incoming information plays a role in
learning from an IVR lesson and if this changes if learners
have prior training in using IVR.
1.4.2. Working memory capacity
Holding incoming information is operationalized in this
research by using classic measures of working memory cap­
acity. Working memory capacity is defined as the amount of
information that someone can hold and work with at one
time (Baddeley & Hitch, 1994; Diamond, 2013). As with
executive function, working memory capacity is not uniform
across all individuals; individuals vary in their working
memory capacity (Barrett et al., 2004; Ilkowska & Engle,
2010).
Variations in working memory capacity are important to
consider in learning because if someone can hold more
information in their working memory at one time, they are
likely going to be able to move more information into long-
term memory and be able to use the information later on
than someone who cannot hold as much information at one
time. As such, this study seeks to understand whether a
learner’s holding capacity plays a role in learning from an
IVR lesson and whether this changes if learners have train­
ing in using IVR.
1.4.3. Prior work on the relationship between working
memory and IVR
In terms of research on learning with IVR, there have been
very few studies that investigate how individual differences
in working memory—particularly executive function and
working memory capacity—relate to posttest performance.
One study found a relationship between executive function
and posttest performance after learning from IVR such that
stronger executive function (as measured by the flanker
task) related to better posttest performance (Lawson &
Mayer, 2024). The relationship between working memory
capacity and posttest performance was not significant how­
ever. This suggests that how well learners’ can manage their
attention during an IVR lesson may play an important role
in learning from in the IVR environment and warrants fur­
ther investigation.
1.5. Theoretical framework and hypotheses
This research uses cognitive load theory (CLT; Paas &
Sweller, 2022; Sweller, 1994, 2020; Sweller et al., 2011) and
cognitive theory of multimedia learning (CTML; Mayer,
2021, 2022; Mayer & Fiorella, 2022) to guide the hypotheses.
Both of these theories present the idea there are different
types of processing a learner can engage in while learning
and the type of processing has different effects on learning
outcomes. The reason that the type of processing matters is
because there is only so much capacity in limited working
memory for processing to occur; thus, it is vital to maximize
beneficial types of processing and minimize harmful types.
Extraneous processing (in CTML) or extraneous load (in
CLT) is a type of undesirable processing as it occurs when
learners are engaging with material that is irrelevant to the
goal of the lesson, such as processing of distracting informa­
tion (Mayer, 2021, 2022; Mayer & Fiorella, 2022; Paas &
Sweller, 2022; Sweller, 1994, 2020; Sweller et al., 2011). This
type of processing occurs when there are elements in a les­
son that are not relevant to helping the learner understand
the material, like irrelevant sound effects and seductive
details. As this type of processing does not benefit learners,
an important instructional goal is to reduce this type of
processing as much as possible by reducing the amount
of distracting information in the learning material. This type
of processing is potentially an important issue with IVR
technology, especially for those who do not know how to
use and interact with an IVR device for learning.
Specifically, the learner must figure out how to use the
device, which is not relevant to the goal of the lesson, in
order to be able to learn from the lesson.
Essential processing (in CTML) or intrinsic load (in
CLT) is a required type of processing as it occurs when
learners are creating a cognitive representation of the essen­
tial presented material (Mayer, 2021, 2022; Mayer &
Fiorella, 2022; Paas & Sweller, 2022; Sweller, 1994, 2020;
Sweller et al., 2011). The demands of essential processing on
cognitive capacity increase when a lesson is more complex
for a learner, that is, when the information is more interre­
lated. This type of processing is required for learning to
occur and generally is associated with being able to remem­
ber the presented material. As such, an important instruc­
tional goal is to manage the amount of essential processing
such as by breaking content up into manageable segments
or highlighting important information.
Generative processing (in CTML) or germane load (in
CLT) is a desirable type of processing as it occurs when a
learner develops connections between the material being
presented and their prior knowledge (Mayer, 2021, 2022;
Mayer & Fiorella, 2022; Paas & Sweller, 2022; Sweller, 1994,
2020; Sweller et al., 2011). This type of processing occurs

when a learner works to create connections between what
they are learning and what they already know about the
topic. This type of processing is highly desirable because it
is associated with deeper understanding, but it does not
have to occur during learning. As such, an important
instructional goal is to encourage this type of processing by
engaging in learning strategies that promote building
connections.
The research presented here focuses mainly on extraneous
processing, specifically extraneous processing that may be
caused by the novelty of using IVR technology in a learning
context. The present research aims to understand whether
training learners on how to use IVR technology prior to being
shown a lesson in IVR reduces the amount of extraneous
processing the learner must engage in during an IVR lesson
by off-loading the device training to before learning the
material. Additionally, this work aims to expand these theo­
ries by understanding the role of individual differences in
managing incoming information and holding capacity, both
of which could change the impact of extraneous processing on
learning, in learning in IVR with and without prior technol­
ogy training.
The first research question aims to understand if pre-
training in IVR can impact the amount of extraneous proc­
essing a learner experiences during learning with IVR. The
novelty of IVR should increase the amount of extraneous
processing that someone engages in when learning with IVR
technology. As such, it is predicted that those who are given
pre-training in IVR before shown an IVR lesson should
report less extraneous processing during the IVR lesson
(hypothesis 1a) and less distraction during the IVR lesson
(hypothesis 1b) than those who do not have any pre-train­
ing before the IVR lesson.
The second research question aims to understand if pre-
training in IVR can impact learning outcomes when learn­
ing a lesson with IVR. The novelty of IVR should decrease
the amount of learning that someone engages with since the
novelty of the experience takes away from processing that
can be dedicated to learning. Hypothesis 2 predicts that
posttest performance should be better for those who receive
pre-training compared to those without pre-training.
The third research question aims to understand if learners’
ability to manage incoming information plays an important
role in learning from IVR, both when learners have and do
not have pre-training in IVR. The third research question
examines the role that managing incoming information plays
in learning with IVR technology. A high level of extraneous
processing required for learning in IVR likely would be more
detrimental to learners who have a weaker ability to manage
incoming information than those who have a stronger ability
(e.g., Lawson & Mayer, 2024). As such, hypothesis 3 predicts
that there should be a moderation effect of IVR pre-training
on the relationship between measures of executive function
and posttest performance. Specifically, for learners who do
not have IVR pre-training, there should be a relationship
between scores on executive function tasks and posttest per­
formance with higher executive function performance corre­
lating with better posttest performance. This is because
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN–COMPUTER INTERACTION 5
without the pre-training, there is more extraneous processing
to contend with during the IVR lesson, which would result in
those who have worse executive function learning less than
those who have stronger executive function (hypothesis 3a).
For learners who have IVR pre-training, there should be a
weaker relationship between scores on executive function
tasks and posttest performance because IVR pre-training
should reduce the amount of extraneous processing during
the IVR lesson (hypothesis 3b).
Lastly, the fourth research question aims to understand if
learners’ holding capacity for new information plays an
important role in learning from IVR, both when learners
have and do not have pre-training in IVR. The fourth
research question investigates the role that holding capacity
plays in learning with IVR technology. Increased extraneous
processing should be more detrimental to learners who have
smaller holding capacity than those who have a larger cap­
acity. As such, hypothesis 4 predicts that there should be a
moderation effect of IVR training on the relationship
between measures of working memory capacity and posttest
performance. Specifically, for learners who do not have IVR
pre-training, there should be a relationship between scores
on working memory capacity tasks and posttest performance
with larger working memory capacity correlating with better
posttest performance. This is because without pre-training,
there is more extraneous processing to contend with during
the IVR lesson, which would lead to those with smaller
working memory capacities to learn less than those who
have larger working memory capacities (hypothesis 4a). For
learners who have IVR pre-training, there should be a
weaker relationship between scores on working memory
capacity tasks and posttest performance because IVR train­
ing should reduce the amount of extraneous processing the
learner can engage in (hypothesis 4b).
2. Method
2.1. Participants and design
The participants were 204 college students recruited from
the Psychology Subject Pool at a large university in
Southern California. Participants from all areas of study,
18 years old or older, and with any level of prior experience
were allowed to participate in this study. However, data col­
lected from participants who had moderate or high amounts
of prior experience with IVR were excluded from analyses
as the goal of this study was to focus on the novelty effect
of IVR technology. As such, 25 participants were excluded
from the data set because they reported having moderate to
high amounts of prior experience in IVR. Additionally, 25
participants did not complete all parts of the study and did
not have full data sets, so they were also excluded from the
analyses. In total, 154 participants were included in this
study from the original pool because they completed the full
experiment and had no-to-low prior experience with IVR.
The mean age of the participants was 19.32 years
(SD ¼ 1.37) and most participants were in the beginning of
their program at the university (class level: M ¼ 2.08 years,
SD ¼ 1.06). Prior knowledge of ocean acidification, the topic
6 A. P. LAWSON AND R. E. MAYER
of the lesson, was somewhat low (M ¼ 2.06, SD ¼ .95) on a
scale from “1-Very Low” to “5-Very High.” Of this sample,
112 participants identified as women and 42 participants
identified as men.
For the first set of analyses, a between-subjects design
was used. In this design, 78 of the participants were ran­
domly assigned to the condition with IVR pre-training
(IVR þ condition) and 76 of the participants were randomly
assigned to the condition without pre-training (IVR condi­
tion). The independent variable for this set of analyses was
whether or not learners received pre-training and the
dependent variables included self-reported extraneous proc­
essing rating, self-reported distraction rating, and posttest
score. For the second set of analyses, correlations and a
moderation analysis were used with the predictor variables
being scores on measures of executive function and working
memory capacity tasks, the outcome variable being posttest
performance, and the moderator being the pre-training con­
dition participants were in.
2.2. Materials
All the materials were presented in a controlled laboratory
environment and were either computer-based or presented
via an IVR head-mounted display. The computer-based
materials included a prequestionnaire, posttest, postquestion­
naire, and classic tasks measuring executive function and
working memory capacity. The IVR-based materials
included pre-training in IVR and IVR lesson.
2.2.1. Prequestionnaire
The prequestionnaire (Appendix A) collected data from the
participants on basic demographic information, including
age, class level, gender, and prior knowledge of ocean acid­
ification through a single item, 5-point Likert scale asking
“Please rate your knowledge of ocean acidification” ranging
from “1-Very Low” to “5-Very High.” Participants’ prior
knowledge was assessed using this self-report question rather
than a prior knowledge test in order to avoid the testing
effect, in which the act of taking a test is an instructional
event causing learning (Brown et al., 2014; Latimier et al.,
2019; Roediger & Karpicke, 2006). The testing effect occurs
because learners are exposed to main ideas in the test ques­
tions that could cue learners towards relevant parts of the
lesson to focus their attention. Without a pre-test, the learn­
ers do not have a cue as to which parts of the content may
be tested and thus allow for the posttest to more likely dem­
onstrate what learners could more naturally absorb from the
lesson. Additionally, the degree to which participants were
prone to becoming motion sick was also collected, but no
one reported that they were highly prone to motion sickness
in this study.
2.2.2. Pre-training in IVR
Participants in the IVR þ condition were given a 10-minute
pre-training experience aimed at reducing the novelty of
using and interacting with IVR technology. During these
10 minutes, participants played an off-the-shelf game called
“Job Simulator” that was created by Owlchemy Labs and
available for purchase on Steam. The premise of this game
is that computers have replaced humans in all jobs and this
simulator experience allows humans to try out the jobs that
computers are now doing. Participants were able to choose
one of four jobs: car mechanic, cook, office worker, or store
clerk (see Figure 1 for still-images from each job option). In
each job, participants were given objectives that they could
complete that required them to move around the virtual
environment and interact with different objects. Participants
were told that they could complete the objectives, but they
were not required to; the only requirement was to move
around and interact with the different game elements.
During this period, participants were monitored by a
researcher and were prompted to interact with the game if
they were not engaging with the IVR environment.
The reason this game was chosen was because it had no
relation to the lesson material and was a game-based way to
learn how to use and interact with the perceptual richness
of using IVR. However, it presented a helpful way for par­
ticipants to become familiar with interacting with the device.
For example, it offered many opportunities to practice mov­
ing around the virtual environment and had participants
looking at many different spots across the entire 360 degrees
of visual information. Additionally, the game had them
practice using the hand controls to interact with different
objects. All of these skills were required in the IVR lesson
but did not expose them to any learning content. The goal
of this pre-training was to familiarize participants with
knowing how to move around and how to use the control­
lers to interact with objects in their environment, so they
did not have to contend with the novelty of these tasks
while in the lesson phase.
2.2.3. IVR lesson
The IVR lesson used in this experiment is called, “The
Stanford Ocean Acidification Experience” and is openly
accessible on Steam. This lesson was created by the Virtual
Human Interaction Lab at Stanford University and has been
used in previous research (Fauville et al., 2021). The lesson
involved six different scenes that discussed ocean acidifica­
tion. In the first scene (Figure 2(a)), participants watched
the Earth spin in front of them while the voice over dis­
cussed how carbon dioxide can pose a risk to the environ­
ment and introduce the lesson. In the second scene,
participants were in the middle of traffic and watched and
listened to how carbon dioxide spews from exhaust pipes
then goes into the atmosphere. In the third scene (Figure
2(b)), participants were on a boat and watched and heard
about how carbon dioxide comes down from the sky and
interacts with ocean water to create carbonic acid. In the
fourth scene, participants saw a real-life reef off the coast of
Italy that naturally releases carbon dioxide and heard how
this reef can be a crystal ball for the future of ocean
acidification.
In the fourth scene (Figure 2(c)), participants were placed
in a virtual reef that was healthy and the voice over pointed

Figure 1. Images from different Job simulator experiences.
Figure 2. Still images from IVR lesson.
out the features of a healthy reef. In the fifth scene, par­
ticipants were placed in a virtual reef that was impacted
by ocean acidification and the voice over pointed out how
this reef differed from the healthy scene. Finally, partici­
pants again watched the Earth spin in front of them while
the voice over explained what they can do to reduce the
impacts of ocean acidification. Each scene was designed to
fully immerse the participant in the environment and, in
several different spots, required that the participants inter­
act with the environment, like having participants “feel”
carbon dioxide bubbles coming up from the sea floor in
the fifth scene or marking where the sea snails are in
both a healthy environment and unhealthy environment
in the fourth and fifth scenes. The lesson lasted a total of
seven minutes.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN–COMPUTER INTERACTION 7
2.2.4. Posttest
The posttest included eight open-ended questions that aimed
to assess various levels of transfer of knowledge from the
lesson. The questions are included in Appendix B.
Participants were given each question one at a time and
given 90 seconds to respond to the question, which was gen­
erally more than sufficient time for participants to provide a
complete response. Participants were required to stay on
each page with a question for the full 90 seconds to prevent
participants from skipping through questions and to encour­
age deeper thinking of the answer. After the 90 seconds
passed, the page automatically advanced to the next ques­
tion. This was done to determine what information was
most accessible to learners at the time of answering. Most
participants did not need the full 90 seconds to complete
8 A. P. LAWSON AND R. E. MAYER
their response. The McDonald’s omega (x; Hayes & Coutts,
2020) was used to determine the reliability of posttest and
was 0.75, which is considered an acceptable reliability value.
A delayed posttest was used in this study for two reasons.
First, as learning in educational settings is not typically
assessed immediately after the content is presented, a
delayed test was chosen to increase the generalizability of
these results to real-life learning. Additionally, learning that
is tested immediately may be retained through repetition in
working memory, not from memory that has been fully
encoded into long-term memory. As such, this study aimed
to understand how much knowledge is retained over longer
periods of time to assess what information from the lesson
learners had encoded into long-term memory and were still
able to retrieve after a week’s time. Although a delayed test
may introduce potential confounds, the benefits of being
more generalizable to real-life learning was deemed to be of
top importance to this study.
2.2.4.1. Posttest scoring. The posttest was scored by identify­
ing how many main ideas were present in the responses
provided by participants. To do this, scorers used a rubric
that included key main ideas that could be presented in
each question response and determined how many of the
main ideas were present in the response. For example, a
question like “How can marine scientists figure out if an
area of a reef is healthy?” had three main ideas that could
earn the participant points: “conduct a species count,” “if
there is more sea life, the reef is healthier,” and “if there is
no or little sea life, the reef is unhealthy.” As such, partici­
pants could earn up to three points on this question.
However, this type of rubric differs from one that deter­
mines whether the response is right or wrong. Participants
could be correct in their responses without earning all the
points. For example, with the question above, a participant’s
answer would technically be correct if they only said, “do a
species count,” but with this rubric, they would only earn
one point. This rubric style was used in order to determine
who demonstrated more knowledge about the material by
including more correct ideas in their responses. As such, a
proportion correct does not accurately represent the data, so
the raw score was used in data analyses. The rubric used to
grade the posttest is included in Appendix B.
Each question had two to seven main points associated
with it. To determine a posttest score, the number of main
ideas the participant had across the entire test were added
up to create a total score. The highest possible score for this
test was 32. Two independent scorers read each response
and gave the participants scores. The correlation between
the scorers was strong, r ¼ 0.90, p<.001. Any disagreements
were discussed until full agreement was met between the
scorers.
2.2.4.2. Outliers. In this data, outliers were determined to be
participant scores on the posttest and measures of working
memory in which the z-scores exceeded positive or negative
three. In this data, four participants were identified as out­
liers. Removing the outliers did not change the pattern of
the results and these participants were not included in the
analyses.
2.2.5. Postquestionnaire
The postquestionnaire (Appendix C) consisted of 42 items
about the participants’ experience with the lesson. The first
five items assessed various types of affective experience the
participants had with the lesson on a 5-point Likert scale
from “1-Strongly Disagree” to “5-Strongly Agree.” The next
four questions assessed various types of self-reported distrac­
tion level the participants could have with the lesson on the
same 5-point Likert scale, from broader distractions (e.g.,
“The lesson was distracting.”) to more specific distractions
(e.g., “Interacting with the environment in the lesson dis­
tracted me from the content.”)
The next nine questions were used to assess self-reported
cognitive load (Parong & Mayer, 2018, 2021a, 2021b) on the
same 5-point Likert Scale. There were three questions that
assessed extraneous processing (x ¼ 0.77), three questions
that assess essential processing (x ¼ 0.56), and three ques­
tions that assess generative processing (x ¼ 0.64). The next
seven questions were used to assess for presence (Parong &
Mayer, 2018, 2021a, 2021b) on the same 5-point Likert scale
(x ¼ 0.88). The following nine questions assessed for cyber
sickness (Kim et al., 2018) on a 4-point Likert scale from
“1-Not At All” to “4-Very Much” and had to rate aspects
related to oculomotor issues (x ¼ 0.66) and disorienta­
tion (x ¼ 0.62).
The next four questions asked participants who were in
the IVR þ condition to rate their experience with Job
Simulator. These questions were answered on the 5-point
Likert scale and included questions like “I enjoyed playing
Job Simulator.” and “Playing Job Simulator distracted me
from learning the material presented in the lesson.” Lastly,
participants answered four other questions that asked about
color-blindness, prior experience with VR, any comments
participants had about the experience, and if anything went
wrong during the experiment.
2.2.6. Executive function and working memory capacity
tasks
A battery of six classic working memory tasks was used to
assess individual differences in participants’ ability to man­
age incoming information (executive function) and holding
capacity for new information (working memory capacity).
See Table 1 for a description of each task. The executive
function tasks included Stroop task, n-back task, and flanker
task, and the working memory capacity tasks included digit
span task, Corsi block task, and operation span task. The
digit span task was presented on Qualtrics and each
sequence length, from three up to 10 digits, was completed
twice for each participant. The Stroop, Corsi block, n-back,
and flanker tasks were presented on PsyToolKit (Stoet, 2010,
2017), and each task was completed twice. Scores for these
tasks were only calculated using trials from the second block
as the first block was used for training. The operation span
task was presented on Inquisit and included three blocks,
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN–COMPUTER INTERACTION 9

Table 1. Description of executive function and working memory capacity tasks.

Executive function tasks
Stroop task (Diamond, 2013; MacLeod, 1991;
Stroop, 1935)
N-back task (Diamond, 2013; Friedman et al., 2008;
Waris et al., 2017)
Flanker task (Diamond, 2013; Eriksen & Eriksen,
1974)
Working memory capacity tasks
Digit span task (Conway et al., 2005; Waris et al.,
2017)
Corsi block task (Corsi, 1972)
Operation span task (with degree of EF) Daneman
& Carpenter, 1980; Engle, 2002; Waris et al.,
2017)
Description of task Determining task score
Word names are presented in different ink colors; Response time on incongruent trials minus
participant needs to determine ink color as response time on congruent trials
quickly as possible. Congruent trials ¼ ink color
and word match, incongruent trials ¼ ink color
and word do not match
Series of letters presented 1 at a time; participant Number of correct responses minus number of
needs to report if the letter presented currently false alarms
matches the letter n letters ago (or in this case
3 letters ago)
A line of 5 arrows is presented on the screen; Response time on incongruent trials minus
participant needs to report which direction the response time on congruent trials
center arrow is pointing (left or right).
Congruent trials ¼ all arrows facing same
direction, incongruent trials ¼ center arrow
facing opposite direction than other arrows
Series of number presented 1 at a time; participant Total number of correctly reported sequences
needs to report the sequence exactly as they divided by total number of sequences displayed
saw. Sequences vary from 3-digit strings to
10-digit strings
Array of 9 yellow squares on screen and squares Longest reported sequence successfully reported
light up in purple in a sequence 1 at a time;
participant needs to report the sequence exactly
as they saw. Sequences vary from 2 squares to
9 squares
Sequence of letters is presented; participants must Total number of letters in correctly reported
report the letter sequence exactly as shown. sequences
But, in between each letter, participants must
determine if a simple math equation is true or
false. Sequences vary from 2 letters to 6 letters

two of which were training and the last block being the real
trial.
2.3. Apparatus
For the IVR lesson and pre-training, participants used the
HTC Vive head-mounted display virtual reality system con­
nected to a Dell Alienware desktop computer. Along with
the head-mounted display, participants used wireless hand
controls to interact with the environment. Both Job
Simulator and the lesson were presented through Steam
software. For the non-IVR portions of the experiment, the
material was presented on a Dell computer with a 20-inch
color monitor.
2.4. Procedure
Participants began the experiment by completing the
informed consent form. Then, they were given instructions
on how to begin the experiment. They started with complet­
ing the prequestionnaire, then moved to complete the digit
span task on Qualtrics then the Stroop task and Corsi block
task on PsyToolKit. After completing this, all participants
were given instructions on how to put on the virtual reality
head-mounted display. Participants who were in the
IVR þ condition played in Job Simulator for 10 minutes
while being monitored by a researcher. Next, the partici­
pants moved onto the lesson. In the IVR condition, partici­
pants immediately started with the lesson without any
experience in Job Simulator. Once done with the lesson,
participants were thanked for their participation and told to
return to complete session 2 of the study the following
week.
After a week, participants returned to the lab and began
session 2 with the posttest. Once done with the posttest,
participants answered all the questions in the postquestion­
naire. Once they completed that, they were moved to
PsyToolKit to complete the n-back task and flanker task.
Finally, they completed the operation span task on Inquisit.
Once they completed the operation span task, the partici­
pants were thanked and given credit for their participation.
Each session of the experiment took up to an hour. We fol­
lowed guidelines for treatment of human subjects, and this
study was approved by the university’s Institutional Review
Board (IRB).
3. Results
3.1. Are the groups equivalent on key characteristics?
A first step is to determine whether random assignment was
successful in creating groups equivalent in basic characteris­
tics. Means and standard deviations for age, class level, and
prior knowledge rating are presented in Table 2. Based on t-
tests, there was not a significant difference between groups
based on age, t(146) ¼ −0.14, p ¼ .887; class level,
t(148)¼0.06, p ¼.951; or prior knowledge rating,
t(148)¼ −0.93, p ¼.337. In addition, a chi-square test showed
that the groups did not differ significantly in gender ratios,
v2 (1, N ¼ 150)¼1.91, p¼.167. Based on this, we concluded
10 A. P. LAWSON AND R. E. MAYER

Table 2. Means and standard deviations on each variable for each group. p¼.781, in contrast to hypothesis 2. We conclude that the
IVR þ Condition IVR condition Job Simulator pre-training was not successful in improving
M SD M SD posttest scores.
Age 19.33 1.49 19.36 1.25
Class level 2.11 1.11 2.09 1.01
Prior knowledge 1.99 0.95 2.14 0.94 3.4. Hypothesis 3: Does ability to manage incoming
Extraneous processing 2.07 0.78 1.94 0.78 information play a role in learning with IVR, but not
Distraction from lesson 1.83 1.04 1.70 0.96
Distracting instructions 1.66 0.83 1.73 0.95 when learners have pre-training in IVR technology?
Distracting interactions 2.08 1.20 2.08 1.18
Distracting environment 1.95 1.14 1.79 1.13 Hypothesis 3 predicted that participants’ ability to manage
Posttest score 12.66 4.73 12.45 4.58 incoming information, as measured by classic tasks of
Presence 3.97 0.80 4.16 0.61
Enjoy 4.51 0.53 4.70 0.54
executive function, should play a role in learning when a
Interesting 4.33 0.68 4.43 0.78 lesson has increased distractions, but not when the lesson
More lessons 4.30 0.75 4.49 0.78 does not have distractions. As such, in a situation where a
Effective 4.11 0.86 4.16 0.91
Motivated 4.08 0.86 4.35 0.80
participant is given training in IVR, there should be
a decrease in the reliance of executive function compared to
a situation in which a participant is not given training in
that random assignment was successful and further analyses IVR. To investigate this question, first, correlations between
did not require covariates. executive function task scores and posttest scores were
examined for each condition, then a moderation analysis
3.2. Hypothesis 1: Does pre-training in IVR reduce the was conducted. Correlation matrices for both conditions are
distractions learners experience while learning with IVR? presented in Table 3.
For the IVR condition, n-back task score was the only
Hypothesis 1 predicted that if pre-training in IVR prior to task that correlated significantly with posttest performance,
learning a lesson with IVR does reduce the novelty of IVR r ¼ 0.30, p¼.010. The correlation demonstrated that as n-
technology, then participants who receive IVR pre-training back task score increased—meaning an increase in executive
should report experiencing less distractions than participants function—posttest score also increased. This suggests that,
who do not receive pre-training. This was analyzed through when an IVR lesson is presented without any training on
a series of t-tests to determine if there were any differences how to use the IVR device, a learner’s ability to manage
between the IVR þ and IVR conditions on self-reported incoming information seems to be related to how much
extraneous processing and various distraction types. Means information they can learn. This is partially consistent with
and standard deviations are presented in Table 2. There was hypothesis 3a.
not a significant difference between the IVR þ and IVR con­ For the IVR þ condition, n-back task score, r ¼ 0.28,
ditions on self-reported extraneous processing, t(148)¼0.77, p¼.015, and Stroop task score, r ¼ −0.29, p¼.011, were sig­
p¼.331, in contrast to hypothesis 1a. nificantly correlated with posttest score. As with the IVR
There were several questions that asked about distraction condition, the significant correlation between n-back task
to assess hypothesis 1b. In a question assessing general dis­ score and posttest score indicated that as n-back task score
traction, there was not a significant difference between the increased—meaning an increase in executive function—
two conditions, t(148)¼0.77, p¼.441. Additionally, there was posttest score also increased. The significant correlation
not a significant difference between the two groups on ques­ between Stroop task score and posttest score indicated that
tions assessing distraction from the instructions, as Stroop task score decreased—meaning an increase in
t(147)¼ −0.47, p¼.640; assessing distraction from interacting executive function—posttest score increased. Both of these
with the environment, t(147)¼0.82, p¼.413, nor assessing correlations demonstrate that, even with exposure to an IVR
distraction from the immersion of the environment, environment prior to learning in IVR, a learner’s ability to
t(147)¼ −0.02, p¼.987. These findings are in contrast to manage incoming information seems to be related to how
hypothesis 1b. We conclude that the Job Simulator pre- much information they can learn. This is inconsistent with
training was not successful in reducing distraction during hypothesis 3b.
learning in IVR. To test this hypothesis more directly, two moderation
analyses were conducted based on the correlations. Both
moderation analyses were conducted using PROCESS v4 in
3.3. Hypothesis 2: Does pre-training in IVR benefit
SPSS. The first moderation analysis investigated how n-back
learning?
task score impacted learning across the two conditions.
Hypothesis 2 predicted that participants who are given pre- Figure 3 demonstrates the moderation. Condition type did
training in IVR before learning should be able to learn bet­ not moderate the relationship between n-back task score
ter from the lesson than those who do not have pre-training and posttest performance, p¼.762. This suggests that the
and thus should perform better on a posttest. Means and relationship between managing incoming information, as
standard deviations on the posttest for the groups are pre­ measured by n-back, and posttest performance were not dif­
sented in Table 2. There was not a significant difference ferent whether a participant had pre-training in IVR or not.
between the two groups for posttest score, t(148)¼0.28, This is inconsistent with hypothesis 3.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN–COMPUTER INTERACTION 11

Table 3. Correlation matrix for IVR and IVR þ lessons.

Posttest Stroop N-back Flanker Digit span Operation span Corsi
IVR þ Lesson
Posttest 1.00 −0.29� 0.28� −0.15 −0.02 0.23� −0.08
Stroop 1.00 −0.07 −0.05 0.03 −0.10 −0.08
N-back 1.00 0.08 0.03 0.27� −0.23�
Flanker 1.00 0.03 −0.11 −0.19
Digit span 1.00 0.40��� 0.18
Operation span 1.00 0.12
Corsi 1.00
IVR lesson
Posttest 1.00 0.10 0.30�� 0.22 0.15 0.26� −0.08
Stroop 1.00 0.16 −0.18 −0.02 0.03 0.09
N-back 1.00 0.02 0.12 0.34�� 0.11
Flanker 1.00 0.09 0.17 0.12
Digit span 1.00 0.39��� 0.21
Operation span 1.00 0.07
Corsi 1.00
�p<.05; ��p<.01; ���p<.001.

Figure 3. Moderation analysis for N-back task score on posttest performance by condition.

For the second moderation analysis, there was a focus on
how Stroop task score impacted learning across the two con­
ditions. Figure 4 demonstrates the moderation. Condition
type significantly moderated the relationship between Stroop
task score and posttest performance, p¼.015. This was fur­
ther investigated by looking at the slopes for each condition.
In the IVR þ condition, the slope of the line was signifi­
cantly different from zero, t¼ −2.60, p¼.010, suggesting that
as Stroop task score decreased—meaning an increase in
executive function—posttest performance increased.
However, in the IVR condition, the slope of the line was
not significantly different from zero, t ¼ 0.83, p¼.406. This
demonstrates that if participants had pre-training in IVR,
participants who were better able to manage incoming infor­
mation performed better on the posttest than those who
were worse at managing incoming information. This was
not true for those who did not have pre-training in IVR.
This is the opposite of what hypothesis 3 predicted. We con­
clude that some measures of executive function (e.g., n-back
score) are related to learning in IVR regardless of whether
there was pre-training.
3.5. Hypothesis 4: Does holding capacity play a role in
learning with IVR, but not when learners have pre-
training in IVR technology?
Hypothesis 4 predicted that participants’ holding capacity, as
measured by classic tasks of working memory capacity,
should play a role in learning when a lesson has increased
distractions, but not when the lesson does not have distrac­
tions. As such, in a situation where a participant is given
training in IVR, there should be a decrease in the reliance
of holding capacity compared to a situation in which a par­
ticipant is not given training in IVR. To investigate this
question, first, correlations between working memory cap­
acity task scores and posttest scores were examined for each
condition, then a moderation analysis was conducted.
12 A. P. LAWSON AND R. E. MAYER
Figure 4. Moderation analysis for stroop task score on posttest performance by condition.
Correlation matrices for both conditions are presented in
Table 3.
For the IVR condition, operation span task score was the
only task that correlated significantly with posttest perform­
ance, r ¼ 0.26, p¼.029. The correlation demonstrates that as
operation span task score increased—meaning an increase in
working memory capacity—posttest score also increased.
This suggests that, when an IVR lesson is presented without
any training on how to the use the IVR device, a learner’s
holding capacity seems to be related to how much informa­
tion they can learn. This is partially consistent with hypoth­
esis 4a.
For the IVR þ condition, operation span task score,
r ¼ 0.23, p¼.049, was significantly correlated with posttest
score. As with the IVR condition, the significant correlation
between operation span task score and posttest score indi­
cates that as operation span task score increased—meaning
an increase in working memory capacity—posttest score also
increased. This correlation demonstrates that, even with
exposure to an IVR environment prior to learning in IVR, a
learner’s holding capacity seems to be related to how much
information they can learn. This is inconsistent with
hypothesis 4b.
To test this hypothesis more directly, a moderation ana­
lysis was conducted based on the correlations. This moder­
ation analysis investigated how operation span task score
impacted learning across the two conditions. Figure 5 dem­
onstrates the moderation. Condition type did not moderate
the relationship between n-back task score and posttest per­
formance, p¼.762. This suggests that the relationship
between holding capacity, as measured by operation span
task, and posttest performance was not different whether a
participant had pre-training in IVR or not. This is inconsist­
ent with hypothesis 4. We conclude that some measures of
holding capacity (e.g., operation span score) are related to
learning in IVR regardless of whether there was pre-
training.
4. Discussion
4.1. Empirical contributions
The main positive finding in this study is that individual
differences in executive function (e.g., as measured by the n-
back task) and holding capacity (e.g., as measured by the
operation span task) are positively related to posttest score
from learning in IVR for both the IVR and
IVR þ conditions. This shows that students who are better
at managing and holding new information learn better with
the distracting medium of IVR than students who are
weaker at these skills. These findings suggest that skill at
managing incoming information and holding it in working
memory play a role in learning academic content in an
immersive environment. This relationship has only recently
been studied in literature (e.g., Lawson & Mayer, 2024).
However, not all measures of executive function and holding
capacity yielded significant results, perhaps due to the short
length of the tasks or differences in the components of
working memory each task is targeting.
The main negative finding in this study is that the form
of pre-training we implemented in this study—providing
10 minutes of exposure to playing a simulation game in
IVR—did not reduce distraction, reduce cognitive load, or
improve learning outcomes for students when they subse­
quently learned academic content in an IVR lesson. In short,
the form of pre-training we used did not add value to learn­
ing with IVR lessons by introducing pre-training. Despite
these null findings, there are important contributions of this
work. This differs from the previous work done on pre-
training in IVR (e.g., Miguel-Alonso et al., 2024). In this
previous work, learners were exposed to training content

Figure 5. Moderation analysis for operation span task score on posttest performance by condition.
that matched the lesson experience they were introduced to
and this led to better posttest performance for those with
pre-training. The present study differs from the work of
Miguel-Alonso et al. (2024) mainly in that the match
between the pre-training experience and lesson, in terms of
the functionality and specificity of the training, was strong
in the Miguel-Alonso et al. study but not in the present
study. Specifically, in the present study, the pre-training
involved an off-the-shelf IVR simulation game that was
unrelated to the IVR lesson.
As such, this finding suggests one of two interpretations.
One possibility is that pre-training in IVR is effective in
reducing distraction and enhancing learning, but only if the
IVR experience in the pre-training environment more
closely matches that of the lesson. In other words, pre-train­
ing in IVR does not generalize from one environment to the
next. It would be helpful to investigate how different levels
of match between the pre-training and the lesson impacts
the effects of pre-training on learning in IVR to investigate
this possibility further.
The other possibility is that the distractions requiring the
use of executive function experienced by individuals using
IVR for learning is not solely due to learners working to fig­
ure out how to use the technology; instead, there is some­
thing more inherent about IVR that is distracting. If this is
the case, prior training in IVR may not be a means to sup­
port learning with IVR technology. If this is the case, further
research needs to be conducted on how to design instruction
within IVR lessons to support variations in executive func­
tion to benefit learning. However, because determining
which interpretation is more correct was not the purpose of
this research, this study cannot pinpoint which of these
options is correct. As discussed, future research should be
done to investigate this distinction further.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN–COMPUTER INTERACTION 13
4.2. Theoretical contributions
This research extends the cognitive theory of multimedia
learning (Mayer, 2021, 2022; Mayer & Fiorella, 2022) and
cognitive load theory (Paas & Sweller, 2022; Sweller, 1994,
2020; Sweller et al., 2011) by examining the role of individ­
ual differences in aspects of working memory. These theo­
ries explain how there are three different types of cognitive
load, including extraneous processing, essential processing,
and generative processing, and each type of processing
impacts learning differently. In this research, we focused on
attempting to reduce extraneous processing in IVR learning
by giving learners pre-training in the IVR device. However,
the findings from this research demonstrated that pre-train­
ing in IVR does not seem to reduce the amount of extrane­
ous processing that a learner engages in and thus does not
seem to benefit learners in an IVR lesson. In fact, pre-train­
ing may possibly expose learners to more distraction that
requires inhibition to ignore, as demonstrated by the finding
that Stroop task score predicted posttest performance when
participants had pre-training in IVR but not when they
did not.
Along these lines, this research also expands these theo­
ries of cognition by introducing the idea that individual dif­
ferences in executive function and working memory capacity
can impact how learners experience learning from IVR les­
sons. Both n-back task score and operation span score were
significantly correlated with posttest performance across
both conditions, suggesting that executive function and
working memory capacity seem to be related to how much
someone can learn in an IVR lesson. As both executive
function and working memory increased, posttest perform­
ance increased. This may indicate that for those who are
better able to manage incoming information and have more
14 A. P. LAWSON AND R. E. MAYER
space for incoming information can learn better from a dis­
tracting IVR lesson.
4.3. Practical implications
The most important practical implication is that learning in
IVR can put certain kinds of learners at a disadvantage—
namely, students who struggle with managing and holding
information in working memory. Specifically, we recom­
mend more scaffolding for these students when they are
asked to learn in immersive virtual reality, including high­
lighting the relevant elements in the visual display as they
are being described (i.e, signaling, Mayer, 2021), pausing the
lesson at various points to ask summarize what they have
learned (i.e., segmenting; Mayer, 2021), and providing previ­
ous experience with the concrete objects that represented in
the virtual environment (i.e., pretraining; Mayer, 2021).
Overall, this work demonstrates the role that individual
differences can play in learning from an IVR lesson. These
findings show that individual differences in how well some­
one can manage incoming information and their holding
capacity for new information plays a role in a learner’s abil­
ity to learn new information from an IVR lesson. As IVR
technology is becoming more widely adopted into class­
rooms and educational realms, this is important to consider
in order to ensure access to knowledge is equitable for all
learners. Work is needed in how to mitigate the distracting
features of IVR especially for learners with weaker executive
function and smaller holding capacity.
This research also illuminates the importance of being
able to determine what may cause distractions in an IVR
lesson. As this research showed, learning in an IVR lesson
seems to require a better ability to manage incoming infor­
mation and larger holding capacity for the best learning out­
comes to occur. Although there may be ways to train
individuals to increase these aspects of their cognition, it is
likely easier to identify what features of a lesson are distract­
ing in IVR and work to mitigate these factors. Pre-training
learners with general knowledge about IVR did not seem to
be an effective way to help mitigate the reliance on manag­
ing incoming information and holding capacity, so more
research is required to determine what can impact this
relationship.
4.4. Limitations and future directions
One important limitation of this research is that not all the
measures of executive function related to posttest perform­
ance. Specifically, the flanker task was the only factor that
did not predict posttest performance across both conditions.
As flanker task is conceptually similar to Stroop task, it is
somewhat confusing that there were different patterns of
data across these two classic executive function tasks. One
potential for this difference may be due to the fact that all
the measure of executive function and working memory
capacity had a low number of trials in this experiment, cre­
ating insufficient power to adequately measure executive
function and/or working memory capacity. Future research
should investigate whether using more trials of these tasks
leads to more consistent findings across the different tasks.
Similarly, not all measures of working memory capacity
related to posttest performance either. Only the operation
span task related to posttest performance; digit span and
Corsi block task never did. However, this may be due to the
fact that operation span task requires both holding capacity
and a degree of managing incoming information to com­
plete it successfully while the other two tasks focus only on
measuring holding capacity (Engle, 2002). As such, the dif­
ference may be due to the different requires of these tasks,
but more research should be done to flush out this differ­
ence more thoroughly.
Another limitation of this work was the short length and
content of the pre-training experience. Participants only
received 10 minutes of pre-training in an IVR game prior to
learning the lesson, which may not be enough time to
adequately become used to using and interacting with IVR
technology. In addition, the immediate move from game to
lesson may have also changed the impact that the pre-train­
ing had on the lesson. It could be the case that learners
need time to digest the experience. Future research should
investigate how pre-training that is longer and done further
in advance could benefit learners using IVR lessons. Other
forms of pre-training that focus more on the specific con­
tent of the IVR lesson and employ similar features should
also be investigated. It is important to note that we were
using the pre-training simulation to provide the learner with
experience in being in immersive virtual reality so that they
would be less overwhelmed and distracted during the IVR
lesson. We were not using the pre-training simulation to
teach specific content relevant to the IVR lesson, but instead
our goal was to get learners used to the perceptual richness
of being in IVR. For this reason, we needed the pre-training
experience to be sufficiently long.
An essential future direction of this research is the fur­
ther investigation into what about IVR lessons may serve as
distractors. As this work has shown, learners show a reliance
on different components of working memory that suggest
there is a need to ignore information that is irrelevant to
the goal of the lesson. As such, to make IVR learning more
equitable across all learners, being able to identify what dis­
tractors exist in IVR is vital to the continued use of this
technology in education.
Relatedly, once the types of distractions are identified,
future research should also investigate ways in which these
distractions can be mitigated. To do this, research can focus
on how to modify an IVR lesson in order to mitigate the
distractions that would otherwise be present, like focusing
on developing IVR design principles. This approach could
allow IVR technology to be more useful in educational
spaces.
5. Conclusion
This study investigated whether adding pre-training on how
to use and interact IVR technology to an IVR lesson benefits
learning of the lesson. This research found that this pre-

training did not seem to be effective in reducing the distrac­
tion of a learner nor did it improve learning. Additionally,
individual differences in managing incoming information
and holding new information were related to learning out­
comes, regardless of whether a learner had pre-training or
not. This suggests that IVR lessons induce distractions that
are unrelated to the novelty of using the technology for
education.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Funding
This work was supported by the National Defense Science and
Engineering Graduate Fellowship, granted to the first author, and the
Office of Naval Research, granted to the second author.
ORCID
Alyssa P. Lawson http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8658-1261
References
Alhalabi, W. (2016). Virtual reality systems enhance students’ achieve­
ments in engineering education. Behaviour & Information
Technology, 35(11), 919–925. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2016.
1212931
Atkinson, R. C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1968). Human memory: A proposed
system and its control processes. In K. W. Spence & J. T. Spence
(Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in
research and theory (Vol. 2; pp. 89–195) Academic Press.
Baddeley, A. D., Eysneck, M. W., & Anderson, M. C. (2015). Memory
(2nd ed.). Psychology Press.
Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. In G. H.
Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (vol. 8; pp.
47–89). Academic Press.
Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. J. (1994). Developments in the concept of
working memory. Neuropsychology, 8(4), 485–493. https://doi.org/10.
1037/0894-4105.8.4.485
Bailenson, J. (2018). Experience on demand: What virtual reality is, how
it works, and what is can do. W. W. Norton.
Banich, M. T. (2009). Executive function: The search for an integrated
account. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18(2), 89–94.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2009.01615.x
Barrett, L. F., Tugade, M. M., & Engle, R. W. (2004). Individual differ­
ences in working memory capacity and dual-process theories of the
mind. Psychological Bulletin, 130(4), 553–573. https://doi.org/10.
1037/0033-2909.130.4.553
Brown, P. C., Roediger, H. L., III, & McDaniel, M. A. (2014). Make it
stick: The science of successful learning. Harvard University Press.
Calvert, J., & Abadia, R. (2020). Impact of immersing university and
high school students in educational linear narratives using virtual
reality technology. Computers & Education, 159, 104005.
Clarke, T., Ayres, P., & Sweller, J. (2005). The impact of sequencing
and prior knowledge on learning mathematics through spreadsheet
applications. Educational Technology Research and Development,
53(3), 15–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504794
Conway, A. R. A., Kane, M. J., Bunting, M. F., Hambrick, D. Z.,
Wilhelm, O., & Engle, R. W. (2005). Working memory span tasks:
A methodological review and user’s guide. Psychonomic Bulletin &
Review, 12(5), 769–786. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196772
Corsi, P. (1972). Memory and the medial temporal region of the brain
[Doctoral thesis]. McGill University, Montreal.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN–COMPUTER INTERACTION 15
Cowan, N. (1999). An embedded-processes model of working memory.
In A. Miyake & P. Shah (Eds.), Models of working memory:
Mechanisms of active maintenance and executive control (pp. 62–
101). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/
CBO9781139174909.006
Cowan, N., Elliott, E. M., Scott Saults, J., Morey, C. C., Mattox, S.,
Hismjatullina, A., & Conway, A. R. A. (2005). On the capacity of
attention: Its estimation and its role in working memory and cogni­
tive aptitudes. Cognitive Psychology, 51(1), 42–100. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.cogpsych.2004.12.001
Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Individual differences in
working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and
Verbal Behavior, 19(4), 450–466. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-
5371(80)90312-6
Diamond, A. (2013). Executive functions. Annual Review of
Psychology, 64(1), 135–168. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-
113011-143750
Ekstrand, C., Jamal, A., Nguyen, R., Kudryk, A., Mann, J., & Mendez,
I. (2018). Immersive and interactive virtual reality to improve learn­
ing and retention of neuroanatomy in medical students: A random­
ized controlled study. CMAJ Open, 6(1), E103–E109. https://doi.org/
10.9778/cmajo.20170110
Engle, R. W. (2002). Working memory capacity as executive attention.
Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11(1), 19–23. https://doi.
org/10.1111/1467-8721.00160
Engle, R. W., Tuholski, S. W., Laughlin, J. E., & Conway, A. R. A.
(1999). Working memory, short-term memory, and general fluid
intelligence: A latent-variable approach. Journal of Experimental
Psychology. General, 128(3), 309–331. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-
3445.128.3.309
Eriksen, B. A., & Eriksen, C. W. (1974). Effects of noise letters upon
the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task. Perception &
Psychophysics, 16(1), 143–149. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03203267
Fauville, G., Queiroz, A. C. M., Hambrick, L., Brown, B. A., &
Bailenson, J. N. (2021). Participatory research on using virtual real­
ity to teach ocean acidifcation: A study in the marine education
community. Environmental Education Research, 27(2), 254–278.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2020.1803797
Friedman, N. P., Miyake, A., Young, S. E., DeFries, J. C., Corley, R. P.,
& Hewitt, J. K. (2008). Individual differences in executive functions
are almost entirely genetic in origin. Journal of Experimental
Psychology. General, 137(2), 201–225. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-
3445.137.2.201
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
Hayes, A. F., & Coutts, J. J. (2020). Use Omega rather than Cronbach’s
alpha for estimating reliability. But … . Communication Methods and
Measures, 14(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2020.
1718629
Huang, W. (2020). Investigating the novelty effect in virtual reality on
STEM learning. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Arizona State
University.
Huang, C. L., Luo, Y. F., Yang, S. C., Lu, C. M., & Chen, A.-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
Ilkowska, M., & Engle, R. W. (2010). Trait and state differences in
working memory capacity. In A. Gruszka, G. Matthews, & B.
Szymura (Eds.), Handbook on individual differences in cognition:
Attention, memory, and executive control (pp. 295–320). Spring
Science þ Business Media.
Kim, H. K., Park, J., Choi, Y., & Choe, M. (2018). Virtual reality sick­
ness questionnaire (VRSQ): Motion sickness measurement index in
a virtual reality environment. Applied Ergonomics, 69, 66–73. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2017.016
Kozhevnikov, M., Gurlitt, J., & Kozhevnikov, M. (2013). Learning rela­
tive motion concepts in immersive and non-immersive virtual
16 A. P. LAWSON AND R. E. MAYER
environments. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 22(6),
952–962. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-103-9441-0
Latimier, A., Riegert, A., Peyre, H., Ly, S. T., Casati, R., & Ramus, F.
(2019). Does pre-testing promote better retention than post-testing?
NPJ Science of Learning, 4(1), 15. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-
019-0053-1
Lawson, A. P., & Mayer, R. E. (2024). Individual differences in execu­
tive function affect learning with immersive virtual reality. Journal
of Computer Assisted Learning. Advance online publication. https://
doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12925
Lee, S. H., Sergueeva, K., Catangui, M., & Kandaurova, M. (2017).
Assessing Google Cardboard virtual reality as a content delivery sys­
tem in business classrooms. Journal of Education for Business, 92(4),
153–160. https://doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2017.1308308
Logie, R., Camos, V., & Cowan, N. (Eds.). (2020). Working memory:
The state of the science. Oxford University Press.
MacLeod, C. M. (1991). Half a century of research on the Stroop effect:
An integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 109(2), 163–203.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.109.2.163
Makransky, G., Andreasen, N. K., Baceviciute, S., & Mayer, R. 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
Makransky, G., & Petersen, G. B. (2021). The Cognitive Affective
Model of Immersive Learning (CAMIL): A theoretical research-
based model of learning in immersive virtual reality. Educational
Psychology Review, 33(3), 937–958. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-
020-09586-2
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 and Instruction, 60, 225–236.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.12.007
Matovu, H., Ungu, D. A. K., Won, M., Tsai, C.-C., Treagust, D. F.,
Mocerino, M., & Tasker, R. (2022). Immersive virtual reality for sci­
ence learning: Design, implementation, and evaluation. Studies in
Science Education, 59(2), 205–244. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.
2022.2082680
Mayer, R. E. (2021). Multimedia learning (3rd ed.). Cambridge
University Press.
Mayer, R. E. (2022). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In R. E.
Mayer & L. Fiorella (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia
learning (3rd ed., pp. 57–72). Cambridge University Press.
Mayer, R. E., & Fiorella, L. (2022). Principles for managing essential
processing in multimedia learning: Segmenting, pre-training, and
modality principles. In R. E. Mayer & L. Fiorella (Eds.), The
Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (3rd ed., pp. 243–260).
Cambridge University.
Mayer, R. E., Makransky, G., & Parong, J. (2022). The promise and pit­
falls of learning in immersive virtual reality. International Journal of
Human–Computer Interaction, 39(11), 2229–2238. https://doi.org/10.
1080/10447318.2022.2108563
Mayer, R. E., Mathias, A., & Wetzell, K. (2002). Fostering understand­
ing of multimedia messages through pre-training: Evidence for a
two-stage theory of mental model construction. Journal of
Experimental Psychology-Applied, 8(3), 147–154. https://doi.org/10.
1037/10.1037/1076-898x.8.3.147
Meyer, O. A., Omdahl, M. K., & Makransky, G. (2019). Investingating
the effect of pre-training when learning through immersive virtual
reality and video: A media and methods experiment. Computers &
Education, 140, 103603. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.
103603
Miguel-Alonso, I., Checa, D., Guillen-Sanz, H., & Bustillo, A. (2024).
Evaluation of the novelty effect in immersive virtual reality learning
experience. Virtual Reality, 28(1), 27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-
023-00926-5
Miguel-Alonso, I., Rodriguez-Garcia, B., Checa, D., & Bustillo, A.
(2023). Countering the novelty effect: A tutorial for immersive vir­
tual reality learning environments. Applied Sciences, 13(1), 593.
https://doi.org/10.3390/app13010593
Miller, E. K., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). An integrative theory of prefrontal
cortex function. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 24(1), 167–202.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.neuro.24.1.167
Osaka, N., Osaka, M., Kondo, H., Morishita, M., Fukuyama, H., &
Shibasaki, H. (2004). The neural basis of executive function in work­
ing memory: An fMRI study based on individual differences.
NeuroImage, 21(2), 623–631. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.
2003.09.069
Paas, F., & Sweller, J. (2022). Implications of cognitive load theory for
multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of
multimedia learning (3rd ed., pp. 73–81). Cambridge University Press.
Pak, R., McLaughlin, A. C., & Engle, R. (2023). The relevance of atten­
tion control, not working memory, in human factors.
Human Factors, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872082 31159727
Parong, J. (2021). Multimedia learning in virtual and mixed reality. In
R. E. Mayer & L. Fiorella (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of multi­
media learning (3rd ed., pp. 498–509). Cambridge University Press.
Parong, J., Mayer, R. E., Fiorella, L., MacNamara, A., Plass, J., &
Homer, B. (2017). Learning executive function skills by playing
focused video games. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 51,
141–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2017.07.002
Parong, J., & Mayer, R. E. (2018). Learning science in immersive vir­
tual reality. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110(6), 785–797.
https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000241
Parong, J., & Mayer, R. E. (2021a). Cognitive and affective processes
for learning science in immersive virtual reality. Journal of
Computer Assisted Learning, 37(1), 226–241. https://doi.org/10.1111/
jcal.12482
Parong, J., & Mayer, R. E. (2021b). Learning about history in immer­
sive virtual reality: Does immersion facilitate learning? Educational
Technology Research and Development, 69(3), 1433–1451. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11423-021-09999-y
Pollock, E., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2002). Assimilating complex
information. Learning and Instruction, 12(1), 61–86. https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0959-4752(01)00016-0
Roediger, H. L., III, & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). Test-enhanced learning:
Taking memory tests improves long-term retention. Psychological
Science, 17(3), 249–255. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.
01693.x]
Stepan, K., Zeiger, J., Hanchuk, S., Del Signore, A., Shrivastava, R.,
Govindaraj, S., & Iloreta, A. (2017). Immersive virtual reality as a
teaching tool for neuroanatomy. International Forum of Allergy &
Rhinology, 7(10), 1006–1013. https://doi.org/10.1002/air.21986
Stoet, G. (2010). PsyToolkit – a software package for programming
psychological experiments using Linux. Behavior Research Methods,
42(4), 1096–1104. https://doi.org/10.3758/brm.42.4.1096
Stoet, G. (2017). PsyToolkit: A novel web-based method for running
online questionnaires and reaction-time experiments. Teaching of
Psychology, 44(1), 24–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628316677643
Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions.
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18(6), 643–662. https://doi.org/
10.1037/h0054651
Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and
instructional design. Learning and Instruction, 4(4), 295–312. https://
doi.org/10.1016/0959-4752(94)90003-5
Sweller, J. (2020). Cognitive load theory and educational technology.
Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(1), 1–16.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09701-3
Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory. Springer.
Waris, O., Soveri, A., Ahti, M., Hoffing, R. C., Ventus, D., Jaeggi,
S. M., Seitz, A. R., & Laine, M. (2017). A latent factor analysis of
working memory measures using large-scale data. Frontiers in
Psychology, 8, 1062. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01062
Webster, R. (2016). Declarative knowledge acquisition in immersive
virtual learning environments. Interactive Learning Environments,
24(6), 1319–1333. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2014.994533
Wu, B., Yu, X., & Gu, X. (2020). Effectiveness in immersive virtual
reality using head-mounted displays on learning performance: A
meta-analysis. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 51(6),
1991–2005. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13023
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN–COMPUTER INTERACTION 17

About the authors d. Creates less carbonic acid/less acid/less ocean acidity
4. What molecules combine to increase ocean acidification? What
Alyssa P. Lawson is a Research Associate at Landmark College molecule do they create?
Institute for Research and Training. Her research focus is on under­ a. CO2 (carbon dioxide)
standing cognitive aspects of learning and how to best incorporate b. H2O (water)
technology into instruction. Additionally, she is interested in develop­ c. H2CO3 (carbonic acid)
ing strategies to support a variety of learners in learning with 5. How does an abundance of CO2 in the atmosphere affect sea life?
technology. a. Interaction of H2O and CO2
b. More carbonic acid in the ocean
Richard E. Mayer is Distinguished Professor in the Department of c. Acidic ocean/ocean acidification occurs
Psychological and Brain Sciences at the University of California, Santa d. Acid is harmful to sea life
Barbara. His research interests include multimedia learning, computer- e. Sea life moves of dies, unlivable conditions for sea life
based instruction, game-based learning, learning in virtual reality, and 6. Why were there snails in the first area of the reef but not in the
learning with online pedagogical agents. second area?
a. First area ¼ less CO2 absorbed
b. First area ¼ less/not acidic
c. First area ¼ not corrosive
d. Second area ¼ more CO2 absorbed
Appendix A e. Second area ¼ acidic/acid present
Prequestionnaire f. Second area ¼ corrosive area kills off the sea life
7. How might ocean acidification affect humans?
Major: a. Kills sea life/less sea life
GPA: b. Food chain can collapse/ecosystem collapse
Age: c. Less fish in the sea means less fish for humans to consume
Gender: 8. How can marine scientists figure out if an area of a reef is healthy
or not?
Class level: a. Species count
� Freshman b. More sea life ¼ healthy reef
� Sophomore c. No/little sea life ¼ unhealthy reef
� Junior
� Senior
� Other (please specify) Appendix C
Postquestionnaire
Please rate your knowledge of ocean acidification: Experience questions�
� Very low 1. I enjoyed this lesson.
� Somewhat low 2. The topic of this lesson was interesting to me.
� Average 3. I would like to learn from more lessons like this.
Somewhat high 4. I felt as though the way this lesson was taught was effective for me.
� Very high 5. I felt motivated to understand the material.
6. The video lesson was distracting.
How prone are you to motion sickness:
Cognitive load questions�
� Not at all
� Very little 1. I was hard to pay attention during the lesson. (extraneous
� Moderate processing)
� Very prone 2. I tried to remember the information in the order presented.
(essential processing)
3. I felt distracted during the lesson. (extraneous processing)
Appendix B 4. I was trying to make sense of the material. (generative processing)
Posttest questions (with main idea scoring guide) 5. I was working to memorize the information. (essential processing)
6. I was trying to make connections between the material and things
1. Explain how ocean acidification occurs. I already know. (generative processing)
a. CO2 is in the atmosphere 7. I was working on understanding the lesson. (generative
b. CO2 and H2O interact processing)
c. Creation of acid/acidification 8. My mind was not on the lesson. (extraneous processing)
d. Specifically, carbonic acid is created 9. I was trying to learn the main facts from the lesson. (essential
e. Carbonic acid increases the acidity processing)
2. If car’s exhaust released a different greenhouse gas, like methane
(CH4), could ocean acidification still occur due to car fumes? Presence questions�
a. No
b. CO2 þ H2O ¼ carbonic acid only 1. I felt that I was able to control events in the environment.
c. H2O and CH4 do not combine to create carbonic acid 2. The environment was responsive to actions that I performed.
specifically 3. My interaction with the environment seemed very natural.
3. What steps would need to be taken to make the ocean less acidic? 4. The visual aspects of the environment were really present and
a. Reduce greenhouse gas producing ideas moving around me.
b. Specifically reduce CO2 5. I felt like the objects in the environment were really present and
c. Lessens the interaction with water moving around me.
18 A. P. LAWSON AND R. E. MAYER

6. I felt like I was really in the environment. Other questions

7. I felt like I was immersed (or included in) and interacting with the
environment. 1. Are you color blind?^
2. Please provide any additional comments about this lesson below.
(Open-ended question)
Cyber-sickness questions�
3. Did anything not work for you during this lesson?^
1. General discomfort 4. How much experience did you have with VR prior to participat­
2. Fatigue ing in this study?#
3. Eye strain
4. Difficulty focusing �Scale ¼ 1–strongly disagree, 2–somewhat disagree, 3–neutral, 4–some­
5. Headache what agree, 5–strongly agree
�
6. Fullness of head Scale ¼ 1–not at all, 2–slightly, 3–moderately, 4–very
^
7. Blurred vision Scale ¼ 1–Yes, 2–No
#
8. Dizzy (eyes closed) Scale ¼ 1–No experience with VR, 2–Very little experience with VR,
9. Vertigo 3–Moderate experience with VR, 4–A lot of experience with VR