View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

The Impact of Sound and Immersive Experience on Learners When Using Virtual Reality and Tablet: A Mixed-Method Study

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: The Impact of Sound and Immersive Experience on Learners When Using Virtual Reality and Tablet: A Mixed-Method Study
Language: English
Authors: Regina Kaplan-Rakowski, Deborah Cockerham (ORCID 0000-0002-5357-154X), Richard E. Ferdig
Source: British Journal of Educational Technology. 2024 55(4):1560-1582.
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 23
Publication Date: 2024
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Multisensory Learning, Computer Simulation, Handheld Devices, Learner Engagement, Museums, Stimuli, Acoustics, Technology Uses in Education, Scores, Interests
DOI: 10.1111/bjet.13417
ISSN: 0007-1013
1467-8535
Abstract: Multisensory-rich VR experiences, which encompass visual, auditory, and haptic stimuli, have the potential to enhance engagement, motivation, and learning. However, extensive sensory stimuli could also compromise learning through sensory overload. In museum settings, visitors who are inundated with excessive stimuli such as unrelated background music or competing visual options may not experience optimal learning. This mixed-methods study addressed this potential problem by exploring the impact of sound on learning, enjoyment, sense of presence, and the development of interest among museum attendees (N = 255) who used two different types of technology: high-immersion VR or a tablet. Results from a one-way MANOVA revealed that learning and sense of presence were unaffected by the technology used unless sound was added. Using a tablet with sound lowered the sense of presence. Participants in the VR condition with or without sound had significantly higher enjoyment scores than those in either tablet condition. The development of interest was not significantly affected by any condition, regardless of whether sound was used. The research findings have implications for implementing VR for learning in museum settings. For instance, VR can enhance a sense of presence in museum exhibits, but a sense of presence may be significantly diminished when museum visitors use tablets with sound. Additional recommendations for the use of multimodal VR in museums are provided.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2024
Accession Number: EJ1427247
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwEDV4K2am4SWQkpG211xJRsAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDLVavL2R-z5mg7RmzgIBEICBm7MFcGp31_zbEAIfNL0EODQa_Fg9sP3uDl8NRjDpQFrn1768jvLVgIbbVCFqq4szWhxCCT09sfg4ziYFVr5Xis6a35_EGSlfLxDwZ8tGVtvAegzFVRPxrBdcleL6q1IL6x1r6ZcAvT-ZI_WL0snco-o0kmHNO-hEXFYCDSKB71wf0bkqeg738_KfK6jZIvv_VBJSH-Fh4IUwpX7v
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0177678281;58i01jul.24;2024Jun07.07:07;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0177678281-1">The impact of sound and immersive experience on learners when using virtual reality and tablet: A mixed‐method study </title> <p>Multisensory‐rich VR experiences, which encompass visual, auditory, and haptic stimuli, have the potential to enhance engagement, motivation, and learning. However, extensive sensory stimuli could also compromise learning through sensory overload. In museum settings, visitors who are inundated with excessive stimuli such as unrelated background music or competing visual options may not experience optimal learning. This mixed‐methods study addressed this potential problem by exploring the impact of sound on learning, enjoyment, sense of presence, and the development of interest among museum attendees (N = 255) who used two different types of technology: high‐immersion VR or a tablet. Results from a one‐way MANOVA revealed that learning and sense of presence were unaffected by the technology used unless sound was added. Using a tablet with sound lowered the sense of presence. Participants in the VR condition with or without sound had significantly higher enjoyment scores than those in either tablet condition. The development of interest was not significantly affected by any condition, regardless of whether sound was used. The research findings have implications for implementing VR for learning in museum settings. For instance, VR can enhance a sense of presence in museum exhibits, but a sense of presence may be significantly diminished when museum visitors use tablets with sound. Additional recommendations for the use of multimodal VR in museums are provided. Practitioner notesWhat is already known about this topic VR can support an immersive and engaging experience for users.VR is more immersive than tablets.When designed effectively, sound can increase immersion and engagement.When integrated into the visual environment, sound can add authenticity to the learning content.VR can complement museum exhibits as it allows museum visitors to extend their learning experiences.What this paper adds VR enriched with sound can significantly and positively impact sense of presence.Compared with a soundless VR exhibition, VR enriched with sound enhances engagement of museum visitors by drawing their attention to the content of the exhibits.VR with and without sound can support learning and add enjoyment to museum visitor experiences.Implications for practice and/or policy Developers interested in adding sound to VR should ensure that the visual and auditory experiences are directly related to the desired content delivery.Museum exhibit creators and curators should consider the use of VR to provide dynamic learning experiences that increase enjoyment and presence.</p> <p>Keywords: development of interest; enjoyment; high‐immersion virtual reality; informal museum education; learning with tablets; multimodal learning; multi‐sensory VR; sense of presence; sound in VR</p> <hd id="AN0177678281-2">INTRODUCTION</hd> <p>Rapid advances in VR technology and promising research related to its effectiveness for learning are increasing the integration of VR into formal and informal educational settings. Scholars have shown that the key affordances of VR, such as immersion and interaction, can foster students' engagement (Kaplan‐Rakowski & Meseberg, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref1">32</reflink>]; Kaplan‐Rakowski & Wojdynski, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref2">34</reflink>]; Makransky & Lilleholt, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref3">47</reflink>]) and motivation (Sattar et al., [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref4">67</reflink>]). VR also provides sensory input through visual, auditory and tactile modalities, increasing the sensory channels through which information is absorbed (Kátai et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref5">36</reflink>]; Shams & Seitz, [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref6">70</reflink>]). The enriched sensory experience can boost memorization (Krokos et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref7">40</reflink>]), enjoyment (Cheng et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref8">9</reflink>]), immersion (Kaplan‐Rakowski & Gruber, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref9">31</reflink>]), and embodied learning (Shin, [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref10">71</reflink>]).</p> <p>These potential VR benefits to learning may also present challenges. Extensive sensory stimuli in VR may compromise learning due to sensory overload (e.g., Baceviciute et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref11">2</reflink>]; Papin & Kaplan‐Rakowski, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref12">57</reflink>]). That is, when users are exposed to extensive visual or auditory input in VR, they may be unable to efficiently process all the information due to limited cognitive processing capacity (Baceviciute et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref13">2</reflink>]; Sweller, [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref14">74</reflink>]). Inappropriate or missing stimuli, such as using monophonic audio when ambisonic audio is expected (Ferdig et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref15">18</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref16">19</reflink>]), can negatively impact the learner.</p> <p>Another challenge is understanding the role and importance of the type of technology used. Despite increasing affordability, VR remains relatively cost‐prohibitive. Its impact in educational settings necessitates evaluating its financial affordability compared with widely adopted technologies such as tablets. If both technologies—tablets and VR—show equal effectiveness, exclusive investment in VR may become redundant. However, tablets are much less immersive than VR headsets (Yoshimura et al., [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref17">76</reflink>]). Users who wear VR headsets might have an enhanced feeling of being physically present in the VR space. Wearing a headset disconnects users from their immediate physical environment, thus reinforcing stronger VR immersion and sense of presence (Kaplan‐Rakowski & Gruber, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref18">30</reflink>]).</p> <p>While a higher sense of presence is associated with increased enjoyment (Kaplan‐Rakowski & Gruber, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref19">31</reflink>]), interest—characterized by a psychological state of focused attention and emotional engagement with the learning content (Harackiewicz et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref20">23</reflink>])—has been recognized as a pivotal factor in informal learning settings, such as museums (Callanan et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref21">6</reflink>]). Research offers limited consensus regarding the impact of immersion and sense of presence on learning outside of formal learning environments (Liu et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref22">45</reflink>]), and few studies have focused on the impact of sound on learning, sense of presence, enjoyment, or development of interest. Given the lack of existing research, the goal of this study was to explore how learning, sense of presence, enjoyment, and development of interest were impacted by sound while engaging in activities delivered via VR versus tablets in a museum setting.</p> <hd id="AN0177678281-3">LITERATURE REVIEW</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0177678281-4">Learning in museums</hd> <p>Learning opportunities in museums are structured differently than those in formal school or educational settings. First, informal learning environments tend to be interactive and social (Rogoff et al., [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref23">65</reflink>]). Museum guests frequently visit museums with families or other social groups. Social group members may work together as they interact in learning activities, with guidance on the learning activity being provided either socially or through the structure of the activity. Second, the learning topic is based on personal interest as visitors move through the museum. Museum visitors choose to visit specific exhibits that hold their attention and are of perceived value (Bitgood, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref24">3</reflink>]), which may increase motivation and add meaning for the attendees (Rogoff et al., [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref25">65</reflink>]). In addition, the integration of cognitive and emotional domains (Scribner & Cole, [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref26">68</reflink>]) can connect and cement learning, motivating museum guests to extend their learning after leaving the museum. Third, museum visitors generally spend limited time on each exhibit or learning activity. One study, for example, found that the average visitor engagement time was only 32.9 seconds per painting (Carbon, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref27">7</reflink>]). The limited learning time may prevent the visitor's learning from moving beyond Bloom's (Krathwohl, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref28">39</reflink>]) first level of learning, <emph>remembering</emph>.</p> <p>A systematic review on digital technology for enhancing user experience in museums (Mohd Noor Shah & Ghazali, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref29">51</reflink>]) suggested that digital technologies can support personalized learning in museums. Mobile technologies, such as smartphones and tablets, were described as the most common technologies implemented in museums, often being used as tour guides (Lanir et al., [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref30">43</reflink>]). Therefore, in our study, we considered tablets as the control condition. Because most visitors bring their devices to the museum, there are opportunities to facilitate learning by enabling visitors to scan QR codes or engage in interactive activities on their devices.</p> <p>Extended reality technologies have also been used effectively in museums. For example, augmented reality has been used in games and treasure hunts (Ng et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref31">53</reflink>]; Paliokas et al., [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref32">55</reflink>]). High‐immersion VR has provided interactive and personalized experiences to museum visitors (Rivera‐Gutierrez et al., [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref33">64</reflink>]). Such tools have connected museums with other museums and cultures to promote learning and enhance the learner's enjoyment (Jacobs et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref34">27</reflink>]). VR has been seen to promote both learning and enjoyment in museum environments, based on visitors' self‐reported surveys (Shahab et al., [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref35">69</reflink>]). In addition, 3D digital imaging may increase the visitor's sense of presence and memory of the content (Kasomoulis et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref36">35</reflink>]; Koutsabasis & Vosinakis, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref37">38</reflink>]). Overall, innovative technologies have the potential to provide interactive and personalized experiences to museum visitors. Because VR is often a novel technology in museums, this study treats VR as an experimental condition.</p> <hd id="AN0177678281-5">Virtual reality and education</hd> <p>Although numerous definitions and types of VR exist (e.g., Kaplan‐Rakowski & Gruber, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref38">30</reflink>]; Pan & Hamilton, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref39">56</reflink>]; Steuer, [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref40">73</reflink>]) VR can be defined as "a real or simulated environment in which a perceiver experiences telepresence" (Steuer, [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref41">73</reflink>], p. 7). Telepresence, synonymous with (the sense of) presence, can further be defined as "the illusion of being there, notwithstanding that you know for sure that you are not" (Slater, [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref42">72</reflink>], p. 432). Despite not being equivalent, high immersion can elicit a sense of presence. Presence in 360° virtual spaces can be further enhanced by wearing a VR headset (Kaplan‐Rakowski & Gruber, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref43">30</reflink>]).</p> <p>VR has been seen to support learning (e.g., Dhimolea et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref44">15</reflink>]; Ferdig et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref45">17</reflink>]; Kaplan‐Rakowski & Gruber, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref46">31</reflink>]; Radianti et al., [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref47">61</reflink>]), which has strengthened an interest in exploring VR applications for educational purposes. The market value of VR is expected to increase threefold by 2028 (Grand View Research, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref48">22</reflink>]).</p> <p>Teachers have expressed willingness to implement VR in their classrooms, even when they acknowledge the need for training and technology support (Kaplan‐Rakowski, Dhimolea, & Khukalenko, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref49">29</reflink>]; Kaplan‐Rakowski, Papin, & Hartwick, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref50">33</reflink>]; Khukalenko et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref51">37</reflink>]). Research on teacher training using immersive technologies such as 360 videos has also been flourishing (Ferdig et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref52">18</reflink>]). Despite this surge of interest in VR and its implementation in formal classrooms, it is still unknown whether VR can be more beneficial for informal learning as opposed to other, more common and less expensive learning devices such as smartphones or tablets.</p> <p>One reason for the overall growth of interest lies in the potential of VR to provide learners with affordances that are uniquely different from student learning in traditional classrooms. Such affordances include immersion, a sense of presence, embodiment, empathy, and usability (Shin, [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref53">71</reflink>]). Immersion, a sense of presence, and embodiment are similar concepts; they refer to the feeling of the body and mind no longer existing in the real, physical space. Instead, there is a feeling of being present within the VR environment. A sense of presence enables VR users to better evoke both cognitive outcomes (Ferdig et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref54">17</reflink>]) and affective outcomes such as empathy (Hayes et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref55">24</reflink>]; Heap et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref56">25</reflink>]).</p> <p>The theoretical model grounding this study is the <emph>Cognitive‐Affective Model of Immersive Learning</emph> (CAMIL; Makransky & Petersen, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref57">48</reflink>]). This comprehensive framework explores the relationship between affective (e.g., enjoyment) and cognitive (e.g., learning) factors in VR‐based learning experiences. CAMIL emphasizes the importance of a sense of presence and predicts that certain learning methods can influence enjoyment and cognitive load, leading to improved learning outcomes.</p> <p>Previous research has demonstrated that VR simulations have increased students' sense of presence (Makransky et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref58">49</reflink>]) and learning (e.g., Dhimolea et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref59">15</reflink>]; Ferdig et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref60">17</reflink>]; Kaplan‐Rakowski & Gruber, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref61">31</reflink>]; Radianti et al., [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref62">61</reflink>]). However, there were other studies in which positive learning outcomes were compromised. For instance, in the context of STEM learning, Makransky et al. ([<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref63">49</reflink>]) suggested that students who engaged in VR science simulations reported an increased sense of presence. Students' scores on knowledge transfer were significantly lower compared with scores gained after the same science simulation but experienced on a 2D desktop computer. Similar findings were reported in a study pertaining to learning social sciences. In a study by Parong and Mayer ([<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref64">58</reflink>]), students who viewed a history 2D video outperformed students who viewed the VR version of the same video although the VR group displayed higher emotional arousal. More research is needed, particularly in museum settings, to understand the reasons for these conflicting findings.</p> <hd id="AN0177678281-6">The impact of sound on learning in VR</hd> <p>In the natural world, visual and auditory elements are integrated seamlessly. Audio and visual stimuli function as a team, with visual inputs being impacted by what is heard, and auditory inputs being influenced by what is seen (Chion, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref65">10</reflink>]). However, in multimedia productions such as film, the visual element often takes the lead—a practice that has endured since the days of silent movies (Chion, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref66">10</reflink>]). In contrast, sound is relegated to a more subservient role. Because the auditory and visual elements may not be well integrated, the VR user is often more attentive to the visual aspects than to the invisible sounds (McArthur et al., [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref67">50</reflink>]). Yet, the disconnect between visual and auditory elements may lead to separate processing of the sensory inputs.</p> <p>Kahneman's ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref68">28</reflink>]) capacity model of attention suggests that, while visual and auditory stimuli are processed in different areas of the brain, both require the same attentional resources. As the two stimuli compete for attention, one sensory modality may be neglected while the other is processed. This filtering process can limit the processing needs and prevent the individual from being overwhelmed by sensory data (Cockerham & Ragland, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref69">14</reflink>]). Singular processing along these lines is often seen among VR users as VR experiences work to model the outside world through both visual and auditory elements.</p> <p>Building on Kahneman's theory, Chou ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref70">11</reflink>]) noted that the disruption in an individual's ability to process one of the sensory elements may overload the processing system, interfering with task completion or learning. Additionally, frequent music listening appears to limit the influence of sound (Cockerham et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref71">13</reflink>]), which could further deter learning.</p> <p>Research on the role of sound when learning in VR is still emergent. However, early work has shown promise for attending to dual coding in the delivery of VR systems. For instance, attention to audio can change arousal or calmness levels in VR users (Hsieh & Yang, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref72">26</reflink>]) and may positively impact a sense of presence and noticing (Ferdig et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref73">18</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref74">19</reflink>]). Less work has focused on the effects of sound on learning, presence, enjoyment, and development of interest, particularly in VR‐based museum exhibits. Findings from this study will provide insights into VR sound and delivery design that can effectively impact the seamless integration of visual and auditory elements in museum exhibits.</p> <hd id="AN0177678281-7">Research questions</hd> <p>In sum, research exploring the potential of VR for educational purposes has been expanding, but it is limited in terms of understanding the impact of sound, particularly in informal learning environments. Further investigation on the impact of sound is necessary to ensure optimal affective and cognitive outcomes for museum visitors. This study responds to these gaps by comparing the impact of two types of technologies (VR and tablets) on learning, sense of presence, enjoyment, and development of interest within an informal learning setting (i.e., a museum). Four research questions guided this study. In the context of informal learning during a museum exhibit:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> RQ1: To what extent is learning impacted by sound and type of technology?</item> <p></p> <item> RQ2: To what extent is the sense of presence impacted by sound and type of technology?</item> <p></p> <item> RQ3: To what extent is enjoyment impacted by sound and type of technology?</item> <p></p> <item> RQ4: To what extent is development of interest impacted by sound and type of technology?</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0177678281-8">METHODS</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0177678281-9">Study design</hd> <p>This study took place in a large science and history museum. A 1200‐square‐foot room in the museum was dedicated to data collection. The room provided relatively quiet conditions and dim light to avoid glare. Museum attendees were invited to participate in the study by exploring an interactive painting in <emph>Art Plunge</emph>, a multimodal app that can be experienced using a VR headset, a tablet, or any other screen, including a smartphone.</p> <p>Research has shown that museum visitors of all ages tend to invest limited time in any one exhibit (Carbon, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref75">7</reflink>]). This is due, in part, to a desire and the opportunity to explore multiple exhibits and activities during their museum visit. Diverse interests, often shaped by demographics such as background and age, are also contributing factors. The variability in both time and demographic information influenced the study design in several ways.</p> <p>First, a single painting was chosen for exploration. This kept the total time per participant at approximately 15–20 minutes (not including an optional interview). Second, the painting chosen was Johannes Vermeer's <emph>Girl Reading a Letter at an Open Window</emph>. Vermeer's painting has content that is appropriate for all ages. Third, limited time on task could also limit visitor learning from moving beyond the advanced stages of learning in Bloom's Taxonomy (Krathwohl, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref76">39</reflink>]). As such, the study focused on learning as measured by <emph>remembering</emph>.</p> <p>To keep the study tightly focused on the research questions, sound conditions were limited to either full sound or no sound for both VR headsets and tablets. The conditions were: VR headset with sound, VR headset without sound, tablet with sound and tablet without sound.</p> <hd id="AN0177678281-10">Participants</hd> <p>The sample consisted of 255 participants (54% female) whose age range was 5–84 (<emph>Mdn</emph> = 21; <emph>SD</emph> = 18.76; 45% minors, 55% adults). Participants were recruited from attendees at the Fort Worth Museum of Science and History. Informed written consent was available per protocol of the Internal Review Board at the University of North Texas. No participants stated having hearing or vision impairments, developmental issues, or neurological disorders. No compensation for participation was available.</p> <hd id="AN0177678281-11">Procedure</hd> <p>After signing the consent form, museum visitors received instructions on how to use the equipment (i.e., tablet or VR headset). They were invited to participate in the study by exploring the selected painting in one of the four different conditions. All participants were randomly assigned to a condition, excluding those participants who requested one of the conditions, which was typically VR. Participants were allowed to freely explore the painting. No other directions were given. Figure 1 provides sample images of the research site and participants in various conditions.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/58I/01jul24/bjet13417-fig-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="bjet13417-fig-0001.jpg" title="1 Research site." /> </p> <p></p> <p>The study used a between‐subjects, mixed‐methods approach. Drawing on an explanatory sequential design, participants were assigned to a learning condition. A post‐intervention survey elicited data on demographics, learning, sense of presence (Gandolfi et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref77">21</reflink>]), enjoyment (Ryan, 1982), and development of interest in art. In addition, audio‐recorded semi‐structured interviews were conducted with a subsample (<emph>n</emph> = 50). See Figure 2 for the flow of the study.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/58I/01jul24/bjet13417-fig-0002.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="bjet13417-fig-0002.jpg" title="2 The flow of the study." /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0177678281-14">Materials</hd> <p>The equipment used for the study included VR headsets (Oculus Go and Oculus Quest 2), tablets (12.5‐inch Apple iPads), headphones, and smartphones (the iPhone Voice Memos app) for recording interviews. Participants completed post‐study surveys on their smartphones or laptop computers. The app used for the study was <emph>Art Plunge</emph>, a multimodal app that can be experienced using a VR headset, a tablet, or any other screen.</p> <p>The app offers an interactive visit to several famous paintings. This study used the painting by Johannes Vermeer titled <emph>Girl Reading a Letter at an Open Window</emph>. As shown in Figure 3, upon entering the painting, the users see a blond girl standing in front of an open window, reading a letter. As the viewer turns toward the windows, environmental sounds such as seagulls, horses, and church bells become louder. Some of these sounds are heard but not displayed in the painting (i.e., they cannot see horses). Participants who turned completely around from the painting saw a black hole and heard an enigmatic sound.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/58I/01jul24/bjet13417-fig-0003.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="bjet13417-fig-0003.jpg" title="3 Screenshot of the central scene of the painting." /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0177678281-16">Instruments</hd> <p>The study instruments consisted of an online survey addressing demographics, learning, a sense of presence, enjoyment, interest, and any additional comments about the museum experience. After completing the survey, participants were invited to participate in a brief (up to 5 minutes), one‐to‐one interview.</p> <hd id="AN0177678281-17">Demographics</hd> <p>Demographic information included gender, age, race and ethnicity, education level, and occupation. Participants were also asked about their prior experience using VR; more specifically, VR headset ownership and frequency of its use. One item on the questionnaire checked for the participants' previous knowledge of or exposure to the painting. Most participants (81%) were unfamiliar with the painting.</p> <hd id="AN0177678281-18">Learning</hd> <p>Bloom's revised taxonomy of learning (Krathwohl, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref78">39</reflink>]) suggests that learning and understanding augment as learners move up through a hierarchy of six increasingly complex skills: remembering, understanding, applying, analyzing, evaluating, and creating. The revised taxonomy closely follows Bloom's original taxonomy (Bloom & Krathwohl, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref79">4</reflink>]) which theorizes that knowledge is the first and most basic level of learning. Knowledge, renamed in the revision as <emph>remembering,</emph> refers to recognizing and recalling the basic knowledge needed for a concept or discipline (Forehand, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref80">20</reflink>]). Attaining knowledge, or remembering, appears to be a basic part of learning because understanding, analyzing, and other higher‐order thinking skills require content knowledge (Lai, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref81">42</reflink>]). This study focused on learning at its most basic level—remembering—because museum visitors tend to have a restricted learning time while engaging in exhibits or activities in a museum setting.</p> <p>Learning was measured by assessing each participant's ability to remember specific details in the interactive painting. The learning section consisted of seven multiple‐choice items on recall of elements such as animation, sound and visuals. The internal reliability of this portion of the instrument was low (<emph>α</emph> = 0.38).</p> <hd id="AN0177678281-19">Sense of presence</hd> <p>To measure the participant's sense of presence, this study adapted the 5‐point Likert‐scale <emph>Extended Reality Presence Scale</emph> (Gandolfi et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref82">21</reflink>]). The original Gandolfi et al. instrument consisted of 21 items. Because many of these items pertained to formal classroom use, only 10 most relevant items were selected for this measurement given its informal context. The operationalized questionnaire responses ranged from "never" to "always". The internal reliability of the adapted instrument was "good" (<emph>α</emph> = 0.83).</p> <hd id="AN0177678281-20">Enjoyment</hd> <p>To measure self‐perceived enjoyment of the learning conditions, items were adapted from several established scales (Plant & Ryan, [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref83">60</reflink>]; Ryan, [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref84">62</reflink>]; Ryan & Deci, [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref85">63</reflink>]) and provided information on intrinsic motivation. The modified instrument consisted of nine Likert scale items with 5‐response options ranging from "not at all true", through "somewhat true", to "very true". The internal reliability of the instrument was considered "good" (<emph>α</emph> = 0.85).</p> <hd id="AN0177678281-21">Development of interest</hd> <p>The study also investigated the impact of the learning conditions upon participants' level of interest in the painting, in the artist and in art holistically. For this measure, an original 5‐item instrument was developed, using a 5‐point Likert scale with responses ranging from "not at all true", through "somewhat true", to "very true". The internal reliability of this instrument was "good" (<emph>α</emph> = 0.82).</p> <hd id="AN0177678281-22">Semi‐structured interviews</hd> <p>In addition to completing the surveys, 50 participants also agreed to participate in semi‐structured interviews. The format of this interview structure, in which prepared questions are adapted based on the participant's response, allowed for deeper insights into the participants' experiences (Saldaña, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref86">66</reflink>]). Interview questions investigated the participants' opinions of the most enjoyable part of the activity, changes that should be made, and interviewees' reasoning behind their opinions. See Appendix A for a list of starter interview questions.</p> <p>Qualitative analysis began with first‐cycle coding, in which explorations of the data revealed highlights and commonalities. Observed patterns were recorded in analytic memos and In Vivo analyses (Saldaña, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref87">66</reflink>]). During second‐cycle coding, pattern coding (Saldaña, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref88">66</reflink>]) helped establish meaning from previous analyses.</p> <hd id="AN0177678281-23">RESULTS</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0177678281-24">Quantitative results</hd> <p>A one‐way multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted to determine the effect of four learning conditions on presence, learning, enjoyment, and development of interest. The four learning conditions involved experiencing a digital painting using: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref89">1</reflink>) VR with sound, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref90">2</reflink>) VR without sound, (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref91">3</reflink>) tablet with sound, (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref92">4</reflink>) tablet without sound. Learning was measured using parametric data, while enjoyment, presence, and interest development were measured using non‐parametric data.</p> <p>The MANOVA assumption of independence of observations was met because the participants only performed tasks in their designated learning conditions and were not exposed to other learning conditions. Preliminary MANOVA assumption checking revealed that data for learning, enjoyment, and development of interest were not normally distributed, as assessed by the Shapiro–Wilk test (<emph>p</emph> < 0.05). Given that the Shapiro–Wilk test can be overly sensitive for large sample sizes, its significance was unsurprising. Therefore, in addition to the MANOVA, we considered the Kruskal–Wallis test. See Table 1 for descriptive statistics of the study constructs described below.</p> <p>1 TABLE Descriptive statistics of the study constructs.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Construct</th><th align="left">VR with sound (<italic>n</italic><sub>1</sub> = 75)</th><th align="left">VR without sound (<italic>n</italic><sub>2</sub> = 61)</th><th align="left">Tablet with sound (<italic>n</italic><sub>3</sub> = 63)</th><th align="left">Tablet without sound (<italic>n</italic><sub>4</sub> = 56)</th><th align="left"><italic>F</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>p</italic></th></tr><tr><th align="left"><italic>M</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>SD</italic></th><th align="left">Min</th><th align="left">Max</th><th align="left"><italic>M</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>SD</italic></th><th align="left">Min</th><th align="left">Max</th><th align="left"><italic>M</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>SD</italic></th><th align="left">Min</th><th align="left">Max</th><th align="left"><italic>M</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>SD</italic></th><th align="left">Min</th><th align="left">Max</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Learning</td><td align="char" char=".">2.77</td><td align="char" char=".">2.31</td><td align="char" char=".">0.00</td><td align="char" char=".">7.50</td><td align="char" char=".">2.83</td><td align="char" char=".">2.60</td><td align="char" char=".">0.00</td><td align="char" char=".">7.50</td><td align="char" char=".">4.21</td><td align="char" char=".">2.24</td><td align="char" char=".">0.00</td><td align="char" char=".">10.00</td><td align="char" char=".">3.66</td><td align="char" char=".">2.43</td><td align="char" char=".">0.00</td><td align="char" char=".">10.00</td><td align="char" char=".">6.26</td><td align="char" char="."><0.01<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn2" /></td></tr><tr><td align="left">Presence</td><td align="char" char=".">3.42</td><td align="char" char=".">0.73</td><td align="char" char=".">1.11</td><td align="char" char=".">4.89</td><td align="char" char=".">3.48</td><td align="char" char=".">0.82</td><td align="char" char=".">1.00</td><td align="char" char=".">5.00</td><td align="char" char=".">2.85</td><td align="char" char=".">0.73</td><td align="char" char=".">1.00</td><td align="char" char=".">4.67</td><td align="char" char=".">3.09</td><td align="char" char=".">0.98</td><td align="char" char=".">1.44</td><td align="char" char=".">5.00</td><td align="char" char=".">7.10</td><td align="char" char="."><0.01<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn2" /></td></tr><tr><td align="left">Enjoyment</td><td align="char" char=".">6.10</td><td align="char" char=".">1.09</td><td align="char" char=".">1.00</td><td align="char" char=".">7.00</td><td align="char" char=".">6.20</td><td align="char" char=".">1.08</td><td align="char" char=".">1.00</td><td align="char" char=".">7.00</td><td align="char" char=".">5.37</td><td align="char" char=".">1.13</td><td align="char" char=".">2.00</td><td align="char" char=".">7.00</td><td align="char" char=".">5.37</td><td align="char" char=".">1.33</td><td align="char" char=".">1.44</td><td align="char" char=".">5.00</td><td align="char" char=".">7.96</td><td align="char" char="."><0.01<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn2" /></td></tr><tr><td align="left">Interest</td><td align="char" char=".">3.23</td><td align="char" char=".">1.63</td><td align="char" char=".">1.00</td><td align="char" char=".">7.00</td><td align="char" char=".">3.08</td><td align="char" char=".">1.55</td><td align="char" char=".">1.00</td><td align="char" char=".">6.60</td><td align="char" char=".">3.25</td><td align="char" char=".">1.44</td><td align="char" char=".">1.00</td><td align="char" char=".">6.60</td><td align="char" char=".">2.98</td><td align="char" char=".">1.68</td><td align="char" char=".">1.00</td><td align="char" char=".">7.00</td><td align="char" char=".">0.34</td><td align="char" char=".">0.80</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 <emph>Note</emph>: Score ranges were 0 to 10 for learning, 0 to 5 for presence, 1 to 7 for enjoyment, and 1 to 7 for interest.</p> <p>2 * Values significant at the <emph>p</emph> < 0.05 level.</p> <hd id="AN0177678281-25">Learning</hd> <p>With regard to learning, the scores of the group using tablet with sound (<emph>M</emph> = 4.21, <emph>SD</emph> = 2.24) were associated with significantly higher scores (<emph>t</emph> = 4.04, <emph>p</emph> = 0.0005) compared with the learning scores of the group using VR with sound (<emph>M</emph> = 2.77, <emph>SD</emph> = 2.31) and VR without sound (<emph>M</emph> = 2.83, <emph>SD</emph> = 2.60).</p> <hd id="AN0177678281-26">Sense of presence</hd> <p>The groups using VR with sound (<emph>M</emph> = 3.42, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.73) and VR without sound (<emph>M</emph> = 3.48, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.82) had the highest means regarding presence. These scores were associated with significantly higher scores (<emph>t</emph> = 4.08, <emph>p</emph> = 0.0004) compared with the group using tablets with sound (<emph>M</emph> = 2.85, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.73).</p> <hd id="AN0177678281-27">Enjoyment</hd> <p>The scores for enjoyment were the highest for the two VR groups: VR with sound (<emph>M</emph> = 6.10, <emph>SD</emph> = 1.09) and VR without sound (<emph>M</emph> = 6.20, <emph>SD</emph> = 1.08). Kruskal–Wallis tests showed that the differences in enjoyment scores were significantly different between the following four groups: VR with sound and tablet with sound (<emph>t</emph> = 3.57, <emph>p</emph> = 0.0026), VR with sound and tablet without sound (<emph>t</emph>= 2.78, <emph>p</emph> = 0.0350), VR without sound and tablet with sound (<emph>t</emph> = 3.99, <emph>p</emph> = 0.0006) and VR without sound and tablet without sound (<emph>t</emph> = 3.25, <emph>p</emph> = 0.0080).</p> <hd id="AN0177678281-28">Development of interest</hd> <p>As seen in Table 1, the scores for development of interest were comparable across groups. The lowest mean was in the group using tablets without sound (<emph>M</emph> = 2.98, <emph>SD</emph> = 1.68). However, those scores were not significantly different from the other groups; that is, VR with sound (<emph>t</emph> = 0.48, <emph>p</emph> = 1.00), VR without sound (<emph>t</emph> = −0.06, <emph>p</emph> = 1.00), or tablet with sound (<emph>t</emph>= 0.82, <emph>p</emph> = 1.00).</p> <hd id="AN0177678281-29">Multiple pairwise comparisons</hd> <p>Following Dunn's ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref93">16</reflink>]) procedure with Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons, we conducted post‐hoc pairwise comparisons between the four study conditions. Table 2 provides the Least Square Means for each condition, the calculations of the differences between the conditions, <emph>t</emph>‐statistics, and <emph>p</emph> values.</p> <p>2 TABLE Multiple pairwise comparisons on scores for (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref94">1</reflink>) learning, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref95">2</reflink>) sense of presence, (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref96">3</reflink>) enjoyment, and (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref97">4</reflink>) development of interest.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Dependent variable</th><th align="left">Condition <italic>i</italic> to <italic>j</italic></th><th align="left">LS means <italic>i</italic></th><th align="left">LS means <italic>j</italic></th><th align="left">LS means difference</th><th align="left"><italic>t</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>Sig</italic></th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Learning</td><td align="left">Learning to presence</td><td align="char" char=".">2.90</td><td align="char" char=".">3.28</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.38</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.85</td><td align="char" char=".">1.00</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Learning to enjoyment</td><td align="char" char=".">2.90</td><td align="char" char=".">4.56</td><td align="char" char=".">−1.66</td><td align="char" char=".">−4.04</td><td align="char" char=".">0.00<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn3" /></td></tr><tr><td align="left">Learning to interest</td><td align="char" char=".">2.90</td><td align="char" char=".">4.00</td><td align="char" char=".">−1.10</td><td align="char" char=".">−2.58</td><td align="char" char=".">0.06</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Presence to enjoyment</td><td align="char" char=".">3.28</td><td align="char" char=".">4.56</td><td align="char" char=".">−1.28</td><td align="char" char=".">−2.88</td><td align="char" char=".">0.03<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn3" /></td></tr><tr><td align="left">Presence to interest</td><td align="char" char=".">3.28</td><td align="char" char=".">4.00</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.72</td><td align="char" char=".">−1.57</td><td align="char" char=".">0.71</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Enjoyment to interest</td><td align="char" char=".">4.56</td><td align="char" char=".">4.00</td><td align="char" char=".">0.56</td><td align="char" char=".">1.29</td><td align="char" char=".">1.00</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Presence</td><td align="left">Learning to presence</td><td align="char" char=".">3.45</td><td align="char" char=".">3.41</td><td align="char" char=".">0.04</td><td align="char" char=".">0.08</td><td align="char" char=".">1.00</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Learning to enjoyment</td><td align="char" char=".">3.45</td><td align="char" char=".">2.86</td><td align="char" char=".">0.59</td><td align="char" char=".">4.08</td><td align="char" char=".">0.00<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn3" /></td></tr><tr><td align="left">Learning to interest</td><td align="char" char=".">3.45</td><td align="char" char=".">3.12</td><td align="char" char=".">0.33</td><td align="char" char=".">2.16</td><td align="char" char=".">0.19</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Presence to enjoyment</td><td align="char" char=".">3.41</td><td align="char" char=".">2.86</td><td align="char" char=".">0.55</td><td align="char" char=".">3.68</td><td align="char" char=".">0.00<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn3" /></td></tr><tr><td align="left">Presence to interest</td><td align="char" char=".">3.41</td><td align="char" char=".">3.12</td><td align="char" char=".">0.29</td><td align="char" char=".">1.92</td><td align="char" char=".">0.33</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Enjoyment to interest</td><td align="char" char=".">2.86</td><td align="char" char=".">3.12</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.26</td><td align="char" char=".">−1.74</td><td align="char" char=".">0.50</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Enjoyment</td><td align="left">Learning to presence</td><td align="char" char=".">6.08</td><td align="char" char=".">6.25</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.17</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.71</td><td align="char" char=".">1.00</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Learning to enjoyment</td><td align="char" char=".">6.08</td><td align="char" char=".">5.36</td><td align="char" char=".">0.72</td><td align="char" char=".">3.57</td><td align="char" char=".">0.00<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn3" /></td></tr><tr><td align="left">Learning to interest</td><td align="char" char=".">6.08</td><td align="char" char=".">5.56</td><td align="char" char=".">0.52</td><td align="char" char=".">2.78</td><td align="char" char=".">0.04<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn3" /></td></tr><tr><td align="left">Presence to enjoyment</td><td align="char" char=".">6.25</td><td align="char" char=".">5.36</td><td align="char" char=".">0.89</td><td align="char" char=".">3.99</td><td align="char" char=".">0.00<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn3" /></td></tr><tr><td align="left">Presence to interest</td><td align="char" char=".">6.25</td><td align="char" char=".">5.56</td><td align="char" char=".">0.69</td><td align="char" char=".">3.26</td><td align="char" char=".">0.01<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn3" /></td></tr><tr><td align="left">Enjoyment to interest</td><td align="char" char=".">5.36</td><td align="char" char=".">5.56</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.20</td><td align="char" char=".">0.66</td><td align="char" char=".">1.00</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Interest</td><td align="left">Learning to presence</td><td align="char" char=".">3.23</td><td align="char" char=".">3.08</td><td align="char" char=".">0.15</td><td align="char" char=".">0.48</td><td align="char" char=".">1.00</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Learning to enjoyment</td><td align="char" char=".">3.23</td><td align="char" char=".">3.25</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.02</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.07</td><td align="char" char=".">1.00</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Learning to interest</td><td align="char" char=".">3.23</td><td align="char" char=".">2.99</td><td align="char" char=".">0.24</td><td align="char" char=".">0.82</td><td align="char" char=".">1.00</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Presence to enjoyment</td><td align="char" char=".">3.08</td><td align="char" char=".">3.25</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.17</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.53</td><td align="char" char=".">1.00</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Presence to interest</td><td align="char" char=".">3.08</td><td align="char" char=".">2.99</td><td align="char" char=".">0.09</td><td align="char" char=".">0.30</td><td align="char" char=".">1.00</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Enjoyment to interest</td><td align="char" char=".">3.25</td><td align="char" char=".">2.99</td><td align="char" char=".">0.26</td><td align="char" char=".">0.87</td><td align="char" char=".">1.00</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>3 * Values significant at the <emph>p</emph> < 0.05 level.</p> <hd id="AN0177678281-30">MANCOVA</hd> <p>Informal settings such as museums welcome visitors of various ages. Consequently, the study sample consisted of participants representing many generations. Although it was not a stated research question, additional tests were run to see whether age differences had an impact on the results. A one‐way MANCOVA was conducted to determine statistically significant differences between four conditions (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref98">1</reflink>) VR with sound, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref99">2</reflink>) VR without sound, (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref100">3</reflink>) tablet with sound, (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref101">4</reflink>) tablet without sound, based on scores derived from the measures of learning, enjoyment, sense of presence, and development of interest controlling for participants' age.</p> <p>The results for adults were similar to the overall sample. That is, there was a significant difference across the four learning conditions for remembering (<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref102">3</reflink>, 137) = 5.14, <emph>p</emph> < 0.01), enjoyment (<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref103">3</reflink>, 134) = 10.49, <emph>p</emph> < 0.01), and presence (<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref104">3</reflink>, 126) = 3.76, <emph>p</emph> = 0.02), but not for the development of interest (<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref105">3</reflink>, 116) = 0.22, <emph>p</emph> = 0.88).</p> <p>The sample was also split into two groups: adults (>18) and minors (≤18). A MANOVA was run separately for each group. The results for adults were similar to the overall sample. That is, there was a significant difference across the four learning conditions for remembering (<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref106">3</reflink>, 137) = 5.14, <emph>p</emph> < 0.01), enjoyment (<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref107">3</reflink>, 134) = 10.49, <emph>p</emph> < 0.01), and presence (<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref108">3</reflink>, 126) = 3.76, <emph>p</emph> = 0.02), but not for the development of interest (<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref109">3</reflink>, 116) = 0.22, <emph>p</emph> = 0.88).</p> <p>For minors, a significant difference across conditions was observed for learning (<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref110">3</reflink>, 110) = 2.90, <emph>p</emph> = 0.04) and presence (<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref111">3</reflink>, 100) = 3.76, <emph>p</emph> = 0.01). However, enjoyment was no longer significant (<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref112">3</reflink>, 119) = 1.43, <emph>p</emph> = 0.24) and the development of interest remained insignificant (<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref113">3</reflink>, 90) = 141, <emph>p</emph> = 0.25). Overall, this analysis suggests that age has only a weak impact on data results.</p> <hd id="AN0177678281-31">Qualitative results</hd> <p>Participants' responses during the semi‐structured interviews provided additional insights into their experiences with both the interactive app and their specific learning conditions. Emergent themes considered elements and effects of the VR or tablet experience and were centred on three areas: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref114">1</reflink>) engagement; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref115">2</reflink>) learning, and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref116">3</reflink>) impact of the sound environment.</p> <hd id="AN0177678281-32">Engagement</hd> <p>Engagement with the learning material has been associated with increased understanding (Ainley et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref117">1</reflink>]) and retention of learning content. Several themes related to engagement emerged during the interviews, mostly related to movement and multisensory experiences. For example, one individual observed that "the style [of the painting] itself has a lot of movement, even when it is not moving". Another noted that the added movement "really made it [the painting] come alive." This was an important observation as movement has been associated with increased sense of presence (Lee et al., [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref118">44</reflink>]). Participants felt that the movement supported interactions between the user and the painting, creating "a different way to look at art."</p> <p>The multisensory experience emerged as a second theme. The integration of multiple senses was often described as central to immersion and engagement, in line with Moreno and Mayer's ([<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref119">52</reflink>]) multimodal theory of learning. When comparing the interactive painting with still paintings, one participant noted:</p> <p>I took an art history course a long time ago, and I distinctly remember we looked at a lot of paintings and slide shows and stuff like that. I felt that one of the things that was missing from that experience was that I was only engaging through one sense and that if there was more engagement with more senses, it probably would've felt memorable. I would've felt attached more emotionally. It would have been a memorable experience that I would have reckoned with.</p> <p>Other participants recognized the ability of a single sense (primarily sound) to engage them. They enjoyed being able to "listen to the paintings" and felt that the sounds helped them be "more engaged in the moment." In addition, the multisensory experience helped individuals be "more aware of the senses as far as hearing and sight." See Table 3 for themes, descriptions, and examples related to engagement.</p> <p>3 TABLE Themes related to engagement.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Theme</th><th align="left">Details</th><th align="left">Examples</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Movement</td><td align="left">Painting coming alive</td><td align="left">"There is a lot of movement. The style [of the painting] itself has a lot of movement, even when it was not moving. So adding movement to it really made it come alive, and I really liked that. It drew my attention."</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Movement integrated into the painting</td><td align="left">"... her head was moving; the letter was kind of moving in the wind. Her hand, the noise of it, and her movement drew my attention to her."</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Interactive</td><td align="left">"[I was engaged in] the motion. The way it was moving. It wasn't a still photo. I would say how it interacted with me."</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Moving increased understanding and perspectives</td><td align="left">"I think it was a different way to look at art. You do not normally get to see it moving like that, being able to spin around in the app and giving you a different perspective was really cool."</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Multisensory experience</td><td align="left">Location of sounds; Interaction</td><td align="left">"I really liked the sounds. I felt like I was more engaged in the moment. I was looking for where the sound was coming from. I felt like it was grabbing more of my attention than the woman looking at the letter."</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Engagement with senses</td><td align="left">"The sound coupled with my perspective of the room. I felt like I was in the doorway watching her read the letter, so I definitely felt that I was there."</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Increased awareness; Analytical thinking</td><td align="left">"I learned from this experience how cool technology can turn art into something more visceral to your senses."</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0177678281-33">Learning</hd> <p>Themes related to learning included personal connection and deeper observation. Because this study involved a single experience, survey instruments measured learning as remembering. Participants sometimes commented that they could not remember specific details (e.g., "I didn't know the name of the painting.", "I don't remember the horses."). However, interview feedback suggested that learning occurred through personal connections to the painting, which is often a first step in the learning process (Brackenbury, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref120">5</reflink>]). Participants talked about how they contemplated the story to attempt to gain insights into the experiences of the girl in the painting. They worked to "see what she was looking at and doing. Like the letter she was holding and why she was so engulfed in that particular thing compared with everything else." They were "curious about her [the girl's in the painting] family and where she came from."</p> <p>The ability to zoom in to observe minute details of the painting was seen to enhance understanding, build connections and encourage extended learning about the painting, its story, and the artist. In addition, participants frequently commented that the interactive experience within the painting led them to new or deeper observations (e.g., the reflections, the heavy curtains), and heightened sensory awareness. See Table 4 for themes, descriptions, and examples related to learning.</p> <p>4 TABLE Themes related to learning.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Theme</th><th align="left">Description</th><th align="left">Example</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Personal connection</td><td align="left">The story</td><td align="left">"...being able to kind of stand in the room with the girl reading the letter."</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Understanding the girl</td><td align="left">"It seems like everything focuses on her, and I wanted to see what she was looking at and doing. Like the letter she was holding and why she was so engulfed in that particular thing compared to everything else."</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Making personal connections</td><td align="left">"You are just drawn into her face and seeing her and wondering what she is doing, so there is just that very human connection between you and the subject."</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Feeling physically present</td><td align="left">"I was looking out the window, and it felt like I was looking at a scene from Venice."</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Details</td><td align="left">"... liked all of the details of everything... I am just curious about her family and where she is from."</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Noticing and observation</td><td align="left">Increased awareness</td><td align="left">"[I enjoyed] especially the reflections and just being able to view it closer and view the detail."</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Noticing new features</td><td align="left">"Just the heavy fabrics. I guess I was trying to figure out where she was and like what city she was from ..."</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Analytical thinking</td><td align="left">"I had not noticed the reflection before ... I did not remember it being a part of the original painting, so I was wondering if that was rendered or if that was a part of the original painting and I just had not noticed it before."</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0177678281-34">Impact of the sound environment</hd> <p>While the primary theme was sound, several subthemes emerged, including emotional involvement, realism, and incongruency. Strong emotions have been seen to enhance memory (Phelps, [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref121">59</reflink>]), and different aspects of interactive painting enhanced the emotional experience. One participant was surprised when the painting began "coming alive." Another participant commented how "shocking" it was to discover the black hole, while a third individual mentioned that it "scared" her to experience it. All of these emotions appeared to trigger not only curiosity and enjoyment but also a desire to continue learning about the painting.</p> <p>Participants were divided as to whether the sounds helped or confused the experience. For instance, some participants talked about the realism that was added. They noted the integration of the sounds (e.g., wind blowing) "created the scene a lot more" and "enhanced" their abilities to understand the setting and story. The resulting engagement with the painting motivated them to continue learning about the painting and the artist. As one participant noted, "I learned from this experience how cool technology can turn art into something more visceral to your senses."</p> <p>Conversely, some participants commented that the sounds and visuals were incongruent. One, for instance, heard the horses but was unable to see them. See Table 5 for themes, descriptions, and examples related to the impact of the VR sound environment.</p> <p>5 TABLE Themes related to the impact of the sound environment.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Theme</th><th align="left">Description</th><th align="left">Examples</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Sounds</td><td align="left">Emotional involvement</td><td align="left">"The other one [sound] I would say scared me a little bit and made me more curious to see beyond that."</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Realism</td><td align="left">"I feel like the sounds really enhanced my experience of the painting. I felt that I was more curious about what motivated the painter to actually paint it and what was going on in the painting. It made me want to learn more and do some research."</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Incongruency</td><td align="left">"I was looking out the window to see what was through the window. I kept hearing the horses, and I could not see the horses. I was curious about where they were coming from and what direction they were coming from."</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0177678281-35">DISCUSSION</hd> <p>This study set out to explore the impact of technology type (i.e., VR and tablet) and sound on experience in an informal environment (i.e., a museum exhibit). While prior research has provided various explorations of technology type, the inclusion of sound, and the use of innovative tools in museums, this study was one of the first to combine all three aspects. Four research questions were created to explore learning, presence, enjoyment, and development of interest across four conditions (i.e., VR with sound, VR without sound, tablet with sound, and tablet without sound).</p> <p>Generally speaking, the inclusion of sound impacted results. This is not surprising given the early work on dual coding (Clark & Paivio, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref122">12</reflink>]; Moreno & Mayer, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref123">52</reflink>]). What is surprising is that the results were not unidirectional where sound positively impacted all aspects of the experience. For instance, RQ1 examined learning across all four groups. The group using tablets with sound had significantly higher learning outcomes compared with both VR groups (with or without sound). That same group (tablet with sound), however, scored significantly lower on presence than either VR groups (RQ2).</p> <p>There are a few explanations and related implications for museum developers beyond the dichotomy of choosing between fostering learning <emph>or</emph> creating a sense of presence. First, movement within the interactive experience helped participants feel like they were in the painting itself. As one participant explained, the VR experience was "a different way to look at art. You don't normally get to see it moving like that, being able to spin around in the app and giving you a different perspective was really cool." This increased presence aligns with research in formal learning environments, where the use of VR has been shown to improve enjoyment and engagement (Kaplan‐Rakowski & Gruber, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref124">31</reflink>]; Makransky et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref125">49</reflink>]; Ye & Kaplan‐Rakowski, [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref126">75</reflink>]).</p> <p>However, VR, due to its sensory‐rich settings, can distract participants from the intended learning objectives (Baceviciute et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref127">2</reflink>]; Makransky et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref128">49</reflink>]; Papin & Kaplan‐Rakowski, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref129">57</reflink>]). In this case, the VR experience immersed users in aspects of the artwork that were not tied to the artist or the artwork itself. For example, in the multimodal painting used in the study, a user can hear horses walking down the street, even though the horses are not seen. This scenario adds to the reality of the open window in the painting, adds historical connections and perhaps increases the immersive experience, particularly for those in the VR group. It does not, however, relate specifically to the painting, thus potentially distracting users. Such a hypothesis is backed by the literature, particularly by early work on electronic storybooks with features that take users away from the story itself (e.g., Chen et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref130">8</reflink>]).</p> <p>In short, participants seemed excited about exploring the interactive painting through the VR headsets; as such, they may not have paid much attention to specific details about the painting that were later tested. The obvious implication for educators and developers is that sound can positively impact learning, but not when the additional sound added to improve presence and immersion is largely unrelated to the intended educational objectives.</p> <p>Second, however, this does not mean that the painting was a poorly designed educational tool. The quantitative survey only investigated learning from the first level, remembering perspective. Interview comments suggested that other facets of learning increased. For example, participants described the realism in VR that "enhanced (their) experience of the painting" and motivated them to learn more about the art and the artist. Motivation has been seen as a primary benefit of VR (Sattar et al., [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref131">67</reflink>]) because it often leads to additional learning. The participants noted the "very human connection between (the user) and the girl." They also suggested they were interested in figuring out "what she was like and what city she was [from]". They were developing personal connections through identification with the girl, the room, and the setting that could (theoretically) lead to empathy and motivation for continued learning (Shin, [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref132">71</reflink>]). While the implication to examine the intended use of sound remains, there is also a compelling need to explore additional ways to examine learning with VR and sound in informal environments. Timing of exhibit engagement may be prevalent in face‐to‐face exhibits, but future studies could also include QR codes or other techniques used to allow visitors to engage once they leave the museum.</p> <p>RQ3 set out to examine the enjoyment of the experience. This study showed that participants who experienced the VR condition, regardless of whether or not they were exposed to sound, reported significantly higher levels of enjoyment compared with those in either tablet condition. This finding is aligned with existing research on the use of VR in educational settings (e.g., Dhimolea et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref133">15</reflink>]; Kaplan‐Rakowski & Wojdynski, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref134">34</reflink>]; Ye & Kaplan‐Rakowski, [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref135">75</reflink>]). For example, language learners who participated in an informal learning activity by engaging in an interactive story in VR reported significantly more enjoyment than a comparison group of participants viewing the identical story in a video format (Kaplan‐Rakowski & Gruber, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref136">31</reflink>]; Ye & Kaplan‐Rakowski, [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref137">75</reflink>]). Likewise, when students independently studied foreign language vocabulary using VR headsets, their engagement was significantly higher than students studying the same vocabulary using PowerPoint slides (Papin & Kaplan‐Rakowski, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref138">57</reflink>]).</p> <p>This finding is important because enjoyment of the learning process can lead to increased learning, a desire or willingness to return to the learning environment (Lucardie, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref139">46</reflink>]), and increased use of learning strategies within the educational context (Obergriesser & Stoeger, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref140">54</reflink>]). The motivation and ability to be "more aware of (their) senses as far as hearing and sight" may have encouraged curiosity while opening additional sensory avenues for learning.</p> <p>The limited impact of sound on enjoyment scores may be surprising but could suggest that other factors besides sound may be driving the increased enjoyment levels in the VR condition. For instance, the rich visual stimuli that VR offers are often considered to be richer than auditory stimuli (McArthur et al., [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref141">50</reflink>]), particularly with 360‐degree views (Kuri & Truzzi, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref142">41</reflink>]).</p> <p>Another potential explanation could have been the audio technology used. External sound cannot be easily blocked, especially in a public setting such as a museum. Due to cost‐saving measures, the headphones used in the study were not noise‐cancelling. As a result, participants may have heard some outside noise, interfering with the target sounds, thereby lessening the enjoyment and immersion evoked by the sounds. Future research should explore this relationship with better audio technology.</p> <p>The study's ultimate objective was to examine potential differences between groups concerning their development of interest in art. Data results showed that an appreciation or future development of interest in art was not significantly impacted by the technology type (i.e., VR or tablet) or sound condition. One explanation for this outcome is that our participants were museum visitors, which may mean that their interest in art was already elevated. This component of the study, therefore, had a ceiling effect, and no additional incentives were able to add to the development of interest. Another reason for not boosting the interest in art may be that the intervention was relatively short (up to 10 minutes), which may have been insufficient for convincing anyone to further advance their interest in art. Future research could further compare this study with longer studies and explore additional museum topics beyond art.</p> <hd id="AN0177678281-36">Limitations</hd> <p>This study had several limitations. First, although the initial protocol was to systematically assign participants to our four learning conditions, some participants self‐selected their condition, typically opting for VR. Future studies may consider focusing on each learning condition in separate locations to avoid the competition of one condition over another. Second, although specific directions were given for exploring the painting, the informal setting of the experiment made it difficult to force participants to follow the exact steps. For example, some participants took the liberty to explore parts of the app beyond the target painting, which may have overloaded their cognitive capacities. Third, some participants were distracted by what was happening in the museum setting. For instance, many participants were families with minors. As a result, sometimes the experiment had to be interrupted (i.e., when a small child was trying to draw parents' attention). However, because such interruptions seemed to happen equally across the four conditions, their impact on scores should have been relatively equally distributed. Although such interruptions could be perceived as violating external validity, simultaneously, the museum setting boosted the ecological validity of the study. Finally, while the scales on the presence, enjoyment, and development of interest had high reliability, the scale on learning did not.</p> <hd id="AN0177678281-37">CONCLUSION</hd> <p>Quantitative data analysis from this study revealed that a sense of presence was not significantly impacted by the type of technology (i.e., VR and tablet) used unless sound was added. The group that experienced the exhibit on a tablet with sound scored significantly lower on the sense of presence scale. While the group using tablets with sound had a significantly lower sense of presence, they had significantly higher learning outcomes compared with both VR groups (with or without sound).</p> <p>In conclusion, this study offers a valuable contribution to the assessment of the educational value of VR in museum exhibits. Specifically, this study tested the effect of sound on learning, enjoyment, sense of presence, and development of interest. While the initial results are interesting and impactful, more studies on the impact of sound are necessary. Follow‐up studies should test the cognitive and affective impacts of different types of sounds, including verbal, nonverbal, environmental, and ambisonic. As museums and other educational institutions work to provide stimulating learning environments, awareness of the potential for overstimulation, particularly regarding sound, is a priority. Designing learning experiences in which sensory elements are carefully integrated is critical for enriching immersive learning in the future.</p> <hd id="AN0177678281-38">ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS</hd> <p>The authors wish to thank the Fort Worth Museum of Science and History for graciously hosting their research project. The authors also thank their research assistants, Yongluan Ye and Paulina Valenzuela, who contributed time and experience as they assisted with data collection.</p> <hd id="AN0177678281-39">FUNDING INFORMATION</hd> <p>None.</p> <hd id="AN0177678281-40">CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT</hd> <p>The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.</p> <hd id="AN0177678281-41">DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT</hd> <p>The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.</p> <hd id="AN0177678281-42">ETHICS STATEMENT</hd> <p>This study was approved and conducted in accordance with the ethical standards laid down in the University of North Texas Institutional Review Board, and the ethical standards laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments.</p> <hd id="AN0177678281-43">A APPENDIX</hd> <p> <emph>Semi‐structured interview starter questions</emph> </p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> <bold> Enjoyment </bold> . What did you enjoy the most about this activity? What would you change?</item> <p></p> <item> <bold> Content </bold> . What did you look at the most? Why? Did you look through the windows? Why? What do you think about the sounds you heard?</item> <p></p> <item> <bold> Sense of presence </bold> . How much did you feel that you were a part of the painting? What did you learn?</item> <p></p> <item> <bold> Development of interest </bold> . What made you interested in the painting?</item> </ulist> <ref id="AN0177678281-44"> <title> REFERENCES </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref89" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Ainley, J., Pratt, D., & Hansen, A. (2006). Connecting engagement and focus in pedagogic task design. British Educational Research Journal, 32 (1), 23 – 38.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref11" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Baceviciute, S., Terkildsen, T., & Makransky, G. (2021). Remediating learning from non‐immersive to immersive media: Using EEG to investigate the effects of environmental embeddedness on reading in virtual reality. Computers & Education, 164, 104122.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref24" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Bitgood, S. (2013). Attention and value: Keys to understanding museum visitors. Left Coast Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref79" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Bloom, B. S., & Krathwohl, D. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. In M. D. Engelhart, E. J. Furst, W. H. Hill, & D. R. Krathwohl (Eds.), Handbook I: Cognitive domain. David McKay.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref120" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Brackenbury, T. (2012). A qualitative examination of connections between learner‐centered teaching and past significant learning experiences. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 12 (4), 12 – 28.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref21" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Callanan, M., Cervantes, C., & Loomis, M. (2011). Informal learning. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 2 (6), 646 – 655.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref27" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Carbon, C. C. (2017). Art perception in the museum: How we spend time and space in art exhibitions. i‐Perception, 8 (1), 2041669517694184.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref130" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Chen, M., Ferdig, R. E., & Wood, A. (2003). Understanding technology‐enhanced storybooks and their roles in teaching and learning: An investigation of electronic storybooks in education. Journal of Literacy and Technology [Online serial], 3 (1), 1–15.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref8" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Cheng, A., Yang, L., & Andersen, E. (2017). Teaching language and culture with a virtual reality game. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 541 – 549). Denver, CO.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chion, M. (2019). Audio‐vision: Sound on screen (Preface). Columbia University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chou, P. T. M. (2010). Attention drainage effect: How background music effects concentration in Taiwanese college students. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 10 (1), 36 – 46.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Clark, J. M., & Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory and education. Educational Psychology Review, 3, 149 – 210.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cockerham, D., Lin, L., Chang, Z., & Schellen, M. (2019). Cross‐sectional studies investigating the impacts of background sounds on cognitive task performance. In T. Parsons, L. Lin, & D. Cockerham (Eds.), Mind, brain and technology: Learning in the age of emerging technologies (pp. 177 – 194). Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cockerham, D., & Ragland, C. (in process). Soundscapes and cognitive task performance in a digital society. [Unpublished manuscript]. Department of Learning Technologies, University of North Texas.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dhimolea, T. K., Kaplan‐Rakowski, R., & Lin, L. (2022). A systematic review of research on high‐immersion virtual reality for language learning. TechTrends, 66, 810 – 824. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528‐022‐00717‐w</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dunn, O. J. (1964). Multiple comparisons using rank sums. Technometrics, 6, 241 – 252. https://doi.org/10.1080/00401706.1964.10490181</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ferdig, R. E., Gandolfi, E., & Immel, Z. (2018). Educational opportunities for virtual reality. In J. Voogt, G. Knezek, R. Christensen, & K. W. Lai (Eds.), Second handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education (pp. 955 – 966). Springer International Handbooks of Education. Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ferdig, R. E., Kosko, K. W., & Gandolfi, E. (2020). The use of ambisonic audio to improve presence, focus, and noticing while viewing 360 video. Journal for Virtual Worlds Research, 13 (2–3), 1 – 14.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ferdig, R. E., Kosko, K. W., & Gandolfi, E. (2023). Exploring the relationships between teacher noticing, ambisonic audio, and variance in focus when viewing 360 video. Educational Technology Research & Development, 71, 881 – 899. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423‐023‐10215‐2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Forehand, M. (2005). Bloom's taxonomy: Original and revised. Emerging Perspectives on Learning, Teaching, and Technology, 8, 41 – 44.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gandolfi, E., Kosko, K. W., & Ferdig, R. E. (2021). Situating presence within extended reality for teacher training: Validation of the extended Reality Presence Scale (XRPS) in preservice teacher use of immersive 360 video. British Journal of Educational Technology, 52 (2), 824 – 841.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grand View Research. (2021, November 1). Virtual reality market size (2021–2028). https://<ulink href="http://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry‐analysis/virtual‐reality‐vr‐market">www.grandviewresearch.com/industry‐analysis/virtual‐reality‐vr‐market</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harackiewicz, J. M., Smith, J. L., & Priniski, S. J. (2016). Interest matters: The importance of promoting interest in education. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3 (2), 220 – 227.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hayes, A., Kaplan‐Rakowski, R., Bland, D., Archibald, A., Lucke, H., Heap, T., & Taylor, D. (2022). Implementing low‐cost 360° video technology to promote core skills in journalism courses. The Journal of Applied Instructional Design, 11 (4), 141 – 154. https://edtechbooks.org/jaid_11_4/nQbhDXCE</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Heap, T., Kaplan‐Rakowski, R., & Archibald, A. (2024). Experiencing virtual reality for perspective‐taking of blind and visually impaired learners. SSRN. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4595370</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hsieh, C., & Yang, J. Y. (2022). The effect of water sound level on individuals' psychological and physiological benefits: A study of virtual reality experience on urban Forest Trail. SSRN, 4101162.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jacobs, M., Jeurens, J., Regterschot, M., van Turnhout, K., & Bakker, R. (2016, September). Two countries, eight museums: aiming for cross‐cultural experience blend. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing: Adjunct (pp. 1498 – 1502). Heidelberg, Germany.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort (Vol. 1063, p. 246). Prentice‐Hall.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kaplan‐Rakowski, R., Dhimolea, T. K., & Khukalenko, I. (2023). Language teachers' beliefs about using immersive virtual reality. Education and Information Technologies, 28, 12505 – 12525. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639‐023‐11686‐9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kaplan‐Rakowski, R., & Gruber, A. (2019). Low‐immersion versus high‐immersion virtual reality: Definitions, classification, and examples with a foreign language focus. In Innovation in Language Learning Conference Proceedings 2019 (pp. 552 – 555). Pixel.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kaplan‐Rakowski, R., & Gruber, A. (2023). An experimental study on reading in high‐immersion virtual reality. British Journal of Educational Technology. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13392</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kaplan‐Rakowski, R., & Meseberg, K. (2019). Immersive media and their future. In R. M. Branch, H. Lee, & S. S. Tseng (Eds.), Educational media and technology yearbook (Vol. 42, pp. 143 – 153). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978‐3‐030‐27986‐8_13</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kaplan‐Rakowski, R., Papin, K., & Hartwick, P. (2023). Language teachers' perceptions and use of extended reality. CALICO Journal, 40 (1), 1 – 23. https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.22759</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kaplan‐Rakowski, R., & Wojdynski, T. (2018). Students' attitudes towards high‐immersion virtual reality assisted language learning. In P. Taalas, J. Jalkanen, L. Bradley, & S. Thouёsny (Eds.), Future‐proof CALL: Language learning as exploration and encounters—Short papers from EUROCALL 2018 (pp. 124 – 129). Research‐publishing.net. https://doi.org/10.14705/rpnet.2018.26.824</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kasomoulis, A., Vayanou, M., Katifori, A., & Ioannidis, Y. (2016, November). MagicHOLO: A Collaborative 3D experience in the museum. In Proceedings of the 20th Pan‐Hellenic Conference on Informatics (pp. 1 – 6). Patras, Greece.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kátai, Z., Juhász, K., & Adorjáni, A. K. (2008). On the role of senses in education. Computers & Education, 51 (4), 1707 – 1717.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Khukalenko, I., Kaplan‐Rakowski, R., An, Y., & Iushina, V. (2022). Teachers' perceptions of using virtual reality technology in classrooms: A large‐scale survey. Education and Information Technologies, 27 (8), 11591 – 11613. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639‐022‐11061‐0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Koutsabasis, P., & Vosinakis, S. (2018). Kinesthetic interactions in museums: Conveying cultural heritage by making use of ancient tools and (re‐) constructing artworks. Virtual Reality, 22 (2), 103 – 118.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41 (4), 212 – 218.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Krokos, E., Plaisant, C., & Varshney, A. (2019). Virtual memory palaces: Immersion aids recall. Virtual Reality, 23 (1), 1 – 15.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kuri, N. P., & Truzzi, O. M. S. (2002, August). Learning styles of freshmen engineering students. In Proceedings, 2002 International Conference on Engineering Education. International Network for Engineering Education and Research.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lai, E. R. (2011). Critical thinking: A literature review. Pearson's Research Reports, 6 (1), 40 – 41.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lanir, J., Yosfan, M., Wecker, A., & Eilam, B. (2020, October). Student informal learning at museum field trips using tablet computers. In 22nd International Conference on Human‐Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services (pp. 1 – 4). Oldenburg, Germany.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lee, M., Kim, K., Daher, S., Raij, A., Schubert, R., Bailenson, J., & Welch, G. (2016, March). The wobbly table: Increased social presence via subtle incidental movement of a real‐virtual table. In 2016 IEEE virtual reality (VR) (pp. 11 – 17). IEEE. Greenville, SC.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Liu, R., Wang, L., Lei, J., Wang, Q., & Ren, Y. (2020). Effects of an immersive virtual reality‐based classroom on students' learning performance in science lessons. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51 (6), 2034 – 2049.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lucardie, D. (2014). The impact of fun and enjoyment on adult's learning. Procedia‐Social and Behavioral Sciences, 142, 439 – 446.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Makransky, G., & Lilleholt, L. (2018). A structural equation modeling investigation of the emotional value of immersive virtual reality in education. Educational Technology Research and Development, 66 (5), 1141 – 1164.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> 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</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Makransky, G., Terkildsen, T. S., & Mayer, R. E. (2019). Adding immersive virtual reality to a science lab simulation causes more presence but less learning. Learning Instruction, 60, 225 – 236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.12.007</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McArthur, A., Stewart, R., & Sandler, M. (2017). Sounds too true to be good: Diegetic infidelity–the case for sound in virtual reality. Journal of Media Practice, 18 (1), 26 – 40.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mohd Noor Shah, N. F., & Ghazali, M. (2018). A systematic review on digital technology for enhancing user experience in museums. In User Science and Engineering: 5th International Conference, i‐USEr 2018, Puchong, Malaysia, August 28–30, 2018, Proceedings 5 (pp. 35 – 46). Springer Singapore.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. (2007). Interactive multimodal learning environments: Special issue on interactive learning environments: Contemporary issues and trends. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 309 – 326.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ng, K. H., Huang, H., & O'Malley, C. (2018). Treasure codes: Augmenting learning from physical museum exhibits through treasure hunting. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 22 (4), 739 – 750. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779‐018‐1126‐5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Obergriesser, S., & Stoeger, H. (2020). Students' emotions of enjoyment and boredom and their use of cognitive learning strategies—How do they affect one another? Learning and Instruction, 66, 101285.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Paliokas, I., Patenidis, A. T., Mitsopoulou, E. E., Tsita, C., Pehlivanides, G., Karyati, E., Tsafaras, S., Stathopoulos, E. A., Kokkalas, A., Diplaris, S., Meditskos, G., Vrochidis, S., Tasiopoulou, E., Riggas, C., Votis, K., Kompatsiaris, I., & Tzovaras, D. (2020). A gamified augmented reality application for digital heritage and tourism. Applied Sciences, 10 (21), 7868. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10217868</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pan, X., & Hamilton, A. F. D. C. (2018). Why and how to use virtual reality to study human social interaction: The challenges of exploring a new research landscape. British Journal of Psychology, 109 (3), 395 – 417.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Papin, K., & Kaplan‐Rakowski, R. (2022). A study on vocabulary learning using immersive 360° pictures. Computer‐Assisted Language Learning, 35, 1 – 28. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2022.2068613</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Parong, J., & Mayer, R. E. (2021). Learning about history in immersive virtual reality: Does immersion facilitate learning? Educational Technology Research and Development, 69 (3), 1433 – 1451.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Phelps, E. A. (2004). Human emotion and memory: Interactions of the amygdala and hippocampal complex. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 14 (2), 198 – 202.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Plant, R. W., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and the effects of self‐consciousness, self‐awareness, and ego‐involvement: An investigation of internally controlling styles. Journal of Personality, 53 (3), 435 – 449.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Radianti, J., Majchrzak, T. A., Fromm, J., & Wohlgenannt, I. (2020). A systematic review of immersive virtual reality applications for higher education: Design elements, lessons learned, and research agenda. Computers & Education, 147, 103778.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ryan, R. M. (1982). Control and information in the intrapersonal sphere: An extension of cognitive evaluation theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43 (3), 450.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self‐determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well‐being. American Psychologist, 55 (1), 68.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rivera‐Gutierrez, D., Ferdig, R. E., Li, J., & Lok, B. (2014). Getting the point across: Exploring the effects of dynamic virtual humans in an interactive museum exhibit on user perceptions. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 20 (4), 636 – 643.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rogoff, B., Callanan, M., Gutiérrez, K. D., & Erickson, F. (2016). The organization of informal learning. Review of Research in Education, 40 (1), 356 – 401.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saldaña, J. (2012). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sattar, M. U., Palaniappan, S., Lokman, A., Hassan, A., Shah, N., & Riaz, Z. (2019). Effects of virtual reality training on medical students' learning motivation and competency. Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences, 35 (3), 852 – 857.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Scribner, S., & Cole, M. (1973). Cognitive consequences of formal and informal education: New accommodations are needed between school‐based learning and learning experiences of everyday life. Science, 182 (4112), 553 – 559.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shahab, H., Mohtar, M., Ghazali, E., Rauschnabel, P. A., & Geipel, A. (2023). Virtual reality in museums: Does it promote visitor enjoyment and learning? International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 39 (18), 3586 – 3603.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shams, L., & Seitz, A. R. (2008). Benefits of multisensory learning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12 (11), 411 – 417.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shin, D. H. (2017). The role of affordance in the experience of virtual reality learning: Technological and affective affordances in virtual reality. Telematics and Informatics, 34 (8), 1826 – 1836.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Slater, M. (2018). Immersion and the illusion of presence in virtual reality. British Journal of Psychology, 109 (3), 431 – 433.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Steuer, J. (1992). Defining virtual reality: Dimensions determining telepresence. Journal of Communication, 42 (4), 73 – 93.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sweller, J. (2011). Cognitive load theory. In J. P. Mestre & B. H. Ross (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Cognition in education (pp. 37 – 76). Elsevier Academic Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ye, Y., & Kaplan‐Rakowski, R. (2024). Practicing listening comprehension skills in high‐immersion virtual reality. SSRN. https://ssrn.com/abstract=4335690</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yoshimura, M., Kurumadani, H., Hirata, J., Osaka, H., Senoo, K., Ueda, A., Ishii, Y., Kinoshita, S., Hanayama, K., & Sunagawa, T. (2020). Virtual reality‐based action observation facilitates the acquisition of body‐powered prosthetic control skills. Journal of Neuroengineering and Rehabilitation, 17 (1), 1 – 12.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Regina Kaplan‐Rakowski; Deborah Cockerham and Richard E. Ferdig</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref118"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref119"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref121"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref122"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref126"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref139"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref140"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref142"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1427247
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: The Impact of Sound and Immersive Experience on Learners When Using Virtual Reality and Tablet: A Mixed-Method Study
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Regina+Kaplan-Rakowski%22">Regina Kaplan-Rakowski</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Deborah+Cockerham%22">Deborah Cockerham</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5357-154X">0000-0002-5357-154X</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Richard+E%2E+Ferdig%22">Richard E. Ferdig</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22British+Journal+of+Educational+Technology%22"><i>British Journal of Educational Technology</i></searchLink>. 2024 55(4):1560-1582.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 23
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Multisensory+Learning%22">Multisensory Learning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Computer+Simulation%22">Computer Simulation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Handheld+Devices%22">Handheld Devices</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Learner+Engagement%22">Learner Engagement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Museums%22">Museums</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Stimuli%22">Stimuli</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Acoustics%22">Acoustics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Technology+Uses+in+Education%22">Technology Uses in Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Scores%22">Scores</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Interests%22">Interests</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1111/bjet.13417
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0007-1013<br />1467-8535
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Multisensory-rich VR experiences, which encompass visual, auditory, and haptic stimuli, have the potential to enhance engagement, motivation, and learning. However, extensive sensory stimuli could also compromise learning through sensory overload. In museum settings, visitors who are inundated with excessive stimuli such as unrelated background music or competing visual options may not experience optimal learning. This mixed-methods study addressed this potential problem by exploring the impact of sound on learning, enjoyment, sense of presence, and the development of interest among museum attendees (N = 255) who used two different types of technology: high-immersion VR or a tablet. Results from a one-way MANOVA revealed that learning and sense of presence were unaffected by the technology used unless sound was added. Using a tablet with sound lowered the sense of presence. Participants in the VR condition with or without sound had significantly higher enjoyment scores than those in either tablet condition. The development of interest was not significantly affected by any condition, regardless of whether sound was used. The research findings have implications for implementing VR for learning in museum settings. For instance, VR can enhance a sense of presence in museum exhibits, but a sense of presence may be significantly diminished when museum visitors use tablets with sound. Additional recommendations for the use of multimodal VR in museums are provided.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1427247
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1427247
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1111/bjet.13417
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 23
        StartPage: 1560
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Multisensory Learning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Computer Simulation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Handheld Devices
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Learner Engagement
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Museums
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Stimuli
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Acoustics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Technology Uses in Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Scores
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Interests
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: The Impact of Sound and Immersive Experience on Learners When Using Virtual Reality and Tablet: A Mixed-Method Study
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Regina Kaplan-Rakowski
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Deborah Cockerham
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Richard E. Ferdig
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 07
              Type: published
              Y: 2024
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0007-1013
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1467-8535
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 55
            – Type: issue
              Value: 4
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: British Journal of Educational Technology
              Type: main
ResultId 1