View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Examining Adults' Enjoyment, Challenges, and Cognitive Load in Informal Learning with High-Immersion Virtual Reality

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Examining Adults' Enjoyment, Challenges, and Cognitive Load in Informal Learning with High-Immersion Virtual Reality
Language: English
Authors: Yunjo An (ORCID 0000-0002-2763-1297), Regina Kaplan-Rakowski
Source: TechTrends: Linking Research and Practice to Improve Learning. 2024 68(6):1118-1128.
Availability: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 11
Publication Date: 2024
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Adult Education
Descriptors: Informal Education, Computer Simulation, Experiential Learning, Adults, Positive Attitudes, Cognitive Processes, Difficulty Level, Adult Learning, Learning Processes, Scaffolding (Teaching Technique)
DOI: 10.1007/s11528-024-00999-2
ISSN: 8756-3894
1559-7075
Abstract: Most research on virtual reality (VR) for learning has focused on young populations in formal learning contexts. Little research has been conducted on how adults engage in informal learning using VR. This study examined adults' informal learning experiences in high-immersion VR, focusing on the aspects of VR they enjoyed and the challenges they encountered. Furthermore, the study investigated how external, hard scaffolding influenced the participants' cognitive load and learning in VR. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected from pre- and post-surveys and post-intervention interviews. Participants found the storytelling aspect of the VR experience particularly enjoyable. They encountered several unique challenges during the VR intervention, including navigation confusion and self-directed exploration without instructor guidance. Surprisingly, the scaffolding did not have a statistically significant impact on the participants' cognitive load and learning. However, qualitative data analysis provided new insights that explain the unexpected findings.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2024
Accession Number: EJ1450900
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFAfmMTU7Ds_oHZTA-dKPPRAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDEMwqJ19W7yxWsJrZAIBEICBm0RXN_1wy1l44_qgnVlWUc_9vngrQRlfahp-ASb8NUKqTx1lim27rZXYF6kEAQUZkbt060_Fb2TjI8KBAtGDkgff-Hb-502SVrsaDTbHUJLGjHlKYf1HE5Oo_JurB_5kvz-YML-I5lxyTkgD-fId6nkTa-oolunihgqcDsC6sLkcsRbs_6v_nZhOyxaBrUwpnwCSzg4TgLFAhE7w
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0181199130;ttr01nov.24;2024Dec02.04:33;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0181199130-1">Examining Adults' Enjoyment, Challenges, and Cognitive Load in Informal Learning with High-Immersion Virtual Reality </title> <p>Most research on virtual reality (VR) for learning has focused on young populations in formal learning contexts. Little research has been conducted on how adults engage in informal learning using VR. This study examined adults' informal learning experiences in high-immersion VR, focusing on the aspects of VR they enjoyed and the challenges they encountered. Furthermore, the study investigated how external, hard scaffolding influenced the participants' cognitive load and learning in VR. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected from pre- and post-surveys and post-intervention interviews. Participants found the storytelling aspect of the VR experience particularly enjoyable. They encountered several unique challenges during the VR intervention, including navigation confusion and self-directed exploration without instructor guidance. Surprisingly, the scaffolding did not have a statistically significant impact on the participants' cognitive load and learning. However, qualitative data analysis provided new insights that explain the unexpected findings.</p> <p>Keywords: Cognitive load; Enjoyment; Immersive learning; Informal learning; Scaffolding; Virtual reality</p> <p>Copyright comment Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.</p> <hd id="AN0181199130-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Virtual reality (VR) refers to an artificial environment that projects the user into a 3D generated space (Blascovich & Bailenson, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref1">9</reflink>]; Bohil et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref2">10</reflink>]; Parsons et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref3">47</reflink>]). While numerous studies using low-immersion VR (i.e., desktop VR) for learning exist, studies examining high-immersion VR as a tool for learning are needed (Dhimolea et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref4">16</reflink>]; Markowitz et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref5">36</reflink>]). High-immersion VR, characterized by the use of a VR headset, allows users to see, hear, and feel virtual stimuli as if they were real (Ahn et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref6">2</reflink>]). Our study specifically focuses on learning in high-immersion VR.</p> <p>VR is a promising environment to foster learner engagement and increase learning outcomes. However, the stimuli-rich VR environment may overwhelm learners and thus limit learning effectiveness (Baceviciute et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref7">5</reflink>]; Kaplan-Rakowski et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref8">26</reflink>]; Papin & Kaplan-Rakowski, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref9">45</reflink>]). Research studies report positive student attitudes toward VR (Kaplan-Rakowski et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref10">26</reflink>]; Kaplan-Rakowski & Gruber, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref11">23</reflink>]; Kaplan-Rakowski & Wojdynski, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref12">24</reflink>]; Ye & Kaplan-Rakowski, [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref13">62</reflink>]), but mixed findings exist on whether learning in high-immersion VR is more effective and more efficient than learning in less immersive settings (e.g., using desktop computers, tablets, or videos; Kaplan-Rakowski et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref14">26</reflink>]; Makransky et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref15">35</reflink>]; Papin & Kaplan-Rakowski, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref16">45</reflink>]). The main concern is that rich stimuli from VR provoke the extraneous CL, and studies using EEG have verified this concern (Baceviciute et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref17">5</reflink>]; Makransky et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref18">35</reflink>]). Scaffolding may help alleviate the sensory deluge that can accompany VR-based activities. Thus, this study examined the effect of scaffolding on cognitive load and learning in immersive VR.</p> <p>Most research on VR for learning has focused on young populations in formal learning contexts (e.g., Dhimolea et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref19">16</reflink>]; Parmaxi, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref20">46</reflink>]). Common existing study designs involved cross-media comparisons testing the effect of VR versus other learning media (e.g., 2D learning or traditional learning). There is a paucity of within-media research examining how adults engage in informal learning using VR. To fill the gap, this study examined adults' informal learning experiences in high-immersion VR, focusing on the aspects of VR they enjoyed and the challenges they faced in VR learning.</p> <hd id="AN0181199130-3">Literature Review</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0181199130-4">Virtual Reality</hd> <p>Due to the complexity and evolution of VR technology, the challenge of defining and classifying VR has resulted in a versatile range of definitions (see, for example, Burdea & Coiffet, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref21">12</reflink>]; Pan & Hamilton, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref22">44</reflink>]; Steuer, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref23">55</reflink>]). The definition that most closely represents the context of our study poses that high-immersion VR is "a computer-generated 360° virtual space that can be perceived as being spatially realistic, due to the high immersion afforded by a head-mounted device" (Kaplan-Rakowski & Gruber, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref24">21</reflink>], p. 552). What is meant by <emph>immersion</emph> is the sensation of being surrounded by multisensory representations within the virtual space.</p> <p>As classified by Kaplan-Rakowski and Gruber ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref25">21</reflink>]), two main types of VR exist: low-immersion VR and high-immersion VR. Low-immersion VR is delivered using a flat 2D screen, while high immersion VR requires wearing a VR headset, as shown in Fig. 1. Some literature uses terms "non-immersive VR" and "immersive VR" to name the two types of VR. Such terms are questionable because experiences on the desktop can be immersive, therefore, calling them "non-immersive" is misleading. Meanwhile, the immersion intensity is the differing factor distinguishing between the two types of VR. Unlike most studies on VR that compare learning interventions using various media such as VR vs desktop VR vs PowerPoint (e.g., Kaplan-Rakowski & Gruber, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref26">23</reflink>]; Kaplan-Rakowski et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref27">26</reflink>]; Papin & Kaplan-Rakowski, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref28">45</reflink>]; Ye & Kaplan-Rakowski, [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref29">62</reflink>]), this study uniquely uses the same medium (VR) for both interventions, eliminating confounding variables, thus making our experiment more conservative.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 1 High-immersion VR</p> <hd id="AN0181199130-5">Virtual Reality in Education</hd> <p>As of 2024, the popularity of VR has been reaching unprecedented levels, and that popularity is likely to continue boosting. Businesses including Zuckerberg's Meta (formerly known as Facebook) have been investing extensively in VR and its growth in educational settings (Rospigliosi, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref30">50</reflink>]; Thrasher et al., [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref31">58</reflink>]). Such investments are likely to result an increased rate of VR-based research.</p> <p>That interest in investing VR in education is unsurprising because an increasing number of studies report VR to be perceived as an attractive tool for learning by both teachers (Kaplan-Rakowski et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref32">27</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref33">28</reflink>]; Khukalenko et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref34">29</reflink>]) and students (Kaplan-Rakowski et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref35">26</reflink>]; Ye & Kaplan-Rakowski, [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref36">62</reflink>]). While studies on perceptions of teachers and students are valuable as they confirm the need to explore VR-based learning, still little is known about how VR can be beneficial for learning (Dhimolea et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref37">16</reflink>]; Parmaxi, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref38">46</reflink>]), what drives learner enjoyment, and how not to cognitively overload the learners.</p> <hd id="AN0181199130-6">Cognitive Load and Cognitive Processing</hd> <p>A working memory is limited in both capacity (Baddeley & Hitch, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref39">6</reflink>]; Miller, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref40">42</reflink>]) and duration (Peterson & Peterson, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref41">48</reflink>]). Overcoming working memory limitations by instructional manipulations and techniques has been fundamental in cognitive load theory (Kirschner et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref42">31</reflink>]). Cognitive load (CL) refers to a multidimensional construct representing the load that performing a particular task imposes on the learner's cognitive system (Paas & van Merriënboer, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref43">43</reflink>]). According to CL theory, three types of CL need to be considered when designing instruction: intrinsic CL, extraneous CL, and germane CL (Sweller, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref44">56</reflink>]). Intrinsic CL is the load resulting from the inherent difficulty or complexity of the instructional material or task, which can be influenced by the learner's prior knowledge of the topic. Extraneous CL is the load generated by the ineffective instructional design or presentation of the learning material. Finally, germane CL is the load resulting from the efforts to process and comprehend the learning material and to construct and automate the schema. The CL theory suggests that instructional designers should minimize extraneous load and promote germane load (Sweller, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref45">56</reflink>]; Sweller, et al., [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref46">57</reflink>]; Van Merriënboer & Sweller, [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref47">59</reflink>]).</p> <p>According to the cognitive theory of multimedia learning, learners' limited cognitive capacity is subject to three kinds of demands: extraneous processing, essential processing, and generative processing. First, extraneous processing refers to cognitive processing that does not support the instructional objective. Second, essential processing refers to cognitive processing required to mentally represent the essential material. Finally, generative processing is cognitive processing aimed at mentally reorganizing the essential material into a coherent structure and integrating it with relevant prior knowledge. Appropriate instructional designs minimize extraneous processing, while maintaining an adequate level of generative and essential processing (Mayer, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref48">39</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref49">40</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0181199130-7">Cognitive Load in VR</hd> <p>Previous research suggests that when a multimedia lesson is presented in VR, learners experience essential overload more easily as compared with the same lesson in a less immersive format (Baceviciute et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref50">5</reflink>]; Papin & Kaplan-Rakowski, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref51">45</reflink>]). This extraneous CL is caused by the increased amount of sensory information displayed in VR (Baceviciute et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref52">5</reflink>]; Makransky et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref53">35</reflink>]; Papin & Kaplan-Rakowski, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref54">45</reflink>]). Mayer et al. ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref55">38</reflink>]) used the three types of cognitive processing to explain the promise and pitfalls of learning in VR. The promise of learning in VR lies in its affordances for motivating the learner to engage in generative processing. Meanwhile, the pitfall of learning in VR is that high immersion can create distractions and cause the learner to engage in increased extraneous processing and decreased essential processing. According to Mayer et al. ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref56">38</reflink>]), the challenge of using VR for learning is "to minimize extraneous processing while maintaining an adequate level of generative and essential processing" (p. 3).</p> <p>One way to overcome extraneous load in VR is to introduce pre-training activities in the form of scaffolding (Makransky et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref57">35</reflink>]; Meyer et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref58">41</reflink>]; Ye & Kaplan-Rakowski, [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref59">62</reflink>]). The pre-training principle states that humans learn more deeply from multimedia instruction when they know the names and characteristics of the main content (Mayer & Pilegard, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref60">37</reflink>]). Knowing basic names and concepts lessens the CL experienced when presented with novel content. According to Makransky et al. ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref61">35</reflink>]), VR may not be an optimal medium for learning basic facts or concepts but could help learners develop schemas once they have a basic understanding of the material.</p> <hd id="AN0181199130-8">Scaffolding</hd> <p>Scaffolding refers to temporary support provided by teachers, experts, more capable peers, computer-based tutors, or other resources that enable learners to perform tasks that they cannot accomplish independently (Vygotsky, [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref62">60</reflink>]; Wood et al., [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref63">61</reflink>]). Scaffolds can take various forms, including expert advice, expert modeling, learner guides, question prompts, and tools. Saye and Brush ([<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref64">53</reflink>]) distinguished between hard scaffolds and soft scaffolds. Hard scaffolds refer to "static supports that can be anticipated and planned in advance based on typical student difficulties with a task" (p. 81), while soft scaffolds refer to dynamic and spontaneous support provided based on learner responses.</p> <p>The effect of scaffolding on learning has been investigated in different learning contexts, including ill-structured problem solving (e.g., An & Cao, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref65">3</reflink>]; Ge & Land, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref66">18</reflink>]), problem-based learning (e.g., Belland et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref67">8</reflink>]; Kim et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref68">30</reflink>]), game-based learning (e.g., Hwang et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref69">19</reflink>]; Lee & Chen, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref70">32</reflink>]), writing (e.g., Chen et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref71">14</reflink>]), and augmented reality learning (e.g., Chen et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref72">15</reflink>]). For example, Barzilai and Blau ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref73">7</reflink>]) found that addition of external, hard scaffolds had a positive effect on students' performance in a game-based learning environment. However, students' flow was lower in the scaffolding condition compared to the flow of the students in the control condition. Similarly, Chen and Law ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref74">13</reflink>]) found that scaffolding had a positive impact on performance but had a negative impact on motivation in game-based learning environments. These findings suggest that scaffolding game-based learning may involve trade-offs between learning gains and perceived fun. Kao et al. ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref75">20</reflink>]) pointed out that most educational games only provide "gaming scaffolds" that enable students to pass through the game without too much difficulty or frustration, with little emphasis on providing "learning scaffolds" that guide students through various levels of learning complexity. Although scaffolding in online and technology-based environments has been examined, research on scaffolding in VR learning is limited.</p> <hd id="AN0181199130-9">Purpose of the Study</hd> <p>This study examined adults' informal learning experiences in high-immersion VR. Unlike formal learning, such as classroom lessons and degree programs, informal learning occurs outside formal educational settings. Further, the study investigated how external, hard scaffolding influenced the participants' CL and learning in VR. The following research questions guided the study:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> What aspects of high-immersion VR learning do adult participants enjoy?</item> <p></p> <item> What kinds of challenges do the adult participants face in high-immersion VR learning?</item> <p></p> <item> To what extent does external, hard scaffolding influence the adult participants' cognitive load and learning in high-immersion VR?</item> </ulist> <p>Regarding the effects of scaffolding, we hypothesized that hard scaffolding would reduce the scaffolding group's CL and positively affect their learning.</p> <hd id="AN0181199130-10">Methods</hd> <p>Using a mixed methods research approach, the study examined adult participants' VR learning experiences and the effects of external, hard scaffolding on their CL and learning in immersive VR. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected from pre- and post-surveys and post-intervention interviews. Figure 2 displays the procedure of the study.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 2 The Procedure of the Study</p> <hd id="AN0181199130-11">Participants</hd> <p>The participants consisted of 52 adult volunteers (28; 54% female). The most represented age group was 40–49 years old. Upon receiving the Institutional Review Board approval, the participants' recruitment took place via email and Facebook Groups focusing on VR such as Virtual Reality (VR) Gaming, VR in Education, and Extended Reality (XR: AR, VR, MR). Because our goal was to test how learning with VR occurs within an informal setting, participants completed the experiment in their personal space (e.g., their homes). The participants were compensated with $20 Amazon gift cards. The demographic data of the participants gathered on the pretest allowed us for systematic assignment to the learning conditions (scaffolding and non-scaffolding) based on the participants' age, academic background, race, VR ownership and experience, gender, and previous knowledge about Marie Curie. Using this information helped with a balanced distribution between the scaffolding and non-scaffolding groups with regard to pre-existing knowledge and demographic characteristics. Thanks to this assignment, our groups were homogenous given <emph>t</emph>-tests scores. As shown in Table 1, the analysis of descriptive statistics of demographic data showed no significant differences between the experimental (scaffolding) and the control group (non-scaffolding).</p> <p>Table 1 Participants' Demographic Information</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Demographic information</p></th><th align="left"><p>Sample</p></th><th align="left"><p>Scaffolding</p></th><th align="left"><p>Non-Scaffolding</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>p</italic> values</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Age (< 50 vs > 50)</p></td><td align="left"><p>42 vs 10</p></td><td align="left"><p>23 vs 3</p></td><td align="left"><p>19 vs 7</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.17</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Academic background (college grad vs higher)</p></td><td align="left"><p>21 vs 31</p></td><td align="left"><p>10 vs 16</p></td><td align="left"><p>11 vs 15</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.78</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Race (White vs Non-White)</p></td><td align="left"><p>35 vs 17</p></td><td align="left"><p>16 vs 10</p></td><td align="left"><p>19 vs 7</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.39</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>VR ownership and Experience (own vs not)</p></td><td align="left"><p>49 vs 3</p></td><td align="left"><p>25 vs 1</p></td><td align="left"><p>24 vs 2</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.02</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Gender (female vs male vs other)</p></td><td align="left"><p>28 vs 23 vs 1</p></td><td align="left"><p>15 vs 10 vs 1</p></td><td align="left"><p>13 vs 13</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.59</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Marie Curie (know vs not)</p></td><td align="left"><p>44 vs 8</p></td><td align="left"><p>22 vs 4</p></td><td align="left"><p>22 vs 4</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.00</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0181199130-12">The VR Intervention and Scaffolding</hd> <p>We selected the VR app entitled "Breaking Boundaries in Science" because it was free, straightforward, and provided relevant learning content. One section of the app served as the study intervention in which participants learned about Marie Curie's personal life and her professional achievements. The exploration was self-paced and lasted around 30 min. The participants interacted with the VR environment without the researcher interrupting or helping. No specific instructions regarding how to navigate the VR environment were provided to see how the participants explored and interacted with the environment.</p> <p>As seen in Fig. 3, the VR app allowed the participants to travel in time to experience early twentieth century real-life work environment — Marie Curie's lab. Teleporting disks placed on the floor allowed the participants to move around the lab. The lab consisted of various typical items in the chemical lab (e.g., flasks, cylinders, funnels, burners) and items related to Marie Curie's personal life (e.g., family pictures, Polish flag, breakfast table, music collection). Among the many items in the lab, 28 were interactive. That is, upon clicking, the participants could receive more detailed information about these items. For example, clicking on item 4 would make a picture of Marie Curie's daughters pop up, together with text and a corresponding narration using simulated Marie Curie's voice (see Fig. 3). The VR device used for the study was Oculus Go.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 3 Screenshots from the VR app. Note. Left: Marie Curie showcasing her experiment in the lab. Right: A pop-up textual information accompanied by narration</p> <p>Prior to the VR intervention, the experimental group (<emph>n</emph> = 26) received scaffolding while the control group (<emph>n</emph> = 26) did not receive any scaffolding. According to Mayer and Pilegard ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref76">37</reflink>]), people learn more deeply from a multimedia message when they know the names and characteristics of the main concepts because the pre-training of key terms can lessen the CL experienced when presented with new concepts. Thus, we designed the hard scaffolds to provide the experimental group with the definitions of scientific terms used in the VR app. In addition to the key vocabulary, the scaffolding group was provided with key questions, which were intended to help the participants focus on the main content of the VR experience. Question prompts appear to be the most common application of hard scaffolds (Chen & Law, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref77">13</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0181199130-13">Data Collection</hd> <p>Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected from pre- and post-surveys and interviews. The pre- and post-surveys were developed using Qualtrics. Zoom was used for the post-intervention interviews.</p> <hd id="AN0181199130-14">Pre-Survey</hd> <p>The pre-survey elicited the following demographic information: race, age, native language, gender, education, VR experience, learning preferences, and the participants' prior knowledge of Marie Curie. The information collected in the pre-survey allowed systematic assignment of the participants to the experimental and the control groups, thus ensuring their homogeneity.</p> <hd id="AN0181199130-15">Post-Survey</hd> <p>The participants completed a post-survey immediately after the VR intervention. The post-survey consisted of four sections: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref78">1</reflink>) enjoyment, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref79">2</reflink>) knowledge test, (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref80">3</reflink>) cognitive load (CL), and (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref81">4</reflink>) perceived effectiveness of scaffolding.</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> <emph>Enjoyment.</emph> To measure how much the participants enjoyed exploring Marie Curie's life and work in VR, we adapted items from established and validated scales (Plant & Ryan, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref82">49</reflink>]; Ryan, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref83">51</reflink>]; Ryan & Deci, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref84">52</reflink>]). The test included seven items of the Interest/Enjoyment subscale in the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (https://selfdeterminationtheory.org/intrinsic-motivation-inventory). A 7-point scale was used for the Likert scale items (1 = Not at all true, 4 = Somewhat true, 7 = Very true). The instrument demonstrated good internal reliability, with a Cronbach's alpha of 0.85.</item> <p></p> <item> <emph>Knowledge test.</emph> We thoroughly explored the selected VR environment multiple times, carefully examining all information within it to ensure comprehensive coverage of the test items. To enhance the reliability and validity of the knowledge test, we also made iterative improvements to the test items through polit tests before the final administration. The knowledge test included eight questions measuring what the participants learned from the VR app. Out of the eight questions, three were related to scientific facts (e.g., Marie and Pierre Curie discovered the elements uranium and radium), and five questions were related to Marie Curie's personal life (e.g., Marie Curie was the first woman to win a Nobel Prize). Four response options were provided for each question: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref85">1</reflink>) True, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref86">2</reflink>) False, (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref87">3</reflink>) I don't remember, and (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref88">4</reflink>) I didn't see/hear this information. The responses that were correct received one point. No points were allocated to the incorrect responses or the responses "I don't remember" or "I didn't see/hear this information."</item> <p></p> <item> <emph>Cognitive load (CL).</emph> We modified the instrument developed by Leppink et al., ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref89">33</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref90">34</reflink>]) and used 12 items to measure Intrinsic Load (IL), Extraneous Load (EL), and Germane Load (GL). A 11-point scale was used, in which '0' indicates not at all the case and '10' indicates completely the case.</item> <p></p> <item> <emph>Perceived effectiveness of scaffolding.</emph> Two open-ended items were added to the post-survey for the experimental group to explore participants' perceptions of the hard scaffolds.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0181199130-16">Post-intervention Interviews</hd> <p>Post-intervention interviews were conducted and recorded via Zoom to examine the participants' learning experience in VR. Twelve participants (6 from scaffolding and 6 from non-scaffolding groups) voluntarily participated in the post-intervention interviews. Each interview lasted approximately 20 min. The following sample questions were used for the post-intervention interviews:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Please describe your learning experience in VR.</item> <p></p> <item> What did you enjoy? What did you dislike?</item> <p></p> <item> What challenges did you face in the environment?</item> <p></p> <item> What suggestions do you have to make the VR environment more effective?</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0181199130-17">Data Analysis</hd> <p>The quantitative data were analyzed using Statistical Analysis Software (SAS). <emph>T</emph>-tests and Mann–Whitney U tests were performed to compare the scaffolding and non-scaffolding groups. The Shapiro–Wilk test (Shapiro & Wilk, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref91">54</reflink>]) was used to check the normality assumptions. Thematic analysis methods were used to inductively code qualitative data for emerging themes (Braun et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref92">11</reflink>]). The qualitative data from Zoom interviews and the open-ended questions from the post-survey were carefully examined, coded, and constantly compared. To increase validity and reliability, two researchers independently coded a portion of the interview transcripts to reach consensus. Then, one researcher coded all the interview data and developed themes.</p> <hd id="AN0181199130-18">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0181199130-19">Interest/Enjoyment</hd> <p>To examine how much the participants enjoyed the VR activity and specifically what they enjoyed during the VR exploration, both qualitative and quantitative data were collected from interviews and the post-survey. Overall, the participants enjoyed the VR activity as seen in Table 2 (<emph>M</emph> = 6.13, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.97).</p> <p>Table 2 Interest/Enjoyment</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left"><p><italic>M</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>Mdn</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>SD</italic></p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>I enjoyed doing this activity very much</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>6.31</p></td><td align="left"><p>7</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.24</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>This activity was fun to do</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>6.31</p></td><td align="left"><p>7</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.30</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><italic>I did not think this was a boring activity</italic></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p><italic>5.23</italic></p></td><td align="left"><p><italic>7</italic></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p><italic>1.18</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><italic>This activity held my attention</italic></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p><italic>5.44</italic></p></td><td align="left"><p><italic>7</italic></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p><italic>1.23</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>I would describe this activity as very interesting</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>6.21</p></td><td align="left"><p>7</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.37</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>I thought this activity was quite enjoyable</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>6.29</p></td><td align="left"><p>7</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.46</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>While I was doing this activity, I was thinking about how much I enjoyed it</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>5.12</p></td><td align="left"><p>5</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.77</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>A 7-point scale was used (1 = Not at all true, 4 = Somewhat true, 7 = Very true). Items in italics were reverse coded</p> <p>The participants reported that they enjoyed seeing Marie Curie, listening to her stories, viewing her photos, graphics, documents, and animations. Overall, they found the storytelling aspect of the VR learning particularly enjoyable. On the other hand, they were not very interested in learning about scientific facts. Most participants were not very interested in science or chemistry and were inattentive to learning the scientific facts. In fact, several participants commented that they did not focus on remembering scientific facts because they were not very interesting.</p> <p>The qualitative data analysis revealed that the duration of enjoyment varied. Some participants found the entire VR experience very "fun," "engaging," "cool," and "impressive." However, the feeling of enjoyment did not last long to some participants. Several participants reported that although it was fun in the beginning, they got "bored" or "distracted" later on.</p> <hd id="AN0181199130-20">Challenges in VR Learning</hd> <p>Overall, all participants showed positive attitudes toward the use of VR for learning. The participants felt that VR has a great potential for education and that learning through VR could be more interactive and engaging than learning from a book. However, regardless of their positive attitudes, they experienced several challenges during the VR intervention. Five themes were identified regarding the challenges in learning with the VR headset: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref93">1</reflink>) navigation confusion, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref94">2</reflink>) self-directed exploration without instructor guidance, (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref95">3</reflink>) inability to take notes, (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref96">4</reflink>) discomfort, and (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref97">5</reflink>) access issues.</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> <emph>Navigation confusion</emph>. Interestingly, all interview participants reported that they felt confused, lost, or frustrated because they did not know where to begin, what to do, and/or where to stop. They commented that it was unclear whether they should go clockwise or counterclockwise. A few participants reported that they found an introduction to the app only toward the end of the VR experience. Several participants mentioned that it was hard to find some of the learning content.</item> <p></p> <item> <emph>Self-directed exploration without instructor guidance</emph>. It appears that self-directed exploration was challenging for some participants. For example, Participant 2 found it difficult to go through the learning process without being able to ask questions to the instructor during the experience.</item> <p></p> <item> <emph>Inability to take notes.</emph> Note-taking is one of common learning strategies, especially in a traditional learning environment. Inability to take notes was identified as one of the challenges in VR learning. For example, Participant 4 reported that she could not write anything down during the VR learning, which made remembering the content hard.</item> <p></p> <item> <emph>Discomfort.</emph> Some participants felt uncomfortable with the headset. For example, Participant 3 often got distracted due to the discomfort with the headset and could not read the text without reading glasses. She felt that VR might not be a good learning environment for some people.</item> <p></p> <item> <emph>Access issues.</emph> Although all participants felt that VR has a potential for learning, several participants were concerned about the access issues. For example, Participant 1 thought that it would be challenging to implement VR in education due to limited access to VR equipment.</item> </ulist> <p>The participants made various suggestions for improving the VR app. Several participants felt that they had excessive freedom and suggested making VR less self-paced and less exploratory. Participant 7 suggested including more interactive elements and social components. Participant 5 felt that the VR app did not take full advantage of VR technology. Pointing out that simply walking around the lab was trivial, he suggested making it more engaging considering all the possibilities. Participant 9 suggested that there should be a specific virtual guide within the VR lab so that learners could focus on learning rather than needing to find hidden information. Similarly, another participant thought that it would be very engaging if Marie Curie provided some introduction and guidance at the beginning of the experience regarding how to navigate through the lab.</p> <hd id="AN0181199130-21">The Impact of Scaffolding</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0181199130-22">Perceived Effectiveness of Scaffolding</hd> <p>The scaffolding was used differently by different participants. Some participants paid little attention to the scaffolding, while others spent quite some time with the scaffolding. Participant 11, for example, tried to memorize the vocabulary included in the scaffolding. Overall, most participants in the scaffolding group found the scaffolding to be helpful. They reported that the introduction guide gave them "some background knowledge," prepared them "for the basic concept to be reviewed," and helped them "focus on the important facts" during the VR activity. However, Participant 9 commented that the app was straightforward and easy to navigate even without the guidance. Participant 6 mentioned that he wished he could have checked the vocabulary during the VR activity.</p> <hd id="AN0181199130-23">Impact on Cognitive Load</hd> <p>To determine whether there were differences in CL scores between the scaffolding and non-scaffolding groups, we ran a Mann–Whitney <emph>U</emph> test. Distributions of the CL scores for the two groups were similar, as assessed by visual inspection. Cognitive load scores were not statistically significantly different between the scaffolding group (<emph>M</emph> = 4.35, <emph>Mdn</emph> = 4.42, <emph>SD</emph> = 1.57, <emph>Min</emph> = 1.50, <emph>Max</emph> = 7.67) and non-scaffolding group (<emph>M</emph> = 3.85, <emph>Mdn</emph> = 3.79; <emph>SD</emph> = 1.20, <emph>z</emph> = 0.84, <emph>p</emph> = 0.20. Both groups reported low levels of intrinsic and extrinsic loads but relatively high level of germane load. Table 3 shows the means and standard deviations of each survey items clustered by intrinsic load, extraneous load, and germane load. The 12-item questionnaire had an acceptable level of internal consistency, as determined by Cronbach's Alpha of 0.75.</p> <p>Table 3 Cognitive Load Values for the Scaffolding and Non-Scaffolding Groups</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Scaffolding</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Non-Scaffolding</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left"><p><italic>M</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>SD</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>M</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>SD</italic></p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p><bold>Intrinsic Load (IL)</bold></p><p>The content of this activity was very complex</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4.04</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.69</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.12</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.02</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>The topics covered in this activity were very complex</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.65</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.17</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.85</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.68</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>In this activity, very complex terms were mentioned</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4.31</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.31</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.69</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.54</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>I invested a very high mental effort in the complexity of this activity</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.92</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.33</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.08</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.86</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char"><p><bold>3.98</bold></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p><bold>3.13</bold></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p><bold>3.19</bold></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p><bold>3.03</bold></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><bold>Extraneous Load (EL)</bold></p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>The explanations and instructions in this activity were very unclear</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.69</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.24</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.77</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.42</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>The explanations and instructions in this activity were full of unclear language</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.19</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.39</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.58</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.64</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>The explanations and instructions in this activity were, in terms of learning, very ineffective</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.69</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.30</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.62</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.02</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>I invested a very high mental effort in unclear and ineffective explanations and instructions in this activity</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.38</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.95</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.96</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.79</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char"><p><bold>1.99</bold></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p><bold>2.47</bold></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p><bold>1.98</bold></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p><bold>2.72</bold></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><bold>Germane Load (GL)</bold></p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>This activity really enhanced my understanding of the content that was covered</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>8.38</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.65</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>7.88</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.05</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>This activity really enhanced my knowledge of the terms that were mentioned</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>8.04</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.91</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>7.23</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.23</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>This activity really enhanced my knowledge and understanding of science</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>7.58</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.14</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>6.38</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.79</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>I invested a very high mental effort during this activity in enhancing my knowledge and understanding</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4.35</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.41</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4.08</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.15</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char"><p><bold>8.21</bold></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p><bold>1.78</bold></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p><bold>7.56</bold></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p><bold>2.14</bold></p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0181199130-24">Impact on Learning</hd> <p>The knowledge test included eight items, and the total score of the test was eight. The analysis of knowledge test scores revealed that the normality assumptions using Shapiro–Wilk tests were violated (W = 0.93, p < 0.05). Therefore, although the scores were parametric, we needed to run non-parametric tests. To calculate whether there were differences in the knowledge test scores between the scaffolding and non-scaffolding groups, we conducted a Mann–Whitney U test. As assessed by visual inspection, the distributions of the learning scores for the two groups were alike. The knowledge test scores were not significantly different (<emph>Z</emph> = 0.19, <emph>p</emph> = 0.85) between the scaffolding (<emph>M</emph> = 5.15, <emph>Mdn</emph> = 5.50; <emph>SD</emph> = 2.01, <emph>Min</emph> = 0.00, <emph>Max</emph> = 8.0) and non-scaffolding (<emph>M</emph> = 5.35, <emph>Mdn</emph> = 5.00, <emph>SD</emph> = 1.77, <emph>Min</emph> = 2.00, <emph>Max</emph> = 8.00) groups. The knowledge test had a moderate level of internal consistency, as determined by Cronbach's Alpha of 0.66.</p> <p>Some participants felt that they might have learned better if they had read the content on a paper. For example, Participant 7 felt that she would have done a better job on a test if she had been given the content on a paper, even though she enjoyed the VR experience. Further, she commented that it would be more helpful to have the content in both traditional and VR formats. Similarly, Participant 5 commented that he would prefer clicking around different parts of a computer screen rather than being in an immersive VR if it provides similar multimedia elements.</p> <hd id="AN0181199130-25">Discussion</hd> <p>Many VR studies report the participants' enjoyment (Di Natale et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref98">17</reflink>]; Kaplan-Rakowski & Gruber, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref99">22</reflink>]; Kaplan-Rakowski & Wojdynski, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref100">24</reflink>]) but rarely provide details. By analyzing both quantitative and qualitative data, this study found what aspects of VR learning were enjoyable beyond whether the participants enjoyed the experience or not. The results revealed that the participants enjoyed the storytelling aspect of the VR experience, which covered information on the personal and professional life of Marie Curie and was enriched with photos, graphics, documents, and animations. On the other hand, most participants appeared less interested in the part of the experience that focused on scientific content. Consequently, they did not recall many scientific facts, but they were able to remember specific stories of Marie Curie's life. This finding supports the notion that facts are more likely to be remembered when embedded in a story (Aaker & Aaker, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref101">1</reflink>]). Further research is necessary to explore the impact of storytelling in the context of VR learning. In addition, the finding indicates that VR might not be an ideal medium for teaching basic facts, which was noted by previous research (Makransky et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref102">35</reflink>]). However, different results may have emerged in more formal learning environments.</p> <p>Due to binocular disparity while viewing stereoscopic visualizations (Kaplan-Rakowski et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref103">25</reflink>]), VR studies often report the VR headset issues such as cybersickness (Kaplan-Rakowski & Wojdynski, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref104">24</reflink>]; Papin & Kaplan-Rakowski, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref105">45</reflink>]). In this study, several participants reported feeling uncomfortable with the headset and having trouble reading text without glasses. However, no one reported having cybersickness. Instead, the major challenges the participants experienced in this study were related to the necessity of self-directed exploration in immersive environments. Some participants did not know where to begin, what to do, and where to stop without instructor guidance. Although they enjoyed the immersive VR environment, they felt that they might have learned better if they had the content in a traditional or less immersive formats (e.g., handouts, 2D materials). This finding indicates that some learners, especially adult learners who are accustomed to traditional paper-based learning, may have more challenges in VR learning even though they enjoy the immersive experience. It would be interesting to examine how different age groups (e.g., children vs. adults) navigate differently in high-immersion VR. Although some research has indicated no statistical differences in how younger and older users engage with VR (Kaplan-Rakowski et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref106">26</reflink>]), further research is needed in this area.</p> <p>Research on scaffolding in VR learning is limited. However, existing literature indicates that scaffolding positively affects students' learning and performance in game-based learning environments (Barzilai & Blau, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref107">7</reflink>]; Chen & Law, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref108">13</reflink>]). Based on these previous findings, we expected that the scaffolding might reduce CL for the scaffolding group and enable them to perform better on the knowledge test. Most participants in the scaffolding group found the hard scaffolding helpful because it provided background knowledge and helped them focus on important content during the VR intervention. Despite the perceived effectiveness of the hard scaffolding, the scaffolding did not significantly impact on the participants' CL and learning. Surprisingly, both CL and knowledge test scores were not significantly different between the scaffolding and non-scaffolding groups. However, this finding may be attributed to the limited sample size of the groups being compared.</p> <p>Qualitative data analysis provided some insights that explain the unexpected findings. First, the participants in this study invested relatively low mental efforts in the VR learning experience, as indicated by the intrinsic load scores. Additionally, interview results showed that the overall content was perceived as easy. Different findings might have emerged with more complex and difficult content. Second, the participants were adult volunteers in informal learning settings, and they tended to engage in selective learning, focusing on the storytelling aspect of the VR experience rather than the scientific content. The impact of scaffolding might have been different in a more formal classroom setting. Finally, embedded scaffolding may have been more effective in an immersive VR learning environment. An eye-tracking study by Bacca-Acosta et al. ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref109">4</reflink>]) found that scaffolds naturally embedded in the immersive VR environment were more effective in enhancing students' learning performance. Participants in this study also felt that it would have been more engaging and helpful if the guidance had been provided within the VR environment. Additionally, it was noted that the participants were unable to refer back to the external scaffolding during the VR intervention. The findings might have been different with embedded scaffolding that provides just-in-time support.</p> <hd id="AN0181199130-26">Conclusion, Limitations, and Future Research</hd> <p>Despite the increasing number of studies on VR learning, research on how to adequately support self-directed exploration in immersive VR environments is rare. By examining adult learners' VR learning experiences, this study shows what aspects of high-immersion VR learning adults enjoy and what kinds of challenges adults face. The results of the study raise many important questions and provide useful insights into what to consider when using VR for learning.</p> <p>Meanwhile, this study has several limitations. First, while we tried to include participants who were experienced VR users, for some participants, learning in VR was new, making them prone to the novelty effect. Follow-up studies should consider separate analyses focusing on experienced and non-experienced VR users or including pre-training sessions with new users allowing them to get used to VR technology prior to interventions. Second, using self-reported measures of CL is limited. Future studies should take advantage of biometric technology which provides objective ways to detect learners' levels of CL and engagement. Third, although the VR app selected for the study was relatively static, several participants reported discomfort. Future studies should employ more advanced VR equipment, ensuring more comfortable VR experiences. Finally, future studies should investigate the impact of scaffolding in VR learning using different types of scaffolds (e.g., hard, soft, external, embedded) and content (e.g., facts, stories, easy, difficult).</p> <hd id="AN0181199130-27">Acknowledgements</hd> <p>We would like to express our sincere gratitude for the gift cards provided by the Center for Learning Experimentation, Application and Research (CLEAR) to help us recruit subject participants for our research project.</p> <hd id="AN0181199130-28">Data Availability</hd> <p>The data that support the findings of this study are available from the authors upon reasonable request.</p> <hd id="AN0181199130-29">Declarations</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0181199130-30">Ethics Approval</hd> <p>This study was approved by IRB of the University of North Texas. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants.</p> <hd id="AN0181199130-31">Conflict of Interest</hd> <p>The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.</p> <hd id="AN0181199130-32">Publisher's Note</hd> <p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0181199130-33"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref78" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Aaker D, Aaker JL. What are your signature stories?. California Management Review. 2016; 58; 3: 49-65. 10.1525/cmr.2016.58.3.49</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref6" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Ahn SJ, Bostick J, Ogle E, Nowak KL, Mcgillicuddy KT, Bailenson JN. Experiencing nature: Embodying animals in immersive virtual environments increases inclusion of nature in self and involvement with nature. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. 2016; 21: 399-419. 10.1111/jcc4.12173</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref65" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> An Y, Cao L. Examining the effects of metacognitive scaffolding on students' design problem solving and metacognitive skills in an online environment. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching. 2014; 10; 4: 552-568</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref81" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Bacca-Acosta, J, Tejada, J, Fabregat, R, Kinshuk, & Guevara, J. (2022). Scaffolding in immersive virtual reality environments for learning English: an eye tracking study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 70, 339–362. https://doi-org.libproxy.library.unt.edu/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-021-10068-7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref7" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Baceviciute S, Terkildsen T, Makransky G. Remediating learning from non-immersive to immersive media: Using EEG to investigate the effects of environmental embeddedness on reading in virtual reality. Computers & Education. 2021; 164: 1. 10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104122</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref39" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Baddeley, A. D, & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 8) (pp. 47–89). Academic Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref73" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Barzilai S, Blau I. Scaffolding game-based learning: Impact on learning achievements, perceived learning, and game experiences. Computers & Education. 2014; 70: 65-79. 10.1016/j.compedu.2013.08.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref67" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Belland BR, Grazewski KD, Richardson JC. Problem-based learning and argumentation: Testing a scaffolding framework to support middle school students. Instructional Science: An International Journal of the Learning Sciences. 2011; 39; 5: 667. 10.1007/s11251-010-9148-z</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref1" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Blascovich J, Bailenson J. Infinite reality: Avatars, eternal life, new worlds, and the dawn of the virtual revolution. 2011; HarperCollins</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bohil CJ, Alicea B, Biocca FA. Virtual reality in neuroscience research and therapy. Nature Reviews Neuroscience. 2011; 12; 12: 752-762. 10.1038/nrn3122</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Braun V, Clarke V, Rance NVossler A, Moller NP. How to use thematic analysis with interview data (process research). The counselling and psychotherapy research handbook. 2014; Sage</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Burdea GC, Coiffet P. Virtual reality technology. 20032; John Wiley & Sons</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chen C-H, Law V. Scaffolding individual and collaborative game-based learning in learning performance and intrinsic motivation. Computers in Human Behavior. 2016; 55: 1201-1212. 10.1016/j.chb.2015.03.010</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chen C-H, Chung M-Y, Wu W-C. The effects of faded prompts and feedback on college students' reflective writing skills. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher. 2013; 22; 4: 571-583. 10.1007/s40299-013-0059-z</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chen C-H, Chou Y-Y, Huang C-Y. An augmented-reality-based concept map to support mobile learning for science. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher. 2016; 25; 4: 567-578. 10.1007/s40299-016-0284-3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dhimolea TK, Kaplan-Rakowski R, Lin L. A systematic review of virtual reality language learning. TechTrends. 2022; 66: 810-824. 10.1007/s11528-022-00717-w</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Di Natale AF, Repetto C, Riva G, Villani D. Immersive virtual reality in K-12 and higher education: A 10-year systematic review of empirical research. British Journal of Educational Technology. 2020; 51; 6: 2006-2033. 10.1111/bjet.13030</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ge X, Land S. Scaffolding students' problem-solving processes in an ill-structured task using question prompts and peer interactions. Educational Technology Research and Development. 2003; 51; 1: 21-38. 10.1007/BF02504515</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hwang G-J, Wu P-H, Chen C-C. An online game approach for improving students' learning performance in web-based problem-solving activities. Computers & Education. 2012; 59; 4: 1246-1256. 10.1016/j.compedu.2012.05.009</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kao GY, Chiang C-H, Sun C-T. Customizing scaffolds for game-based learning in physics: Impacts on knowledge acquisition and game design activity. Computers & Education. 2017; 113: 294-312. 10.1016/j.compedu.2017.05.022</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. (2022). Motivation and reading in high-immersion virtual reality. In B. Arnbjörnsdóttir, B. Bédi, L. Bradley, K. Friðriksdóttir, H. Garðarsdóttir, S. Thouësny, & M. J. Whelpton (Eds), Intelligent CALL, granular systems, and learner data: Short papers from EUROCALL 2022 (pp. 208–213). Research-publishing.net. https://doi.org/10.14705/rpnet.2022.61.1460</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kaplan-Rakowski R, Gruber A. An experimental study on reading in high-immersion virtual reality. British Journal of Educational Technology. 2023; 55; 2: 541-559. 10.1111/bjet.13392</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> Kaplan-Rakowski R, Lin L, Wojdynski T. Learning vocabulary using 2D pictures is more effective than using immersive 3D stereoscopic pictures. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction. 2022; 38; 4: 299-308. 10.1080/10447318.2021.1938394</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kaplan-Rakowski R, Cockerham D, Ferdig RE. The impact of sound and immersive experience on learners using high-immersion virtual reality and tablet: A mixed-methods study. British Journal of Educational Technology. 2023. 10.1111/bjet.13417</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kaplan-Rakowski R, Dhimolea TK, Khukalenko I. Language teachers' beliefs about using immersive virtual reality. Education and Information Technologies. 2023. 10.1007/s10639-023-11686-9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kaplan-Rakowski R, Papin K, Hartwick P. Language teachers' perceptions and use of extended reality. CALICO Journal. 2023; 40; 1: 1. 10.1558/cj.22759</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Khukalenko IS, Kaplan-Rakowski R, An Y, Iushina VD. Teachers' perceptions of using virtual reality technology in classrooms: A large-scale survey. Education and Information Technologies. 2022; 27: 11591-116113. 10.1007/s10639-022-11061-0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kim NJ, Belland BR, Walker AE. Effectiveness of computer-based scaffolding in the context of problem-based learning for STEM education: Bayesian meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review. 2018; 30; 2: 397-429. 10.1007/s10648-017-9419-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kirschner F, Paas F, Kirschner PA. Task complexity as a driver for collaborative learning efficiency: The collective working-memory effect. Applied Cognitive Psychology. 2011; 25: 615-624. 10.1002/acp.1730</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lee CY, Chen MP. A computer game as a context for non-routine mathematical problem solving: The effects of question prompt and level of prior knowledge. Computers & Education. 2009; 52; 3: 530-542. 10.1016/j.compedu.2008.10.008</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Leppink J, Paas F, van der Vleuten CPM, van Gog T, van Merrienboer JJG. Development of an instrument for measuring different types of cognitive load. Behavior Research Methods. 2013; 45: 1058-1072. 10.3758/s13428-013-0334-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Leppink J, Paas F, van Gog T, van der Vleuten CPM, van Merriënboer JJG. Effects of pairs of problems and examples on task performance and different types of cognitive load. Learning and Instruction. 2014; 30: 32-42. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.12.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Makransky G, Terkildsen TS, Mayer RE. Adding immersive virtual reality to a science lab simulation causes more presence but less learning. Learning and Instruction. 2019; 60: 225-236. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.12.007</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Markowitz DM, Laha R, Perone BP, Pea RD, Bailenson JN. Immersive virtual reality field trips facilitating learning about climate change. Frontiers in Psychology. 2018; 9: 2364. 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02364</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mayer RE, Pilegard CMayer RE. Principles for managing essential processing in multimedia learning: Segmenting, pre-training, and modality principles. The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. 2014; Cambridge University Press: 316-344. 10.1017/CBO9781139547369.016</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mayer RE, Makransky G, Parong J. The promise and pitfalls of learning in immersive virtual reality. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction. 2022. 10.1080/10447318.2022.2108563</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mayer, R. E. (2021). Multimedia learning (3rd ed, 57–72). Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mayer, R. E. (2022). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer & L. Fiorella (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (3rd ed, pp. 57–72). Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Meyer O, Omdahl MK, Makransky G. Investigating the effect of pre-training when learning through immersive virtual reality and video: A media and methods experiment. Computers & Education. 2019; 140: 103603. 10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103603</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Miller G. The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review. 1956; 63: 81-97. 10.1037/h0043158</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Paas F, van Merriënboer JJG. Instructional control of cognitive load in the training of complex cognitive tasks. Educational Psychology Review. 1994; 6: 51-71. 10.1007/BF02213420</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pan X, Hamilton AFDC. Why and how to use virtual reality to study human social interaction: The challenges of exploring a new research landscape. British Journal of Psychology. 2018; 109; 3: 395-417. 10.1111/bjop.12290</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Papin K, Kaplan-Rakowski R. A study on vocabulary learning using immersive 360° pictures. Computer Assisted Language Learning. 2022; 35: 1108-1135. 10.1080/09588221.2022.2068613</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Parmaxi A. Virtual reality in language learning: A systematic review and implications for research and practice. Interactive Learning Environments. 2023; 31; 1: 172-184. 10.1080/10494820.2020.1765392</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Parsons TD, Gaggioli A, Riva G. Virtual environments in social neuroscience. Brain Sciences. 2017; 7; 42: 1-21</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Peterson LR, Peterson MJ. Short-term retention of individual verbal items. Journal of Experimental Psychology. 1959; 58: 193-198. 10.1037/h0049234</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Plant RW, Ryan RM. Intrinsic motivation and the effects of self-consciousness, self-awareness, and ego-involvement: An investigation of internally controlling styles. Journal of Personality. 1985; 53; 3: 435-449. 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1985.tb00375.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rospigliosi PA. Metaverse or Simulacra? Roblox, Minecraft, Meta and the turn to virtual reality for education, socialisation and work. Interactive Learning Environments. 2022; 30; 1: 1-3. 10.1080/10494820.2022.2022899</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ryan RM. Control and information in the intrapersonal sphere: An extension of cognitive evaluation theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1982; 43; 3: 450. 10.1037/0022-3514.43.3.450</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ryan RM, Deci EL. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist. 2000; 55; 1: 68. 10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saye JW, Brush T. Scaffolding critical reasoning about history and social issues in multimedia-supported learning environment. Educational Technology Research and Development. 2002; 50; 3: 77-96. 10.1007/BF02505026</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shapiro SS, Wilk MB. An analysis of variance test for normality: Complete samples. Biometrika. 1965; 52; 3: 591-611. 10.1093/biomet/52.3-4.591</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Steuer J. Defining virtual reality: Dimensions determining telepresence. Journal of Communication. 1992; 42; 4: 73-93. 10.1111/j.1460-2466.1992.tb00812.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sweller J. Element interactivity and intrinsic, extraneous and germane cognitive load. Educational Psychology Review. 2010; 22: 123-138. 10.1007/s10648-010-9128-5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sweller J, Van Merriënboer JJG, Paas F. Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review. 1998; 10: 251-296. 10.1023/A:1022193728205</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thrasher, T, Kaplan-Rakowski, R, Chun, D, & Sadler, R. (2023). Virtual reality: "Awesome", "OK", or "Not so good" for language learning? In B. Bédi, Y. Choubsaz, K. Friðriksdóttir, A. Gimeno-Sanz, S. Björg Vilhjálmsdóttir, & S. Zahova (Eds.), CALL for all Languages - EUROCALL 2023 Short Papers.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Van Merriënboer JJG, Sweller J. Cognitive load theory and complex learning: Recent developments and future directions. Educational Psychology Review. 2005; 17: 147-177. 10.1007/s10648-005-3951-0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vygotsky LS. Mind in society. 1978; Harvard University Press</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wood D, Bruner J, Ross G. The role of tutoring in problem-solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 1976; 17: 89-100. 10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ye, Y, & Kaplan-Rakowski, R. (2024). An exploratory study on practising listening comprehension skills in high-immersion virtual reality. British Journal of Educational Technology, 55(4), 1651–1672. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13481</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Yunjo An and Regina Kaplan-Rakowski</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref92"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref98"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref99"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref103"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1450900
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Examining Adults' Enjoyment, Challenges, and Cognitive Load in Informal Learning with High-Immersion Virtual Reality
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Yunjo+An%22">Yunjo An</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2763-1297">0000-0002-2763-1297</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Regina+Kaplan-Rakowski%22">Regina Kaplan-Rakowski</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22TechTrends%3A+Linking+Research+and+Practice+to+Improve+Learning%22"><i>TechTrends: Linking Research and Practice to Improve Learning</i></searchLink>. 2024 68(6):1118-1128.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 11
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Adult+Education%22">Adult Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Informal+Education%22">Informal Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Computer+Simulation%22">Computer Simulation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Experiential+Learning%22">Experiential Learning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Adults%22">Adults</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Positive+Attitudes%22">Positive Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Cognitive+Processes%22">Cognitive Processes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Difficulty+Level%22">Difficulty Level</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Adult+Learning%22">Adult Learning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Learning+Processes%22">Learning Processes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Scaffolding+%28Teaching+Technique%29%22">Scaffolding (Teaching Technique)</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1007/s11528-024-00999-2
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 8756-3894<br />1559-7075
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Most research on virtual reality (VR) for learning has focused on young populations in formal learning contexts. Little research has been conducted on how adults engage in informal learning using VR. This study examined adults' informal learning experiences in high-immersion VR, focusing on the aspects of VR they enjoyed and the challenges they encountered. Furthermore, the study investigated how external, hard scaffolding influenced the participants' cognitive load and learning in VR. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected from pre- and post-surveys and post-intervention interviews. Participants found the storytelling aspect of the VR experience particularly enjoyable. They encountered several unique challenges during the VR intervention, including navigation confusion and self-directed exploration without instructor guidance. Surprisingly, the scaffolding did not have a statistically significant impact on the participants' cognitive load and learning. However, qualitative data analysis provided new insights that explain the unexpected findings.
– 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: EJ1450900
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1450900
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s11528-024-00999-2
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 11
        StartPage: 1118
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Informal Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Computer Simulation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Experiential Learning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Adults
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Positive Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Cognitive Processes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Difficulty Level
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Adult Learning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Learning Processes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Scaffolding (Teaching Technique)
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Examining Adults' Enjoyment, Challenges, and Cognitive Load in Informal Learning with High-Immersion Virtual Reality
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Yunjo An
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Regina Kaplan-Rakowski
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 11
              Type: published
              Y: 2024
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 8756-3894
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1559-7075
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 68
            – Type: issue
              Value: 6
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: TechTrends: Linking Research and Practice to Improve Learning
              Type: main
ResultId 1