Cited by 1,088Virtual Reality Applications and ImpactsVisual and Cognitive Learning ProcessesOnline and Blended Learning

Learning science in immersive virtual reality.

Open access
Parong, Jocelyn, Mayer, Richard E.·2018·Journal of Educational Psychology

Abstract

The goals of the study were (a) to compare the instructional effectiveness of immersive virtual reality (VR) versus a desktop slideshow as media for teaching scientific knowledge, and (b) to examine the efficacy of adding a generative learning strategy to a VR lesson. In Experiment 1, college students viewed a biology lesson about how the human body works either in immersive VR or via a self-directed PowerPoint slideshow on a desktop computer. Based on interest theory, it was predicted that students who learned in immersive VR would report more positive ratings of interest and motivation and would score higher on a posttest covering material in the lesson. In contrast, based on the cognitive theory of multimedia learning, it was predicted that students who learned with a well-designed slideshow would score higher on a posttest, although they might not report higher levels of interest and motivation. The results showed that students who viewed the slideshow performed significantly better on the posttest than the VR group, but reported lower motivation, interest, and engagement ratings. In Experiment 2, students either viewed a segmented VR lesson and produced a written summary after each segment or viewed the original, continuous VR lesson as in Experiment 1. Students who summarized the lesson after each segment performed significantly better on the posttest and the groups did not differ on reported interest, engagement, and motivation. These results support the cognitive theory of multimedia learning and demonstrate the value of generative learning strategies in immersive VR environments. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved)

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/edu0000241

Cites

70 of 70 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Parong, J., & Mayer, R. E.
Affiliations
University of California, Santa Barbara (US)
Venue
Journal of Educational Psychology
Published
2018-08
Volume
110
Issue
6
Pages
785-797
ISSN
  • 0022-0663 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-2176
OpenAlex
W2792133971
Cited by
1,088
References
70
Citations by year
2026: 202 · 2025: 180 · 2024: 154 · 2023: 147 · 2022: 140 · 2021: 125 · 2020: 93 · 2019: 35 · 2018: 11
FWCI
65.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Journal of Educational Psychology (publishedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Office of Naval Research (N000141612046)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Virtual Reality Applications and Impacts
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
  • Social Sciences › Education › Online and Blended Learning
Keywords
immersive virtual reality, science learning, generative learning strategy, cognitive theory of multimedia learning, interest theory, student motivation, student engagement, biology education, teaching effectiveness

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review