Cited by 28Virtual Reality Applications and ImpactsSimulation and Modeling ApplicationsAugmented Reality Applications

A Comparison Study on the Learning Effectiveness of Construction Training Scenarios in a Virtual Reality Environment

Open access
Lee, Yee Sye, Rashidi, Ali, Talei, Amin, Beh, Huai Jian, Rashidi, Sina·2023·Virtual Worlds

Abstract

While VR-based training has been proven to improve learning effectiveness over conventional methods, there is a lack of study on its learning effectiveness due to the implementation of training modes. This study aims to investigate the learning effectiveness of engineering students under different training modes in VR-based construction design training. Three VR scenarios with varying degrees of immersiveness were developed based on Dale’s cone of learning experience, including (1) Audio-visual based training, (2) Interactive-based training, and (3) Contrived hands-on experience training. Sixteen students with varying backgrounds participated in this study. The results posit a positive correlation between learning effectiveness and the degree of immersiveness, with a mean score of 77.33%, 81.33%, and 82.67% in each training scenario, respectively. Participants with lower academic performance tend to perform significantly better in audio-visual and interactive-based training. Meanwhile, participants with experience in gaming tend to outperform the latter group. Results also showed that participants with less experience in gaming benefited the most from hands-on VR training. The findings suggest that the general audience retained the most information via hands-on VR training; however, training scenarios should be contextualized toward the targeted group to maximize learning effectiveness.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/virtualworlds2010003

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Repeated training sessions would allow for variability in training, which has an impact on learning, including in VR.

    “Moreover, repeated training sessions would also allow for variability in training, which have impact on learning, including in VR (Lee et al., 2023; Nickel et al., 2019).”

    From Speaking face-to-face with a virtual avatar to reduce anxiety in students who stutter: Tool development and pilot study results. (2026) · cites this paper as Lee et al., 2023

    Section 6 (Conclusions) reports that different VR training scenarios were associated with different learning effectiveness, supporting the point that training variation can matter in VR. Section 3.2 (Experimental Design) says participants completed three scenarios consecutively, but the paper does not establish that repeated training sessions enable variability or improve learning through repetition. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Cuqlock-Knopp, V.G.; Wilkins, C.A.; Torgerson, W.S. Multiple cue Probability Learning and the Design of Information Displays for Multiple Tasks. In Multiple Task Performance; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2020; pp. 139-152. [CrossRef] · DOI
  2. Poshdar, M.; Zhu, Y.; Ghodrati, N.; Alqudah, H.; Tookey, J.; Gonzáles, V.A.; Talebi, S. The Efficacy of Virtual-Reality Based Safety Training in Construction: Perceptions Versus Observation. In ECPPM 2021-eWork and eBusiness in Architecture, Engineering and Construction; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2021.
  3. Bruner, J. The Process of Education; Harvard University Press: London, UK, 1976.
  4. Bruner, J. Toward a Theory of Instruction; Harvard University Press: London, UK, 1974.
  5. Creswell, J.W. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches, 3rd ed.; SAGE Publications: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2009.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lee, Y. S., Rashidi, A., Talei, A., Beh, H. J., & Rashidi, S.
Affiliations
  • Monash University Malaysia (MY)
  • Monash University (AU)
  • Islamic Azad University, Tehran (IR)
Corresponding author
Rashidi, Ali
Venue
Virtual Worlds
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2023-02-02
Volume
2
Issue
1
Pages
36-52
ISSN
2813-2084 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4319080756
Cited by
27
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 5
FWCI
4.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Virtual Worlds (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • Monash University
  • Monash University Malaysia
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Virtual Reality Applications and Impacts
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Control and Systems Engineering › Simulation and Modeling Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Augmented Reality Applications
Keywords
virtual reality training, learning effectiveness, training mode, immersion level, Dale's Cone of Experience, audiovisual training, interactive training, hands-on training, engineering students, player experience, academic performance

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