Adding immersive virtual reality to a science lab simulation causes more presence but less learning

Learning and Instruction

Volumn 60, Issue , 2019, Pages 225-236

  Makransky, Guido ^a   Terkildsen, Thomas S ^a   Mayer, Richard E ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN   (Denmark)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Cognitive load; EEG; Presence; Redundancy principle; Simulation; Virtual reality

Indexed keywords

EID: 85039065813     PISSN: 09594752     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.12.007     Document Type: Article

References (70)

1. iMotions A/S, EEG pocket guide. 2016 Retrieved from https://imotions.com/guides/on November 26th, 2016.
2. rd of December, 2016 from http://www.advancedbrainmonitoring.com/xseries/x10/.
3. Alhalabi, W.S., Virtual reality systems enhance students' achievements in engineering education. Behaviour & Information Technology 35:11 (2016), 919–925 http://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2016.1212931.
4. Antonenko, P., Paas, F., Grabner, R., Van Gog, T., Using electroencephalography to measure cognitive load. Educational Psychology Review 22:4 (2010), 425–438.
5. Bayraktar, S., A Meta-analysis of the effectiveness of computer-assisted instruction in science education. Journal of Research on Technology in Education 34:2 (2001), 173–188 https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2001.10782344.
6. Belini, H., Chen, W., Sugiyama, M., Shin, M., Alam, S., Takayama, D., Virtual & Augmented Reality: Understanding the race for the next computing platform. Goldman Sachs report., 2016 Retrieved on the 1st of March, 2017 from http://www.goldmansachs.com/our-thinking/pages/technology-driving-innovation-folder/virtual-and-augmented-reality/report.pdf.
7. Berka, C., Levendowski, D.J., Lumicao, M.N., Yau, A., Davis, G., Zivkovic, V.T., et al. EEG correlates of task engagement and mental workload in vigilance, learning, and memory tasks. Aviation Space & Environmental Medicine 78:5 (2007), 231–244.
8. Berka, C., Levendowski, D.J., Petrovic, M.M., Davis, G., Lumicao, M.N., Zivkovic, et al. Real-time analysis of EEG indexes of alertness, cognition, and memory acquired with a wirelessEEG headset. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 17:2 (2004), 151–170.
9. BIOPAC, B-ALERT with AcqKnowledge quick guide. Benchmark acquisition and cognitive states analysis. 2016 Retrieved on 10th November, 2016 https://www.biopac.com/wp-content/uploads/b-alert-with-acqknowledge-quick-guide.pdf.
10. Blascovich, J., Bailenson, J., Infinite reality. 2011, HarperCollins, New York.
11. Bodekaer, M., Michael Bodekaer: The virtual lab will revolutionize science class. 2016 Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/michael_bodekaer_this_virtual_lab_will_revolutionize_science_class.
12. Bonde, M.T., Makransky, G., Wandall, J., Larsen, M.V., Morsing, M., Jarmer, H., et al. Improving biotech education through gamified laboratory simulations. Nature Biotechnology 32:7 (2014), 694–697 http://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.2955.
13. Clark, B.D., Tanner-Smith, E.E., Killingsworth, S.S., Digital games, design, and learning: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research 86:1 (2016), 79–122 https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315582065.
14. Colliflower, Talya J., Interpretation of the WISC-IV working memory Index as a measure of attention., 2013 Theses, Dissertations and Capstones. Paper 699.
15. Cuban, L., Teachers and machines: The classroom use of technology since 1920. 1986, Teachers College Press.
16. De Jong, T., Instruction based on computer simulations and virtual laboratories. Mayer, R.E., Alexander, P.A., (eds.) Handbook of research on learning and instruction, 2nd ed., 2017, Routledge, New York, 502–521.
17. De Jong, T., Linn, M.C., Zacharia, Z.C., Physical and virtual laboratories in science and engineering education. Science 80:340 (2013), 305–308, 10.1126/science.1230579.
18. Dewey, J., Interest and effort in education. 1913, Houghton Mifflin, Cambridge, MA.
19. Galán, F.C., Beal, C.R., EEG estimates of engagement and cognitive workload predict math problem solving outcomes. Masthoff, J., et al. (eds.) UMAP 2012, LNCS 7379, 2012, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 51–62.
20. Gerjets, P., Walter, W., Rosenstiel, W., Bogdan, M., Zander, T.O., Cognitive state monitoring and the design of adaptive instruction in digital environments: Lessons learned from cognitive workload assessment using a passive brain-computer interface approach. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 8, 2014, 386, 10.3389/fnins.2014.00385.
21. Gevins, A., Smith, M.E., Leong, H., McEvoy, L., Whitfield, S., Du, R., et al. Monitoring working memory load during computer-based tasks with EEG pattern recognition methods. Human Factors 40:1 (1998), 79–91.
22. Greenlight, V.R., Roadtovr, 2016 virtual reality industry report., 2016 Retrieved from http://www.greenlightinsights.com/reports/2016-industry-report on March 3rd, 2017.
23. Harp, S.F., Mayer, R.E., The role of interest in learning from scientific text and illustrations: On the distinction between emotional interest and cognitive interest. Journal of Educational Psychology 89:1 (1997), 92–102 https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.89.1.92.
24. Honey, M.A., Hilton, M.L., Learning science through computer games and simulations. 2011, National Academies Press, Washington, DC.
25. Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., Sweller, J., Managing split-attention and redundancy in multimedia instruction. Applied Cognitive Psychology 13 (1999), 351–371.
26. nd ed., 2014, Cambridge University Press, New York, 247–262.
27. Klopfer, E., Augmented learning: Research and design of mobile educational games. 2008, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
28. Lee, E.A., Wong, K.W., Learning with desktop virtual reality: Low spatial ability learners are more positively affected. Computers & Education 79 (2014), 49–58.
29. Lee, E.A.-L., Wong, K.W., Fung, C.C., How does desktop virtual reality enhance learning outcomes? A structural equation modeling approach. Computers & Education 55:4 (2010), 1424–1442 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.06.006.
30. Limniou, M., Roberts, D., Papadopoulos, N., Full immersive virtual environment CAVEtm in chemistry education. Computers & Education 51:2 (2007), 584–593, 10.1016/j.compedu.2007.06.014.
31. Makransky, G., Bonde, M.T., Wulff, J.S.G., Wandall, J., Hood, M., Creed, P.A., et al. Simulation based virtual learning environment in medical genetics counseling: An example of bridging the gap between theory and practice in medical education. BMC Medical Education, 16(1), 2016 98. 6.
32. Makransky, G., Lilleholt, L., Aaby, A., Development and validation of the multimodal presence scale for virtual reality environments: A confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory approach. Computers in Human Behavior 72 (2017), 276–285 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.02.066.
33. Makransky, G., Thisgaard, M.W., Gadegaard, H., Virtual simulations as preparation for lab exercises: Assessing learning of key laboratory skills in microbiology and improvement of essential non-cognitive skills. PLoS One, 11(6), 2016, e0155895, 10.1371/journal.pone.0155895.
34. Mayer, R.E., Multimedia learning. 2nd ed., 2009, Cambridge University Press, New York.
35. Mayer, R.E., Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. Mayer, R.E., (eds.) The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning, 2nd ed., 2014, Cambridge University Press, New York, 43–71.
36. Mayer, R.E., How can brain research inform academic learning and instruction?. Educational Psychology Review 29 (2017), 835–846.
37. nd ed., 2014, Cambridge University Press, New York, 279–315.
38. Mayer, R.E., Heiser, J., Lonn, S., Cognitive constraints on multimedia learning: When presenting more material results. Journal of Educational Psychology 93:1 (2001), 187–198.
39. Merchant, Z., Goetz, E.T., Cifuentes, L., Kenney-Kennicutt, W., Davis, T.J., Effectiveness of virtual reality-based instruction on students' learning outcomes in K-12 and higher education. Computers & Education 70 (2014), 29–40.
40. Milk, C., Chris Milk: How virtual reality can create the ultimate empathy machine. 2015 Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/chris_milk_how_virtual_reality_can_create_the_ultimate_empathy_machine.
41. Mills, C., Fridman, I., Soussou, W., Waghray, D., Olney, A.M., D'Mello, S.K., Put your thinking cap on: Detecting cognitive load using EEG during learning. Proceedings of the seventh international learning analytics & knowledge conference, 2017, March, ACM, 80–89.
42. Moreno, R., Mayer, R.E., Cognitive principles of multimedia learning: The role of modality and contiguity. Journal of Educational Psychology 91 (1999), 358–368.
43. Moreno, R., Mayer, R.E., A coherence effect in multimedia learning: The case for minimizing irrelevant sounds in the design of multimedia messages. Journal of Educational Psychology 92 (2000), 117–125.
44. Moreno, R., Mayer, R.E., Learning science in virtual reality multimedia environments: Role of methods and media. Journal of Educational Psychology 94:3 (2002), 598–610.
45. Moreno, R., Mayer, R.E., Interactive multimodal learning environments. Educational Psychology Review 19 (2007), 309–326.
46. National Research Council, Learning science through computer games and simulations. committee on science learning: Computer games, simulations, and education. 2011, National Academies Press, Washington, DC.
47. Norman, D.A., Things that make us smart: Defending human attributes in the age of the machine. 1993, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
48. Pallant, J.F., Tennant, A., An introduction to the Rasch measurement model: An example using the hospital anxiety and depression scale (HADS). British Journal of Clinical Psychology 46 (2007), 1–18 https://doi.org/10.1348/014466506X96931.
49. Passig, D., Tzuriel, D., Eshel-Kedmi, G., Improving children's cognitive modifiability by dynamic assessment in 3D Immersive Virtual Reality environments. Computers & Education 95 (2016), 296–308.
50. Pekrun, R., Emotions at school. Wentzel, K.R., Miele, D.B., (eds.) Handbook of motivation at school, 2nd ed., 2016, Routledge, New York, 120–144.
51. Plass, J.L., Kaplan, U., Emotional design in digital media for learning. Tettegah, S.Y., Gartmeier, M., (eds.) Emotions, technology, design, and learning, 2015, Academic Press, San Diego, 131–161.
52. Rasch, G., Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. 1960, Danish Institute for Educational Research, Copenhagen.
53. Renninger, K.A., Hidi, S.E., The power of interest for motivation and engagement. 2016, Routledge, New York.
54. Richards, D., Taylor, M., A Comparison of learning gains when using a 2D simulation tool versus a 3D virtual world: An experiment to find the right representation involving the Marginal Value Theorem. Computers & Education 86 (2015), 157–171.
55. Rutten, N., van Joolingen, W.R., van der Veen, J.T., The learning effects of computer simulations in science education. Compuers & Education 58:1 (2012), 136–153 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.07.017.
56. Salzman, M.C., Dede, C., Loftin, R.B., Chen, J., A model for understanding how virtual reality aids complex conceptual learning. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 8:3 (1999), 293–316 http://doi.org/10.1162/105474699566242.
57. Sauseng, P., Klimesch, W., Doppelmayr, M., Pecherstorfer, T., Freunberger, R., Hanslmayr, S., EEG alpha synchronization and functional coupling during top-down processing in a working memory task. Human Brain Mapping 26:2 (2005), 148–155.
58. Schubert, T., Friedmann, F., Regenbrecht, H., The experience of presence: Factor analytic insights. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 10:3 (2001), 266–281 June 2001 https://doi.org/10.1162/105474601300343603.
59. th annual meeting, Vol. 58, 2014, SAGE Publications, Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA, 215–219 No. 1.
60. Sitzmann, T., A meta-analytic examination of the instructional effectiveness of computer-based simulation games. Personnel Psychology 64:2 (2011), 489–528, 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2011.01190.x.
61. Slater, M., Wilbur, S., A framework for immersive virtual environments (FIVE): Speculations on the role of presence in virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 6 (1997), 603–616.
62. Slotta, J.D., Linn, M.C., WISE Science: Web-based inquiry in the classroom. 2009, Teachers College Press, New York.
63. Sterman, M.B., Mann, C.A., Concepts and applications of EEG analysis in aviation performance evaluation. Biological Psychology 40 (1995), 115–130.
64. Stevens, R., Galloway, T., Berka, C., Behneman, A., Wohlgemuth, T., Lamb, J., et al. Linking models of team neurophysiologic synchronies for engagement and workload with measures of team communication. Proc. 20th conf. Behavioral representation in modeling and simulations, 2011, 122–129.
65. Sweller, J., Ayres, P.L., Kalyuga, S., Cognitive load theory. 2011, Springer, New York.
66. Thisgaard, M., Makransky, G., Virtual learning simulations in high School: Effects on cognitive and non-cognitive outcomes and implications on the development of STEM academic and career choice. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 2017.
67. Van Der Heijden, H., User acceptance of hedonic information systems. MIS Quarterly 28:4 (2004), 695–704.
68. Vogel, J.J., Vogel, D.S., Cannon-Bowers, J., Bowers, C.A., Muse, K., Wright, M., Computer gaming and interactive simulations for learning: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research 34:3 (2006), 229–243.
69. Webster, R., Declarative knowledge acquisition in immersive virtual learning environments. Interactive Learning Environments 24:6 (2016), 1319–1333.
70. Wentzel, K.R., Miele, D.B., Handbook of motivation at school. 2nd ed., 2016, Routledge, New York.