Only half of reviewed IVR procedural-training studies framed their application with an explicit learning theory, and only two used IVR-specific theories (CTML or CAMIL)¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2024 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Learning theories were explicitly evoked in only 16 of 33 studies; only two referred directly to CTML or CAMIL as guiding pedagogical choices. → Jongbloed 2024

Evidence¶

Jongbloed 2024¶

Jongbloed, J., Chaker, R., & Lavoué, E. (2024). Immersive procedural training in virtual reality: A systematic literature review. Computers & Education, 221, 105124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2024.105124

q2 · i? · quant-synthesis · r2

Systematic review of 33 included studies categorizing theoretical framing. The review reports that "Learning theories were explicitly evoked in only half (16) of the 33 studies", with only Makransky et al. (2021) and Tai et al. (2022) citing CTML or CAMIL.

"Learning theories were explicitly evoked in only half (16) of the 33 studies (see Table A1 in the Appendix). This lack of explicit guiding principles has been highlighted by other researchers"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Immersive procedural training in VR shows a significant medium positive effect on learning outcomes compared to less immersive environments (Hedges' g = 0.58) — related
• Design guidelines from motivational and complex-skill theories (4C/ID, ARCS, CLT) contradict multimedia learning guidelines (CTML), producing seven specific design dilemmas — related