Immersive lessons show a small effect size advantage over less immersive technology, but increased presence does not necessarily lead to more learning¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · theoretical r3 · q2–q3
Currency · newest study 2023 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Meta-analyses found a small effect size advantage for immersive lessons compared to less immersive technology, yet immersive environments can increase presence without necessarily leading to more learning. → Guido Makransky · Gustav Bøg Petersen 2023 q2 i? Using XR without considering instructional design, technology affordances, and desired outcomes can lead to distraction and less learning compared to traditional instruction. → Guido Makransky · Gustav Bøg Petersen 2023 (2)

Evidence¶

Guido Makransky · Gustav Bøg Petersen 2023¶

Guido Makransky · Gustav Bøg Petersen. (2023). The Theory of Immersive Collaborative Learning (TICOL). Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09822-5

q3 · i? · theoretical · r3

The review reports that meta-analyses by Coban et al. (2022) and Wu et al. (2020) found a "small effect size advantage for immersive lessons" over less immersive technology. No pooled effect size value is printed in the review.

"Meta-analyses have found a small effect size advantage for immersive lessons compared to less immersive technology (Coban et al., 2022; Wu et al., 2020)."

Guido Makransky · Gustav Bøg Petersen 2023 (2)¶

Guido Makransky · Gustav Bøg Petersen. (2023). The Theory of Immersive Collaborative Learning (TICOL). Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09822-5

q2 · i? · theoretical · r3

The review reports, citing multiple studies, that using XR without considering instructional design, technology affordances, and desired outcomes "can lead to distraction and less learning" compared to traditional instruction. It also states immersive environments can increase presence without necessarily leading to more learning.

"However, using XR without considering instructional design (Makransky et al., 2021; Makransky & Mayer, 2022), the affordances of the technology (Petersen et al., 2022), and the desired outcomes (Makransky, Borre-Gude, & Mayer, 2019) can lead to distraction and less learning (Makransky et al., 2021; Makransky, Terkildsen, & Mayer, 2019; Parong & Mayer, 2018) compared to traditional means of instruction."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Immersion principle: people do not necessarily learn better in 3D immersive virtual reality than with a corresponding 2D desktop presentation (d = -0.10 across 9 tests) — reports the opposite
• Increased perceptual fidelity fails to reliably improve serious game learning outcomes (the fidelity fallacy) — a broader claim this one bears on
• Immersion in virtual reality adds extraneous load yet can boost transfer, enjoyment, and motivation while leaving retention unaffected — related
• VR improved movement-based transfer test performance versus reading in security training, while learning in VR without the possibility to act was detrimental — related
• Immersive VR simulation increased self-efficacy and intrinsic motivation more than a conventional safety manual in laboratory safety training — related
• A meta-analysis reported a mean effect size advantage of 0.41 for collaborative learning prototypes in immersive versus non-immersive approaches — a narrower finding that bears on this claim