Immersive procedural training in VR shows a significant medium positive effect on learning outcomes compared to less immersive environments (Hedges' g = 0.58)¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r2 · q3 · i2 medium
Currency · newest study 2024 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i2 Meta-analysis of 16 experimental results found a positive overall effect size of Hedges' g = 0.58 for IVR versus less immersive controls on procedural learning outcomes. → 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

q3 · i2 · quant-synthesis · r2

Meta-analysis of media-comparison studies (16 experimental results from 11 studies) using Hedges' g with analytic weighting in Stata. The review reports "a positive overall effect size (theta)" of g = 0.58 for IVR versus less immersive controls.

"In the sixteen sets of results included in the meta-analysis, we find a positive overall effect size (theta) when comparing IVR with less immersive learning conditions: Hedge's g = 0.58, indicating a medium positive effect of IVR as compared to controls on learning outcomes"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• 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) — related
• Immersive lessons show a small effect size advantage over less immersive technology, but increased presence does not necessarily lead to more learning — a broader claim this one bears on
• Prior general meta-analyses of IVR learning found small positive effects (g = 0.24 and g = 0.38), supporting the hypothesis that procedural skills respond particularly well to IVR — a broader claim this one bears on
• Knowledge transfer outcomes show the largest effect sizes of immersive procedural training (g = 1.80), while knowledge gain and retention effects are not significant — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• VR improved movement-based transfer test performance versus reading in security training, while learning in VR without the possibility to act was detrimental — related
• Increased perceptual fidelity fails to reliably improve serious game learning outcomes (the fidelity fallacy) — related
• Immersive and non-immersive VR video formats showed no significant difference in learning success for clinical procedures, though immersive VR was rated more positively — reports the opposite