IVR conditions outperformed conventional conditions in only 24% of comparisons, with 54% tied, and the review finds no strong evidence IVR is more effective¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesisr2·q3
Currency · newest study 2024 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q3 i? IVR was statistically significantly better in 12 comparisons (24%), conventional better in 1 (2%), tied in 27 (54%), mixed in 7 (14%), and inconclusive in 3 (6%). → Lawson 2024
q3 i? The review concludes there was not strong evidence that IVR was more or less effective than traditional media for STEM learning. → Lawson 2024
Evidence¶
Lawson 2024¶
Lawson, A. P., Martella, A. M., LaBonte, K., Delgado, C. Y., Zhao, F., Gluck, J. A., Munns, M. E., LeRoy, A. W., & Mayer, R. E. (2024). Confounded or Controlled? A Systematic Review of Media Comparison Studies Involving Immersive Virtual Reality for STEM Education. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09908-8
q3 · i? · quant-synthesis · r2
Outcome coding (Category 6) across the 50 comparisons in the systematic review. The review reports IVR better in 24.00% and conventional better in 2.00% of comparisons, and states "there was not strong evidence that IVR was more or less effective than traditional media in promoting learning of STEM content."
"In 12 of the comparisons (24.00%), the IVR condition was found to be statistically significantly better than the conventional condition. Only one comparison (2.00%) resulted in the conventional condition having statistically significantly better learning outcomes than the IVR condition."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Only 26% of IVR-vs-conventional comparisons in STEM media comparison studies were fully controlled on five key control criteria — related
- IVR conditions included participatory activities in 50% of comparisons while conventional conditions did so in only 20% — related
- When activities were not controlled, the confound favored the IVR condition in 14 of 17 comparisons — related
- Complete operational definitions of conditions were provided in fewer than half of comparisons (42% conventional, 50% IVR) — related
- 40% of IVR-vs-conventional comparisons had at least one confound related to instructional method and content — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
no-strong-evidence-ivr-more-effective-stem |
title |
IVR conditions outperformed conventional conditions in only 24% of comparisons, with 54% tied, and the review finds no strong evidence IVR is more effective |
description |
IVR conditions outperformed conventional conditions in only 24% of comparisons, with 54% tied, and the review finds no strong evidence IVR is more effective |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2024 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-19 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — lawson-2024 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.