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¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r2 · q2 · i1 small
Currency · newest study 2024 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i1 Wu et al. (2020) found an overall ES of g = 0.24 across 35 RCTs and Coban et al. (2022) found g = 0.38 across 48 experimental studies on general 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

q2 · i1 · quant-synthesis · r2

The review reports these second-hand meta-analytic results, citing Wu et al. (2020) and Coban et al. (2022): "a small positive ES of g = 0.24" and "g = 0.38" respectively, and interprets its own larger effect as confirming procedural specificity.

"Wu et al. (2020) found a small positive ES of g = 0.24 and Coban et al. (2022) found a small positive ES of g = 0.38. Our larger ES of g = 0.58 confirms the hypothesis posed in several previous reviews that procedural skills respond particularly well to this type of training"

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) — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• Immersive lessons show a small effect size advantage over less immersive technology, but increased presence does not necessarily lead to more learning — related