Virtual Reality or Videoconferencing for Online Learning? Evidence from Comparative Meta-Analyses
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- RQ1:
- What is the overall effect of VR and VC platforms in enhancing online learning?
- RQ2:
- How do research context, technological features, and instructional design affect the learning effect?
2. Literature Review
2.1. Online Learning Supported by VR
2.2. Online Learning Supported by VC Platforms
2.3. Possible Moderator Variables
2.3.1. Research Context
2.3.2. VR Technological Features
2.3.3. VC Technological Features
2.3.4. Instructional Design
3. Method
3.1. Search Strategies
3.2. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
- The publication year was limited to the period between 2003 and 2023. The reason for choosing 2003 as the starting year for the literature search is that it marked the launch of Second Life, an innovative three-dimensional virtual world that has had a profound impact on the evolution of VR.
- Only English-language articles published in peer-reviewed academic journals were eligible for inclusion.
- Studies that used either a randomized controlled trial (RCT) or quasi-experimental design were considered.
- The subjects of the studies were students in K–12 or higher education.
- The studies compared online learning facilitated by VR with those conducted under non-VR conditions. We also made an identical provision for articles about VC platforms.
- The dependent variables measured were related to learning effects.
- Both the experimental and control groups used VR or VC platforms;
- The research employed augmented reality, mixed reality, or other technological approaches besides VR;
- The studies did not provide sufficient data, such as sample size and mean values, to calculate the effect size.
3.3. Research Quality Assessment
3.4. Coding Procedure
3.5. Data Analysis
4. Results and Discussion
4.1. Overall Effectiveness
4.2. Moderator Analysis for VR-Supported Online Learning
4.2.1. Research Context in VR Studies
4.2.2. Technological Features in VR Studies
4.2.3. Instructional Design in VR Studies
4.3. Moderator Analysis for VC Platform-Supported Online Learning
4.3.1. Research Context in VC Studies
4.3.2. Technological Features in VC Studies
4.3.3. Instructional Design in VC Studies
4.4. Publication Bias
5. Comparative Discussion
Implications for Practice and Research
6. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Abbreviations
VR | Virtual reality |
VC | Videoconferencing |
ES | Effect size |
HMDs | Head-mounted displays |
CAVE | Cave automatic virtual environment |
RCT | Randomized controlled trial |
CMA | Comprehensive Meta-Analysis |
REM | Random-effects model |
References
- Garlinska, M.; Osial, M.; Proniewska, K.; Pregowska, A. The influence of emerging technologies on distance education. Electronics 2023, 12, 1550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, Y.; Choi, J. A review of online course dropout research: Implications for practice and future research. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 2011, 59, 593–618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bakhov, I.; Opolska, N.; Bogus, M.; Anishchenko, V.; Biryukova, Y. Emergency distance education in the conditions of COVID-19 pandemic: Experience of Ukrainian Universities. Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elmer, T.; Mepham, K.; Stadtfeld, C. Students under lockdown: Comparisons of students’ social networks and mental health before and during the COVID-19 crisis in Switzerland. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0236337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lamanauskas, V.; Makarskaitė-Petkevičienė, R. Distance lectures in university studies: Advantages, disadvantages, improvement. Contemp. Educ. Technol. 2021, 13, ep309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dondera, R.; Jia, C.; Popescu, V.; Nita-Rotaru, C.; Dark, M.; York, C.S. Virtual classroom extension for effective distance education. IEEE Comput. Graph. Appl. 2008, 28, 64–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lassoued, Z.; Alhendawi, M.; Bashitialshaaer, R. An exploratory study of the obstacles for achieving quality in distance learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. Educ. Sci. 2020, 10, 232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wallengren Lynch, M.; Lena, D.; Cuadra, C. Information communication technology during COVID-19. Soc. Work Educ. 2023, 42, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Radianti, J.; Majchrzak, T.A.; Fromm, J.; Wohlgenannt, I. A systematic review of immersive virtual reality applications for higher education: Design elements, lessons learned, and research agenda. Comput. Educ. 2020, 147, 103778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, B.; Yu, X.; Gu, X. Effectiveness of immersive virtual reality using head-mounted displays on learning performance: A meta-analysis. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2020, 51, 1991–2005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cruz-Neira, C.; Sandin, D.J.; DeFanti, T.A.; Kenyon, R.V.; Hart, J.C. The CAVE: Audio visual experience automatic virtual environment. Commun. ACM 1992, 35, 64–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maas, M.J.; Hughes, J.M. Virtual, augmented and mixed reality in K–12 education: A review of the literature. Technol. Pedagog. Educ. 2020, 29, 231–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Merchant, Z.; Goetz, E.T.; Cifuentes, L.; Keeney-Kennicutt, W.; Davis, T.J. Effectiveness of virtual reality-based instruction on students’ learning outcomes in K-12 and higher education: A meta-analysis. Comput. Educ. 2014, 70, 29–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chessa, M.; Solari, F. The sense of being there during online classes: Analysis of usability and presence in web-conferencing systems and virtual reality social platforms. Behav. Inf. Technol. 2021, 40, 1237–1249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sun, Y.; Albeaino, G.; Gheisari, M.; Eiris, R. Online site visits using virtual collaborative spaces: A plan-reading activity on a digital building site. Adv. Eng. Inform. 2022, 53, 101667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chan, P.; Van Gerven, T.; Dubois, J.-L.; Bernaerts, K. Virtual chemical laboratories: A systematic literature review of research, technologies and instructional design. Comput. Educ. Open 2021, 2, 100053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Checa, D.; Miguel-Alonso, I.; Bustillo, A. Immersive virtual-reality computer-assembly serious game to enhance autonomous learning. Virtual Real. 2023, 27, 3301–3318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, H.; Zhang, Y.; Xu, T.; Zhou, Y. Effects of VR instructional approaches and textual cues on performance, cognitive load, and learning experience. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 2024, 72, 585–607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Suduc, A.-M.; Bizoi, M.; Filip, F.G. Status, challenges and trends in videoconferencing platforms. Int. J. Comput. Commun. Control 2023, 18, 5465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alameri, J.; Masadeh, R.; Hamadallah, E.; Ismail, H.B.; Fakhouri, H.N. Students’ perceptions of e-learning platforms (Moodle, Microsoft Teams and Zoom platforms) in the University of Jordan Education and its relation to self-study and academic achievement during COVID-19 pandemic. Adv. Res. Stud. J. 2020, 11, 21–33. [Google Scholar]
- Quadir, B.; Zhou, M. Students perceptions, system characteristics and online learning during the COVID-19 epidemic school disruption. Int. J. Distance Educ. Technol. 2021, 19, 15–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Serhan, D. Transitioning from face-to-face to remote learning: Students’ attitudes and perceptions of using Zoom during COVID-19 pandemic. Int. J. Technol. Educ. Sci. 2020, 4, 335–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Suduc, A.-M.; Bizoi, M.; Filip, F.G. Exploring multimedia web conferencing. Inform. Econo. 2009, 13, 5–17. [Google Scholar]
- Gedera, D.S.P. Students’ experiences of learning in a virtual classroom. Int. J. Educ. Dev. Using Inf. Commun. Technol. 2014, 10, 93–101. [Google Scholar]
- Han, H. Do nonverbal emotional cues matter? Effects of video casting in synchronous virtual classrooms. Am. J. Distance Educ. 2013, 27, 253–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rojabi, A.R.; Setiawan, S.; Munir, A.; Purwati, O.; Widyastuti. The camera-on or camera-off, is it a dilemma? Sparking engagement, motivation, and autonomy through microsoft teams videoconferencing. Int. J. Emerging Technol. Learn. 2022, 17, 174–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shih, Y.-C. Communication strategies in a multimodal virtual communication context. System 2014, 42, 34–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jarvis, L. Narrative as virtual reality 2: Revisiting immersion and interactivity in literature and electronic media. Int. J. Perform. Arts Digit. Media 2019, 15, 239–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Speidel, R.; Felder, E.; Schneider, A.; Öchsner, W. Virtual reality against Zoom fatigue? A field study on the teaching and learning experience in interactive video and VR conferencing. GMS J. Med. Educ. 2023, 40, Doc19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ślósarz, L.; Jurczyk-Romanowska, E.; Rosińczuk, J.; Kazimierska-Zając, M. Virtual reality as a teaching resource which reinforces emotions in the teaching process. Sage Open 2022, 12, 21582440221118083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lakka, I.; Zafeiropoulos, V.; Leisos, A. Online virtual reality-based vs. Face-to-face physics laboratory: A case study in distance learning science curriculum. Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, 1083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khodabandeh, F. Exploring the applicability of virtual reality- enhanced education on extrovert and introvert EFL learners’ paragraph writing. Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ. 2022, 19, 27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Madathil, K.C.; Frady, K.; Hartley, R.; Bertrand, J.; Alfred, M.; Gramopadhye, A. An empirical study investigating the effectiveness of integrating virtual realitybased case studies into an online asynchronous learning environment. Comput. Educ. J. 2017, 8, 1–10. [Google Scholar]
- Sai, Y. Online music learning based on digital multimedia for virtual reality. Interact. Learn. Environ. 2024, 32, 1751–1762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vlahovic, S.; Suznjevic, M.; Pavlin-Bernardic, N.; Skorin-Kapov, L. The Effect of VR Gaming on Discomfort, Cybersickness, and Reaction Time. In Proceedings of the 2021 13th International Conference on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX), Montreal, QC, Canada, 14–17 June 2021; pp. 163–168. [Google Scholar]
- Chang, S.-C.; Ting-Chia, H.; Yen-Ni, C.; Jong, M.S. The effects of spherical video-based virtual reality implementation on students’ natural science learning effectiveness. Interact. Learn. Environ. 2020, 28, 915–929. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luo, H.; Li, G.; Feng, Q.; Yang, Y.; Zuo, M. Virtual reality in K-12 and higher education: A systematic review of the literature from 2000 to 2019. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 2021, 37, 887–901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Illi, C.; Elhassouny, A. Edu-Metaverse: A Comprehensive Review of Virtual Learning Environments. IEEE Access 2025, 13, 30186–30211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, Z.; Zhou, M.; Lam, K.K.L. Dance in Zoom: Using video conferencing tools to develop students’ 4C skills and self-efficacy during COVID-19. Think. Skills Creat. 2022, 46, 101102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tao, H.; Feng, B. Zoom Data Analysis in an Introductory Course in Mechanical Engineering. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Higher Education Advances (HEAd’21), Online, 22–23 June 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Banoor, R.Y.; Rennie, F.; Santally, M.I. The relationship between quality of student contribution in learning activities and their overall performances in an online course. Eur. J. Open Distance E-Learn. 2018, 21, 16–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alshaibani, T.; Almarabheh, A.; Jaradat, A.; Deifalla, A. Comparing online and face-to-face performance in scientific courses: A retrospective comparative gender study of year-1 students. Adv. Med. Educ. Pract. 2023, 14, 1119–1127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, T.-C. Student learning performance and satisfaction with traditional face-to-face classroom versus online learning: Evidence from teaching Statistics for Business. E-Learn. Digit. Media 2022, 19, 340–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Patricia Aguilera-Hermida, A. College students’ use and acceptance of emergency online learning due to COVID-19. Int. J. Educ. Res. Open 2020, 1, 100011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dixon, M.; Syred, K. Factors Influencing Student Engagement in Online Synchronous Teaching Sessions: Student Perceptions of Using Microphones, Video, Screen-Share, and Chat. In Proceedings of the Learning and Collaboration Technologies. Designing the Learner and Teacher Experience (HCII 2022), Virtual, 26 June–1 July 2022; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2022; pp. 209–227. [Google Scholar]
- Petchamé, J.; Iriondo, I.; Azanza, G. “Seeing and being seen” or just “seeing” in a smart classroom context when videoconferencing: A user experience-based qualitative research on the use of cameras. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 9615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Indergaard, T.; Stjern, B. Counselling of problem based learning (PBL) groups through videoconferencing. In Connecting Health and Humans; Studies in Health Technology and Informatics; IOS Press: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2009; pp. 603–607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sousa, M. Modding Modern Board Games for E-Learning: A Collaborative Planning Exercise about Deindustrialization. In Proceedings of the 2021 4th International Conference of the Portuguese Society for Engineering Education (CISPEE), Lisbon, Portugal, 21–23 June 2021; pp. 1–8. [Google Scholar]
- Qin, R.; Yu, Z. Extending the UTAUT model of tencent meeting for online courses by including community of inquiry and collaborative learning constructs. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact. 2024, 40, 5279–5297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gibbs, N.P.; Sloat, E.F.; Amrein-Beardsley, A.; Cha, D.-J.; Mulerwa, O.; Beck, M.F. Establishing class size policies for optimal course outcomes in online undergraduate education programs. Stud. High. Educ. 2023, 48, 1841–1855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Russell, V.; Curtis, W. Comparing a large- and small-scale online language course: An examination of teacher and learner perceptions. Internet High. Educ. 2013, 16, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blatchford, P.; Moriarty, V.; Edmonds, S.; Martin, C. Relationships between Class Size and Teaching: A Multimethod Analysis of English Infant Schools. Am. Educ. Res. J. 2002, 39, 101–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- OECD. Education at a Glance 2021: OECD Indicators; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2021. [CrossRef]
- Kingma, B.; Keefe, S. An analysis of the virtual classroom: Does size matter? Do residencies make a difference? Should you hire that instructional designer? J. Educ. Libr. Inf. Sci. 2006, 47, 127–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Choi-Lundberg, D.L.; Butler-Henderson, K.; Harman, K.; Crawford, J. A systematic review of digital innovations in technology-enhanced learning designs in higher education. Australas. J. Educ. Technol. 2023, 39, 133–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cao, S.; Juan, C.; ZuoChen, Z.; Liu, L. The effectiveness of VR environment on primary and secondary school students’ learning performance in science courses. Interact. Learn. Environ. 2024, 32, 7321–7337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ran, H.; Kim, N.J.; Secada, W.G. A meta-analysis on the effects of technology’s functions and roles on students’ mathematics achievement in K-12 classrooms. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 2022, 38, 258–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Slater, M. Immersion and the illusion of presence in virtual reality. Br. J. Psychol. 2018, 109, 431–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Chittaro, L.; Buttussi, F. Assessing knowledge retention of an immersive serious game vs. A traditional education method in aviation safety. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 2015, 21, 529–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Valentine, A.; Van Der Veen, T.; Kenworthy, P.; Hassan, G.M.; Guzzomi, A.L.; Khan, R.N.; Male, S.A. Using head mounted display virtual reality simulations in large engineering classes: Operating vs observing. Australas. J. Educ. Technol. 2021, 37, 119–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ai-Lim Lee, E.; Wong, K.W.; Fung, C.C. How does desktop virtual reality enhance learning outcomes? A structural equation modeling approach. Comput. Educ. 2010, 55, 1424–1442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moro, C.; Štromberga, Z.; Stirling, A. Virtualisation devices for student learning: Comparison between desktop-based (Oculus Rift) and mobile-based (Gear VR) virtual reality in medical and health science education. Australas. J. Educ. Technol. 2017, 33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, M.; Zhou, R.; Wang, H.; Zhao, W. An evaluation for VR glasses system user experience: The influence factors of interactive operation and motion sickness. Appl. Ergon. 2019, 74, 206–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Händel, M.; Bedenlier, S.; Kopp, B.; Gläser-Zikuda, M.; Kammerl, R.; Ziegler, A. The webcam and student engagement in synchronous online learning: Visually or verbally? Educ. Inf. Technol. 2022, 27, 10405–10428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maimaiti, G.; Chengyuan, J.; Hew, K.F. Student disengagement in web-based videoconferencing supported online learning: An activity theory perspective. Interact. Learn. Environ. 2023, 31, 4883–4902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schwenck, C.M.; Pryor, J.D. Student perspectives on camera usage to engage and connect in foundational education classes: It’s time to turn your cameras on. Int. J. Educ. Res. Open 2021, 2, 100079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Williams, C.; Pica-Smith, C. Camera use in the online classroom: Students’ and educators’ perspectives. Eur. J. Teach. Educ. 2022, 4, 28–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marquart, M.; Russell, R. Dear Professors: Don’t Let Student Webcams Trick You. EDUCAUSE Review, 10 September 2020. Available online: https://er.educause.edu/blogs/2020/9/dear-professors-dont-let-student-webcams-trick-you (accessed on 6 May 2025).
- Chen, G.; Chen, P.; Huang, W.; Zhai, J. Continuance intention mechanism of middle school student users on online learning platform based on qualitative comparative analysis method. Math. Probl. Eng. 2022, 2022, 3215337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alom, K.; Hasan, M.K.; Khan, S.A.; Reaz, M.T.; Saleh, M.A. The COVID-19 and online learning process in Bangladesh. Heliyon 2023, 9, e13912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martin, F.; Parker, M.A. Use of synchronous virtual classrooms: Why, who, and how? J. Online Learn. Teach. 2014, 10, 192–210. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, F.; Zhang, Y.; Li, G.; Luo, H. Using virtual reality interventions to promote social and emotional learning for children and adolescents: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Children 2024, 11, 41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, J.; Li, G.; Huang, Q.; Feng, Q.; Luo, H. Augmented reality in K–12 education: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature from 2000 to 2020. Sustainability 2022, 14, 9725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reigeluth, C.M. (Ed.) Instructional-Design Theories and Models: A New Paradigm of Instructional Theory, Volume II; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 1999; ISBN 978-1-4106-0378-4. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, F.; Hannafin, M.J. Design-Based Research and Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments. ETR&D 2005, 53, 5–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021, 372, n71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reed, D.A.; Cook, D.A.; Beckman, T.J.; Levine, R.B.; Kern, D.E.; Wright, S.M. Association between Funding and Quality of Published Medical Education Research. JAMA 2007, 298, 1002–1009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cook, D.A.; Reed, D.A. Appraising the Quality of Medical Education Research Methods: The Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument and the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale-Education. Acad. Med. 2015, 90, 1067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hedges, L.V.; Olkin, I. (Eds.) CHAPTER 5—Estimation of a single effect size: Parametric and nonparametric methods. In Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis; Academic Press: San Diego, CA, USA, 1985; pp. 75–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Higgins, J.P.T.; Thompson, S.G.; Deeks, J.J.; Altman, D.G. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003, 327, 557–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cohen, J. A power primer. Psychol. Bull. 1992, 112, 155–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Borenstein, M.; Hedges, L.V.; Higgins, J.P.T.; Rothstein, H.R. A basic introduction to fixed-effect and random-effects models for meta-analysis. Res. Synth. Methods 2010, 1, 97–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ghanbarzadeh, R.; Ghapanchi, A.H. Investigating various application areas of three-dimensional virtual worlds for higher education. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2018, 49, 370–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sun, L.; Zhen, G.; Hu, L. Educational games promote the development of students’ computational thinking: A meta-analytic review. Interact. Learn. Environ. 2023, 31, 3476–3490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bagley, E.A.; Shaffer, D.W. Stop talking and type: Comparing virtual and face-to-face mentoring in an epistemic game. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 2015, 31, 606–622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Riedl, R. On the stress potential of videoconferencing: Definition and root causes of Zoom fatigue. Electron. Mark. 2022, 32, 153–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rosenthal, R. The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. Psychol. Bull. 1979, 86, 638–641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fowler, C. Virtual reality and learning: Where is the pedagogy? Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2015, 46, 412–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shin, D.-H. The role of affordance in the experience of virtual reality learning: Technological and affective affordances in virtual reality. Telemat. Inform. 2017, 34, 1826–1836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Y.; Luo, H.; Liu, Y.; Cheng, W. Is Metaverse Better than Video Conferencing in Promoting Social Presence and Learning Engagement? In Proceedings of the 2023 International Conference on Intelligent Education and Intelligent Research (IEIR), Wuhan, China, 5–7 November 2023; pp. 1–5. [Google Scholar]
- Weiner, B. An Attributional Theory of Achievement Motivation and Emotion. Psychol. Rev. 1985, 92, 548–573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hu, Y.-H.; Yu, H.-Y.; Tzeng, J.-W.; Zhong, K.-C. Using an avatar-based digital collaboration platform to foster ethical education for university students. Comput. Educ. 2023, 196, 104728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clark, R.E. Reconsidering Research on Learning from Media. Rev. Educ. Res. 1983, 53, 445–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dalgarno, B.; Lee, M.J.W. What are the learning affordances of 3-D virtual environments? Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2010, 41, 10–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Category | Code | Description |
---|---|---|
Basic information | Title | Full title |
Author | Author names | |
Year | Publication year | |
Research context | Sample size | Number of participants |
Discipline | Natural science/humanities and social sciences/medical science/ engineering and technology sciences | |
Grade level | K–12/college | |
Technological features (VR) | Equipment | Desktop/HMD/glasses |
Technological features (VC) | Camera option | On/off |
Platform | Platform used in online learning | |
Instructional design | Pedagogy | Inquiry-based learning/gamed-based learning/collaborative learning/ direct instruction/experiential learning |
Learning outcome | Knowledge/behavior/skill/affective |
Model | k | g | SE | 95% CI | Heterogeneity | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Q | df | p | I2 | |||||
Fixed | 37 | 0.819 | 0.041 | [0.738, 0.900] | 430.196 | 36 | 0.000 | 91.632% |
Random | 37 | 0.913 | 0.148 | [0.624, 1.203] |
Model | k | g | SE | 95% CI | Heterogeneity | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Q | df | p | I2 | |||||
Fixed | 35 | 0.212 | 0.024 | [0.164, 0.260] | 245.828 | 34 | 0.000 | 86.169% |
Random | 35 | 0.284 | 0.071 | [0.146, 0.423] |
Moderator | k | g | 95% CI | QB | p |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sample size | 3.399 | 0.065 | |||
Small class | 19 | 0.657 | [0.314, 1.000] | ||
Regular-sized class | 18 | 1.181 | [0.742, 1.621] | ||
Discipline | 17.934 *** | 0.000 | |||
Natural science | 3 | 4.565 | [2.751, 6.378] | ||
Humanities and social sciences | 9 | 0.689 | [0.050, 1.328] | ||
Medical science | 3 | 0.818 | [0.024, 1.611] | ||
Engineering and technology sciences | 22 | 0.619 | [0.371, 0.868] | ||
Grade level | 0.217 | 0.642 | |||
K–12 | 5 | 0.625 | [−0.807, 2.058] | ||
College | 32 | 0.973 | [0.673, 1.273] | ||
Equipment | 0.514 | 0.474 | |||
HMD | 11 | 1.049 | [0.736, 1.362] | ||
Desktop | 26 | 0.866 | [0.474, 1.258] | ||
Pedagogy | 12.830 * | 0.012 | |||
Collaborative learning | 5 | 1.098 | [0.515, 1.681] | ||
Direct instruction | 9 | 0.370 | [−0.307, 1.047] | ||
Experiential learning | 12 | 1.704 | [1.069, 2.339] | ||
Game-based learning | 7 | 0.960 | [0.620, 1.301] | ||
Inquiry-based learning | 4 | −0.239 | [−1.355, 0.878] | ||
Learning outcome | 2.888 | 0.409 | |||
Affective outcome | 13 | 0.711 | [0.187, 1.235] | ||
Behavior | 4 | 2.348 | [0.190, 4.506] | ||
Knowledge | 10 | 0.984 | [0.372, 1.595] | ||
Skill | 10 | 0.687 | [0.408, 0.965] |
Moderator | k | g | 95% CI | QB | p |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sample size | 9.660 ** | 0.002 | |||
Small class | 7 | 0.982 | [0.512, 1.451] | ||
Regular-sized class | 28 | 0.205 | [0.064, 0.346] | ||
Discipline | 63.695 *** | 0.000 | |||
Natural science | 6 | 0.732 | [0.311, 1.152] | ||
Humanities and social sciences | 18 | 0.302 | [0.094, 0.510] | ||
Medical science | 9 | 0.307 | [0.154, 0.460] | ||
Engineering and technology sciences | 2 | −0.583 | [−0.784, −0.382] | ||
Grade level | 9.288 ** | 0.002 | |||
K–12 | 5 | 0.801 | [0.447, 1.154] | ||
College | 30 | 0.208 | [0.065, 0.351] | ||
Camera option | 4.115 * | 0.043 | |||
On | 17 | 0.433 | [0.243, 0.624] | ||
Off | 18 | 0.148 | [−0.052, 0.348] | ||
Platform | 35.887 *** | 0.000 | |||
Game | 2 | 1.270 | [−0.053, 2.594] | ||
Gather | 3 | 0.927 | [0.648, 1.205] | ||
Tencent Meeting | 3 | 0.663 | [0.371, 0.955] | ||
Zoom | 16 | 0.071 | [−0.080, 0.222] | ||
Other | 11 | 0.360 | [−0.002, 0.722] | ||
Pedagogy | 6.510 | 0.164 | |||
Collaborative learning | 4 | 0.709 | [0.189, 1.230] | ||
Direct instruction | 19 | 0.252 | [0.028, 0.476] | ||
Experiential learning | 4 | 0.146 | [−0.105, 0.398] | ||
Game-based learning | 2 | 1.270 | [−0.053, 2.594] | ||
Inquiry-based learning | 6 | 0.144 | [−0.115, 0.403] | ||
Learning outcome | 1.480 | 0.687 | |||
Affective outcome | 8 | 0.279 | [−0.103, 0.660] | ||
Behavior | 1 | 0.657 | [0.046, 1.267] | ||
Knowledge | 18 | 0.264 | [0.097, 0.431] | ||
Skill | 8 | 0.294 | [−0.052, 0.641] |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Zhang, Y.; Luo, H.; Peng, S.; Han, X. Virtual Reality or Videoconferencing for Online Learning? Evidence from Comparative Meta-Analyses. Appl. Sci. 2025, 15, 6293. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15116293
Zhang Y, Luo H, Peng S, Han X. Virtual Reality or Videoconferencing for Online Learning? Evidence from Comparative Meta-Analyses. Applied Sciences. 2025; 15(11):6293. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15116293
Chicago/Turabian StyleZhang, Yan, Heng Luo, Shiqing Peng, and Xue Han. 2025. "Virtual Reality or Videoconferencing for Online Learning? Evidence from Comparative Meta-Analyses" Applied Sciences 15, no. 11: 6293. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15116293
APA StyleZhang, Y., Luo, H., Peng, S., & Han, X. (2025). Virtual Reality or Videoconferencing for Online Learning? Evidence from Comparative Meta-Analyses. Applied Sciences, 15(11), 6293. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15116293