Exploring the Potential of Mixed Reality in Enhancing Student Learning Experience and Academic Performance: An Empirical Study
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
2.1. Mixed Reality
2.1.1. Mixed Reality Learning Enjoyment
2.1.2. Mixed Reality Experiential Learning
2.1.3. Mixed Reality Learning Interactivity
2.2. Novel Learning Experience
2.3. Satisfaction
2.4. Student Performance
3. Conceptual Framework
4. Research Methodology
4.1. Research Design
4.2. Data Collection
4.3. Sampling and Population
4.4. Data Analysis Tools and Techniques
5. Results
5.1. Demographic Analysis
5.2. Construct Validity and Reliability
5.3. Discriminant Validity
5.4. Indicator Outer Loading
5.5. Variance Explanation-R Square
5.6. Model Fitness
5.7. Conceptual Model
5.8. Structural Model
6. Discussion
6.1. Mixed Reality
6.2. Satisfaction
6.3. Student Academic Performance
7. Conclusions
7.1. Theoretical Implication
7.2. Practical Implication
7.3. Limitation and Future Research Recommendations
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Hill, M.C.; Epps, K.K. The impact of physical classroom environment on student satisfaction and student evaluation of teaching in the university environment. Acad. Educ. Leadersh. J. 2010, 14, 65. [Google Scholar]
- Cheng, Y.C. Classroom environment and student affective performance: An effective profile. J. Exp. Educ. 1994, 62, 221–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, L.; Hwang, W.-Y.; Shih, T.K. Investigation of the physical learning environment of distance learning under COVID-19 and its influence on students’ health and learning satisfaction. Int. J. Distance Educ. Technol. (IJDET) 2021, 19, 77–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Isikgoz, M.E. An Analysis of the Intention of Students Studying at Physical Education and Sports School to Use Synchronous Virtual Classroom Environments during the COVID-19 Pandemic Period. Turk. Online J. Educ. Technol.-TOJET 2021, 20, 16–22. [Google Scholar]
- 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. J. ISSN 2020, 2692, 2800. [Google Scholar]
- Singh, S.; Arya, A. A hybrid flipped-classroom approach for online teaching of biochemistry in developing countries during COVID-19 crisis. Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ. 2020, 48, 502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Toney, S.; Light, J.; Urbaczewski, A. Fighting Zoom fatigue: Keeping the zoombies at bay. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2021, 48, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peper, E.; Wilson, V.; Martin, M.; Rosegard, E.; Harvey, R. Avoid zoom fatigue, be present and learn. NeuroRegulation 2021, 8, 47–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahmadon, F.; Ghazalli HI, M.; Rusli, H.M. Studying during pandemic: A review of issues from online learning in the middle of COVID-19. In Proceedings of the 2020 6th International Conference on Interactive Digital Media (ICIDM), Bandung, Indonesia, 14–15 December 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Nesher Shoshan, H.; Wehrt, W. Understanding “Zoom fatigue”: A mixed-method approach. Appl. Psychol. 2022, 71, 827–852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Popova, O.; Gagarina, N.; Karkh, D. Digitalization of educational processes in universities: Achievements and problems. In Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference “Digitalization of Education: History, Trends and Prospects” (DETP 2020), Yekaterinburg, Russia, 23–24 April 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Lehman, R.M.; Conceição, S.C. Creating a Sense of Presence in Online Teaching: How to “Be There” for Distance Learners; John Wiley & Sons: New York, NY, USA, 2010; Volume 18. [Google Scholar]
- Speicher, M.; Hall, B.D.; Nebeling, M. What is mixed reality? In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Glasgow, UK, 4–9 May 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Birt, J.; Stromberga, Z.; Cowling, M.; Moro, C. Mobile mixed reality for experiential learning and simulation in medical and health sciences education. Information 2018, 9, 31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Taulien, A.; Paulsen, A.; Streland, T.; Jessen, B.; Wittke, S.; Teistler, M. A mixed reality environmental simulation to support learning about maritime habitats: An approach to convey educational knowledge with a novel user experience. In Proceedings of the Mensch und Computer 2019, New York, NY, USA, 11 September 2019; pp. 921–925. [Google Scholar]
- 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]
- Kolecki, R.; Pregowska, A.; Dąbrowa, J.; Skuciński, J.; Pulanecki, T.; Walecki, P.; Walecki, P.; van Dam, P.M.; Dudek, D.; Richter, P.; et al. Assessment of the utility of mixed reality in medical education. Transl. Res. Anat. 2022, 28, 100214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sharlanova, V. Experiential learning. Trakia J. Sci. 2004, 2, 36–39. [Google Scholar]
- Gaol, F.L.; Prasolova-Førland, E. Special section editorial: The frontiers of augmented and mixed reality in all levels of education. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2022, 27, 611–623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Deshwal, P.; Trivedi, A.; Himanshi HL, N. Online learning experience scale validation and its impact on learners’ satisfaction. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2017, 112, 2455–2462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xiao, J.; Sun-Lin, H.Z.; Lin, T.H.; Li, M.; Pan, Z.; Cheng, H.C. What makes learners a good fit for hybrid learning? Learning competences as predictors of experience and satisfaction in hybrid learning space. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2020, 51, 1203–1219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blumler, J.G.; Katz, E. The Uses of Mass Communications: Current Perspectives on Gratifications Research. Sage Annual Reviews of Communication Research Volume III; Sage Publications, Inc.: Beverly Hills, CA, USA, 1974. [Google Scholar]
- Li, X.; Yi, W.; Chi, H.-L.; Wang, X.; Chan, A.P. A critical review of virtual and augmented reality (VR/AR) applications in construction safety. Autom. Constr. 2018, 86, 150–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moorhouse, N.; tom Dieck, M.C.; Jung, T. An experiential view to children learning in museums with augmented reality. Mus. Manag. Curatorship 2019, 34, 402–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Su, C.-H.; Cheng, T.-W. A sustainability innovation experiential learning model for virtual reality chemistry laboratory: An empirical study with PLS-SEM and IPMA. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Garzón, J.; Baldiris, S.; Gutiérrez, J.; Pavón, J. How do pedagogical approaches affect the impact of augmented reality on education? A meta-analysis and research synthesis. Educ. Res. Rev. 2020, 31, 100334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Costanza, E.; Kunz, A.; Fjeld, M. Mixed Reality: A Survey; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Rokhsaritalemi, S.; Sadeghi-Niaraki, A.; Choi, S.-M. A review on mixed reality: Current trends, challenges and prospects. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hughes, C.E.; Stapleton, C.B.; Hughes, D.E.; Smith, E.M. Mixed reality in education, entertainment, and training. IEEE Comput. Graph. Appl. 2005, 25, 24–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sun, A.; Chen, X. Online education and its effective practice: A research review. J. Inf. Technol. Educ. 2016, 15, 157–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Pan, Z.; Cheok, A.D.; Yang, H.; Zhu, J.; Shi, J. Virtual reality and mixed reality for virtual learning environments. Comput. Graph. 2006, 30, 20–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alizadehsalehi, S.; Hadavi, A.; Huang, J.C. Virtual reality for design and construction education environment. In Proceedings of the AEI 2019: Integrated Building Solutions—The National Agenda, Tysons, VA, USA, 3–6 April 2019; pp. 193–203. [Google Scholar]
- Kirkley, S.E.; Kirkley, J.R. Creating next generation blended learning environments using mixed reality, video games and simulations. TechTrends 2005, 49, 42–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Callaghan, V.; Gardner, M.; Horan, B.; Scott, J.; Shen, L.; Wang, M. A mixed reality teaching and learning environment. In Proceedings of the Hybrid Learning and Education: First International Conference, ICHL 2008, Hong Kong, China, 13–15 August 2008; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2008; pp. 54–65. [Google Scholar]
- Balog, A.; Pribeanu, C. The role of perceived enjoyment in the students’ acceptance of an augmented reality teaching platform: A structural equation modelling approach. Stud. Inform. Control 2010, 19, 319–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sung, E.C.; Bae, S.; Han, D.-I.D.; Kwon, O. Consumer engagement via interactive artificial intelligence and mixed reality. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2021, 60, 102382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marto, A.; Melo, M.; Gonçalves, A.; Bessa, M. Multisensory augmented reality in cultural heritage: Impact of different stimuli on presence, enjoyment, knowledge and value of the experience. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 193744–193756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chang, C.-W.; Lee, J.-H.; Wang, C.-Y.; Chen, G.-D. Improving the authentic learning experience by integrating robots into the mixed-reality environment. Comput. Educ. 2010, 55, 1572–1578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hauze, S.; Marshall, J. Validation of the instructional materials motivation survey: Measuring student motivation to learn via mixed reality nursing education simulation. Int. J. E-Learn. 2020, 19, 49–64. [Google Scholar]
- Selvaraj, A.; Radhin, V.; Nithin, K.; Benson, N.; Mathew, A.J. Effect of pandemic based online education on teaching and learning system. Int. J. Educ. Dev. 2021, 85, 102444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Antoniou, P.E.; Arfaras, G.; Pandria, N.; Athanasiou, A.; Ntakakis, G.; Babatsikos, E.; Nigdelis, V.; Bamidis, P. Biosensor real-time affective analytics in virtual and mixed reality medical education serious games: Cohort study. JMIR Serious Games 2020, 8, e17823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Yannier, N.; Hudson, S.E.; Koedinger, K.R. Active learning is about more than hands-on: A mixed-reality AI system to support STEM education. Int. J. Artif. Intell. Educ. 2020, 30, 74–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fidan, M.; Tuncel, M. Integrating augmented reality into problem based learning: The effects on learning achievement and attitude in physics education. Comput. Educ. 2019, 142, 103635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pellas, N.; Kazanidis, I.; Palaigeorgiou, G. A systematic literature review of mixed reality environments in K-12 education. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2020, 25, 2481–2520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pickering, J.D.; Panagiotis, A.; Ntakakis, G.; Athanassiou, A.; Babatsikos, E.; Bamidis, P.D. Assessing the difference in learning gain between a mixed reality application and drawing screencasts in neuroanatomy. Anat. Sci. Educ. 2022, 15, 628–635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weng, C.; Rathinasabapathi, A.; Weng, A.; Zagita, C. Mixed reality in science education as a learning support: A revitalized science book. J. Educ. Comput. Res. 2019, 57, 777–807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smith, E.; McRae, K.; Semple, G.; Welsh, H.; Evans, D.; Blackwell, P. Enhancing vocational training in the Post-COVID era through mobile mixed reality. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Patil, K.R.; Ayer, S.K.; Wu, W.; London, J. Mixed reality multimedia learning to facilitate learning outcomes from project based learning. In Proceedings of the Construction Research Congress 2020: Computer Applications, Tempe, AZ, USA, 8–10 March 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Suryodiningrat, S.P.; Prabowo, H.; Hidayanto, A.N. Mixed Reality System for Teaching and Learning: A Systematic Literature Review. In Proceedings of the 2021 IEEE 5th International Conference on Information Technology, Information Systems and Electrical Engineering (ICITISEE), Purwokerto, Indonesia, 24–25 November 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Mogaji, E.; Wirtz, J.; Belk, R.W.; Dwivedi, Y.K. Immersive time (ImT): Conceptualizing time spent in the metaverse. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2023, 72, 102659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Siyaev, A.; Jo, G.S. Towards aircraft maintenance metaverse using speech interactions with virtual objects in mixed reality. Sensors 2021, 21, 2066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ford, T.J.; Buchanan, D.M.; Azeez, A.; Benrimoh, D.A.; Kaloiani, I.; Bandeira, I.D.; Hunegnaw, S.; Lan, C.; Gholmieh, M.; Buch, V.; et al. Taking modern psychiatry into the metaverse: Integrating augmented, virtual, and mixed reality technologies into psychiatric care. Front. Digit. Health 2023, 5, 35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Stupans, I.; Scutter, S.; Pearce, K. Facilitating student learning: Engagement in novel learning opportunities. Innov. High. Educ. 2010, 35, 359–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Limna, P.; Jakwatanatham, S.; Siripipattanakul, S.; Kaewpuang, P.; Sriboonruang, P. A review of artificial intelligence (AI) in education during the digital era. Adv. Knowl. Exec. 2022, 1, 1–9. [Google Scholar]
- Clarizia, F.; Colace, F.; Lombardi, M.; Pascale, F.; Santaniello, D. Chatbot: An education support system for student. In Proceedings of the Cyberspace Safety and Security: 10th International Symposium, CSS 2018, Amalfi, Italy, 29–31 October 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Fayad, L.M.; Jacobs, M.A.; Wang, X.; Carrino, J.A.; Bluemke, D.A. Musculoskeletal tumors: How to use anatomic, functional, and metabolic MR techniques. Radiology 2012, 265, 340–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Gerup, J.; Soerensen, C.B.; Dieckmann, P. Augmented reality and mixed reality for healthcare education beyond surgery: An integrative review. Int. J. Med. Educ. 2020, 11, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Vukmir, R.B. Customer satisfaction. Int. J. Health Care Qual. Assur. 2006, 19, 8–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bhattacherjee, A. Understanding information systems continuance: An expectation-confirmation model. MIS Q. 2001, 25, 351–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bowen, J.T.; Chen, S.L. The relationship between customer loyalty and customer satisfaction. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2001, 13, 213–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smutny, P.; Schreiberova, P. Chatbots for learning: A review of educational chatbots for the Facebook Messenger. Comput. Educ. 2020, 151, 103862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Longo, M.; Mura, M. The effect of intellectual capital on employees’ satisfaction and retention. Inf. Manag. 2011, 48, 278–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wentzel, K.R.; Wigfield, A. Academic and social motivational influences on students’ academic performance. Educ. Psychol. Review 1998, 10, 155–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hayat, A.A.; Shateri, K.; Amini, M.; Shokrpour, N. Relationships between academic self-efficacy, learning-related emotions, and metacognitive learning strategies with academic performance in medical students: A structural equation model. BMC Med. Educ. 2020, 20, 76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rodriguez-Hernandez, C.F.; Cascallar, E.; Kyndt, E. Socio-economic status and academic performance in higher education: A systematic review. Educ. Res. Rev. 2020, 29, 100305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Casillas, A.; Robbins, S.; Allen, J.; Kuo, Y.-L.; Hanson, M.A.; Schmeiser, C. Predicting early academic failure in high school from prior academic achievement, psychosocial characteristics, and behavior. J. Educ. Psychol. 2012, 104, 407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rochford, C.; Connolly, M.; Drennan, J. Paid part-time employment and academic performance of undergraduate nursing students. Nurse Educ. Today 2009, 29, 601–606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yusuf, A. Interrelationship among Academic Performance, Academic Achievement and Learning Outcomes in AA Jekayinfa & MF Salman. J. Curric. Instr. 2002, 6, 76. [Google Scholar]
- Erickson, G.S. New Methods of Market Research and Analysis; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Ghasemy, M.; Teeroovengadum, V.; Becker, J.-M.; Ringle, C.M. This fast car can move faster: A review of PLS-SEM application in higher education research. High. Educ. 2020, 80, 1121–1152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Taherdoost, H. Validity and reliability of the research instrument; how to test the validation of a questionnaire/survey in a research. In How to Test the Validation of a Questionnaire/Survey in a Research (10 August 2016); SSRN: Rochester, NY, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Griffith, D.A.; Gray, C.C. The fallacy of the level playing field: The effect of brand familiarity and web site vividness on online consumer response. J. Mark. Channels 2002, 9, 87–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johnson-Glenberg, M.C. Immersive VR and education: Embodied design principles that include gesture and hand controls. Front. Robot. AI 2018, 5, 81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Shin, D. How does immersion work in augmented reality games? A user-centric view of immersion and engagement. Inf. Commun. Soc. 2019, 22, 1212–1229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Y.-S.; Lin, H.-H.; Liao, Y.-W. Investigating the individual difference antecedents of perceived enjoyment in the acceptance of blogging. Int. J. Psychol. Behav. Sci. 2010, 4, 1798–1807. [Google Scholar]
- Yussof, A.; Ibrahim, R.; Zaman, H.; Ahmad, A.; Suhaifi, S. Users Acceptance of mixed reality technology. Issues Inf. Syst. 2011, 7, 194–205. [Google Scholar]
- Beauchamp, G.; Kennewell, S. Interactivity in the classroom and its impact on learning. Comput. Educ. 2010, 54, 759–766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Y.-S. Assessment of learner satisfaction with asynchronous electronic learning systems. Inf. Manag. 2003, 41, 75–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chung, M.; Ko, E.; Joung, H.; Kim, S.J. Chatbot e-service and customer satisfaction regarding luxury brands. J. Bus. Res. 2020, 117, 587–595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pilcher, J.J.; Morris, D.M.; Bryant, S.A.; Merritt, P.A.; Feigl, H.B. Decreasing sedentary behavior: Effects on academic performance, meta-cognition, and sleep. Front. Neurosci. 2017, 11, 219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Acharya, A.S.; Prakash, A.; Saxena, P.; Nigam, A. Sampling: Why and how of it. Indian J. Med. Spec. 2013, 4, 330–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kang, H. Sample size determination and power analysis using the G* Power software. J. Educ. Eval. Health Prof. 2021, 18, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hair, J.F.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. J. Mark. Theory Pract. 2011, 19, 139–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Awang, Z.; Afthanorhan, A.; Asri, M. Parametric and non parametric approach in structural equation modeling (SEM): The application of bootstrapping. Mod. Appl. Sci. 2015, 9, 58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boubker, O.; Arroud, M.; Ouajdouni, A. Entrepreneurship education versus management students’ entrepreneurial intentions. A PLS-SEM approach. Int. J. Manag. Educ. 2021, 19, 100450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hair Jr, J.F.; Howard, M.C.; Nitzl, C. Assessing measurement model quality in PLS-SEM using confirmatory composite analysis. J. Bus. Res. 2020, 109, 101–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sarstedt, M.; Ringle, C.M.; Cheah, J.-H.; Ting, H.; Moisescu, O.I.; Radomir, L. Structural model robustness checks in PLS-SEM. Tour. Econ. 2020, 26, 531–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wadkar, S.K.; Singh, K.; Chakravarty, R.; Argade, S.D. Assessing the reliability of attitude scale by Cronbach’s alpha. J. Glob. Commun. 2016, 9, 113–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bacon, D.R.; Sauer, P.L.; Young, M. Composite reliability in structural equations modeling. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 1995, 55, 394–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hair, J.F.; Risher, J.J.; Sarstedt, M.; Ringle, C.M. When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. Eur. Bus. Rev. 2019, 31, 2–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smith, G.T. On construct validity: Issues of method and measurement. Psychol. Assess. 2005, 17, 396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zaiţ, A.; Bertea, P. Methods for testing discriminant validity. Manag. Mark. J. 2011, 9, 217–224. [Google Scholar]
- Henseler, J.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2015, 43, 115–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wijaya, T.T.; Cao, Y.; Bernard, M.; Rahmadi, I.F.; Lavicza, Z.; Surjono, H.D. Factors influencing microgame adoption among secondary school mathematics teachers supported by structural equation modelling-based research. Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 952549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hair, J.F., Jr.; Hult GT, M.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM); Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Miles, J. R-squared, adjusted R-squared. Encycl. Stat. Behav. Sci. 2005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shi, D.; Maydeu-Olivares, A.; Rosseel, Y. Assessing fit in ordinal factor analysis models: SRMR vs. RMSEA. Struct. Equ. Model. A Multidiscip. J. 2020, 27, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
S/N | Construct | No. of Items | References |
---|---|---|---|
1. | Mixed Reality Experiential Learning | 5 | [72,73,74] |
2. | Mixed Reality Learning Enjoyment | 5 | [75,76] |
3. | Mixed Reality Learning Interactivity | 6 | [77] |
4. | Novel Learning experience | 8 | [78] |
5. | Satisfaction | 5 | [79] |
6. | Student Academic Performance | 4 | [80] |
Gender | |
Male | 63.7% |
Female | 36.3% |
Age | |
16–18 | 8.3% |
19–21 | 38.9% |
22–25 | 28.9% |
25–28 | 15% |
29 and above | 8.9% |
Education Level | |
High School | 8.3% |
Under graduation | 38.4% |
Post Graduation-Masters | 26% |
Post Graduation-Doctoral | 12.7% |
Vocational | 14.6% |
Parameters | Cronbach’s Alpha | Composite Reliability | Average Variance Extracted (AVE) |
---|---|---|---|
Mixed reality experiential learning | 0.887 | 0.947 | 0.899 |
Mixed reality learning interactivity | 0.819 | 0.895 | 0.740 |
Mixed reality learning enjoyment | 0.903 | 0.928 | 0.720 |
Novel learning experience | 0.913 | 0.933 | 0.702 |
Satisfaction | 0.882 | 0.913 | 0.678 |
Student Performance | 0.962 | 0.972 | 0.898 |
Constructs | MEL | MRLA | MRLE | NLE | S | SP |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
MEL | 0.948 | |||||
MRLA | 0.595 | 0.860 | ||||
MRLE | 0.808 | 0.741 | 0.848 | |||
NLE | 0.770 | 0.671 | 0.788 | 0.838 | ||
S | 0.504 | 0.581 | 0.627 | 0.727 | 0.823 | |
SP | 0.311 | 0.486 | 0.468 | 0.526 | 0.803 | 0.948 |
Items | Outer Loading | |
---|---|---|
Mixed Reality Experiential Learning | MEL4 | 0.947 |
MEL5 | 0.949 | |
Mixed Reality Learning Interactivity | MLI1 | 0.750 |
MLI3 | 0.914 | |
MLI4 | 0.907 | |
Mixed Reality Learning enjoyment | MLE2 | 0.841 |
MLE3 | 0.812 | |
MLE4 | 0.874 | |
MLE5 | 0.879 | |
MLE6 | 0.835 | |
Novel Learning Experience | NLE2 | 0.851 |
NLE3 | 0.880 | |
NLE4 | 0.900 | |
NLE5 | 0.870 | |
NLE6 | 0.796 | |
NLE7 | 0.715 | |
Satisfaction | S1 | 0.846 |
S2 | 0.827 | |
S3 | 0.865 | |
S4 | 0.784 | |
S5 | 0.793 | |
Student Performance | SP1 | 0.950 |
SP2 | 0.954 | |
SP3 | 0.933 | |
SP4 | 0.954 |
R Square | Adjusted R Square | |
---|---|---|
Novel Learning Experience | 0.689 | 0.686 |
Satisfaction | 0.528 | 0.527 |
Student Performance | 0.645 | 0.644 |
Saturated Model | Estimated Model | |
---|---|---|
SRMR | 0.809 | 0.814 |
Hypothesis | Path Co-Efficient | T Statistics | p Values | Decision |
---|---|---|---|---|
Mixed reality experiential learning → Novel learning experience | 0.387 | 6.647 | 0.000 | Accepted |
Mixed reality learning interactivity → Novel learning experience | 0.197 | 3.605 | 0.000 | Accepted |
Mixed reality learning enjoyment → Novel learning experience | 0.329 | 4.527 | 0.000 | Accepted |
Novel learning experience → Satisfaction | 0.727 | 24.064 | 0.000 | Accepted |
Satisfaction → Student Performance | 0.803 | 56.082 | 0.000 | Accepted |
Indirect Effects | ||||
Novel learning experience → Satisfaction → Student Performance. | 0.584 | 20.483 | 0.000 | Accepted |
Mixed reality experiential learning → Novel learning experience → Satisfaction | 0.239 | 4.398 | 0.000 | Accepted |
Mixed reality learning enjoyment → Novel learning experience → Satisfaction | 0.281 | 6.612 | 0.000 | Accepted |
Mixed reality learning interactivity → Novel learning experience → Satisfaction | 0.143 | 3.512 | 0.000 | Accepted |
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. |
© 2023 by the author. 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
Almufarreh, A. Exploring the Potential of Mixed Reality in Enhancing Student Learning Experience and Academic Performance: An Empirical Study. Systems 2023, 11, 292. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems11060292
Almufarreh A. Exploring the Potential of Mixed Reality in Enhancing Student Learning Experience and Academic Performance: An Empirical Study. Systems. 2023; 11(6):292. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems11060292
Chicago/Turabian StyleAlmufarreh, Ahmad. 2023. "Exploring the Potential of Mixed Reality in Enhancing Student Learning Experience and Academic Performance: An Empirical Study" Systems 11, no. 6: 292. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems11060292
APA StyleAlmufarreh, A. (2023). Exploring the Potential of Mixed Reality in Enhancing Student Learning Experience and Academic Performance: An Empirical Study. Systems, 11(6), 292. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems11060292