Next Article in Journal
Designing Extended Intelligence: A Taxonomy of Psychobiological Effects of XR–AI Systems for Human Capability Augmentation
Previous Article in Journal
Immersive Virtual Reality Gameplay Alters Embodiment, Time Perception, and States of Consciousness
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Virtual Worlds
Volume 5
Issue 2
10.3390/virtualworlds5020017
virtualworlds-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Virtual Reality and the Sense of Belonging Among Distance Learners: A Study on Peer Relationships in Higher Education

by
David Košatka
1,
Alžběta Šašinková
1,*,
Markéta Košatková
2,
Tomáš Hunčík
1 and
Čeněk Šašinka
1
1
Laboratory for Information and Cognitive Sciences, Department of Information and Library Studies, Faculty of Arts, Masaryk University, Arne Nováka 1, 602 00 Brno-střed, Czech Republic
2
Department of Social Education, Faculty of Education, Masaryk University, Poříčí 7, 603 00 Brno-střed, Czech Republic
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Virtual Worlds 2026, 5(2), 17; https://doi.org/10.3390/virtualworlds5020017
Submission received: 17 January 2026 / Revised: 26 February 2026 / Accepted: 1 April 2026 / Published: 9 April 2026
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

Distance learners in higher education are often assumed to face limited peer interaction, potentially weakening their sense of belonging. This study examines peer relationships and belonging among students in distance and blended university programs, with attention to the role of virtual reality (VR) within digitally mediated learning environments. Immersive VR teaching is included in the curriculum for distance learning students in the studied programs. Using a mixed-methods design, survey data and open-ended responses were collected from 17 students in Information Studies and Information Service Design. An adapted Classroom Community Scale was supplemented with items addressing the perceived contribution of different communication technologies. Contrary to expectations, fully distance learners did not report weaker agreement with statements reflecting belonging than blended students; on several items, they expressed stronger agreement, particularly regarding perceived peer support and learning opportunities. Results indicate that conventional 2D communication tools, particularly chats and video calls, are central to sustaining peer relationships. VR was not perceived as essential but described by some students as an added value supporting shared experience and group cohesion. Overall, belonging emerges as a socio-technical achievement shaped by communication practices rather than physical proximity.

1. Introduction

Distance and online higher education have become structurally embedded within contemporary university systems [1], offering expanded access and temporal flexibility [2] to increasingly diverse student populations [3]. At the same time, the expansion of distance education has renewed long-standing concerns regarding students’ opportunities for peer interaction [4], social integration [5], and the development of a sense of belonging within academic communities [6]. In campus-based settings, belonging is often cultivated through informal and incidental encounters—shared physical spaces, routine co-presence, and spontaneous peer interactions—that support relational continuity [7]. In distance education, these conditions are not merely reduced but fundamentally reconfigured through digital infrastructures, platform-mediated communication, and institutionally structured interactional opportunities [8]. Consequently, belonging in distance learning environments should be conceptualized not as an individual disposition but as a socio-technical and pedagogical achievement, contingent upon the conditions under which peer relationships can emerge and be sustained.
Importantly, contemporary research increasingly challenges deficit-based assumptions that distance education is inherently socially impoverished [9,10]. Rather, studies of online and blended learning emphasize that the nature and quality of interaction play a more decisive role in shaping students’ experiences of belonging than the mode of delivery itself [11]. Many distance learners operate within dense communication ecologies that include persistent messaging platforms, synchronous video communication, and shared online workspaces. These tools can support frequent, low-threshold peer contact and facilitate relational practices—such as informal check-ins, collaborative problem-solving, and expressions of mutual support—that are central to belonging [12]. Conceptual frameworks such as the Community of Inquiry highlight social presence as a key dimension of meaningful educational experience in online and blended contexts [13], underscoring the importance of interactional conditions that enable learners to present themselves as socially and affectively “real” to one another.
Within this broader digital landscape, virtual reality (VR) has attracted growing attention as a technology capable of supporting immersive and embodied learning experiences [14,15]. In educational research, VR is often positioned as a means of enhancing engagement [16], presence, and experiential understanding [17]. However, empirical work examining VR’s contribution to the social and relational dimensions of learning, particularly in distance higher education, remains limited. Existing reviews of VR in higher education consistently report considerable variation in pedagogical design [18] or technological implementation [19], with relatively few studies explicitly addressing belonging or peer relationships. Moreover, the assumption that immersive technologies necessarily foster social connection warrants careful empirical scrutiny.
Emerging research on social VR suggests that shared virtual environments can, under certain conditions, support experiences of social presence [20], co-presence [21], and group cohesion [22] that differ qualitatively from those afforded by conventional two-dimensional communication tools [23]. At the same time, these affordances are highly contingent on contextual factors, including task design, communicative modalities, accessibility, and learners’ prior experience with immersive technologies. In many higher-education contexts, VR remains a bounded or course-specific intervention rather than an integral component of students’ everyday communication practices [24]. As a result, students may perceive VR as meaningful within specific learning situations while continuing to rely primarily on more familiar and accessible tools—such as chats and video calls—for maintaining peer relationships.
This tension between the potential social affordances of VR and its perceived necessity in everyday student life constitutes a critical empirical and theoretical gap. Rather than asking whether VR can enhance belonging in general, there is a need to examine how students themselves evaluate VR in relation to existing communication practices and how these evaluations are shaped by study mode, technological experience, and the broader learning ecology in which VR is situated.
The present pilot study addresses this gap by investigating peer relationships and perceptions of belonging among students enrolled in distance and combined (blended) university programs. Using a mixed-methods design, the study examines students’ perceptions of classroom community, peer support, and learning-related relational resources, alongside their evaluations of different communication technologies—including VR—in supporting peer interaction. By integrating quantitative survey data with qualitative reflections, the study adopts an exploratory and context-sensitive approach that is aligned with the complexity of belonging as a socio-technical and affective phenomenon.

2. Theoretical Framework

2.1. Belonging as a Foundational Condition for Learning and Well-Being

A sense of belonging has long been recognized as a central condition for meaningful participation in educational settings [25]. Across psychological and educational research, belonging is understood as the perception of being accepted, valued, and supported within a social group and as a fundamental driver of motivation, engagement, and well-being [26]. The need to belong has been conceptualized as a basic human motivation, shaping individuals’ affective regulation, persistence in challenging situations, and sense of purpose in collective endeavors [27].
In higher education, belonging has been empirically linked to a range of desirable outcomes, including academic engagement, persistence, satisfaction, and psychological well-being. Students who experience a stronger sense of belonging are more likely to remain enrolled, participate actively in learning activities, and interpret academic challenges as manageable rather than alienating [28]. Importantly, these associations are not limited to traditional campus-based education; they have been documented across diverse institutional contexts and learner populations [29].
From a humanistic perspective, belonging is not a peripheral or instrumental variable but a foundational educational condition [30]. Learning is not experienced solely as a cognitive process but as a relational one, embedded in social contexts that signal whether one’s presence matters and whether support is available when difficulties arise [31]. In this sense, belonging functions as an affective infrastructure that enables students to engage, persist, and develop agency within academic communities.

2.2. Belonging in Digitally Mediated and Distance Higher Education

While belonging is widely recognized as essential, its cultivation becomes more complex in digital and distance education contexts [32]. In campus-based settings, belonging is often supported through informal, embodied, and incidental encounters—shared physical spaces, routine co-presence, and spontaneous peer interaction [33]. Distance education disrupts these conditions, replacing them with technologically mediated forms of interaction that are structured, scheduled, and platform-dependent [34]. Research on social presence suggests that this mediation increases psychological distance between learners, leading to more abstract and less individuated perceptions of peers, which may undermine the relational foundations of belonging [35].
This transformation has led to concerns that distance education is inherently socially impoverished and less capable of supporting belonging [36]. However, contemporary research challenges this assumption [37,38]. Studies of online and blended learning consistently demonstrate that belonging is not determined by physical proximity alone but by the quality, accessibility, and continuity of interaction [39]. Many distance learners participate in dense communication ecologies that include persistent messaging platforms, synchronous video communication, and shared online workspaces [40]. These tools can enable frequent low-threshold contact, informal peer support, and collaborative learning practices that are central to belonging [41].
At the same time, digitally mediated belonging remains fragile and unevenly distributed [42]. Access to communication technologies does not automatically translate into meaningful connections. Interaction can remain transactional, fragmented, or emotionally thin if it is poorly supported pedagogically or technologically [43]. Moreover, the affective dimensions of learning—such as feeling seen, supported, and emotionally connected—are often more difficult to sustain through conventional two-dimensional interfaces alone [44]. Thus, a tension emerges: distance education can support belonging, but only under specific socio-technical and pedagogical conditions. This tension creates space for considering whether alternative forms of digital mediation might better support the relational and affective dimensions of learning.

2.3. Virtual Reality as an Embodied and Socio-Technical Learning Environment

Against this backdrop, virtual reality (VR) has been proposed as a digital environment with the potential to reconfigure how belonging is experienced in distance education. Unlike conventional screen-based tools, VR enables learners to inhabit shared virtual spaces, engage through embodied action, and experience co-presence through spatial orientation and avatar-mediated interaction [45,46,47]. These features position VR not merely as a cognitive or representational technology but as a socio-technical environment in which relational experience is shaped through embodied and affective engagement [48,49].
Research on social VR suggests that shared virtual environments can, under certain conditions, support heightened experiences of social presence, co-presence, and group cohesion [50,51]. Learners may experience interactions as more immediate, naturalistic, and emotionally engaging than those mediated through text or video alone. From a phenomenological perspective, VR can support a sense of “being with others” that is qualitatively distinct from conventional online communication [52].
However, a growing scholarly consensus cautions against treating VR as an inherently superior or universally effective solution for fostering belonging [53,54]. Empirical studies and systematic reviews emphasize that VR’s social affordances are context-dependent and shaped by design choices, task structure, accessibility, and learners’ prior experience with immersive technologies [55,56].
From a humanistic and socio-technical perspective, VR is therefore best understood as a potential relational amplifier rather than a determinant of belonging. Its value lies not in replacing existing communication technologies but in offering additional affordances for shared experience and embodied co-presence when existing tools are perceived as insufficient. Whether VR contributes meaningfully to belonging depends on how learners themselves evaluate its relevance in relation to established communication practices and their existing sense of connection.
Taken together, this theoretical framing highlights the need for empirical investigation of belonging in distance higher education as it is experienced and evaluated by students within their existing communication practices. If VR is understood as a context-dependent relational amplifier rather than a deterministic solution, its relevance must be examined in relation to learners’ perceptions, prior experience, and the sufficiency of established technologies. Accordingly, the present study adopts an exploratory mixed-methods approach to examine peer relationships, perceived belonging, and students’ evaluations of virtual reality alongside other communication tools in distance and combined learning contexts.
For the purposes of this study, classroom community is operationalized following Rovai’s (2002) two-dimensional framework [57], which distinguishes between connectedness, encompassing feelings of cohesion, trust, and interdependence among members, and learning, reflecting the degree to which interaction supports the construction of understanding and the satisfaction of educational goals. This operationalization focuses on the immediate classroom-level experience and does not extend to broader institutional integration or campus-wide identification. The quantitative items were designed to capture both dimensions, with items addressing peer care, trust, and reliance reflecting connectedness, and items addressing opportunities to learn and support for understanding reflecting the learning dimension. The open-ended questions complement this by inviting participants to elaborate on how relational and learning-related experiences unfolded in practice.

3. Methods

3.1. Research Design

This study employed a mixed-methods pilot design integrating quantitative survey data with qualitative open-ended responses to examine students’ perceptions of peer relationships, belonging, and the role of digital technologies in distance higher education. A convergent mixed-methods design was adopted, whereby quantitative and qualitative data were collected concurrently, analyzed separately, and subsequently interpreted in relation to one another.
This design was selected for two reasons. First, belonging is understood in this study as a socio-technical and affective phenomenon, which cannot be adequately captured through quantitative indicators alone. Second, the exploratory nature of the research and the small sample size necessitated a design that prioritizes interpretive depth and analytical coherence. The study was therefore explicitly framed as an exploratory investigation, intended to identify patterns and inform future research.

3.2. Participants

The participants were 17 undergraduate university students enrolled in distance or combined (blended) study programs in Information Studies and Information Service Design at a higher education institution. Students were recruited across multiple academic years, reflecting variation in study experience and familiarity with digitally mediated learning environments.
Of the total sample, seven students were enrolled in a fully distance learning program and ten students in a combined (blended) program (see Table 1). Students in blended programs met regularly in person as part of their studies, alongside the use of online learning platforms. In contrast, the distance learning programs were designed to support fully remote participation, with no requirement for physical co-presence. Importantly, immersive virtual reality technologies constituted a standard curricular component within the distance learning program and were integrated into several compulsory subjects. Distance students, therefore, engaged with VR as part of their regular study activities, whereas VR was not systematically included in the blended program at all. This difference reflects program structure rather than an experimentally introduced variable.
Within the distance curriculum, students used VR applications to explore immersive scenarios and different design approaches. Activities included both individual VR experiences and synchronous social VR sessions involving interaction with classmates in shared virtual environments. Individual VR tasks typically lasted approximately 15 min and were followed by 40 min of guided group reflection. Social VR activities were conducted in smaller groups for 15–20 min and were subsequently discussed within course groups. The selection of social applications was student-directed, provided that they supported multi-user interaction. VR sessions were embedded in regular coursework across two semesters and were consistently accompanied by structured interpretation and discussion. This curricular distinction between study modes was considered analytically relevant when interpreting students’ perceptions of peer relationships, belonging, and the role of communication technologies.

3.3. Quantitative Measures

The quantitative component of the study was based on a survey incorporating an adapted version of the Classroom Community Scale (CCS) [57], which is widely used to assess students’ perceptions of connectedness, mutual support, and learning-related interaction within educational settings. The CCS was selected because of its established relevance to constructs closely associated with belonging, peer relationships, and classroom community in both face-to-face and online learning environments.
For the purposes of this study, selected items from the original CCS were translated into Czech to ensure linguistic and conceptual accessibility for participants. To support translation validity, a back-translation procedure was employed: the Czech version was independently translated back into English by a researcher not involved in the initial translation. The back-translated items were subsequently compared with the original English versions to verify conceptual equivalence and to identify potential discrepancies in meaning.
The adapted instrument included items addressing students’ perceptions of peer care, connectedness, trust, and learning-related support. The full wording of the survey statements to which participants responded is presented in Table 2.
These items capture both relational dimensions of belonging–connectedness (e.g., care, trust, reliance on others) and learning-related aspects of community–cooperative learning (e.g., opportunities to learn, support for understanding). Together, they reflect the socio-technical and affective dimensions of classroom community emphasized in the study’s theoretical framework.

3.4. Qualitative Measures

The qualitative component of the study consisted of three open-ended questionnaire items designed to provide contextual insight into students’ experiences of peer relationships, cooperation, and technology-mediated interaction within their study programs. These questions were included to complement the quantitative measures by capturing students’ own interpretations and explanations of how belonging and peer support were experienced and shaped over time.
The open-ended questions administered to the participants are presented in Table 3.
The first question was intended to elicit retrospective reflections on the evolution of peer relationships and collaborative practices, allowing students to identify factors they perceived as supportive or limiting. The second question focused explicitly on students’ evaluations of communication technologies, situating VR alongside more established tools such as video calls and chats. The third question focused specifically on VR and included an explicit option to indicate non-use.
Qualitative data were analyzed using a qualitative descriptive approach. Three researchers independently reviewed the responses and generated preliminary codes grounded in participants’ wording. These codes were compared and consolidated through discussion into broader descriptive categories, with discrepancies resolved by consensus. Responses indicating non-use (“x”) were coded as absence of exposure rather than evaluative statements and were not included in the thematic analysis of VR-related effects.

3.5. Researcher Positionality and Reflexivity

The study was conducted within a university course focused on education and the use of virtual reality, which was designed and taught by the authors. The researchers, therefore, had a dual role as instructors and investigators, providing close familiarity with the learning context. This positionality was treated as a contextual condition requiring explicit reflection. The researchers’ perspective was used to contextualize findings rather than to generate additional claims. Interpretations presented in the Discussion are thus framed as situated and provisional, acknowledging the influence of the specific pedagogical and technological context in which the study was conducted.

3.6. Ethical Considerations

The study adhered to established ethical standards for educational research. Participation was voluntary, independent of course evaluation, and after final grades had been assigned. Informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to data collection. Participants were informed of the purpose of the study and their right to withdraw at any time without consequence. All data were anonymized before analysis to protect participants’ confidentiality. These procedures were implemented to mitigate potential bias associated with the instructor–researcher relationship and to ensure that students could respond freely and without concern for academic consequences.

4. Results

4.1. Quantitative Results

The quantitative analysis examined differences between students enrolled in distance and combined (blended) study programs across items assessing peer relationships, perceived support, and learning-related aspects of classroom community (Table 4). Given the ordinal nature of the data and the small sample size, group comparisons were conducted using the Mann–Whitney U test, with medians and effect sizes (Cliff’s delta) serving as the primary interpretive indicators. The magnitude of δ was interpreted using the benchmarks proposed by Romano et al. (2006): |δ| < 0.147 (negligible), 0.147 ≤ |δ| < 0.33 (small), 0.33 ≤ |δ| < 0.474 (medium), and |δ| ≥ 0.474 (large) [58].
The original questionnaire was constructed using verbal response categories only, with all items answered on the same Likert-type scale. For the purposes of statistical analysis, responses were subsequently coded numerically: strongly agree (−2), agree (−1), neutral (0), disagree (1), and strongly disagree (2). After applying the Holm correction, no statistically significant differences were observed between the two groups on any of the questionnaire items. Median values were largely comparable, indicating similar perceptions of peer connectedness, openness in communication, and overall classroom community among distance and combined students. Cliff’s delta was computed with group ordering defined as distance–blended. Given the applied coding scheme (strongly agree = −2, strongly disagree = 2), lower numerical values indicate stronger agreement. Consequently, a positive δ indicates that distance students tended to report stronger agreement (i.e., more negative scores) than blended students, whereas a negative δ indicates stronger agreement among blended students. Two items were associated with large effect sizes, as indicated by Cliff’s delta, suggesting substantively meaningful differences despite the limited statistical power of the pilot sample, namely (6) students’ perceived ability to rely on others in the course and (7) students’ perception of having sufficient opportunities for learning. In both cases, distance students reported stronger agreement than their combined-study peers. Moreover, the 95% confidence intervals for Cliff’s delta did not include zero.

4.2. Qualitative Results

The qualitative analysis focused on students’ open-ended responses to three contextual questions addressing the development of peer relationships, cooperation, and the perceived role of communication technologies—including virtual reality—within their study programs. Responses were analyzed using a qualitative descriptive, content-oriented approach, with the aim of identifying recurring patterns in how students described their experiences rather than generating abstract themes or theoretical constructs.
Analytic attention was directed toward students’ own accounts of interaction practices, the perceived importance of different communication tools, and the contextual role attributed to VR. The results are presented as interrelated descriptive categories that reflect how belonging and peer support were experienced in digitally mediated learning environments.

4.2.1. Accessible Communication Platforms as the Foundation of Peer Relationships

Across both distance and combined study programs, students consistently emphasized the importance of accessible, persistent communication platforms, particularly group chats, as the primary infrastructure for maintaining peer relationships and cooperation. These platforms were described as spaces that supported everyday interaction, mutual assistance, and a sense of collective presence over time.
One student described how group communication evolved during the semester:
“During the semester, I observed greater openness and cooperation in group communication on Messenger. As always, the group generated active contributors and passive observers, but it is a place where those who ask questions receive answers or at least an effort from others to advise them.”
Rather than formal collaboration alone, students highlighted the availability and continuity of these platforms as crucial. Communication spaces were portrayed as low-threshold environments in which participation could fluctuate without threatening group cohesion, allowing both active and less active members to remain connected.
For some students, this form of digitally mediated peer support was described as decisive for study persistence, particularly during demanding phases of the program:
“In the last semester, the power of our study group became apparent as we encouraged each other to complete our final projects and helped each other prepare for our final exams. Without our study group, the conclusion would have been much more difficult. It’s great to have an online place where I can ‘cry’ out my frustration and know that others will understand and support me.”
These accounts suggest that belonging was not experienced as a constant emotional state but as an available relational resource—a place to seek reassurance, advice, or shared understanding when needed.

4.2.2. Continuity of Contact Beyond Formal Study Activities

Students in combined programs, who had opportunities for face-to-face contact during lectures, described how online communication platforms extended and sustained relationships beyond physical meetings. Rather than replacing in-person interaction, digital communication was seen as a means of maintaining relational continuity over time. As one student noted:
“Personal interaction ultimately proves to be the most bonding, but I consider the ability to enter a chat at any time and, for example, just say hello to others in the middle of summer to be important for maintaining friendly ties.”
This perspective illustrates how belonging was experienced as something that persists across temporal and spatial boundaries, supported by the ongoing availability of communication channels. Importantly, similar descriptions were also present among distance students, suggesting that continuity of contact was not dependent on physical co-presence but on the accessibility of communication infrastructures.
“Video calls are the most common form of communication, and this has a huge impact—we are gradually getting to know each other, and it’s getting better and better.”
At the same time, the inability to meet in person allows distance learners to develop different strategies and approaches to group communication via online platforms:
“In my opinion, technology allows you to get to know more people in a group, because with asynchronous communication, more people have the opportunity to express themselves in the chat, and everyone can read these comments. In personal contact, there is not always room for everyone to express themselves.”

4.2.3. Virtual Reality as a Contextual and Complementary Experience

Students’ evaluations of virtual reality were notably more varied and context-dependent than their assessments of chats or video calls. VR was rarely described as a primary communication tool. Instead, it was most often framed as a complementary or situational experience, associated with specific courses or learning activities. One distance student characterized VR in this way:
“VR was one of the experiences of shared contact. I didn’t use VR that often, but it was an interesting experience that showed me remote collaboration in different dimensions.”
Rather than emphasizing frequency of use, students who evaluated VR positively highlighted its capacity to support shared experiences that differed from everyday communication. In some cases, VR was associated with deeper mutual understanding among classmates:
“Sharing the same experience in VR among classmates—greater sharing, better understanding of others, how they think and reflect.”
These accounts suggest that VR was experienced as qualitatively different, offering moments of intensified co-presence or shared perspective. At the same time, several students explicitly noted that VR was not integrated into their routine communication practices and was therefore not perceived as essential for maintaining peer relationships.

4.2.4. Summary of Qualitative Patterns

Taken together, the qualitative findings indicate that students’ sense of belonging and peer support were primarily grounded in accessible, continuous communication technologies, particularly group chats and, to a lesser extent, video calls. Virtual reality was experienced as meaningful in specific contexts, but not as a necessary or dominant medium for sustaining everyday peer relationships. These patterns provide important contextual insight for interpreting the quantitative findings and are further examined in the Section 5.

5. Discussion

The findings of this pilot study offer a nuanced picture that challenges some common assumptions about distance education and provides insight into the socio-technical conditions under which belonging is sustained.

5.1. Similarity Rather than Deficit in Distance Learning Conditions

Contrary to the initial assumption that distance students would experience weaker peer relationships and reduced opportunities for support [59], the exploratory quantitative findings suggest that distance and combined students reported largely comparable perceptions across most items related to classroom community, peer support, and learning opportunities. Two items showed large effect sizes, both favoring distance students. These items concerned students’ perceived ability to rely on others and their perception of having sufficient opportunities for learning.
Rather than confirming an expected disadvantage of distance education, in this context, these findings suggest that fully distance programs do not necessarily create poorer conditions for belonging. On the contrary, in specific respects, distance students may even experience more robust forms of perceived support and learning affordance [60]. Importantly, the absence of systematic differences across most items indicates that study mode alone is insufficient to explain students’ experiences of belonging.
These patterns suggest that the assumed “deficit” of distance education may be contingent on how programs scaffold interaction and support rather than inherent to the delivery mode itself.

5.2. Communication Technologies as the Key Mediating Condition

The qualitative findings help contextualize these quantitative patterns and provide insight into why distance students did not report weaker peer relationships. Across both study modes, students consistently emphasized that the ability to communicate effectively online is essential for sustaining peer relationships and cooperation.
Group chats, in particular, were described as providing a persistent and low-threshold space for interaction, enabling students to ask questions [61], seek emotional support [62], and maintain contact over time [63]. This finding aligns with the quantitative results, which did not favor combined students despite their access to face-to-face interaction. For distance students, online communication tools are not supplementary but constitutive of their learning experience, leading to highly optimized practices of collaboration and mutual support [64]. In contrast, for combined students, these tools may function more as an extension of in-person interaction and therefore represent a secondary, rather than central, condition for belonging.
Therefore, in this specific curricular implementation, the findings suggest that it is not necessarily physical co-presence but the accessibility and continuity of communication technologies [65] that play a decisive role in shaping students’ experiences of peer support and learning opportunities [66]. This helps explain why distance students did not report poorer outcomes and, in some cases, expressed more confidence in relying on others.

5.3. When Communication Is Sufficient, VR Becomes Optional

The findings suggest that virtual reality should be understood not as a foundational condition for belonging but as a secondary or contingent relational resource within digitally mediated learning environments. When students have access to reliable and continuous forms of communication—particularly low-threshold tools such as chats and video calls—the core relational functions associated with belonging appear to be adequately supported. In such contexts, immersive technologies do not necessarily alter the baseline experience of peer connection.
This observation challenges technology-driven assumptions that higher levels of immersion automatically translate into stronger social bonds [67]. Instead, it points to the importance of communication sufficiency: once fundamental needs for accessibility, responsiveness, and continuity are met, additional technological complexity may yield diminishing relational returns [68]. From a socio-technical perspective, VR’s contribution is therefore not additive in a linear sense but situational, depending on whether existing communication practices are perceived as lacking.
At the same time, VR’s positioning as an “added value” rather than a necessity highlights its potential role as a relational intensifier under specific pedagogical conditions [69]. Rather than replacing established tools, VR may enrich interaction by supporting shared experiences that are difficult to achieve through conventional interfaces. This interpretation aligns with views of immersive environments as context-dependent affordance spaces, whose educational value emerges through design, timing, and integration rather than technological novelty alone [70].

5.4. VR as a Space for Shared Experience and Relational Calibration

Where VR appeared to matter most was in its capacity to support shared experiences [71], particularly for distance learners who are otherwise physically dispersed. Students emphasized that VR allowed them to experience the same scenario simultaneously, creating a common experiential reference point. This shared experience enabled participants to reflect not only on the content of the activity but also on how others perceived and interpreted it [72].
From students’ accounts, what mattered was not the immersive technology per se, but the opportunity to compare perspectives and assess relational alignment—to understand whether classmates were “on the same wavelength” [73]. In this sense, VR functioned as a space for relational calibration, allowing students to decide whether and how to deepen subsequent communication and collaboration [74].
This finding supports the theoretical framing of VR as a context-dependent relational amplifier [75]. VR did not generate belonging on its own, nor did it compensate for weak communication practices. Instead, when embedded within an already functional communication ecology, it offered moments of intensified shared experience that some students found meaningful for relationship building.

5.5. Limitations

This pilot study was conducted with a small, non-random sample (n = 17) drawn from a single institutional and disciplinary context, which limits statistical power and the transferability of findings to other settings. The pilot study did not include a controlled experimental comparison between VR-based and non-VR communication environments. Accordingly, conclusions regarding the role of VR are based on students’ situated experiences within their respective programs.
The quantitative instrument relied on an adapted and translated subset of items, and the qualitative component was based on brief open-ended responses rather than in-depth interviews, which constrains explanatory depth. Although some members of the research team were also involved in teaching within the program, the survey was administered anonymously after final grading, and participation followed established institutional practices of routine course feedback. While this context may have shaped students’ responses to some extent, no identifying information was collected, and participation had no academic consequences.

6. Conclusions

Within the structured implementation described in the Section 3, this pilot suggests that, in this context, distance education does not inherently weaken students’ sense of belonging. When communication technologies are accessible, stable, and widely used, distance learners may develop strong peer relationships and, in some cases, experience advantages related to intentionality and continuity of interaction. The results challenge deficit-based views of distance learning and underscore the importance of examining belonging as a socio-technical achievement.
Importantly, these interpretations should be considered within the studied context, where immersive virtual reality is a standard component of the curriculum and is integrated into compulsory subjects for distance learning students. Virtual reality, within this context, should not be understood as a universal solution to the challenges of distance education. Rather, its value lies in specific pedagogical designs that leverage shared experience, particularly when such experiences can support reflection, perspective-taking, and relational understanding.
The comparison between distance and blended students reflects structural differences inherent to the study programs rather than an experimentally manipulated condition. In particular, immersive virtual reality was systematically integrated into the fully distance curriculum, whereas blended students did not have access to VR as part of their program. This difference represents a naturally occurring curricular distinction and may be understood as a quasi-experimental condition. The findings reflect students’ situated evaluations within an existing communication ecology. These findings highlight the need for future research to focus not on whether VR works in general, but on when, how, and for whom it adds meaningful value within existing communication practices.
Since, contrary to our original expectations, the results suggest that the absence of direct face-to-face contact does not necessarily lead to a reduced sense of belonging, this needs to be carefully considered when formulating hypotheses and designing follow-up confirmatory studies. To adequately test the effects of immersive virtual reality, it will be necessary to examine multiple parameters simultaneously, such as the ways in which communication platforms are used and the specific manner in which IVR is implemented. In other words, it is not sufficient to merely compare broad groups that do or do not use IVR; a more fine-grained and multidimensional research design is required.

Author Contributions

D.K.: Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Data curation, Writing—original draft, Writing—review and editing, Formal analysis, Validation; A.Š.: Conceptualization, Investigation, Supervision, Resources, Methodology, Data curation, Project administration, Funding acquisition, Writing—original draft, Writing—review and editing, Validation; M.K.: Writing—original draft, Writing—review and editing; T.H.: Investigation, Writing—review and editing; Č.Š.: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing—original draft, Writing—review and editing, Formal analysis, Supervision. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Technology Agency of the Czech Republic, grant number TQ01000181.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Ethics Committee of Masaryk University (protocol code EKV-2022-116 and 29 September 2023).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Data are available upon request.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Technology Agency of the Czech Republic (project TQ01000181).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Garlinska, M.; Osial, M.; Proniewska, K.; Pregowska, A. The Influence of Emerging Technologies on Distance Education. Electronics 2023, 12, 1550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Kuluşaklı, E. Student Engagement and Flexibility in Distance Learning in Higher Education. SAGE Open 2025, 15, 21582440251329979. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Shattuck, K. The Evolving Nature of Distance Education for Diverse Populations at Multiple Educational Levels. Am. J. Distance Educ. 2025, 39, 255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Kuo, Y.-C.; Lin, H.-C.K.; Lin, Y.-H.; Wang, T.-H.; Chuang, B.-Y. The Influence of Distance Education and Peer Self-Regulated Learning Mechanism on Learning Effectiveness, Motivation, Self-Efficacy, Reflective Ability, and Cognitive Load. Sustainability 2023, 15, 4501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Liu, Q.; Lin, D. The Impact of Distance Education on the Socialization of College Students in the COVID-19 Era: Problems in Communication and Impact on Mental Health. BMC Med. Educ. 2024, 24, 575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Tang, C.; Thyer, L.; Bye, R.; Kenny, B.; Tulliani, N.; Peel, N.; Gordon, R.; Penkala, S.; Tannous, C.; Sun, Y.-T.; et al. Impact of Online Learning on Sense of Belonging among First Year Clinical Health Students during COVID-19: Student and Academic Perspectives. BMC Med. Educ. 2023, 23, 100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Ajjawi, R. Coming to Belong in the University through Small Acts of Connection. Stud. High. Educ. 2026, 51, 197–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Edwards, C.; Hardie, L. How to Develop a Sense of Belonging in Online Distance Learning? In Creativity and Critique in Digital Learning and Teaching: Insights for Learning Design in Business and Law; Baxter, J., Selby-Fell, H., Gilbert, A., Eds.; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2025; ISBN 978-3-031-68085-4. [Google Scholar]
  9. Aires, L.; Maia, A.S.; Carneiro, A.C. Distance Educational Relationship and Senses of Belonging: The Voices of Students. Digit. Educ. Rev. 2022, 42, 101–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Yi, S.; Zhang, Y.; Lu, Y.; Shadiev, R. Sense of Belonging, Academic Self-efficacy and Hardiness: Their Impacts on Student Engagement in Distance Learning Courses. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2024, 55, 1703–1727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Orthel, B.D.; Vaux, D.E.; Langlais, M.R. Student Perceptions of Place and Belonging in Online Courses. J. Scholarsh. Teach. Learn. 2025, 25, 110–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Kuncoro, S.; Thaha, A.R. Optimizing Social Media Platforms for Enhanced Distance Learning Support Systems: A Case Study of Universitas Terbuka. Eduline J. Educ. Learn. Innov. 2023, 3, 431–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Carroll, N.; Lang, M.; Connolly, C. An Extended Community of Inquiry Framework Supporting Students in Online and Digital Education. Innov. Educ. Teach. Int. 2025, 62, 369–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Lehrman, A.L. Embodied Learning Through Immersive Virtual Reality: Theoretical Perspectives for Art and Design Education. Behav. Sci. 2025, 15, 917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Prakash, A.; Rajendran, R. Virtual Reality and Embodied Learning: Unraveling the Relationship via Dynamic Learner Behavior. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computers in Education (ICCE 2023), Chiang Mai, Thailand, 4–8 December 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Lin, X.P.; Li, B.B.; Yao, Z.N.; Yang, Z.; Zhang, M. The Impact of Virtual Reality on Student Engagement in the Classroom—A Critical Review of the Literature. Front. Psychol. 2024, 15, 1360574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Schott, C.; Marshall, S. Full-Immersion Virtual Reality for Experiential Education: An Exploratory User Experience Analysis. Australas. J. Educ. Technol. 2021, 37, 96–110. [Google Scholar]
  18. Faldet, A.-C.; Skrefsrud, T.-A.; Somby, H.M.; Stalheim, O.R. Integrating Virtual Reality as a Pedagogical Tool into Teacher Education: Experiences from Norwegian Preservice Teachers. Prof. Dev. Educ. 2025, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Khukalenko, I.S.; Kaplan-Rakowski, R.; An, Y.; Iushina, V.D. Teachers’ Perceptions of Using Virtual Reality Technology in Classrooms: A Large-Scale Survey. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2022, 27, 11591–11613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Sterna, R.; Zibrek, K. Psychology in Virtual Reality: Toward a Validated Measure of Social Presence. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 705448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Yousefdeh, S.A.G.; Oyelere, S.S. Investigating Co-Presence and Collaboration Dynamics in Realtime Virtual Reality User Interactions. Front. Virtual Real. 2024, 5, 1478481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Derda, I.; Wouter, M.; Smit, T. Adaptive Mechanisms of Developing Social Connectedness in Virtual Reality Environments. Des. Health 2025, 9, 195–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Kuhne, C.; Kecelioglu, E.D.; Maltby, S.; Hood, R.J.; Knott, B.; Ditton, E.; Walker, F.R.; Kluge, M.G. Direct Comparison of Virtual Reality and 2D Delivery on Sense of Presence, Emotional and Physiological Outcome Measures. Front. Virtual Real. 2023, 4, 1211001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Santilli, T.; Ceccacci, S.; Mengoni, M.; Giaconi, C. Virtual vs. Traditional Learning in Higher Education: A Systematic Review of Comparative Studies. Comput. Educ. 2025, 227, 105214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Turan Bora, H.; Akbaba Altun, S. Fostering Students’ Sense of School Belonging: Emotional Intelligence and Socio-Ecological Perspectives. J. Intell. 2025, 13, 112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Allen, K.-A.; Kern, M.L.; Rozek, C.S.; McInerney, D.M.; Slavich, G.M. Belonging: A Review of Conceptual Issues, an Integrative Framework, and Directions for Future Research. Aust. J. Psychol. 2021, 73, 87–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Allen, K.-A.; Gray, D.L.; Baumeister, R.F.; Leary, M.R. The Need to Belong: A Deep Dive into the Origins, Implications, and Future of a Foundational Construct. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 2022, 34, 1133–1156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Allen, K.-A.; Slaten, C.; Hong, S.; Lan, M.; Craig, H.; May, F.; Counted, V. Belonging in Higher Education: A Twenty Year Systematic Review. J. Univ. Teach. Learn. Pract. 2024, 21, 1–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Dost, G.; Mazzoli Smith, L. Understanding Higher Education Students’ Sense of Belonging: A Qualitative Meta-Ethnographic Analysis. J. Furth. High. Educ. 2023, 47, 822–849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Kuttner, P.J. The Right to Belong in School: A Critical, Transdisciplinary Conceptualization of School Belonging. AERA Open 2023, 9, 23328584231183407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Štremfel, U.; Šterman Ivančič, K.; Peras, I. Addressing the Sense of School Belonging Among All Students? A Systematic Literature Review. Eur. J. Investig. Health Psychol. Educ. 2024, 14, 2901–2917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Dulfer, N.; Gowing, A.; Mitchell, J. Building Belonging in Online Classrooms: Relationships at the Core. Teach. High. Educ. 2025, 30, 1024–1040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Ogle, K.; Ressler, A.; Osborne, J.W. Exploring Belonging and Inclusivity in Higher Education through Intentional Grouping Practices. Teach. Learn. Nurs. 2026, 21, e189–e193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Korthals Altes, T.; Muftugil-Yalcin, S.; Slootman, M. Belonging in Online Synchronous Classrooms: Experiences of Minoritized Students in Dutch Higher Education during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, 986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Weidlich, J.; Yau, J.; Kreijns, K. Social Presence and Psychological Distance: A Construal Level Account for Online Distance Learning. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2024, 29, 401–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Jeng, A.; Bosch, N.; Perry, M. Sense of Belonging Predicts Perceived Helpfulness in Online Peer Help-Giving Interactions. Internet High. Educ. 2023, 57, 100901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Adlington, R.; O’Neill, K.; Volpe, C.R.; Harrington, I. Promoting a Sense of Belonging in University Online Learning: How and Why Initial Teacher Education Students Experience an Increased Sense of Belonging. Australas. J. Educ. Technol. 2024, 40, 84–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Wang, Y. The Research on the Impact of Distance Learning on Students’ Mental Health. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2023, 28, 12527–12539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Mtshweni, B.V. Sense of Belonging as a Predictor of Intentions to Drop Out Among Black and White Distance Learning Students at a South African University. Open Educ. Stud. 2024, 6, 20220219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Ng, C.F. The Physical Learning Environment of Online Distance Learners in Higher Education—A Conceptual Model. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 635117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Bach, A.; Thiel, F. Collaborative Online Learning in Higher Education—Quality of Digital Interaction and Associations with Individual and Group-Related Factors. Front. Educ. 2024, 9, 1356271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Prodgers, L.; Travis, E.; Pownall, M. “It’s Hard to Feel a Part of Something When You’ve Never Met People”: Defining “Learning Community” in an Online Era. High. Educ. 2023, 85, 1219–1234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Haugsbakken, H.; Nykvist, S.; Lysne, D.A. The Need to Focus on Digital Pedagogy for Online Learning. Eur. J. Educ. 2023, 6, 25–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Baughan, A.; Tian, L.; Shekar, P.; Zhang, A.; Hiniker, A. Supporting Hard Conversations in Close Relationships Through Design. Proc. ACM Hum. Comput. Interact. 2024, 8, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Song, H. Designing Emotional Engagement in Virtual Reality: Exploring Emotional Design in HwicceyRealm. In Proceedings of the Twelfth International Symposium of Chinese CHI; ACM: New York, NY, USA, 2024; pp. 245–257. [Google Scholar]
  46. Senkbeil, K. Virtual Spaces, Real Interactions—Analyzing Communication in Virtual Reality. Lang. Commun. 2025, 100, 212–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Klingenberg, S.; Bosse, R.; Mayer, R.E.; Makransky, G. Does Embodiment in Virtual Reality Boost Learning Transfer? Testing an Immersion-Interactivity Framework. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 2024, 36, 116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Guy, M.; Normand, J.-M.; Jeunet-Kelway, C.; Moreau, G. The Sense of Embodiment in Virtual Reality and Its Assessment Methods. Front. Virtual Real. 2023, 4, 1141683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Dubovi, I. Cognitive and Emotional Engagement While Learning with VR: The Perspective of Multimodal Methodology. Comput. Educ. 2022, 183, 104495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Van Brakel, V.; Barreda-Ángeles, M.; Hartmann, T. Feelings of Presence and Perceived Social Support in Social Virtual Reality Platforms. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2023, 139, 107523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Dekate, S.; Mehta, P. Team Adaptive Performance in the Metaverse Workspace: Team Cohesion as a Mediator. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2025, 165, 108535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Kenyon, K.; Kinakh, V.; Harrison, J. Social Virtual Reality Helps to Reduce Feelings of Loneliness and Social Anxiety during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Sci. Rep. 2023, 13, 19282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Seijo, D.; Vázquez, M.J.; Novo, M.; Fariña, F. Studying the Effects of Sense of Belonging to Virtual Communities in Psychological Well-Being and Adjustment to Academic Setting. Educ. XX1 2023, 26, 229–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Xu, Y.; Chen, L. University Students’ Metaverse Attachment and Its Predictors: Escaping from Reality. Front. Psychol. 2025, 16, 1594256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Chumaira, T.M.; Díaz-Kommonen, L.; Bruni, L.E. Tracing Affordances: Mixed-Methods Review on Techniques to Study Affordances in Virtual Reality Environments. Cogn. Process 2025, 26, 781–800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Khanna, J.; Lee, A.S.; Kalantari, S. The Mediating Role of Technology Affordances in Virtual Reality Perspective-Taking: A Systematic Literature Review. Virtual Real. 2025, 29, 66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Rovai, A.P. Development of an Instrument to Measure Classroom Community. Internet High. Educ. 2002, 5, 197–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Romano, J.; Kromrey, J.D.; Coraggio, J.; Skowronek, J. Appropriate statistics for ordinal level data: Should we really be using t-test and Cohen’s d for evaluating group differences on the NSSE and other surveys? In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Florida Association for Institutional Research; Florida Association for Institutional Research: Cocoa Beach, FL, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  59. Kubikova, K.; Bohacova, A.; Slowik, J.; Pavelkova, I. Student Adaptation to Distance Learning: An Analysis of the Effectiveness, Benefits and Risks of Distance Education from the Perspective of University Students. Soc. Sci. Humanit. Open 2024, 9, 100875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Nguyen, T.; Netto, C.L.M.; Wilkins, J.F.; Bröker, P.; Vargas, E.E.; Sealfon, C.D.; Puthipiroj, P.; Li, K.S.; Bowler, J.E.; Hinson, H.R.; et al. Insights into Students’ Experiences and Perceptions of Remote Learning Methods: From the COVID-19 Pandemic to Best Practice for the Future. Front. Educ. 2021, 6, 647986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Huggins, C.M. GroupMe Use and Misuse: A Qualitative Study of Student Use of Group Chat Apps. Teach. Sociol. 2025, 53, 209–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Yan, L.; Ono, K.; Watanabe, M.; Wang, W. Why Do People Gather? A Study on Factors Affecting Emotion and Participation in Group Chats. Informatics 2024, 11, 75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Chen, X. Online Collaboration Tools and International Students’ Sense of Belonging in Group Work. J. Teach. Learn. Technol. 2023, 12, 105–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Sato, S.N.; Condes Moreno, E.; Rubio-Zarapuz, A.; Dalamitros, A.A.; Yañez-Sepulveda, R.; Tornero-Aguilera, J.F.; Clemente-Suárez, V.J. Navigating the New Normal: Adapting Online and Distance Learning in the Post-Pandemic Era. Educ. Sci. 2023, 14, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Deschênes, A.-A. Digital Literacy, the Use of Collaborative Technologies, and Perceived Social Proximity in a Hybrid Work Environment: Technology as a Social Binder. Comput. Hum. Behav. Rep. 2024, 13, 100351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Chen, T.; Luo, H.; Feng, Q.; Li, G. Effect of Technology Acceptance on Blended Learning Satisfaction: The Serial Mediation of Emotional Experience, Social Belonging, and Higher-Order Thinking. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 4442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Garcia, M.B.; Quejado, C.K.; Maranan, C.R.B.; Ualat, O.N.; Adao, R.T.; Happonen, A.; Yilmaz, R.; Bozkurt, A. Social Relationship Development in the Metaverse: The Roles of Embodiment, Immersion, and the Moderating Effect of Copresence. In Proceedings of the TENCON 2024—2024 IEEE Region 10 Conference (TENCON); IEEE: Singapore, 2024; pp. 1533–1536. [Google Scholar]
  68. 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Han, E.; Bailenson, J.N. Social Interaction in VR. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Communication; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2024; ISBN 978-0-19-022861-3. [Google Scholar]
  70. Conrad, M.; Kablitz, D.; Schumann, S. Learning Effectiveness of Immersive Virtual Reality in Education and Training: A Systematic Review of Findings. Comput. Educ. X Real. 2024, 4, 100053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Guertin-Lahoud, S.; Coursaris, C.K.; Sénécal, S.; Léger, P.-M. User Experience Evaluation in Shared Interactive Virtual Reality. Cyberpsychology Behav. Soc. Netw. 2023, 26, 263–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Balzarini, R.N.; Sharma, A.; Muise, A. Virtually Connected: Do Shared Novel Activities in Virtual Reality Enhance Self-Expansion and Relationship Quality? Behav. Sci. 2025, 15, 67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Theodoropoulos, A.; Stavropoulou, D.; Papadopoulos, P.; Platis, N.; Lepouras, G. Developing an Interactive VR CAVE for Immersive Shared Gaming Experiences. Virtual Worlds 2023, 2, 162–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Haetami, A.; Khan, O. The Impact of Virtual Reality on Collaborative Learning in Higher Education. Int. J. Educ. Narrat. 2024, 2, 535–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Essoe, J.K.-Y.; Reggente, N.; Ohno, A.A.; Baek, Y.H.; Dell’Italia, J.; Rissman, J. Enhancing Learning and Retention with Distinctive Virtual Reality Environments and Mental Context Reinstatement. npj Sci. Learn. 2022, 7, 31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Distribution of participants by study program and gender.
Table 1. Distribution of participants by study program and gender.
Study ProgramMen (n)Women (n)Total (n)
Distance learning 437 (age between 25–60)
Blended learning 2810 (age between 25–50)
Total 61117
Table 2. Quantitative survey statements.
Table 2. Quantitative survey statements.
No.Survey Statement
1I feel that students in this course care about each other.
2I feel connected to others in this course.
3I feel it is hard to get help when I have a question.
4I feel uneasy exposing gaps in my understanding.
5I feel reluctant to speak openly.
6I feel that I can rely on others in this course.
7I feel that I am given ample opportunities to learn.
8I feel confident that others will support me.
Table 3. Open-ended questions.
Table 3. Open-ended questions.
No.Open-Ended Question
1How would you describe the development of relationships and cooperation in your study program during the last semester? What do you consider to be the main factors that influenced this development?
2What impact do you think various technologies (e.g., VR, video calls, chats) have on your involvement in the study group and your mutual sense of belonging?
3How has the use of VR technology affected your group? If you did not use VR, please write “x” in the answer field.
Table 4. Comparison of distance and blended students’ perceptions of classroom community using Mann–Whitney U tests.
Table 4. Comparison of distance and blended students’ perceptions of classroom community using Mann–Whitney U tests.
Questionn
Distant		n
Blended		Median DistantMedian BlendedU-Statp-Valuep (Holm)Cliff’s Delta95% CI δEffect Size
1710−1−148.50.16520.99130.386[−0.114, 0.814]medium
2710−1−135.5110.014[−0.600, 0.600]negligible
37102124.50.27791−0.3[−0.800, 0.257]small
471011330.87221−0.057[−0.571, 0.486]negligible
571011280.42681−0.2[−0.600, 0.257]small
6710−1−0.5600.00840.06740.714[0.400, 0.929]large
7710−2−157.50.02140.15010.643[0.257, 0.929]large
8710−2−148.50.17860.99130.386[−0.171, 0.900]medium
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.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Košatka, D.; Šašinková, A.; Košatková, M.; Hunčík, T.; Šašinka, Č. Virtual Reality and the Sense of Belonging Among Distance Learners: A Study on Peer Relationships in Higher Education. Virtual Worlds 2026, 5, 17. https://doi.org/10.3390/virtualworlds5020017

AMA Style

Košatka D, Šašinková A, Košatková M, Hunčík T, Šašinka Č. Virtual Reality and the Sense of Belonging Among Distance Learners: A Study on Peer Relationships in Higher Education. Virtual Worlds. 2026; 5(2):17. https://doi.org/10.3390/virtualworlds5020017

Chicago/Turabian Style

Košatka, David, Alžběta Šašinková, Markéta Košatková, Tomáš Hunčík, and Čeněk Šašinka. 2026. "Virtual Reality and the Sense of Belonging Among Distance Learners: A Study on Peer Relationships in Higher Education" Virtual Worlds 5, no. 2: 17. https://doi.org/10.3390/virtualworlds5020017

APA Style

Košatka, D., Šašinková, A., Košatková, M., Hunčík, T., & Šašinka, Č. (2026). Virtual Reality and the Sense of Belonging Among Distance Learners: A Study on Peer Relationships in Higher Education. Virtual Worlds, 5(2), 17. https://doi.org/10.3390/virtualworlds5020017

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop