Dissertations, Theses, and Capstone Projects

Date of Degree

6-2025

Document Type

Thesis

Degree Name

M.S.

Program

Cognitive Neuroscience

Advisor

Jennifer Mangels

Subject Categories

Cognitive Neuroscience | Cognitive Science | Educational Technology | Online and Distance Education

Keywords

Virtual Reality (VR) Learning, Error Correction, 2D vs VR Environments, Student Engagement, Heart Rate Variability (HRV), Cognitive Retention

Abstract

The pandemic in 2020 led to an increasing dependency on technology particularly in learning environments. National educational assessments in the proceeding years have indicated steep, measurable learning loss. While a fully virtual learning environment is not the norm today, we chose to investigate how virtual reality (VR) environments influence learning in college students.

Our primary research goal was to look at how students learn and remember information gathered in virtual spaces. In particular, we examined whether sensory inputs in the VR environment, including spatial audio and haptic feedback, such as vibrations felt in a handheld controller, would help to better anchor students in the learning space as compared to a 2D environment, and affect learning by bringing more attention to those mistakes made by classmates and the corrections to those mistakes by their teacher, than the mistakes they made by themselves.

Two student participants engaged in a group memory task in either 2D or VR online "classrooms." They took turns answering general knowledge questions and learning from teacher feedback given to them directly, as the “self” or to their classmate, the “other.” A surprise retest measured differences in error correction. We also measured physiological arousal through heart rate variability (HRV) to determine how this was affected by VR and whether it predicted any observed learning differences from 2D. Subjective self-reports of emotional, physical, and task experience complemented the objective behavioral and physiological measures.

Our findings showed that while VR did not lead to overall improvements in learning, it did influence how well students were able to learn from observing others’ mistakes. Whereas students in the 2D condition learned better from their own mistakes than observing others’ mistakes, in the VR condition they learned equally from both types of corrective feedback. Correspondingly, VR students also reported feeling more engaged in the task, that the time went more quickly, and that they learned more from feedback in a VR setting than a comparable 2D setting. Unfortunately, the HRV results were inconclusive. These findings suggest that VR is viewed by students as a novel and engaging approach to learning, and its immersive nature may give it an advantage over 2D virtual teaching in learning from other students and from information in the environment more generally. However, the costs of VR, both literally and figuratively, may not outweigh these modest benefits.

Download

Share

COinS