混淆还是控制?对涉及 STEM 教育的沉浸式虚拟现实技术的媒体比较研究的系统回顾

IF 10.1 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL Educational Psychology Review Pub Date : 2024-07-03 DOI:10.1007/s10648-024-09908-8
Alyssa P. Lawson, Amedee Marchand Martella, Kristen LaBonte, Cynthia Y. Delgado, Fangzheng Zhao, Justin A. Gluck, Mitchell E. Munns, Ashleigh Wells LeRoy, Richard E. Mayer
{"title":"混淆还是控制?对涉及 STEM 教育的沉浸式虚拟现实技术的媒体比较研究的系统回顾","authors":"Alyssa P. Lawson, Amedee Marchand Martella, Kristen LaBonte, Cynthia Y. Delgado, Fangzheng Zhao, Justin A. Gluck, Mitchell E. Munns, Ashleigh Wells LeRoy, Richard E. Mayer","doi":"10.1007/s10648-024-09908-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>A substantial amount of media comparison research has been conducted in the last decade to investigate whether students learn Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) content better in immersive virtual reality (IVR) or more traditional learning environments. However, a thorough review of the design and implementation of conventional and IVR conditions in media comparison studies has not been conducted to examine the extent to which specific affordances of IVR can be pinpointed as the causal factor in enhancing learning. The present review filled this gap in the literature by examining the degree to which conventional and IVR conditions have been controlled on instructional methods and content within the K-12 and higher education STEM literature base. Thirty-eight published journal articles, conference proceedings, and dissertations related to IVR comparison studies in STEM education between the years 2013 and 2022 were coded according to 15 categories. These categories allowed for the extraction of information on the instructional methods and content characteristics of the conventional and IVR conditions to determine the degree of control within each experimental comparison. Results indicated only 26% of all comparisons examined between an IVR and conventional condition were fully controlled on five key control criteria. Moreover, 40% of the comparisons had at least one confound related to instructional method and content. When looking at the outcomes of the studies, it was difficult to gather a clear picture of the benefits or pitfalls of IVR when much of the literature was confounded and/or lacked sufficient information to determine if the conditions were controlled on key variables. Implications and recommendations for future IVR comparison research are discussed.</p>","PeriodicalId":48344,"journal":{"name":"Educational Psychology Review","volume":"16 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Confounded or Controlled? A Systematic Review of Media Comparison Studies Involving Immersive Virtual Reality for STEM Education\",\"authors\":\"Alyssa P. Lawson, Amedee Marchand Martella, Kristen LaBonte, Cynthia Y. Delgado, Fangzheng Zhao, Justin A. Gluck, Mitchell E. Munns, Ashleigh Wells LeRoy, Richard E. Mayer\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10648-024-09908-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>A substantial amount of media comparison research has been conducted in the last decade to investigate whether students learn Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) content better in immersive virtual reality (IVR) or more traditional learning environments. However, a thorough review of the design and implementation of conventional and IVR conditions in media comparison studies has not been conducted to examine the extent to which specific affordances of IVR can be pinpointed as the causal factor in enhancing learning. The present review filled this gap in the literature by examining the degree to which conventional and IVR conditions have been controlled on instructional methods and content within the K-12 and higher education STEM literature base. Thirty-eight published journal articles, conference proceedings, and dissertations related to IVR comparison studies in STEM education between the years 2013 and 2022 were coded according to 15 categories. These categories allowed for the extraction of information on the instructional methods and content characteristics of the conventional and IVR conditions to determine the degree of control within each experimental comparison. Results indicated only 26% of all comparisons examined between an IVR and conventional condition were fully controlled on five key control criteria. Moreover, 40% of the comparisons had at least one confound related to instructional method and content. When looking at the outcomes of the studies, it was difficult to gather a clear picture of the benefits or pitfalls of IVR when much of the literature was confounded and/or lacked sufficient information to determine if the conditions were controlled on key variables. Implications and recommendations for future IVR comparison research are discussed.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48344,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Educational Psychology Review\",\"volume\":\"16 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":10.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Educational Psychology Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09908-8\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Educational Psychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09908-8","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在过去的十年中,已经开展了大量的媒体对比研究,以调查学生在身临其境的虚拟现实(IVR)或更传统的学习环境中学习科学、技术、工程和数学(STEM)内容的效果是否更好。然而,在媒体对比研究中,还没有对传统和 IVR 条件的设计和实施进行全面回顾,以研究 IVR 的特定承受能力在多大程度上可以被确定为促进学习的因果因素。本综述填补了这一文献空白,研究了在 K-12 和高等教育科学、技术和工程学文献库中,常规和 IVR 条件对教学方法和内容的控制程度。对2013年至2022年期间发表的38篇与STEM教育中IVR对比研究相关的期刊论文、会议论文集和学位论文按照15个类别进行了编码。通过这些类别,可以提取有关传统和 IVR 条件下的教学方法和内容特征的信息,从而确定每个实验对比中的控制程度。结果表明,在所有 IVR 与传统条件的对比中,只有 26% 的对比在五个关键控制标准上得到了完全控制。此外,40% 的对比至少有一项与教学方法和内容有关。在研究结果方面,由于大部分文献存在混淆和/或缺乏足够的信息来确定是否对关键变量进行了控制,因此很难清楚地了解 IVR 的益处或缺陷。本文讨论了未来 IVR 对比研究的意义和建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Confounded or Controlled? A Systematic Review of Media Comparison Studies Involving Immersive Virtual Reality for STEM Education

A substantial amount of media comparison research has been conducted in the last decade to investigate whether students learn Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) content better in immersive virtual reality (IVR) or more traditional learning environments. However, a thorough review of the design and implementation of conventional and IVR conditions in media comparison studies has not been conducted to examine the extent to which specific affordances of IVR can be pinpointed as the causal factor in enhancing learning. The present review filled this gap in the literature by examining the degree to which conventional and IVR conditions have been controlled on instructional methods and content within the K-12 and higher education STEM literature base. Thirty-eight published journal articles, conference proceedings, and dissertations related to IVR comparison studies in STEM education between the years 2013 and 2022 were coded according to 15 categories. These categories allowed for the extraction of information on the instructional methods and content characteristics of the conventional and IVR conditions to determine the degree of control within each experimental comparison. Results indicated only 26% of all comparisons examined between an IVR and conventional condition were fully controlled on five key control criteria. Moreover, 40% of the comparisons had at least one confound related to instructional method and content. When looking at the outcomes of the studies, it was difficult to gather a clear picture of the benefits or pitfalls of IVR when much of the literature was confounded and/or lacked sufficient information to determine if the conditions were controlled on key variables. Implications and recommendations for future IVR comparison research are discussed.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Educational Psychology Review
Educational Psychology Review PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL-
CiteScore
15.70
自引率
3.00%
发文量
62
期刊介绍: Educational Psychology Review aims to disseminate knowledge and promote dialogue within the field of educational psychology. It serves as a platform for the publication of various types of articles, including peer-reviewed integrative reviews, special thematic issues, reflections on previous research or new research directions, interviews, and research-based advice for practitioners. The journal caters to a diverse readership, ranging from generalists in educational psychology to experts in specific areas of the discipline. The content offers a comprehensive coverage of topics and provides in-depth information to meet the needs of both specialized researchers and practitioners.
期刊最新文献
Exploring Educational Approaches to Addressing Misleading Visualizations Specialized Purpose of Each Type of Student Engagement: A Meta-Analysis Using Decoding Measures to Identify Reading Difficulties: A Meta-analysis on English as a First Language Learners and English Language Learners Interventions to Teacher Well-Being and Burnout A Scoping Review Examining the Effects of Family-Implemented Literacy Interventions for School-Aged Children: A Meta-Analysis
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1