Frontiers in Virtual Reality· 2026Q1
Sequencing immersive virtual reality and physical laboratory work for titration training: effects on learning outcomes
- 0citations
- Q1SCImago
- 2026year
Short summary
Combining immersive virtual reality (iVR) and physical lab work for titration training increased knowledge scores by an average of 3.38 points (from 39.80 to 43.18 out of 52) in life science students, though the study did not establish a significant difference between VR-first or lab-first sequences.
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
Key points
- Mean knowledge scores increased from 39.80/52 at baseline to 43.18 after completing both iVR and physical lab titration training.
- No significant difference in knowledge gain was observed between students who started with iVR versus those who started with physical lab work (p = 0.204).
- Presence in iVR was negatively associated with cognitive load (β = –0.469).
- Limited knowledge-test reliability (Cronbach's α < 0.6) constrains the interpretation of findings.
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
Abstract
Background Higher education institutions face constraints on laboratory space, staffing, and safety, motivating interest in immersive virtual reality (iVR) as a complement to laboratory teaching. Objective This pilot study aimed to compare knowledge‐score changes across two sequences of iVR and physical laboratory titration training in a mandatory first-semester Life Sciences course and to explore relationships within the Cognitive Affective Model of Immersive Learning (CAMIL). Methods Ninety‐one students completed both activities in instructor‐assigned, counterbalanced sequences and took a 13‐item knowledge test at three time points (baseline and after each activity). Questionnaires assessed CAMIL constructs and usability. Knowledge scores were analyzed with a baseline‐adjusted linear mixed‐effects model with participant random intercepts; questionnaire data were analyzed in an exploratory reduced path model with bootstrap confidence intervals. Results Mean knowledge scores increased from 39.80 out of 52 points at baseline (SD = 4.02) to 42.87 after the first activity (SD = 4.47) and 43.18 after the second (SD = 4.35). The first‐period VR‐first minus laboratory-first difference was –1.26 points (95% CI [–2.74, 0.22], p = 0.094). The time‐by‐sequence interaction was also imprecisely estimated (b = 0.76, 95% CI [–0.42, 1.94], p = 0.204). Knowledge-test reliability was limited (Cronbachs α = 0.349, 0.579, and 0.587). In the path model, presence was negatively associated with cognitive load (β = –0.469, bootstrap 95% CI [–0.628, –0.344]); the remaining path intervals included zero. Usability averaged 71.75 (SD = 13.88; n = 90). Conclusions These findings describe knowledge-score increases during a combined training sequence but do not establish equivalent learning outcomes, a causal modality effect, or procedural skill transfer. Limited knowledge-test reliability further constrains interpretation.
The authors' abstract, as published at the source. Frontiers in Virtual Reality, 2026 · DOI ↗
Continue with a free account
Ask the paper: 3 free questions a day about this paper; save it, get its citation, new summaries every day for your field. Takeaways are Premium.
Continue free on the webSign in with Google or Apple; no card needed. You come back to this paper.
On your phone:
Field: Human-Computer Interaction
Human-Computer InteractionComputer Science