MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2962901031 · doi:10.3389/feduc.2019.00080

Head-Mounted Display Virtual Reality in Post-secondary Education and Skill Training

2019· article· en· W2962901031 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Education · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicVirtual Reality Applications and Impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVirtual realityCurriculumComputer scienceScopusMultimediaMEDLINEMedical educationPsychologyHuman–computer interactionMedicinePedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: This review focused on how immersive head-mounted display virtual reality (VR) was used in post-secondary level education and skill training, with the aim to better understand its state of the art as found from the literature. While numerous studies describe the use of immersive VR within a specific educational setting, they are often standalone events not fully detailed regarding their curricular integration. This review aims to analyse these events, with a focus on immersive VR’s incorporation into post-secondary education. Objectives: O1) Review the existing literature on the use of immersive VR in post-secondary settings, determining where and how it has been used within each educational discipline. This criterion focused on literature featuring the use of immersive VR, due to its influence on a user’s perceived levels of presence and imagination. O2) Identify favourable outcomes from the use of immersive VR when compared to other learning methods. O3) Determine the conceptual rationale (purpose) for each implementation of immersive VR as found throughout the literature. O4) Identify learning theories and recommendations for the utilization of immersive VR in post-secondary education. Methods: A literature review was undertaken with searches of Education Research Complete, ERIC, MEDLINE, EMBASE, IEEE Xplore, Scopus and Web of Science: Core Collection to locate reports on the use of immersive VR in post-secondary curricula. Results: 119 articles were identified, featuring disciplines across Arts and Humanities, Health Sciences, Military and Aerospace, Science and Technology. 35 out of 38 experiments reported to have found a positive outcome for immersive VR, after being compared with a non-immersive platform. Each simulation’s purpose included one or more of the following designations: skill training, convenience, engagement, safety, highlighting, interactivity, team building and suggestion. Recommendations for immersive VR in post-secondary education emphasize experiential learning and social constructivist approaches, including student-created virtual environments that are mainly led by the students themselves under team collaboration. Conclusion: Immersive VR brings convenient, engaging and interactive alternatives to traditional classroom settings as well as offers additional capability over traditional methods. There is a diverse assortment of educational disciplines that have each attempted to harness the power of this technological medium.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.922
Threshold uncertainty score0.556

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.299 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it