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 OpenAlexaff
Brendan Concannon, Shaniff Esmail, Mary Roduta Roberts

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations152
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in EducationSame topicVirtual Reality Applications and ImpactsFrench-language works237,207