MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3048798283 · doi:10.2196/20249

Learning With Virtual Reality in Nursing Education: Qualitative Interview Study Among Nursing Students Using the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology Model

2020· article· en· W3048798283 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ann-Kathrin Lange, Jana Koch, Anastasia Beck, Till Neugebauer, Frauke Watzema, Kamil J. Wrona, Christoph Dockweiler

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Nursing · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicVirtual Reality Applications and Impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVirtual realityQualitative researchNurse educationPsychologyMedical educationNursingComputer scienceMedicineHuman–computer interaction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Digital games-based learning is a method of using digital games to impart knowledge. Virtual reality (VR) programs are a practical application of this method. Due to demographic changes, the nursing profession will become increasingly important. These VR applications can be of use in training nurses for future professional challenges they may encounter. The continuous development of VR applications enables trainees to encounter simulated real life effectively and to experience increasingly concrete situations. This can be of great importance in nursing education, since 3-dimensionality enables a better visualization of many fields of activity and can prevent potential future errors. In addition to this learning effect, VR applications also bring an element of fun to learning. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this qualitative research effort is to observe the degree of acceptance of VR applications by nursing students in Germany. Various factors, including social influences, performance expectations, and effort expectations, are taken into consideration. METHODS: With a qualitative cohort study, the acceptance of nursing students towards VR applications in anatomy teaching was determined. The 12 participants were first asked to fill out a quantitative questionnaire on their sociodemographic characteristics and the extent to which they valued and liked using technology. The participants were then allowed to test the VR application themselves and were finally asked about their experience in a qualitative interview. For the collection of data and the analysis of results, the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology was used in this study. RESULTS: Overall, the study shows that the interviewed persons rated the VR application quite positively. The greatest influence in this was the personal attitude towards technology; the higher this affinity is, the more useful the VR application appears. Social influences can also increase the participant's own acceptance if peers have a positive attitude towards such applications. The study shows that the trainees' motivation to learn was increased by using VR. We believe this is because each trainee could learn individually and the VR application was perceived as an enjoyable activity. Nevertheless, the cost factor of implementing VR applications in nursing training is currently still an obstacle, as not every institution has such financial capacities. CONCLUSIONS: The extent to which the use of VR applications in the training of nursing staff is justified depends on the degree of personal acceptance. The collected results give good practice-oriented insight into the attitude of trainees towards VR. Many of the interviewed persons saw benefits in the use of VR technologies. As VR applications are constantly developing, it is necessary to conduct further studies on VR applications in nursing education and to include other possible disciplines in which these applications can be helpful.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.108
GPT teacher head0.431
Teacher spread0.323 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations81
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR NursingSame topicVirtual Reality Applications and ImpactsFrench-language works237,207