Factors influencing behavior intentions to use virtual reality in education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Virtual reality (VR) is a new technology that has applications in a variety of sectors, including medical, education, gaming, psychology, and sociology. The application of VR in education is intriguing and warrants further examination, but research on the subject is currently restricted. VR can benefit education by allowing students to participate in memorable and engaging experiences that they would not otherwise be able to have. Traditional approaches are still used to teach students, which is an essential element of the curriculum for those who want to conceive problem-solving. As a result, there is a scarcity of study on VR deployment. In this paper, we investigated the factors affecting the adoption of VR in higher educational institutes. To this end, we extended the technology Acceptance Model (TAM) with four additional factors and formulated a set of hypotheses. The hypotheses are then evaluated using a dataset collected from 503 Jordanian students. The result shows that the factors perceived facilitating condition, perceived effort expectancy, and perceived compatibility significantly affected the intention to use VR systems and tools for educational purposes. We believe that this study will help decision makers to build sustainable learning and educational systems in Jordan universities.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".