Title: Making the Case for Immersive Virtual Reality as a Training Modality

Author Name: Michael Sanford 

Selected Case (Published Article):

Introduction

One of the recent advances in technology that has been hyped for its potential impact on the learning and development space is virtual reality (VR). There are several gradations of the technology available commercially, including augmented reality (AR) – an overlay of digital objects and information integrated into the viewer’s perspective of their surroundings, and mixed reality (MR) – a merging of digital and real-world environments within the viewers perspective, and extended reality (XR) which broadly encompasses each of the prior applications. VR is a completely digitally created environment viewable through a VR headset. Facebook, now known as Meta, has invested billions of dollars in developing technology, experiences, and environments toward the goal of integrating virtual environments (or as Mr. Zuckerberg calls it, the Metaverse) as completely into the digital zeitgeist as the internet and social media are today. One of the primary barriers to entry for most people even experimenting with VR is the steep cost of entry in terms of the hardware required. The most functional headsets from the leading manufacturers start at $400 and further require a PC to connect to for processing the virtual environment and interactions, while standalone units can cost as much as $1500. For the experience to be free of lag or quality issues that would interfere with the immersive experience, a powerful PC to connect to or an expensive standalone unit is necessary. Even more challenging for the immersive VR modality is that early research did not find a significant difference between fully immersive modalities and “virtual” interventions that were desktop applications lacking the first-person experience provided by the more expensive equipment required for fully immersive VR.  

 

Case Overview

 

To make a business case for the costs associated with developing learning and development content utilizing VR as a learning modality, there must be tangible evidence to demonstrate the benefits of utilizing immersive technology. The authors of a recent study published in the Journal of Computer-Assisted Learning have provided tangible evidence for business leaders’ consideration in calculating the potential return on investment in virtual reality training equipment. Guido Makransky, a psychologist at the University of Copenhagen, Stefan Borre-Gude, an engineer from the University of Aarhus in Denmark, and Richard E. Mayer, a professor of psychology and brain sciences at the University of California, Santa Barbara, authored an article titled “Motivational and cognitive benefits of training in immersive virtual reality based on multiple assessments” in 2019 that provides compelling evidence regarding the efficacy of VR as a training modality. Specifically, the authors examined the effect of VR as a modality on the motivation of learners as well as the learning outcomes of the intervention, as compared to a video-based modality or a textbook-based intervention.  Their hypothesis is predicated on two concepts. First that motivation, specifically the aspects of interest theory and self-determination theory – which share similar underlying themes of increased autonomy for the learner – would promote learner’s enjoyment of the intervention. Second, that when learners are engaged through the immersive aspect of the VR experience, a higher level of cognitive effort is achieved than with other modalities like a textbook. This effect of increased engagement, informed by deep learning theory’s correlation between engagement and retention for testing and behavioral transfer, informed the authors’ prediction that immersive modalities would improve these outcomes of the intervention.

 

Solutions

 

For their study, the sample group of learners consisted of 105 undergraduate students from a European university who took three different versions of a lab safety course: an immersive first-person VR intervention, a non-immersive desktop-application-based “virtual” intervention, and a textbook-based intervention. Each of the three contained the same basic technical information, but the virtual and VR versions included simulations of lab environments where realistic scenarios with the relevant equipment were a component of the intervention.

 

This design allowed for a comparison of the two virtual environments to gauge the extent to which the immersive features of the fully VR intervention improved outcomes compared to the virtual desktop intervention. The textbook version served as the control for the study. The learners were required to not only pass a declarative knowledge assessment with a score of 70% or better, but they also had to complete a procedural knowledge assessment by performing a real lab exercise successfully to gain credit for completing the program. In previous studies prior to their own, the authors had noted that the research had shown little benefit to a fully immersive VR intervention as compared to a desktop “virtual” intervention. The portion of their hypothesis related to deep learning theory and its impact on behavior transfer was the purpose of including the procedural knowledge assessment. They believed that the limitation of earlier studies to declarative knowledge assessment led to the other researchers neglecting to observe or document this benefit of the more immersive virtual intervention.

 

Outcomes

 

In their results, they discovered that the virtual environments scored much higher than the textbook version of the intervention regarding the learner’s enjoyment. The virtual environments also both scored much higher with respect to the intrinsic motivation of the learners. There was no significant difference between the three modalities regarding retention for the short-term declarative knowledge test. The procedural knowledge or behavior transfer tests showed significant improvements for the virtual environments, particularly for the second test, and the effect was more pronounced for the fully immersive modality compared to the desktop virtual version.

 

 

Implications

 

While further study will be needed to provide a convincing case for the investment required for fully immersive interventions, this study does illuminate an area where past research neglected to include controls for the different types of knowledge acquired through learning interventions. Procedural knowledge training programs will be more likely to benefit from immersive VR interventions to the extent that would justify the investment in terms of returns realized from the costs incurred. The reduced costs for obtaining augmented reality equipment might provide a lower price of entry for integrating this technology into corporate learning and development budgets. They provide many of the same benefits at a fraction of the cost. In conjunction with their ability to pass through the real environment intermixed with digital objects and information, there are likely to be many promising opportunities to provide just-in-time support at the moment of need during workflow utilizing AR technology. Whether a pop-up in the field of vision providing detailed instruction on the procedure required at that time, safety guidance on how to avoid a hazard detected by the device, or numerous other potential uses of mixed reality in the workplace, the use cases for integrating these technologies beyond just the training room are numerous. These uses would share the cost of introducing these devices into corporate budgets beyond learning and development.

 

[Back to Home]