Access to this full-text is provided by MDPI.
Content available from Education Sciences
This content is subject to copyright.
Citation: Portuguez-Castro, M.;
Santos Garduño, H. Beyond
Traditional Classrooms: Comparing
Virtual Reality Applications and Their
Influence on Students’ Motivation.
Educ. Sci. 2024,14, 963. https://
doi.org/10.3390/educsci14090963
Academic Editors: Panagiotis Petridis,
Sylvester Arnab, Sara de Freitas and
Petros Lameras
Received: 27 June 2024
Revised: 26 August 2024
Accepted: 29 August 2024
Published: 1 September 2024
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
education
sciences
Article
Beyond Traditional Classrooms: Comparing Virtual Reality
Applications and Their Influence on Students’ Motivation
May Portuguez-Castro 1, 2, * and Hugo Santos Garduño 3
1Departamento Académico de Posgrado en Negocios, CENTRUM Católica Graduate Business School,
Lima 15023, Peru
2Departamento Académico de Posgrado en Negocios, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú,
Lima 15088, Peru
3Department of Science, Tecnológico de Monterrey, Monterrey 64849, Mexico; hugo.santos@tec.mx
*Correspondence: may.portuguez@pucp.edu.pe
Abstract: This study examines the impact of virtual reality (VR) on student motivation in education,
emphasizing its potential to create immersive learning environments that enhance engagement and
learning outcomes. By adopting a quantitative approach, the research investigates the motivational
effects of two VR applications among 52 high school students in Mexico, exploring variations in
motivation across four dimensions—attention, relevance, satisfaction, and confidence—and assessing
gender-based differences. Results indicate improvements in all dimensions, particularly in attention
and satisfaction, which are crucial for intrinsic motivation. Female students showed superior results
in all dimensions, suggesting gender-specific impacts. The study underscores VR’s role in fostering
motivation and offers practical recommendations for integrating VR technology in educational
settings to maximize their benefits for student engagement and motivation. Possible limitations that
should be considered to optimize its use are also identified. This research aims to provide valuable
guidance for educators, researchers, and educational institutions seeking to harness VR technology
for improved engagement and motivation in education.
Keywords: student motivation; virtual reality; higher education; educational innovation; gender
differences
1. Introduction
The use of VR has gained significant interest in the field of education due to its ability
to create immersive environments where students can interact with educational content.
This technology is applicable across all levels of education, from primary to university [
1
].
VR enhances the student experience by displaying realistic virtual environments that enable
the exploration of concepts, providing a more engaging and effective learning space and
facilitating innovative pedagogical methods [
2
,
3
]. Among the benefits of using VR in
education are improved learning outcomes and increased student motivation [
4
]. However,
challenges remain, such as the need for further research and development and limited
access to VR devices [
5
]. Despite these challenges, VR technology is poised to become more
widely used in the future.
VR continues to lead the way in the use of emerging technologies in education. Ac-
cording to the Horizon 2023 report, VR and augmented reality stand out as powerful tools
among the technologies expected to have a lasting impact on the educational system. These
technologies extend the learning experience beyond the traditional classroom by allowing
students to engage with real-world scenarios in a more immersive manner [
6
]. Such immer-
sion enhances student engagement by offering active learning experiences and interactions
with objects and activities that traditional teaching methods cannot provide, leading to
greater motivation and commitment to the learning material [
7
,
8
]. However, achieving
these benefits requires the use of applications tailored to various academic content. While
Educ. Sci. 2024,14, 963. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14090963 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/education
Educ. Sci. 2024,14, 963 2 of 19
numerous VR applications are available, only a few are specifically designed to address
distinct academic subjects, presenting a challenge for their integration into courses.
The integration of VR applications for educational purposes presents significant chal-
lenges for teachers and educational institutions, primarily due to cost constraints and
infrastructure requirements. It is essential to explore emerging technologies applications
that are not only accessible but also suitable for integration into curricula [
9
]. Additionally,
these applications must feature content that is relevant and engaging, aligning with stu-
dents’ interests to enhance their motivation and engagement [
10
]. Lorenz et al. [
11
] note
that there are few studies analyzing the factors that could influence students’ immersive
experiences. Therefore, there is a pressing need to identify whether students will have a
positive experience using these applications from their own perspective.
In Table 1, the main strengths and limitations of studies found in the literature on the use
of VR in education are compared, and we discuss how our study addresses these limitations.
Table 1. Comparison of studies related to VR.
Study Strengths Limitations How Does Our Study Contribute?
Jiang et al. [2] Analyzes the practical applications
of VR in education and explores
how it can be adapted to different
types of knowledge.
Does not thoroughly explore the economic
and logistical barriers that could prevent
widespread adoption of VR.
Our study explores applications that
are accessible and can be integrated
into course curricula, including
possible limitations in their use.
Rafiq et al. [7] Identified the capability of VR to
enhance student engagement by
creating immersive and realistic
experiences that simulate real-world
work environments.
Requires analysis of learning objectives to
ensure that VR is the appropriate tool.
Our study provides recommendations
on how to use VR applications in the
classroom, specifically addressing
each dimension of the ARCS model.
Santos et al. [8] Explores how VR can influence
interest, motivation, and student
engagement in the learning process.
The study focused solely on a chemistry
class. Further research is needed to
determine if the results can be replicated
in other subjects.
Our study reviews two courses with
two different applications to
understand differences in student
motivation across various subjects.
Bawa & Bawa [10] Analyzes how educators can
enhance VR experiences
within curricula.
The use of VR poses challenges in creating
more immersive and engaging
educational spaces.
Our study proposes a tool to assess
the impact of VR on educational
processes and provides
recommendations for its application,
considering gender differences
among participants.
Lorenz et al. [11]
Jointly investigates the effects of age
and gender on presence, user
experience, and usability in
virtual reality.
The authors acknowledge that the
literature investigating the relationship
between age and gender in VR use is very
limited and requires further research.
Our study aims to contribute to this
topic by identifying whether gender
differences exist in VR experiences.
The main gap in the literature addressed by this study is the lack of research on the
practical and accessible implementation of VR applications in various educational settings,
with a particular focus on adaptability to curricula and the consideration of gender differ-
ences in student responses to these technologies. This study seeks to answer the question:
How does the implementation of virtual reality applications influence the motivation of
high school students, and what are the gender differences? It aims to provide recommen-
dations for the use of VR across various disciplines. The study’s innovative contribution
lies in its comprehensive examination of the impact of VR on student motivation across
different academic domains, considering practical implementation aspects and potential
gender differences. This research aims to offer valuable recommendations for educators,
researchers, and educational institutions seeking to leverage VR technology to enhance
engagement and motivation in education.
1.1. Use of Virtual Reality in Education
Virtual reality has been increasingly used in education. According to Mustafa [
12
], VR
is valuable for safely understanding and learning various concepts, including gene model-
ing, laboratory experiments, surgical procedures, and more. Additionally, VR experiences
are often more desirable than real ones, especially when access to the object or context is
difficult, impossible, risky, or costly. Authors such as Di Natale et al. [
13
] highlight that
Educ. Sci. 2024,14, 963 3 of 19
the main advantage of VR in education is its ability to provide users with experiences that
would otherwise not be possible, fostering experiential learning and enhancing student
motivation and engagement. Therefore, its application in educational environments holds
significant promise.
The use of VR has been extensively researched across various disciplines. VR is defined
as a computer-generated simulation of real life that can be accessed through head-mounted
displays or other devices, such as glasses or applications that project virtual images onto a
mobile device [
14
]. While research on its use to enhance learning experiences has increased
in recent years, a gap remains in understanding how educators and administrators can
effectively utilize this technology in their classes without specialized knowledge [
15
,
16
].
Therefore, it is necessary to provide tools and resources that enable teachers to integrate
VR into their curricula effectively.
When using VR in education, it is crucial to consider the pedagogical aspects of instruc-
tional design. According to Antón-Sancho et al. [
17
], employing VR in educational settings
requires not only technical knowledge but also technopedagogical skills to facilitate highly
meaningful learning experiences. Further exploration of interdisciplinary comparisons
can enrich our understanding of how VR enhances learning by examining its application
and effectiveness across various educational contexts [
18
]. By utilizing a comprehensive
approach that integrates pedagogical expertise with technological proficiency, educational
settings can unlock the true potential of immersive learning experiences, thereby enhancing
student motivation and interest.
1.2. Impact on Student Motivation through the Use of VR
VR has been shown to positively impact student motivation. The incorporation of ad-
vanced technologies has consistently been found to increase motivation in learning
[19–22]
.
In a study conducted with pre-service teachers in higher education, participants used
an application to recreate 3D city scenarios and reconstruct historical sites [
23
]. Using
an adaptation of Keller’s Instructional Material Motivational Survey (IMMS) instrument,
the study identified higher results in overall motivation and in the attention dimension,
followed by satisfaction. In terms of gender differences, women had higher average scores
than men in three out of four dimensions—attention, relevance, and satisfaction—while
men only scored higher in confidence. However, no significant gender differences were
found in overall motivation or relevance.
In another study involving both graduate and undergraduate students, VR resources
were utilized to visualize geometric objects from various angles. This approach was
designed to aid engineering students in understanding representation exercises [
24
]. The
use of this technology led to an increase in overall motivation among participants. Similarly
to the previous study, the IMMS instrument was employed to measure motivation across
its four dimensions. In this study, although men exhibited higher means, particularly in
the satisfaction dimension, the results did not reveal any significant gender differences in
any of the subscales.
Lastly, a study conducted in a chemistry course demonstrated an improvement in
student motivation, with the most positive results observed in the dimensions of attention
and satisfaction, followed by confidence and relevance [
8
]. The use of VR applications and
devices like Oculus Go enabled students to interact with images representing concepts that
are challenging to grasp through traditional methods. This study, which also employed
the Instructional Material Motivational Survey (IMMS) to measure motivation, found that
female students had a more favorable response across all dimensions. However, a signifi-
cant difference was noted only in the attention dimension, favoring women. The goal of
this study was to compare two VR applications in two different courses to identify features
that teachers can use to enhance student motivation through immersive methodologies.
These methodologies not only appeal to students but also facilitate their understanding
of complex concepts. Additionally, the study aimed to identify gender differences across
various dimensions of the instrument.
Educ. Sci. 2024,14, 963 4 of 19
1.3. Characteristics for the Use of VR in Education
VR applications have the potential to significantly enhance student engagement and
classroom outcomes. By immersing students in environments that closely simulate the
real world, these applications provide a self-directed, safe setting for exploration without
constant teacher oversight [
25
], while also emphasizing the essential role of student partici-
pation in learning and motivation [
26
]. VR creates a three-dimensional world, allowing
students to see, hear, touch, and interact with virtual objects, fostering a sense of direct
participation and exploratory learning [
27
]. Utilizing VR to create immersive and interac-
tive experiences promotes active learning and engagement, leading to increased student
involvement [
28
]. Additionally, VR facilitates the simulation of scientific experiments and
the reproduction of complex concepts in the classroom.
VR applications can be integrated across various subjects to enhance students’ learn-
ing experiences. When selecting the most suitable applications, key aspects such as the
integration of virtual reality into curricula and evaluating which environments yield the
best results for students must be considered [
29
]. Additionally, the need for hardware to
access these applications should be taken into account. The authors suggest designing
activities of short duration to ensure that electronic devices are accessible to everyone in
the classroom [
30
]. Although some studies have analyzed existing VR applications, few
provide recommendations for effectively selecting these for educational settings.
Educators can make informed decisions when choosing VR applications for the class-
room. A structured analysis of available applications should be conducted, reviewing
current market options and categorizing them based on design elements and learning
content [
31
]. Authors like Smutny [
32
] recommend exploring platforms such as Meta
Quest educational apps to review the application catalogue and identify those associated
with relevant content [
33
]. Stecula also suggests using the Steam platform for accessing
application data [
34
,
35
]. Additionally, considering user reviews can help identify the most
appreciated and potentially effective applications in the classroom, as well as pinpoint
specific learning domains that align with educational objectives [36].
This study aims to explore and compare the impact of VR applications on student
motivation across different disciplines. A significant contribution of this research is the
comparative analysis of two VR applications in different academic courses, focusing on their
immersive capabilities and the resulting motivation levels among students. By examining
the impact of VR on motivation through the lens of Keller’s ARCS model [
37
], the study
seeks to provide specific insights into how VR can effectively enhance student engagement
and motivation.
This study is grounded in Keller’s ARCS model, which comprises four critical elements
for fostering motivation in educational environments: attention, relevance, confidence, and
satisfaction [
37
]. The four dimensions of Keller’s ARCS motivation model are detailed
below [8].
•
Attention: This dimension refers to capturing and maintaining Student’s attention or
interest. To keep interest high, teachers must use various strategies to create varied
and exciting lessons.
•
Relevance: This dimension focuses on the relevance of the course in relation to the
goals and needs of the students. It is essential that students perceive the content
offered in the teaching–learning process as related to their interests.
•
Confidence: This dimension involves students having confidence in their ability
to succeed in learning (expectation of success). Teachers should create a favorable
environment that allows students to communicate their expectations during the lesson.
•
Satisfaction: Students should feel satisfied with their achievements in the learning
opportunity. Intrinsic motivation is one of the most important elements of satisfaction
and is difficult to influence. However, extrinsic motivation is easier to influence,
primarily through the use of feedback.
Educ. Sci. 2024,14, 963 5 of 19
Each of these components plays an essential role in designing learning experiences
that not only capture students’ attention but also highlight the relevance of the content,
build confidence in their learning abilities, and ensure they are satisfied with the process
and outcomes of their education.
The study also addresses the need to consider gender differences in motivation and
engagement when utilizing VR applications in educational settings. Understanding how
gender may influence the effectiveness and reception of VR-based learning experiences is a
valuable aspect that could contribute to designing more inclusive and effective educational
interventions using VR. Furthermore, the study emphasizes the importance of considering
practical aspects, such as hardware accessibility and the selection of VR applications tailored
to specific educational objectives. This practical perspective is essential for educators and
institutions seeking to integrate VR effectively into their curricula.
2. Methods
In this research, a quasi-experimental study was conducted using two VR applications
across two different study groups, both led by the same instructor. The research design is
quantitative, exploratory, and descriptive. The VR applications were used in English. The
VR implementation was guided by an instrument based on Keller’s four dimensions of
motivation [
37
]. The sample consisted of 52 final-semester high school students studying
physics and an introduction to biomedical sciences at a private institution in Mexico. Each
group comprised 15 female and 11 male students. Data analysis involved descriptive and
inferential statistics to assess student motivation when using VR in the classroom and to
identify any significant gender-related differences among the participants.
2.1. Instrument
The instrument used was an adaptation of the IMMS based on Keller’s ARCS model [
37
],
which encompasses four study dimensions: attention, captured through situations that
surprise students; relevance, assessed when students consider the materials valuable for
their learning process; confidence, perceived by students based on their expectations of
success; and satisfaction, experienced when students feel that the outcome of their effort
met their expectations. The instrument consisted of 36 Likert scale questions, divided as
follows: twelve for attention, nine for relevance, nine for confidence, and six for satisfaction.
It was administered at the end of the immersive experience using the Socrative application.
The reliability of the instrument was validated using Cronbach’s alpha. In the physics
course, the values for the attention, confidence, and satisfaction dimensions were above
0.8, indicating excellent reliability. Cronbach’s alpha value for the relevance dimension
was 0.78, suggesting good reliability. Additionally, the overall reliability for the instrument
was 0.95. In the biomedical course, the values for each dimension also indicated very good
reliability, with the total reliability score being 0.97, closely mirroring its application in the
physics course.
2.2. Description of the Educational Experience
The VR applications used in the study were chosen based on their relevance to the
specific curricular content of the physics and biomedical sciences courses where the study
was implemented. Applications offering immersive and educational experiences that
directly aligned with the course topics were selected. For instance, the Epic Roller Coasters
application was used in the physics course to illustrate concepts of energy and motion,
while the Human Anatomy application was used in the biomedical sciences course to
explore human anatomy in detail.
During the experience, 64 GB Oculus Go Virtual Reality headsets were used, loaded
with the Epic Roller Coasters and Human Anatomy applications. The institution possesses
an adequate inventory of these headsets, allowing each student in the study to have
access to an individual device during the sessions. This availability reflects a significant
prior investment by the institution in educational technology, aimed at enriching learning
Educ. Sci. 2024,14, 963 6 of 19
through advanced and accessible resources. With each student having access to their own
VR headset, an immersive and continuous learning experience was facilitated without
the need for rotation or sharing equipment. This setup is ideal for maximizing effective
learning time and minimizing interruptions. The mode of individual use also allows for the
customization of learning experiences to suit the needs and learning paces of each student.
In the physics course, the Epic Roller Coasters application was utilized to achieve
specific learning outcomes (Figure 1). Epic Roller Coasters is a virtual reality application
designed to provide users with an immersive experience of riding roller coasters [
33
]. Some
key features of the application include the following.
Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 21
Figure 1. Epic Roller Coasters application screenshot.
The application is accessible on several platforms, including Meta Quest, Oculus Rift,
and PlayStation, offering a range of uniquely designed roller coasters that simulate the
intense thrill typically associated with these aractions.
This application was utilized in the study to create an immersive learning environ-
ment for physics students. The application features a predefined trajectory with predeter-
mined timing, allowing users to select their vehicle for the ride and decide whether to
include a virtual companion.
In the context of the study, students engaged with the application by experiencing
various emotions as the roller coaster simulated realistic features such as high points,
jumps, rapid and steep descents, and wide curves. These features were critical in helping
students observe and analyze changes in height and speed, which are fundamental as-
pects of the law of conservation of energy. By closely observing the roller coasters trajec-
tory, students were able to answer questions related to the behavior of these variables,
thereby enhancing their understanding of key physics concepts.
The integration of Epic Roller Coasters into the educational seing underscores the
application’s potential to engage students in active learning through immersive experi-
ences that closely mimic real-world scenarios. The application’s design facilitated an in-
teractive approach to teaching physics, making abstract concepts more tangible and ac-
cessible to students.
In the biomedical course, the Human Anatomy application was utilized (Figure 2).
The Human Anatomy application is an immersive and educational tool available on Meta
Quest designed to facilitate learning about the human body through virtual reality. The
application features interactive 3D anatomical models that allow users to visualize and
explore the complex structures of the human body [33]. With advanced graphic capabili-
ties, the application provides a highly immersive environment, making the study of anat-
omy more engaging and effective. Users can interact with these models by rotating, zoom-
ing in, and examining different parts of the body, which facilitates a deeper understanding
of various systems, including the skeletal, muscular, and circulatory systems.
Figure 1. Epic Roller Coasters application screenshot.
1.
Variety of roller coasters: The application offers a variety of roller coasters, each
featuring distinct designs and characteristics such as twists, drops, and loops. These
elements are crafted to closely mimic the physical sensations of real-world roller
coasters, enhancing the overall immersive experience.
2.
Advanced graphic capabilities: The application’s advanced graphics create a highly re-
alistic environment, contributing to a more engaging and lifelike experience for users.
3.
Interactive elements: Users can engage with the surrounding environment within
the application, adding a layer of personalization and engagement that enriches the
virtual experience.
The application is accessible on several platforms, including Meta Quest, Oculus Rift,
and PlayStation, offering a range of uniquely designed roller coasters that simulate the
intense thrill typically associated with these attractions.
This application was utilized in the study to create an immersive learning environment
for physics students. The application features a predefined trajectory with predetermined
timing, allowing users to select their vehicle for the ride and decide whether to include a
virtual companion.
In the context of the study, students engaged with the application by experiencing
various emotions as the roller coaster simulated realistic features such as high points, jumps,
rapid and steep descents, and wide curves. These features were critical in helping students
observe and analyze changes in height and speed, which are fundamental aspects of the
law of conservation of energy. By closely observing the roller coasters trajectory, students
were able to answer questions related to the behavior of these variables, thereby enhancing
their understanding of key physics concepts.
The integration of Epic Roller Coasters into the educational setting underscores the
application’s potential to engage students in active learning through immersive experiences
that closely mimic real-world scenarios. The application’s design facilitated an interactive
approach to teaching physics, making abstract concepts more tangible and accessible
to students.
Educ. Sci. 2024,14, 963 7 of 19
In the biomedical course, the Human Anatomy application was utilized (Figure 2).
The Human Anatomy application is an immersive and educational tool available on Meta
Quest designed to facilitate learning about the human body through virtual reality. The
application features interactive 3D anatomical models that allow users to visualize and
explore the complex structures of the human body [
33
]. With advanced graphic capabilities,
the application provides a highly immersive environment, making the study of anatomy
more engaging and effective. Users can interact with these models by rotating, zooming
in, and examining different parts of the body, which facilitates a deeper understanding of
various systems, including the skeletal, muscular, and circulatory systems.
Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 21
Figure 1. Epic Roller Coasters application screenshot.
The application is accessible on several platforms, including Meta Quest, Oculus Rift,
and PlayStation, offering a range of uniquely designed roller coasters that simulate the
intense thrill typically associated with these aractions.
This application was utilized in the study to create an immersive learning environ-
ment for physics students. The application features a predefined trajectory with predeter-
mined timing, allowing users to select their vehicle for the ride and decide whether to
include a virtual companion.
In the context of the study, students engaged with the application by experiencing
various emotions as the roller coaster simulated realistic features such as high points,
jumps, rapid and steep descents, and wide curves. These features were critical in helping
students observe and analyze changes in height and speed, which are fundamental as-
pects of the law of conservation of energy. By closely observing the roller coasters trajec-
tory, students were able to answer questions related to the behavior of these variables,
thereby enhancing their understanding of key physics concepts.
The integration of Epic Roller Coasters into the educational seing underscores the
application’s potential to engage students in active learning through immersive experi-
ences that closely mimic real-world scenarios. The application’s design facilitated an in-
teractive approach to teaching physics, making abstract concepts more tangible and ac-
cessible to students.
In the biomedical course, the Human Anatomy application was utilized (Figure 2).
The Human Anatomy application is an immersive and educational tool available on Meta
Quest designed to facilitate learning about the human body through virtual reality. The
application features interactive 3D anatomical models that allow users to visualize and
explore the complex structures of the human body [33]. With advanced graphic capabili-
ties, the application provides a highly immersive environment, making the study of anat-
omy more engaging and effective. Users can interact with these models by rotating, zoom-
ing in, and examining different parts of the body, which facilitates a deeper understanding
of various systems, including the skeletal, muscular, and circulatory systems.
Figure 2. Human Anatomy application screenshot.
The Human Anatomy application was utilized to allow students to explore the central
nervous system in great detail. Within the application, students had full control over
navigation, enabling them to choose their own path for specific observations. They could
rotate the human body, zoom in on images, and select various types of tissue to view, such
as arteries, veins, nerves, and other structures. This interactive approach allowed students
to engage deeply with the material by observing anatomical features and answering
questions based on their observations, using an activity provided in printed form. The
application’s detailed visualizations and interactive capabilities significantly enhanced
students’ understanding of complex anatomical concepts, making it an invaluable tool in
the educational setting.
The alignment of the applications with learning objectives was a meticulous process
that involved reviewing the educational content of the applications to ensure they com-
plemented and enriched the existing curricula. The interactive features and immersive
environments of the applications were evaluated for their potential to enhance students’
understanding and retention of key concepts. Additionally, consideration was given to
how these tools could foster critical skills such as analytical thinking and problem-solving
within real and applicable contexts.
The process of selecting and aligning the VR applications involved close collaboration
with the instructor of the courses. The educator played a crucial role in the evaluative
process, providing feedback on the educational relevance of the applications and their
perceived effectiveness in previous classes. This collaboration with the researchers ensured
that the selected applications were pedagogically sound, effective in achieving the desired
educational objectives, and appropriate for the comprehension level and needs of high
school students. The instructor involved in the study was selected based on their prior
experience and familiarity with VR technologies.
This innovation was implemented in two final-semester high school groups, for both
physics and biomedical subjects, during the January–May 2023 semester, both taught
by the same instructor. After completing the activity, students were asked to respond
to a survey to gauge their perception of the experience. The study design focused on a
single post-intervention survey, allowing for the capture of students’ immediate percep-
tions of the effectiveness of VR and providing valuable insights into its direct impact on
student motivation.
Educ. Sci. 2024,14, 963 8 of 19
3. Results
3.1. Descriptive Statistics
To assess the results of motivation as measured by the instrument used, the responses
of students who rated the use of each application as positive or very positive were compared.
The results are shown in Figure 3. On average, 75% of the students in the physics course
had a positive or very positive response to the application used in their course, while in the
biomedical course, the response was 69.5%.
Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 21
Figure 3. Results by dimension for the physics and biomedical courses.
The results indicate that the level of satisfaction was higher for both courses, with
79.9% in physics and 75.9% in biomedicine. Across all dimensions, the physics course
achieved the highest results. The lowest result was observed in the biomedical course,
where 58.6% of students indicated confidence in using the application, compared to 73%
of students in the physics course. The following sections will provide a more detailed
analysis of each of the dimensions.
77%
71%
73%
80%
74%
69%
59%
76%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
Attention
Relevance
Confidence
Satisfaction
Biomedical Physics
Figure 3. Results by dimension for the physics and biomedical courses.
The results indicate that the level of satisfaction was higher for both courses, with
79.9% in physics and 75.9% in biomedicine. Across all dimensions, the physics course
achieved the highest results. The lowest result was observed in the biomedical course,
where 58.6% of students indicated confidence in using the application, compared to 73% of
students in the physics course. The following sections will provide a more detailed analysis
of each of the dimensions.
3.1.1. Attention
The dimension of attention refers to the ability of the experience to capture students’
attention. The items in the questionnaire are designed to evaluate the capacity of the educa-
tional material to capture and maintain students’ attention, as well as their interest in the
content presented. These items include assessments of the visual appeal and organization
of the materials, the quality and style of the writing, and whether elements such as the
variety of materials and surprises in the learning process contributes to greater engagement.
The results for this dimension are presented in Table 2.
Table 2. Responses of the subjects on the attention dimension for both courses.
Results Physics Biomedicine
Very positive 52.7% 49.2%
Positive 24.7% 24.9%
Neutral 13.8% 15.2%
Negative 6.7% 8.1%
Very negative 2.1% 2.6%
The results show that in both the biomedical and physics courses, the majority of
students had positive experiences with the material presented. A high percentage of
responses—74.1% in the biomedical course and 77.4% in the physics course—were rated as
Educ. Sci. 2024,14, 963 9 of 19
positive or very positive, indicating strong acceptance of both the teaching method and
content in these courses.
The percentage of negative and very negative responses was considerably low, with
only 10.7% in the biomedical course and 8.8% in the physics course, reinforcing the percep-
tion that the educational experience was largely favorable. However, the biomedical course
showed a slightly higher proportion of students who were undecided or neutral, which
may suggest variability in how different aspects of the course were received or indicate
possible areas of uncertainty that could be explored for future improvements.
3.1.2. Relevance
Relevance refers to the students’ perception of the usefulness of the experience in
achieving a better understanding of the course content. The relevance items in the question-
naire are designed to evaluate how students perceive the connection between the lesson
material and their prior knowledge, personal interests, and practical applicability. These
items aim to capture various dimensions of relevance that can influence motivation and
effective learning.
The results from the biomedical and physics courses indicate that the majority of
students positively valued the relevance of the material presented in their respective
lessons. In the biomedical course, 69.3% of the responses were positive or very positive
regarding the relevance of the content, while in physics, this figure slightly increased to
71%. Both courses had a minority of negative responses, with 10.8% in biomedical and
7.4% in physics, highlighting potential areas for improving the alignment of the content
with students’ needs and expectations. Additionally, a considerable percentage of students
in both courses maintained a neutral opinion—19.9% in biomedical and 21.6% in physics.
The results are displayed in Table 3.
Table 3. Responses of the subjects on the relevance dimension for both courses.
Results Physics Biomedicine
Very positive 41.8% 40.7%
Positive 29.2% 28.6%
Neutral 21.6% 19.9%
Negative 6.0% 9.1%
Very negative 1.4% 1.7%
These findings underscore the importance of continually evaluating and adjusting edu-
cational materials to maximize their relevance and connection with students across different
academic disciplines, thereby fostering greater student engagement and satisfaction.
3.1.3. Confidence
Confidence refers to the students’ assurance when interacting with the application,
enabling them to successfully complete the assigned activity. The items used to evaluate
confidence in the questionnaire are designed to measure students’ perceptions of their
ability to understand and manage the educational material presented in the lessons. These
items address both the students’ initial reactions to the material and their confidence in
learning as they progress through the lesson.
When combining the percentages of positive and very positive responses, they amount
to 58.6% for the biomedical course and 73% for the physics course out of the total responses.
The negative and very negative responses account for 15.5% in the biomedical course and
10.8% in the physics course. The percentage of students with a neutral opinion was higher
in biomedicine, reaching 25.9%, compared to 16.2% in physics. The responses are presented
in Table 4.
Educ. Sci. 2024,14, 963 10 of 19
Table 4. Responses of the subjects on the confidence dimension for both courses.
Results Physics Biomedicine
Very positive 44.1% 31.5%
Positive 28.9% 27.1%
Neutral 16.2% 25.9%
Negative 8.6% 9.5%
Very negative 2.2% 6.0%
The very positive responses differ between the two subjects, with greater acceptance
among physics students. Neutral responses are more prevalent in the biomedical course,
while the overall negative and very negative results are more favorable in the physics
course. For the confidence dimension, there is a positive trend; however, the individual
responses show less similarity compared to the patterns observed in the previous two
dimensions. In this dimension, the difference was more pronounced, with the physics
course scoring 14.4% higher.
3.1.4. Satisfaction
Satisfaction refers to the joy or delight that students experience when participating
in the activity. These items focus on evaluating the students’ affective experience with
the educational material, which is crucial for understanding not only the educational
effectiveness of the content but also its emotional impact on students. This understanding
is essential for designing motivating and enriching learning experiences. When combining
the percentages of positive and very positive responses, they amount to 75.9% for the
biomedical course and 79.9% for the physics course out of the total responses. The negative
and very negative responses account for 8.4% in the biomedical course and 4.9% in the
physics course. The percentage of students with a neutral opinion was similar in both
courses. The responses are presented in Table 5.
Table 5. Responses of the subjects on the satisfaction dimension for both courses.
Physics Biomedicine
Very positive 52.7% 52.3%
Positive 27.2% 23.6%
Neutral 15.2% 15.7%
Negative 4.0% 6.7%
Very negative 0.9% 1.7%
The positive responses were the most frequent among students in both courses, with
neutral responses being similarly valued in both. The very negative responses represented
a small percentage. These results highlight a generally positive reception of the lesson
design and content in both fields of study, with a stronger inclination toward positive
responses in the physics course.
The results of the descriptive statistics show that the responses for the four dimensions
of the ARCS model were very favorable, as the highest values are in the very positive
range and the lowest values are in the very negative range. When each dimension is
analyzed separately, it is observed that the majority of very positive responses fall within
the satisfaction dimension for both courses. Conversely, a higher number of very negative
responses are found in the confidence dimension. Considering that satisfaction is associated
with intrinsic motivation and confidence is related to extrinsic motivation according to
Keller’s model, it can be inferred that students enjoy the experience, but may lack confidence
in their ability to successfully complete the activity, especially in the biomedical course.
The higher number of very negative responses is less frequent in the satisfaction dimension
and more prevalent in the confidence dimension. In the case of physics, the results were
Educ. Sci. 2024,14, 963 11 of 19
higher across all four dimensions, particularly in satisfaction. Moreover, the dimension
with the most significant difference compared to the biomedical group was confidence.
3.2. Inferential Statistics
This section presents the analysis of differences to determine whether there were
significant variations in the four dimensions analyzed. Student’s t-test was used for the
following comparisons: (1) comparison of motivation between the two courses using the
two applications; (2) comparison of motivation by gender in the physics course; (3) com-
parison of motivation by gender in the biomedical course; (4) comparison of motivation
among females when using the two different types of applications; and (5) comparison of
motivation among males when using the two different types of applications.
3.2.1. Comparison of Motivation between the Two Courses with Two Applications
In this section, the responses of male and female students who used the Epic Roller
Coasters application in the physics course were compared to the total responses of students
who used the Human Anatomy application. The results are presented in Table 6.
Table 6. Results by dimension by subject.
Physics (N = 26)
Epic Roller Coasters
Biomedicine (N = 26)
Human Anatomy
M (SD) M (SD) t p
Attention 4.17 (0.65) 4.09 (0.72) 0.44 0.663
Relevance 4.08 (0.57) 3.96 (0.66) 0.65 0.518
Confidence 4.03 (0.67) 3.67 (0.72) 1.85 0.071
Satisfaction 4.24 (0.61) 4.15 (0.81) 0.45 0.654
For the dimension of attention, the mean (M) for the total students in the physics
course was 4.17 with a standard deviation (S.D.) = 0.65, while in the biomedical course, it
was M = 4.09 with S.D. = 0.72. Student’s t-test produced a p-value of p= 0.663, which is
greater than the confidence interval of 0.05. Therefore, it can be assumed that the means of
the samples are not significantly different.
For relevance, the mean in the physics course was 4.08 with S.D. = 0.57, and in
the biomedical course, the mean was M = 3.96 with a standard deviation of S.D. = 0.66.
Student’s t-test yielded a t-value of 0.65 with p= 0.518, which is greater than the confidence
interval of α= 0.05. Thus, it is inferred that the means are not significantly different.
For confidence, the mean in the physics course was 4.03 with S.D. = 0.67, and in the
biomedical course, it was M = 3.67 with S.D. = 0.72. Student’s t-test produced a t-value of
1.85 with p= 0.071. Given these data and a confidence interval of
α
= 0.05, it is assumed
that the samples show significant statistical differences.
In the case of satisfaction, this dimension had the highest means in both the physics
and biomedical courses. In the physics course, this was M = 4.24 with S.D. = 0.61, and in
the biomedical course, it was M = 4.15 with S.D. = 0.81. Student’s t-test yielded a t-value
of 0.45 with p= 0.654, leading us to infer that there are no significant differences between
the samples.
3.2.2. Comparison of Motivation by Gender in the Physics Course
For each dimension of the ARCS model, the responses of female students were com-
pared to those of male students who used the Epic Roller Coasters application in the physics
course. The results are presented in Table 7.
Educ. Sci. 2024,14, 963 12 of 19
Table 7. Motivation by gender in the physics course.
Female
(N = 15)
Male
(N = 11)
M (DE) M (DE) t p
Attention 4.31 (0.41) 3.99 (0.86) 1.16 0.268
Relevance 4.22 (0.51) 3.89 (0.62) 1.42 0.172
Confidence 4.08 (0.57) 3.95 (0.82) 0.46 0.652
Satisfaction 4.27 (0.57) 4.20 (0.68) 0.28 0.785
For the attention dimension, the mean for female students was 4.31 with a standard
deviation (S.D.) of 0.41, and for male students, it was M = 3.99 with an S.D. of 0.86. Student’s
t-test yielded a value of
−
1.16 with p= 0.268, which is greater than the confidence interval
of
α
= 0.05. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that there are significant differences between
the means of the samples.
Regarding relevance, the means are very similar, with a mean of 4.22 and S.D. = 0.51
for female students, and M = 3.89 and S.D. = 0.62 for male students. Student’s t-test yielded
a value of 1.42 with p= 0.172, indicating no significant difference in the means of the sample
responses.
In the case of confidence, the mean for female students in the physics course was 4.08
with S.D. = 0.57, and for male students, it was M = 3.95 with S.D. = 0.82. Student’s t-test
produced a value of 0.46 with p= 0.652, suggesting that the means of the samples do not
differ significantly.
Lastly, for satisfaction, the mean for female students was 4.27 with S.D. = 0.57, and for
male students, it was M = 4.20 with S.D. = 0.68. Student’s t-test yielded a value of 0.28 with
p= 0.785, indicating that the means of the samples do not exhibit significant differences.
3.2.3. Comparison of Motivation by Gender in the Biomedical Course
This section presents the results comparing the responses of female students to those of
male students when both used the human anatomy application in the biomedical sciences
course. The results are summarized in Table 8.
Table 8. Motivation by gender in the biomedical course.
Female (N = 15) Male (N = 11)
M (SD) M (SD) t p
Attention 4.31 (0.41) 3.99 (0.86) 1.16 0.268
Relevance 4.22 (0.51) 3.89 (0.62) 1.42 0.172
Confidence 4.08 (0.57) 3.95 (0.82) 0.46 0.652
Satisfaction 4.27 (0.57) 4.20 (0.68) 0.28 0.785
In the attention dimension, the mean for female students in the biomedical sciences
course was 4.34 with S.D. = 0.64, while for male students, it was M = 3.74 with S.D. = 0.70.
Student’s t-test yielded a value of 2.24 with p= 0.036. Based on these values, it is inferred
that there are significant differences between the means of the samples.
For relevance, the mean for female students was 4.16 with S.D. = 0.65, while for male
students, it was M = 3.69 with S.D. = 0.60, which is lower than that of the female students.
Student’s t-test yielded a value of 1.90 with p= 0.071, which is greater than the confidence
interval of
α
= 0.05; therefore, there are no significant differences between the means of
the samples.
In the case of confidence, the mean for female students was 3.95 with S.D. = 0.51,
while for male students, it was M = 3.29 with S.D. = 0.81, which is lower than that of the
female students. Student’s t-test yielded a value of 2.38 with p= 0.031, which is less than
the confidence interval of
α
= 0.05, indicating that there is a significant statistical difference
between the means of the samples.
Educ. Sci. 2024,14, 963 13 of 19
Finally, for satisfaction, the mean for female students was 4.47 with S.D. = 0.55, while
for male students, it was M = 3.71 with S.D. = 0.93. Although the mean for male students
was lower, the standard deviation was higher than that of female students. Student’s t-test
yielded a value of 2.39 with p= 0.030, which is less than the confidence interval of
α
= 0.05,
allowing us to infer that there is a significant difference between the samples for the values
obtained in this dimension.
3.2.4. Comparison of Motivation in the Female Gender When Using the Two Applications
In this section, the responses from female students who used the Epic Roller Coasters
application in their physics course are compared with those from female students who
used the Human Anatomy application in their biomedical sciences course. The results are
shown in Table 9.
Table 9. Motivation of female students.
Physics (N = 15) Biomedicine (N = 15)
M (SD) M (SD) t p
Attention 4.31 (0.41) 4.34 (0.64) −0.17 0.868
Relevance 4.22 (0.51) 4.16 (0.65) 0.24 0.813
Confidence 4.08 (0.57) 3.95 (0.51) 0.68 0.503
Satisfaction 4.27 (0.57) 4.47 (0.55) −0.98 0.337
For the attention dimension, the mean of the responses from female students in the
physics course was 4.31 with S.D. = 0.41, while in the biomedical sciences course, it was
M = 4.34
with S.D. = 0.64. Student’s t-test yielded a value of
−
0.17 with p= 0.868, indicating
that there are no significant differences between the samples.
In the case of relevance, the mean for the physics course was 4.22 with S.D. = 0.51,
and for the biomedical sciences course, it was M = 4.16 with S.D. = 0.65. Student’s t-test
produced a value of 0.24 with p= 0.813, suggesting that there are no significant differences
between the samples.
For confidence, the means in both courses were very similar. In the physics course, the
mean was 4.08 with S.D. = 0.57, and in the biomedical sciences course, it was M = 3.95 with
S.D. = 0.51. Student’s t-test yielded a value of 0.68 with p= 0.503, indicating no significant
differences between the samples.
Lastly, in the satisfaction dimension, the means were the highest, with M = 4.27 with
S.D. = 0.57 for the physics course and M = 4.47 with S.D. = 0.55 for the biomedical sciences
course. Student’s t-test produced a value of −0.98 with p= 0.337, indicating that there are
no significant differences between the samples.
3.2.5. Comparison of Motivation in the Male Gender When Using the Two Applications
In this case, the responses from male students who used the Epic Roller Coasters
application in their physics course are compared with those from male students who used
the Human Anatomy application in their biomedical sciences course. The results are shown
in Table 10.
Table 10. Motivation of male students.
Physics (N = 11) Biomedicine (N = 11)
M (SD) M (SD) t p
Attention 3.99 (0.86) 3.74 (0.70) 0.72 0.478
Relevance 3.89 (0.62) 3.69 (0.60) 0.75 0.465
Confidence 3.95 (0.82) 3.29 (0.81) 1.90 0.073
Satisfaction 4.20 (0.63) 3.71 (0.93) 1.39 0.181
For the attention dimension, the mean for the physics course was 3.99 with
S.D. = 0.86
,
while for the biomedical sciences course, it was M = 3.74 with S.D. = 0.70. The t-value
Educ. Sci. 2024,14, 963 14 of 19
was 0.72 with p= 0.478, indicating no significant difference in responses between the
two courses.
For relevance, the physics course had a mean of 3.89 with S.D. = 0.62, and the biomedi-
cal sciences course had a mean of 3.69 with S.D. = 0.60. The t-value from Student’s t-test was
0.75 with p= 0.465, suggesting no significant differences in responses between the subjects.
In terms of confidence, the responses for the physics course had a mean of 3.95 with
S.D. = 0.82, while for the biomedical sciences course, it was M = 3.29 with S.D. = 0.81. The
t-value was 1.90 with p= 0.073, indicating no significant difference in responses between
the two courses.
Lastly, for satisfaction, the mean response for the physics course was 4.20 with
S.D. = 0.63
, and in the biomedical sciences course, it was M = 3.71 with S.D. = 0.93. The
t-value from Student’s t-test was 1.39 with p= 0.181, suggesting no significant differences
in responses between the subjects.
In the experience, 64 GB Oculus Go Virtual Reality headsets were used, loaded with
the applications Epic Roller Coasters and Human Anatomy. In the physics course, the Epic
Roller Coasters application was utilized to achieve learning outcomes. The application
offers a predefined trajectory with predetermined timing.
4. Discussion
VR applications enhance student motivation, particularly in terms of satisfaction. As
seen in Figure 3, the responses of all students using either of the two VR applications were
favorable across all dimensions. This aligns with existing research, which indicates that
interaction with immersive objects and the provision of active learning experiences improve
student engagement and motivation [
8
,
28
]. The ability of virtual reality to simulate real-
world experiences can make learning more engaging and effective, especially in educational
settings, where capturing student attention is crucial. Additionally, aligning these tools
with students’ interests enhances motivation toward learning [
10
]. By adapting virtual
reality experiences to students’ interests, educators can create more relevant and enjoyable
learning experiences, leading to increased motivation [
4
]. These findings underscore the
need to integrate tools into educational processes that contribute to learning objectives and
are designed to appeal to students, thereby fostering greater motivation toward learning.
The use of VR applications improves satisfaction and attention, thereby enhancing
intrinsic motivation. This finding aligns with the existing literature that emphasizes the
importance of capturing students’ attention in educational settings [
1
]. When students
are engaged and attentive, they are more likely to learn and retain information [
35
]. The
immersive nature of VR allows students to experience real-world scenarios in a safe and
controlled manner, leading to a deeper understanding of the subject matter [
7
]. This ability
to connect with content in a practical way can make learning more enjoyable and satisfying
for students, ultimately increasing their motivation to learn [
8
]. Educators can explore
ways to integrate elements within VR applications that foster students’ confidence, such
as providing personalized feedback and opportunities to practice new skills in a risk-free
virtual environment [
2
]. Attention and satisfaction are fundamental aspects of engagement,
and a positive experience in these dimensions can enhance learning outcomes.
The dimension of relevance, which emphasizes students’ perception of the usefulness
of the experience in understanding the course content, plays a crucial role in the success
of VR applications in educational settings. In Table 3, it can be observed that when
comparing the applications, the results were significant for the relevance aspect, with
the Epic Roller Coasters application slightly surpassing the one used in the biomedical
course. This highlights how perceived relevance can influence the effectiveness of the
tool. This is consistent with the literature suggesting that the perception of relevance in
learning materials positively impacts motivation and engagement [
2
]. When students
consider the material to be relevant to their studies and real life, they are more likely to
feel motivated to participate in the learning process [
37
]. This finding further underscores
the need for instructional materials to be relevant and meaningful to students. It is not
Educ. Sci. 2024,14, 963 15 of 19
just about introducing technology into the classroom, but ensuring that such technology
complements the course content and provides students with a valuable and meaningful
learning experience.
Confidence, defined as students’ assurance when interacting with the application to
successfully complete the assigned activity, is an essential component of effective learn-
ing. The findings shown in Table 4indicate that the majority of students in the physics
course felt more secure with the material presented. However, the presence of neutral
responses may suggest that while these students do not feel insecure, they also have not
developed a strong sense of confidence in their ability to handle the technology. Designing
applications that allow students to manipulate virtual objects, experiment with different
problem-solving strategies, and receive personalized feedback can help build confidence
by giving them a sense of agency and control over their learning process [
4
]. Teachers can
foster a positive learning culture by providing encouragement and constructive feedback,
creating opportunities for peer collaboration and valuing effort and perseverance along-
side success [
20
,
22
]. It is crucial to design experiences that enable students to develop a
deep understanding of the content, believe in their abilities, and approach learning with
confidence and enthusiasm.
Women reported higher results in all dimensions than their male counterparts when
using immersive VR applications. Tables 7and 8show that the results were higher for
women, although without significant differences. However, when analyzing the genders
separately, it was found that female participants had better results in three dimensions of
the physics course and one in the biomedical course (Table 9), while males had better results
in all four dimensions (Table 10), with a significant difference in the confidence dimension.
The literature does not reach a consensus regarding gender differences in using VR. In
some cases, no significant difference has been demonstrated, although it has been shown to
have a greater impact on women in one or more dimensions [
8
,
23
,
24
]. Therefore, further
exploration of these differences is warranted. It is essential to recognize these gender
differences in perception and response to virtual reality in educational environments.
Designing and adapting virtual reality applications with these gender differences in mind
can improve the effectiveness of teaching and student engagement.
4.1. Recommendations for the Use of VR Applications in Classroom
Based on the findings of this study, we recommend the following for utilizing VR
applications in the classroom.
1.
Alignment with learning objectives: The applications used in this study were closely
aligned with the learning objectives, resulting in high scores across the different
analyzed dimensions. It is essential to ensure that selected applications align with
learning objectives [
36
]. This alignment guarantees an effective and relevant experi-
ence, thereby enhancing the relevance dimension.
2.
Diversification of themes and disciplines: This study explored various themes and
disciplines, demonstrating the benefits of diverse responses based on the type of
application and course. It is advisable to explore a broad range of educational themes
and disciplines through VR [
32
]. Integrating various applications across different sub-
jects and disciplines can cater to students’ preferences and needs, thereby increasing
satisfaction and attention.
3.
Leveraging gender differences: This study identified differences in responses based
on gender. It is essential to consider these differences when selecting applications and
integrating them into the curriculum [
8
]. Addressing gender-specific preferences in
VR application selection is crucial to ensure inclusivity and equitable participation.
4.
Appropriate levels of interactivity: The features of the applications used in this
study provided an immersive and interactive experience. It is necessary to identify
applications that allow students to interact in environments that promote active
learning [
28
]. Selecting VR applications with appropriate levels of interactivity can
encourage student engagement and motivation.
Educ. Sci. 2024,14, 963 16 of 19
5.
Compatibility with school equipment: In this study, the applications were compatible
with the available equipment, ensuring optimal functionality. Numerous VR applica-
tions are available for educational use, including free or low-cost options compatible
with various electronic devices [
33
,
35
]. It is recommended to select applications that
best fit the resources of the educational institution and to conduct pilot tests to gather
feedback and enhance the VR experience. Additionally, consider VR applications that
incorporate playful and gamified elements to boost students’ intrinsic motivation.
Virtual reality enhances student motivation in attention, relevance, satisfaction, and
confidence, underscoring its effectiveness in increasing engagement and learning outcomes.
Female students achieved superior outcomes in three out of the four motivation dimensions
studied. Strategies for integrating VR technologies in education should align with learning
objectives and consider gender differences to maximize student engagement. It is also
recommended to explore the integration of virtual reality with other emerging technologies
to create more immersive and personalized educational experiences.
4.2. Possible Limitations in the Use of VR
In the study of VR applications in educational settings, it is crucial to address some
potential limitations that could affect their effective implementation. First, cost remains a
significant challenge, as acquiring VR hardware and software can represent a considerable
investment for educational institutions, especially those with limited resources. One way
to mitigate this is by seeking low-cost hardware and free or low-cost software options.
Additionally, accessibility is a multifaceted concern. For instance, most VR content is
predominantly in English, which can pose a linguistic barrier for students who do not
speak English as their first language. This necessitates the localization of educational
resources into multiple languages. Finally, physical side effects, such as nausea, dizziness,
and disorientation [
7
], can limit the time students are able to use these devices effectively,
potentially restricting the duration of immersive educational sessions and impacting the
overall learning experience. These factors need to be carefully considered and mitigated to
maximize the educational benefits of virtual reality.
5. Conclusions
This study provides valuable insights into the impact of VR on student motivation in
educational settings, focusing on the dimensions of attention, relevance, confidence, and
satisfaction. The findings revealed that the motivation results when using virtual reality are
very similar and mostly positive, regardless of the type of application used. Alignment with
learning objectives and appropriate interactivity were crucial for a successful VR experience.
Gender differences in the perception of motivation were observed, emphasizing the
importance of considering the diversity of student preferences. In both courses, gender
differences were found across the four dimensions of the ARCS model. Among female
students, variations were observed depending on the application used, particularly in
attention, where it was higher in physics. Differences were also noted across three dimen-
sions (relevance, confidence, and satisfaction), although not significantly so. Male students
demonstrated consistency in motivation regardless of the application used, with higher
results in physics, including a significant difference in confidence.
One limitation of this study is the sample size. Expanding the sample could provide
greater diversity in terms of age, educational level, and cultural backgrounds. Future
research could explore the role of gamification and playful elements in VR applications
and assess the long-term impact of these experiences on academic performance. While the
study’s results suggest that the differences in student responses might primarily stem from
the VR applications themselves, it is crucial to consider the potential influence of subject
matter differences, student preferences, and contextual implementations. Future research
should aim to isolate these variables more effectively, perhaps by using a more controlled
experimental design or by diversifying the sample to include different educational contexts
Educ. Sci. 2024,14, 963 17 of 19
and levels. This approach would help clarify whether the observed differences are indeed
due to the VR applications or other influencing factors.
Another limitation of the study is that the questionnaire did not delve into the reasons
behind negative perceptions of relevance. To address this, future studies should include
more detailed questions about the VR technology and the content presented to help discern
whether the negative perceptions are more associated with the technical aspects of VR or
with the relevance and quality of the educational content. Additionally, it is recommended
to identify students’ confidence in using the technology and its utility for learning the
content. To further enhance the understanding of these issues, conducting focus groups
or interviews with participants could provide qualitative insights into the nuances of
student experiences and perceptions. This qualitative approach would allow researchers to
gather in-depth feedback and clarify factors influencing students’ attitudes towards VR in
educational settings, thereby providing a richer context for interpreting survey results.
It is also recommended that the combination of VR with other emerging technolo-
gies, such as artificial intelligence and augmented reality, be investigated to create more
immersive and personalized educational experiences. Exploring the effectiveness of VR in
other educational contexts would be beneficial to fully understand its potential impact on
different student cohorts. Additionally, future research is encouraged to delve deeper into
the analysis of gender differences in motivation and how they can influence perception and
performance in VR-based educational environments. This research seeks to offer valuable
guidance for educators, researchers, and educational institutions aiming to harness VR
technology for improved engagement and motivation in education.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, H.S.G.; methodology, M.P.-C. and H.S.G.; software,
H.S.G.; validation, M.P.-C. and H.S.G.; formal analysis, M.P.-C. and H.S.G.; investigation, M.P.-C.
and H.S.G.; resources, M.P.-C. and H.S.G.; writing—original draft preparation, M.P.-C. and H.S.G.;
writing—review
and editing, M.P.-C. and H.S.G.; visualization, M.P.-C. and H.S.G.; supervision,
M.P.-C.; project administration, M.P.-C. and H.S.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published
version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: The requirement of ethical approval was waived by the
Academic Integritty Comitee Tecnologico de Monterrey due to the institutional ethics committee does
not require approval when projects require research subjects who are not included in the investigator’s
own courses and educational experiences. The studies were conducted in accordance with the local
legislation and institutional requirements.
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Data Availability Statement:The dataset generated during the study is available upon reasonable request.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
References
1.
¸Sentürk, M.; Gürka¸s Aydın, Z.; Aydın, M. A study on metaverse and its applications in education. El-Cezeri 2022,9, 1424–1430.
[CrossRef]
2.
Jiang, J.; Zhi, L.; Xiong, Z. Application of virtual reality technology in education and teaching. In Proceedings of the International
Joint Conference on Information, Media and Engineering (ICIME), Osaka, Japan, 12–14 December 2018. [CrossRef]
3.
Li, L.; Wang, Y.; Jiang, W. Application research of virtual reality technology. In The 2020 International Conference on Machine
Learning and Big Data Analytics for IoT Security and Privacy; MacIntyre, J., Zhao, J., Ma, X., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2021.
[CrossRef]
4. Chen, L.; Ho, H. Defining virtual reality enabled learning. Int. J. Innov. Learn. 2022,31, 291–306. [CrossRef]
5.
Salifu, S.; Torres, K.M. Virtual reality technology and its implications for the future of education. In Handbook of Research on
Facilitating Collaborative Learning Through Digital Content and Learning Technologies; Keengwe, J., Ed.; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA,
2023; pp. 183–198. [CrossRef]
6.
Pelletier, K.; Robert, R.; Muscanell, N.; McCormack, M.; Reeves, J.; Arbino, N.; Grajek, S.; Tracey Birdwell, T.; Liu, D.; Mandernach,
J.; et al. EDUCAUSE Horizon Report, Teaching and Learning Edition; EDUCAUSE: Boulder, CO, USA, 2023.
Educ. Sci. 2024,14, 963 18 of 19
7.
Rafiq, A.; Triyono, M.; Djatmiko, I.W. Enhancing student engagement in vocational education by using virtual reality. Waikato J.
Educ. 2022,27, 175–188. [CrossRef]
8.
Santos Garduño, H.A.; Esparza Martínez, M.I.; Portuguez Castro, M. Impact of virtual reality on student motivation in a high
school science course. Appl. Sci. 2021,11, 9516. [CrossRef]
9. Ramírez-Montoya, M.S.; Loaiza-Aguirre, M.I.; Zúñiga-Ojeda, A.; Portuguez-Castro, M. Characterization of the Teaching Profile
within the Framework of Education 4.0. Future Internet 2021,13, 91. [CrossRef]
10.
Bawa, A.; Bawa, P. Faculty perceptions on using virtual reality: Strengths, weaknesses and recommendations. SN Comput. Sci.
2023,4, 608. [CrossRef]
11.
Lorenz, M.; Brade, J.; Klimant, P.; Heyde, C.E.; Hammer, N. Age and gender effects on presence, user experience and usability in
virtual environments–first insights. PLoS ONE 2023,18, e0283565. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
12. Mustafa, B. Using 3D animation and virtual reality in educations. Tech. Soc. Sci. J. 2022,27, 269–289. [CrossRef]
13.
Di Natale, A.F.; Repetto, C.; Riva, G.; Villani, D. Immersive virtual reality in K-12 and higher education: A 10-year systematic
review of empirical research. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2020,51, 2006–2033. [CrossRef]
14.
Stuchlíková, L.; Kósa, A.; Benko, P.; Juhász, P. Virtual reality vs. reality in engineering education. In Proceedings of the 15th
International Conference on Emerging eLearning Technologies and Applications (ICETA), Stary Smokovec, Slovakia, 26–27
October 2017. [CrossRef]
15.
Portuguez-Castro, M.; Hernández-Méndez, R.V.; Peña-Ortega, L.O. Novus projects: Innovative ideas to build new opportunities
upon technology-based avenues in higher education. Educ. Sci. 2022,12, 695. [CrossRef]
16.
Zhang, Q. Development and analysis of educational virtual reality system using static image. Mob. Inf. Syst. 2022,2022, 8592533.
[CrossRef]
17.
Antón-Sancho, Á.; Fernández-Arias, P.; Vergara, D. Higher education in the pacific alliance: Descriptive and exploratory analysis
of the didactic potential of virtual reality. Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2023,7, 30. [CrossRef]
18.
Luo, H.; Li, G.; Feng, Q.; Yang, Y.; Zuo, M. Virtual reality in K-12 and higher education: A systematic review of the literature from
2000 to 2019. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 2021,37, 887–901. [CrossRef]
19.
Maldonado-García, B.E.; Ocampo-Díaz, A.; Portuguez-Castro, M. Evaluating Differences in Mathematical Competencies in
Middle School Students during Pandemic Conditions through Preparatec Platform. Educ. Sci. 2022,12, 546. [CrossRef]
20.
Leal Uhlig, E.; Garza León, C.; Cruz Vargas, X.; Hernández Franco, S.; Portuguez-Castro, M. Lëttëra web platform: A game-based
learning approach with the use of technology for reading competence. Front. Educ. 2023,8, 1180283. [CrossRef]
21.
Rábago, J.; Portuguez-Castro, M. Use of drone photogrammetry as an innovative, competency-based architecture teaching process.
Drones 2023,7, 187. [CrossRef]
22.
Chans, G.M.; Portuguez Castro, M. Gamification as a Strategy to Increase Motivation and Engagement in Higher Education
Chemistry Students. Computers 2021,10, 132. [CrossRef]
23.
Cózar Gutiérrez, R.; González-Calero Somoza, J.A.; Villena Taranilla, R.; Merino Armero, J.M. Análisis de la motivación ante el
uso de la realidad virtual en la enseñanza de la historia en futuros maestros. EDUTEC Rev. Electrónica Tecnol. Educ. 2019,68, 1–14.
[CrossRef]
24.
Triviño-Tarradas, P.; Mohedo-Gatón, A.; Fernández, R.; Mesas-Carrascosa, J.; Carranza-Cañadas, P. Preliminary results of the
impact of 3D-visualization resources in the area of graphic expression on the motivation of university students. Virtual Real. 2022,
26, 963–978. [CrossRef]
25.
Chen, M.; Chai, C.-S.; Jong, M.S.-Y.; Jiang, M.Y.-C. Teachers’ conceptions of teaching chinese descriptive composition with
interactive spherical video-based virtual reality. Front. Psychol. 2021,12, 591708. [CrossRef]
26.
Järvenoja, H.; Järvelä, S.; Törmänen, T.; Näykki, P.; Malmberg, J.; Kurki, K.; Mykkänen, A.; Isohätälä, J. Capturing motivation and
emotion regulation during a learning process. Frontline Learn. Res. 2018,6, 85–104. [CrossRef]
27.
Zhang, C.; Wang, X.; Fang, S.; Shi, X. Construction and application of VR-AR teaching system in coal-based energy education.
Sustainability 2022,14, 16033. [CrossRef]
28.
Martín-Gutiérrez, J.; Mora, C.E.; Añorbe-Díaz, B.; González-Marrero, A. Virtual Technologies Trends in Education. Eurasia J. Math.
Sci. Technol. Educ. 2017,13, 469–486. [CrossRef]
29.
Radianti, J.; Majchrzak, T.A.; Fromm, J.; Wohlgenannt, I. A systematic review of immersive virtual reality applications for higher
education: Design elements, lessons learned, and research agenda. Comput. Educ. 2020,147, 103778. [CrossRef]
30.
Hayes, A.; Daughrity, L.A.; Meng, N. Approaches to integrate virtual reality into K-16 lesson plans: An Introduction for teachers.
TechTrends 2021,65, 394–401. [CrossRef]
31.
Radianti, J.; Majchrzak, T.; Fromm, J.; Stieglitz, S.; Vom Brocke, J. Virtual reality applications for higher educations: A Market
Analysis. In Proceedings of the 54th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences 2021, Kauai, HI, USA, 5 January 2021;
Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/10125/70625 (accessed on 25 August 2024).
32.
Smutny, P. Learning with virtual reality: A market analysis of educational and training applications. Interact. Learn. Environ. 2022,
31, 6133–6146. [CrossRef]
33.
Meta. Experiencies on PCVR. Available online: https://www.meta.com/experiences/pcvr/section/854758534732051 (accessed
on 25 August 2024).
34.
Stecuła, K. Virtual reality applications market analysis—On the example of steam digital platform. Informatics 2022,9, 100.
[CrossRef]
Educ. Sci. 2024,14, 963 19 of 19
35. Valve Corporation. STEAM Store. Available online: https://store.steampowered.com/ (accessed on 25 August 2024).
36.
Pirker, J.; Loria, E.; Kainz, A.; Kopf, J.; Dengel, A. Virtual reality and education—The Steam Panorama. In Proceedings of the 17th
International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games (FDG’22), Athens, Greece, 5–8 September 2022; Association for
Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2022. [CrossRef]
37.
Keller, J.M. Motivational Design for Learning and Performance: The ARCS Model Approach; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Ger-
many, 2010.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
