Title: Evaluations of Virtual and Augmented Reality Technology-Enhanced Learning for Higher Education

Abstract

 Virtual reality (VR) has good potential to promote technology-enhanced learning. Students can benefit from immersive visualization and intuitive interaction in their learning of abstract concepts, complex structures, and dynamic processes. This paper is interested in evaluating the effects of VR learning games in a Virtual and Augmented Reality Technology-Enhanced Learning (VARTeL) environment within an engineering education setting. A VARTeL flipped classroom is established in the HIVE learning hub at Nanyang Technological University (NTU) Singapore for the immersive and interactive learning. Experiments are designed for the university students conducting the learning, with three interactive and immersive VR games related to science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM), i.e., virtual cells, a virtual F1 racing car, and vector geometry. These VR games are a part of the VARTeL apps designed in-house at NTU for STEM education. Quantitative and qualitative analyses are performed. A total of 156 students from Mechanical Engineering participated in the experiment. There are 15 participants selected for an interview after the experiment. Pre-tests and post-tests are performed using two different models, the developed VARTeL and the modified Technology-Rich Outcome-Focused Learning Environment Inventory (TROFLEI), in order to measure the efficiency of the VARTeL environment in Higher Education. Significant improvements of about 24.8% are observed for the post-tests over the pre-tests, which illustrate the effectiveness of the VARTeL for Engineering education. Details of the VR simulation games, methods of data collection, data analyses, as well as the experiment results are discussed. It is observed from the results that all the underlying scales of the modified TROFLEI are above the threshold for the ‘Good’ category, indicating that a very reliable questionnaire is designed in this research. The mean ‘Ideal’ values are about 0.7–2.6% higher than the mean ‘Actual’ values. The limitations of the experiment and future works with recommendations are also presented in this paper.