Chemistry Learning in Virtual Reality: Examining the Roles of Immersion and Agency
Presentation Type
Poster Presentation
Category
STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics)
Abstract/Artist Statement
Virtual reality (VR) is increasingly adopted in STEM education, yet research often conflates immersion (VR vs. desktop) with learner agency (interactive vs. passive engagement), making it difficult to determine which design features actually drive learning outcomes. This study attempts to systematically disentangles these factors to understand how immersion and agency independently influence chemistry learning and student motivation.
Students enrolled in CHMY 121N were randomly assigned to one of four instructional conditions that varied in immersion and agency: Interactive VR, Passive VR, Guided Desktop, or Passive Desktop. Participants completed pre- and post-assessments measuring chemistry content knowledge and spatial ability. Post-intervention surveys measured intrinsic motivation (Intrinsic Motivation Inventory) and perceived workload (NASA Task Load Index). We analyzed learning gains using mixed-design ANOVAs and motivational outcomes using one-way ANOVAs.
Chemistry knowledge improved significantly across all conditions (F(1,24)=15.06, p< .001), with no advantage seen between intervention types. However, agency seems to have significantly influenced motivation. Conditions with higher agency generated higher reported effort (F(3,24)=3.02, p=.0497), and perceived pressure (F(3,24)=4.28, p=.018), with Guided Desktop eliciting greater perceived pressure than Passive Desktop (p=.014).
Unlike previous VR chemistry studies that compare immersive versus non-immersive conditions without isolating interactivity, this research systematically separates immersion from agency to reveal that these factors influence different aspects of the learning experience. While existing literature has demonstrated mixed results regarding VR's impact on chemistry learning outcomes, few studies have disentangled the distinct contributions of technological immersion versus learner control.
These findings align with emerging evidence that immersion alone does not guarantee improved learning outcomes in VR chemistry education. Instead, the study suggests that agency may play a critical and distinct role in shaping engagement and motivation. This work contributes to a more nuanced understanding of VR as an educational tool and hopes to provide design-relevant guidance for developing effective virtual chemistry learning environments.
Mentor Name
Katie Holick
Chemistry Learning in Virtual Reality: Examining the Roles of Immersion and Agency
UC North Ballroom
Virtual reality (VR) is increasingly adopted in STEM education, yet research often conflates immersion (VR vs. desktop) with learner agency (interactive vs. passive engagement), making it difficult to determine which design features actually drive learning outcomes. This study attempts to systematically disentangles these factors to understand how immersion and agency independently influence chemistry learning and student motivation.
Students enrolled in CHMY 121N were randomly assigned to one of four instructional conditions that varied in immersion and agency: Interactive VR, Passive VR, Guided Desktop, or Passive Desktop. Participants completed pre- and post-assessments measuring chemistry content knowledge and spatial ability. Post-intervention surveys measured intrinsic motivation (Intrinsic Motivation Inventory) and perceived workload (NASA Task Load Index). We analyzed learning gains using mixed-design ANOVAs and motivational outcomes using one-way ANOVAs.
Chemistry knowledge improved significantly across all conditions (F(1,24)=15.06, p< .001), with no advantage seen between intervention types. However, agency seems to have significantly influenced motivation. Conditions with higher agency generated higher reported effort (F(3,24)=3.02, p=.0497), and perceived pressure (F(3,24)=4.28, p=.018), with Guided Desktop eliciting greater perceived pressure than Passive Desktop (p=.014).
Unlike previous VR chemistry studies that compare immersive versus non-immersive conditions without isolating interactivity, this research systematically separates immersion from agency to reveal that these factors influence different aspects of the learning experience. While existing literature has demonstrated mixed results regarding VR's impact on chemistry learning outcomes, few studies have disentangled the distinct contributions of technological immersion versus learner control.
These findings align with emerging evidence that immersion alone does not guarantee improved learning outcomes in VR chemistry education. Instead, the study suggests that agency may play a critical and distinct role in shaping engagement and motivation. This work contributes to a more nuanced understanding of VR as an educational tool and hopes to provide design-relevant guidance for developing effective virtual chemistry learning environments.