Because this was a 'systematic review' of the literature a lot of possible content was probably overlooked. Still, what content was studied was studied pretty thorogughly, those the small number (38) of papers makes the statistical element of the study a bit unreliable. What we do find useful is the lists of learning content and application domains in which VR is being used, as well as the list of data analysis and research methods employed. The authors are critical of the fact that so few studies were based in learning theories (those that were tended to be based in experiential learning, which I guess makes sense). I'm not sure learning theories would be helpful at this point (if ever).
Today: 1 Total: 1396 [Direct link] [Share]
