phenomenon · claim-type · cross-domain-transfer · mechanism · claim-relation · replication-status · limitation — grounded in the full text| phenomenon | virtual reality in art history teaching— “This study seeks to determine the expectations and results of integrating virtual reality into coursework with students and faculty in Art History.” | |
| claim-type | method— “The results provide a model for other institutions for a variety of disciplines to reinforce outcomes through strategic use of the technology.” | |
| method — evidence | — “The study surveyed students, first to ascertain the prevalence and familiarity of immersive reality technologies, as well as the perceived benefit of integration into curriculum.” | |
| mechanism | Cheaper head-mounted displays with audio-visual immersivity plus a growing library of educational applications remove the cost and usability barriers, which is what now permits adoption in universities rather than only in the military and medicine.— “The advances made in Head-Mounted-Displays (HMDs) that allows for both audio and visual immersivity and expanding libraries of educational applications, coupled with a lower price point, have removed many barriers that had previously prevented widespread adoption in academia (Bekele & Champion, 2019).” | mechanisms[0] |
| mechanism | Prior everyday exposure to consumer motion-sensing and touchscreen devices lowers the perceived novelty of VR, which reduces visitors' reluctance to try immersive installations.— “Familiarity with similar technology made the public less hesitant to try VR installations.” | mechanisms[1] |
| replicates | prior VR-in-education studies (Apostolellis & Bowman, 2014; Cheung et al. 2013; Huang, Rauch & Liaw, 2010; Rizzo et al. 2006; Hussein & Nätterdal, 2015)— “The results of the study confirm the findings of previous studies, especially the positive correlation between the use of the immersive technology and increased enjoyment of learning (Apostolellis & Bowman, 2014; Ferracani, Pezzatini & Del Bimbo, 2014), motivation (Cheung et al. 2013; Jacobson et al. 2005; Sharma, Agada & Ruffin… | claim_relations[0] |
| sense | educational benefit - AS PERCEIVED USEFULNESS: what the surveys collect is how useful students and faculty judge the technology to be compared with other media, which is the quantity every result in this paper is about— “as well as familiarity with technology in general, potential complications with use, the type of experience, and perceived usefulness of VR technology compared to other media” | senses[0] |
| sense | adoption - DRIVEN BY HARDWARE COST AND AVAILABILITY, not by evidence of effect: the paper traces both the field's slow uptake and the shape of its literature to budget and equipment— “The potential benefits of integrating immersive realities into traditional humanities curricula have been touted over the last two decades, but budgetary and technical constraints of implementation have limited its adoption” | senses[1] |
| sense | resistance to a new teaching technology - AS A RECURRING PATTERN, not a fact about VR: the chalkboard after 1801 and the magic lantern in the nineteenth century met the same reaction— “The introduction of the chalkboard into classes after 1801 was met with widespread revolt from students who had been trained to memorize instead of writing out (Krause, 2001); the adoption of the magic lantern in universities in the nineteenth century, replacing engraved works of art, was slow due to its perceived use primarily as a device… | senses[2] |
| control | control groups shown only text, pictures and PowerPoint slides, but taken through the SAME SEQUENCE OF EVENTS as the virtual-reality group — held — rules out the novelty and structure of the session rather than the virtual reality - same sequence, same duration, different medium— “At the same time, control groups were shown only text, pictures, and PowerPoint slides, though they were the same sequence of events.” | controls[0] |
| edge | perceived usefulness —operationalised-as→ Likert scale— “The student survey tool used sought to gather demographic information, including first-generation status, age, gender, race and ethnicity, and major, as well as familiarity with technology in general, potential complications with use, the type of experience, and perceived usefulness of VR technology compared to other media. The faculty survey… | concept_edges[0] |
| outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation) | control — held | controls[0] |
| for which use | limitation — the educational claims made from this study: the outcome recorded is perceived usefulness reported by students and faculty on a Likert scale, so it is a measure of opinion about the technology rather than of learning— “Results were measured via a Likert scale for both faculty and students” | limitations[0] |
| for which use | limitation — the enthusiasm reported here as support for wider adoption: only half of the polled group said they would like to see such experiences integrated into other coursework— “At the same time, only half of the polled group stated that they would like to see such experiences integrated into other coursework” | limitations[1] |
| for which use | limitation — the state of the VR-in-education literature: its limitations and range are attributed to the budgetary and technological constraints faced by previous educators, so absence of evidence in an area reflects cost rather than a negative finding— “The limitations of available scholarship and range of studies can be attributed to the budgetary and technological constraints faced by previous educators” | limitations[2] |
| for which use | limitation — a claim that VR enhances learning: the paper states there is— “However, there is a limited understanding of exactly how VR can be used to enhance specific learning outcomes” | limitations[3] |
| replication | replicated | |
| limitation | What the study measures is what students and faculty say on a rating scale, not any learning outcome.— “Results were measured via a Likert scale for both faculty and students” | limitations[0] |
| limitation | Half the surveyed students did not want the technology used in their other courses.— “At the same time, only half of the polled group stated that they would like to see such experiences integrated into other coursework” | limitations[1] |
| limitation | What the existing literature covers is attributed to what was affordable, not to what was found.— “The limitations of available scholarship and range of studies can be attributed to the budgetary and technological constraints faced by previous educators” | limitations[2] |
| limitation | The field is stated to have limited understanding of how the technology affects any specific learning outcome.— “However, there is a limited understanding of exactly how VR can be used to enhance specific learning outcomes” | limitations[3] |
finding · quantity · variable · definition · key-term — grounded in the full text| finding | Roughly three quarters of the surveyed students said the VR assignment helped them learn, and only three of the twenty-three disagreed.— “74% of students felt that VR assisted in their learning, while only 3 (12%) of the 23 participants disagreed with its usefulness.” | content_tags.findings[0] |
| finding | Three quarters of students judged the VR experience more useful for learning the assigned topic than reading about it.— “75% of the participants found that it was more useful to learn about the assigned topic through a VR experience than by reading about it.” | content_tags.findings[1] |
| finding | Every faculty respondent rated classroom use of VR as moderately to extremely useful.— “The crucial insight this survey provided is that all respondents stated that using VR technology in their classroom would be moderately to extremely useful.” | content_tags.findings[2] |
| finding | All faculty but one found locating applications relevant to their field neutral to extremely difficult.— “The difficulty, however, is that aside from one participant, all faculty members either reported that finding relevant applications for their field was neutral, or somewhat or extremely difficult.” | content_tags.findings[3] |
| finding | Seven of the eight faculty respondents rated the Oculus Quest 2 headset extremely easy to use.— “Of the 8 faculty respondents, 7 indicated that using the Oculus Quest 2 headset was extremely easy.” | content_tags.findings[4] |
| finding | The preliminary survey showed students are aware of VR but inexperienced with it, already own the phones or tablets needed to run it, want it in their education for career reasons, yet will not spend their own money on a headset.— “The results of the initial survey confirm that students: are familiar with the technology, though have not experienced it; have the necessary hardware to adapt to using without significant investment; want to see it in their education and understand the importance for their future professions, but are generally unwilling to invest their own… | content_tags.findings[5] |
| finding | Student enthusiasm was bounded: despite reporting learning benefits, only half wanted VR experiences carried over into their other courses.— “At the same time, only half of the polled group stated that they would like to see such experiences integrated into other coursework.” | content_tags.findings[6] |
| finding | Getting started was not a barrier for students, with 83% rating launching the assigned application neutral or easy.— “83% reported that launching the technology or getting started into the assigned application was either neutral or easy.” | content_tags.findings[7] |
| quantity | 74% / 3 (12%) of 23 — share of students who felt VR assisted their learning versus the number who disagreed— “74% of students felt that VR assisted in their learning, while only 3 (12%) of the 23 participants disagreed with its usefulness.” | content_tags.quantities[0] |
| quantity | 75% — share of students finding the VR experience more useful than reading about the topic— “75% of the participants found that it was more useful to learn about the assigned topic through a VR experience than by reading about it.” | content_tags.quantities[1] |
| quantity | 65% — share of students who would recommend the VR activity to other students— “65% of the students stated that would recommend the activity to other students, and over half of… | content_tags.quantities[2] |
| quantity | 46 (35.9%) / 33 (24.7%) of 128 — preliminary-survey respondents who were moderately familiar with VR versus not familiar at all | content_tags.quantities[3] |
| quantity | 106 of 128 — students who owned no VR headset at all, against small counts owning Cardboard, Rift, PlayStation VR and Quest models | content_tags.quantities[4] |
| quantity | 23 (17 + 6) — students who answered the course survey, split into undergraduates and graduate students | content_tags.quantities[5] |
| quantity | 78% / 81% — share of the student course-survey sample identifying as female and as white Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[6] |
| quantity | 12 — faculty representatives targeted for the faculty survey, two from each school across the university Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[7] |
| variable | assignments using VR (independent) Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.variables[0] |
| variable | perception of usefulness (dependent) Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.variables[1] |
| variable | likelihood to use this technology (dependent) Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.variables[2] |
| variable | demographic data (covariate) Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.variables[3] |
| definition | virtual reality Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[0] |
| definition | digital immigrants Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[1] |
| definition | "buy rather than build" strategy Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[2] |
| concept | virtual reality Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[0] |
| concept | immersive realities Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[1] |
| concept | perceived usefulness Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[2] |
| concept | Likert scale Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[3] |
| concept | learning outcomes Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[4] |
| Likert scale | Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.statistics[0] |
When we have changed our mind. Some entries in the table begin with a word in capitals and the reason for it. EVIDENCE CORRECTED — the finding still stands, but we had quoted the wrong sentence from the paper, and the quotation has been replaced with the right one. RETRACTED — the entry itself was wrong; it stays on the page, marked, with the reason, rather than being deleted. WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below. Each mark carries its own reason, in brackets, because the reasons differ from one entry to the next. An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason. A line reading Audit and a date is a later re-reading of the entry against its whole sentence: DOUBTFUL means it was kept, and the reason says what is loose about it. Quotation marks inside the tagger's sentence. Where a tag is the tagger's own sentence, a phrase in quotation marks inside it is borrowed from the paper — the tagger's wording around it is not. The paper's own sentence is the evidence quote for that row; on this page it is withheld with the article, and the article is at its publisher. Nothing inside quotation marks anywhere on this page is ours: if it is quoted, it is the paper's. Whose words a concept carries. A concept entry records a term the paper itself uses, so the term, the sense given for it, and its evidence are the paper's own words, quoted where the paper fixes them. This is the opposite of a sense entry in the tag table, which is the tagger's sentence about how the paper uses a term. Where a concept entry could not be grounded in the paper's words, the entry says so on its own row.
Tag layer © the Meta-Tagging Project, CC BY 4.0. The paper text is © its authors/publisher
and is linked, not reproduced. Excerpts shown are short quotations for identification and verification.
· back to index
· concepts · authors
· עברית
© 2026 Shir Sivroni · ORCID 0009-0000-2597-2824