Prerpints.org logo
Preprint
Article

Evaluating an Immersive Virtual Classroom as an Augmented Reality Platform in Synchronous Remote Learning

Altmetrics

Downloads

74

Views

26

Comments

0

A peer-reviewed article of this preprint also exists.

Submitted:

07 September 2023

Posted:

12 September 2023

You are already at the latest version

Alerts
Abstract
Previous research has explored different models of synchronous remote learning environments supported by videoconferencing and virtual reality platforms. However, few studies have evaluated the preference and acceptance of synchronous remote learning in a course streamed in an immersive or augmented reality platform. This case study uses ANOVA analysis to examine the engineering students´ preferences for receiving instruction during the COVID19 pandemic in three classroom types: face-to-face, conventional virtual (mediated by videoconferencing) and an immersive virtual classroom (IVC). Likewise, structural equation modeling, was used to analyze the acceptance of the IVC perceived by students, this includes four latent factors: ease of receiving a class, perceived usefulness, attitude towards IVC and IVC use. The findings showed that the IVC used in synchronous remote learning has a similar level of preference to the face-to-face classroom, and higher than the conventional virtual one. Despite the high preference for receiving remote instruction in IVC, aspects such as audio delays that affect interaction still need to be resolved. On the other hand, a key aspect for a good performance of these environments is the dynamics associated with the teaching-learning processes and the instructor´ qualities.
Keywords: 
Subject: Social Sciences  -   Education

1. Introduction

Over the past two decades, research on instructional video has grown and matured, identifying what works and what does not work with this type of technology in terms of learning outcomes and the challenges that still need to be addressed. This research focus is relevant because of the popularity of asynchronous learning through massive open online courses (MOOCs). MOOCs reach millions of students worldwide, but these courses have the highest dropout rates [1]. The popularity is partly due to two new trends in online learning: the flipped classroom [2] and the synchronous hybrid classroom [3]. In both trends, students can rely on instructional videos to prepare asynchronously for the course material before engaging in synchronous learning activities with their instructor. In the second trend when students and instructor meet, they could be organized in different remote groups, fully online, or some face to face (F2F) while others remain online.; these modalities present technical and instructional challenges in developing synchronous online learning activities.
Instructional video has been and continues to be extensively researched in asynchronous online learning, while research on streaming video in synchronous online learning is relatively scarce.
There are several research trends in instructional video for asynchronous learning. Koning B. B. et al., [1] identified three categories: (1) Extend “traditional” instructional video design principles (e.g., segmentation and transience effect, pacing principle, signaling principle, etc.), (2) Examine the effectiveness of “new” design principles (e.g. camera viewpoint or perspective, video modeling or instructor presence, learning from instructional animations and video-practice condition), and (3) incorporate learner characteristics into the study of learning with instructional video (e.g., learner gender, learner spatial ability, and video model gender).
In the same venue, Fiorella L. & Meyer R. E. [5] comment on what works and what does not work with instructional videos: a) Two techniques that seem to improve learning outcomes are mixed perspective (first and third person camera) and video segmentation, and b) Some features that do not seem to work are matching the instructor’s gender to the learner’s gender, inserting pauses into the video, adding practice without feedback, and showing the instructor’s face in the instructional video. Meanwhile, Bétrancourt M., & Benetos K. [6] provide some directions for future research on instructional video: a) The type of content being communicated in the dynamic visualization and the relevance of video to communicate that content, b) How design factors interact with learner strategies and behaviors, c) Design of rigorous experimental studies that guarantee homogeneity of conditions, except for the variables to be evaluated, and their ecological validity, and d) Move from the study of mere instructor presence to specific instructor behaviors expected to influence cognitive processing [5]. Both studies, the commentators agree that instructor presence is not associated with improved learning outcomes, although it does not worsen them.
In the systematic review by Henderson, M. L., & Schroeder, N. L. [7], also evaluated instructor presence in instructional videos finding that the results are not consistent in determining whether instructor presence helps improve the learning process, although it does improve student motivation. Similarly ambiguous results regarding instructor presence and learning outcomes were found by Hamza Polat [8] and Tianjiao Wang et al., [9]. In the latter [9], the authors identify two other research topics in instructional videos besides instructor presence: instructor characteristics and content presentation, as recommended in [5]. Among the various “instructor characteristics” mentioned, it is emphasized that instructors’ pointing, and stress gestures can direct learners’ attention and help them achieve better learning performance [10]-[12]. While in “content presentation”, it is emphasized that learners will have better learning performance if instructors draw graphics on blackboards [13]. Both subjects are of particular interest because they imply that educational video technology should allow instructor to interact in “real time” with material being taught, with all the attendant benefits of pointing gestures, gaze tracking, eye contact, and increased social presence.
Two recent styles of real-time instructional video (which do not require a large investment in post-production) are transparent whiteboards [14] and instructor behind slides [15]. This last style is a variant of transparent whiteboards lessons where the slides are displayed in front of instructor, who does not write or draw but, can point and gesture with his body without obstructing the material taught [15]. As Lubrick M. et al., [14] points out, more research should be done on instructional videos with transparent whiteboards. The first formal study was conducted by Stull A.T. et al., [16], whose finding shows that students who watched lessons with transparent whiteboards performed better on immediate post-tests. However, the benefits of learning from transparent whiteboards did not persist on a delayed post-test. Recent studies demonstrate the ability of the transparent whiteboard to enhance instructor characteristics such as eye contact [17], dynamic drawing [17], [18], and gaze guidance [19] that produce better learning outcomes. These are instructor characteristics included in the five ways to increase the effectiveness of instructional video by Mayer, R. E. et al.,[20].
There are also research trends in synchronous learning. Annelies Raes et al., [3] identified three categories related to the learning setting of synchronous hybrid learning environment: a) Hybrid virtual classroom connecting on-site participants with remote individuals, b) Remote classroom connecting groups, c) Remote and hybrid virtual classroom. Acord to findings of Annelies Raes et al., [3] most of the studies (between 2013 and 2019) were case studies (28 in total), five studies took a comparative approach to study the effectiveness of different modes of delivery and one experimental study was found. For Annelies Raes et al., [3] synchronous hybrid learning presents both benefits and challenges that fall into two categories: (1) organizational benefits related to educational access and instructional efficiency: increase recruitment rates, offer more elective or specialized courses, more easily consulting outside experts, not teach the same course twice to different classes, and flexibility; and (2) instructional benefits related to the quality of learning: making new contacts around the world, providing equal learning opportunities, ensuring continuity of instruction and promoting student retention, giving students more control over their learning, (1) Instructional challenges: require a variety of teaching methods as well as activating learning activities, require more coordination from instructor, design and implement both instructional strategies and technological systems that enable comparable learning experiences (co-presence), require more self-discipline from students following remotely or online; and (2) technological challenges: maximize the social presence of remote students; ensure that remote students receive the same audio quality as F2F students; address the minor usability issues caused by constant updates of innovative technologies that can confuse, delay, or hinder students’ learning process.
Similarly, in the studies of synchronous video lectures reviewed by Belt E. S. & Lowenthal P. R. [21], identified advantages, disadvantages, text-based chatting, and participation signals. Regarding the advantages they found that this tightly aligns with F2F instruction, promotes interactivity, helps build community, and provides ways to reach students in different locations; knowledge and use of videoconferencing application features and visual presence support student engagement and flexibility. As disadvantages findings were: balancing the instructor as an authority figure to create community and foster better student performance, technical problems with videoconferencing applications are common (e.g., unstable Internet connection, delayed video, unclear audio), and the requirement to meet virtually online at the same time can be problematic for geographically dispersed courses. Respect to text-based chatting, they found perceptions of text-based chat during video lectures are mixed, but researchers seem to agree that a clear advantage of text-based chat is the ability to provide immediate feedback, so having a colleague or even a specific student manage the chats during a lecture can make it more manageable. The participation signals found were raising hands and voting functions organized interaction and encouraged participation; turning on a webcam or muting indicated intent to participate.
The video used in asynchronous and synchronous discussions analyzed by Belt E. S. & Lowenthal P. R. [21] revealed that instructor social presence and teaching presence, whether recorded or streamed, are essential to academic discourse. However, research on asynchronous and synchronous video communication in online and blended courses still is limited. The studies of Belt E. S. & Lowenthal P. R. [21] provide substantive precedents for future research on prompting discussion with video and hosting discussions via videoconferencing. Finally, according to Belt E. S. & Lowenthal P. R. [21], three areas in need of further research are virtual backgrounds, features and uses of synchronous communication technology (e.g., polling, chat, screen sharing, and presenter rights), and synchronous assessments and feedback. Both aforesaid studies emphasize the importance of the instructor’s social and instructional presence for these synchronous hybrid learning environments to be beneficial, as well as the instructor’s technical competence and willingness. This finding is consistent with results of other authors [22]-[24].
During the COVID19 pandemic, the leading role of the instructor combined with technological factors was evident [25], [26]. In this sense, it is relevant to highlight observations and practical recommendations from the experience of authors [27], where they invite to integrate aspects of successful video game design that are relevant for online synchronous learning environments: a) measuring and motivating performance, b) allowing users to interact directly with creators, c) capturing and maintaining user engagement, d) building community, and e) curating content.
Accordingly, both types of learning asynchronous and synchronous share elements related to the importance of the instructor’s social and instructional presence, instructor characteristics, and content presentation. These factors are mediated by the asynchronous and synchronous video communication technology used. In this venue, asynchronous and synchronous learning challenges with instructional videos can be extrapolated to synchronous learning with web video conferencing and live streaming platforms. It is, therefore, essential to research with new styles of instructional video and live streaming, such as those supported by augmented reality [15], [16], but that enhance the instructor’s social presence and can be used for both synchronous and asynchronous learning.
Thus, this paper evaluates the perception of an immersive virtual classroom (IVC), used as an augmented reality live streaming platform for the instructor, and its preference compared to a video conferencing platform and the F2F classroom. To the best of our knowledge, studies of perception of augmented reality videoconferencing platforms in synchronous remote classrooms are scarce.

2. Background

Clyde A. Warden et al., [28] conducted for the first time a nine-year action research study on synchronous distributed learning environments supported by videoconferencing technology up to immersive virtual reality environments. Regarding the experience with limited videoconferencing technologies of the first decade of this century, Clyde A. Warden et al., [28] emphasize the audio factor (the main issue is audio feedback) on video quality and the need to integrate different support tools when lecturing (such as: chat, mute, hand raising and presentation synchronization). Regarding the experience in immersive virtual reality environments for a large online class to participate with effective instructional delivery Clyde A. Warden et al., [28] highlight findings that need to be addressed, such as:
  • As with videoconferencing technology the audio feedback problem persists, compounded by the fact that distance between avatars changes audio intensity and makes it difficult to identify open-mic problems in large classes.
  • Students’ unwanted manipulation of the space can be controlled with program restrictions, and engagement can be increased with more interesting designs and a richer virtual world. However, designing complex locations and buildings close together can be counterproductive, as this invites exploration. Glass walls and open spaces are preferable so that all avatars can see each other.
  • Objects within the virtual space require strong management to prevent accidental manipulation by an individual student and the widespread confusion that can result. Another control issue arises because the instructor cannot be sure that students are following instructions or even arriving at designated locations, so the instructor may be overwhelmed by the complexity of the virtual space while managing the class.
A decade after this first research work, videoconferencing technology and virtual world control have improved. However, the pitfalls and promises of learning in immersive virtual reality (IVR) are still prevalent, as Richard E. Mayer et al., mentioned in [29]. In a 3D virtual environment with a head mounted display implies a high degree of immersion while a 2D virtual environment delivered on a computer screen implies a low immersion. According to the cognitive theory of multimedia learning [30], [31], IVR promises to increase motivation to learn, which in turn increases generative processing (anchoring learning by relating it to prior knowledge). However, the pitfall of IVR is to increase learner distraction due to the richness and novelty of the 3D virtual environment, which decreases essential processing (representing what is being taught in their working memory) as the learner focuses on extraneous processing (which does not support the instructional goal) while exploring the “highly” immersive virtual reality [29]. In contrast, the promise of conventional media (instructional videos, desktop, and slideshow) is that they present less extraneous processing, freeing up capacity for the learner’s essential and generative processing. In addition, if the lesson is well designed, it will focus on the essential material, resulting in better essential processing. The pitfall, however, is that the learner may need to be more motivated to engage with the material being taught and will, therefore, show less generative processing [29].
According to Richard E. Mayer et al. [29], the challenge for instructional designers using IVR is to minimize extraneous processing while maintaining appropriate levels of generative and essential processing, while the challenge for designers using conventional media is to foster a high level of generative processing, while maintaining the presentation of a well-organized lesson. To meet this challenge, Richard E. Mayer et al. [29], in their own experience of 13 comparative experiments on learning outcomes achieved with conventional media versus IVR, concluded that these 13 comparisons did not provide “strong” evidence for the effectiveness of learning academic content in IVR compared to learning with conventional media. One reason is that learning in IVRs can distract students, an observation made previously by Clyde A. Warden et al., [28]. Finally, Richard E. Mayer et al., [29] conclude that the effectiveness of academic content-related lessons presented in IVR can be improved by adapting instructional design principles (such as modality, personalization, and pre-training principles) and by incorporating generative learning activities (such as summarizing, responding, and enacting).
This indicates that learning with both conventional media and IVR could benefit from the good use of both internal factors (instructional design principles) and external factors (generative learning activities). This suggestion could be extrapolated to synchronous learning with videoconferencing platforms. However, although the experience with videoconferencing platforms is much more friendly today, there are more tools unified to videoconferencing (such as surveys, interactive boards, grouping, etc.), the video at both ends is still not high resolution, and specific audio problems persist. Therefore, it is necessary to propose to study the perception that would have on synchronous learning, not the use of limited videoconferencing platform, but the use of live streaming platform supported in augmented reality as an intermediate solution of low immersion (involves a 2D virtual environment delivered on a computer screen) between current videoconferencing technologies and IVR.
This paper evaluates the perception of three online synchronous classroom models: a) F2F classroom, b) conventional virtual classroom, and c) immersive virtual classroom during the COVID19 pandemic by undergraduate students at the Universidad of Cauca- Colombia. The conventional virtual classroom mainly uses a videoconferencing platform, while the F2F classroom is the place that students and faculty wanted to return to after the pandemic.

2.1. Immersive Virtual Classroom - IVC

IVC is a streaming platform that incorporates an augmented reality component into materials used in synchronous learning and allows the production of engaging audiovisual educational resources as instructional videos. It requires no post-production time and was developed during the COVID19 pandemic at the University of Cauca [32]. IVC performs a live composition of audiovisual material (type slides) with video of the instructor, allowing an online interaction of the instructor with his/her slides while the interlocutors watch him in a live transmission in full HD quality (1920 x 1080 pixels) and interact with him/her via audio using a conventional videoconferencing platform.
Four features determine the functionality of IVC in online synchronous classroom between an instructor and his students: a) interactions, b) IVC modes, c) streaming type, and d) augmented reality type.

2.1.1. Interactions in IVC

Student-instructor and student-student interactions are mainly developed in a F2F classroom, as in a synchronous online learning environment. However, the outcome of these interactions highly depends on class dynamics and freedoms that an instructor applies during class [33]. During a synchronous class in IVC, as in blended courses, student-instructor, instructor-content, and student-student interactions can occur according to the instructor’s teaching-learning dynamics [34]. However, in IVC, an instructor can perform real-time augmented reality instructor-content (material taught on slides) interaction during the synchronous class. This real-time interaction allows the instructor to perform pointing gestures, eye contact, and gaze orientation, thereby enhancing his or her social presence.

2.1.2. IVC Modes

IVC uses an automated streaming studio that generates the necessary lighting conditions and audio-visual feedback to create an augmented reality environment for the instructor (see Figure 1a). In the studio, the instructor is positioned behind a dark curtain and lit from three points. While the instructor’s video is composited in real time with video of the slides, the instructor can perform two types of interactions; the first is with the material being taught, thanks to a clicker and visual feedback provided by a composite video monitor. The second level of interaction is with the students via audio, thanks to a traditional videoconferencing platform (see Figure 1a).
Students have three types of locations in the IVC: a) Distributed: Students are geographically dispersed, each connected from a device with an Internet connection, preferably using a hands-free system (see Figure 1b), b) Concentrated: Students are in a classroom with an Internet connection and a mic to allow audio interaction with the instructor (see Figure 1c), c) Hybrid: This case involves both concentrated and geographically dispersed students in the same session. In all three modes, it is possible to have feedback from the students’ video webcam or from the classroom to the instructor via a second monitor.

2.1.3. Streaming type in IVC

IVC has four types of live streaming, depending on combinations with or without video server mediation and one-to-many or one-to-one:
  • Type 1: The traditional video server - one-to-many. This is how commercial video streaming platforms work. The instructor produces the audiovisual material, transmits it to the cloud, and a commercial video server distributes it to the student consumers with a certain quality and delay. Depending on the type of configuration used in the streaming platform from the producer’s side, there can be delays of 2-5 seconds at the consumers. Type 1 is associated with distributed and hybrid IVC modes (see Figure 2 a).
  • Type 2: Video server - one-to-one occurs when the consumer is unique, or all students are confined to a single location. Delays of 2-5 seconds or less also occur, depending on the type of configuration used in the streaming platform. This Type 2 is associated with concentrated IVC mode (see Figure 2b).
  • Type 3: Simple peer-to-peer only requires an initial server to connect the IP addresses of the video producer’s computer to the video consumer’s computer; once connected, no additional servers are required, and a high-quality bi-directional connection is established. Delays are in the millisecond range. Type 3 is associated with the concentrated IVC mode (see Figure 2c).
  • Type 4: Multiple peer-to-peer requires an initial server to connect the IP addresses of the video producer’s computer to the computers of a small number of video consumers. Once the link is established, no further servers are required, and a one-to-many connection is established, the quality of which depends on the hardware capabilities of the producer’s computer. Delays are on the order of milliseconds. This type 4 is associated with distributed and hybrid IVC mode (see Figure 2 d).

2.1.4. Type of augmented reality in IVC

The IVC allows three types of augmented reality in the audiovisual material generated for both synchronous and asynchronous learning.
  • Type 1. The first type combines the audiovisual material prepared for the lesson with the instructor’s video against a black background. In this type of augmented reality, the student observes how the instructor interacts with the audiovisual material through pointing gestures, eye contact and gaze orientation. This interaction takes place thanks to the visual feedback the instructor receives through a monitor (see Figure 3 a).
  • Type 2. The second type of augmented reality is generated by simply drawing and writing the prepared lesson material with fluorescent markers on a transparent board and horizontally inverting the video before recording or streaming it (see Figure 3 b).
  • Type 3. The third type combines the previous two types of augmented reality. This third option takes advantage of the ease of preparing visually appealing material with the ability to write on a transparent board with fluorescent markers. The IVC combines the two videos in real time and provides visual feedback to the instructor, allowing them to interact with the audiovisual material and the writing on the board (see Figure 3c).

3. Materials and Methods

Two courses conducted in IVC during the COVID-19 pandemic were evaluated by inviting participants to complete a questionnaire at the end of the semester. A mixed-methods approach was used to collect quantitative and qualitative data to analyze the impact and perception of IVC compared to F2F classroom and virtual classroom with videoconferencing, latent factors influencing the perception of IVC, and personal observations about the three types of classrooms.

3.1. Participants

They were students of two courses of Industrial Instrumentation in the Industrial Automation Engineering Program of the Faculty of Electronics and Telecommunications Engineering of the University of Cauca (Colombia). The two participating courses were oriented under a virtual inverted classroom model in IVC during the second semester of 2021. Participation in the survey was voluntary for the students. Demographic data were collected (see Table 1), such as age and gender: the average age of the students is 22.23 (standard deviation 3.62) years, 29.03% are female and 70.97% are male, who are students from the fourth to the ninth semester. The students had previous experience with F2F teaching and had used videoconferencing platforms in their other courses. There were 33 participants between the two courses, with 31 students responding to the questionnaire.

3.2. Procedure and questionnaire

The instructor used a flipped classroom model throughout the second semester of 2021, where students were required to prepare weekly class material on a collaborative annotation platform prior to the synchronous sessions. The weekly class material consisted of 5 to 7 videos created in IVC, averaging 10 minutes in length. The instructional videos were recorded according to Mayer’s multimedia design principles [13], including signaling while explaining and periodic eye contact with the camera (see Figure 3). In the synchronous IVC sessions, an intervention protocol was defined for the students. In this protocol, each student is recommended to watch the live streaming on a computer/laptop with a good-sized screen/monitor, to use a hands-free device, to ask questions freely during class, to keep their webcam turned off, and not to leave their microphone open during class. During the synchronous sessions, the instructor used an extensive repertoire of verbal and nonverbal immediacy responses with his students [35], including addressing each student by name. The synchronous IVC sessions involved explaining exercises, solving team problems, and other collaborative activities. At the end of the second semester of 2021, the instructor emailed students a link to an online survey. Each recipient could individually decide whether to participate in the survey, resulting in an average response rate of 93.93%. Students were not pressured to complete the survey to avoid negative consequences for biased responses. The questionnaire began with an informed consent form. It then asked what type of device they used to access and view the IVC lesson, which resulted in 77.42% using a laptop, 12.90% using a desktop, 0.0% using a smart TV, and 9.68% using a smartphone.
We used an instrument validated by J.T. Nagy [36] for analyzing IVC acceptance based on the quantitative data collected in this study. The proposed structural equation model assesses through four cores of questions the perceived usefulness of IVC by students, the ease of receiving the class in IVC, students’ attitude towards IVC, and the use of IVC by students. Each core has two or three Likert scale-type questions recorded on a survey adapted from J.T. Nagy [36]. The main core of analysis is the use of IVC by students (see Table 2). A 7-point Likert scale (1-Totally Disagree, 2-Significantly Disagree, 3-Disagree, 4-Neutral, 5-Agree, 6-Significantly Agree, 7-Totally Agree) was used to answer each of the ten items.
In addition, the questionnaire includes four open-ended questions about the perceived benefits of the IVC over the traditional virtual classroom and F2F classroom.

3.1. Data analysis

The two virtual courses in IVC conducted during the restriction period due to the COVID19 pandemic, allow us the possible combinations of the four IVC features, conventional values were set according to the pandemic situation and the student’s geographical dispersion during this period (distributed) (see Table 3). For example, at the Universidad of Cauca, students were not required to turn on their webcams due to problems with limited bandwidth on student connections.
The support platforms used in IVC with the two courses were YouTube for streaming, Google Meets for traditional video conferencing, and Google Forms for the survey.
In addition to demographic data, the questionnaire includes three quantitative questions about preferences for receiving instruction in each classroom, ten quantitative questions related to the four cores (see Table 2), and four questions of qualitative information (responses to open-ended questions). The survey is designed to answer two research hypotheses:
-
There is a difference between IVC and the traditional virtual classroom regarding student preference.
-
There is a difference between IVC and face-to-face instruction regarding student preference.
The quantitative data related to the four cores were analyzed using a proposed structural equation model [37] (see Figure 4). In this model, the factor IVC Use (Av) is highlighted to determine its perception in its interrelation with the factors: Attitude towards IVC (Ac), perceived Usefulness (U) and Ease of receiving a class (E). Qualitative data from the questionnaires were analyzed using thematic analysis by identifying similarities and inductively creating word clouds. Thirty-one responses with qualitative data were collected in addition to the questionnaire items. The structural equation model (see Figure 4) proposes to investigate and analyze the following hypotheses in IVC:
h1.
The ease of receiving a class in IVC (E) is influenced by students’ perceived usefulness of IVC (U).
h2.
Students’ perceived usefulness of IVC (U) is influenced by the ease of receiving the class (E).
h3.
Students’ attitude toward IVC (At) is influenced by the ease of receiving the class (E).
h4.
Students’ attitude towards IVC (At) is influenced by students’ perceived usefulness of IVC (U).
h5.
Use of IVC (Av) is influenced by the attitude towards IVC (At).
The two research hypotheses were tested with an ANOVA analysis of the student preference scale regarding the IVC vs. conventional virtual and F2F classrooms. In the IVC vs. conventional virtual classroom comparison, the goal is a p-value below α to accept the hypothesis. In the IVC vs. F2F classroom comparison, the goal is a p-value above α to reject the hypothesis. The software used for statistical processing and graphical presentation is R. The graphs used are bar graphs to quantify each level of the Likert scale used, and violin plots to visualize the concentration of data with respect to the Likert scale used. The statistical processing builds the structural model to support the hypotheses, while the word clouds provide a graphical summary of the responses to the open-ended questions.

4. Results

4.1. Preference for each classroom

The study analyzed the students’ preference for receiving classes in F2F classrooms, in conventional virtual classrooms, and IVC (see Figure 5). According to the students’ responses, there is a high acceptance for F2F classes. On the other hand, students show a neutral tendency to receive classes in conventional virtual classrooms. In the case of IVC, most students prefer to receive classes with this type of augmented reality technology.

4.1.1. IVC and conventional virtual classroom

The first research hypothesis contrasts the students’ perception of preference between the IVC and the conventional virtual classroom. Through an ANOVA analysis with an α of .05, the result is a p-value of .0317, accepting the hypothesis that there is a difference between a conventional virtual classroom and the IVC. From the trends of the students’ preferences (see Figure 4 b and c), we can see that the difference is positive for the IVC.

4.1.2. IVC and F2F classroom

The second research hypothesis compares students’ perceptions of their preference for receiving instruction in the IVC versus the F2F classroom. Using an ANOVA analysis with an α of .05, the result is a p-value of .641, rejecting the hypothesis of a difference between the F2F classroom and the IVC. The student preference trends (see Figure 4 a and c) indicate a high acceptance of being taught in both classrooms.

4.2. IVC Acceptance Model

The set of 10 closed-ended responses has a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.815, indicating a high reliability of the data provided by the students. Statistical data analysis and verification of the stated hypotheses used data resampling by bootstrapping 500 samples. The arc weights obtained from the proposed structural model and the p-value obtained for each hypothesis (see Table 4), with an alpha of .05, indicate that all the hypotheses of the structural equation model are valid and positively influenced.
According to the results (see Table 4), in the factor of students’ attitude towards IVC, there is a significant positive effect of the perceived usefulness of IVC (H4, β=0.7813) and ease of receiving instruction (H3, β=0.6173). Hypothesis H1 (β=0.7145) and H2 (β=0.7145) confirm a high perceived mutual relationship between perceived usefulness and ease of receiving class. Finally, IVC use (H5, β=0.4950) presented a medium but positive influence on the student’s attitude towards IVC.

4.3. Qualitative analysis of open-ended questions

Four open-ended questions provided a broader analysis of students’ preferences and perceptions, and the word clouds summarize students’ responses (see Figure 6).
A total of 31 students answered the question “If you feel that IVC has advantages over other virtual classrooms, what are these?” Among them, 64.5% indicated that the increased interaction and didactic support. While some students said they liked the overall quality of the live streaming, others said they liked the professor and his teaching style. The coding results indicate that students liked IVC over other virtual classrooms because of four main elements (see Table 5).
A total of 31 students answered the question “If you feel that there are advantages to IVC over F2F classrooms, what are they?” Among them, 58.1% indicate that the recorded classes. While some students said they liked more significant interaction and didactic support, others said virtual lectures. The coding results show that students liked IVC about the F2F classroom because of three main elements (see Table 6).
A total of 31 students responded to the question “What aspects of the IVC can be improved?” Among them, 64.5% answered that the live streaming was excellent and that no changes were needed. While some students said they consider the audio delay, others stated that the connection stability. The coding summarizes the three main changes suggested by the students (see Table 7).
A total of 31 students answered the question “If you have had any technical problems with the virtual classes, what have they been?” Among them, 71% indicate that the Internet. While some students said failures in power grid. The coding results indicate that the students experimented with two types of technical problems during the virtual classes (see Table 8).

5. Discussion

This research looks for contributing to the body of knowledge in online and blended learning, specifically synchronous online instructor-led learning. While much of the existing research focuses on asynchronous learning mediated by videoconferencing, we focused on extending the body of knowledge in synchronous online learning using an augmented reality-supported instructor video streaming platform that can be used for both asynchronous and synchronous learning.

5.1. Preference of students for each classroom

During the virtual classes forced by the COVID19 pandemic, the generalized result of the different studies was the technological and instructional shock in the online teaching processes of students [26]. There were many reasons for the previous result, among which we can mention the short time to update the teaching-learning practices of instructors [38], [39], the technological preparation lack of instructors and the gap on the Internet in many places of the world [38]. Although the Internet was identified in the present study as the main technical failure experienced by students, the IVC model prevailed over the virtual classroom model supported by videoconferencing technology as a tool to continue with online classes, with a trend of preference like that of receiving classes in the F2F classroom. There may be several reasons for the above finding. However, the present study raises for discussion the limited social presence of the instructor mediated by the videoconferencing platform used in virtual classrooms and outdated teaching-learning practices for both the F2F classroom and synchronous online environments. Previous studies have shown that instructor social presence is a motivating factor in increasing student satisfaction and perceptions of learning [40], [41].
Many of the ambiguous results in measuring the impact of instructor presence on learning outcomes with instructional videos found by Henderson M. L. & Schroeder N. L. [7] and by Polat H. [8] are likely due to the poor design used (picture-in-picture videos) or technological limitations of the platform used to produce the instructional video, or both, which drastically limited both the social and instructional presence of the instructor. For example, in our analysis of the 12 papers reported in the study by Henderson, M. L., & Schroeder, N. L. [7], we found that:
  • Pi & Hong, Hong et al., and Homet et al., [42]-[44] not specify the video style, nor is there any interaction with the material taught; they do not provide further details of the video style or place supporting images.
  • Wang et al., Ng & Przybylek, and Kizilcec et al., [45]-[47] used half of the instructor’s body is in the lower right corner, with no interaction with the material taught.
  • Wang et al., and Wang et al., [48], [49] used half of the instructor’s body is in the lower right corner, interacting with the material taught using a tablet.
  • Yu, Zhang et al., and van Wermeskerken et al., [50]-[52] used half of the body of the instructor in large format is located on the right side of the slide, without interaction with the taught material.
  • Colliot & Jamet [53] used half the instructor’s body is in the upper left corner, without interaction with the material being taught.
Per the preceding, none of the studies were found according to the criteria of Henderson, M. L., & Schroeder, N. L. [7] included transparent whiteboards and instructor behind slides (another reason is that this technology is still novel), which allow for more significant social presence and physical interaction with the material being taught. The same result is found in the Hamza Polat’s systematic review [8], where picture-in-picture was the highest percentage of video styles in studies. In the present study, it is assumed that the conclusion that the instructor’s face (talking head) does not seem to work in the instructional videos reported by Fiorella L. & Mayer R. E. [5] and Bétrancourt M. & Benetos K. [6] is due to this same fact, the limited social as well as instructional presence of instructors in this video style. About synchronous learning, in the present study, it is assumed that a “possible” common aspect in the study conducted by Annelies Raes et al., [3] was that the synchronous video communication technology is a video conferencing platform (talking head), which may explain why it is a technological challenge to improve the social presence of the student. It can be “assumed” that the instructor’s social presence was limited too. The same reason could explain the ambiguous results on the level of engagement reported between the VIRI system and the F2F classroom in the study [54].
It is necessary to take advantage of the high attitude towards IVC perceived by students (H4, β=0.7813), as well as the high perceived mutual relationship between perceived usefulness H2 (β=0.7145) and ease of receiving instruction H1 (β=0.7145), in the structural equation model obtained for IVC to propose the importance of aligning instructional methods with appropriate learning strategies [18], [20]. Without an instructor adequately prepared to carry out an optimal teaching-learning process [22], the advantages of social presence and physical interaction with the material taught, which allows the visual presence of the instructor that characterizes IVC, are lost. In this sense, the seven-principle model for video lesson design and development by Chaohua Ou et al., [55] could be used as a guide.

5.2. Student comments

In the thematic analysis of the student’s comments in the present study, the advantage of IVC over both the virtual classroom (64.5%) and the F2F classroom (25.8%) was highlighted as “more interaction and didactic support”, which is not directly related to the augmented reality technology of IVC, but rather to the teaching-learning strategy used by the instructor. The relevance of the teaching-learning strategy is also related to the identified advantage of IVC over the virtual classroom (12.9%) of “instructor and teaching style”. This result confirms other findings about the importance of the instructor in video instruction [24] and synchronous learning [22].
Regarding an advantage of IVC technology concerning the virtual classroom (12.9%), “the overall quality of live streaming” and “recorded classes” concerning both the F2F classroom (58.1%) and the virtual classroom (12.9%), which is related to the presentation of content in augmented reality and full HD transmission, which allows the production of high-quality videos. On the subject of the proposed improvements for IVC, it is clear that “audio delay” (22.6%) and “connection stability” (9.7%) are associated with the IVC mode (distributed) forced by the COVID-19 pandemic and the type of IVC transmission used: video server (one-to-many), which implies a delay in the video streaming concerning the audio communication of the videoconferencing platform. This audio delay problem is essential and needs to be addressed, as other authors have pointed out [28], [56]. An interesting result of the thematic analysis is that a large proportion of students (64.5%) perceived there was no need to improve IVC, probably due to the novelty effect introduced by IVC.
Considering the high cost of producing high-quality instructional videos, which are the most preferred and interesting for students [21], and the low post-production cost of transparent whiteboards [14] and instructor behind the slides [15], apart from the benefits already mentioned, it is necessary to research these augmented reality styles as a low immersion balancing current web videoconferencing and immersive virtual reality technologies [29].

5. Conclusions, limitations, and further work

IVC is a virtual classroom model that allows both synchronous online classes and the generation of audiovisual educational resources in the form of instructional videos with augmented reality elements, more engaging and with a low level of post-production. The COVID19 pandemic has made it possible to experiment and improve virtual classroom models supported by videoconferencing and evaluate teaching-learning models for F2F, blended and online environments. Given the current limitations of videoconferencing platforms and the need for further research in instructional videos on how to integrate aspects such as instructor characteristics and content presentation, it is recommended to experiment with transparent whiteboard and instructor behind-the-slides video styles in both asynchronous and synchronous learning, thus taking advantage of both the social and instructional presence of the instructor by producing audiovisual material without high post-production costs.
Despite students’ preference for IVC over the virtual classroom supported by video conferencing, the life experience, and other benefits of what happens in an F2F classroom cannot be easily replaced. However, there is a need for the instructor to integrate into the classroom (regardless of type) technological tools to support instruction (e.g., simulation software, design software, game software, assessment software, lecture and video management software, etc.), alternative instructional models, and even other assessment mechanisms that together enhance any of the three classroom models (F2F, virtual, and IVC).
A valuable lesson learned from the COVID19 pandemic virtual classrooms is that one should not return to F2F classrooms with the same pre-pandemic teaching-learning practices [57]. We recommend to use a blended approach, because it encouraging pre-preparation of course material (e.g., providing IVC-type instructional videos: encouraging essential processing) by students and using the classroom (virtual or F2F) to conduct dynamic activities that encourage generative processing, resulting in enhanced student learning.
This study has several limitations. First, the study examined student preference for IVC over virtual classroom (videoconferencing) and F2F in the same group of students. The researchers in this study developed the technology during the COVID-19 pandemic and assessed preference based on feedback from students in an engineering program. However, the technology has yet to be evaluated by experts outside the Universidad of Cauca. Second, the students belong to two courses in the same engineering semester. Third, the main method of the study was survey research. The novelty effect of the IVC may have increased the likelihood that student responses would be a helpful outcome variable in this study. However, we evaluated the external validity with other similar studies showing the consistence of our results.
Given the importance that online synchronous learning has taken as future work in IVC is proposed, first, to conduct a study of instructor’s social presence mediated by IVC in a synchronous online class and, second, to evaluate IVC not only in their perceived favorability but also in the impact on learning outcomes in other configurations of IVC mode as concentrated and hybrid.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.F.F, C.C and J.H.; methodology, J.F.F, C.C and J.H.; software, J.F.F.; validation, J.F.F.; formal analysis, J.F.F.; investigation, J.F.F.; resources, J.F.F.; data curation, J.F.F, C.C and J.H.; writing—original draft preparation, J.F.F.; writing—review and editing, C.C and J.H.; visualization, J.F.F.; supervision, C.C and J.H.; project administration, J.F.F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy-related choices.

Acknowledgments

We would like to express our gratitude to Universidad of Cauca.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. O. Estrada-Molina and D. R. Fuentes-Cancell, “Engagement and desertion in MOOCs: Systematic review,” Comunicar, vol. 30, no. 70, pp. 107–119, Jan. 2022. [CrossRef]
  2. G. Akçayır and M. Akçayır, “The flipped classroom: A review of its advantages and challenges,” Comput Educ, vol. 126, pp. 334–345, Nov. 2018. [CrossRef]
  3. A. Raes, L. Detienne, I. Windey, and F. Depaepe, “A systematic literature review on synchronous hybrid learning: gaps identified.” [Online]. Available: https://www.imec-int.com/en/articles/smart-education. [CrossRef]
  4. B. B. de Koning, V. Hoogerheide, and J.-M. Boucheix, “Developments and trends in learning with instructional video,” Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 89. Elsevier, pp. 395–398, 2018. [CrossRef]
  5. L. Fiorella and R. E. Mayer, “What works and doesn’t work with instructional video,” Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 89. Elsevier Ltd, pp. 465–470, Dec. 01, 2018. [CrossRef]
  6. M. Bétrancourt and K. Benetos, “Why and when does instructional video facilitate learning? A commentary to the special issue ‘developments and trends in learning with instructional video,’” Comput Human Behav, vol. 89, pp. 471–475, Dec. 2018. [CrossRef]
  7. M. L. Henderson and N. L. Schroeder, “A Systematic review of instructor presence in instructional videos: Effects on learning and affect,” Computers and Education Open, vol. 2, p. 100059, Dec. 2021. [CrossRef]
  8. H. Polat, “Instructors’ presence in instructional videos: A systematic review,” Educ Inf Technol (Dordr), Jul. 2022. [CrossRef]
  9. T. Wang, Z. Du, and J. Liu, “The Effects of Video Lecture Design on Learners in Online Learning: A Systematic Review,” Journal of Information & Knowledge Management, Jul. 2023. [CrossRef]
  10. Z. Pi, J. Hong, and J. Yang, “Effects of the instructor’s pointing gestures on learning performance in video lectures,” British Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 48, no. 4, pp. 1020–1029, 2017. [CrossRef]
  11. Z. Pi, Y. Zhang, F. Zhu, K. Xu, J. Yang, and W. Hu, “Instructors’ pointing gestures improve learning regardless of their use of directed gaze in video lectures,” Comput Educ, vol. 128, pp. 345–352, 2019. [CrossRef]
  12. M. Beege et al., “Investigating the effects of beat and deictic gestures of a lecturer in educational videos,” Comput Educ, vol. 156, p. 103955, 2020. [CrossRef]
  13. R. E. Mayer, “Evidence-based principles for how to design effective instructional videos,” J Appl Res Mem Cogn, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 229–240, 2021. [CrossRef]
  14. M. Lubrick, G. Zhou, and J. Zhang, “Is the future bright? The potential of lightboard videos for student achievement and engagement in learning,” Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, vol. 15, no. 8, 2019. [CrossRef]
  15. J. F. F. Marulanda, “Student satisfaction pilot experience with synchronous classroom live streaming styles during the COVID-19 pandemic,” IEEE Revista Iberoamericana de Tecnologias del Aprendizaje, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 301–306, 2022. [CrossRef]
  16. A. T. Stull, L. Fiorella, M. J. Gainer, and R. E. Mayer, “Using transparent whiteboards to boost learning from online STEM lectures,” Comput Educ, vol. 120, no. May 2017, pp. 146–159, 2018. [CrossRef]
  17. L. Fiorella, A. T. Stull, S. Kuhlmann, and R. E. Mayer, “Instructor Presence in Video Lectures: The Role of Dynamic Drawings, Eye Contact, and Instructor Visibility,” J Educ Psychol, 2018. [CrossRef]
  18. L. Fiorella, A. T. Stull, S. Kuhlmann, and R. E. Mayer, “Fostering generative learning from video lessons: Benefits of instructor-generated drawings and learner-generated explanations,” J Educ Psychol, vol. 112, no. 5, pp. 895–906, Jul. 2020. [CrossRef]
  19. Z. Pi, K. Xu, C. Liu, and J. Yang, “Instructor presence in video lectures: Eye gaze matters, but not body orientation,” Comput Educ, vol. 144, no. 152, 2020. [CrossRef]
  20. R. E. Mayer, L. Fiorella, and A. Stull, “Five ways to increase the effectiveness of instructional video,” Educational Technology Research and Development, vol. 68, no. 3, pp. 837–852, Jun. 2020. [CrossRef]
  21. E. S. Belt and P. R. Lowenthal, “Video use in online and blended courses: a qualitative synthesis,” Distance Education, vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 410–440, 2021. [CrossRef]
  22. L. M. M. Herrera and J. C. M. Valenzuela, “What kind of teacher achieves student engagement in a synchronous online model?,” IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference, EDUCON, vol. April-2019, pp. 227–231, 2019. [CrossRef]
  23. J. Yang, H. Yu, and N. shing Chen, “Using blended synchronous classroom approach to promote learning performance in rural area,” Comput Educ, vol. 141, no. April, p. 103619, 2019. [CrossRef]
  24. T. Harrison, “How distance education students perceive the impact of teaching videos on their learning,” Open Learning, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 260–276, Sep. 2020. [CrossRef]
  25. S. I. Hofer, N. Nistor, and C. Scheibenzuber, “Online teaching and learning in higher education: Lessons learned in crisis situations,” Comput Human Behav, vol. 121, no. March, p. 106789, 2021. [CrossRef]
  26. S. Mallon, C. Richards, and A. Rixon, “Student and teacher experiences of online synchronous learning,” Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education. Emerald Publishing, 2023. [CrossRef]
  27. A. W. Lo, B. Stevens, and S. P. Willems, “World of EdCraft: Challenges and opportunities in synchronous online teaching,” Available at SSRN 3793342, 2021. [CrossRef]
  28. C. A. Warden, J. O. Stanworth, J. B. Ren, and A. R. Warden, “Synchronous learning best practices: An action research study,” Comput Educ, vol. 63, pp. 197–207, 2013. [CrossRef]
  29. R. E. Mayer, G. Makransky, and J. Parong, “The Promise and Pitfalls of Learning in Immersive Virtual Reality,” Int J Hum Comput Interact, vol. 39, no. 11, pp. 2229–2238, 2023. [CrossRef]
  30. G. Makransky and R. E. Mayer, “Benefits of taking a virtual field trip in immersive virtual reality: Evidence for the immersion principle in multimedia learning,” Educ Psychol Rev, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 1771–1798, 2022. [CrossRef]
  31. R. E. Mayer, “Cognitive theory of multimedia learning,” The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning, vol. 41, pp. 31–48, 2005. [CrossRef]
  32. J. F. F. Marulanda, “Modelo de Aula Virtual Inmersiva para un Ambiente de Aprendizaje Sincrónico Mixto,” in Proceedings book TAEE 2022 XV International Conference of Technology, Learning and Teaching of Electronics, Escuela Universitaria Politécnica de Teruel, 2022.
  33. O. Weiser, I. Blau, and Y. Eshet-Alkalai, “How do medium naturalness, teaching-learning interactions and Students’ personality traits affect participation in synchronous E-learning?,” Internet and Higher Education, vol. 37, no. January, pp. 40–51, 2018. [CrossRef]
  34. E. Szeto and A. Y. N. Cheng, “Towards a framework of interactions in a blended synchronous learning environment: what effects are there on students’ social presence experience?,” Interactive Learning Environments, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 487–503, 2016. [CrossRef]
  35. M. Schutt, B. S. Allen, and M. A. Laumakis, “The effects of instructor immediacy behaviors in online learning environments,” Q Rev Distance Educ, vol. 10, no. 2, p. 135, 2009.
  36. J. T. Nagy, “Evaluation of online video usage and learning satisfaction: An extension of the technology acceptance model,” International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, vol. 19, no. 1, 2018. [CrossRef]
  37. P. C. Santana-Mancilla, O. A. Montesinos-López, M. A. García-Ruiz, J. J. Contreras-Castillo, and L. S. Gaytan-Lugo, “Validación de un instrumento para medir la aceptación tecnológica de un entorno virtual de aprendizaje,” Acta Univ., vol. 29, 2019. [CrossRef]
  38. R. Khan, B. L. Basu, A. Bashir, and M. E. Uddin, “Online Instruction during COVID-19 at Public Universities in Bangladesh: Teacher and Student Voices.,” TESL-EJ, vol. 25, no. 1, p. n1, 2021.
  39. M. Al-Balas et al., “Distance learning in clinical medical education amid COVID-19 pandemic in Jordan: current situation, challenges, and perspectives,” BMC Med Educ, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 1–7, 2020. [CrossRef]
  40. C. N. Gunawardena and F. J. Zittle, “Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer-mediated conferencing environment,” American journal of distance education, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 8–26, 1997. [CrossRef]
  41. J. C. Richardson, Examining social presence in online courses in relation to students’ perceived learning and satisfaction. State University of New York at Albany, 2001.
  42. Z. Pi and J. Hong, “Learning process and learning outcomes of video podcasts including the instructor and PPT slides: a Chinese case,” Innovations in Education and Teaching International, vol. 53, no. 2, pp. 135–144, Mar. 2016. [CrossRef]
  43. J. Hong, Z. Pi, and J. Yang, “Learning declarative and procedural knowledge via video lectures: cognitive load and learning effectiveness,” Innovations in Education and Teaching International, vol. 55, no. 1, pp. 74–81, Jan. 2018. [CrossRef]
  44. B. D. Homer, J. L. Plass, and L. Blake, “The effects of video on cognitive load and social presence in multimedia-learning,” Comput Human Behav, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 786–797, May 2008. [CrossRef]
  45. J. Wang, P. Antonenko, A. Keil, K. Dawson, and J. Wang Kent, “Converging Subjective and Psychophysiological Measures of Cognitive Load to Study the Effects of Instructor-Present Video,” 2020. [CrossRef]
  46. Y. Y. Ng and A. Przybylek, “Instructor presence in video lectures: Preliminary findings from an online experiment,” IEEE Access, vol. 9, pp. 36485–36499, 2021. [CrossRef]
  47. R. F. Kizilcec, K. Papadopoulos, and L. Sritanyaratana, “Showing face in video instruction: Effects on information retention, visual attention, and affect,” in Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings, Association for Computing Machinery, 2014, pp. 2095–2102. [CrossRef]
  48. J. Wang, P. Antonenko, and K. Dawson, “Does visual attention to the instructor in online video affect learning and learner perceptions? An eye-tracking analysis,” Comput Educ, vol. 146, Mar. 2020. [CrossRef]
  49. J. Wang and P. D. Antonenko, “Instructor presence in instructional video: Effects on visual attention, recall, and perceived learning,” Comput Human Behav, vol. 71, pp. 79–89, Jun. 2017. [CrossRef]
  50. Z. Yu, “The effect of teacher presence in videos on intrinsic cognitive loads and academic achievements,” Innovations in Education and Teaching International, vol. 59, no. 5, pp. 574–585, 2022. [CrossRef]
  51. Y. Zhang, K. Xu, Z. Pi, and J. Yang, “Instructor’s position affects learning from video lectures in Chinese context: an eye-tracking study,” Behaviour and Information Technology, vol. 41, no. 9, pp. 1988–1997, 2022. [CrossRef]
  52. M. van Wermeskerken, S. Ravensbergen, and T. van Gog, “Effects of instructor presence in video modeling examples on attention and learning,” Comput Human Behav, vol. 89, pp. 430–438, Dec. 2018. [CrossRef]
  53. T. Colliot and É. Jamet, “Understanding the effects of a teacher video on learning from a multimedia document: an eye-tracking study,” Educational Technology Research and Development, vol. 66, no. 6, pp. 1415–1433, Dec. 2018. [CrossRef]
  54. A. Francescucci and L. Rohani, “Exclusively Synchronous Online (VIRI) Learning: The Impact on Student Performance and Engagement Outcomes,” Journal of Marketing Education, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 60–69, 2019. [CrossRef]
  55. C. Ou, D. A. Joyner, and A. K. Goel, “Designing and developing video lessons for online learning: A seven-principle model,” Online Learning Journal, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 82–104, 2019. [CrossRef]
  56. Q. Wang, C. Huang, and C. L. Quek, “Students’ perspectives on the design and implementation of a blended synchronous learning environment,” 2018. [CrossRef]
  57. K. Byeongwoo. “The Future of Service Post-COVID-19 Pandemic, Chapter 2: How the COVID-19 pandemic is reshaping the education service.”, Springer Singapore, Volume 1: Rapid Adoption of Digital Service Technology, p. 15-36, 2021. [CrossRef]
Preprints 84554 g001
Figure 1. IVC modes: a) Immersive virtual classroom study and modes according to student location, b) Distributed, c) Concentrated and b/c) Hybrid.
Figure 1. IVC modes: a) Immersive virtual classroom study and modes according to student location, b) Distributed, c) Concentrated and b/c) Hybrid.
Preprints 84554 g001
Preprints 84554 g002
Figure 2. IVC Streaming type: a) type 1 one-to-one video server, b) type 2 one-to-many video server, c) type 3 single peer to peer and d) type 4 multiple peers to peer.
Figure 2. IVC Streaming type: a) type 1 one-to-one video server, b) type 2 one-to-many video server, c) type 3 single peer to peer and d) type 4 multiple peers to peer.
Preprints 84554 g002
Preprints 84554 g003aPreprints 84554 g003b
Figure 3. Three types of augmented reality generated with the IVC.
Figure 3. Three types of augmented reality generated with the IVC.
Preprints 84554 g003aPreprints 84554 g003b
Preprints 84554 g004
Figure 4. Proposed IVC structural model.
Figure 4. Proposed IVC structural model.
Preprints 84554 g004
Preprints 84554 g005aPreprints 84554 g005b
Figure 5. Student preference for classroom model: a) F2F Classroom, b) Conventional virtual, and c) IVC.
Figure 5. Student preference for classroom model: a) F2F Classroom, b) Conventional virtual, and c) IVC.
Preprints 84554 g005aPreprints 84554 g005b
Preprints 84554 g006
Figure 6. Word clouds associated with the answers to the four open-ended questions on IVC.
Figure 6. Word clouds associated with the answers to the four open-ended questions on IVC.
Preprints 84554 g006
Table 1. Demographic data of the participants in the IVC perception.
Table 1. Demographic data of the participants in the IVC perception.
Demographic data Range Quantity Average Standard deviation
Gender Female 9 - -
Male 22
Age 19 a 24 26 22.23 3.62
25 a 30 3
31 a 35 2
Semester 4 3 5.84 1.29
5 14
6 3
7 8
8 2
9 1
Device used Desktop computer 4 - -
Laptop computer 24
Smartphone 3
Table 2. Questions associated with the four cores of the proposed structural equation model.
Table 2. Questions associated with the four cores of the proposed structural equation model.
Core Associated questions
Ease of receiving the class (E) E1: The audio and video quality of the synchronized classes in the IVC is good.
E2: I think the interaction protocol established in IVC is adequate.
Student Perceived Usefulness (U) U1: During classes at IVC, there is good student-teacher interaction.
U2: I think there are advantages to IVC over other virtual classrooms used in other courses.
U3: I think there are advantages of IVC over the real classroom.
Students’ attitude towards IVC (At) At1: I attend all synchronous and asynchronous classes in the course.
At2: The knowledge imparted by the teacher in the IVC is useful.
At3: In general, I had technical problems receiving the virtual classes.
Use of the immersive virtual classroom (Vc) Vc1: During the synchronous classes in IVC, I felt as close to the teacher as in a face-to-face class.
Vc2: The IVC has positively influenced my knowledge of the course.
Table 3. Characteristics configured to use IVC in both courses.
Table 3. Characteristics configured to use IVC in both courses.
IVC Characteristics Value
Interaction Instructor - Content, Instructor - Student, Student - Student
IVC mode Distributed (webcams turn off)
Streaming type Video server - one-to-many
Type of augmented reality All types (1, 2 and 3)
Table 4. Arc weights for the hypotheses.
Table 4. Arc weights for the hypotheses.
Path Estimate Std. error t-stat. p-value Confidence Interval Percentile 95%
E~ U 0.7145 0.0468 15.2533 <.0001 [0.3656; 0.4875]
U ~ E 0.7145 0.0468 15.2533 <.0001 [0.3656; 0.4875]
At ~ F 0.6173 0.0865 7.1372 <.0001 [0.2781; 0.5047]
At ~ U 0.7813 0.0783 9.9835 <.0001 [ 0.5798; 0.7608]
Vc ~ At 0.4950 0.1010 4.9003 <.0001 [ 0.6247; 0.8711]
Table 5. ¿If you feel that IVC has advantages over other virtual classrooms, what are these?
Table 5. ¿If you feel that IVC has advantages over other virtual classrooms, what are these?
Label % Explanation Illustrative comment (translated from the original response in Spanish language)
Increased interaction and didactic support 64.5 IVC enables a more significant interaction between teacher and student, enhancing the learning process. It is more active because it is closer to what would be observed when the teacher is explaining in a classroom setting, and the presentation of topics in terms of content and illustrations helps to understand the topics and helps the teacher to be more explanatory.
Streaming quality 12.9 The quality of the streaming video and the videos recorded in Full HD allow to students a clear visualization of the material taught. Quality, it creates a more welcoming learning environment, further encourages understanding and helps to maintain attention.
Professor 12.9 Students emphasized that in addition to DVI, the way the course is taught, and the methodology of the course are essential in the learning process. I believe that more than the advantages of the immersive virtual classroom compared to other virtual classrooms, it is the methodology used by the teacher, the dynamism with which he presents the topics and the disposition of the students.
Recorded lectures and other audio-visual aids 12.9 The availability of recorded classes to review topics. Also, integrating video and other SW tools into the classroom. Multimedia files and the implementation of new alternative topics for education, such as the software shown during the course.
Table 6. If you feel that there are advantages to IVC over F2F classrooms, ¿what are they?
Table 6. If you feel that there are advantages to IVC over F2F classrooms, ¿what are they?
Label % Explanation Illustrative comment (translated from the original response in Spanish language)
Recorded lectures 58.1 The chance to view all recorded classes for revisiting topics that may not have been completely comprehended during the live sessions. The possibility to review the class after it has been recorded .
Increased interaction and didactic support 25.8 IVC allows more interaction between teacher and students, supporting their learning process. The use of tools that allow a more detailed and practical explanation for the teacher.
Virtual lectures 22.6 Virtual classes allow students to attend synchronous sessions from different geographic locations, saving time, reducing transportation costs, and even being in class when the student is sick. One of them is to be able to take the class when he is sick, the interaction with the teacher is similar because he is explaining and using the board .
Table 7. ¿What aspects of IVC can be improved?
Table 7. ¿What aspects of IVC can be improved?
Label % Explanation Illustrative comment (translated from the original response in Spanish language)
None 64.5 Students believe there is no needs for enhancement IVC I do not believe that they.
Audio delay 22.6 The delay in audio synchronization between students and instructors among Google Meet and YouTube unveil some problems for an effective communication during synchronous instruction. Suddenly in the part of linking the platforms or synchronizing to avoid delays when the student wants to intervene to ask a question or answer.
Connection stability 9.7 The Internet connection from students and instructors determined how well the class ran. In most cases, students need a stable Internet connection. Avoid lags that occur between Meet and YouTube when generating questions, I do not know if it is possible because it would be a connection problem, on the other hand also the issue of reading times, as often the connection is not stable then this reading time can be affected.
Table 8. If you have had any technical problems with the virtual classes, ¿what have they been?
Table 8. If you have had any technical problems with the virtual classes, ¿what have they been?
Label % Explanation Illustrative comment (translated from the original response in Spanish language)
Internet 71 Students had problems connecting to the Internet due to bandwidth, network damage, weather conditions or lack of coverage where they were located. The problems are the fall of the Internet network, damage to the electrical section, making it impossible to attend classes, but the recording remains for later review.
None 22,6 Students had no technical problems in synchronous virtual classes I have not had any problems.
Electrical faults 19.6 Absence of electricity Power failures.
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.
Copyright: This open access article is published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, which permit the free download, distribution, and reuse, provided that the author and preprint are cited in any reuse.
Prerpints.org logo

Preprints.org is a free preprint server supported by MDPI in Basel, Switzerland.

facebook logotwitter logolinkedin logo
MDPI Initiatives
Important Links
Subscribe

Disclaimer

Terms of Use

Privacy Policy

© 2024 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated