The Psychosocial Dimensions of Immersive Learning: A Study of VR-Enabled Science Education for Children Through the Lens of Self-Determination Theory

The Psychosocial Dimensions of Immersive Learning: A Study of VR-Enabled Science Education for Children Through the Lens of Self-Determination Theory | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Article The Psychosocial Dimensions of Immersive Learning: A Study of VR-Enabled Science Education for Children Through the Lens of Self-Determination Theory An-Chao Tsai, Potchara Phak-insee, Yueh-Min Huang This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-6886727/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 17 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract This study investigates the effectiveness of a virtual reality (VR)-based learning system designed to enhance elementary students' conceptual understanding and motivation in learning light and shadow phenomena. Grounded in Kolb's Experiential Learning Theory and Self-Determination Theory, the VR system supports concrete experience, active experimentation, and fulfillment of psychological needs such as perceived competence, autonomy/choice, and relatedness. A total of 45 fourth-grade students participated in a three-week learning intervention involving VR-based activities developed with Unity. Quantitative data from motivation questionnaires and pre-/post-tests indicate significant improvements in students' science concept understanding (Cohen's d = 0.42, 95% CI = [-2.68, -0.43], representing a meaningful educational shift in how children relate to abstract scientific phenomena) and high satisfaction across motivational dimensions, with all four dimensions showing significant enhancement: perceived competence (Cohen's d = 0.75), autonomy/choice (Cohen's d = 0.73), relatedness (Cohen's d = 0.77), and interest/enjoyment (Cohen's d = 0.67). Additional VR system usability feedback showed strong student engagement and perceived learning support. These results highlight the potential of well-structured VR learning environments in improving science education for young learners, especially in abstract topics like optics. Implications for instructional design and future integration in school-based STEM education are discussed. Social science/Education Social science/Psychology Social science/Science technology and society virtual reality (VR) elementary science education experiential learning light and shadow conceptual understanding self-determination theory psychosocial dimensions Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 1. Introduction Virtual Reality (VR) technologies have transformed the landscape of education, offering immersive, interactive, and multimodal learning environments that are especially beneficial for visualizing abstract scientific phenomena. In science education, concepts such as light and shadow often challenge elementary students due to their intangible nature, but VR affords concrete, experiential opportunities to engage with these topics in meaningful ways (Makransky & Mayer, 2022 ; Radianti et al., 2020 ). Yet, the adoption of VR is not solely a technological decision—it is also embedded within complex psychological, social, and cultural processes. For example, recent research in the domain of child mental health and digital health interventions revealed that parents' decisions to adopt VR therapy for children with ADHD are heavily influenced by perceived risks, trust in the technology, and community discourse, rather than objective efficacy alone (Ding & Gan, 2025 ). This highlights the need to consider not only cognitive or performance-based outcomes of VR-based systems but also the broader psychosocial and motivational contexts in which such technologies are deployed. Moreover, VR has shown potential beyond instructional delivery—it can promote emotional regulation, cognitive flexibility, and social interaction skills among adolescents, especially when thoughtfully integrated into mental health interventions (Xu et al., 2025 ). These findings challenge traditional views of VR as merely a knowledge-transfer tool and reposition it as a relational and developmental medium that can support learners' socio-emotional growth, particularly within a new media environment. From a pedagogical perspective, studies in teacher education further support the unique advantages of immersive VR. In a quasi-experimental design, pre-service teachers who trained with immersive classroom simulations retained classroom management strategies more effectively over time and reported more positive attitudes toward their practice (Li et al., 2024 ). These results not only affirm VR’s utility in skill development but also demonstrate how immersive experiences can foster durable behavioral change and motivation. Despite growing evidence of VR’s pedagogical and developmental value, its successful application with younger learners—particularly in structured educational settings— remains underexamined. Elementary students may lack the metacognitive strategies needed to navigate immersive environments independently, making them vulnerable to cognitive overload and disengagement (Makransky et al., 2019 ). Accordingly, research must focus on how to embed targeted learning interventions that support not only knowledge acquisition but also satisfaction of psychological needs. This study draws upon two theoretical frameworks to design and evaluate a VR-based learning system focused on the topic of light and shadow: Kolb’s Experiential Learning Theory (1984), which emphasizes concrete experience and reflective abstraction; and Self-Determination Theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan, 2000 ), which posits that fulfilling learners’ needs for perceived competence, autonomy/choice, and relatedness enhances intrinsic motivation. While VR environments can effectively support perceived competence, autonomy/choice, fulfilling relatedness remains a challenge, particularly in isolated, individual VR use contexts (Checa & Bustillo, 2020 ). To address this, we embed learning interventions that simulate social presence and encourage peer interaction, thereby supporting psychological well-being and engagement. We thus frame this research not only as a study in instructional effectiveness, but as a broader inquiry into how digital environments can support human-centered learning. Specifically, we ask: RQ1: How does the VR system affect students’ intrinsic motivation in terms of perceived competence, autonomy/choice, and relatedness? RQ2: To what extent does the system improve conceptual understanding of light and shadow? RQ3: How do students perceive their learning experiences in terms of usability, support, and social connectedness? By addressing these questions, we aim to contribute to the growing interdisciplinary discourse on the developmental, motivational, and social implications of immersive educational technologies. This research sits at the intersection of educational psychology, human-computer interaction, and childhood development, offering insights not only for instructional design but also for understanding how technological environments shape young learners' relationship with knowledge, peers, and their own learning identities. In an era of rapid technological change, such cross-disciplinary understanding is essential for creating educational innovations that are both effective and ethically sound. 2. Related Works Virtual reality as a pedagogical tool in science education Virtual reality (VR) has emerged as a transformative tool in science education, offering immersive experiences that facilitate the understanding of complex and abstract concepts. In disciplines such as physics and biology, VR enables students to visualize phenomena like light behavior, molecular structures, and ecological systems in an interactive manner. Merchant et al. ( 2014 ) conducted a meta-analysis revealing that VR-based instruction significantly enhances students’ conceptual understanding across STEM fields. Radianti et al. ( 2020 ) further identified VR’s efficacy in improving knowledge retention and learner motivation, particularly when integrated with inquiry-based approaches. Recent research continues to support these findings. A 2024 meta-analysis by García-Robles et al. demonstrated that immersive VR and augmented reality (AR) significantly improved undergraduate students’ knowledge in anatomy education when compared to traditional tools like textbooks (SMD = 0.32) and lectures (SMD = 1.00). The study, encompassing 27 experimental trials and over 2,000 participants, also showed that 80% of students perceived XR technologies as useful for learning, underscoring the motivational and cognitive benefits of immersive systems (García-Robles et al., 2024 ). These results emphasize the broad applicability of VR as a pedagogical tool in science education, especially in domains involving abstract spatial reasoning and high cognitive demand. However, the benefits of VR are contingent upon thoughtful instructional design. Makransky and Mayer ( 2022 ) demonstrated that while immersive VR can increase cognitive engagement, it may also lead to cognitive overload if not properly scaffolded. Their earlier work (Makransky, Terkildsen, & Mayer, 2019 ) emphasized that presence alone does not guarantee learning gains; effective VR learning environments must align with established educational theories. Kolb’s ( 1984 ) experiential learning theory advocates for a cycle of concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualization, and active experimentation. Similarly, Fiorella and Mayer ( 2015 ) highlight the importance of generative learning strategies, such as self-explanation and elaboration, in promoting deep understanding. Therefore, the educational value of VR lies not merely in its technological capabilities but in its integration with pedagogical principles that support meaningful learning experiences. Motivation and engagement in VR: Insights from Self-Determination Theory Understanding how learners engage with immersive technologies requires attention not only to cognitive factors but also to motivational psychology. Self-Determination Theory (SDT), formulated by Deci and Ryan ( 2000 ), provides a robust framework for examining how digital environments influence intrinsic motivation. According to SDT, three basic psychological needs—competence, autonomy, and relatedness—must be satisfied for individuals to experience deep engagement and sustained motivation. Virtual reality (VR), by its interactive and responsive design, naturally supports autonomy through learner control and self-paced exploration. It can also foster competence by offering immediate feedback and challenging tasks that align with a learner’s skill level. However, the third SDT component—relatedness—poses challenges in solitary VR settings, where social connection may be limited. Checa and Bustillo ( 2020 ) highlighted that while VR excels in supporting autonomy and competence, relatedness is often underrepresented, especially in non-collaborative environments. This is of particular concern in educational settings, where social interaction and peer feedback play vital roles in motivation and learning. To address this gap, recent work by Shute ( 2008 ) and Dabbagh and Kitsantas ( 2012 ) has emphasized the importance of designing VR experiences that integrate formative feedback, goal-setting, and opportunities for simulated or mediated social interaction. In the context of younger learners, these motivational design principles become even more critical. Elementary students are still developing self-regulation and require more structured support to stay engaged and emotionally connected. Studies in teacher education (Li et al., 2024 ) show that immersive systems that incorporate feedback and realistic scenarios not only improve skill acquisition but also enhance affective engagement. Translating these insights into VR for science learning among children means designing environments that do more than teach content—they must also nurture the learner’s sense of agency, growth, and social belonging. Thus, applying SDT to VR-based learning is not simply a theoretical exercise but a practical imperative for meaningful, child-centered instructional design. These motivational and cognitive considerations must also account for broader sociocultural influences, which further shape the success of VR in educational settings. Psychosocial and cultural dimensions of VR adoption While cognitive and motivational outcomes are central to educational technology research, the broader psychosocial and cultural dimensions of VR use are equally critical, particularly when applied to younger learners. Virtual reality is not a neutral instructional tool—it shapes, and is shaped by, the social relationships and cultural contexts in which it is embedded. Recent work has highlighted VR’s capacity to support not only academic learning but also psychological development and emotional well- being. Xu et al. ( 2025 ), in a randomized controlled study, demonstrated that VR-based interventions significantly improved adolescents’ cognitive flexibility, emotional regulation, and social skills, suggesting that immersive media can function as a form of developmental support. At the same time, technology adoption is deeply influenced by individual psychological traits and social identity. Cummings et al. ( 2023 ) found that immersive tendencies, belief in science, and perceived social well-being were among the strongest predictors of early VR adoption and consistent usage, highlighting that personality traits and users’ self- perceptions play a greater role than demographics in shaping engagement with VR. This underscores the need to consider psychological diversity when designing and implementing VR in educational contexts. Cultural factors also mediate adoption. Monteiro et al. ( 2024 ), through a cross-cultural study grounded in the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology, revealed significant regional differences in how learners perceive VR’s utility for hands-on learning. Learners in different parts of the world evaluated VR through distinct cultural lenses, shaped by local expectations of education, institutional infrastructure, and digital trust. These findings complement Ding and Gan’s ( 2025 ) study, which showed that parents’ decisions regarding VR-based therapy for children with ADHD were driven more by perceived risks and social narratives than by objective evidence. Together, these studies demonstrate that effective VR implementation in schools requires more than usability and pedagogy—it must be grounded in psychological accessibility and cultural coherence. Especially for younger students, whose learning is mediated by families, institutions, and community discourse, success depends on designing VR systems that resonate with the social and cultural realities of their users. Application to teacher training and elementary education: Bridging gaps The integration of virtual reality (VR) into teacher training and elementary education presents both opportunities and challenges. VR offers immersive environments that can enhance pedagogical skills and student engagement. For instance, the Didascalia Virtual-ClassRoom provides pre-service teachers with simulated classroom scenarios to practice managing disruptive behaviors, thereby improving classroom management competencies (Álvarez et al., 2024 ). Li et al. ( 2024 ) investigated the efficacy of the ClassMaster IVR system using a quasi-experimental design involving 57 pre-service teachers. While both IVR and video-based training improved immediate classroom management competencies, only the IVR group showed significantly better performance on delayed assessments, indicating superior long-term retention. Participants also reported more positive attitudes toward classroom management after using the system. A co-designed VR-based teacher training environment also emphasizes the importance of involving teachers in the design process to ensure the virtual classroom meets their needs (Stavroulia et al., 2025 ). In elementary education, VR has been shown to boost student engagement and knowledge retention. A meta-analysis by Lara-Alvarez et al. ( 2023 ) indicates that students learning in VR environments achieve higher academic performance compared to traditional classrooms. Likewise, Villena-Taranilla et al. ( 2022 ) found that immersive VR systems (effect size = 1.11) had a significantly greater impact on learning outcomes than semi- or non-immersive systems. Marelle et al. ( 2025 ) further demonstrated that simulated rehearsal and feedback in VR environments, such as TeachLive™, significantly improved pre-service teachers’ use of evidence-based behavior management strategies, particularly when working with students with autism spectrum disorders. However, successful adoption of VR in education requires addressing several challenges. Teacher readiness is paramount; educators must possess technological competence and confidence to effectively integrate VR into their teaching practices. Furthermore, the cultural context plays a significant role in VR adoption. Monteiro et al. ( 2024 ) highlight that perceptions of VR's usefulness and ease of use vary across regions, influenced by local educational values and digital trust. Therefore, implementing VR in education necessitates a culturally responsive approach that aligns with the values and expectations of the communities it serves. Taken together, the reviewed literature highlights the cognitive, motivational, psychosocial, and contextual affordances of VR in education, but also reveals gaps in how these factors are systematically integrated in systems designed for young learners. This study addresses this need by developing and evaluating a VR-based instructional model tailored for elementary science education. Grounded in the principles of self-determination theory, experiential learning, and cultural sensitivity, our approach aims to bridge the divide between educational theory and practical implementation in VR-enhanced classroom environments. 3. Methods Research Design This study employed a quasi-experimental pre-test/post-test design to evaluate the effectiveness of a VR-based learning system for teaching light and shadow concepts to elementary students. The research was conducted over a three-week period in a public elementary school in Taiwan. The study addressed three research questions: RQ1: How does the VR system affect students’ intrinsic motivation in terms of perceived competence, autonomy/choice, and relatedness? RQ2: To what extent does the system improve conceptual understanding of light and shadow? RQ3: How do students perceive their learning experiences in terms of usability, support, and social connectedness? Based on these research questions, we formulated the following hypotheses: H1: The VR learning system will significantly enhance students’ intrinsic motivation across dimensions of perceived competence, autonomy/choice, and relatedness. H2: The VR learning system will significantly improve students’ conceptual understanding of light and shadow phenomena. H3: Students will report positive user experiences with the VR learning system in terms of usability, engagement, and perceived learning support. Participants A total of 45 fourth-grade students (aged 9–10 years) from two intact classes at a public elementary school in Taiwan participated in the study. The sample included 23 boys and 22 girls. Parental informed consent and student assent were obtained for all participants. This study was conducted with the approval of the National Cheng Kung University Human Research Ethics Committee (NCKU HREC-E-112-707-2). All data were collected anonymously and handled in compliance with data protection regulations. Instruments and Materials VR Learning System The "Light & Shadow Explorer" VR learning system was developed using Unity and deployed on Meta Quest 3 headsets. The system was designed based on Kolb's Experiential Learning Theory and Self-Determination Theory, with a focus on providing concrete experiences, active experimentation, and support for psychological needs (autonomy, competence, and relatedness). The VR environment included six interactive modules covering key concepts related to light and shadow, three of which are shown in Fig. 1: Light Sources: Students explored different types of light sources (natural, artificial, point, and diffuse) and observed their characteristics. Light Propagation: Students experimented with light rays traveling in straight lines and observed phenomena like reflection and refraction. Shadow Formation: Students manipulated objects, light sources, and screens to observe how shadows form and change. Light and Color: Students explored color mixing, filters, and the relationship between light and color perception. Transparent, Translucent, and Opaque Materials: Students investigated how different materials interact with light. Applications: Students applied their understanding to solve real-world problems and create light-based art. Each module included guided exploration, structured tasks, and open-ended challenges. The system provided immediate feedback and adaptive scaffolding based on student performance. To support relatedness, students worked in pairs, taking turns with the VR headset while their partner observed on a connected tablet and provided suggestions. he overall system architecture, which integrates theoretical foundations and design features leading to observable learning outcomes, is illustrated in Fig. 2 . Measurement Instruments Three instruments were used to collect data: Conceptual Understanding Test: A 15-item test assessing students' understanding of light and shadow concepts was administered before and after the intervention. The test was specifically developed for this study based on Taiwan's elementary science curriculum standards for fourth-grade students, focusing on fundamental optics concepts including light propagation, shadow formation, reflection, refraction, and color theory. The test development process followed established guidelines for educational assessment construction (Haladyna, 2004 ). Item development began with a detailed analysis of learning objectives derived from the national curriculum standards and the specific content covered in the VR modules. The test included 15 multiple-choice questions, with 11 standard multiple-choice items and 4 true/false items to assess different cognitive levels according to Bloom's taxonomy, ranging from knowledge recall to application and analysis. Content validity was established through expert review by three science education specialists and two elementary school teachers with expertise in science instruction. Items were evaluated for alignment with learning objectives, age-appropriateness, and clarity of language. Learning Motivation Questionnaire: An adapted version of the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (IMI; Ryan, 1982 ) was used to measure students' motivation before and after the intervention. The IMI is a multidimensional measurement device based on Self-Determination Theory, designed to assess participants' subjective experience related to target activities in laboratory experiments (Ryan, 1982 ; McAuley, Duncan, & Tammen, 1989 ). The original IMI has been extensively validated across various contexts and populations, demonstrating strong psychometric properties (Deci, Eghrari, Patrick, & Leone, 1994 ). For this study, we selected four subscales most relevant to educational contexts: perceived competence (5 items), autonomy/choice (5 items), relatedness (5 items), and interest/enjoyment (5 items). The original IMI items were adapted to fit the VR learning context and elementary school students' cognitive level. Specifically, generic references to "this activity" were replaced with specific VR and light-shadow learning contexts (e.g., "我能夠在 VR 活動中成功解決光與影的問題" - "I can successfully solve light and shadow problems in VR activities"). To enhance comprehensibility for elementary students, all reverse-coded items were converted to positive statements, and complex vocabulary was simplified while maintaining the original constructs' theoretical integrity. Items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). VR System Usability Questionnaire: An adapted version of the System Usability Scale (SUS; Brooke, 1996 ) was administered after the intervention to assess students' perceptions of the VR system's usability. The SUS is a widely-used, reliable, and valid measure of system usability in human-computer interaction research, consisting of 10 items that provide a global view of subjective assessments of usability (Brooke, 1996 ; Bangor, Kortum, & Miller, 2008 ). The original SUS employs an alternating polarity design with positive and negative statements to control for response bias. However, for this study with elementary school students, all items were adapted to positive statements to enhance comprehensibility and reduce cognitive load. Generic system references were replaced with specific VR contexts (e.g., "VR操作起來很簡單" - "VR is simple to operate"), and technical terminology was simplified to match elementary students' vocabulary level. The adapted questionnaire maintained the original SUS's focus on usability dimensions including learnability, efficiency, memorability, errors, and satisfaction. Items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). The complete questionnaires used in this study are provided in the appendices. The learning motivation questionnaire (Appendix A) consisted of 20 items across four subscales. The VR system usability questionnaire (Appendix B) included 10 items adapted for elementary students. The conceptual understanding test (Appendix C) contained 15 items covering key light and shadow concepts. Instrument Adaptation Process The adaptation of established instruments (IMI and SUS) for elementary school students followed a systematic process to ensure content validity while maintaining construct integrity. First, a panel of three experts in educational psychology and elementary science education reviewed the original instruments and provided recommendations for age-appropriate modifications. Second, items were translated into Traditional Chinese and back-translated to ensure semantic equivalence. Third, cognitive interviews were conducted with five fourth-grade students to identify comprehension difficulties and refine item wording. The adaptation process prioritized several key considerations: (1) Vocabulary simplification - complex psychological terms were replaced with concrete, observable behaviors; (2) Context specification - abstract references were made specific to VR learning experiences; (3) Cognitive accessibility - sentence structures were simplified and reverse-coded items were eliminated to reduce cognitive burden; (4) Cultural appropriateness - items were reviewed for cultural relevance in the Taiwanese educational context. While these adaptations enhanced accessibility for the target population, we acknowledge that modifications to established instruments may affect their psychometric properties. However, the use of well-established scales (IMI and SUS) with extensive validation history provides confidence in the adapted instruments' measurement quality. Procedure The study was conducted over three weeks, with two 40-minute VR sessions per week. Before the intervention, students completed the conceptual understanding pre-test and the learning motivation questionnaire. They then received a brief orientation to the VR equipment and safety guidelines. During the intervention, students worked in pairs, rotating between the roles of VR user and observer/assistant. Each pair progressed through the six modules at their own pace, with guidance from the researcher and classroom teacher as needed. After completing each module, students participated in a brief whole-class discussion to share insights and consolidate learning. After the three-week intervention, students completed the conceptual understanding post-test, the learning motivation questionnaire, and the VR system usability questionnaire. Data Analysis Paired-samples t-tests were conducted on the pre-test and post-test scores from the conceptual understanding test and the learning motivation questionnaire subscales to evaluate the impact of the VR intervention (RQ1 and RQ2). Cohen’s d was calculated to determine the effect size of significant differences. Descriptive statistics (means, standard deviations) were used to summarize the data from the VR system usability questionnaire (RQ3). For the usability questionnaire, one-sample t-tests were performed to compare mean item scores against the theoretical neutral point (3.0) to determine the direction and significance of user attitudes. 4. Results Learning Motivation To assess the impact of the VR learning system on students’ motivation (RQ1), paired-samples t-tests were conducted on the pre- and post-intervention scores for the four subscales of the learning motivation questionnaire: perceived competence, autonomy/choice, relatedness, and interest/enjoyment. The results, summarized in Table 1 , indicate statistically significant improvements across all four dimensions of motivation. Table 1 Comparison of Pre-test and Post-test Learning Motivation Scores (N = 45) Motivation Subscale Pre-test M (SD) Post-test M (SD) t(p) df Cohen’s d Perceived Competence 3.06 (0.59) 3.52 (0.63) -8.28 *** 44 0.75 Autonomy/Choice 3.10 (0.55) 3.52 (0.61) -7.37 *** 44 0.73 Relatedness 3.08 (0.63) 3.53 (0.56) -7.65 *** 44 0.77 Interest/Enjoyment 3.05 (0.61) 3.48 (0.65) -5.94 *** 44 0.67 Note: *** p < .001 Perceived competence after the VR intervention (M = 3.52, SD = 0.63) compared to before (M = 3.06, SD = 0.59) showed a significant increase, t(44) = -8.28, p < .001, with a large effect size (Cohen's d = 0.75), highlighting how immersive technologies can transform students' self-perception as capable science learners, a critical factor in addressing science education equity. Similarly, relatedness scores showed a significant improvement, rising from M = 3.08 (SD = 0.63) at pre-test to M = 3.53 (SD = 0.56) at post-test, t(44) = -7.65, p < .001, with a large effect size (Cohen's d = 0.77), suggesting that well-designed collaborative VR experiences can foster meaningful social connections among young learners, countering concerns about technology's isolating effects in educational contexts. A significant increase was also observed in interest/enjoyment, with scores higher at post-test (M = 3.48 (SD = 0.65) than at pre-test (M = 3.05 (SD = 0.61), t(44) = -5.94, p < .001, with a moderate to large effect size (Cohen's d = 0.67), reflecting how embodied, experiential learning through VR can transform students' emotional relationship with science content, potentially addressing the documented decline in science interest during the elementary to middle school transition. These results support H1, indicating that the VR learning environment effectively enhanced students' intrinsic motivation in terms of perceived competence, relatedness, and interest/enjoyment. The autonomy/choice dimension showed a statistically significant change from pre-test (M = 3.10, SD = 0.55) to post-test (M = 3.52, SD = 0.61), t(44) = -7.37, p < .001, with a large effect size (Cohen's d = 0.73). This suggests that the VR system effectively enhanced students' feelings of competence, relatedness, enjoyment, and their sense of autonomy and choice. Conceptual Understanding of Light and Shadow To evaluate the effectiveness of the VR learning system in improving students' conceptual understanding of light and shadow (RQ2), we conducted a paired-sample t-test. As shown in Table 2 and Fig. 2 , students' scores significantly increased from 7.93 (SD = 2.16) in the pre-test to 9.49 (SD = 2.76) in the post-test, t(44) = -2.79, p = .008. The Cohen’s d = 0.42 indicates a moderate effect size (Cohen, 1988), suggesting that the VR intervention facilitated not only statistically significant but also educationally meaningful learning gains. Figure 2 presents a visual comparison of students’ conceptual understanding scores before and after the VR-based intervention. The bar chart displays mean scores for the pre-test and post-test, with standard errors shown as error bars to indicate the precision of the estimates. The figure illustrates a clear improvement in post-intervention performance, consistent with the statistical results. Further item-level analysis revealed the greatest improvement in questions related to shadow formation (38% gain) and light behavior through materials (42%), as well as notable improvement in transfer tasks (35% gain), highlighting the system’s impact on both conceptual acquisition and application. Table 2 Comparison of Pre-test and Post-test Conceptual Understanding Scores (N = 45) Measure Pre-test M (SD) Post-test M (SD) t(p) df Mean Diff. 95% CI Cohen’s d Conceptual Understanding 7.93 (2.16) 9.49 (2.76) -2.79** 44 -1.56 [-2.68, -0.43] 0.42 Note: ** p < .01 Student Perceptions of VR System Usability To address RQ3 regarding students' perceptions of the VR learning system, we analyzed responses to the VR System Usability Questionnaire. After completing the VR learning intervention, students provided feedback on their experience through the VR System Usability Questionnaire. Table 3 presents the descriptive statistics for each item on this questionnaire. One-sample t-tests were conducted to determine whether mean scores for each usability item differed significantly from the theoretical midpoint of 3.0 (neutral response) on the 5-point Likert scale. Results indicated that all items received ratings significantly above the neutral point (all p < .001), suggesting positive user experiences across all usability dimensions. Table 3 VR System Usability Questionnaire Results and One-Sample t-test Results Against Theoretical Midpoint (3.0). Item Mean SD t (p) Mean Diff. 95% CI item1 4.07 0.50 14.44 *** 1.07 [0.92, 1.22] item2 3.40 0.94 2.86 ** 0.40 [0.12, 0.68] item3 4.07 0.54 13.27 *** 1.07 [0.90, 1.23] item4 4.18 0.39 20.43 *** 1.18 [1.06, 1.29] item5 4.09 0.42 17.52 *** 1.09 [0.96, 1.21] item6 3.38 0.81 3.15 ** 0.38 [0.14, 0.62] item7 3.33 0.80 2.80 ** 0.33 [0.09, 0.57] item8 3.38 0.68 3.71 *** 0.38 [0.17, 0.58] item9 4.04 0.56 12.46 *** 1.04 [0.88, 1.21] item10 4.29 0.46 18.86 *** 1.29 [1.15, 1.43] Note: *** p < .001; ** p < .01; Cronbach’s α = .74 (10 items) Overall, students reported varied perceptions of the VR system's usability, reflecting the complex nature of technology integration in educational contexts. The highest-rated aspect was students’ perception that the VR system was easy to use overall (Item 10, M = 4.29, SD = 0.46). This was followed by their evaluation of the system's basic operational simplicity (Item 1, M = 4.07, SD = 0.50) and the clarity of its interface (Item 3, M = 4.07, SD = 0.54). In addition, Item 4 (M = 4.18, SD = 0.39) received strong ratings, suggesting that students were able to quickly learn how to operate the system. These findings indicate that students generally found the VR system intuitive and accessible, particularly in terms of initial onboarding and interface design. Item 9 (M = 4.04, SD = 0.56), which assessed the ability to navigate and interact within the VR environment, also showed favorable results, further supporting the system's perceived ease of use. In contrast, relatively lower ratings were observed for several aspects that reflect deeper usability challenges. Item 8 (M = 3.38, SD = 0.68) suggested that some students felt less confident using the system independently, without assistance. Item 7 (M = 3.33, SD = 0.80), which assessed whether students found the operational steps clear, and Item 6 (M = 3.38, SD = 0.81), which focused on ease of locating buttons or functions, both indicated potential areas for improving user guidance and in-system orientation. Notably, Item 2 (M = 3.40, SD = 0.94), addressing whether students could complete tasks with ease, exhibited the highest standard deviation among all items, suggesting substantial individual variation in students’ comfort and effectiveness while using the system. These findings reveal important socio-technical considerations in educational VR implementation. While students generally found the VR system usable and approachable, issues related to independent operation, clarity of multi-step interactions, and interface navigation suggest that immersive technology alone does not guarantee seamless engagement. Instead, thoughtful design that supports embodied interaction, scaffolds step-by-step procedures, and enhances user agency remains essential for optimizing the learning experience. These aspects should inform future iterations of the system to ensure broader accessibility and learner confidence. Qualitative observations collected during class discussions and researcher notes further corroborated these findings. Many students expressed enjoyment and novelty in their VR experience. For example, one student remarked, “It was like playing a game, but I was learning science!”—a sentiment that echoes the high ratings on items related to ease of use and system intuitiveness. Another commented, “Seeing the light bend and shadows change made it easy to understand,” suggesting that the system helped clarify abstract science concepts, though this was not directly measured in the usability questionnaire. Some students also mentioned discomfort with the headset initially, consistent with variability observed in ratings for item 2. Others highlighted the collaborative nature of the activity, stating, “It was fun to solve the puzzles with my friend,” which may explain how peer interaction helped mitigate usability challenges for less confident users. 5. Discussion This study investigated the effectiveness of a VR-based learning system, “Light & Shadow Explorer,” in enhancing elementary students’ conceptual understanding of light and shadow phenomena and their learning motivation. The findings provide compelling evidence for the potential of well-designed immersive VR environments in elementary science education. Beyond the quantitative improvements, this discussion will further explore the humanistic and social implications of these findings, reflecting on how such technological interventions interact with the learner’s world and the broader educational ecosystem. Enhancement of Learning Motivation The results demonstrated a significant improvement in all four measured dimensions of learning motivation—Perceived Competence, Autonomy/Choice, Relatedness, and Interest/Enjoyment (RQ1, H1). Among these, the increase in Interest/Enjoyment (Cohen's d = 0.67) was the most modest, yet still educationally meaningful. This finding aligns with prior research emphasizing VR’s capacity to enhance learner engagement, particularly among elementary students who benefit from playful, interactive formats (Radianti et al., 2020 ; Zhang et al., 2025 ). The system’s game-like structure and visually dynamic simulations likely contributed to this heightened enjoyment. As one student commented, “It was like playing a game, but I was learning science!”—highlighting how the VR environment transformed abstract science content into a personally engaging and emotionally resonant experience. The substantial gains in Perceived Competence (Cohen's d = 0.75) suggest that the VR activities, designed with achievable goals and immediate feedback, helped students feel capable of mastering challenging scientific content. This supports Self-Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000 ), which emphasizes that perceived competence is critical for fostering intrinsic motivation. In the VR environment, students could manipulate virtual light sources, observe real-time effects, and receive corrective cues without fear of failure—conditions known to enhance self-efficacy and promote deeper engagement. This freedom to experiment safely may have empowered students to view themselves as successful science learners, a foundational step toward long-term academic confidence. Improvements in Autonomy/Choice (Cohen's d = 0.73) indicate that the system’s design enabled students to make meaningful choices during learning. By allowing them to control pacing, interaction sequences, and problem-solving approaches, the VR system cultivated a sense of learner agency. This is especially relevant in the context of modern education, where personalized and student-driven learning is increasingly valued. The semi-structured and exploratory nature of the VR modules likely contributed to this outcome, reinforcing prior findings that interactive environments can enhance perceived autonomy when learners are given space to act intentionally within a scaffolded structure. The most pronounced gain was observed in Relatedness (Cohen's d = 0.77), underscoring the impact of the study’s collaborative design. While VR is often framed as an isolating or individual experience, this intervention purposefully embedded social elements by having students work in pairs, alternating between headset use and peer guidance. This approach effectively addressed a common limitation in VR learning environments, where social presence is often lacking (Checa & Bustillo, 2020 ). For elementary students—whose developmental needs include strong peer interaction—this design not only supported engagement but also fostered a sense of connection and belonging. As one student shared, “It was fun to solve the puzzles with my friend,” directly affirming the social dimension of the learning experience. Together, these findings support the claim that when grounded in motivational theory and paired with thoughtful instructional design, VR can enhance not only conceptual understanding but also multiple facets of intrinsic motivation. By supporting learners’ psychological needs for competence, autonomy, and relatedness, the VR system proved to be a well-rounded tool for both cognitive and affective development in elementary science education. These findings highlight the importance of considering psychosocial dimensions in VR educational design. The significant improvements in all four motivational dimensions—perceived competence, autonomy/choice, relatedness, and interest/enjoyment—demonstrate that well-designed VR environments can address multiple psychological needs simultaneously, supporting both cognitive and affective learning outcomes. Improvement in Conceptual Understanding The study revealed a statistically significant improvement in students’ conceptual understanding of light and shadow after participating in the VR-based intervention (p < .01, Cohen’s d = 0.42, 95% CI = [-2.68, -0.43]). While the effect size falls within the moderate range by conventional standards (Cohen, 1988), its educational significance is substantial when contextualized within elementary science education. Abstract concepts such as light propagation, refraction, and shadow formation often pose developmental challenges for young learners. A mean score increase of 1.56 points—from 7.93 to 9.49—represents a meaningful conceptual shift, reflecting growth in students’ ability to mentally visualize and apply foundational physical science principles. This outcome contributes to the growing body of research affirming the value of immersive technologies in supporting scientific understanding (Merchant et al., 2014 ; Conrad et al., 2024 ). The “Light & Shadow Explorer” VR system enabled learners to conduct experiments that would be difficult or impossible to perform in a traditional classroom—such as mixing additive light colors, manipulating laser paths, or altering object transparency to observe shadow dynamics. By offering immediate, visual, and kinesthetic feedback in a 3D spatial context, the VR environment created the conditions for deep learning through concrete experience and active experimentation—two key stages of Kolb’s Experiential Learning Theory (1984). Student feedback further reinforced this interpretation. One participant remarked, “Seeing the light bend and shadows change made it easy to understand,” illustrating how the system transformed abstract, textbook-based knowledge into directly observable phenomena. This shift from passive information reception to active exploration likely enhanced students’ cognitive engagement and conceptual retention. As supported by prior research (Makransky & Mayer, 2022 ), the embodied and exploratory nature of immersive VR encourages learners to integrate visual, spatial, and causal reasoning—critical processes for building scientific understanding at the elementary level. In sum, the observed learning gains underscore the pedagogical potential of VR to support not only knowledge acquisition but also conceptual restructuring and intuitive comprehension—goals that are central to science education at early developmental stages. Positive User Experience Students reported an overall positive user experience with the VR system (RQ3, H3), indicating that it was easy to use, enjoyable, and supportive of their learning. The highest-rated items on the usability questionnaire reflected perceptions of overall convenience (Item 10, M = 4.29), clarity of interface (Item 3, M = 4.07), and system learnability (Item 4, M = 4.18), suggesting that the system's design was both accessible and intuitive for young learners. These findings suggest strong potential for the broader adoption of VR in elementary education contexts, provided that usability remains a design priority. Informal classroom observations and student comments further reinforced these impressions. Students often described the VR activities as fun, engaging, and easier to understand compared to traditional instruction. For example, one student shared, “It was like playing a game, but I was learning science!” Such feedback points to the motivational power of immersive learning, especially when abstract concepts are made concrete through interactive simulation. Although some students initially reported discomfort with the headset—such as one noting, “The headset was a bit heavy at first, but I got used to it”—this did not appear to detract significantly from the overall experience. These findings are consistent with prior studies highlighting the importance of gradual acclimatization when introducing immersive technologies to children. As such, onboarding procedures and physical ergonomics should be considered part of the instructional design process. The variation in ratings across different items also highlights the multidimensional nature of educational technology experiences. While technical ease of use received consistently high ratings, Item 2 (task ease) and Item 8 (independent use without help) showed relatively lower scores, indicating room for improvement in physical comfort and user autonomy. These dimensions, along with the moderate score for interface clarity (Item 7), underscore the need to address embodied and social aspects of VR design in addition to cognitive affordances. Ultimately, inclusive and developmentally appropriate VR learning environments must balance functionality with comfort, independence, and opportunities for meaningful interaction. Implications for Instructional Design, Educational Practice, and Social Impact The findings of this study carry important implications for the design and implementation of VR learning environments in elementary science education. First, anchoring VR systems in well-established learning theories—particularly Kolb’s Experiential Learning Theory and Self-Determination Theory (SDT)—proved effective in fostering both conceptual understanding and intrinsic motivation. The cyclical process of experience, reflection, conceptualization, and experimentation (Kolb, 1984 ), combined with the fulfillment of autonomy, competence, and relatedness needs (Deci & Ryan, 2000 ), likely underpinned the observed learning gains. These results reinforce the view that educational technologies must be grounded in pedagogically and psychologically informed frameworks to support meaningful learning. Second, the study highlights that effective VR integration depends not merely on immersive capabilities, but on intentional instructional design. The success of the “Light & Shadow Explorer” stems from its synthesis of interactive simulations, structured guidance, and opportunities for collaborative problem-solving. Instructional designers should therefore prioritize VR experiences that are aligned with clear learning objectives and embedded within scaffolded, socially mediated activities. Rather than functioning as isolated innovations, VR systems should serve as components of coherent and theory-driven pedagogical models. Third, this research expands the applicability of VR to younger learners, a demographic often underrepresented in immersive learning studies. When developmentally appropriate and cognitively scaffolded, VR can effectively engage elementary students with abstract topics, such as light behavior and color mixing. These findings suggest broader potential for applying VR across diverse subjects in early education, supporting the development of foundational scientific thinking and learner agency. Finally, the broader implications of this study must be viewed through the lens of educational equity. As VR technologies gain traction in school systems, targeted strategies are needed to prevent the exacerbation of existing disparities. Policy-level initiatives—such as shared resource programs, school-community partnerships, and public-private collaborations—are essential to ensuring inclusive access. Moreover, the social and cultural dimensions of technology adoption highlighted in this study call for context-aware implementation strategies. Sustainable VR integration must account for the dynamic interplay between technological infrastructure, community values, learner identities, and institutional readiness. Limitations and Future Research Despite the encouraging results, this study has several limitations. The quasi-experimental pre-test/post-test design without a control group receiving an alternative intervention (e.g., traditional lecture-based instruction or a non-immersive digital simulation) limits the ability to causally attribute learning gains solely to the VR intervention. Future research should adopt more rigorous designs, such as randomized controlled trials with active control groups, to better isolate the specific contributions of VR. In addition, mixed-methods approaches could provide deeper insight into how learners experience and internalize concepts within immersive environments. The small sample size, limited to a single elementary school in Taiwan, constrains the generalizability of the findings. Cross-cultural studies involving more diverse student populations across socioeconomic and technological contexts are needed to examine how cultural norms, prior exposure to digital tools, and institutional readiness affect the implementation and outcomes of VR-based learning. Such comparative research is critical for developing culturally responsive and globally scalable immersive learning solutions. The intervention spanned only three weeks, capturing short-term effects but not long-term learning retention or sustained motivational changes. Future longitudinal studies should track students over extended periods to evaluate whether conceptual understanding persists, how the initial novelty effect—the short-term boost in engagement due to new technology—wanes or stabilizes, and whether intrinsic motivation toward science endures beyond the intervention window. While the overall usability ratings were high, some students reported physical discomfort with the VR headset. This highlights the importance of ergonomic considerations and gradual acclimatization when introducing immersive devices to younger learners. Future research should explore the development of lightweight, child-friendly VR hardware and examine how physical design interacts with cognitive and emotional engagement. Similarly, the design of collaborative VR experiences should be refined to support authentic peer interaction, social presence, and equitable participation. Beyond hardware and instructional concerns, future studies should explore adaptive VR systems that respond to individual learners’ skill levels and needs. Additionally, integrating VR with other emerging technologies—such as augmented reality (AR), artificial intelligence (AI), or haptic interfaces—may offer more holistic and personalized learning experiences. Interdisciplinary collaboration between educators, technologists, psychologists, and sociologists is essential to investigate how immersive environments affect learners’ identity formation, social dynamics, and cultural understanding. As VR and related technologies increasingly mediate how children relate to knowledge, to each other, and to the world, researchers must maintain a critical stance. It is not enough to assess technical efficacy or learning outcomes alone; we must also interrogate the ethical implications, power structures, and social consequences of immersive learning. Future work should contribute to the development of inclusive, equitable, and ethically grounded frameworks that ensure the holistic well-being of all learners in technologically enhanced educational ecosystems. 6. Conclusion This study demonstrated that the VR-based learning system “Light & Shadow Explorer” significantly improved elementary students’ conceptual understanding of light and shadow phenomena and enhanced their learning motivation across four key dimensions: perceived competence, autonomy/choice, relatedness, and interest/enjoyment. These outcomes underscore the educational viability of immersive VR environments, particularly when grounded in pedagogical frameworks such as Kolb’s Experiential Learning Theory and Self-Determination Theory. The integration of experiential simulations, learner autonomy, and peer collaboration within a VR context resulted in learning experiences that were not only cognitively effective but also emotionally engaging. Students reported highly positive user experiences, highlighting the system’s ease of use, clarity of interaction, and support for science learning. This reinforces the view that technological innovation alone is insufficient—what matters is how technology is purposefully designed to align with developmental needs, cognitive processes, and motivational dynamics in young learners. The system’s ability to translate abstract scientific principles into interactive, observable experiences represents a significant advancement in how complex content can be taught in elementary education. While the quasi-experimental design and single-site sample limit generalizability, the study provides actionable insights for educators, instructional designers, and policymakers aiming to implement VR effectively in classroom contexts. Future research should explore the long-term retention of learning outcomes, test the scalability of similar systems across diverse populations, and refine design features to enhance usability, equity, and social interaction in immersive environments. As immersive technologies continue to evolve, this study contributes to a growing consensus: when intentionally designed and thoughtfully applied, VR can serve as a transformative tool for science education at the elementary level. This study contributes to understanding the psychosocial dimensions of VR learning environments, demonstrating that immersive technologies can effectively support elementary students' psychological needs while enhancing conceptual understanding. The integration of psychosocial considerations into VR educational design represents a promising direction for creating more holistic and effective learning experiences. Declarations Ethical Approval This study was reviewed and approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee of National Cheng Kung University, Taiwan (Approval Number: NCKU HREC-E-112-707-2, Approval Period: August 1, 2024 to July 31, 2027). Ethical approval was obtained on August 1, 2024, prior to the commencement of the study. The first experimental session was conducted on November 26, 2024. All procedures involving human participants followed the ethical standards of the committee and the principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments. Informed Consent Written informed consent was obtained from all participants and/or their legal guardians on November 19, 2024, prior to participation. For child participants, written consent was obtained from their parents or legal guardians on the same day. Participants were fully informed of the purpose of the research and their right to withdraw at any time without any negative consequences. Funding This research was funded by the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) of Taiwan under Grant Number NSCT-113-2410-H-006-125-MY3. Author Contribution A.C.T. conceptualized the study, designed the research framework, and conducted the teaching and learning intervention. P.P. contributed to the Unity system development, facilitated the experiment, and analyzed the data. Y.M.H. provided theoretical direction, advised on experimental design, and revised the manuscript. All authors engaged in collaborative discussions during data analysis and approved the final version of the manuscript. References Álvarez, I. M., Manero, B., Romero-Hernández, A., et al. (2024). Virtual reality platform for teacher training on classroom climate management: Evaluating user acceptance. Virtual Reality, 28, 78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-024-00973-6 Bangor, A., Kortum, P. T., & Miller, J. T. (2008). An empirical evaluation of the system usability scale. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 66(11), 842-851. Brooke, J. (1996). SUS-A quick and dirty usability scale. In P. W. Jordan, B. Thomas, I. L. McClelland, & B. Weerdmeester (Eds.), Usability evaluation in industry (pp. 189-194). Taylor & Francis. Checa, D., & Bustillo, A. (2020). A review of immersive virtual reality serious games to enhance learning and training. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 79(9–10), 5501–5527. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-019-08348-9 Conrad, M., Kablitz, D., & Schumann, S. (2024). Learning effectiveness of immersive virtual reality in education and training: A systematic review of findings. Computers & Education: X Reality, 4, 100053. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cexr.2024.100053 Cummings, J. J., Cahill, T. J., Wertz, E., & Zhong, Q. (2023). Psychological predictors of consumer-level virtual reality technology adoption and usage. Virtual Reality, 27, 1357–1379. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-022-00736-1 Dabbagh, N., & Kitsantas, A. (2012). Personal Learning Environments, social media, and self-regulated learning: A natural formula for connecting formal and informal learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(1), 3–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.12.002 Deci, E. L., Eghrari, H., Patrick, B. C., & Leone, D. R. (1994). Facilitating internalization: The self-determination theory perspective. Journal of Personality, 62(1), 119-142. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The "what" and "why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01 Ding, J., & Gan, F. (2025). To choose or not to choose? A study on decision-making for virtual reality intervention in children with ADHD. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 12, Article 322. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-04651-z Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2015). Learning as a generative activity: Eight learning strategies that promote understanding. Cambridge University Press. García-Robles, P., Cortés-Pérez, I., Nieto-Escámez, F. A., García-López, H., Obrero-Gaitán, E., & Osuna-Pérez, M. C. (2024). Immersive virtual reality and augmented reality in anatomy education: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Anatomical Sciences Education. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.2397 Haladyna, T. M. (2004). Developing and validating multiple-choice test items. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice Hall. Lara-Alvarez, C. A., Parra-González, E. F., Ortiz-Esparza, M. A., & Cardona-Reyes, H. (2023). Effectiveness of virtual reality in elementary school: A meta-analysis of controlled studies. Contemporary Educational Technology, 15(4), ep459. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/13569 Li, L., Hu, Y., Yang, X., Wu, M., Tao, P., Chen, M., & Yang, C. (2024). Enhancing pre-service teachers' classroom management competency in a large class context: The role of fully immersive virtual reality. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 11, Article 1050. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03538-9 Makransky, G., & Mayer, R. E. (2022). Benefits of taking a virtual field trip in immersive virtual reality: Evidence for the immersion principle in multimedia learning. Educational Psychology Review, 34, 1771–1790. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-022-09674-6 Makransky, G., Terkildsen, T. S., & Mayer, R. E. (2019). Adding immersive virtual reality to a science lab simulation causes more presence but less learning. Learning and Instruction, 60, 225–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.12.007 Marelle, C., Donehower, C., Hansen, S., Roach, A., Boden, L., & Tanner, E. (2025). Using virtual reality to train teacher candidates in classroom management. The Journal of Special Education Apprenticeship, 14(1). https://doi.org/10.58729/2167-3454.1215 McAuley, E., Duncan, T., & Tammen, V. V. (1989). Psychometric properties of the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory in a competitive sport setting: A confirmatory factor analysis. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 60(1), 48-58. Merchant, Z., Goetz, E. T., Cifuentes, L., Keeney-Kennicutt, W., & Davis, T. J. (2014). Effectiveness of virtual reality-based instruction on students' learning outcomes in K-12 and higher education: A meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 70, 29–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.07.017 Monteiro, D., Ma, T., Li, Y., et al. (2024). Cross-cultural factors influencing the adoption of virtual reality for practical learning. Universal Access in the Information Society, 23, 1203–1216. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-022-00947-y Radianti, J., Majchrzak, T. A., Fromm, J., & Wohlgenannt, I. (2020). A systematic review of immersive virtual reality applications for higher education: Design elements, lessons learned, and research agenda. Computers & Education, 147, 103778. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103778 Ryan, R. M. (1982). Control and information in the intrapersonal sphere: An extension of cognitive evaluation theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(3), 450-461. Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153–189. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654307313795 Stavroulia, K. E., Baka, E., & Lanitis, A. (2025). VR-based teacher training environments: A systematic approach for defining the optimum appearance of virtual classroom environments. Virtual Worlds, 4(1), 6. https://doi.org/10.3390/virtualworlds4010006 Villena-Taranilla, R., Tirado-Olivares, S., Cózar-Gutiérrez, R., & González-Calero, J. A. (2022). Effects of virtual reality on learning outcomes in K-6 education: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 35, 100434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2022.100434 Xu, D., Liu, Y., Zeng, Y., & Liu, D. (2025). Virtual reality in adolescent mental health management under the new media communication environment. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 12, Article 201. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-04528-1 Zhang, Y., Mang, H. A., Hajama, S., & Chu, H.-E. (2025). Influences of fully immersive virtual reality on students’ motivation in learning science: A systematic review. Asia-Pacific Science Education, 11, 1–43. https://doi.org/10.1163/23641177-bja10090 Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files Appendix.pdf Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 23 Feb, 2026 Reviews received at journal 21 Sep, 2025 Reviews received at journal 14 Sep, 2025 Reviews received at journal 12 Sep, 2025 Reviews received at journal 04 Sep, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 03 Sep, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 03 Sep, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 02 Sep, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 01 Sep, 2025 Reviews received at journal 31 Aug, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 28 Aug, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 28 Aug, 2025 Reviewers invited by journal 28 Aug, 2025 Editor assigned by journal 28 Aug, 2025 Editor invited by journal 13 Aug, 2025 Submission checks completed at journal 05 Aug, 2025 First submitted to journal 05 Aug, 2025 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-6886727","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":509869651,"identity":"46766dbb-1d0f-40bd-8e8c-e589d3636192","order_by":0,"name":"An-Chao Tsai","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"National Pingtung University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"An-Chao","middleName":"","lastName":"Tsai","suffix":""},{"id":509869653,"identity":"2eaaf4cb-9256-40b0-84cc-cfb2e9b33906","order_by":1,"name":"Potchara Phak-insee","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"National Pingtung University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Potchara","middleName":"","lastName":"Phak-insee","suffix":""},{"id":509869654,"identity":"87cdfe13-36fc-44e1-8265-072c1f5926a3","order_by":2,"name":"Yueh-Min Huang","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"National Cheng Kung University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Yueh-Min","middleName":"","lastName":"Huang","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-06-13 09:23:10","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6886727/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6886727/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":90800921,"identity":"5246f3de-8de4-42e2-8a3f-622a18e1679a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-08 10:12:28","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":102557,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSample Scenes from the Unity-Based VR Learning System on the Meta Quest 3.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6886727/v1/3b36b153dcf8884bee448d08.png"},{"id":90801832,"identity":"bfcd1db6-2b54-46b6-bf9b-0407c4c1c467","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-08 10:20:28","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":41090,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSystem architecture of the “Light \u0026amp; Shadow Explorer” VR Learning System, informed by Experiential Learning Theory and Self-Determination Theory.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6886727/v1/3e9a2dda6e57904471b66786.png"},{"id":90800922,"identity":"9173b19d-3253-4376-90b8-ad465a02cd1e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-08 10:12:28","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":25670,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eFigure 2. Mean scores on the conceptual understanding test before and after the VR-based learning activity. Error bars represent standard errors.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2a.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6886727/v1/78cd6e294ff7c134bfce728c.png"},{"id":90803653,"identity":"427ab506-720a-4aed-9410-04ea089ac5d1","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-08 10:36:29","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1058593,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6886727/v1/1ef8c080-efd3-45df-aa1d-b181867b3925.pdf"},{"id":90800927,"identity":"402ecf41-d016-4086-8338-d552ecd2b168","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-08 10:12:28","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":99862,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Appendix.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6886727/v1/24a96f51a770a68032d0a3d7.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"The Psychosocial Dimensions of Immersive Learning: A Study of VR-Enabled Science Education for Children Through the Lens of Self-Determination Theory ","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eVirtual Reality (VR) technologies have transformed the landscape of education, offering immersive, interactive, and multimodal learning environments that are especially beneficial for visualizing abstract scientific phenomena. In science education, concepts such as light and shadow often challenge elementary students due to their intangible nature, but VR affords concrete, experiential opportunities to engage with these topics in meaningful ways (Makransky \u0026amp; Mayer, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Radianti et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Yet, the adoption of VR is not solely a technological decision\u0026mdash;it is also embedded within complex psychological, social, and cultural processes. For example, recent research in the domain of child mental health and digital health interventions revealed that parents' decisions to adopt VR therapy for children with ADHD are heavily influenced by perceived risks, trust in the technology, and community discourse, rather than objective efficacy alone (Ding \u0026amp; Gan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). This highlights the need to consider not only cognitive or performance-based outcomes of VR-based systems but also the broader psychosocial and motivational contexts in which such technologies are deployed.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMoreover, VR has shown potential beyond instructional delivery\u0026mdash;it can promote emotional regulation, cognitive flexibility, and social interaction skills among adolescents, especially when thoughtfully integrated into mental health interventions (Xu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). These findings challenge traditional views of VR as merely a knowledge-transfer tool and reposition it as a relational and developmental medium that can support learners' socio-emotional growth, particularly within a new media environment.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFrom a pedagogical perspective, studies in teacher education further support the unique advantages of immersive VR. In a quasi-experimental design, pre-service teachers who trained with immersive classroom simulations retained classroom management strategies more effectively over time and reported more positive attitudes toward their practice (Li et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). These results not only affirm VR\u0026rsquo;s utility in skill development but also demonstrate how immersive experiences can foster durable behavioral change and motivation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eDespite growing evidence of VR\u0026rsquo;s pedagogical and developmental value, its successful application with younger learners\u0026mdash;particularly in structured educational settings\u0026mdash; remains underexamined. Elementary students may lack the metacognitive strategies needed to navigate immersive environments independently, making them vulnerable to cognitive overload and disengagement (Makransky et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Accordingly, research must focus on how to embed targeted learning interventions that support not only knowledge acquisition but also satisfaction of psychological needs.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis study draws upon two theoretical frameworks to design and evaluate a VR-based learning system focused on the topic of light and shadow: Kolb\u0026rsquo;s Experiential Learning Theory (1984), which emphasizes concrete experience and reflective abstraction; and Self-Determination Theory (SDT; Deci \u0026amp; Ryan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e), which posits that fulfilling learners\u0026rsquo; needs for perceived competence, autonomy/choice, and relatedness enhances intrinsic motivation. While VR environments can effectively support perceived competence, autonomy/choice, fulfilling relatedness remains a challenge, particularly in isolated, individual VR use contexts (Checa \u0026amp; Bustillo, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). To address this, we embed learning interventions that simulate social presence and encourage peer interaction, thereby supporting psychological well-being and engagement.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe thus frame this research not only as a study in instructional effectiveness, but as a broader inquiry into how digital environments can support human-centered learning. Specifically, we ask:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cul\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eRQ1: How does the VR system affect students\u0026rsquo; intrinsic motivation in terms of perceived competence, autonomy/choice, and relatedness?\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eRQ2: To what extent does the system improve conceptual understanding of light and shadow?\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eRQ3: How do students perceive their learning experiences in terms of usability, support, and social connectedness?\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ul\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBy addressing these questions, we aim to contribute to the growing interdisciplinary discourse on the developmental, motivational, and social implications of immersive educational technologies. This research sits at the intersection of educational psychology, human-computer interaction, and childhood development, offering insights not only for instructional design but also for understanding how technological environments shape young learners' relationship with knowledge, peers, and their own learning identities. In an era of rapid technological change, such cross-disciplinary understanding is essential for creating educational innovations that are both effective and ethically sound.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. Related Works","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eVirtual reality as a pedagogical tool in science education\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eVirtual reality (VR) has emerged as a transformative tool in science education, offering immersive experiences that facilitate the understanding of complex and abstract concepts. In disciplines such as physics and biology, VR enables students to visualize phenomena like light behavior, molecular structures, and ecological systems in an interactive manner. Merchant et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e) conducted a meta-analysis revealing that VR-based instruction significantly enhances students\u0026rsquo; conceptual understanding across STEM fields. Radianti et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) further identified VR\u0026rsquo;s efficacy in improving knowledge retention and learner motivation, particularly when integrated with inquiry-based approaches.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eRecent research continues to support these findings. A 2024 meta-analysis by Garc\u0026iacute;a-Robles et al. demonstrated that immersive VR and augmented reality (AR) significantly improved undergraduate students\u0026rsquo; knowledge in anatomy education when compared to traditional tools like textbooks (SMD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.32) and lectures (SMD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.00). The study, encompassing 27 experimental trials and over 2,000 participants, also showed that 80% of students perceived XR technologies as useful for learning, underscoring the motivational and cognitive benefits of immersive systems (Garc\u0026iacute;a-Robles et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). These results emphasize the broad applicability of VR as a pedagogical tool in science education, especially in domains involving abstract spatial reasoning and high cognitive demand.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eHowever, the benefits of VR are contingent upon thoughtful instructional design. Makransky and Mayer (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) demonstrated that while immersive VR can increase cognitive engagement, it may also lead to cognitive overload if not properly scaffolded. Their earlier work (Makransky, Terkildsen, \u0026amp; Mayer, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e) emphasized that presence alone does not guarantee learning gains; effective VR learning environments must align with established educational theories. Kolb\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1984\u003c/span\u003e) experiential learning theory advocates for a cycle of concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualization, and active experimentation. Similarly, Fiorella and Mayer (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e) highlight the importance of generative learning strategies, such as self-explanation and elaboration, in promoting deep understanding. Therefore, the educational value of VR lies not merely in its technological capabilities but in its integration with pedagogical principles that support meaningful learning experiences.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eMotivation and engagement in VR: Insights from Self-Determination Theory\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eUnderstanding how learners engage with immersive technologies requires attention not only to cognitive factors but also to motivational psychology. Self-Determination Theory (SDT), formulated by Deci and Ryan (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e), provides a robust framework for examining how digital environments influence intrinsic motivation. According to SDT, three basic psychological needs\u0026mdash;competence, autonomy, and relatedness\u0026mdash;must be satisfied for individuals to experience deep engagement and sustained motivation. Virtual reality (VR), by its interactive and responsive design, naturally supports autonomy through learner control and self-paced exploration. It can also foster competence by offering immediate feedback and challenging tasks that align with a learner\u0026rsquo;s skill level.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eHowever, the third SDT component\u0026mdash;relatedness\u0026mdash;poses challenges in solitary VR settings, where social connection may be limited. Checa and Bustillo (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) highlighted that while VR excels in supporting autonomy and competence, relatedness is often underrepresented, especially in non-collaborative environments. This is of particular concern in educational settings, where social interaction and peer feedback play vital roles in motivation and learning. To address this gap, recent work by Shute (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e) and Dabbagh and Kitsantas (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e) has emphasized the importance of designing VR experiences that integrate formative feedback, goal-setting, and opportunities for simulated or mediated social interaction.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn the context of younger learners, these motivational design principles become even more critical. Elementary students are still developing self-regulation and require more structured support to stay engaged and emotionally connected. Studies in teacher education (Li et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e) show that immersive systems that incorporate feedback and realistic scenarios not only improve skill acquisition but also enhance affective engagement. Translating these insights into VR for science learning among children means designing environments that do more than teach content\u0026mdash;they must also nurture the learner\u0026rsquo;s sense of agency, growth, and social belonging. Thus, applying SDT to VR-based learning is not simply a theoretical exercise but a practical imperative for meaningful, child-centered instructional design. These motivational and cognitive considerations must also account for broader sociocultural influences, which further shape the success of VR in educational settings.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003ePsychosocial and cultural dimensions of VR adoption\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhile cognitive and motivational outcomes are central to educational technology research, the broader psychosocial and cultural dimensions of VR use are equally critical, particularly when applied to younger learners. Virtual reality is not a neutral instructional tool\u0026mdash;it shapes, and is shaped by, the social relationships and cultural contexts in which it is embedded. Recent work has highlighted VR\u0026rsquo;s capacity to support not only academic learning but also psychological development and emotional well- being. Xu et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e), in a randomized controlled study, demonstrated that VR-based interventions significantly improved adolescents\u0026rsquo; cognitive flexibility, emotional regulation, and social skills, suggesting that immersive media can function as a form of developmental support.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAt the same time, technology adoption is deeply influenced by individual psychological traits and social identity. Cummings et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) found that immersive tendencies, belief in science, and perceived social well-being were among the strongest predictors of early VR adoption and consistent usage, highlighting that personality traits and users\u0026rsquo; self- perceptions play a greater role than demographics in shaping engagement with VR. This underscores the need to consider psychological diversity when designing and implementing VR in educational contexts.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eCultural factors also mediate adoption. Monteiro et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e), through a cross-cultural study grounded in the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology, revealed significant regional differences in how learners perceive VR\u0026rsquo;s utility for hands-on learning. Learners in different parts of the world evaluated VR through distinct cultural lenses, shaped by local expectations of education, institutional infrastructure, and digital trust. These findings complement Ding and Gan\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e) study, which showed that parents\u0026rsquo; decisions regarding VR-based therapy for children with ADHD were driven more by perceived risks and social narratives than by objective evidence. Together, these studies demonstrate that effective VR implementation in schools requires more than usability and pedagogy\u0026mdash;it must be grounded in psychological accessibility and cultural coherence. Especially for younger students, whose learning is mediated by families, institutions, and community discourse, success depends on designing VR systems that resonate with the social and cultural realities of their users.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eApplication to teacher training and elementary education: Bridging gaps\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe integration of virtual reality (VR) into teacher training and elementary education presents both opportunities and challenges. VR offers immersive environments that can enhance pedagogical skills and student engagement. For instance, the Didascalia Virtual-ClassRoom provides pre-service teachers with simulated classroom scenarios to practice managing disruptive behaviors, thereby improving classroom management competencies (\u0026Aacute;lvarez et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Li et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e) investigated the efficacy of the ClassMaster IVR system using a quasi-experimental design involving 57 pre-service teachers. While both IVR and video-based training improved immediate classroom management competencies, only the IVR group showed significantly better performance on delayed assessments, indicating superior long-term retention. Participants also reported more positive attitudes toward classroom management after using the system. A co-designed VR-based teacher training environment also emphasizes the importance of involving teachers in the design process to ensure the virtual classroom meets their needs (Stavroulia et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn elementary education, VR has been shown to boost student engagement and knowledge retention. A meta-analysis by Lara-Alvarez et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) indicates that students learning in VR environments achieve higher academic performance compared to traditional classrooms. Likewise, Villena-Taranilla et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) found that immersive VR systems (effect size\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.11) had a significantly greater impact on learning outcomes than semi- or non-immersive systems. Marelle et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e) further demonstrated that simulated rehearsal and feedback in VR environments, such as TeachLive\u0026trade;, significantly improved pre-service teachers\u0026rsquo; use of evidence-based behavior management strategies, particularly when working with students with autism spectrum disorders.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eHowever, successful adoption of VR in education requires addressing several challenges. Teacher readiness is paramount; educators must possess technological competence and confidence to effectively integrate VR into their teaching practices. Furthermore, the cultural context plays a significant role in VR adoption. Monteiro et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e) highlight that perceptions of VR's usefulness and ease of use vary across regions, influenced by local educational values and digital trust. Therefore, implementing VR in education necessitates a culturally responsive approach that aligns with the values and expectations of the communities it serves.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTaken together, the reviewed literature highlights the cognitive, motivational, psychosocial, and contextual affordances of VR in education, but also reveals gaps in how these factors are systematically integrated in systems designed for young learners. This study addresses this need by developing and evaluating a VR-based instructional model tailored for elementary science education. Grounded in the principles of self-determination theory, experiential learning, and cultural sensitivity, our approach aims to bridge the divide between educational theory and practical implementation in VR-enhanced classroom environments.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"3. Methods","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eResearch Design\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis study employed a quasi-experimental pre-test/post-test design to evaluate the effectiveness of a VR-based learning system for teaching light and shadow concepts to elementary students. The research was conducted over a three-week period in a public elementary school in Taiwan. The study addressed three research questions:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cul\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eRQ1: How does the VR system affect students\u0026rsquo; intrinsic motivation in terms of perceived competence, autonomy/choice, and relatedness?\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eRQ2: To what extent does the system improve conceptual understanding of light and shadow?\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eRQ3: How do students perceive their learning experiences in terms of usability, support, and social connectedness?\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ul\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBased on these research questions, we formulated the following hypotheses:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cul\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eH1: The VR learning system will significantly enhance students\u0026rsquo; intrinsic motivation across dimensions of perceived competence, autonomy/choice, and relatedness.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eH2: The VR learning system will significantly improve students\u0026rsquo; conceptual understanding of light and shadow phenomena.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eH3: Students will report positive user experiences with the VR learning system in terms of usability, engagement, and perceived learning support.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ul\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eParticipants\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eA total of 45 fourth-grade students (aged 9\u0026ndash;10 years) from two intact classes at a public elementary school in Taiwan participated in the study. The sample included 23 boys and 22 girls. Parental informed consent and student assent were obtained for all participants. This study was conducted with the approval of the National Cheng Kung University Human Research Ethics Committee (NCKU HREC-E-112-707-2). All data were collected anonymously and handled in compliance with data protection regulations.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eInstruments and Materials\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eVR Learning System\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe \"Light \u0026amp; Shadow Explorer\" VR learning system was developed using Unity and deployed on Meta Quest 3 headsets. The system was designed based on Kolb's Experiential Learning Theory and Self-Determination Theory, with a focus on providing concrete experiences, active experimentation, and support for psychological needs (autonomy, competence, and relatedness). The VR environment included six interactive modules covering key concepts related to light and shadow, three of which are shown in Fig.\u0026nbsp;1:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003col\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eLight Sources: Students explored different types of light sources (natural, artificial, point, and diffuse) and observed their characteristics.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eLight Propagation: Students experimented with light rays traveling in straight lines and observed phenomena like reflection and refraction.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eShadow Formation: Students manipulated objects, light sources, and screens to observe how shadows form and change.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eLight and Color: Students explored color mixing, filters, and the relationship between light and color perception.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eTransparent, Translucent, and Opaque Materials: Students investigated how different materials interact with light.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eApplications: Students applied their understanding to solve real-world problems and create light-based art.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eEach module included guided exploration, structured tasks, and open-ended challenges. The system provided immediate feedback and adaptive scaffolding based on student performance. To support relatedness, students worked in pairs, taking turns with the VR headset while their partner observed on a connected tablet and provided suggestions. he overall system architecture, which integrates theoretical foundations and design features leading to observable learning outcomes, is illustrated in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eMeasurement Instruments\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThree instruments were used to collect data:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003col\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eConceptual Understanding Test: A 15-item test assessing students' understanding of light and shadow concepts was administered before and after the intervention. The test was specifically developed for this study based on Taiwan's elementary science curriculum standards for fourth-grade students, focusing on fundamental optics concepts including light propagation, shadow formation, reflection, refraction, and color theory. The test development process followed established guidelines for educational assessment construction (Haladyna, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e). Item development began with a detailed analysis of learning objectives derived from the national curriculum standards and the specific content covered in the VR modules. The test included 15 multiple-choice questions, with 11 standard multiple-choice items and 4 true/false items to assess different cognitive levels according to Bloom's taxonomy, ranging from knowledge recall to application and analysis. Content validity was established through expert review by three science education specialists and two elementary school teachers with expertise in science instruction. Items were evaluated for alignment with learning objectives, age-appropriateness, and clarity of language.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eLearning Motivation Questionnaire: An adapted version of the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (IMI; Ryan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1982\u003c/span\u003e) was used to measure students' motivation before and after the intervention. The IMI is a multidimensional measurement device based on Self-Determination Theory, designed to assess participants' subjective experience related to target activities in laboratory experiments (Ryan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1982\u003c/span\u003e; McAuley, Duncan, \u0026amp; Tammen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1989\u003c/span\u003e). The original IMI has been extensively validated across various contexts and populations, demonstrating strong psychometric properties (Deci, Eghrari, Patrick, \u0026amp; Leone, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1994\u003c/span\u003e). For this study, we selected four subscales most relevant to educational contexts: perceived competence (5 items), autonomy/choice (5 items), relatedness (5 items), and interest/enjoyment (5 items). The original IMI items were adapted to fit the VR learning context and elementary school students' cognitive level. Specifically, generic references to \"this activity\" were replaced with specific VR and light-shadow learning contexts (e.g., \"我能夠在 VR 活動中成功解決光與影的問題\" - \"I can successfully solve light and shadow problems in VR activities\"). To enhance comprehensibility for elementary students, all reverse-coded items were converted to positive statements, and complex vocabulary was simplified while maintaining the original constructs' theoretical integrity. Items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;strongly disagree, 5\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;strongly agree).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eVR System Usability Questionnaire: An adapted version of the System Usability Scale (SUS; Brooke, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996\u003c/span\u003e) was administered after the intervention to assess students' perceptions of the VR system's usability. The SUS is a widely-used, reliable, and valid measure of system usability in human-computer interaction research, consisting of 10 items that provide a global view of subjective assessments of usability (Brooke, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996\u003c/span\u003e; Bangor, Kortum, \u0026amp; Miller, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e). The original SUS employs an alternating polarity design with positive and negative statements to control for response bias. However, for this study with elementary school students, all items were adapted to positive statements to enhance comprehensibility and reduce cognitive load. Generic system references were replaced with specific VR contexts (e.g., \"VR操作起來很簡單\" - \"VR is simple to operate\"), and technical terminology was simplified to match elementary students' vocabulary level. The adapted questionnaire maintained the original SUS's focus on usability dimensions including learnability, efficiency, memorability, errors, and satisfaction. Items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;strongly disagree, 5\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;strongly agree).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe complete questionnaires used in this study are provided in the appendices. The learning motivation questionnaire (Appendix A) consisted of 20 items across four subscales. The VR system usability questionnaire (Appendix B) included 10 items adapted for elementary students. The conceptual understanding test (Appendix C) contained 15 items covering key light and shadow concepts.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eInstrument Adaptation Process\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe adaptation of established instruments (IMI and SUS) for elementary school students followed a systematic process to ensure content validity while maintaining construct integrity. First, a panel of three experts in educational psychology and elementary science education reviewed the original instruments and provided recommendations for age-appropriate modifications. Second, items were translated into Traditional Chinese and back-translated to ensure semantic equivalence. Third, cognitive interviews were conducted with five fourth-grade students to identify comprehension difficulties and refine item wording. The adaptation process prioritized several key considerations: (1) Vocabulary simplification - complex psychological terms were replaced with concrete, observable behaviors; (2) Context specification - abstract references were made specific to VR learning experiences; (3) Cognitive accessibility - sentence structures were simplified and reverse-coded items were eliminated to reduce cognitive burden; (4) Cultural appropriateness - items were reviewed for cultural relevance in the Taiwanese educational context. While these adaptations enhanced accessibility for the target population, we acknowledge that modifications to established instruments may affect their psychometric properties. However, the use of well-established scales (IMI and SUS) with extensive validation history provides confidence in the adapted instruments' measurement quality.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eProcedure\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe study was conducted over three weeks, with two 40-minute VR sessions per week. Before the intervention, students completed the conceptual understanding pre-test and the learning motivation questionnaire. They then received a brief orientation to the VR equipment and safety guidelines.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eDuring the intervention, students worked in pairs, rotating between the roles of VR user and observer/assistant. Each pair progressed through the six modules at their own pace, with guidance from the researcher and classroom teacher as needed. After completing each module, students participated in a brief whole-class discussion to share insights and consolidate learning.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAfter the three-week intervention, students completed the conceptual understanding post-test, the learning motivation questionnaire, and the VR system usability questionnaire.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eData Analysis\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003ePaired-samples t-tests were conducted on the pre-test and post-test scores from the conceptual understanding test and the learning motivation questionnaire subscales to evaluate the impact of the VR intervention (RQ1 and RQ2). Cohen\u0026rsquo;s d was calculated to determine the effect size of significant differences. Descriptive statistics (means, standard deviations) were used to summarize the data from the VR system usability questionnaire (RQ3). For the usability questionnaire, one-sample t-tests were performed to compare mean item scores against the theoretical neutral point (3.0) to determine the direction and significance of user attitudes.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"4. Results","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eLearning Motivation\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo assess the impact of the VR learning system on students\u0026rsquo; motivation (RQ1), paired-samples t-tests were conducted on the pre- and post-intervention scores for the four subscales of the learning motivation questionnaire: perceived competence, autonomy/choice, relatedness, and interest/enjoyment. The results, summarized in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, indicate statistically significant improvements across all four dimensions of motivation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eComparison of Pre-test and Post-test Learning Motivation Scores (N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;45)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"6\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMotivation Subscale\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePre-test M (SD)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePost-test M (SD)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003et(p)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003edf\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCohen\u0026rsquo;s d\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePerceived Competence\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.06 (0.59)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.52 (0.63)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-8.28 ***\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e44\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.75\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAutonomy/Choice\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.10 (0.55)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.52 (0.61)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-7.37 ***\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e44\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.73\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRelatedness\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.08 (0.63)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.53 (0.56)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-7.65 ***\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e44\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.77\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eInterest/Enjoyment\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.05 (0.61)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.48 (0.65)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-5.94 ***\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e44\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.67\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003ctfoot\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"6\"\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote: *** p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tfoot\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003ePerceived competence after the VR intervention (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.52, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.63) compared to before (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.06, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.59) showed a significant increase, t(44) = -8.28, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, with a \u003cb\u003elarge\u003c/b\u003e effect size (Cohen's d\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.75), highlighting how immersive technologies can transform students' self-perception as capable science learners, a critical factor in addressing science education equity. Similarly, relatedness scores showed a significant improvement, rising from M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.08 (SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.63) at pre-test to M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.53 (SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.56) at post-test, t(44) = -7.65, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, with a large effect size (Cohen's d\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.77), suggesting that well-designed collaborative VR experiences can foster meaningful social connections among young learners, countering concerns about technology's isolating effects in educational contexts. A significant increase was also observed in interest/enjoyment, with scores higher at post-test (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.48 (SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.65) than at pre-test (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.05 (SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.61), t(44) = -5.94, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, with a moderate to large effect size (Cohen's d\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.67), reflecting how embodied, experiential learning through VR can transform students' emotional relationship with science content, potentially addressing the documented decline in science interest during the elementary to middle school transition. These results support H1, indicating that the VR learning environment effectively enhanced students' intrinsic motivation in terms of perceived competence, relatedness, and interest/enjoyment.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe autonomy/choice dimension showed a statistically significant change from pre-test (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.10, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.55) to post-test (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.52, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.61), t(44) = -7.37, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, with a large effect size (Cohen's d\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.73). This suggests that the VR system effectively enhanced students' feelings of competence, relatedness, enjoyment, and their sense of autonomy and choice.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eConceptual Understanding of Light and Shadow\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo evaluate the effectiveness of the VR learning system in improving students' conceptual understanding of light and shadow (RQ2), we conducted a paired-sample t-test. As shown in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e and Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e, students' scores significantly increased from 7.93 (SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.16) in the pre-test to 9.49 (SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.76) in the post-test, t(44) = -2.79, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.008. The Cohen\u0026rsquo;s d\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.42 indicates a moderate effect size (Cohen, 1988), suggesting that the VR intervention facilitated not only statistically significant but also educationally meaningful learning gains.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFigure \u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e presents a visual comparison of students\u0026rsquo; conceptual understanding scores before and after the VR-based intervention. The bar chart displays mean scores for the pre-test and post-test, with standard errors shown as error bars to indicate the precision of the estimates. The figure illustrates a clear improvement in post-intervention performance, consistent with the statistical results.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFurther item-level analysis revealed the greatest improvement in questions related to shadow formation (38% gain) and light behavior through materials (42%), as well as notable improvement in transfer tasks (35% gain), highlighting the system\u0026rsquo;s impact on both conceptual acquisition and application.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eComparison of Pre-test and Post-test Conceptual Understanding Scores (N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;45)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"8\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c8\" colnum=\"8\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMeasure\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePre-test M (SD)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePost-test M (SD)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003et(p)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003edf\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMean Diff.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e95% CI\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCohen\u0026rsquo;s d\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eConceptual Understanding\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e7.93 (2.16)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e9.49 (2.76)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-2.79**\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e44\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-1.56\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e[-2.68, -0.43]\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.42\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003ctfoot\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"8\"\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote: ** p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.01\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tfoot\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eStudent Perceptions of VR System Usability\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo address RQ3 regarding students' perceptions of the VR learning system, we analyzed responses to the VR System Usability Questionnaire. After completing the VR learning intervention, students provided feedback on their experience through the VR System Usability Questionnaire. Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e presents the descriptive statistics for each item on this questionnaire. One-sample t-tests were conducted to determine whether mean scores for each usability item differed significantly from the theoretical midpoint of 3.0 (neutral response) on the 5-point Likert scale. Results indicated that all items received ratings significantly above the neutral point (all p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001), suggesting positive user experiences across all usability dimensions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eVR System Usability Questionnaire Results and One-Sample t-test Results Against Theoretical Midpoint (3.0).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"6\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eItem\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMean\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSD\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003et (p)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMean Diff.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e95% CI\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eitem1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4.07\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.50\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e14.44 ***\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.07\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e[0.92, 1.22]\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eitem2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.40\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.94\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.86 **\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.40\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e[0.12, 0.68]\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eitem3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4.07\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.54\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e13.27 ***\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.07\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e[0.90, 1.23]\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eitem4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4.18\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.39\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e20.43 ***\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.18\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e[1.06, 1.29]\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eitem5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4.09\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.42\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e17.52 ***\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.09\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e[0.96, 1.21]\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eitem6\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.38\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.81\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.15 **\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.38\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e[0.14, 0.62]\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eitem7\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.33\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.80\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.80 **\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.33\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e[0.09, 0.57]\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eitem8\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.38\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.68\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.71 ***\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.38\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e[0.17, 0.58]\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eitem9\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4.04\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.56\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e12.46 ***\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.04\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e[0.88, 1.21]\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eitem10\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4.29\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.46\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e18.86 ***\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.29\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e[1.15, 1.43]\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003ctfoot\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"6\"\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote: *** p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001; ** p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.01; Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.74 (10 items)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tfoot\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOverall, students reported varied perceptions of the VR system's usability, reflecting the complex nature of technology integration in educational contexts. The highest-rated aspect was students\u0026rsquo; perception that the VR system was easy to use overall (Item 10, M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.29, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.46). This was followed by their evaluation of the system's basic operational simplicity (Item 1, M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.07, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.50) and the clarity of its interface (Item 3, M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.07, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.54). In addition, Item 4 (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.18, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.39) received strong ratings, suggesting that students were able to quickly learn how to operate the system. These findings indicate that students generally found the VR system intuitive and accessible, particularly in terms of initial onboarding and interface design. Item 9 (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.04, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.56), which assessed the ability to navigate and interact within the VR environment, also showed favorable results, further supporting the system's perceived ease of use.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn contrast, relatively lower ratings were observed for several aspects that reflect deeper usability challenges. Item 8 (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.38, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.68) suggested that some students felt less confident using the system independently, without assistance. Item 7 (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.33, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.80), which assessed whether students found the operational steps clear, and Item 6 (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.38, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.81), which focused on ease of locating buttons or functions, both indicated potential areas for improving user guidance and in-system orientation. Notably, Item 2 (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.40, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.94), addressing whether students could complete tasks with ease, exhibited the highest standard deviation among all items, suggesting substantial individual variation in students\u0026rsquo; comfort and effectiveness while using the system.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThese findings reveal important socio-technical considerations in educational VR implementation. While students generally found the VR system usable and approachable, issues related to independent operation, clarity of multi-step interactions, and interface navigation suggest that immersive technology alone does not guarantee seamless engagement. Instead, thoughtful design that supports embodied interaction, scaffolds step-by-step procedures, and enhances user agency remains essential for optimizing the learning experience. These aspects should inform future iterations of the system to ensure broader accessibility and learner confidence.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eQualitative observations collected during class discussions and researcher notes further corroborated these findings. Many students expressed enjoyment and novelty in their VR experience. For example, one student remarked, \u0026ldquo;It was like playing a game, but I was learning science!\u0026rdquo;\u0026mdash;a sentiment that echoes the high ratings on items related to ease of use and system intuitiveness. Another commented, \u0026ldquo;Seeing the light bend and shadows change made it easy to understand,\u0026rdquo; suggesting that the system helped clarify abstract science concepts, though this was not directly measured in the usability questionnaire. Some students also mentioned discomfort with the headset initially, consistent with variability observed in ratings for item 2. Others highlighted the collaborative nature of the activity, stating, \u0026ldquo;It was fun to solve the puzzles with my friend,\u0026rdquo; which may explain how peer interaction helped mitigate usability challenges for less confident users.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"5. Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study investigated the effectiveness of a VR-based learning system, \u0026ldquo;Light \u0026amp; Shadow Explorer,\u0026rdquo; in enhancing elementary students\u0026rsquo; conceptual understanding of light and shadow phenomena and their learning motivation. The findings provide compelling evidence for the potential of well-designed immersive VR environments in elementary science education. Beyond the quantitative improvements, this discussion will further explore the humanistic and social implications of these findings, reflecting on how such technological interventions interact with the learner\u0026rsquo;s world and the broader educational ecosystem.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eEnhancement of Learning Motivation\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe results demonstrated a significant improvement in all four measured dimensions of learning motivation\u0026mdash;Perceived Competence, Autonomy/Choice, Relatedness, and Interest/Enjoyment (RQ1, H1). Among these, the increase in Interest/Enjoyment (Cohen's d\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.67) was the most modest, yet still educationally meaningful. This finding aligns with prior research emphasizing VR\u0026rsquo;s capacity to enhance learner engagement, particularly among elementary students who benefit from playful, interactive formats (Radianti et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Zhang et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). The system\u0026rsquo;s game-like structure and visually dynamic simulations likely contributed to this heightened enjoyment. As one student commented, \u0026ldquo;It was like playing a game, but I was learning science!\u0026rdquo;\u0026mdash;highlighting how the VR environment transformed abstract science content into a personally engaging and emotionally resonant experience.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe substantial gains in Perceived Competence (Cohen's d\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.75) suggest that the VR activities, designed with achievable goals and immediate feedback, helped students feel capable of mastering challenging scientific content. This supports Self-Determination Theory (Deci \u0026amp; Ryan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e), which emphasizes that perceived competence is critical for fostering intrinsic motivation. In the VR environment, students could manipulate virtual light sources, observe real-time effects, and receive corrective cues without fear of failure\u0026mdash;conditions known to enhance self-efficacy and promote deeper engagement. This freedom to experiment safely may have empowered students to view themselves as successful science learners, a foundational step toward long-term academic confidence.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eImprovements in Autonomy/Choice (Cohen's d\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.73) indicate that the system\u0026rsquo;s design enabled students to make meaningful choices during learning. By allowing them to control pacing, interaction sequences, and problem-solving approaches, the VR system cultivated a sense of learner agency. This is especially relevant in the context of modern education, where personalized and student-driven learning is increasingly valued. The semi-structured and exploratory nature of the VR modules likely contributed to this outcome, reinforcing prior findings that interactive environments can enhance perceived autonomy when learners are given space to act intentionally within a scaffolded structure.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe most pronounced gain was observed in Relatedness (Cohen's d\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.77), underscoring the impact of the study\u0026rsquo;s collaborative design. While VR is often framed as an isolating or individual experience, this intervention purposefully embedded social elements by having students work in pairs, alternating between headset use and peer guidance. This approach effectively addressed a common limitation in VR learning environments, where social presence is often lacking (Checa \u0026amp; Bustillo, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). For elementary students\u0026mdash;whose developmental needs include strong peer interaction\u0026mdash;this design not only supported engagement but also fostered a sense of connection and belonging. As one student shared, \u0026ldquo;It was fun to solve the puzzles with my friend,\u0026rdquo; directly affirming the social dimension of the learning experience.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTogether, these findings support the claim that when grounded in motivational theory and paired with thoughtful instructional design, VR can enhance not only conceptual understanding but also multiple facets of intrinsic motivation. By supporting learners\u0026rsquo; psychological needs for competence, autonomy, and relatedness, the VR system proved to be a well-rounded tool for both cognitive and affective development in elementary science education.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThese findings highlight the importance of considering psychosocial dimensions in VR educational design. The significant improvements in all four motivational dimensions\u0026mdash;perceived competence, autonomy/choice, relatedness, and interest/enjoyment\u0026mdash;demonstrate that well-designed VR environments can address multiple psychological needs simultaneously, supporting both cognitive and affective learning outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eImprovement in Conceptual Understanding\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe study revealed a statistically significant improvement in students\u0026rsquo; conceptual understanding of light and shadow after participating in the VR-based intervention (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.01, Cohen\u0026rsquo;s d\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.42, 95% CI = [-2.68, -0.43]). While the effect size falls within the moderate range by conventional standards (Cohen, 1988), its educational significance is substantial when contextualized within elementary science education. Abstract concepts such as light propagation, refraction, and shadow formation often pose developmental challenges for young learners. A mean score increase of 1.56 points\u0026mdash;from 7.93 to 9.49\u0026mdash;represents a meaningful conceptual shift, reflecting growth in students\u0026rsquo; ability to mentally visualize and apply foundational physical science principles.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis outcome contributes to the growing body of research affirming the value of immersive technologies in supporting scientific understanding (Merchant et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Conrad et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). The \u0026ldquo;Light \u0026amp; Shadow Explorer\u0026rdquo; VR system enabled learners to conduct experiments that would be difficult or impossible to perform in a traditional classroom\u0026mdash;such as mixing additive light colors, manipulating laser paths, or altering object transparency to observe shadow dynamics. By offering immediate, visual, and kinesthetic feedback in a 3D spatial context, the VR environment created the conditions for deep learning through concrete experience and active experimentation\u0026mdash;two key stages of Kolb\u0026rsquo;s Experiential Learning Theory (1984).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eStudent feedback further reinforced this interpretation. One participant remarked, \u0026ldquo;Seeing the light bend and shadows change made it easy to understand,\u0026rdquo; illustrating how the system transformed abstract, textbook-based knowledge into directly observable phenomena. This shift from passive information reception to active exploration likely enhanced students\u0026rsquo; cognitive engagement and conceptual retention. As supported by prior research (Makransky \u0026amp; Mayer, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), the embodied and exploratory nature of immersive VR encourages learners to integrate visual, spatial, and causal reasoning\u0026mdash;critical processes for building scientific understanding at the elementary level.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn sum, the observed learning gains underscore the pedagogical potential of VR to support not only knowledge acquisition but also conceptual restructuring and intuitive comprehension\u0026mdash;goals that are central to science education at early developmental stages.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003ePositive User Experience\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eStudents reported an overall positive user experience with the VR system (RQ3, H3), indicating that it was easy to use, enjoyable, and supportive of their learning. The highest-rated items on the usability questionnaire reflected perceptions of overall convenience (Item 10, M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.29), clarity of interface (Item 3, M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.07), and system learnability (Item 4, M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.18), suggesting that the system's design was both accessible and intuitive for young learners. These findings suggest strong potential for the broader adoption of VR in elementary education contexts, provided that usability remains a design priority.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eInformal classroom observations and student comments further reinforced these impressions. Students often described the VR activities as fun, engaging, and easier to understand compared to traditional instruction. For example, one student shared, \u0026ldquo;It was like playing a game, but I was learning science!\u0026rdquo; Such feedback points to the motivational power of immersive learning, especially when abstract concepts are made concrete through interactive simulation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAlthough some students initially reported discomfort with the headset\u0026mdash;such as one noting, \u0026ldquo;The headset was a bit heavy at first, but I got used to it\u0026rdquo;\u0026mdash;this did not appear to detract significantly from the overall experience. These findings are consistent with prior studies highlighting the importance of gradual acclimatization when introducing immersive technologies to children. As such, onboarding procedures and physical ergonomics should be considered part of the instructional design process.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe variation in ratings across different items also highlights the multidimensional nature of educational technology experiences. While technical ease of use received consistently high ratings, Item 2 (task ease) and Item 8 (independent use without help) showed relatively lower scores, indicating room for improvement in physical comfort and user autonomy. These dimensions, along with the moderate score for interface clarity (Item 7), underscore the need to address embodied and social aspects of VR design in addition to cognitive affordances. Ultimately, inclusive and developmentally appropriate VR learning environments must balance functionality with comfort, independence, and opportunities for meaningful interaction.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eImplications for Instructional Design, Educational Practice, and Social Impact\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe findings of this study carry important implications for the design and implementation of VR learning environments in elementary science education. First, anchoring VR systems in well-established learning theories\u0026mdash;particularly Kolb\u0026rsquo;s Experiential Learning Theory and Self-Determination Theory (SDT)\u0026mdash;proved effective in fostering both conceptual understanding and intrinsic motivation. The cyclical process of experience, reflection, conceptualization, and experimentation (Kolb, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1984\u003c/span\u003e), combined with the fulfillment of autonomy, competence, and relatedness needs (Deci \u0026amp; Ryan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e), likely underpinned the observed learning gains. These results reinforce the view that educational technologies must be grounded in pedagogically and psychologically informed frameworks to support meaningful learning.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSecond, the study highlights that effective VR integration depends not merely on immersive capabilities, but on intentional instructional design. The success of the \u0026ldquo;Light \u0026amp; Shadow Explorer\u0026rdquo; stems from its synthesis of interactive simulations, structured guidance, and opportunities for collaborative problem-solving. Instructional designers should therefore prioritize VR experiences that are aligned with clear learning objectives and embedded within scaffolded, socially mediated activities. Rather than functioning as isolated innovations, VR systems should serve as components of coherent and theory-driven pedagogical models.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThird, this research expands the applicability of VR to younger learners, a demographic often underrepresented in immersive learning studies. When developmentally appropriate and cognitively scaffolded, VR can effectively engage elementary students with abstract topics, such as light behavior and color mixing. These findings suggest broader potential for applying VR across diverse subjects in early education, supporting the development of foundational scientific thinking and learner agency.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFinally, the broader implications of this study must be viewed through the lens of educational equity. As VR technologies gain traction in school systems, targeted strategies are needed to prevent the exacerbation of existing disparities. Policy-level initiatives\u0026mdash;such as shared resource programs, school-community partnerships, and public-private collaborations\u0026mdash;are essential to ensuring inclusive access. Moreover, the social and cultural dimensions of technology adoption highlighted in this study call for context-aware implementation strategies. Sustainable VR integration must account for the dynamic interplay between technological infrastructure, community values, learner identities, and institutional readiness.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eLimitations and Future Research\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eDespite the encouraging results, this study has several limitations. The quasi-experimental pre-test/post-test design without a control group receiving an alternative intervention (e.g., traditional lecture-based instruction or a non-immersive digital simulation) limits the ability to causally attribute learning gains solely to the VR intervention. Future research should adopt more rigorous designs, such as randomized controlled trials with active control groups, to better isolate the specific contributions of VR. In addition, mixed-methods approaches could provide deeper insight into how learners experience and internalize concepts within immersive environments.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe small sample size, limited to a single elementary school in Taiwan, constrains the generalizability of the findings. Cross-cultural studies involving more diverse student populations across socioeconomic and technological contexts are needed to examine how cultural norms, prior exposure to digital tools, and institutional readiness affect the implementation and outcomes of VR-based learning. Such comparative research is critical for developing culturally responsive and globally scalable immersive learning solutions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe intervention spanned only three weeks, capturing short-term effects but not long-term learning retention or sustained motivational changes. Future longitudinal studies should track students over extended periods to evaluate whether conceptual understanding persists, how the initial novelty effect\u0026mdash;the short-term boost in engagement due to new technology\u0026mdash;wanes or stabilizes, and whether intrinsic motivation toward science endures beyond the intervention window.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhile the overall usability ratings were high, some students reported physical discomfort with the VR headset. This highlights the importance of ergonomic considerations and gradual acclimatization when introducing immersive devices to younger learners. Future research should explore the development of lightweight, child-friendly VR hardware and examine how physical design interacts with cognitive and emotional engagement. Similarly, the design of collaborative VR experiences should be refined to support authentic peer interaction, social presence, and equitable participation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBeyond hardware and instructional concerns, future studies should explore adaptive VR systems that respond to individual learners\u0026rsquo; skill levels and needs. Additionally, integrating VR with other emerging technologies\u0026mdash;such as augmented reality (AR), artificial intelligence (AI), or haptic interfaces\u0026mdash;may offer more holistic and personalized learning experiences. Interdisciplinary collaboration between educators, technologists, psychologists, and sociologists is essential to investigate how immersive environments affect learners\u0026rsquo; identity formation, social dynamics, and cultural understanding.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAs VR and related technologies increasingly mediate how children relate to knowledge, to each other, and to the world, researchers must maintain a critical stance. It is not enough to assess technical efficacy or learning outcomes alone; we must also interrogate the ethical implications, power structures, and social consequences of immersive learning. Future work should contribute to the development of inclusive, equitable, and ethically grounded frameworks that ensure the holistic well-being of all learners in technologically enhanced educational ecosystems.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"6. Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study demonstrated that the VR-based learning system \u0026ldquo;Light \u0026amp; Shadow Explorer\u0026rdquo; significantly improved elementary students\u0026rsquo; conceptual understanding of light and shadow phenomena and enhanced their learning motivation across four key dimensions: perceived competence, autonomy/choice, relatedness, and interest/enjoyment. These outcomes underscore the educational viability of immersive VR environments, particularly when grounded in pedagogical frameworks such as Kolb\u0026rsquo;s Experiential Learning Theory and Self-Determination Theory. The integration of experiential simulations, learner autonomy, and peer collaboration within a VR context resulted in learning experiences that were not only cognitively effective but also emotionally engaging.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eStudents reported highly positive user experiences, highlighting the system\u0026rsquo;s ease of use, clarity of interaction, and support for science learning. This reinforces the view that technological innovation alone is insufficient\u0026mdash;what matters is how technology is purposefully designed to align with developmental needs, cognitive processes, and motivational dynamics in young learners. The system\u0026rsquo;s ability to translate abstract scientific principles into interactive, observable experiences represents a significant advancement in how complex content can be taught in elementary education.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhile the quasi-experimental design and single-site sample limit generalizability, the study provides actionable insights for educators, instructional designers, and policymakers aiming to implement VR effectively in classroom contexts. Future research should explore the long-term retention of learning outcomes, test the scalability of similar systems across diverse populations, and refine design features to enhance usability, equity, and social interaction in immersive environments. As immersive technologies continue to evolve, this study contributes to a growing consensus: when intentionally designed and thoughtfully applied, VR can serve as a transformative tool for science education at the elementary level.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis study contributes to understanding the psychosocial dimensions of VR learning environments, demonstrating that immersive technologies can effectively support elementary students' psychological needs while enhancing conceptual understanding. The integration of psychosocial considerations into VR educational design represents a promising direction for creating more holistic and effective learning experiences.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003ch2\u003eEthical Approval\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study was reviewed and approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee of National Cheng Kung University, Taiwan (Approval Number: NCKU HREC-E-112-707-2, Approval Period: August 1, 2024 to July 31, 2027). Ethical approval was obtained on August 1, 2024, prior to the commencement of the study. The first experimental session was conducted on November 26, 2024. All procedures involving human participants followed the ethical standards of the committee and the principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eInformed Consent\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWritten informed consent was obtained from all participants and/or their legal guardians on November 19, 2024, prior to participation. For child participants, written consent was obtained from their parents or legal guardians on the same day. Participants were fully informed of the purpose of the research and their right to withdraw at any time without any negative consequences.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eFunding\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis research was funded by the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) of Taiwan under Grant Number NSCT-113-2410-H-006-125-MY3.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA.C.T. conceptualized the study, designed the research framework, and conducted the teaching and learning intervention. P.P. contributed to the Unity system development, facilitated the experiment, and analyzed the data. Y.M.H. provided theoretical direction, advised on experimental design, and revised the manuscript. All authors engaged in collaborative discussions during data analysis and approved the final version of the manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026Aacute;lvarez, I. M., Manero, B., Romero-Hern\u0026aacute;ndez, A., et al. (2024). Virtual reality platform for teacher training on classroom climate management: Evaluating user acceptance. Virtual Reality, 28, 78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-024-00973-6\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBangor, A., Kortum, P. T., \u0026amp; Miller, J. T. (2008). An empirical evaluation of the system usability scale. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 66(11), 842-851.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBrooke, J. (1996). SUS-A quick and dirty usability scale. In P. W. Jordan, B. Thomas, I. L. McClelland, \u0026amp; B. Weerdmeester (Eds.), Usability evaluation in industry (pp. 189-194). Taylor \u0026amp; Francis.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCheca, D., \u0026amp; Bustillo, A. (2020). A review of immersive virtual reality serious games to enhance learning and training. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 79(9\u0026ndash;10), 5501\u0026ndash;5527. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-019-08348-9\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eConrad, M., Kablitz, D., \u0026amp; Schumann, S. (2024). Learning effectiveness of immersive virtual reality in education and training: A systematic review of findings. Computers \u0026amp; Education: X Reality, 4, 100053. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cexr.2024.100053\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCummings, J. J., Cahill, T. J., Wertz, E., \u0026amp; Zhong, Q. (2023). Psychological predictors of consumer-level virtual reality technology adoption and usage. Virtual Reality, 27, 1357\u0026ndash;1379. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-022-00736-1\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDabbagh, N., \u0026amp; Kitsantas, A. (2012). Personal Learning Environments, social media, and self-regulated learning: A natural formula for connecting formal and informal learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(1), 3\u0026ndash;8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.12.002\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDeci, E. L., Eghrari, H., Patrick, B. C., \u0026amp; Leone, D. R. (1994). Facilitating internalization: The self-determination theory perspective. Journal of Personality, 62(1), 119-142.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDeci, E. L., \u0026amp; Ryan, R. M. (2000). The \u0026quot;what\u0026quot; and \u0026quot;why\u0026quot; of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227\u0026ndash;268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDing, J., \u0026amp; Gan, F. (2025). To choose or not to choose? A study on decision-making for virtual reality intervention in children with ADHD. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 12, Article 322. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-04651-z\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFiorella, L., \u0026amp; Mayer, R. E. (2015). Learning as a generative activity: Eight learning strategies that promote understanding. Cambridge University Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGarc\u0026iacute;a-Robles, P., Cort\u0026eacute;s-P\u0026eacute;rez, I., Nieto-Esc\u0026aacute;mez, F. A., Garc\u0026iacute;a-L\u0026oacute;pez, H., Obrero-Gait\u0026aacute;n, E., \u0026amp; Osuna-P\u0026eacute;rez, M. C. (2024). Immersive virtual reality and augmented reality in anatomy education: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Anatomical Sciences Education. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.2397\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHaladyna, T. M. (2004). Developing and validating multiple-choice test items. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice Hall.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLara-Alvarez, C. A., Parra-Gonz\u0026aacute;lez, E. F., Ortiz-Esparza, M. A., \u0026amp; Cardona-Reyes, H. (2023). Effectiveness of virtual reality in elementary school: A meta-analysis of controlled studies. Contemporary Educational Technology, 15(4), ep459. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/13569\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLi, L., Hu, Y., Yang, X., Wu, M., Tao, P., Chen, M., \u0026amp; Yang, C. (2024). Enhancing pre-service teachers\u0026apos; classroom management competency in a large class context: The role of fully immersive virtual reality. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 11, Article 1050. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03538-9\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMakransky, G., \u0026amp; Mayer, R. E. (2022). Benefits of taking a virtual field trip in immersive virtual reality: Evidence for the immersion principle in multimedia learning. Educational Psychology Review, 34, 1771\u0026ndash;1790. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-022-09674-6\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMakransky, G., Terkildsen, T. S., \u0026amp; Mayer, R. E. (2019). Adding immersive virtual reality to a science lab simulation causes more presence but less learning. Learning and Instruction, 60, 225\u0026ndash;236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.12.007\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMarelle, C., Donehower, C., Hansen, S., Roach, A., Boden, L., \u0026amp; Tanner, E. (2025). Using virtual reality to train teacher candidates in classroom management. The Journal of Special Education Apprenticeship, 14(1). https://doi.org/10.58729/2167-3454.1215\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMcAuley, E., Duncan, T., \u0026amp; Tammen, V. V. (1989). Psychometric properties of the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory in a competitive sport setting: A confirmatory factor analysis. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 60(1), 48-58.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMerchant, Z., Goetz, E. T., Cifuentes, L., Keeney-Kennicutt, W., \u0026amp; Davis, T. J. (2014). Effectiveness of virtual reality-based instruction on students\u0026apos; learning outcomes in K-12 and higher education: A meta-analysis. Computers \u0026amp; Education, 70, 29\u0026ndash;40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.07.017\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMonteiro, D., Ma, T., Li, Y., et al. (2024). Cross-cultural factors influencing the adoption of virtual reality for practical learning. Universal Access in the Information Society, 23, 1203\u0026ndash;1216. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-022-00947-y\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRadianti, J., Majchrzak, T. A., Fromm, J., \u0026amp; Wohlgenannt, I. (2020). A systematic review of immersive virtual reality applications for higher education: Design elements, lessons learned, and research agenda. Computers \u0026amp; Education, 147, 103778. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103778\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRyan, R. M. (1982). Control and information in the intrapersonal sphere: An extension of cognitive evaluation theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(3), 450-461.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153\u0026ndash;189. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654307313795\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eStavroulia, K. E., Baka, E., \u0026amp; Lanitis, A. (2025). VR-based teacher training environments: A systematic approach for defining the optimum appearance of virtual classroom environments. Virtual Worlds, 4(1), 6. https://doi.org/10.3390/virtualworlds4010006\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVillena-Taranilla, R., Tirado-Olivares, S., C\u0026oacute;zar-Guti\u0026eacute;rrez, R., \u0026amp; Gonz\u0026aacute;lez-Calero, J. A. (2022). Effects of virtual reality on learning outcomes in K-6 education: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 35, 100434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2022.100434\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eXu, D., Liu, Y., Zeng, Y., \u0026amp; Liu, D. (2025). Virtual reality in adolescent mental health management under the new media communication environment. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 12, Article 201. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-04528-1\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZhang, Y., Mang, H. A., Hajama, S., \u0026amp; Chu, H.-E. (2025). Influences of fully immersive virtual reality on students\u0026rsquo; motivation in learning science: A systematic review. Asia-Pacific Science Education, 11, 1\u0026ndash;43. https://doi.org/10.1163/23641177-bja10090\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"humanities-and-social-sciences-communications","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"palcomms","sideBox":"Learn more about [Humanities \u0026 Social Sciences Communications](http://www.nature.com/palcomms/)","snPcode":"41599","submissionUrl":"https://submission.springernature.com/new-submission/41599/3","title":"Humanities and Social Sciences Communications","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Nature AJ","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false},"keywords":"virtual reality (VR), elementary science education, experiential learning, light and shadow, conceptual understanding, self-determination theory, psychosocial dimensions","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6886727/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6886727/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThis study investigates the effectiveness of a virtual reality (VR)-based learning system designed to enhance elementary students' conceptual understanding and motivation in learning light and shadow phenomena. Grounded in Kolb's Experiential Learning Theory and Self-Determination Theory, the VR system supports concrete experience, active experimentation, and fulfillment of psychological needs such as perceived competence, autonomy/choice, and relatedness. A total of 45 fourth-grade students participated in a three-week learning intervention involving VR-based activities developed with Unity. Quantitative data from motivation questionnaires and pre-/post-tests indicate significant improvements in students' science concept understanding (Cohen's d\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.42, 95% CI = [-2.68, -0.43], representing a meaningful educational shift in how children relate to abstract scientific phenomena) and high satisfaction across motivational dimensions, with all four dimensions showing significant enhancement: perceived competence (Cohen's d\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.75), autonomy/choice (Cohen's d\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.73), relatedness (Cohen's d\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.77), and interest/enjoyment (Cohen's d\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.67). Additional VR system usability feedback showed strong student engagement and perceived learning support. These results highlight the potential of well-structured VR learning environments in improving science education for young learners, especially in abstract topics like optics. Implications for instructional design and future integration in school-based STEM education are discussed.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"The Psychosocial Dimensions of Immersive Learning: A Study of VR-Enabled Science Education for Children Through the Lens of Self-Determination Theory","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-09-08 10:12:23","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6886727/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2026-02-23T16:21:53+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-09-21T22:50:00+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-09-14T18:39:26+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-09-12T16:53:43+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-09-04T07:40:36+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"37142729049581300538819983829945728988","date":"2025-09-03T13:41:15+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"92261889984083531128966944096159600595","date":"2025-09-03T13:03:57+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"139792601925775112071575794276582132434","date":"2025-09-02T08:39:13+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"274316498531885642633135260965050210899","date":"2025-09-01T12:08:51+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-08-31T13:34:37+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"23739709440873010078859410965451626236","date":"2025-08-28T15:58:05+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"10078207000531719930584527517173188191","date":"2025-08-28T06:22:20+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2025-08-28T06:18:28+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2025-08-28T05:43:38+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvited","content":"","date":"2025-08-13T19:29:48+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2025-08-05T17:03:27+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Humanities and Social Sciences Communications","date":"2025-08-05T14:36:09+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"humanities-and-social-sciences-communications","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"palcomms","sideBox":"Learn more about [Humanities \u0026 Social Sciences Communications](http://www.nature.com/palcomms/)","snPcode":"41599","submissionUrl":"https://submission.springernature.com/new-submission/41599/3","title":"Humanities and Social Sciences Communications","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Nature AJ","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"8fff268b-4a59-4ad5-ad38-c43e69b6d1a9","owner":[],"postedDate":"September 8th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[{"id":54156291,"name":"Social science/Education"},{"id":54156292,"name":"Social science/Psychology"},{"id":54156293,"name":"Social science/Science technology and society"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-05-19T04:54:04+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-09-08 10:12:23","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-6886727","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-6886727","identity":"rs-6886727","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}