Virtual vs. traditional learning in higher education: A systematic review of comparative studies

Abstract

The evolving landscape of educational technologies has ushered Virtual Reality (VR) in the forefront of higher education. As the COVID-19 pandemic propelled a rapid shift toward e-learning, the demand for high-quality distance education has surged, prompting an exploration of VR as a viable solution. While existing research indicates that VR supports student engagement and learning experiences compared with traditional teaching methods, the lack of shared pedagogical frameworks and systematic analyses of its applications leaves a deeper investigation of VR's potentials and limitations in enhancing learning outcomes still unexplored. This paper presents a systematic literature review aimed at filling this gap by considering studies that evaluate VR-based teaching methods in comparison with traditional ones in higher education contexts in order to assess the strengths and weaknesses of this technology in improving students' learning outcomes and achieve inclusive education. The analysis focuses on a set of dimensions including the adopted research design, participants' characteristics, disciplinary field of application, VR technological features (i.e., immersivity, interactivity, operability, commercial availability, and presence of VR training), adopted teaching methodologies, assessed VR impact on learning outcomes and presence of studies involving students with disabilities or Specific Learning Disorders (SpLDs). Based on inclusion/exclusion criteria, a total of 71 studies of VR in higher education were analysed. Most of analysed studies employed quantitative methods (67%), while no qualitative studies were found. More than half of the studies were conducted with undergraduate students (61%). Most of the studies involved VR in STEM disciplines, with almost half of them concerning Health Sciences (45%). VR solutions were most frequently immersive (63%), predominantly using Oculus Rift and HTC Vive HMDs, interactive (59%), single-user (92%) and non-commercial (57%). Only a small portion of studies included a VR training in the research protocol (8%). Most of the studies compared lecture-based methodologies as control condition with active methodologies in the VR condition. Learning outcomes were positively influenced by immersivity, interactivity and active methodologies, although at different degrees. No study involved students with disabilities or SpLDs in the experimentation. By offering a multidimensional perspective on the application of VR in higher education contexts, the paper provides a valuable resource for educators, researchers, and policymakers navigating the dynamic intersection of VR and higher education.