Virtual reality against Zoom fatigue? A field study on the teaching and learning experience in interactive video and VR conferencing

AIM: During the COVID-19 pandemic, the absence of in-person teaching was partially compensated for through videoconferencing. However, lecturers complain that students do not participate actively in video-based online seminars. One reason cited for this is Zoom fatigue. Conferences in virtual reality (VR), accessible with and without head-mounted display, represent one potential remedy to this issue. The research to date does not shed any light on the (1.) teaching experience, (2.) student demand, (3.) learning experience (including participation and social presence), and (4.) learning performance (declarative and spatial) associated with VR conferences. The present work will compare these aspects for videoconferencing, independent study, and – in the case of teaching experience – with in-person teaching. METHODS: A compulsory seminar in General Physiology was offered during the 2020/21 winter semester and the 2021 summer semester as part of the Human Medicine program at the Faculty of Medicine at Ulm University. The seminars were offered in three different formats with identical content: (a) VR conference, (b) video conference, and (c) independent study, with students selecting the format of their choice. In the VR conferences, the lecturer taught using a head-mounted display while students participated via PC, laptop, or tablet. The learning experience and learning performance were assessed using questionnaires and a knowledge test. A semi-structured interview was conducted to assess the VR teaching experience. RESULTS: The lecturer's teaching experience in the VR conferences was similar to in-person teaching. Students predominantly chose independent study and videoconferencing. The latter resulted in worse outcomes with regard to learning experience (including participation and social presence) and spatial learning performance than the VR conferences. Declarative learning performance differed only slightly between teaching formats. CONCLUSIONS: VR conferencing offers lecturers new didactic opportunities and a teaching experience similar to that of in-person teaching. Students prefer time-efficient videoconferencing and independent study, but rate participation and social presence, among other things, higher in VR conferencing. If faculty and students are open to the technology, VR conferencing can promote interactive exchange in online seminars. This subjective assessment is not associated with better declarative learning performance.