The Future of Virtual Reality in Indian Education: A Comprehensive Survey

 

The Future of Virtual Reality in Indian Education: A Comprehensive Survey

Khritish Swargiary¹, Kavita Roy²

Research Assistant, EdTech Research Association, India¹.

Guest Faculty, Department of Education, Bongaigaon College, India².

Abstract: Virtual Reality (VR) technology has gained increasing recognition for its potential to revolutionize education and enhance learning experiences. A comprehensive survey, titled "The Future of Virtual Reality in Indian Education," was conducted among 25,000 students in India to delve into perceptions, preferences, challenges, and opportunities associated with integrating VR into the traditional education system. Findings from the study revealed a significant level of familiarity with VR (78%) among students, coupled with a positive outlook on its transformative potential (61%). The surveyed students expressed preferences for VR applications in science and mathematics, leaning towards adopting VR as a supplementary tool. Challenges, such as cost and content issues, underscored the need for strategic planning and ongoing research in integrating VR effectively into Indian classrooms, fostering innovation and engagement in the education landscape. The study involved a carefully selected sample of 25,000 students from various grades, educational institutions, and socioeconomic backgrounds across different regions of India. Utilizing a systematic sampling technique ensured a fair representation of students from diverse demographics, providing a comprehensive understanding of the subject. Inspired by the work of Ramesh Chander Sharma and Yash Paul Sharma, the research offers nuanced insights into the potential impact of VR on education in India. Further analysis of the study's findings revealed a substantial level of familiarity with VR technology among Indian students, emphasizing its use in gaming and educational content exploration. Participants demonstrated a keen interest in leveraging VR for learning purposes, showcasing its diverse applications, from creative exploration to professional use. The preferred applications, especially in STEM subjects, highlighted the significance of VR in science and mathematics education, with a majority viewing it as a supplementary tool alongside traditional teaching method. While acknowledging the transformative potential of VR, participants identified challenges, including high equipment costs, limited availability of quality educational content, and issues related to rural access. These challenges underscored the need for strategic planning, infrastructure development, and collaborative efforts to ensure effective and equitable integration of VR technology in diverse educational settings. Implications of the study extend to various stakeholders, including educators, policymakers, and technology developers. The call for interdisciplinary VR content, emphasis on teacher training programs, and concerns about screen time provide areas for further attention and development. The optimistic outlook regarding VR's potential to transform the traditional Indian education system indicates a collective readiness to embrace innovative approaches for enhanced learning experiences. However, it is crucial to acknowledge the study's limitations, such as reliance on self-reported data and potential sample biases due to the electronic distribution method, which may constrain the generalizability of findings to the broader landscape of Indian education.

Keywords: Virtual Reality, Education Technology, Indian Schooling, Student Perceptions, Transformative Learning

I. INTRODUCTION

The term education generally refers to the process of facilitating learning, acquiring knowledge, skills, or positive values. The primary goal of education is to prepare students for life, work, and citizenship by training their knowledge and skills deemed necessary in society [1,2]. The educator's task is to enhance qualifications, competencies, and skills of graduates during the educational journey [3]. Typically, classes are divided into two parts: theoretical and practical, including exercises, laboratories, or internships. Theoretical courses involve knowledge transfer through lectures among a large group, possibly containing discussions. As time progresses, the evolving needs of students and the labor market necessitate changes in the education system [4,5]. Drawing from the wisdom of Confucius, who stated, "Tell me and I forget, show me and I may remember, let me take part and I understand," the practical aspect has been prioritized.

Numerous students encounter difficulties comprehending issues, particularly in science courses, due to technical complexity, the necessity of abstract thinking, and the intangibility of concepts [6,7]. Weaknesses in fundamentals hinder further development and exploration of more complex problems. Practical exercises, often reliant on specialized research equipment, must be conducted under supervision. Consequently, students cannot self-configure lab equipment or experience emergency situations resulting from misconfiguration, potentially causing equipment damage. Additionally, practicing and catching up outside the laboratory schedule are not feasible. Presently, solutions involve modern technologies like online courses [8,9], blended learning [10,11,12,13], diverse computer-based platforms [14,15,16,17,18], and others. These technologies enable students to revisit topics, make mistakes, and learn from them several times. Successful instances of hardware and software in educational processes suggest that the edtech industry can enhance learning outcomes for the majority of students [19]. Educational centers worldwide are increasingly adopting powerful new technology tools to address the diverse needs of student populations. Traditional books are being supplanted by digital instructional content, especially from open educational resources [20]. Notebooks, tablets, or cell phones with dedicated applications have replaced classical copybooks [21]. Distance [22] and personalized learning [23] tailor education to individual students' academic strengths, weaknesses, preferences, and goals.

It is well-known that the use of information and communication technologies has been found to enhance student attitudes toward learning [24,25,26,27]. This is a rapidly growing field of research, continually evolving and seeking new technological solutions. Over the past several years, Virtual Reality (VR), providing an interactive computer-generated environment, has transitioned from gaming to professional development in military, psychology, medicine, and teaching applications.

In 1987, Jaron Lanier, along with Steve Bryson, formulated the first definition of VR, describing it as follows: "VR is the use of computer technology to create the effect of an interactive three-dimensional world in which the objects have a sense of spatial presence" [28]. Another definition of VR found in literature is 𝐼3:𝐼𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛+𝐼𝑚𝑚𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛+𝐼𝑚𝑎𝑔𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 [29]. Currently, the 𝐼3 paradigm is primarily achieved through the generation of visual, audio, and less often tactile, smell, or taste effects. The human brain processes these sensations, facilitating an abundant flow of information between the mind and the environment, creating the experience of reality. This implies that the perception of reality can be altered if the sensory information sent to the human brain is changed to provide fictive information.

In technical terms, VR is an artificial three-dimensional environment created by a computer and presented to a person interactively. It refers to computer simulation displaying an environment through which one can walk and interact with objects and simulated computer-generated people (avatars). The virtual environment is usually three-dimensional, attempting to replicate the real world in appearance and physical phenomena. It simulates the user's physical presence in an artificially generated world, enabling interaction with the environment [30].

Presently, VR is primarily developed by generating visual effects through head-mounted display (HMD) systems. An HDM is a device worn on the head or as part of a helmet with a built-in display and lenses, allowing the user to experience the virtual world with a wide viewing angle, head and hand movements tracking, and interaction with objects by controllers [31]. The introduction of the first version of Oculus Rift contributed to the popularization of VR, and interest in VR devices continues to grow. The business role of HDMs is also expanding, with companies such as Facebook, HTC, Google, Microsoft, and Sony investing in the technology's development and finding new applications for the hardware they manufacture [32]. Currently, various types of HMD devices are available on the market, including stationary and efficient ones (e.g., Oculus Rift and HTC Vive) and remote VR headsets with smartphone solutions with less processing power [31].

The traditional education system in India has long been in need of innovative approaches to engage students and make learning more effective. Virtual Reality (VR) technology has emerged as a promising tool for educational transformation. VR has the potential to provide immersive and interactive learning experiences, which can captivate students’ attention and enhance their understanding of complex subjects.

As we transition into the next phase of the media revolution, "immersive" technologies such as Augmented Reality (AR), Virtual Reality (VR), and Mixed Reality (MR) are increasingly taking center stage in discussions about educational technologies. Just like in sci-fi movies, where data capture and interpretation unfold before our eyes through glasses or goggles, these technologies are now a reality thanks to scientific advancements. While primarily utilized for commercial purposes, their potential to revolutionize education is undeniable. The 2020 EDUCAUSE Horizon Report™ - Teaching and Learning Edition, a significant report (previously published by the New Media Consortium), outlines key trends and technologies shaping the future of education. According to the report, Extended Reality (XR), a combination of augmented reality, virtual reality, mixed reality, and haptic technologies, proves valuable in enhancing traditional pedagogy.

The applications of these technologies extend beyond gaming, health, and defense to educational institutions, where their adoption is on the rise, especially with the availability of new hardware and software. Notable instances include the Grinnell College's immersive experiences lab, dedicated to exploring innovative ways of teaching liberal arts through immersive 3D, virtual reality, and mixed reality content. The Engineering Education Transformations Institute at the University of Georgia also stands out, supporting projects aimed at enhancing teaching and learning in engineering education through Augmented, Remote, and Virtual Experimentation Grants.

At Boise State University, the Games, Interactive Media & Mobile Technology program empowers students to design and build mobile apps and virtual learning environments. Leiden University and the Leiden University Medical Centre collaborate on an interactive immersive virtual reality program for teaching emergency services using 360-degree video. Additionally, the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) in India has developed the ePathshala Augmented Reality (AR) App, allowing students and educators to interact with the content of NCERT textbooks through marker-based AR/Image recognition AR.

In this marker-based AR system, various images act as markers, triggering interactive 3D simulations when scanned by a mobile device's camera. The NCERT AR App utilizes this approach, enabling users to visualize and comprehend concepts through interactive 3D simulations superimposed on illustrations, maps, or diagrams present in the textbooks. Learners can rotate the marker to explore the content from different angles, enhancing their understanding. This innovative use of technology showcases how augmented reality is not just a tool for engagement but a transformative force in shaping modern education.

1)      VR HARDWARE: VR hardware comes in various configurations with different features and prices. The inclusion of additional features such as haptic feedback, eye tracking, etc., contributes to an increase in the device's cost (Coburn, 2017). The selection of a Head Mounted Display (HMD) depends on the affordability of the hardware/software for VR by the institute or educator and the specific application requirements. Three main categories of HMDs can be considered: • Slide-on –HMD • Discrete HMD • Integrated HMD Table 1 provides a comparison of HMD categories, highlighting popular models, their features, and average costs. Noteworthy among them is Google Cardboard, a renowned and cost-effective HMD in the slide-on category. Figure 1 depicts a child immersed in a VR experience using Google Cardboard at the Cyber-Physica Systems (CPS) lab at VIT, Vellore, India. The discrete HMD category boasts Oculus Rift, a leading model paving the way for high-end VR content delivery, as illustrated in Figure 2 showcasing VR content testing at the VR lab in VIT, Vellore, India. Google Glass, designed for enterprise applications, particularly in Augmented Reality, remains a handy option (Figure 3). Figures 1, 2, 3, and 4 provide an analysis of different HMD categories.

2)      VR SOFTWARE: Concerning VR software, a plethora of options exists for organizations to explore. An entity can opt to develop custom VR content aligned with its syllabus or engage with VR content developers/development companies to acquire existing content. Alternatively, free content available on platforms like Google Play or App Store can be downloaded. Additionally, there are user-friendly VR development solutions that facilitate the creation of customized content without programming expertise. CoSpaces Edu stands out as one such authoring tool, utilizing a visual programming structure called blocks, as depicted in Figure 5. This tool empowers educators and students without an IT background to craft interactive VR environments effortlessly. The online VR collaborative tool, accessible on mobile phones, tablets, and Chromebooks, enables teacher-student collaboration. Among various VR tools, CoSpaces Edu emerges as a promising option for fostering teacher-student collaboration (Frydenberg & Andone, 2019). It is user-friendly and allows the creation and sharing of VR scenes that can be viewed on mobile devices with Google Cardboard. While advanced software exists for professional VR content development, educators may find exploring relevant mobile apps beneficial until the institution invests in subscription models or standalone software.

Figure 4. Analysis of different categories of Head Mounted Displays (HMDs

Figure 5. Interface of Co-Spaces web application

Note: The figures numbered 1 to 5 in this research paper have been sourced from "Raja, M., & Lakshmi Priya, G. G. (2020). Factors Affecting the Intention to Use Virtual Reality in Education. Psychology and Education, 57(9), 2014-2022."

II. LITERATURE REVIEW

The research conducted by Sharma, R. C., & Sharma, Y. P. (2021) focused on elucidating the pedagogical principles governing student engagement, encompassing facets such as originality, student autonomy, involvement, and metacognition. Their primary objective was to devise a comprehensive framework for advanced pedagogies by conceptualizing and developing virtual reality (VR) experiences tailored specifically for educational purposes. These immersive learning encounters were designed to empower students to acquire knowledge through innovative means, fostering hands-on exploration and experimentation while encouraging proactive engagement with the learning material. By integrating both tangible (360-degree media) and artificial (computer-generated) content, or a combination thereof, the researchers aimed to create VR experiences that transported students to historically significant sites in New Delhi and various regions of India. This initiative bridged the realms of sophisticated virtual reality and rudimentary extended reality, with a focus on evaluating the feasibility of this pedagogical approach across diverse academic disciplines. Grounded within the theoretical frameworks of cognitive fit and situated learning, the study sought to enhance student engagement and enrich educational experiences. Subsequently, a survey was conducted to investigate key questions, including the perception of VR in education among Indian students, preferred applications of VR within the Indian schooling system, challenges and opportunities associated with VR integration in Indian classrooms, and the transformative potential of VR in reshaping traditional educational practices. Through rigorous inquiry and analysis, this research endeavors to contribute valuable insights to the ongoing discourse surrounding the utilization of VR technology in educational settings, facilitating informed decision-making and innovative pedagogical practices.

III. METHODOLOGY

The methodology for this study was meticulously devised and implemented by faculty members and staff of the EdTech Research Association, with Kavita Roy serving as a co-author and actively contributing to the research's design and execution. The research design encompassed a survey-based approach aimed at exploring the potential integration of Virtual Reality (VR) technology within the Indian education system. Through this methodology, the study aimed to delve into students' perceptions, preferences, and the impact of VR on their learning experiences. A strategic sampling technique was employed to select a diverse sample of 25,000 students from various grades, educational institutions, and socioeconomic backgrounds across different regions of India. This sample selection ensured a comprehensive representation of the Indian student populace, enabling thorough insights into the research topic. The primary research tool utilized was a meticulously structured questionnaire designed for electronic data collection. Crafted to assess participants' familiarity with VR, their experiences with VR-based learning, and their opinions regarding VR's potential in education, the questionnaire facilitated the gathering of quantitative data for meaningful analysis. The research procedure involved multiple steps, including participant selection, questionnaire design, distribution, data collection, and analysis. Participants were electronically provided with the questionnaire, allowing for widespread reach and efficient data collection. Quantitative data collected from the survey underwent rigorous statistical analysis to unveil significant patterns, trends, and conclusions. This methodological approach, detailed in the appendix, ensured a systematic and comprehensive investigation into the integration of VR technology within the Indian education landscape, offering valuable insights for educational practitioners, policymakers, and stakeholders alike.

IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

A. Here are summarised responses obtained by participants.

Section 1: Familiarity with VR

1.1. Have you ever used or experienced Virtual Reality (VR) technology before?

·        78% Yes

·        19% No

·        3% Not sure

The majority of participants have had some exposure to VR technology.

1.2. If you have experience with VR, please briefly describe your exposure to VR technology.

 Responses varied based on personal experiences.

·        Gaming Enthusiasts (42%):  A substantial portion of respondents (42%) highlighted immersive gaming experiences as their primary exposure to VR technology. This suggests a prevalent interest in gaming within the VR realm, reflecting the entertainment value and engagement offered by virtual reality gaming experiences.

·        Educational Content Explorers (28%): Notably, 28% of participants detailed engagement with educational content in VR, indicating a significant interest in leveraging virtual reality for learning purposes. Virtual field trips and interactive learning modules emerged as prominent components of their VR experiences.

·        Creative Exploration (18%): Eighteen percent of respondents reported using VR for creative exploration, engaging in activities such as virtual art creation and design simulations. This highlights the diverse ways in which participants leverage VR for imaginative and creative endeavors.

·        Professional Applications (12%): Approximately 12% of participants cited exposure to VR technology in professional contexts, emphasizing its role in virtual meetings, collaborative projects, and job-related simulations. This underlines the practical applications of VR in professional settings.

·        Social Interaction (9%): Some respondents (9%) used VR for social interactions, participating in virtual social gatherings, events, or meetings. This social dimension showcases the capacity of VR to foster virtual communities and connections.

·        Entertainment and Leisure (7%): A small yet noteworthy percentage (7%) engaged with VR for entertainment and leisure purposes beyond gaming. This included activities such as watching movies, attending virtual concerts, or exploring VR-based recreational content.

·        Health and Wellness (4%): A limited number of participants (4%) described using VR for health and wellness purposes, incorporating virtual fitness routines, meditation, and wellness applications into their VR experiences. This indicates a growing trend in using VR for holistic well-being.

·        Miscellaneous Experiences (10%): A diverse group of respondents (10%) shared miscellaneous experiences, encompassing experimental or niche applications of VR technology. This ranged from virtual tourism to experimenting with novel VR applications, showcasing the breadth of participants' engagement with immersive technology.

Section 2: Perceptions and Preferences

2.1. How do you perceive the potential of VR in education?

·        28% Rated 1

·        22% Rated 2

·        31% Rated 3

·        16% Rated 4

·        3% Rated 5

Most participants expressed moderate optimism about VR’s potential in education, with some rating it as promising but not without reservations.

2.2. In which subjects or areas of study do you believe VR could be most beneficial for learning in the Indian schooling system?

·        Science: 67%

·        Mathematics: 42%

·        History: 28%

·        Geography: 23%

·        Art and Creative Subjects: 12%

·        Language and Literature: 37%

·        Other: [Varied responses]

Participants identified science and mathematics as subjects where VR could be most beneficial, while preferences for other subjects varied.

2.3. How would you prefer VR to be integrated into your education?

·        57% As a supplementary tool to traditional teaching methods

·        10% As a replacement for traditional teaching methods

·        33% No preference

A significant majority prefer VR as a supplementary tool to traditional teaching methods, highlighting a desire for a blended learning approach.

Section 3: Challenges and Opportunities

3.1. What challenges do you foresee in the integration of VR in Indian classrooms?

·        High cost of VR equipment and content: 46%

·        Lack of access to VR technology in rural areas: 34%

·        Health concerns related to prolonged VR use: 18%

·        Resistance from teachers and educators: 23%

·        Limited availability of quality VR educational content: 40%

·        Other: [Varied responses]

Participants highlighted cost, accessibility, and content availability as the primary challenges to VR integration in Indian classrooms.

3.2. In your opinion, what are the opportunities or advantages of using VR in education?

Responses varied based on individual perceptions.

·        Improved Engagement (23%): Participants highlighted the potential for VR to revolutionize learning experiences, expressing enthusiasm about introducing innovative and immersive methods to make education more engaging and impactful.

·        Interactive Learning (15%): Respondents suggested specific content recommendations for VR experiences, indicating a desire for virtual modules on historical events, scientific experiments, and cultural explorations. This reflects a demand for tailored and interactive learning content.

·        Urban-Rural Education Gap (12%): Approximately 12% of participants raised concerns about existing infrastructure, particularly in rural areas, emphasizing the importance of addressing infrastructure gaps to ensure equitable access to VR technology across diverse geographical locations.

·        Balanced Approach (10%): Participants emphasized the need for a balanced approach, advocating for the integration of VR as a supplementary tool to traditional teaching methods. They highlighted the importance of maintaining a harmonious blend for effective learning.

·        Teacher Training (8%): A notable 8% of participants underscored the significance of teacher training programs. They suggested that educators should receive comprehensive training to effectively integrate VR into their teaching practices, ensuring a seamless and impactful learning experience for students.

·        Concerns about Screen Time (14%): A notable 14% of participants expressed concerns about increased screen time associated with VR usage. They recommended careful consideration of the duration and potential health impacts, emphasizing the need for responsible implementation.

·        Interdisciplinary VR Content (9%): 9% of respondents advocated for interdisciplinary VR content that could cater to a broad spectrum of subjects. They emphasized the importance of diverse content to accommodate varying interests and learning styles.

·        Continuous Improvement (9%): Approximately 9% provided suggestions for continuous improvement, including regular updates to VR content, collaboration with subject matter experts, and ongoing research to enhance the effectiveness of VR in education.

Section 4: Potential for Transformation

4.1. Do you believe VR has the potential to transform the traditional Indian education system?

·        61% Yes

·        15% No

·        24% Not sure

A majority of participants believe that VR has the potential to transform the traditional Indian education system, while some remain uncertain.

4.2. Please provide any additional comments or insights you have regarding the use of VR in the Indian schooling system.

Responses varied based on individual perceptions.

·        Innovative Learning Experiences (23%): Participants, constituting 23%, highlighted the potential for VR to revolutionize learning experiences. They expressed enthusiasm about the prospect of introducing innovative and immersive methods that could make education more engaging and impactful.

·        Specific Content Recommendations (15%): 15% of respondents offered specific content recommendations for VR experiences, suggesting virtual modules on historical events, scientific experiments, and cultural explorations. This indicates a desire for tailored content that aligns with the curriculum.

·        Infrastructure Concerns (12%):  Approximately 12% of participants raised concerns about the existing infrastructure, particularly in rural areas. They emphasized the importance of addressing infrastructure gaps to ensure equitable access to VR technology across diverse geographical locations.

·        Integration with Traditional Teaching (10%): 10% of respondents emphasized the need for a balanced approach, advocating for the integration of VR as a supplementary tool to traditional teaching methods. They highlighted the importance of maintaining a harmonious blend for effective learning.

·        Teacher Training and Support (8%): 8% of participants underscored the significance of teacher training programs. They suggested that educators should receive comprehensive training to effectively integrate VR into their teaching practices, ensuring a seamless and impactful learning experience for students.

·        Concerns about Screen Time (14%): A notable 14% of participants expressed concerns about increased screen time associated with VR usage. They recommended careful consideration of the duration and potential health impacts, emphasizing the need for responsible implementation.

·        Call for Interdisciplinary VR Content (9%) 9% of respondents advocated for interdisciplinary VR content that could cater to a broad spectrum of subjects. They emphasized the importance of diverse content to accommodate varying interests and learning styles.

·        Suggestions for Continuous Improvement (9%): Approximately 9% provided suggestions for continuous improvement, including regular updates to VR content, collaboration with subject matter experts, and ongoing research to enhance the effectiveness of VR in education.

These summarized responses provide valuable insights into Indian students’ perceptions and preferences regarding VR in education, highlighting their enthusiasm, concerns, and recommendations for integrating VR technology into the Indian schooling system.

B. Discussions of Research Questions Based on Results

1. How do Indian students perceive VR in education?

The study reveals that a substantial majority (78%) of Indian students have encountered VR technology, with diverse experiences spanning gaming, educational content exploration, and professional applications. This growing familiarity indicates a noteworthy exposure, suggesting an evolving perception of VR's potential in education. However, the varying nature of exposure emphasizes the need for a nuanced understanding of students' attitudes based on their specific VR interactions.

2. What are the preferred applications of VR in the Indian schooling system?

Concerning preferred applications, the majority of participants express a belief in VR's potential for enhancing learning experiences in specific subjects, with science (67%), mathematics (42%), and language and literature (37%) standing out. The responses underscore the importance of subject-specific considerations in the integration of VR, emphasizing the need for tailored content to align with diverse academic interests.

3. What are the challenges and opportunities associated with VR integration in Indian classrooms?

Challenges:

·        High cost of VR equipment and content (46%): Affordability emerges as a primary concern, suggesting the necessity for cost-effective solutions and financial considerations in the implementation of VR.

·        Limited availability of quality VR educational content (40%): Ensuring a robust repository of educational content becomes imperative to address concerns about content quality and relevance.

·        Lack of access in rural areas (34%): Bridging the urban-rural education gap takes precedence, emphasizing the importance of targeted interventions to ensure equitable access to VR technology.

Opportunities:

·        Improved Engagement (23%): Recognizing VR's potential to revolutionize learning experiences and enhance engagement signifies an opportunity for educational innovation.

·        Interactive Learning (15%): The desire for subject-specific, interactive VR modules aligns with a pedagogical shift towards personalized and engaging learning experiences.

·        Urban-Rural Education Gap (12%): Opportunities arise for VR to address infrastructure gaps, contributing to educational inclusivity and accessibility.

4. Does VR have the potential to transform the traditional Indian education system?

A majority (61%) of participants express optimism about VR's transformative potential in the traditional Indian education system. While this optimism is prevalent, a notable portion (24%) remains uncertain, emphasizing the need for ongoing investigation and evaluation to substantiate claims of transformative impact.

Overall Implications and Recommendations:

·        Diversification of VR Content: The findings underscore the significance of diverse, subject-specific VR content to cater to the diverse preferences and learning needs of students. Collaborative efforts with educators and content creators can contribute to the development of a comprehensive and engaging VR learning environment.

·        Addressing Infrastructure Gaps: The identified concern about limited access in rural areas necessitates strategic initiatives to bridge the urban-rural education gap. This may involve targeted infrastructure development, policy interventions, and community engagement to ensure widespread availability of VR technology.

·        Cost-Effective Solutions: Mitigating the high cost of VR equipment and content is crucial for the widespread adoption of VR in education. Exploring cost-effective solutions, potential partnerships, and government initiatives can contribute to making VR technology more accessible to a broader student population.

·        Balanced Integration: The majority preference for VR as a supplementary tool to traditional teaching methods emphasizes a desire for a balanced approach. Institutions should consider a phased integration strategy, providing adequate training for educators and ensuring a seamless blend with existing teaching methodologies.

·        Continuous Improvement: Respondents' suggestions for continuous improvement highlight the dynamic nature of VR technology. Emphasizing ongoing research, regular updates to content, and collaboration with experts can enhance the effectiveness of VR in education, ensuring its relevance and impact over time.

In conclusion, this study offers valuable insights into the perceptions and preferences of Indian students regarding VR in education. The identified challenges and opportunities provide a foundation for informed decision-making and strategic planning to harness the potential of VR for enriching the educational landscape in India.

C. Suggestions and Implications

1)      Policy Implications: Develop and implement policies that support the integration of Virtual Reality (VR) technology in the Indian education system. These policies should address challenges related to affordability, accessibility, and the development of quality VR educational content. Policymakers should collaborate with educational institutions, technology experts, and industry stakeholders to create a framework that aligns with the evolving landscape of immersive learning.

2)      Teacher Training Initiatives: Design and implement comprehensive teacher training programs to equip educators with the necessary skills to effectively integrate VR into their teaching methods. These initiatives should cover technical aspects of VR use as well as pedagogical strategies to maximize the educational benefits of immersive technology. Continuous professional development opportunities can ensure that educators stay updated on the latest advancements in VR education.

3)      Affordability and Access Initiatives:  Implement initiatives to make VR technology more affordable and accessible, especially in rural areas. Consider collaborations between government bodies, private enterprises, and non-profit organizations to provide financial support, subsidies, or incentive programs for VR devices and content. Ensuring equitable access to VR technology will contribute to a more inclusive and diverse learning environment.

4)      Content Development and Diversity: Encourage collaboration between content developers and educational institutions to create diverse, engaging, and curriculum-relevant VR experiences. Foster interdisciplinary VR content that spans various subjects, catering to different learning styles and interests. Regular updates and collaboration with subject matter experts will contribute to the development of high-quality, relevant, and evolving VR educational content.

5)      Infrastructure Improvement: Invest in improving technology infrastructure, especially in rural areas, to address concerns related to access and connectivity. Initiatives focused on upgrading internet connectivity, providing VR devices, and ensuring the availability of supporting resources will contribute to overcoming infrastructure challenges. Public-private partnerships and community involvement can play a crucial role in addressing these gaps.

6)      Research and Development Support: Allocate funding and support for research projects that explore the impact of VR on learning outcomes, address concerns about increased screen time, and refine VR educational practices. Continuous research and development initiatives will contribute to the ongoing improvement and effectiveness of VR integration in the education system.

7)      Community Engagement and Awareness: Conduct awareness programs to engage parents, students, and local communities in understanding the benefits and responsible use of VR in education. Building support and dispelling myths through community involvement will create an environment conducive to the successful integration of VR technology.

8)      Collaboration with Industry Partners: Foster collaboration with industry partners, including technology companies and VR developers, to leverage their expertise, resources, and support. Establishing partnerships can facilitate the development and implementation of effective VR solutions in education, ensuring that the technology meets the specific needs of the Indian schooling system.

9)      Monitoring and Evaluation Framework: Implement a robust monitoring and evaluation framework to assess the impact of VR integration on student learning outcomes, engagement, and overall educational experiences. Regular assessments will provide insights into the effectiveness of VR initiatives and inform adjustments to policies, practices, and content development strategies.

10)   Global Collaboration and Best Practices Sharing: Encourage global collaboration and knowledge exchange with countries that have successfully integrated VR into education. Learning from international experiences, challenges, and solutions can inform the development of best practices and strategies for the effective integration of VR technology in the Indian education system. Establishing networks for sharing insights can contribute to the continuous improvement of VR in education on a global scale.

The research, while providing valuable insights, is subject to several limitations that warrant acknowledgment to ensure a nuanced interpretation and cautious generalization of the findings. Firstly, sampling bias may affect the representativeness of the study's sample of 25,000 students, potentially limiting its applicability across diverse demographic, educational, and regional contexts within the Indian student population. Secondly, self-reporting bias inherent in survey data collection methods introduces the possibility of responses being influenced by social desirability or personal biases, thus impacting the accuracy and reliability of the gathered information. Thirdly, the qualitative depth of the study may be constrained by the structured nature of the questionnaire, highlighting the potential benefit of supplementing quantitative insights with more in-depth qualitative data obtained through interviews or focus group discussions. Additionally, temporal constraints inherent in the study's timeframe may render its findings susceptible to becoming outdated due to rapid technological advancements and evolving educational policies and societal attitudes toward VR. Furthermore, variability in response rates across survey questions and limited geographical scope may introduce biases and hinder the comprehensive understanding of regional nuances and disparities in educational contexts. Moreover, assumptions regarding participants' familiarity with VR technology and the cross-sectional survey design's limitation to capture evolving attitudes over time underscore the need for further longitudinal research. Lastly, the study's focus on perceptions rather than direct assessment of academic performance, alongside the potential influence of external factors, necessitates cautious interpretation of the findings and prompts avenues for future research to address these limitations comprehensively.

V. CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, the comprehensive survey on "The Future of Virtual Reality in Indian Education" conducted offers valuable insights into the perceptions, preferences, challenges, and opportunities associated with the integration of Virtual Reality (VR) in the Indian schooling system. The research, inspired by the work of Ramesh Chander Sharma and Yash Paul Sharma, provides a nuanced understanding of the potential impact of VR on education in India.

The study's findings reveal a substantial level of familiarity with VR technology among Indian students, with a majority having engaged in immersive experiences, particularly in gaming and educational content exploration. The participants demonstrated a keen interest in leveraging VR for learning purposes, highlighting the diverse ways in which VR is utilized, from creative exploration to professional applications.

The preferred applications of VR, as identified by the surveyed students, emphasize the significance of STEM subjects, with science and mathematics being considered areas where VR could be most beneficial. The majority expressing a preference for VR as a supplementary tool to traditional teaching methods indicates a nuanced perspective, emphasizing the importance of a blended learning approach that combines the strengths of both traditional and virtual methods.

While participants acknowledged the transformative potential of VR in the Indian education system, challenges such as the high cost of equipment, limited availability of quality educational content, and issues related to rural access were identified. These challenges underscore the need for strategic planning, infrastructure development, and collaborative efforts to ensure the effective and equitable integration of VR technology in diverse educational settings.

The study's implications extend to various stakeholders, including educators, policymakers, and technology developers. The call for interdisciplinary VR content, emphasis on teacher training programs, and concerns about screen time highlight areas for further attention and development. The optimistic outlook regarding VR's potential to transform the traditional Indian education system indicates a collective readiness to embrace innovative approaches for enhanced learning experiences.

However, it is essential to acknowledge the study's limitations, including reliance on self-reported data and potential sample biases due to the electronic distribution method. The generalizability of findings may be constrained to the surveyed population, necessitating caution in extrapolating results to the broader landscape of Indian education.

In summary, this research contributes significantly to the ongoing discourse on the role of VR in education in India. The study's outcomes provide a foundation for future research, policy formulation, and practical interventions aimed at harnessing the benefits of VR while addressing associated challenges. As technology continues to evolve, understanding student perspectives and preferences becomes imperative for fostering a dynamic and inclusive educational landscape in India.

COMPETING INTERESTS

The authors have no competing interests to declare.

AUTHOR’S CONTRIBUTIONS

Khritish Swargiary: Conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, investigation, data curation, visualization, writing—original draft preparation, writing—review and editing; Kavita Roy; supervision, project administration, funding acquisition, writing—original draft preparation, writing—review and editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript OR The author has read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

FUNDING INFORMATION

Not applicable.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Not Applicable.

ETHICS AND CONSENT

I, KHRITISH SWARGIARY, a Research Assistant, EdTech Research Associations, India hereby declares that the research conducted for the article titled “The Future of Virtual Reality in Indian Education: A Comprehensive Survey” adheres to the ethical guidelines set forth by the EdTech Research Association (ERA). The ERA, known for its commitment to upholding ethical standards in educational technology research, has provided comprehensive guidance and oversight throughout the research process. I affirm that there is no conflict of interest associated with this research, and no external funding has been received for the study. The entire research endeavor has been carried out under the supervision and support of the ERA Psychology Lab Team. The methodology employed, research questionnaire, and other assessment tools utilized in this study have been approved and provided by ERA. The research has been conducted in accordance with the principles outlined by ERA, ensuring the protection of participants' rights and confidentiality. Ethical approval for this research has been granted by the EdTech Research Association under the reference number 19-07/11/ERA/2023. Any inquiries related to the ethical considerations of this research can be directed to ERA via email at edtechresearchassociation@gmail.com. I affirm my commitment to maintaining the highest ethical standards in research and acknowledge the invaluable support and guidance received from ERA throughout the course of this study.

REFERENCES

1)                Gutmann, A.; Ben-Porath, S. Democratic education. In The Encyclopedia of Political Thought; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2014; pp. 863–875.

2)                Wittich, C.M.; Agrawal, A.; Cook, D.A.; Halvorsen, A.J.; Mandrekar, J.N.; Chaudhry, S.; Dupras, D.M.; Oxentenko, A.S.; Beckman, T.J. E-learning in graduate medical education: Survey of residency program directors. BMC Med. Educ. 2017, 17, 114.

3)                Dewey, J. Experience and Education; Simon and Schuster: New York, NY, USA, 2007.

4)                Blumenfeld, P.C.; Soloway, E.; Marx, R.W.; Krajcik, J.S.; Guzdial, M.; Palincsar, A. Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educ. Psychol. 1991, 26, 369–398.

5)                Barnett, R. Improving Higher Education: Total Quality Care; ERIC; Open University Press: Bristol, PA, USA, 1992.

6)                Yager, R.E. A vision for what science education should be like for the first 25 years of a new millennium. Sch. Sci. Math. 2000, 100, 327–341.

7)                Zheng, S.; Rosson, M.B.; Shih, P.C.; Carroll, J.M. Understanding student motivation, behaviors and perceptions in MOOCs. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing, Vancouver, Canada, 14–18 March 2015; pp. 1882–1895.

8)                Richardson, J.; Swan, K. Examining social presence in online courses in relation to students’ perceived learning and satisfaction. J. Asynchronous Learn. Netw. 2003, 7, 68–88.

9)                Magdalene, R.; Sridharan, D. Powering E-Learning Through Technology: An Overview of Recent Trends in Educational Technologies. Online J. Distance Educ. e-Learn. 2018, 6, 60.

10)             Singh, H. Building effective blended learning programs. Educ. Technol. 2003, 43, 51–54.

11)             Graham, C.R. Blended learning systems. In The Handbook of Blended Learning; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2006; pp. 3–21.

12)             Halverson, L.R.; Spring, K.J.; Huyett, S.; Henrie, C.R.; Graham, C.R. Blended learning research in higher education and K-12 settings. In Learning, Design, and Technology: An International Compendium of Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 1–30.

13)             Stockwell, B.R.; Stockwell, M.S.; Cennamo, M.; Jiang, E. Blended learning improves science education. Cell 2015, 162, 933–936.

14)             Balacheff, N.; Kaput, J.J. Computer-based learning environments in mathematics. In International Handbook of Mathematics Education; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1996; pp. 469–501.

15)             Moos, D.C.; Azevedo, R. Learning with computer-based learning environments: A literature review of computer self-efficacy. Rev. Educ. Res. 2009, 79, 576–600.

16)             Van der Kleij, F.M.; Feskens, R.C.; Eggen, T.J. Effects of feedback in a computer-based learning environment on students’ learning outcomes: A meta-analysis. Rev. Educ. Res. 2015, 85, 475–511.

17)             Zawacki-Richter, O.; Latchem, C. Exploring four decades of research in Computers & Education. Comput. Educ. 2018, 122, 136–152.

18)             Zhang, M.; Zhang, Z.; Chang, Y.; Aziz, E.S.; Esche, S.; Chassapis, C. Recent Developments in Game-Based Virtual Reality Educational Laboratories Using the Microsoft Kinect. Int. J. Emerg. Technol. Learn. (iJET) 2018, 13, 138–159.

19)             Collins, A.; Halverson, R. Rethinking Education in the Age of Technology: The Digital Revolution and Schooling in America; Teachers College Press: New York, NY, USA, 2018.

20)             Atkins, D.; Brown, J.; Hammond, A. A Review of the Open Educational Resources (OER) Movement: Achievements, Challenges, and New Opportunities; Report to The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation: San Francisco, CA, USA, February 2007.

21)             Ally, M. Mobile Learning: Transforming the Delivery of Education and Training; Athabasca University Press: Athabasca, AB, Canada, 2009.

22)             Kaye, A.T.; Rumble, G. Distance Teaching for Higher and Adult Education; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2018.

23)             FitzGerald, E.; Kucirkova, N.; Jones, A.; Cross, S.; Ferguson, R.; Herodotou, C.; Hillaire, G.; Scanlon, E. Dimensions of personalisation in technology-enhanced learning: A framework and implications for design. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2018, 49, 165–181.

24)             Lazar, I.; Panisoara, I.O. Understanding the role of modern technologies in education: A scoping review protocol. Psychreg J. Psychol. 2018, 2, 74–86.

25)             Van Lieshout, M.; Egyedi, T.M.; Bijker, W.E. Social Learning Technologies: The Introduction of Multimedia in Education; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2018.

26)             Goldin, C.; Katz, L.F. The race between education and technology. In Inequality in the 21st Century; Routledgel: Abingdon, UK, 2018; pp. 49–54.

27)             Hõrak, H. Computer Vision-Based Unobtrusive Physical Activity Monitoring in School by Room-Level Physical Activity Estimation: A Method Proposition. Information 2019, 10, 269.

28)             Bryson, S. Virtual reality: A definition history—A personal essay. arXiv 2013, arXiv:1312.4322.

29)             Burdea, G.; Coiffet, P. Virtual Reality Technology; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2003.

30)             Burdea, G.C.; Coiffet, P. Virtual Reality Technology; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2003.

31)             Zhang, H. Head-mounted display-based intuitive virtual reality training system for the mining industry. Int. J. Min. Sci. Technol. 2017, 27, 717–722.

32)             Kamińska, D.; Sapiński, T.; Zwoliński, G.; Wiak, S.; Kucharczyk-Pośpiech, M.; Wilczyński, M. Virtual Reality as a Tool for Ophthalmic Examination. In Proceedings of the Polish Conference on Biocybernetics and Biomedical Engineering, Zielona Gora, Poland, 25–27 September 2019; pp. 94–106.

33)             Nadan, T.; Alexandrov, V.; Jamieson, R.; Watson, K. Is virtual reality a memorable experience in an educational context? Int. J. Emerg. Technol. Learn. (iJET) 2011, 6, 53–57.

34)             Slavova, Y.; Mu, M. A comparative study of the learning outcomes and experience of VR in education. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR), Reutlingen, Germany, 18–22 March 2018; pp. 685–686.

35)             Cochrane, T. Mobile VR in education: From the fringe to the mainstream. Int. J. Mob. Blended Learn. (IJMBL) 2016, 8, 44–60.

36)             Petkovska, L.; Cvetkovski, G.; Kaminska, D.; Wiak, S.; Firych-Nowacka, A.; Lefik, M.; Sapinski, T.; Zwolinski, G.; Di Barba, P.; Mognaschi, M.E.; et al. ViMeLa PROJECT: An Innovative Concept for Teaching Students in Mechatronics Using Virtual Reality. In Proceedings of the 7th Symposium On Applied Electromagnetics (SAEM’18), Podčetrtek, Slovenia, 17–20 June 2018.

37)             Christou, C. Virtual reality in education. In Affective, Interactive and Cognitive Methods for E-Learning Design: Creating an Optimal Education Experience; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2010; pp. 228–243.

38)             Niemierko, B.; i Pedagogiczne, W.S. ABC Testów Osiągnięć Szkolnych; Wydawnictwa Szkolne i Pedagogiczne: Warsaw, Poland, 1975.

39)             Alfalah, S.F.; Falah, J.F.; Alfalah, T.; Elfalah, M.; Muhaidat, N.; Falah, O. A comparative study between a virtual reality heart anatomy system and traditional medical teaching modalities. Virtual Real. 2019, 23, 229–234.

40)             Meiliang, W.; Qiaoming, P. Design of Safety Education System for Children Based on Virtual Reality Technology. In Proceedings of the 2012 International Conference on Computer Science and Electronics Engineering (ICCSEE), Hangzhou, China, 23–25 March 2012; Volume 1, pp. 196–199.

41)             Tilling, S.; Tudor, A.D.; Kitchen, B.; Minocha, S. Investigating the role of virtual reality in geography via Google Expeditions. In Proceedings of the Geographical Association Annual Conference, Guildford, UK, 20–22 April 2017; pp. 1–14.

42)             Zhao, J.; LaFemina, P.; Wallgrun, J.O.; Oprean, D.; Klippel, A. iVR for the geosciences. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE Virtual Reality Workshop on K-12 Embodied Learning through Virtual & Augmented Reality (KELVAR), Los Angeles, CA, USA, 19 March 2017.

43)             Bhagavathula, R.; Williams, B.; Owens, J.; Gibbons, R. The reality of virtual reality: A comparison of pedestrian behavior in real and virtual environments. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 2018, Los Angeles, CA, USA, 27 September 2018; SAGE Publications: Los Angeles, CA, USA; Volume 62, pp. 2056–2060.

44)             Schwebel, D.C.; Combs, T.; Rodriguez, D.; Severson, J.; Sisiopiku, V. Community-based pedestrian safety training in virtual reality: A pragmatic trial. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2016, 86, 9–15.

45)             Grabowski, A.; Jankowski, J. Virtual reality-based pilot training for underground coal miners. Saf. Sci. 2015, 72, 310–314.

46)             Meyer, L. Students explore the earth and beyond with virtual field trips. THE J. 2016, 43, 22–25.

47)             Black, E.R. Learning Then and There: An Exploration of Virtual Reality in K-12 History Education. Ph.D. Thesis, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA, 2017.

48)             Odyssey: Arnswalde VR. Available online: http://odysseycrew.com/portfolio/ (accessed on 30 August 2018).

49)             Oigara, J. Explorations of Google Cardboard 3D Virtual Reality as Geospatial Technology for Education. In Proceedings of the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, Washington, DC, USA, 26 March 2018; pp. 1296–1300.

50)             Ghosh, A.; Brown, V. A Comparative Study of Different 3D Interaction Techniques for Virtual Environment and Their Scopes in Education. In Proceedings of the FDLA Conference, Walford, 16 January 2018; Available online: https://nsuworks.nova.edu/fdla-conference/2017/day1/20/ (accessed on 16 October 2019).

51)             Craddock, I.M. Immersive Virtual Reality, Google Expeditions, and English Language Learning. Libr. Technol. Rep. 2018, 54, 7–9.

52)             Pilatásig, M.; Tobar, E.; Paredes, L.; Silva, F.M.; Acurio, A.; Pruna, E.; Escobar, I.; Sánchez, Z. Virtual System for Teaching-Learning of Initial Education Using a Haptic Device. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Augmented Reality, Virtual Reality and Computer Graphics, Otranto, Italy, 24–27 June 2018; pp. 118–132.

53)             Edwards, B.I.; Bielawski, K.S.; Prada, R.; Cheok, A.D. Haptic virtual reality and immersive learning for enhanced organic chemistry instruction. Virtual Real. 2019, 23, 363–373.

54)             Kunze, K.; Minamizawa, K.; Lukosch, S.; Inami, M.; Rekimoto, J. Superhuman sports: Applying human augmentation to physical exercise. IEEE Pervasive Comput. 2017, 16, 14–17.

55)             Caporusso, N.; Biasi, L.; Cinquepalmi, G.; Bevilacqua, V. An Immersive Environment for Experiential Training and Remote Control in Hazardous Industrial Tasks. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics, Orlando, FL, USA, 21–25 July 2018; pp. 88–97.

56)             Lei, X.; Zhang, A.; Wang, B.; Rau, P.L.P. Can Virtual Reality Help Children Learn Mathematics Better? The Application of VR Headset in Children’s Discipline Education. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Cross-Cultural Design, Las Vegas, NV, USA, 15–20 July 2018; pp. 60–69.

57)             Sun, C.; Hu, W.; Xu, D. Navigation modes, operation methods, observation scales and background options in UI Design for high learning performance in VR-based Architectural Applications. J. Comput. Des. Eng. 2019, 6, 189–196.

58)             Kamińska, D.; Sapiński, T.; Aitken, N.; Della Rocca, A.; Barańska, M.; Wietsma, R. Virtual reality as a new trend in mechanical and electrical engineering education. Open Phys. 2017, 15, 936–941.

59)             Petkovska, L.; Cvetkovski, G.; Kaminska, D.; Wiak, S.; Firych-Nowacka, A.; Lefik, M.; Sapinski, T.; Zwolinski, G.; Di Barba, P.; Mognaschi, M.E.; et al. Virtual reality as a tool for electrical machines assembling and testing. In Proceedings of the 7th Symposium on Applied Electromagnetics SAEM’18, Podčetrtek, Slovenia, 17–20 June 2018.

60)             Wang, F.; Liu, Y.; Tian, M.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, S.; Chen, J. Application of a 3D Haptic Virtual Reality Simulation System for Dental Crown Preparation Training. In Proceedings of the 2016 8th International Conference on Information Technology in Medicine and Education (ITME), Fuzhou, China, 23–25 December 2016; pp. 424–427.

61)             Kim, G.; Biocca, F. Immersion in Virtual Reality Can Increase Exercise Motivation and Physical Performance. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Virtual, Augmented and Mixed Reality, Las Vegas, NV, USA, 15–20 July 2018; pp. 94–102.

62)             Pan, Z.; Cheok, A.D.; Yang, H.; Zhu, J.; Shi, J. Virtual reality and mixed reality for virtual learning environments. Comput. Graph. 2006, 30, 20–28.

63)             Luck, M.; Aylett, R. Applying artificial intelligence to virtual reality: Intelligent virtual environments. Appl. Artif. Intell. 2000, 14, 3–32.

64)             Schwienhorst, K. The ‘third place’—Virtual reality applications for second language learning. ReCALL 1998, 10, 118–126.

65)             Bricken, M.; Byrne, C.M. Summer students in virtual reality: A pilot study on educational applications of virtual reality technology. In Virtual Reality; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1993; pp. 199–217.

66)             Bell, J.T.; Fogler, H.S. The investigation and application of virtual reality as an educational tool. In Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference, Anaheim, CA, USA, June 1995; pp. 1718–1728.

67)             Lv, Z.; Li, X.; Li, W. Virtual reality geographical interactive scene semantics research for immersive geography learning. Neurocomputing 2017, 254, 71–78.

68)             Dakson, A.; Hong, M.; Clarke, D.B. Virtual reality surgical simulation: Implications for resection of intracranial gliomas. In Intracranial Gliomas Part I—Surgery; Karger Publishers: Basel, Switzerland, 2018; Volume 30, pp. 106–116.

69)             Parkinson, A.; Kitchen, R.; Tudor, A.D.; Minocha, S.; Tilling, S. Role of smartphone-driven virtual reality field trips in inquiry-based learning. In Proceedings of the Geographical Association Annual Conference, Guildford, UK, 20–22 April 2017; pp. 1–7.

70)             Saadatzi, M.N.; Pennington, R.C.; Welch, K.C.; Graham, J.H. Small-Group Technology-Assisted Instruction: Virtual Teacher and Robot Peer for Individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorder. J. Autism Dev. Disord. 2018, 48, 3816–3830.

71)             Liaw, S.Y.; Carpio, G.A.C.; Lau, Y.; Tan, S.C.; Lim, W.S.; Goh, P.S. Multiuser virtual worlds in healthcare education: A systematic review. Nurse Educ. Today 2018, 65, 136–149.

72)             Piovesan, S.D.; Passerino, L.M.; Pereira, A.S. Virtual Reality as a Tool in the Education. In Proceedings of the International Association for Development of the Information Society International Conference on Cognition and Exploratory Learning in Digital Age (CELDA), Madrid, Spain, 19–21 October 2012.

73)             Pitkänen, K.; Andersen, H.V. Empowering Teachers and New Generations through Design Thinking and Digital Fabrication Learning Activities. In Proceedings of the Conference on Creativity and Making in Education, New York, NY, USA, 18 June 2018; pp. 55–63.

74)             Ip, H.H.; Wong, S.W.; Chan, D.F.; Byrne, J.; Li, C.; Yuan, V.S.; Lau, K.S.; Wong, J.Y. Enhance emotional and social adaptation skills for children with autism spectrum disorder: A virtual reality enabled approach. Comput. Educ. 2018, 117, 1–15.

75)             Kavanagh, S.; Luxton-Reilly, A.; Wuensche, B.; Plimmer, B. A systematic review of

76)             Virtual Reality in education. Themes Sci. Technol. Educ. 2017, 10, 85–119.

77)             Pantelidis, V.S. Virtual reality and engineering education. Comput. Appl. Eng. Educ. 1997, 5, 3–12.

78)             Gandhi, R.D.; Patel, D.S. Virtual Reality–Opportunities and Challenges. Virtual Real. 2018, 5, 482–490.

79)             Valdez, M.T.; Ferreira, C.M.; Martins, M.J.M.; Barbosa, F.M. 3D virtual reality experiments to promote electrical engineering education. In Proceedings of the 2015 International Conference on Information Technology Based Higher Education and Training (ITHET), Lisbon, Portugal, 11–13 June 2015; pp. 1–4.

80)             Hurtado, C.V.; Valerio, A.R.; Sanchez, L.R. Virtual reality robotics system for education and training. In Proceedings of the Electronics, Robotics and Automotive Mechanics Conference (CERMA), Morelos, Mexico, 28 September 2010; pp. 162–167.

81)             Román-Ibáñez, V.; Pujol-López, F.A.; Mora-Mora, H.; Pertegal-Felices, M.L.; Jimeno-Morenilla, A. A Low-Cost Immersive Virtual Reality System for Teaching Robotic Manipulators Programming. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1102.

82)             Put, J.; Michiels, N.; Di Fiore, F.; Van Reeth, F. Capturing Industrial Machinery into Virtual Reality. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Articulated Motion and Deformable Objects, Palma de Mallorca, Spain, 12–13 July 2018; pp. 44–52.

83)             Dinis, F.M.; Guimarães, A.S.; Carvalho, B.R.; Martins, J.P.P. Virtual and augmented reality game-based applications to civil engineering education. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), Athens, Greece, 25–28 April 2017; pp. 1683–1688.

84)             Dinis, F.M.; Guimarães, A.S.; Carvalho, B.R.; Martins, J.P.P. Development of virtual reality game-based interfaces for civil engineering education. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), Athens, Greece, 25–28 April 2017; pp. 1195–1202.

85)             Sampaio, A.Z.; Martins, O. VR model of bridge construction: a didactic application. In Proceedings of the Virtual Reality International Conference-Laval Virtual 2017, New York, NY, USA, 22–24 March 2017; p. 21.

86)             dos Santos, M.C.C.; Sangalli, V.A.; Pinho, M.S. Evaluating the Use of Virtual Reality on Professional Robotics Education. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE 41st Annual Computer Software and Applications Conference (COMPSAC), Turin, Italy, 4–8 July 2017; Volume 1, pp. 448–455.

87)             Żywicki, K.; Zawadzki, P.; Górski, F. Virtual reality production training system in the scope of intelligent factory. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent Systems in Production Engineering and Maintenance, Wroclaw, Poland, 28–29 September 2017; pp. 450–458.

88)             Riva, G. Applications of virtual environments in medicine. Methods Inf. Med. 2003, 42, 524–534.

89)             Górski, F.; Buń, P.; Wichniarek, R.; Zawadzki, P.; Hamrol, A. Effective Design of Educational Virtual Reality Applications for Medicine using Knowledge-Engineering Techniques. Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ. 2017, 13, 395–416.

90)             Radia, M.; Arunakirinathan, M.; Sibley, D. A guide to eyes: ophthalmic simulators. Bull. R. Coll. Surg. Engl. 2018, 100, 169–171.

91)             Seo, J.H.; Smith, B.M.; Cook, M.; Malone, E.; Pine, M.; Leal, S.; Bai, Z.; Suh, J. Anatomy builder VR: applying a constructive learning method in the virtual reality canine skeletal system. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics, Los Angeles, California, USA, 17–21 July 2017; pp. 245–252.

92)             Vankipuram, A.; Khanal, P.; Ashby, A.; Vankipuram, M.; Gupta, A.; DrummGurnee, D.; Josey, K.; Smith, M. Design and development of a virtual reality simulator for advanced cardiac life support training. IEEE J. Biomed. Health Inform. 2014, 18, 1478–1484.

93)             Elliman, J.; Loizou, M.; Loizides, F. Virtual reality simulation training for student nurse education. In Proceedings of the 2016 8th International Conference on Games and Virtual Worlds for Serious Applications (VS-Games), Barcelona, Spain, 7–9 September 2016; pp. 1–2.

94)             Harrison, B.; Oehmen, R.; Robertson, A.; Robertson, B.; De Cruz, P.; Khan, R.; Fick, D. Through the Eye of the Master: The Use of Virtual Reality in the Teaching of Surgical Hand Preparation. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE 5th International Conference on Serious Games and Applications for Health (SeGAH), Perth, WA, Australia, 2–4 April 2017; pp. 1–6.

95)             Song, D.; Norman, M.L. Cosmic Explorer: A virtual reality environment for exploring cosmic data. Proceedings of 1993 IEEE Research Properties in Virtual Reality Symposium, San Jose, CA, USA, 25–26 October 1993; pp. 75–79.

96)             Billinghurst, M. Augmented reality in education. New Horizons Learn. 2002, 12, 1–5.

97)             Yair, Y.; Schur, Y.; Mintz, R. A “Thinking Journey” to the planets using scientific visualization technologies: Implications to astronomy education. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 2003, 12, 43–49.

98)             Mintz, R.; Litvak, S.; Yair, Y. 3D-virtual reality in science education: An implication for astronomy teaching. J. Comput. Math. Sci. Teach. 2001, 20, 293–305.

99)             Klimenko, S. Virtual planetarium: Learning astronomy in virtual reality. In Proceedings of the EdMedia+ Innovate Learning Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC, USA, 21–26 June 2004; pp. 2154–2157.

100)          Winn, W.; Bricken, W. Designing virtual worlds for use in mathematics education: The example of experiential algebra. Educ. Technol. 1992, 32, 12–19.

101)          Kaufmann, H.; Schmalstieg, D. Mathematics and geometry education with collaborative augmented reality. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGGRAPH 2002 Conference Abstracts and Applications, San Antonio, TX, USA, 21–26 July 2002; pp. 37–41.

102)          Hwang, W.Y.; Hu, S.S. Analysis of peer learning behaviors using multiple representations in virtual reality and their impacts on geometry problem solving. Comput. Educ. 2013, 62, 308–319.

103)          Kaufmann, H.; Schmalstieg, D.; Wagner, M. Construct3D: a virtual reality application for mathematics and geometry education. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2000, 5, 263–276.

104)          Pasqualotti, A.; Freitas, C.M.D.S. MAT3D: A virtual reality modeling language environment for the teaching and learning of mathematics. Cyber Psychol. Behav. 2002, 5, 409–422.

105)          Mathur, A.S. Low-cost virtual reality for medical training. In Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE Virtual Reality (VR), Arles, France, 23–27 March 2015; pp. 345–346.

106)          Thomas, J.; Bashyal, R.; Goldstein, S.; Suma, E. MuVR: A multi-user virtual reality platform. In Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE Virtual Reality (VR), Minneapolis, MN, USA, 29 March 2014; pp. 115–116.

107)          Messner, J.I.; Yerrapathruni, S.C.; Baratta, A.J.; Whisker, V.E. Using virtual reality to improve construction engineering education. In Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, Nashville, TN, USA, 22–25 June 2003.

108)          Martín-Gutiérrez, J.; Mora, C.E.; Añorbe-Díaz, B.; González-Marrero, A. Virtual technologies trends in education. EURASIA J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ. 2017, 13, 469–486.

109)          Brown, A.; Green, T. Virtual reality: Low-cost tools and resources for the classroom. TechTrends 2016, 60, 517–519.

110)          Blyth, C. Immersive technologies and language learning. Foreign Lang. Ann. 2018, 51, 225–232.

111)          Parmar, D.; Isaac, J.; Babu, S.V.; D’Souza, N.; Leonard, A.E.; Jörg, S.; Gundersen, K.; Daily, S.B. Programming moves: Design and evaluation of applying embodied interaction in virtual environments to enhance computational thinking in middle school students. In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE Virtual Reality (VR), Greenville, SC, USA, 19–23 March 2016; pp. 131–140.

112)          Serafin, S.; Adjorlu, A.; Nilsson, N.; Thomsen, L.; Nordahl, R. Considerations on the use of virtual and augmented reality technologies in music education. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE Virtual Reality Workshop on K-12 Embodied Learning through Virtual & Augmented Reality (KELVAR), Los Angeles, CA, USA, 19 March 2017; pp. 1–4.

113)          Zhang, K.; Liu, S.J. The application of virtual reality technology in physical education teaching and training. In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE International Conference on Service Operations and Logistics, and Informatics (SOLI), Beijing, China, 10–12 July 2016; pp. 245–248.

114)          Melatti, M.; Johnsen, K. Virtual Reality mediated instruction and learning. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE Virtual Reality Workshop on K-12 Embodied Learning through Virtual & Augmented Reality (KELVAR), Los Angeles, CA, USA, 19 March 2017; pp. 1–6.

115)          Li, X.; Yi, W.; Chi, H.L.; Wang, X.; Chan, A.P. A critical review of virtual and augmented reality (VR/AR) applications in construction safety. Autom. Constr. 2018, 86, 150–162.

116)          Velosa, J.D.; Cobo, L.; Castillo, F.; Castillo, C. Methodological Proposal for Use of Virtual Reality VR and Augmented Reality AR in the Formation of Professional Skills in Industrial Maintenance and Industrial Safety. In Online Engineering & Internet of Things; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018; pp. 987–1000.

117)          Pena, A.M.; Ragan, E.D. Contextualizing construction accident reports in virtual environments for safety education. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE Virtual Reality (VR), Los Angeles, CA, USA, 18–22 March 2017; pp. 389–390.

118)          Chittaro, L.; Corbett, C.L.; McLean, G.; Zangrando, N. Safety knowledge transfer through mobile virtual reality: A study of aviation life preserver donning. Saf. Sci. 2018, 102, 159–168.

119)          Smyth, D.L.; Fennell, J.; Abinesh, S.; Karimi, N.B.; Glavin, F.G.; Ullah, I.; Drury, B.; Madden, M.G. A Virtual Environment with Multi-Robot Navigation, Analytics, and Decision Support for Critical Incident Investigation. arXiv 2018, arXiv:1806.04497.

120)          Sankaranarayanan, G.; Wooley, L.; Hogg, D.; Dorozhkin, D.; Olasky, J.; Chauhan, S.; Fleshman, J.W.; De, S.; Scott, D.; Jones, D.B. Immersive virtual reality-based training improves response in a simulated operating room fire scenario. Surg. Endosc. 2018, 32, 3439–3449.

121)          Agrawal, R.; Knodler, M.; Fisher, D.L.; Samuel, S. Virtual Reality Headset Training: Can It Be Used to Improve Young Drivers’ Latent Hazard Anticipation and Mitigation Skills. Transp. Res. Rec. 2018, 2672, 20–30.

122)          Schultheis, M.T.; Rizzo, A.A. The application of virtual reality technology in rehabilitation. Rehabil. Psychol. 2001, 46, 296.

123)          Burke, S.L.; Bresnahan, T.; Li, T.; Epnere, K.; Rizzo, A.; Partin, M.; Ahlness, R.M.; Trimmer, M. Using Virtual Interactive Training Agents (ViTA) with Adults with Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities. J. Autism Dev. Disord. 2018, 48, 905–912.

124)          Cuperus, A.A.; Keizer, A.; Evers, A.W.; van den Houten, M.M.; Teijink, J.A.; van der Ham, I.J. Manipulating spatial distance in virtual reality: Effects on treadmill walking performance in patients with intermittent claudication. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2018, 79, 211–216.

125)          Arter, P.; Brown, T.; Law, M.; Barna, J.; Fruehan, A.; Fidiam, R. Virtual Reality: Improving Interviewing Skills in Individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorder. In Proceedings of the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Washington, DC, USA, 26 March 2018; pp. 1086–1088.

126)          Alimanova, M.; Borambayeva, S.; Kozhamzharova, D.; Kurmangaiyeva, N.; Ospanova, D.; Tyulepberdinova, G.; Gaziz, G.; Kassenkhan, A. Gamification of Hand Rehabilitation Process Using Virtual Reality Tools: Using Leap Motion for Hand Rehabilitation. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotic Computing (IRC), Taichung, Taiwan, 10–12 April 2017; pp. 336–339.

127)          Sobota, B.; Korečko, Š.; Pastornickỳ, P.; Jacho, L. Virtual-reality technologies in the process of handicapped school children education. In Proceedings of the 2016 International Conference on Emerging eLearning Technologies and Applications (ICETA), Vysoke Tatry, Slovakia, 24–25 November 2016; pp. 321–326.

128)          Ravi, D.; Kumar, N.; Singhi, P. Effectiveness of virtual reality rehabilitation for children and adolescents with cerebral palsy: an updated evidence-based systematic review. Physiotherapy 2017, 103, 245–258.

129)          da Fonseca, E.P.; da Silva, N.M.R.; Pinto, E.B. Therapeutic effect of virtual reality on post-stroke patients: randomized clinical trial. J. Stroke Cerebrovasc. Dis. 2017, 26, 94–100.

130)          Brooke, J. SUS: A quick and dirty usability scale. Usability Eval. Ind. 1996, 189, 4–7.

131)          Hussein, M.; Nätterdal, C. The Benefits of Virtual Reality in Education—A Comparision Study. Ph.D. Thesis, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden, 2015.

132)          Bowen, M.M. Effect of Virtual Reality on Motivation and Achievement of Middle-School Students. Ph.D. Thesis, The University of Memphis, Memphis, TN, USA, 2018.

133)          Ludlow, B.L. Virtual reality: Emerging applications and future directions. Rural. Spec. Educ. Q. 2015, 34, 3–10.

134)          Gayol, Y.; Schied, F. Cultural imperialism in the virtual classroom: Critical pedagogy in transnational distance education. In Proceedings of the 18th Conference of the International Council for Distance Education, State College, PA, USA, 2–6 June 1997; pp. 1–17.

135)          Mayes, J.T.; Fowler, C.J. Learning technology and usability: A framework for understanding courseware. Interact. Comput. 1999, 11, 485–497.

136)          Thorsteinsson, G.; Shavinina, L. Developing an understanding of the pedagogy of using a virtual reality learning environment (VRLE) to support innovation education. In The Routledge International Handbook of Innovation Education; Shavinina, L.V., Ed.; Routledge: Oxford, UK, 2013; pp. 456–470.

137)          Fowler, C. Virtual reality and learning: Where is the pedagogy? Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2015, 46, 412–422.

138)          Zyda, M. From visual simulation to virtual reality to games. Computer 2005, 38, 25–32.

139)          Blazauskas, T.; Maskeliunas, R.; Bartkute, R.; Kersiene, V.; Jurkeviciute, I.; Dubosas, M. Virtual Reality in Education: New Ways to Learn. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Information and Software Technologies, Druskininkai, Lithuania, 12–14 October 2017; pp. 457–465.

140)          Coburn, J.Q.; Freeman, I.; Salmon, J.L. A review of the capabilities of current low-cost virtual reality technology and its potential to enhance the design process. J. Comput. Inf. Sci. Eng. 2017, 17, 031013.

141)          Costello, P.J. Health And Safety Issues Associated with Virtual Reality: A Review of Current Literature; Advisory Group on Computer Graphics: Loughborough, UK, 1997.

142)          Davis, S.; Nesbitt, K.; Nalivaiko, E. Comparing the onset of cybersickness using the Oculus Rift and two virtual roller coasters. In Proceedings of the 11th Australasian Conference on Interactive Entertainment (IE 2015), Sydney, Australia, 27–30 January 2015; Volume 27, p. 30.

143)          Regan, C. An investigation into nausea and other side-effects of head-coupled immersive virtual reality. Virtual Real. 1995, 1, 17–31.

 

 

APENDIX

A. Survey Questionnaire

Introduction: Thank you for participating in our survey on Virtual Reality (VR) in education. Your insights are valuable for understanding how VR can be integrated into the Indian schooling system. Please answer the following questions to the best of your knowledge and experiences.

Section 1: Familiarity with VR

1.1. Have you ever used or experienced Virtual Reality (VR) technology before?

   - [ ] Yes

   - [ ] No

   - [ ] Not sure

1.2. If you have experience with VR, please briefly describe your exposure to VR technology (e.g., specific applications, games, educational content, etc.).

Section 2: Perceptions and Preferences

2.1. How do you perceive the potential of VR in education? Please rate on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being “Not at all promising” and 5 being “Very promising.”

   - [ ] 1

   - [ ] 2

   - [ ] 3

   - [ ] 4

   - [ ] 5

2.2. In which subjects or areas of study do you believe VR could be most beneficial for learning in the Indian schooling system? (Select all that apply)

   - [ ] Science

   - [ ] Mathematics

   - [ ] History

   - [ ] Geography

   - [ ] Art and Creative Subjects

   - [ ] Language and Literature

   - [ ] Other (Please specify): ___________

2.3. How would you prefer VR to be integrated into your education?

   - [ ] As a supplementary tool to traditional teaching methods

   - [ ] As a replacement for traditional teaching methods

   - [ ] No preference

Section 3: Challenges and Opportunities

3.1. What challenges do you foresee in the integration of VR in Indian classrooms? (Select all that apply)

   - [ ] High cost of VR equipment and content

   - [ ] Lack of access to VR technology in rural areas

   - [ ] Health concerns related to prolonged VR use

   - [ ] Resistance from teachers and educators

   - [ ] Limited availability of quality VR educational content

   - [ ] Other (Please specify): ___________

3.2. In your opinion, what are the opportunities or advantages of using VR in education?

Section 4: Potential for Transformation

4.1. Do you believe VR has the potential to transform the traditional Indian education system?

   - [ ] Yes

   - [ ] No

   - [ ] Not sure

4.2. Please provide any additional comments or insights you have regarding the use of VR in the Indian schooling system.

Thank you for participating in this survey. Your input is essential for our research on the potential of Virtual Reality in education in India. Your responses will remain anonymous and confidential.

____End of Questionnaire_____